Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-04-19911� ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1991 ON ALL ABSTRACTS 7:30 P.M. AVAILABLE IN THE OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE CLERK'S OFFICE. HILLSBOROUGH, NC NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request. If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 968 -4501. I. BOARD COMMENTS. II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked.) B. Matters not on the Printed Agenda PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. V. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) A. Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department Grant Application B. Unpaid Real Property Tax Lien Advertisement C. $100 Motor Vehicle Penalty D. Petition for Addition -- Baywood Place in Northwood subdivision E. Jail Inspection Report F. Purchase of New Fire Truck -- Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. VI. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS A. Resolution of Remembrance for Jay Thomas VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS IX. REPORTS A. County Manager's Recommended Capital Improvement Program X. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA A. Child Day Care Subsidy B. Zoning Enforcement Cases (Civil Penalties) C. Advertisement -- February 25, 1991 Public Hearing D. Manager's Participation In Airport Relocation Process XI. APPOINTMENTS - None XII. MINUTES XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION XIV. ADJOURNMENT ( *) Indicates items that need immediate attention. Approved Feb. 19, 1991 1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, February 4, 1991 at .7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., Vice -Chair Stephen Halkiotis, Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Finance Director Ken Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Enforcement Officer Jim Hinkley, Personnel Director Elaine Holmes, Tax Collector John T. Horner, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Planner Mary Scearbo, Social Services Director Marti Pryor -Cook, Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve, County Engineer Paul Thames, Budget Management /Analyst Donna Wagner, and EMS Director Nick Waters. I. BOARD COMMENTS Chairman Carey asked that the appropriate staff person attend the public hearing held by the Wildlife Commission on February 11 in Graham or to write a letter to let them know the Board will be considering a request to limit spotlighting in the County. He asked that the hunting /fishing ordinance as proposed by the Sheriff be considered at either the February 19th or March 4th meeting. II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT County Manager John Link referred to the goals and objectives as formulated by the Board and indicated that they are now in final form for their review. These will be placed on the February 19th agenda for discussion and approval. III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA - NONE IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA __. Those who have indicated a desire to speak will be recognized at the appropriate time. B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - NONE 2 V. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve those items on the consent agenda as listed below: A. CALDWELL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT GRANT APPLICATION The Board authorized the County Finance Director to act as Fiscal Agent for the Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department for grant purposes. The Fire Department has applied to the Greater Triangle Community Foundation for $1,521 of the Foundation's 1991 discretionary Grant funds. B. UNPAID REAL PROPERTY TAX LIEN ADVERTISEMENT The Board, in accordance with General Statute 105 -369, received from the Department of Revenue a report as stated below of the unpaid taxes that constitute a lien on all Real Property for the year 1990: COUNTY CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO HILLSBOROUGH T O T A L $ 2,458,372.49 819,006.07 173,217.59 57.616.28 $ 3,508,212.43 The Board set the Tax Lien Advertisement date for May 8, 1991. C. 100 MOTOR VEHICLE PENALTY The Board approved a request for a refund of $100 motor vehicle penalty for Cathy L. Terry, Account #89001092. D. PETITION FOR ADDITION -- BAYWOOD PLACE IN NORTHWOOD SUBD. The Board approved a petition from NCDOT for approval of the addition of Baywood Place in Northwood Subdivision to the State Maintained Secondary Road System. E. JAIL INSPECTION REPORT The Board approved the jail inspection reports for the past two years. No corrective action is required at this time. F. PURCHASE OF NEW FIRE TRUCK - ORANGE RURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT NO. 1, INC._ The Board approved the resolution as stated below which approves the financing contract between Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. and Central Carolina Bank. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINANCING CONTRACT BETWEEN ORANGE RURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT NO. 1, INC. AND CENTRAL CAROLINA BANK WHEREAS, the Orange Rural fire Department No. 1, Inc. has represented to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that it needs a new fire truck more specifically described in action agenda item r abstract number V -F; and I 1 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 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 3 WHEREAS, Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc., is not able to pay for this fire truck entirely with funds on hand; and WHEREAS, Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. is able to borrow funds to complete the purchase of this truck 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 financing contract between Orange rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. and Central Carolina Bank; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Orange that the financing contract between Orange rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. and Central Carolina Bank is approved. VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS VI. RESOLUTIONS /PROCLAMATIONS A. RESOLUTION OF REMEMBRANCE FOR JAY THOMAS Commissioner Halkiotis read and presented this resolution to Mr. -and Mrs. Phil Thomas. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the resolution as stated below: RESOLUTION OF REMEMBRANCE for JAY THOMAS WHEREAS, Jay Thomas entered the Navy in 1984 and just recently reenlisted for his second term achieving the rank of Second Class Petty Officer, and WHEREAS, Jay Thomas served as a Navy Aircraft Technician and was a lifelong resident of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and a student of Chapel Hill High School, and WHEREAS, the Board -of County Commissioners has learned with deep regret of the death of Mr. Jay Thomas, on January 6, 1991, and WHEREAS, Jay Thomas was the first soldier from the Raleigh- Durham area to be taken from our midst in Saudi Arabia, and WHEREAS, Jay Thomas served the citizens of the United States faithfully and honorably in the military. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners on behalf of all the citizens of Orange County wish to present this Resolution to Mr. and Mrs. Phil Thomas, the parents of Jay Thomas, as an expression of sympathy and loss to our community, and as a remembrance of his dedication to serve his country, and, 4 r- 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution be spread upon the minutes 2 of this meeting as a reminder to those who come after this time of Jay 3 Thomas' human compassio*, and willingness to give his life in the 4 service of his country. 5 6 Adopted this 4th day of February, 1991 in Orange County, North Carolina. 7 8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9 10 Vii.. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE 11 12 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE 13 14 IX. REPORTS 15 16 A. COUNTY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 17 John Link presented an overview of the 1991 -96 Capital 18 Improvements Plan (CIP) . He asked that the Board consider holding a' 19 public hearing either February 19th or March 4th. 20 Commissioner Gordon asked about the discretionary funds and 21 why they would only be received for 1990 -91 and not for other years. 22 John Link stated that this is the amount of funds committed for that 23 particular year. These funds are allocated for emergency needs that 24 schools identify annually. 25 Commissioner Halkiotis asked if there was any thought on 26 combining the Law Enforcement Services Center with additional 27 administrative offices. Chairman Carey stated that there is a need to 28 more clearly identify the needs of the court system. He feels a study 29 on court facilities, needs to be completed before forming a citizens task 30 force to study the courts particular need for space. 31 John Link explained that the money allocated for the water 32 and sewer at the New Hope Elementary School is for a potential need that 33 may not occur. 34 commissioner Willhoit made reference to the items which are 35 new to the CIP and asked that a work session be scheduled to receive 36 additional information on these items and to further discuss these items 37 and alternatives that may be available. 38 It- wa-s- --the- consensus of the Board to hold a work session and 39 at that time set the date for the public hearing on the CIP. . 40 Commissioner Willhoit feels the subject of merger needs to 41 be discussed early before a bond referendum is considered. The money 42. for future planning for facilities needs to be in the CIP now. Chairman 43 Carey asked-that the .'staff estimate the impact for Orange County if the 44 State decides to fund only one school system per county. 45 Commissioner Halkiotis questioned the authority of the 46 Hillsborough Fire Department in assuring that certain fireflow 47 requirements are the same for Orange County Schools as for Chapel 48 Hill /Carrboro Schools. 49 50 X. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 51 52 A. CHILD DAY CARE SUBSIDY 5 1 John Link summarized the child care subsidy crisis in Orange 2 County. He stated that six non- profit community day care centers which 3 have historically served subsidized children are in serious financial 4 crisis and are in jeopardy of closing because of a lack of children who 5 can afford to pay the cost of care. The United Way, Day Care Services 6 Association, Town of Chapel Hill, Village Companies Foundation and 7 concerned individuals have raised or contributed approximately $22,000 8 for child care subsidy in the past two months. These efforts have riot 9 been able to fully meet the need. 10 Social Services Director Marti Pryor -Cook distributed information 11 on the current child day care situation in Orange County. She stated 12 that the problem is a lack of funding. In 1988 -89 they received 13 $517,000 to purchase child care for low income families. Of that amount 14 $91,269 was County funds. In 1989 -90 they received $474,000 to purchase 15 care while in 1990 -91 they received $354,000 which is a 320 decrease in 16 funding. Relief in the form of federal dollars is expected. It is 17 anticipated that more than twenty -two million dollars will be available 18 for the subsidy program and for child care in general in North Carolina. 19 The children on the waiting list will be first to receive these funds. 20 Orange County has approximately 600 on the waiting list. This act will 21 also expand the number of working poor who will be eligible to receive 22 subsidy dollars. Marti Cook explained the recommendation that state 23 subsidy dollars be maintained "minimally at the current level" means 24 that they would like the State to maintain their current efforts -- a -}25 maintenance of effort. 126 She just received a copy of the State's plan for the new child 27 development block grant funds and will read and assess this to determine 28 if the state dollars have been maintained minimally. 29 Commissioner Willhoit pointed out that although it is known that 30 federal funds are forthcoming, the local delegation should encourage the 31 State to use their resources in combination with the federal funds to 32 serve all the children on the waiting list regardless if it is a 33 maintenance of effort or not. The goal should be that the State serve 34 all the kids on the list at a level that the day care centers can 35 survive on. 36 Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by 37 Commissioner Halkiotis to approve (1) a $20,000 one time emergency 38 allocation from contingency funds for the DSS child care subsidy program 39 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1990 -91, to enable low income families 40 to secure and maintain employment, (2) support the Day Care Resources 41 Task Force in developing long -range strategies to address the need for 42 day care subsidy, and (3) to urge the legislative delegation to give 43 priority to funding children on the waiting list and to increase the 44 subsidy to more fairly reflect the cost of providing the care. 45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 46 47 B. ZONING ENFORCEMENT CASES CIVIL PENALTIES 48 Jim Hinkley, Zoning Enforcement Officer, asked that the Board 49 consider making written demand for payment of civil penalties in four 50 respective cases. Two property owners - the McDuffies and McMillans �51 were given an extension of time by the Board until January 17, 1991. 52 In both cases little or no additional perceivable progress to correct 1 the violations was observed as of January 23. Civil penalties have been 2 assessed by the Planning and Inspections Department for ongoing 3 violations of the Zoning Ordinance by Christy B. Merritt and Albert E. 4 Davis, and Carl Swanson. 5 Carl Swanson spoke on his behalf. He explained that the 6 noncompliance stems from an accumulation of property over a twenty year 7 period. He has not been able to clean up the property because of 8 illness and his work schedule. He feels he-has--made--an honest effort 9 and will continue to work to remove those things that have been 10 identified. He does not like the process- and only talked with Mr. 11 Hinkley on two occasions. He realizes it is a problem and stated he 12 needs an additional thirty days to clean up his property. He is not 13 clear on what is expected. 14 Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by 15. Commissioner Insko to make written demand for payment of civil penalties 16 upon (1) Nathan D. and Lori B. McDuffie for $13,300, .(2) Gayle and Chris 17 McMillan for $22,400 and (3) Christy B. Merritt and Albert E. Davis in 18 the amount of $7,000, and to make written demand for payment of civil 19 "penalties upon Mr. Carl Swanson in the amount of $7,700 if he has not 20 come into compliance within 30 days. 21 A substitute motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded 22 by Commissioner:Halkiotis to make written demand for payment of civil 23 penalties upon Nathan D. and Lori B. McDuffie, Gayle and Chris McMillan 24 and Christy B. Merritt and Albert E. Davis and that Mr. Carl Swanson be 25 given an extension until March 4 to clean up his property. The staff 26 will report to the Board on March 4 whether the property has come into 27 compliance and make.a recommendation on this case. 28 VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: UNANIMOUS (The substitute motion becomes 29 the main motion). 30 VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION: UNANIMOUS 31 32 C. ADVERTISEMENT - FEBRUARY 25 1991 PUBLIC HEARING 33 Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by 34 Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the advertisement for the February 25, 35 1991 Quarterly Public Hearing as proposed in the agenda abstract. 36. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 37 38 D. MANAGER'S PARTICIPATION IN AIRPORT RELOCATION PROCESS 39 Chair Carey stated that each time the discussion of airport 40 relocation has been discussed by any group he has made clear the Board's 41 position on the issue. He recommends that the County Manager be 42 authorized to participate in examining process options for relocation 43 of Horace Williams Airport. 44 Commissioner Willhoit reiterated his support for relocating 45 the Horace Williams Airport. He has no problem with the Manager 46 participating on the committee. 47 Chairman Carey stated that the Board dropped the process to 48 site an airport because it was the decisiof, of the Board that none of 49 the sites being considered at that time were suitable for an airport. 50 The Board has repeatedly stated that they would not play a significant 51 role in any future relocation process. , 52 Discussion ensued on the process that - was- -foj:Z -owed with the 7 1 initial effort and to what extent the County should participate at this 2 time. The Board agreed they had no problem with the Manager serving as 3 a resource person on this committee but that the County was not taking 4 the lead on the relocation of the Horace Williams Airport. 5 Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by 6 Commissioner Halkiotis that the Manager be authorized to participate in 7 an Airport Work Group whose scope is broadened to include a study of the 8 need for an airport in Orange County, rather than limiting the group to 9 an exploration of alternative process models for relocation of the 10 existing airport. This work group would address such questions as the 11 purposes for which an airport would be used and whether or not there is 12 a need for an airport in Orange County (whatever its location) to serve 13 these purposes, as well as a description of the type of airport needed 14 to satisfy the identified purposes. 15 The Manager would participate on the condition that the work 16 group deliberations acknowledge the following County positions: 17 1. The relocation of the existing airport is not one of the 18 goals of County government 19 2. The County does not intend to play a significant role in 20 such an effort 21 3. The County's capital improvement plans do not include an 22 airport 23 4. The efforts of this group would not constitute a search 24 for a new airport site )25 The role of the Manager would be to serve as a liaison between the 26 Commissioners and the work group members, and to convey to the work 27 group the information on airports previously gathered by the County. 28 The Manager would report periodically on this group's work to the 29 Commissioners. No airport search would commence without approval by the 30 Orange County Commissioners. At the conclusion of their deliberations 31 the work group would report .their recommendations to their elected 32 boards and the CCC. 33 Commissioner Gordon stated that she feels the Board should 34 cooperate, share the information, make clear the County's position and 35 broaden the scope to not assume that the search is for a relocation of 36 Horace Williams Airport. The process would start with asking what is 37 the purpose of the airport, what kind of needs there are for an airport 38 and if there is a need for an airport, what kind of airport is needed. 39 40 VOTE: AYES, Commissioners Carey, Gordon and Halkiotis; 41 NOES, Commissioners Insko and Willhoit. 42 43 XI. APPOINTMENTS - NONE 44 45 XII. MINUTES 46 47 Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 48 Commissioner Gordon to approve the minutes for January 22, 1991, regular 49 meeting as corrected. 50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1 51 J 52 XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION -- NONE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 r 8 XIV. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered by the Board, Chairman Moses Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Franklin Street Post Office District Courtroom in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Moses Carey, Jr., Chair �1 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. VA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 4, 1991 SUBJECT: Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department Grant Application DEPARTMENT: Finance PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:X ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Grant Application Ken Chavious Project Description TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 ------------------------------------------------------------------- _ -_--- PURPOSE: To consider authorizing the County Finance Director to act as Fiscal Agent for the Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department for grant administration purposes. I BACKGROUND: The Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department has submitted a grant application to The Greater Triangle Community Foundation for $1,521 of the Foundation's 1991 Discretionary Grant funds. If the grant is awarded, the funds would be used by the Fire Department to pay the costs associated with a Community Emergency Communication Awareness Project. A complete description of the project is attached. One of the major criteria for receiving Foundation grants is that an organization requesting these funds be tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, the Foundation does make grants to other non - profit organizations for charitable purposes or other organizations affiliated with governmental units. The Caldwell Eire Department does not qualify to receive funding under the IRS code nor or they considered a charitable organization, therefore, the basis of their application is the affiliation with Orange County Government. According to Foundation officals, the County would have to act as Fiscal Agent on behalf of the Fire Department. What this means is that the County would receive and appropriately disburse all grant funds. The Finance Department has mechanisms in place which would accommodate these requirements. RECOMMENDATION(S): Authorize the County Finance Director to act as Fiscal - Agent for the Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department for grant purposes. 1 CALDWELL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT January 21; 1991 Linda Ironside Program Officer Greater Triangle Community Foundation P.Q. Box 12384 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Dear Linda, As per our conversation today, I have requested that Orange County Manager, John Link, put a request on the Commissioner's agenda of February 4th asking that Orange County become the fiscal agent for the Fire Department's grant proposal. I have also talked to the County Finance Director and he is agreeable. His department would receive the funding on our behalf. I am mailing the grant proposal in now to make sure that the deadline is met and I will let you know'as soon as soon as the County approves our request. Thank you for your time, you have been very helpful Chris Best Treasurer, Caldwell VFD Board of Directors (W) 286 -0411 ext 7274 (I) 732 -4035 Vie- GREATER TRIANGLE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION 1991 DISCRETIONARY GRANTS Application Form Please complete and return with narrative proposal and attachments by February 1, 1991. 1. Date of application > Z, � �2. Name of applicant organization C I L/r,, I. .r") "C '. )C /. lf r 1.7�C -e e-v . r Address � J lj)►�.`� Vi� �- �' u :^ Y � / // c Telephone <l - 7 3 Z 3. Contact person for information on this proposal Title Telephone 3 4. Summary description of the project (do not exceed space provided) ' 4 1,> 6e IDt1,..7tit veI F,rc 'lz>eei- ,v � Pfc�ti:k' 1'1tiG[� \�C..S u� �+..� e4,S�rlGF ez�, e FF,e �e.,-t ly ar, 0551�C+�E • 11y11 81-4-.r[l OF Owe, 40 -, Fee l +Inx+ l,*'%CCCE.siwij Lf Q� L vr�� c+oS i����► -, tKe l r 1 , 1 1 r c:e,1�,;). r;ie v'ejpt,j S (s,� S 19056AA-1 6avc/ I.-dr$, 5. Total cost of project $ 1 1.00 6. Sources of funds for this project Funding Source Greater Triangle Community Foundation Other Sources Total (should equal line 5) Total Amount Amount Sought Already Committed $ 15'2 1. G U (Not to exceed $5,000) 7. Applicant agency's overall annual operating budget 8. Timetable for the project i �� q I to I z J -, /F1 Mon ear Monih/Year (Note: Funds will not be available before June 15, 1991) $_1511u[s $ 30 9: Proposed timetable for paynic,'t of requested funds from Greater Triangle Community Foundation: Date, ,mount •jam, y 10. Has your organization received an outside audit opinion within the last two years? Yes No X If yes, please attach a copy of the audit opinion. 11. Tax Status Tax - exempt charitable organization [501(c)(3)] Other non - profit organization (specify status) Affiliated with tax - exempt organization Governmental tax - exempt unit Unincorporated association , _C,., Other (specify) _ .f�� ,.� �v,o(eo( �� x base 0).5 W1 c f' Please attach a copy of your organization's tax status determination letter, A tax exempt identification number is not sufficient. (Not applicable to governmental agencies.) 12. Is your staff: Paid or volunteer? 13, May the Foundation share your proposal with other potential funding sources? (The proposal will not be made available to the public, but only to potential donors or grantmakers. Your answer to this question will not affect the Foundation's consideration of your proposal.) ?�_ Yes No 14. Checklist. Have you: Described the community need or opportunity the proposed activity is intended to address? ✓ Thoroughly described the project or activity to be undertaken' Determined the timetables for the project and for the requested funding? Stated your organization's capability to undertake the proposed project, including qualifications of personnel involved? ✓ Stated the specific objectives the program hopes to accomplish, in measurable terms ✓(for example, number of people served) if possible? Discussed the relationship of the proposed project to other programs in the community designed to meet the same or similar needs or opportunities 7 Listed funds already committed for the project and from what sources? Indicated how future funding will be obtained, if the project will be an ongoing one? Enclosed 15 collated copies of : this Application form? : the 3 page narrative proposal? — : the proposed project budget? current Board of Directors list, with affiliations? Enclosed 1 copy each of : your organization's overall operating budget? r : your organization's financial statements for the mi recent fiscal year, with audit opinion, if available? —►� : your IRS tax determination letter? *PLEASE REMEMBER TO COLLATE ALL COPIES WITH THE APPLICATION FORM ON TOP. 15. I hereby certify that the applicant organization does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, sex or national origin, ;r Signature of Chief Officer of the Board 5 COMMUNITY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION AWARENESS PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Caldwell Fire District in northern Orange County is a rural, farming community. The Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department is within 5.5 road miles from the furthest residence it serves. The Orange County Rescue Squad is 16 miles away. The department is all volunteer and has a First Responder unit for rescue and medical emergencies. There are seven hundred and fifty residences in the district. There are twenty -five volunteers who serve these residences and a Board of Directors elected by the community. Emergency response times range from 4 minutes to as much as 15 minutes. Minutes or even seconds saved within this time window to shorten arrival time can be critical. The Board would like to address two ideas that would improve response times for these volunteers, increase community awareness of emergency communications and ultimately save lives and property. Fir • During the past year, Orange County began to change its address system from rural routes to a numbering system. Each residence has been assigned a new numbered address along with a street name. Each address has either three or four numbers. The Caldwell Fire District which covers several rural routes was officially reassigned numbers in October 1990. At that time Orange Central Emergency Communications started to dispatch all fire and rescue calls to street number locations. Since the renumbering, our fire department and the First Responder unit have experienced delays, sometimes serious, when responding to residences that have no affixed street numbers on their mailboxes. Also, some residences are unaware of their new street numbers and give incomplete directions when an emergency is called in. The Fire Department would like to provide the street numbers for those who have not numbered their mailboxes, and if necessary affix the numbers to those residences who request it. second: The Caldwell Fire District boundaries border two other counties, both with different telephone exchanges. Some of these exchanges overlap into our district and an emergency call to Orange Central is long distance and cumbersome. Some residents are not aware of the fastest and safest procedure to call Orange Emergency. The Fire Department would like to provide fire district signs at the 911 emergency boundaries of our district and include in the mailing an information sticker targeting all those outside our 911 district, but within our fire district boundaries. Proper dialing procedures for emergencies will be explained. Included with each explanation will be a sticker with a space for the resident to fill in the street address, and another space for the proper dialing procedure. It will be suggested that the sticker be affixed near the phone. 6 PROJECT ACTIVITY: The Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department with the cooperation of the Orange County Planning Department, the Orange County Tax Office, The U.S. Postal Service and the Orange County Firefighters Association will mail to each residence of the district the numbers that make up their street number with an explanation as to where the numbers should be applied in accordance with the U.S. Postal Service, and why visible numbers on the mailboxes are so important for emergency personnel. A sticker will also be included to be kept by the phone. The resident will fill in their address and proper emergency dialing directions. The all- volunteer department will undertake the mailing. Also, the letter will provide several contact firefighters and their phone numbers for those individuals who may not be able to apply the numbers themselves. If numbers are already on the right side of the mailbox, the letter will suggest affixing the numbers to the other side for two -way visibility. The direction emergency personnel respond from is not always the same direction the mail is delivered on. The Orange County Firefighters Association has recommended 3" high black reflective waterproof numbers. The letter will also invite the residents of the district to two open houses, staffed by fire department personnel, to be held in August and November 1991 that will highlight safety tips and precautions in case of fire or other emergency. Also, maps will be provided with directions describing the fastest route from the fire station to the particular residence to be kept by the phone and used by the occupants to give clear directions if an emergency is called in to Orange Central Communications. A running card with the same directions to the particular street address will also be filled out and kept by the fire department for permanent reference. The Orange County Tax Office will provide the street address for every residence in the district. The numbers will be purchased from a sign manufacturer at bulk discount. It should be noted that the Orange County Planning Department has produced a flyer describing the new numbering system and mailed it several months ago throughout the county. A new flyer will be mailed to each resident of the County explaining the penalty through ordinance requirements for not displaying the proper street address plainly on the mailbox. The Planning Department has agreed to withhold the flyer mailing from our district until two weeks after our letter containing the street address numbers has been mailed. The Board of Directors does not know of any other projects aimed at increasing community emergency communication being carried out in Orange County. During the months of September and October, the volunteers will erect Caldwell Fire District signs along the major roads of the district identifying the Caldwell Fire District and displaying the number to call in case of an emergency. Arrangements will be made with the N.C. Department of Corrections, Prison Enterprises to manufacture N.C.D.O.T. approved signs. Their have been no other funds committed to this project and it will not be an ongoing one. The project will be carried out during the last half of 1991 and completed by December, 1991. 7 PROJECT OBJECTIVES: It is the charge of the Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department to protect the citizens of the district and their property as efficiently as possible. The Board of Directors, on behalf of the community, feel this project which is intended to benefit more than two thousand residents in the community will have a major impact on response time for emergency personnel. As a farming community covering more than 3000 acres, the time span between emergency and assistance is critical. Saving even a small amount of time by communicating an emergency properly and pinpointing the location easily, can save a life or possibly prevent a family from becoming homeless. BUDGET PROPOSED COMMUNITY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION AWARENESS PROJECT July 1, 1991 - December 31, 1991 1. Mailing 750 letters to the community residences: letter copying and folding $ 25.00 envelopes $ 55.00 mailing labels $ 22.50 bulk mailing $138.00 $240.50 II. Inclusion of 3000 3" high, black with white border reflective, adhesive numbers $ .35 each $1050.00 III. Telephone stickers IV. Erecting information signs along the 911 emergency boundary: 10 - 18" x 24" reflective signs sign making set up fee 10 - 4" x 4" x 6' treated posts 10 sets of mounting bolts V. 500 - 8" x 11" fire district maps: $ 54.50 $101.00 each $ 101.00 $ 5.00 $ 4.00 each $ 40.00 $ 2.00 per set $ 20.00 $166.00 $ 10.00 TOTAL: $1521.00 0 i H I ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. V-J3 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 4, 1991 SUBJECT: tkipaid Real Proper and Tax Lien Advertisement DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING YES NO Revenue ATTACHMENT S : I ION ONTACT: 1 Attachment to follow (Under separate cover) PURPOSE: John T. Horner Ext.2727 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 1- To report the amount due on current unpaid Real Property taxes as of January 31, 1991. 2- To recommend the date for the Tax Lien Advertisement. BACKGROUND: Mandatory per General Statute 105 -369 On the first Monday in February in each year, each County'Tax Collector and on the second Monday in February in each year, each Municipal Tax Collector shall report to the governing body the total amount of unpaid taxes for the current fiscal year that are liens on real property, and the governing body shall therefore order the Tax Collector to advertise such tax liens. For the purpose of this section, district taxes collected by County Tax Collectors shall be regarded as county taxes and district taxes collected by Municipal Tax Collectors shall be regarded as municipal taxes. RECOMMENDATION (S) : The board of County Commissioners accept this report and set the Tax Lien Advertisement date of May 8, 1991. •�h 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 4, 1991 SUBJECT: $100 Motor Vehicle Penalty DEPARTMENT: Assessor PUBLIC HEARING: Action Ag'ennda Item # . V- Yes —X—No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Assessor's Office, Extension 2101 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To consider a request for the refund of $100 motor vehicle penalty. BACKGROUND: General Status 105 -381 (b) Action of Governing Body. - Upon receiving a taxpayer's written statement of defense and request for release or refund, the governing body of the Taxing Unit shall within 90 days after receipt of such a request determine whether the taxpayer has a valid defense to the tax imposed or any part thereof and shall either release or refund that portion of the amount that is determined to be in excess of the current liability or notify the taxpayer in writing that no release or refund will be made. Please refer to the May 15, 1990, agenda abstract setting precedence releasing or refunding penalties for those who show no action of intentional fraud only for the tax years of 1988 -89. RECOMMENDATION: See recommendation on page 2. MAP # TRACT # ACCOUNT # 89001092 BILL # RATE CODE 00 Cathy L. Terry P.O. Box 464 Hillsborough, NC 27278 COMMENT: Taxpayer penalized $100 for failing to list motor vehichle in 1989. Letter from taxpayer requesting a release or refund is under separate cover. REFERENCE: ACTION REQUESTED: Refund /release $100 motor vehicle penalty. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends the refund of $100 motor vehicle penalty consistent with action taken on similar cases. ORDER: DATE: It ACTION AG NDA YTZM nBSTRACT Meetinc. Date: May 15, 1990 S U ECT : $100 Motor Vehicle Penalty DEPARTMENT: Assessor's Office ATTACH -_M=NT (S ) : 18 PUBLIC HZARiNG: ' Yes NFOR.MATION CONTACT: Kermit Lloyd, Ext 2101 TELEPHONE NUMBER: H- 11- sbo=ough - 732 -8181 Chattel Hill - 966 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: The attached copy of GS 105 -312 pertains to discovered property, appraisal and penalties. Specific reference is made to paragraph (h1) and the following paragraphs, concerning the 6100 penalty for falsely certifying that a motor vehicle was listed for property taxes. The attached letters are from taxpayers who are appealing the $100 penalty imposed on them by the enactment of the above referenced statute and who wished to exercise their right to be heard by the governing board. Walter Bollenbacher David Lamson Valerie Moore Keith Layden • Don MacLeod Angie Owens Cameron Nims Edward Eagle, Jr. Medora Ebersole Shannon L. Talton Luis-Manuel Cubeddu Louise James BACKGROUND: In accordance with GS 105- 312(hl), on page 5 of this agenda: "I£ the discovered property is a motor vehicle and the county assessor determines from records of the Division of Motor Vehicles that the owner of the vehicle falsely certified that he listed the vehicle for property taxes in violation o-f GS 20- 50.2(a)(1), the county assessor shall add a penalty of $100.00 for failure to list that vehicle in that county." The Orange County Assessor has applied this penalty to approximately 975 vehicles. Section 2 of the new act reads: "Effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1968, and before December 31, 1989, a county may release or refund all or part of the penalty imposed by G.S. 105- 312(hl) if it determines that the taxpayer's false certification under that subsection was not 1; -, 4 made intentionally to avoid payment of the tax." It further reads: "The board of county commissioners may, bN resolution, delegate this authority to the county finance officer or another county official." The commissioners also need to be aware of GS 105 -380 paragraph (a) and (c) which states: (a) The governing body of a taxing unit is prohibited from releasing, refunding, or compromising all or any portion of the taxes levied against any property within its jurisdiction except as expressly provided in this Subchapter. (c) Any tax that has been released, refunded, or compromised in violation of this section may be recovered from any member or members of the governing body who voted for the release, refund, or compromise by civil action instituted by any resident of the taxing unit. Most of the inquiries and explanations concerning the $100 penalty fall into one of the following catagories: 1. A new taxpayer who did not understand North Carolina requirements for listing property for taxation. 2. The elderly taxpayer who simply forgot. 3. The taxpayer who listed other vehicles but forgot to list one. These explanations along with the evidence as supported by their prior record of listing property and paying taxes in a timely manner, would indicate that these taxpayers did not fail to list their motor vehicle with an intent to evade paying taxes. Upon review of the attached letters and upon review of two years of tax records, I feel that none of the above appellants falsely certified vehicle registrations to intentionally evade paving property taxes. It is also, my opinion, and I think the opinion of the county attorney, that this provision to refund or release the $100 penalty only applies to 1988/89 taxes and should not apply to any 1990 taxes or subsequent years. RECOMMENDATION: Those who clearly did not falsely certify with the intent to avoid paying property taxes be released or refunded. e t a MACHINERY ACT OF NORTH CAROLINA 1989 Edition § 105 -312. Discovered property; appraisal; penalty. (a) Definitions. — For purposes of this Subchapter: (1) The phrase "discovered property" shall include property that was not listed by the taxpayer or any other person during a regular listing period and also property that was :.:-listed but with regard to the value, quantity, or other mea- surement of which the taxpayer made a substantial under- statement in listing. (2) The phxase "failure to list property" shall include both the omission to list properly during a regular listing period and the taxpayer's substantial understatement of value, quantity, or other measurement with regard to' property listed. - (3) The phrase "to discover .propertbe been during a regular nation that Aropeny has not g listing period and to the identification of the omitted item. For discoveries made after July 1, 1971 and in future years, the phrase shall also refer to the determination that listed property was returned by the taxpayer with a sub- stantial understatement of value, quantity, or other mea- . surement. , . (4) The phrase "substantial understatement" as used in these - definitions shall be interpreted to mean the omission of a material portion of the value, quantity, or other measure- .ment of taxable property; the determination_ of materiality in each case shall be made by the assessor, subject to the taxpayer's right to review of the determination by the -.:... county board of equalization, and review or board of com- missioners and appeal to the Property Tax ' Commission. (b) Duty to Discover and Assess Unlisted Property. -- It shall be the duty of the assessor to see that all property not properly listed 111 1LAC,HL�_rY A 5 during the regular listing period be listed, assessed and taxed as provided in this Subchapter. The assessor shall file repo:•-ts of such discoveries with the board of commissioners in such manner as the board may require.. (c) -Carrying Forward Real Property. — At the close of the regu- lar listing period each year, the assessor shall compare the tax lists submitted during the listing period just ended with the lists for the preceding year, and he shall carry forward to the lists of the current year all real property that was listed in the preceding year but that was not listed for the current year. When carried forward, the real property. shall be listed in the name of the taxpayer who listed it in the preceding year unless, under the provisions of G.S. 105 -302, it must be listed iu the name of another taxpayer. Real property car- ried forward in this manner shall be deemed to be discovered prop- erty, and the procedures prescribed in subsection (d), below, shall be followed unless the property discovered is listed in the name of the taxpayer who listed it for the preceding year and the property is not subject to appraisal under either G.S. 105 -286 or G.S. 105 -287 in which case no notice of the listing and valuation need be sent to the taxpayer. . (d) Procedure for Listing, Appraising, and Assessing Discovered Property. - 7 Subject to the provisions of subsection (c), above, and the presumptions established -by subsection (f), below, discovered property shall be listed by the assessor in the name of the person required_by G.S. 105 -302 or G.S. 105 -306. The discovery shall be deemed to be made on the date that the abstract is made or cor- rected pursuant to subsection (e) of this section. The assessor shall also make a tentative appraisal of the discovered property in accor- dance with the best information available to him. VL'hen a discovery is made, the assessor shall mail a notice to the person in whose name the discovered property has been listed. The notice shall contain the following information: (1) The name and address of the person in whose name the property is listed; (2) A brief description of the property; (3) A tentative appraisal of the property; (4) A statement to the effect that the listing and appraisal will become final unless written exception thereto is filed with the assessor within 30 days from date of the notice. Upon receipt of a timely exception to the notice of discovery, the assessor shall arrange a conference with the taxpayer to afford him the opportunity to present any evidence or argument he may have regarding the discovery. Within 15 days after the conference, the assessor shall give written notice to the taxpayer of his final deci- sion. Written notice shall not be required, however, if the taxpayer ^' signs an agreement accepting the listing and appraisal. In cases in which agreement is not reached, the taxpayer shall have 15 days from the date of the notice to request review of the decision of the assessor by the board of equalization and review or, if that board is not in session, by the board of commissioners. Unless the request for review by the county board is given at the conference, it shall be made in writing to the assessor. Upon receipt of a timely request for review, the provisions of G.S. 105 -322 or G.S. 105 -325, as appropri- ate- shall be. followed::.. - (e) Record of Discovered Property. -- When pr opertv is discov- ered, the taxpayer's original abstract (if one was submitted) may be 112 7 §105-312 A.D.N=ST; ATTOti of Lfsr71� G §105-312 �`_ ? corrected or a new abstract may be prepared to reflect the discov- p -l- ery. If a new abstract is prepared, it may be filed with the abstracts that were submitted durin g the regular ar listin l g period,-or it may be != =- filed separately with abstracts designated "Late.Listings."•Regard- less of how filed, the listing shall have the same force and effect as if it had been submitted during the regular listing period. - (i) Presumptions. -- When property is discovered and listed to a - taxpayer in any year, it shall be presumed that it should have been listed by the same taxpayer for the preceding five years unless the taxpayer shall produce satisfactory evidence that the property was not in existence, that it was actually listed for taxation, or that it was not his duty to list the property during those years or some of �-- them under the provisions of G.S. 105 -302 and G.S. 105 -306. If it is shown that the property should have been listed by some other ta_- coayer during some or all of the preceding years, the property shall be listed in the name of the appropriate ta- xpayer for the proper years, but the discovery shall still be deemed to have been made as of the date that the assessor first listed it. (g) Taxation of Discovered Property. — When property is discov- ered, it shall be taxed for the year in which discovered and for any of the preceding five years during which it escaped taxation in accordance.w-ith the assessed value it should have been assigned in each of the years for which it is to be taxed and the rate of tax imposed in each such year. The penalties prescribed by subsections (h) and (hl) of this section shall be computed and imposed regard- less of the name in which the discovered property is listed. If the discovery is based upon an understatement of value, quantity, or other measurement rather than an omission from the tax list, the tax shall be computed on the additional valuation fixed upon the property, and the penalties prescribed by subsections (h) and (hl) of this section shall be comuted on the basis of the additional tax. - (h) Computation of Penalties. — Having computed each year's taxes separately as provided in subsection (g), above, there shall be - added a penalty of ten percent (1070) of the amount of the tax for the earliest year in which the property was not listed, plus an addi- tional ten percent (1070) of the same amount for each subsequent listing period that elapsed before the property was discovered. This penalty shall be computed separately for each year in which a fail- : u_re to list occurred; ' and the year, the amount of the tax for that year, and the total of penalties for failure to list in that year includ- ing any penalty imposed under subsection (hl) of this section shall be shown separately on the tax records; but the taxes and penalties _ -_ -_ 'for all years in which there was a failure to list shall be then totalled on a single tax receipt. _ _..:: ,... (hl) If the discovered - property is "a'nioto'r:vehicle and the county assessor determines from records of the Division of Motor Vehicles 'that the owner of the vehicle falsely certified that he listed the . vehicle for property taxes in violation of G.S. 20- 50.2(a)(1), -the county assessor shall add a penalty of $100.00 for failure to list that _vehicle in that county, which penalty shall be in addition to the . :penalties imposed by subsection (h). This- penalty shall be imposed -only for the year in which the discovery is made, regardless of the ' number of listing periods that elapsed before the motor vehicle was discovered, and regardless of whether the owner of the vehicle , falsely certified that he paid taxes on the vehicle in previous years. The civil penalty in this subsection shall not be imposed if the v . 113 ACT f oNz -ner of t e ve:iiLe has �;een crlr..inall� pun lcll_u under G.4. 20_50.2(c) with regard to the same failure to list. (i) Collection. -- For purposes of tax collection and foreclosure, the total figure obtained and recorded as provided in subsections (h) c and, (hl). of this section shall be deemed to be a tax for the fiscal year beginning on July 1 of the calendar year in which the property was discovered. The schedule of discounts for prepayment and ir_- terest for. late pad anent applicable to taxes for the fiscal year re- ferred to in the preceding sentence shall apply when the total figure on the single tax receipt is paid. Notwithstanding the time limita- tions contained- in G.S. 105 -3S!, any property owner, who is re- auired to pay taxes on discovered property as herein provided shall Se entitled to a refund of any takes erroneously paid on the same property to other taxing jurisdictions in North Carolina. Claim for refund shall be riled in the county where such tax was erroneously paid as provided by G.S: 105 -381. 0) Tax Receipts Charged to Collector. — Tax receipts prepared as required by subsections (h), (hl), and (i) of this section for the taxes and penalties imposed upon discovered property shall be delivered to the tax collector, and he shall be charged with their collection_. Such receipts shall have the same force and effect as if they had been delivered to the collector at the time of the delivery of the regular tax receipts for the current year, and the taxes charged in the receipts shall be a lien upon the property in accordance with the provisions_ of G.S. 105 -355. (k-) Power to Compromise. — After a tax receipt computed and prepared as required by subsections (g), .(h), and Cal) of this section has been delivered and charged to the tax collector as prescribed in subsection 0), above, the board of county commissioners, upon the petition of the taxpayer, may compromise, settle, or adjust the county's claim for taxes arising therefrom. The board of commis- sioners may, by resolution, delegate the authority granted by this subsection to the board of equalization and review, including any board created by resolution pursuant to G.S. 105- 322(a) and any special board established by local act. (1) Except for the provision in subsection (hl) which imposes an additional penalty for false certification of motor - vehicle listing, the provisions of this section shall apply to all cities, towns, and other municipal co -morations having the power to tax property. Such governmental units shall designate an appropriate municipal officer to exercise the powers and duties assigned by this section to the assessor, and the powers and duties assigned to the board of county commissioners shall be exercised by the governing body of the unit. When the assessor discovers property having a taxable Sims in a municipal corporation, he shall send a copy of the notice _ of discovery required by subsection (d) to the governing body of the munlciDallty together with such other information as may be neces- sary to enable the municipality to proceed. The governing board of a mui:dcipahty may, by resolution, delegate the power to compro- mise, settle, or adjust tax claims granted by this subsection and by subsection (k) of this section to the county board of equalization and review, including any board created by resolution pursuant to G.S. 105- 322(a) and any'-special board established by local act. (1939, c. 310, s. 1109; 1971, c. 806, s. 1; 1973, c..476, s. 193; c. 787; 1-977, C. 864;. •9s : :1; 2;'987, c. 45; s. 1;.d. 743, ss. 1; 2; 1989,: c. 114 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 4 1991 1 Action Agenda Item # LD_ SUBJECT: PETITION FOR ADDITION - BAYWOOD PLACE IN NORTHWOOD SUBDIVISION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): E.M. Cowan Letter of 1/4/91 Secondary Road Addition Report PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x —No INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 2582 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a petition from NCDOT for approval of the addition of Baywood Place in Northwood Subdivision to the State - maintained Secondary Road System. BACKGROUND: The N.C. Department of Transportation has submitted a petition for the addition of Baywood Place in Northwood Subdivision to the Board of Commissioners for review. The Board's decision will be forwarded to the N.C. Board of Transportation for its deliberation on acceptance of the road to the State- maintained Secondary Road System. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the addition of Baywood Place in Northwood Subdivision to the State - maintained Secondary Road System. d �a STATE u STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, North Carolina 27253 -0766 January 4, 1991 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY Orange County Mr. John M. Link, Jr., Manager Orange County 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 7 300 0 7 10 DIVISION OF HIGHWAY WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRA OR Subject: Petition for Addition - Baywood Place in Northwood Subdivision, Chapel Hill Township Dear Mr. Link: Attached is Form SR -4, Secondary Road Addition Investigation Report for the above subject road. This is being forwarded to.you for review by your Board of Commissioners. ?UTv er truly, E. M. Cowan, P.E. DISTRICT ENGINEER /acr Atta. cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer i NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS. SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT County Orange Co. File No. Township Chapel Hill Div. File No. Local Name Baywood Place Length 0.06 _ Width Date Subdivision Name Northwood 20' Type 1-2 Condition Goad Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for suc70 streets? yes Recording Date 12 -13 -76 Book 26 Page Number of homes having entrances into road Other uses having entrances into road none Right -of -Way Width 60 Feet T If right -of -way is below the desired width, give reasons under "Remarks and Recommendations." Is petition (SR -1) attached? Yes Is the County Commissioners Approval (SR -2) attached? If not, why? Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the Planning Department? Yes - 0 ` Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ Grade, drain, stabilize $ , Drainage $ , Other $ Remarks and Recommendations Meets minimum requirements , recommend addition. Reviewed and Approved BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION MEMBER Reviewed and Approved 4'1� DIVISION ENGINEER Form SR -4 (4/89), 61 -03395 3 J_ w_ Watkins 40eJ1V1x:U (Do not write in this space - For use of Secondary Roads Dept.) Petition No. (Do not write in this space - For use of Planning Dept.) SEE. E)E-rAi\L- 3 5 2115 2 LL41 115_ -20 221 J 1729 _ _ DUKE ga FOREST! ti JAP 1867 866 1868 18 871 1868 18 72 -18/0 L., 14 DE TAIL -.07 723.9 22U 1731 •17 '04 a '18 223 qti 22371 - 2 a bulmsomm 2236 op 1733 1.4 Weovee FD $2 /7Z7 PLA,:.g C-0 4D L, I =- &cue�,4 -4 .01 A., I O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 4, 1991 Action Agenda Item # _ V- E SUBJECT: JAIL INSPECTION REPORT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes % NO ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, EXTENSION 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To receive the jail inspection reports from the North Carolina Department of Human Resources. BACKGROUND: Per County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill, the General Statutes continue to require the Board of County Commissioners to receive and take necessary corrective action to the semi - annual jail inspection reports submitted by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources. The statute further states that the governing body shall promptly initiate any action necessary to bring jail facilities into conformity to standards. Reports for the past several years are enclosed for review, and indicate our compliance with standards with the exception of overcrowded conditions which will be addressed with the completion of the additional cells, effective March 1. RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Commissioners should receive the reports. No corrective action is required at this time. y.. OR �,.NGZ CO :N T-'Y BOARD On COP /2-1wSSIONERS 1 Action Agenda Item No . �% E_ ACTION i,GC }IDA IT-1.1 ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Februar 4 1991 SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF NEW FIRE TRUCK - ORANGE RURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT NO. 1, INC. -------------------- - - MENI "ORANGE r Ri RURAL FIRE DE- D-= A'i�iENTjPARTMENT- N0- _1,_INC- A:, _ ACHMENT (S) . Resolution Notice of Public Hearing CCB Commitment Letter r PUBLIC F EARwNG YES: NO: X INFORMATION CONTACT: County Attorney 732 -2196 TELEPHONE t+u=.1BER- Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hi11 - 9.68 -5501 mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To approve a financing contract between Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. and Central Carolina Bank for the.purchase of a new fire truck (EEI Pumper W 2500 Gal Tank on 1991 White GMC). BACKGROUND: The Orange Rural Fire. Department No. 1, Inc. will contract with Emergency Equipment; Inc. for the purchase of a new fire truck. The truck will cost $152,287.00. Approximately $120,.000.00 of the purchase. price will be financed with a loan from Central Carolina Bank. Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. is eligible for the loan at a low interest rate (7.76% versus 9.25 %, saving approximately $1,800..00 interest expense per year for 10 years) if the financing qualifies as a tax exempt financing under the Internal Revenue Code. To so qualify, Orange County, with whom Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. contracts to provide fire protection services within the Central Orange Fire District, must approve the financing and conduct a public hearing or direct that one be conducted. The public hearing was conducted on behalf of Orange County by the Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. Each person who spoke at the. public hearing spoke in favor of the acquisition of the fire truck and the financing contract. The Clerk to the Board has received no written comments concerning this matter. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution attached which Resolution approves the financing contract between Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. and Central'Carolina Bank. 1 EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF 2 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 Superior Courtroom of new Courthouse, 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, the regular place of meeting at 7:30 p.m. on February 4, 1991 with PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Chairman presiding. The following Commissioners were: 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 FINANCING CONTRACT BETWEEN ORANGE RURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT NO. 1, INC. AND CENTRAL CAROLINA BANK WHEREAS, the Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. has represented to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that it needs a new fire truck more specifically described in action agenda item abstract number ; and 3 WHEREAS, Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. is not able to pay for this fire truck entirely wwth funds on hand; and WHEREAS, Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. is able to borrow.funds to complete the purchase of this truck -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 financing contract between Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. and Central Carolina Bank; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Orange that the financing contract between Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. and Central Carolina Bank is approved. Commissioner resolution and Commissioner moved the passage of the foregoing seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: THE CHAPEL HILL ;HERALD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY_:9, 1.99.1 PAGE;$ Legal Notices ON -THE FINANCIP PORTION OF'THEsf PRICE OF A NEW..FI BY THE ORANGE' R DEQARTMENT NOS The Orpnae7,Rur tear _Fire Depor"" Inc., has determint needs o new fire order for it to meet and "responsibilities vide fire protectieri trict, of Orange Counry„rThe,- Fire• Department intehdr4 to enter` into a purchase agref ment'with Emergency :IE @* 4 . ment, Inc. for the purchase,oF the.fire. truck. This agreement. : provitlgs for the poymMnf -af 5152,287.00 in, total,forsthe, truck. The Fire ' Deportmstrf Iurther intends`tto Ffitioncb 5125,000.00 of the purehcise' price itb borrowing -that amoynt fr 4 om. CentrallCorol- r Pina� Bank. The loan ;011 be d . back over a period; of ten years. The interests rote ' on the'• financing; will be'. set . at a'• porcentoVe of Cantrd Carolina Bank s installment loon• rote at the date of the fnancing ogreemsnt.r.IF� eYa the fioncingg a reement''bi sr nod,. Januory 7, 1991;,.the interest , rote' for : the Moan would,be 7;76 4er.. . Please toka notice thavow Board of Commissioners of Orange Counry'.will .hold o public heoring at the.•Oron, Rural Fire Da artmnf .Nu: • 1, Inc. 'Building, _ 203 •South : Churton Streat, Hillsborough, North ,Carolina on -- January t 24, 1-991 aC.7 :30 which public'-', heoring "'any parson may;b a heard 'ra- parding the proposed finario- mg. The public heoring,iwillll be c54clucted by the Orange Rural'Fre•Dspvrtmenf Nva 1; • `Anc. As authorized.,, try;_ the .,of' Commissionors_of ' Oron a "County..:ori :t January 7, 1.94.1. Following the public hooting the Board' o0 ;Cpt missloftbrs of Orange Courtln- y int ' r to consider and ,take :. aeh �°on a request- Y. the Firer apartment to - approve the ancrng. My: person wising..,te comment In• writing'•�on 7 the proposed, fine ncing.;. should do so within 'fourtMrl',. f 141 days offer the dote of.-publi- cation of this'notice,.to the Board of Commissioners -of Orange County, do. Clark of Board- of County Commi s s - Marti , Post Office n � Box 8181;., Hillsborough, •. North Carolina 27278 �''•J;-� '. • Beverly Blythe Clerk. Board of Commissioners "^ County of Orange, -- NortA:Corolina CHNtulJ9/91 �: - - 61 CENTRAL CAROLINA HANK December 12, 1990 Mr. John W. Forrest Hillsborough, N. C. Dear John: As we have discussed, in order to qualify for a tax - exempt loan the following criteria must be met: 1) The political subdivision involved (Orange County) must certify two things: a) that the VFD is a "qualified" VFD within the jurisdiction of the political subdivision, meaning that: * the VFD provides fire fighting services in an area which is not provided other fire fighting services AND * the fire fighting services are required by written agreement with the political subdivision; AND b) they approve of the borrowing. This approval cannot be given until a public hearing is held. 2) The VFD must certify that more than 90% of the loan proceeds are to be used for the acquisition of the fire truck. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED 1. A copy of the VFD's articles of incorporation. 2. A certificate of good standing from the Secretary of State. 3. A letter from the political subdivision certifying that the info in Part 1 at the top of this letter is correct. 4. a Certification of Use of Funds (Copy attached.) S. An Agreement (Copy Attached). 6. A letter pertaining to being a qualified small issuer (copy attached). In addition to the above, I would of course need the usual loan info such as source of repayment, cost of truck, description, etc. If the VFD qualifies for this type of loan, which I would certainly expect it would, we would be looking at an interest rate of approximately 7.76 %, depending on the term. I understand the amount of the loan would be around $120,000. If your board elects to pursue a loan request with Central Carolina Bank, I would be most happy to work with the persons designated. V�ly yours, Paul R. Williams Vice -- President Post Office Box 250, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278, 919/732 -2176 I ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.jZ--A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 4,-1991 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF REMEMBRANCE FOR JAY THOMAS - DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ------------- --- --------- ---- -- ---------------------------------- ATTACHMENT(S): YES - RESOLUTION INFORMATION CONTACT: DR. HALKIOTIS TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To present a Resolution of Remembrance for Jay Thomas who was taken from our midst in Saudia Arabia BACKGROUND: Jay Thomas served as a Navy Arabia conflict. He proudly served the soldier from the Raleigh - Durham area to resolution will be presented to his par, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Orange County. Aircraft Technician in the Saudia United States and was the first be taken from our midst. This ants as an expression of sympathy Commissioners and the citizens of TION(S): Approve the resolution. 2 RESOLUTION OF REMEMBRANCE for JAY THOMAS WHEREAS, Jay Thomas entered the Navy in 1984 and just recently reenlisted for his second term achieving the rank of Second Class Petty Officer, and WHEREAS, Jay Thomas served as a Navy Aircraft Technician and was • lifelong resident of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and • student of Chapel Hill High School, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has learned with deep regret' of the death of Mr. Jay Thomas, on January 6, 1991, and WHEREAS, Jay Thomas was the first soldier from the Raleigh- Durham area to be taken from our midst in Saudia Arabia, and WHEREAS, Jay Thomas served the citizens of the United States faithfully and honorably in the military. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners on behalf of all the citizens of Orange County wish to present this Resolution to Mr. and Mrs. Phil Thomas, the parents of Jay Thomas, as an expression of sympathy and loss to our community, and as a remembrance of his dedication to serve his country, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution be spread upon the minutes of this meeting as'a reminder to those who come after this time of Jay Thomas' human. compassion, and willingness to give his life in the service of his country. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis Alice M. Gordon Verla C. Insko Don Willhoit 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. �" ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 4, 1991 SUBJECT: County Manager's Recommended Capital Improvement Program DEPARTMENT: Budget PUBLIC HEARING YES: x NO: ---------------------- ATTACHMENT(S): None INFORMATION CONTACT: Budget Office ext. 2150 TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To receive the County Manager's Recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 1991 -96 and to set a public hearing for the purpose of receiving comments from Orange County citizens concerning this plan. BACKGROUND: Each year, the County Commissioners consider and adopt a five year Capital Improvement Plan that is designed to plan, budget, and account for long -lived assets that involve large expenditures, often over multi -year periods. Items typically included in the CIP are building purchases, construction, and refurbishment, and land acquisition or improvement, among others. The CIP process offers the opportunity for review of long -term needs, and permits timely acquisition and phased financing of major assets. The County Manager and staff have developed a set of funding recommendations for County and school projects that make up this proposed CIP. The Manager will make a brief presentation to the Board of the Recommended CIP at this meeting. A public hearing should be conducted to obtain the views of citizens on the recommended funding priorities and levels in this Plan. There are two options for the public hearing date, February 19 or March 4th. The establishment of the public hearing date at this meeting will provide ample opportunity to notify the public of the proposed hearing date. The Board may then adopt the CIP after the Public Hearing. RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive the Manager's Recommended CIP and presentation and approve setting a public hearing date. r 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 4, 1991 SUBJECT: Child Day Care Subsidy DEPARTMENT: Social Services ATTACHMENT(S): Populations Served, Profile DSS, Profile DCSA (Day Care Services Association), Center vacancies, Diminishing Subsidy Impact, and Available Subsidy. 04 Action Agenda Item No. Y- ----------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X INFORMATION CONTACT: Marti Pryor -Cook, 2802 043 P 14 * ; CC Z 1 -10 ZlIJx1_13 N I'= Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PURPOSE: To inform the commissioners about the current child care subsidy crisis in orange County, and to request an emergency allocation for child care subsidy through the end of the Fiscal Year. BACKGROUND: There is a child care subsidy crisis in Orange County. .Orange County has received a reduced allocation of state and federal dollars for child care subsidy for low income families this Fiscal Year; .Costs for child day care have continued to rise, making child care less affordable for low income families and the cost of purchasing care higher for those families; .Only about 125 children per month currently receive child care subsidy through the Department of Social Services; more than 550 children are waiting for assistance; .Children of low income, working families, who are not public assistance recipients, have not been able to access child care subsidy dollars since May, 1989. .Six non - profit community day care centers which have historically served subsidized children are in serious financial crisis and are in jeopardy of closing because of a lack of children who can afford to pay the cost of care. K .Relief in the form of federal dollars is expected. Congress recently passed child care legislation that should help increase subsidy funds, but funds will not be available until next Fiscal Year. Without emergency measures to increase the number of children receiving subsidy, these six centers will close before federal funding becomes available. .The United Way, Day Care Services Association, Town of Chapel Hill, Village Companies Foundation and concerned individuals have raised or contributed approximately $22,000.00 for child care subsidy in the past two months. Unfortunately, these efforts have not been able to fully meet the need. .A Day Care Resources Task Force has been formed under the leadership of United Way to address issues of child care subsidy both during the crisis and in the future. RECOMKENDATION (S) : 1. Approve a $20,000.00 one time emergency allocation from contingency funds for the DSS child care subsidy program for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1990 -91, to enable low income families to secure and maintain employment. 2. Support the Day Care Resources Task Force in developing long -range strategies to address the need for day care subsidy. 3. Convene a meeting with the legislative delegation to request that the new federal dollars be funnelled directly into subsidy dollars and that state subsidy dollars be maintained minimally at the current level. 3 WHO IS BEING SERVED BY ASS? *The Family Support Act funds for employed AFDC recipients and JOBS participants became effective October 01, 1990. Figures represent three months service as opposed to seven months of service. served:doe % OF TOTAL NUMBER OF CHILDREN EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES AVERAGE MONTH TARGET POPULATIONS (6/90 - 12/90) (6 /90+- 12/90) (6/90 - 12/90) EMPLOYMENT 109,784.16 53% 62 CWEP 17,850.65 9% 10 TRAINING 520.00 .6% .71 CPS 23,273.55 11% 15 CWS 36,044.18 18% 25 HUESNER 297.15 .4% 1 TEEN PARENT 4,543.80 2% 2 *FSA AFDC /EMPLOYMENT 11,117.70 5% 14 *FSA JOBS 2,286.25 1% 3 TOTAL 205,717.44 *The Family Support Act funds for employed AFDC recipients and JOBS participants became effective October 01, 1990. Figures represent three months service as opposed to seven months of service. served:doe DEMOGRAPHICS OF CHILDREN CURRENTLY BEING SERVED I. LOCATION POC FSA TOTAL Northern Orange 21 9 30 Southern Orange 60 23 83 Other Counties 3 3 II. AGE OF CHILDREN Below 1 year 2 2 4 1 year 3 6 9 2 year 17 8 25 3 year 17 4 21 4 year 18 3 21 5 year 5 0 5 School Age 22 9 31 III. FAMILY STRUCTURE Single Parent Households 70 31 101 Two Parent Households 6 0 6 Foster Care 9 0 9 Demogra.Doc 1 91 1 Y AGE of CHILD Infants (<1) Toddlers (1) Twos Three -Fives - - Schoolage RACE Black White Other SEX Female Male FAMILY STRUCTURE Single Parent Two Parent PLACE of RESIDENCE Chapel Hill Carrboro Orange County Outside Orange County TYPE of CARE PROVIDED Full Time Afterschool PARENTS' NEED for CARE Working Working College Student College Student Technical College Student High School Student ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME < $8,000 $8,000 - $11,999 $12,000 - $15,999 $16,000+ AVERAGE FAMILY INCOME AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE AVERAGE PARENT FEE /Mo. AVERAGE MONTHS of SUBSIDY TOTAL NUMBER of CHILDREN Day Care Services Association Profile of Children Receiving Subsidy in 1990 # of Children 11 15 20 59 23 103 24 1 71 57 112 16 75 22 25 6 102 26 102 14 3 2 7 38 41 39 10 $10,600 3 $68 7 128 % of Children 9% 12% 16% 46% 18% 80% 19% 1% 55% 45% 88% 13% 59% 17% 20% 5% 80% 20% 80% 11% 2% 2% 5% 30% 32% 30% 8% S 6 DSS CONTRACT CENTERS IN ORANGE COUNTY TOTALS 1082 110 115 17 centers.doc DSS 0TH ER CENTERS ;CAPACITY ;VACANCY;SUBSIDY;SUBS DY 1. BiCity Center for Children and Youth ; 45 i 2 i 9 i 3 2. Brooks Day Care Center ; 20 ; 13 ; 4 3. Cedar Grove Day Care Center ; 40 ; 24 i ; 9 4. Carrboro Elementary After School. Center; 70 ; 3 ; 2 i 5. Ephesus Elementary After School Center 1 72 i 1 1 2 6. Estes Hills Elementary After School ; 80 ; 1 ; 0 Center 7. FPG Elementary After School Center ; 75 6 ; 4 8. Glenwood Elementary After School Center; 75 i 5 i 4 i 1 9. Seawell Elementary After School Center ; 85 ; 1 ; 0 10. Chapel Hill Cooperative Preschool ; 54 ; 0 ; 0 11. Chapel Hill Day Care Center 44 ; 0 1 3 i 12. Children's Learning Center i 20 1 2 i 1 1 13. Community School For People Under Six ; 54 ; 13 1 15 2 14. First Baptist Day Care Center 1 39 1 2 i 12 ; 1 15. Holmes Day Care Center ; 60 i 9 1 21 i 11 16. Holy Family Day Care Center ; 36 ; 0 ; 4 17. OCIM Day Care Center 58 ; 16 16 18. Sycamore Preschool 39 i 5 i 4 19. University Baptist Day Care Center ; 52 ; 7 i 4 0 20. Victory Village Day Care Center ; 64 ; 0 ; 1 ; 16 TOTALS 1082 110 115 17 centers.doc The Impact of Diminishing Day Care Subsidy Dollars on Children and Families, Child Care Providers and the Orange County Community In Orange County there are currently 622 children on the waiting list for day care subsidy at the Department of Social Services. No new subsidies have been granted since May, 1989 to support day care for employed low income parents. Current state/federal subsidy dollars have been reduced by 41 % from 1988 -89, resulting in a 62% decline in the average number of children receiving subsidy each month. As a result, the community is facing a series of related problems. IMPACT on CHILDREN and FAMILIES. • Increased numbers of children are being placed in foster care and children are remaining in foster care longer, because day care subsidy is unavailable. Recruitment of foster homes has become more difficult because many foster parents need subsidized day care while they work • Low income, special needs children, who need subsidized developmental day care, are not being prepared for school, thus increasing the later costs of remedial services. • Child Protective Services social workers cite the decline in day care subsidy as a significant factor in the increase in child abuse and neglect referrals. Subsidized day care, when available, provides the necessary relief for families under stress and serves as a vehicle for the protection and monitoring of the child. • Day rare subsidy was discontinued for most families needing day care for schoolage children afterschool and in the summer, increasing the numbers of latchkey children in our community. • Even with the low unemployment rates in Orange County, increasing numbers of families (38% increase from 1987 to 1989) are becoming dependent on public assistance programs because they cannot afford child care. Without child care parents are not able to work IMPACT on DAY CARE PROVIDERS - Six nonprofit centers, who have traditionally served primarily low income families, are in ----financial crisis, because families who use these programs cannot afford to pay the cost of the �jyF_seryic leaving the centers.with:vacanciesand unpaid - --- :xx�NP'ei:�r ?r��.- .,c :• - -. -�r7T - - --- - '-- _ -- _ - - - - - —.:.:��c' �:•.� - _ - -- - r ���-- - - Segregatidn exists in. the day care deli very system because urany centers cart no loriger affard to -- subsidize larger numbers of children, resulting limited, racial and economic diversi a"`t<�y��- Teacher la {��rffs due to undexeniolUnent isthe ratters affectthe - uglify -of da care a_ vailab_le fay..: rmpacts on- oflife availab _ � - .J' - ±''r,. •_ - - ^dy_ py, - _ a -� 3 .:�k,•'. -.mow• vLL l'Mr_. �rA-• _ - y,i. - •�"•�' ~- -�`'� L .u5.:'�' .t °�a tia e• - - :.4��- w�'. 3.;' .. •:d+.�;'•�,:: 4".r: ?n,'.. rk,, .. - ^�.-. ;_:; . .•.�.� ..,:.a.�1�iPA(:.T:o eORANGECO- _ -. -.. _° ___�•- . :�.:.��•._. SST J!�'U ��'•'.•e:::�.'":ra�pv'. - _ - — - ',di_', •v yT,.�: y "4 -_ - - it •F; - _ - c.r.�!•Y'.:- - ��% iM �^ h`•1fi'.+•7x.:. - - - y C- .r!`.•^] "i}Tr '.�'1x'Y."�..�i.M1t.^ +''y' j;..y �`'r _ -_ '. ~ • Parents who are tineinployed or:nndexemplayedYcannotmake significant contnbutioas to the:. "t - aa . tax revenues available to the community.., i - + = Financial pressures in some centers may result in decisions to lower the quality of care • provided for all children and families, moving centers from '"AA" to "A "- licensure status. CURRENT SOLUTIONS Day Care Subsidy Resources Available to Help Children and Families in Orange County The need for day care subsidy has existed for a number of years in Orange County. As a result, the community has more resources available to help low income families than anywhere in North Carolina_ 'These resources come from both the public and private sectors, but still are not enough to help families needing assistance with the paying the cost of child care. Below is a description of the resources that currently exist, as well as a description of the expected impact of the new federal child pre legislation. 1. Subsidiztd DiLy_CaLre Program How much money -.is available? $251,612 is allocated from federal/state funds and $95,333 from county funds. Who is eligible? This program is available to help low income parents pay the cost of child care so they can work, finish high school, or attend technical college. Families who are in crisis, perhaps because of serious illness or spouse or child abuse, may also be eligible for help with child care costs. Children who are developmentally delayed and need child care to help meet their special needs may also be served Priority is given to children needing day care for protective services or teen parents and is otherwise awarded on a first come, first serve basis. What is the current status of this program? About 125 children are being served .each month; 622 children are on the waiting list A decline in funds has caused a severe financial strain on families, as well as on nonprofit providers who are serving low income families in our community. 2. Family Sun2Qrl Act- Child Carp How much money is available? The funding for child pre support services is unlimited. Who is eligible? Under this Act child care subsidy can be provided (1) for one year, to families who are worldng and no longer receive AFDC, (2) to families who are working and continue to receive AFDC, and (3) to parents who are enrolled in the JOBS prograrin, as they restive job and life skills training. What is the current status of this program? Payment for child pre for families in the first category described above began April 1, 1990. Only a few children have benefited from this program to date. Payment for child care for families eligible in the last two categories began October 1, 1990. This program is currently in a start-up phase, with only a few families currently receiving full benefits. The Family Support Act is designed to help families dependent on public assistance, = low income, worldng families who are trying to maintain self - sufficiency. 3. 12av Care Serves Association How much money is available? in 1990 over $ 120,000 will be spent on direct day care subsidies. Who is eligible? Low income families who need child care to work or attend school are eligible. Most families who receive subsidy earn less than $12,000 a year and are eligible for government subsidy described in the first section. What is the current status of this program? To help alleviate the current funding crisis, DCSA has recently awarded scholarships to 34 children enrolled in area centers. The Board has authorized 75% of the scholarship funds for 1991 to be spent in the first six months of 1991, in anticipation of the availability of new govexnmensal funds, No new families will be served in 1991 until families currently on DCSA subsidy are subsidized by government funds. 4. Child Care „Providers How match money is available? No information is available about the total financial corm=tment made to day care subsidy by providers in our community. Who is eligible? Eligibility varies from center to center, based on each of nh is criteria and file availability of funds. What is the current status of this program? A recent statewide survey indicates that Orange County day care providers offer more subsidy to families than in any county in the state, with over 400 children receiving some type of assistance. However, because of increasing costs, the number of children and the amounts of subsidy offered have beta declining. 5. How much money is available? About 22 million dollars will come to North Carolina each year far the next thine years. Funds for 1990-91 fiscal year will not be awarded to the state until early September, 1991. It is mandated that 75% of time funds be spent on child care subsidy. Who is eligible? Priority will be given to very low income worldng families and families with special needs children. What is the current status of this program? The President recently signed this legislation. A federal agency has to be designated as the lead agen to administer this program. Rules must be developed by this agency befam .implementation_can,begegin.. Ytates must also designate lead agencies and develop a plan on how the money will be used. This process has already begun in North Carolina. It is hoped that counties will be able to increase spending in July, 1991 in anticipation of the receipt of the federal funds in North Carolina. DEMOGRAPHICS OF DAY CARE WAITING LIST I. LOCATION Northern Orange Southern Orange Other County II. AGE OF CHILDREN Below 1 year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 year School Age III. PARENT'S NEED FOR SERVICE Employment School Employment Search Other IV. FAMIILY STRUCTURE Single Parent Households Two Parent Households waitlst.doc 184 372 15 45 75 116 75 54 11 195 341 76 138 16 445 126 0 _ 1 OR AN G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 4. 1991 Action Agenda Item # X- 5 SUBJECT: ZONING ENFORCEMENT CASES (CIVIL PENALTIES) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x —No ATTACHMENT(S): Summaries of Four Zoning Cases Excerpts of BOCC Minutes of November 5, and December 18, 1990 INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Hinkley Extension 2584 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To request that the Board of County Commissioners consider making written demand for payment of civil penalties in four respective cases. BACKGROUND: On December 18, 1990, the Board considered making written demand for payment of civil penalties for zoning violations on four properties. Two property owners - -Lori B. and Nathan McDuffie and Gayle and Chris McMillan -- were given second extensions until January 17, 1991 to bring their properties into compliance. Both the McDuffies and McMillans have been contacted personally and by telephone, respectively. Both made assurances that their properties would be brought into compliance by January 17. As of January 23, 1991, in both cases, little or no perceivable additional progress to correct violations was observed. Civil penalties have been assessed by the Planning and Inspections Department for ongoing violations of the Zoning Ordinance by Christy B. Merritt and Albert E. Davis, and Carl Swanson. The ordinance provides that the duty to make written demand for payment of civil penalties upon persons responsible for violatins lies with the Board of County Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board of County Commissioners take the following actions: 1. Make written demand for payment of civil 2 penalties upon the following persons in the respective specific amounts. Nathan D. and Lori B. McDuffie Amount: $15,800 Gayle & Chris McMillan Amount $21,800 Christy B. Merritt Albert E. Davis Amount: $5,700 Carl Swanson Amount:.$6,500 �w rlr 3 Zoning Case No. 53 LORI B. MCDUFFIE AND NATHAN MoDUFFIE Route 2, Box 121 -B -1 Apex, NC 27502 Location: West side of Buckhorn Road just to the north of Mt. Willing Road Township: Cheeks Tax Map: 3.54..16 Zoning District: Agricultural Residential (AR) Violations: Outside storage of an estimated 15 junked motor vehicles, an unoccupied mobile home, automotive parts, batteries, motors, junked white appliances, building materials, trash and tires. Accumulated Civil Penalties as of January 23, 1991: $15,800 Comments: The McDuffies were given extensions on two occasions by the Board of Commissioners until November 29, 1990, and until January 17, 1991, respectively, to bring their property into compliance. During each extension there were 2 -3 initial weeks of inactivity followed by a 3 -4 day flurry of activity in an attempt to meet the extension deadlines set by the Board. As of January 23, 1991, much work remains to be accomplished to correct zoning violations. Little or no progress has been made during January 1991. 4 Zoning Case No. 6 GAYLE AND CHRIS MCMILLAN 5 Goodyear Circle Durham, NC 27713 Location: To the west of Old School Road (second tier lot) Township: Chapel Hill Tax Map: 7.117..15P Zoning District: Rural Buffer (RB), Protected Watershed II (PW -II), University Lake Watershed (ULW) violations: Land - filling without a permit Accumulated Civil Penalties as of January 23, 1991: $21,800 Comments: Mr. McMillan dumped refuse from razed buildings, discarded substances such as paint, oil and other chemicals, general trash and garbage until February 8, 1990, when he was instructed to stop doing so by the County Environmental Planner. Because of the nature of the dumping and the property's location in the University Lake Watershed, the N.C. Division of Solid Waste Management was asked to participate in assessing potential damage. The Environmental Planner and personnel from Solid Waste Management determined that if the materials were removed in the immediate future, serious damage to the watershed could be abated. The McMillans were given their first extension at the Board meeting of November 5, 1990, and their second on December 18. The Department received assurances from the McMillans on the telephone that violations would be corrected by January 17, 1991. The property remained in violation as of January 23, 1991, however, with no evidence of progress during January 1991. I �1 Zoning Case No. 61 CHRISTY B. MERRITT ALBERT E. DAVIS Route 2, Box 425 Efland, NC 27243 Location: West side of Efland -Cedar Grove Road between Brookhollow and W. Lebanon Roads Township: Cheeks Tax Map: 3.9..22 Zoning District: Agricultural Residential (AR) violations: Junked motor vehicles (4 -6) and body and mechanical parts thereof, a junked mobile home, trash, debris Accumulated Civil Penalties as of January 23, 1991: $5,700 Comments: This is a case that has been resurrected from the late 1980's. In.1990, Ms. Merritt and Mr. Davis were notified via certified mail on three occasions (June 28, August 3, and November 9). Two personal and several telephone conversations were held with Ms. Merritt. Since the civil penalties deadline of November 26, 1990, there have been some efforts to clean up the property. Little or no activity has been observed in the past several weeks. 6 r Zoning Case No. 67 CARL SWANSON 1903 Adams Place Hillsborough, NC 27278 Location: Colonial Hills Township: Eno Tax Map: 5.1.B.8 Zoning District: Rural Residential (R--1) violations: Outdoor storage of a junked motor vehicle, building materials (windows, doors, and other supplies for rental property maintenance), white appliances, trash. Accumulated Civil Penalties as of January 23, 1991: $6,500 Comments: The case was opened on July 5, 1990, in response to anonymous neighbors'.complaints and after subsequent field inspection. Three letters were sent (July 5, August 15, and November 9, 1990). A civil penalties deadline was given for November 1,9, 1990. After two personal and three telephone conversations following the deadline and providing extensions to correct violations, work alternatingly continued and ceased over a period of two months. As of January 23, 1991, the property remained in violation. D. ZONING ENFORCEMENT CASES CIVIL PENALTIES Jim Hinkley, Zoning Enforcement Officer, presented for consideration of approval a request that the Board 0 County Commissioners make written demand for payment of Civil Penalties to six persons for violations of the orange County Zoning. Ordinance. Nathan McDuff ie, Paul G. Scurlock., Chris McMillan and Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Turner all spoke in defense of the violations and the civil penalties assessed against them. Orin Pilkey spoke in support of the civil penalties levied against Paul G. Scurlock. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to give the four persons listed above until November 28 to bring their property into compliance to.the satisfaction of the Planning Department; to make written demand for payment of Civil Penalties to Clara Bunn Garrett and Howard and Rebecca D. Williams and to bring back to the Board on December 3 a report on the status of the four cases that were given additional time. VOTE : U'NANIMOUS I ;OTE: COMMISSIONER HALKIOTIS W.kS EXCUSED FROM THE YIEETING E. ; DVERTI$_EMENT - _DECEMBER lil _1990 PUBLIC HEARING Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the advertisement for the December __ Quarterly Public Hearing with two deletions: (1) amendments referring to Large Day Care Homes, and (2) fee waiver proposal for public agencies and non - profit Housing Organizations. VOTE: UNnNiMOUS F. ACOUISITION OF VIRGINIA B7-mtTOW PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE END RIVER IN HILLSBOROUGH Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the purchase cf 2.16 acres which is located in Hillsborough approyirately 150 feet east of Churton Street just north of the Eno River and about 300 feet south of Margaret Lane for $59,690. VCTE: LTJr217HMOjS ADDED ZTEu G. OLD COURTHOIISE LIZNMSCAPING CApT_TAL PROJECT Wilbert McAdoo explained that Phase II would consist cf repairing the walk on Chu--ton Street and tree plantings for a total Cf $31,750. An additional 518,852 will be required to do the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to attrove the necessary chance order to the Oi Co=thouse Landscaping construction contract and adopt the capita:: project ordinance as stated below to authorize conpletion of both Phases ? and II of the project. OLD COURTHOUSM LANDSCnPING PROJECT CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE 8 systems no matter how big they are. The State gets an opportunity tc review and make recommendations if the size of the system is greater than 3,000gpd. Commissioner Willhoit suggested going ahead with obtaininc legislation that would give the County the ability to regulate those things the County doesn't have the authority to regulate with regard ti discharge systems and to set up a fund as a means of handling failini systems. This would give the County the framework it needs to mov, forward with making land use decisions. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon on the statutor; authority for alternative systems, John Link stated that there is n additional legislation needed for the Health Department to address wha is already its responsibility for individual septic systems. Th program as proposed by the Health Board has the legislation t implement. The question has to do with what process the County is goin to use for the design, construction, monitoring and remediation of thes larger alternative systems. Geoffrey Gledhill will provide the Boar with written information on what legislation may be pursued. presentation on alternative systems will be made at the next reaula meeting of the Board as well as additional information on groundwate and suitability of soils.' X. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULP.R AGEIDA A. SEARLE FAR-KS - LvENDED PHASING PLAN Planner Emily Cameron presented for consideration cf a=- rrova a revised phasing plan for Searle Farms, a cluster subdivision. Th Preliminary Plan for Searle Farms. was approved by the Board c Commissioners on December 4, 1989. The applicant is reauestin additional time for construction beyond. the December 4, 1990 expiratic date. The property is located on the south side of New Hope Church Roa west of the intersection with I -40 in Chapel Hill Township. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded } Commissioner Willhoit to approve the extension of time based on tr evidence presented with respect to the findings recuired in Section 1_3 D -2 -e of the Subdivision Regulations. Final Plat approval must obuained before December 4, 1091. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. ZONING ENFORCEMENT CASES CIVIL PENP- t-TIES On November 5, 1990, the Board considered ma}_L Sh'TM -twE demand for payment of civil penalties for zoning violations on s: properties. Four property owners -- McDuffie, McMillan, Scurlock, a7 Turner were represented at this meeting and were given an emend( deadline to Thursday, November 29, 1990. The Board decided to ma) written demand for payment of civil penalties to the other two proper- owners -- Garrett and Williams. Enforcement Officer Jim Hinkley requested that the Boa: consider making written demand for payment of civil penalties from Y+: Paul G. Scurlock in the amount of $14,200. mr. . Scurlock has made : effort to come into compliance. With regard to Lori B. and Nath; McDuffie, substantial progress has been made on cleaning up the I e f g n d e d d e y G v .n 4 I property. He asked that they be given another extension to finish their 2 cleanup work. He asked that the demand for civil penalties against 3 Gayle and Chris McMillan be postponed again because of substantial 4 progress that has been made on the cleanup. He asked that the civil 5 penalties against Mr. Ralph Turner be rescinded because they have come 6 into compliance well before the deadline. 7 Mrs. McMillan assured the Board that if they grant her an 8 extension she will have the work completed after the holidays. 9 Mr. Gamble spoke on behalf of Mr. Scurlock. He stated that 10 Mr. Scurlock has no funds to clean up his property. He has been 11 building a house for the past five years. 12 Commissioner Gordon asked on what basis an extension of time 13 was granted. Gledhill stated that the imposition of civil penalties is 14 one of the remedies available to the County as a means to enforce its 15 Zoning Ordinance. Whether the County pursues it or not is purely 16 discretionary. The enforcement of the Ordinance is not considered to 17 be discriminatory. Whats at issue is how much time to give people 18 before deciding to make a demand for civil penalties or pursue civil- 19' penalties in court. In his opinion, substantial progress toward getting 20 the property in compliance is a valid basis for doing so. A decision 21 based solely on economics would be a problem. Economics may be a basis 22 for giving somebody more time but whether to enforce the Ordinance 23 through the use of civil penalties based purely on the ability of the 24 person to pay the civil penalty may be a problem. 25 fir. Scurlock stated that. he would probably finish his house 26 by the end of the summer. He is trying to get a loan at this time. The 27 car has been in the streambed fcr thwrty years. He indicated he would 28 not be able to move the car until he puts in a road and has the finances 29 to hire a tow truck. 30 Commissioner Halkictis.expressed his disappointment that Mr. 31 Scurlock has not made an effort to clean up his property. He suggested 22 that he be given an extension of thirty days and if no subs -an4iG_ �3 effort is made to clean up his property that the County make k�-itte 34 demand for the full amount of money due. 25 Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 36 Chairman Carey to give an extension cf time to January 17, 1951 tc Lcr_ _2 7 B. and Nathan MCDL'ffie and Gayle and Chris McMillan and to resc:_n Be raking demand for civil penalties against Ralph Turner. 39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 40 Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by 41 Commissioner Halkiotis to delay action on the demand for civil penalties 42 against Paul G. Scurlock and to evaluate the situation on January 7, 43 1991 to determine if an effort has been made by Mr. Scurlock to came 44 into compliance. 45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 46 For Mr. Scurlock to come into compliance, he will need to 47 remove every} -ping from the streambed and on the floodplain. 48 49 C. CLASSIFICA'T'ION STUDY 50 Personnel Director Elaine Holmes presented for consideration, 51 of app=oval the Phase I Classification S7.udy changes to the Orange 52 County Classification and Pay Plan as stated on pages t0 O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 4 1991 1 Agenda Abstract Item # SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT - FEBRUARY 25, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X —No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Legal Notice Planning Director X2592 Proposed Public Hearing Items Draft 1- 28--91 Planning Board PHONE NUMBERS: Minutes Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031 Efland Area Study Durham 688 -7331 (Separate enclosure) Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider the legal notice and items for discussion at the quarterly public hearing scheduled for February 25, 1991. BACKGROUND: The next regular quarterly public hearing is scheduled for February 25, 1991. The Board of Commissioners reviews proposals to be considered at public hearing for consistency with general County policy and presentation format. Items to be considered at the February 25, 1991 public hearing include the following: 1. Assignment of House and Building Numbers a. Rural Routes 2,3,5,6, and 7 - Mebane 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments a. CP -1 -91 Robert Ayers & Harold Harris b. CP -2 -91 Efland Area Study 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Golf Driving Ranges (1) Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table (2) Article 8.8 - Special Uses 4. Erosion Control Ordinance Text Amendments 5. Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance Approval of the notice will permit advertisement on February 13 and 20, 1991 as required the N.C. General Statutes. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments will require notification of individual property owners. The notice must be mailed on or before February 8, 1991. K The Planning Board considered all of the proposed ordinance text amendments except that concerning golf driving ranges at its January 28, 1991 meeting and recommended that they be presented at the February 25, 1991 public hearing for citizen comment. Several changes to the Historic Preservation Commission Ordinance were recommended, including the following: 1. Reword the beginning paragraph of Section 3.3 to .read, "No property shall be designated as a - landmark unless the property owner agrees to such designation and until the following steps have been taken." 2. Delete items 10 and 11 of Section 1.7 and revise item 9 to read, "Recommend to the Board of Commissioners that it acquire by any lawful means the fee or any lesser included interest, including options to purchase, to properties... ". The Ordinance Review Committee considered the driving range proposal on January 29, 1991 and recommended that it be presented at the same public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Notice of Public Hearing for February 25, 1991. i ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 .f NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO RURAL POSTAL ROUTES AND ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE AND ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO CREATE AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Articles 6, 18, 240, 323, and 343, and Chapter 113A, Article 60; and Article 20, Sections 20.5 and 20.6, and Articles 2,2,12 and 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New), 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, February 25, 1991, am 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE & BUILDING NUMBERS The postal service routes proposed for a change from existing rural box numbers to a system of permanently assigned house and building numbers are as follows: 1. Rural Routes 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 - Mebane Five (5) partial rural routes served by the Mebane Post Office are to be considered. The routes extend along the Alamance County - Orange County boundary, excluding an area in the southwest portion of Orange County near the Haw River. Descriptions of -the routes are provided below. Route 2, Mebane, encompasses an area south of US Highway 70 bordering the Alamance County line. Included are the northern half of Buckhorn Road, the western half of west Ten Road, and the western third of Mt. Willing Road. Also included, either partially or in their entirety, are the following roads: .Redman, Mattress Factory, East Washington, South Frazier, Oakwood, Rock Quarry, Ben Wilson, Bowman, Whitaker, Hebron Church, Yarborough, Oak Grove Church, Mebane Oaks, Vernon, Bradshaw Quarry, Teer, Morrow Mill, Lloydtown, and Saxapahaw. 4 Route 3 is located in the extreme northwest portion of Orange County and includes the northern half of Corbett Ridge Road, Claiborne's Road, and Atkins Road. Route 5 adjoins Route 2 on the north side of US Highway 70 and includes those roads extending from US Highway 70. They include North Frazier, Lancaster, Shambley, Mace, Hoover, and Mebane Store. Also included, either partially or in their entirety, are the following roads: West Lebanon, Supper Club, Mill Creek, Doe Run, Saddle Club, Lynch Store, Harmony Church, Mount Zion Church, Penecost, Doc Corbett, and NC Highway 49 from the Carr community to the Alamance County line. Route 6 is a small portion of a major rural route extending from Alamance bounty and includes only Ben Wilson and Bowman Roads. Route 7 includes that segment of US Highway 70 extending eastward from the Mebane city limits to Buckhorn Road. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan are as follows: 1. CP -1 -91 Robert Ayers and Harold Harris The property in question is located at the southeast intersectional corner of Interstate Highway 40 (I -40) and Old Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road (SR 1009). The property contains 33 acres and is specifically described as Lot 13B, Block B, of Tax Map 49 in Hillsborough Township. The property fronts on I -40 for a distance of 2,200 feet and on Old Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road for a distance of 100 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is R -1 -- Rural Residential. The property is being considered for re- designation in the Hillsborough Township Component of the Comprehensive Plan from Rural Residential to Ten -Year Transition and Commercial Transition Activity Node. 2. CP -2 -91 Efland Area Study The Efland Area Study is a community -based small area plan. A number of plan recommendations have been prepared which are designed to protect community character and encourage appropriate land use planning in the village..The area study will be presented in its entirety at the hearing. One recommendation involves a proposed amendment to the Cheeks Township Component of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment would revise the boundaries of the Efland Commercial - Industrial Activity Node (CK -1) to reflect the designation of three "community centers or foci" at major intersections in the village. These areas are locations where village -scale development of a mixed -use nature 5 might be encouraged. Portions of these "community foci" are located north and west of the current boundaries of the Efland Activity Node. No other plan amendments are required as part of the study. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS The proposed-amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance are as follows: 1. Amend ARTICLE 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE by adding "Golf Driving and Practice Ranges" as a use permitted in the Agricultural - Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R -1) zoning districts following the approval and issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit, and as a use by right in the Community Commercial (CC- 3), General Commercial (GC -4), and Industrial -1 (I-1) zoning districts.. 2. Amend ARTICLE 8.8 REGULATIONS GOVERNING INDIVIDUAL SPECIAL USES by adding a new Article 8.8.6 Golf Driving and Practice Ranges which sets forth specific site plan and development standards applicable to golf driving and practice ranges. EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Sedimentation & Erosion Control Ordinance will conform the ordinance with the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission's Model Ordinance. Specifically, these amendments: - Add definitions; - Require increased protection for High Quality Waters; -- Allow enforcement action against forestry activity; - Allow consideration of an applicant's past performance in granting erosion control plan approval; - Increase the penalties for violations from $100 to $500 per day; and - Incorporate other administrative changes. Amendments proposed by the Erosion Control Division include the following: - Addition of headings to the text, a table of contents, and an index to improve readability; -- Clarification of jurisdictional boundaries; - Addition of a basic control objective to insure that site designs are compatible with erosion control standards; - Clarification of the imposition of conditions of approval to erosion control plans; and - Incorporate minor administrative changes. Sections 3 -5, 7 -10, 15, 17 -19, 21 -22, and 26 of the Ordinance will be affected by the proposed amendments. PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ORDINANCE 11 The proposed ordinance would establish a seven - member Historic Preservation Commission which would have the following powers and duties: - Undertake inventories of historic sites and structures; - Recommend areas for designation as historic districts; and - Upon application by individual property owners, recommend individual sites and structures for landmark designation. Prior to recommending any historic district or landmark for designation, an inventory'of sites and structures must be undertaken. Review and comment by the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources is also required, and, in the case of a historic district designation, the Planning Board must also review and comment upon the proposal. Finally, a public hearing to receive citizen comment is required on both district and landmark designation proposals. Such designations are approved only by the Board of Commissioners and only after the preceding steps have been taken. Upon approval of a designation by the Board of Commissioners, the Historic Preservation Commission may then adopt design guidelines and standards to govern changes to the exterior of structures and grounds. Building permits may not be issued for new construction, additions or renovations until a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued by the Commission. The interior of structures is not affected by the design guidelines and standards. All interested citizens are.invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be I considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning & Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, You may also call 732 -8181 (Hillsborough), 688 -7331 (Durham) or 967 -9251 (Chapel Hill - Carrboro). Please ask for Extension 2585 or 2575. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: February 13, 1991 February 20, 1991 Ax77 CLE 12. Roads and Bridges. § 153A -239. Public road defined. 7. Local Modification. $nur kk: 1979. 2nd 7 Seas., t 1319; CabLm r. 1981• c, bM, amending 1979. 2od Seas.. e. 1319; Aeerr. 1983, e_ 98; Brunswick: 1983. tr 98; Cabarrus: 1983, a 98; New Hanover. 19&3, c- 98; Stakes: 1983, e. 299; Surry: 1983, c. 299. 153A -240. Naming roads and assign- ing street numbers in unin- corporated areas. A county may by ordinance name or rename any public road within the county and not within W 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. stion, unless the Board of ppoort3V sportation agrees; (2) Change the number assumed' 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 i on the matter. At )east 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 to-A hips where the road is located, and shall publish a notice of such he in at least one newspaper of genera] 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 per•.aans to naming streets in Iti=apolis. (1957, c. 1068; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; c 822, s. 1;1961, cc. 112, 518.) In this Article 'public road" or "road" means any road, sweet, highway, thor- oughfare, or other way Of passage that has bees irrevocably dedicated to the public or in vvhith the public has acquired rights by pres=iptioa„ without regard to whether it 1s open for gravel. (1973, c- 822, & 1.) Y,*= Modification, — Brunswick 1979, 2nd Ses&_ t_ 1319: Cabarrur 198L a 568. amending 1979, 2nd Sess., a 1319; ForrYI:= 1981, r- 558; Guilford: 1979, F 2&?; Avery- 1983, r 98: Brunswick 1983. L. 98: Cabsrnie 1983. t_ 9i:; New Hanover. 1983- e. 9e; Stoker 1983. r- 299; Styr. :1983. r 299. Editor's Notes — Pursuant to Session Laws 1973. L 507. s. 5. -Board of 7tansportation" has been substituted sot "State Fugbway Commission- and for 180 I atagri Efland w. 41 gape 114 i i ILI por ro ,\r,Z \�.•� ham\ \ S I' �- ,.\° r .� ""'_ `' • Complete R R's 2, 3, S, r ♦IF w R I r f i C O v On T �^ r r r 6 &71 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT r 306F REVERE ROAD 9 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 fE ; - Dear Resident: F 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 eight (28) 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. With the Board of. Commissioners' approval of the Mebane rural route changes, all of Orange County will have permanent street addresses and rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past. Mebane Rural Routes 2,3,5,6 and 7 are now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On Monday, February 25, 1991, 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 the five (5) Routes extending into Orange County served by the Mebane Post office. The hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in Hillsborough. 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 NEW ADDRESS which reflects the ghvsical location of your residence at tax map reference is as follows OLD 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 Planning 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 ��rn QQ CN I • p f` y` S V 0 v Lu cc r.. N Ga CD O O N J J W } L.i.J 5 Li C r I cry C%i W = m o � s = ��rn QQ CN I • p f` y` S V 0 v Lu cc r.. N Ga CD O O N J J W } L.i.J 5 Li C r I 1-4 ,•-1 ,-•1 a4 n co Z - r-- '10 co N >I 4 E cc qa In 1 1 1 1 z O E N co m N r- W 5: 2 P R >40 y 01w1►N � p",� Id 0U O117 O 1 1 1 1 H' zGEC Z t. Ln HO E94 Iii 7y413'A. Al 41 O 1 0 �jy It] 'F;j1 W o w m Z CQ I 1 1 1 y W Ct• A 34 O w W EHtn n 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 ° p " A mxn 0 W Gk. Z y O W> N E Z 0 - 1► •• to O m W N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T H H OOCAN GCO w 11 1 I r `� H 4 E H cn '.) to W 0 1 1 1 -A G C E•1 O E ru O O co 2 �� vw _ m X 1 0 1 � PC 0 %c 34 �r A z 0 43 a 0 0 td a+ a •-1 1 0 1 0 0z`" Q �o a :0 1 c I w H 1" H 0 Z2 G06 0:: w p O O hr. P A 10 334 . -1 UAP2m t` m s� s m 3a 3 •-1 m tp z± of 4) --� . • m -•t 3a La �" b b La 3 O to ji O> m to .0 a t 0 s~ ••i ti U ,-I m 0 m ^•t •-4 4) 4) En aJ y 0 7m-4 0 G: Z W 0 Dr -F1 -•1 R : W 3 O 010 .^. Z 4) 0 c y P+ V •17 0 c t0 0 L4 F.' 0 >. 0 -4 C 3a -y W w •••1 0 34 H ; b .. A w m > + 0 R R 0 0 0 m 3 ¢) 3a 9 E -Z b M 34 -•t m v -•1 0 m O_:z 0 c 0 U3 3 R' crji w r- 0'C mw 0a m ww r Lo L) O m >+ q� ❑ 3 0 N +a r. N Q O O to m j :t m a O 0.1 m m - G -01 m (P m .0 a6) 4) 31. -•t •0 c 34 4 H m •G : •" 0 Lr y -- 3 R LL >4 to ❑ -x -4 [-1 -i = U 0 H La tC r. to b m .-•I 3a •-1 E 7 .-( .9 E W ji -4 0 4) .0 4) "a b 0 m 3 0 3 'D = m X ti C 3 >r m to to c .O z~ as to a 00 •» m m Q 0 cn tp - 0 m= Ora 0 0 O s- O m 0. m m >, a m �+ 4 -y Ot to 44.0 4) O m jj . '0 = m m Q b •-1 to N b U -•t s~ 0 Jj 0. 34 -4 La G: Aj :. O -•1 MI m 3a R -C a c .•t +a -mil ••i 0 r. •D .L) •0 0 tm S: O m .0 0 34 O R . ; 0 •a 3 H -•I 0 -i 010 V •C 7 --ol (D 0 R J-j U 3 E to E +4 -w R 0. R -4 m .0 E 0 0 x'> a, b., W -i "0 N 4) ta - H Z 3 34 3a -W 0 34 it N 0 W ,= A) 0 - t0 c 0= .-1 R O •:1- w m M) H GLi O 0 m 3a E Ai 0 0 R m 3a 2: O1 --1 4 ' z x 0 0 m 4 u O O x x 0 A ::: •ti w a 0 m m to 0 0 R •••I n 3: 2 .= E %+ 1-I �1 L+ Z U C) w a to .. r- nt � 3 G: z%4 0 t r CL1 - : - to X .:: = �► _ -... 40.4 0 b W CD 0 m' g 0 m 0 0 w .Z 0 0) try O 0 • •-1 R R x y . :•.'0 C Cc A 4 U Im .0 •G U 0-W 34 a a t0 a 4 ?t Ot 3 4 (St E� 0 O< E to 4 G) V a w - (L) c -0 a) • -O 41 .-4 -0 to Cl%j a6) O 4) E -0 a) c o m m `� C C •-1 a) W 4) c C 4) ; u•� m.041w r� 1° .� 5V uall Za rr7 CD to 4) •-i ro m 43 r� C 0 m CD 41 ti O fl) -.� cagy+ N- z •-c� m 3�mEco- 4U)C.Z Cc m a) a J C w ma00a) to two O O .-1 , I m -4 ,--1 CT .4 44 a) O to b�C q .• O () 0 1 °'4N M co i1 1J E - aci roW4)4.):1> 4j M U :3 3 �� O 4 •r -4 3 M a) .0 •rl .- l 41 E .- C C c 1-1 0 A 1-1 > 0 to C O •-•I 41 = O O 0 0-1 O N 1--1 U W m 4J En •O $4 CL C 10 S .1 .1 1 1 .� 41..1000 -Cd.0 ••-4 4J UC9y U C4d x4J 344 �Ax go m O W m >4 d� .. "1 ^+ C o x^1 O 0 C 1..1 01-1 C ^-I .0 O () 0 O Cy •,C� '3 3 E a W -► C>+ 04 44 ••-I to W O 4.) O a7 C N N H E N m + W 0 4) • 9. tT L.1 yl m 0+J > m,4 C ou -4 W W •--1 -0 Z a� c4Jm�.cCw 11 ,17 -•� � l,.c •--1 U � C9 0 44 r•1 'O O JJ LC C O 1-1 ai --1 04 m $ -c a„ r- W 1 °4 � a) 10 m 0 to ID U 0� -,i 44 4) v m b -U 4) 1J > m to GV Cl%j co co `� . cm r ; u•� c r� 1° 4 uall Za rr7 r� a ti .� 41..1000 -Cd.0 ••-4 4J UC9y U C4d x4J 344 �Ax go m O W m >4 d� .. "1 ^+ C o x^1 O 0 C 1..1 01-1 C ^-I .0 O () 0 O Cy •,C� '3 3 E a W -► C>+ 04 44 ••-I to W O 4.) O a7 C N N H E N m + W 0 4) • 9. tT L.1 yl m 0+J > m,4 C ou -4 W W •--1 -0 Z a� c4Jm�.cCw 11 ,17 -•� � l,.c •--1 U � C9 0 44 r•1 'O O JJ LC C O 1-1 ai --1 04 m $ -c a„ r- W 1 °4 � a) 10 m 0 to ID U 0� -,i 44 4) v m b -U 4) 1J > m to 4) ?y W m y CO co .0 O O .0 ?. W 4J yaD� �w�o-4 C a W 10 m �+ H n) -.� cagy+ N- z •-c� O O C4 -•-1 a 1 1`1 m -4 ,--1 CT .4 a) O to A c 1.4 E -W m U co rt c W 4j M U :3 -.--1 0 4 •r -4 3 to V C 4) u to y 44)) 7.1 •.� ?,14 C C 4.1 W E E m m w O co U 1Ao C C CL O to O 3 U c ig. --q CL a) C Q• W to O •-1 CL 4) m Q a) O Z m b ,c O O a) " ..4 it o= E W= H Z.0U". -.1 3 0 4-jU41 m -U-0 1n+)E+• -1 OVA +-1 0 m w 4J 4) O W m (L) 4) is W •0 _�d Ei m )-1 ax a) 00 r-W0••1,c.cc0CU 04)(L) y •-a C 0 0 4) 4.) +) cow 0 0 4) W C -C W rl -1 44 N U .-1 0 w •-� CT W rl 4.) I m 4) O 4) p] w rl -•-I c� m Ct O A4 > >41 c� N -0 �mm�•3o V0 �3tOn O a) 4) W� �O rop,�1,,1��C `I-I m� rd 4-) to JJ� • -+ - O i � V 0 O p .� C O . % ��O 86 mm 3 w 41m� "�IoEaim��fw ..C� U � y a) 0 m '-'I •ri a) 4J 0 1 a . y m w p m� 0 0 0 1a O O m c w O C W a)44 1n ca L) U = O m� O r c I U m r4 0 r- � �_ C W 41 ca CT -0 4) C m U Zj +� m m co> ..a N C E - •--1 C c •� •� W -H a 0 14 .. -0 --1 0 m � -O CT m W Cu a) 4) a) to In W a) c r-1 .-.1 -W 4) -G c .0 .0 m 4) :0 -H O O •-I U> •-1 .--1 m to m C w rz E C m U m a C ,c 3 W 1-1 C O O= co •-4 10 10 C c C = `Z = F 1-1 J-) H - O --1 F_ CL .Q it 'O .0 r1 W C C 4..1 -W - -W M m 4) m a) 4) C a) L) m '0 -+ O C r-1 C 1-i = c .C„ = J.1 104 0 ---1 C U --I -W •- I 0 -V OEy.O -i4) -6jch 4J 0 m � E w co E c r-1 O m 3 m (L) O V O m U rA > L 1 CL Z a w .W >, 0 O 4) 4) m U -.i U 4j U iC - C d.4 tT p O."i m C U U ••7 a) >9 H ,--1 C O Nl •1-y �, L&.4 m .3 Colo = '� --� •a,-W 4.) 0 44 r= m w � v� c0 .0 >mem .c NO o,;'cc 10 U 10 +� ►1 41 0 4) 4) m 4) 4f _ o a ao m 0 3 y.c� m m F 0 41 4) U 41 ca CU E QI 41 to C d 1. C o U 3 m 4) C C C c 41 --i •c O a) O m> C O O +-•1 Z O 10 01 m m --I U -•1 4) .,-I 0 -4 W 4J 1-1 ),.1 c E O -w to C w m M .W .-1 W -0 C O Q.4 W C4 U m 0 W W W 10 0.0 10.0 CD .-1 c $4 0 W •-q C 4) 0 -04 > to -W «-I m 43 c a! • •1-'+ 4) S -.1 > 1,1 m -I -rl m W O :.1 ai Ar m O -W F 'a C 'D c ••4 rl C 61 0 O c ..1 m W 44 0 H O 'C 0 0 •••l 0 C O m xx••4noQ G,.0U 0 U 0 41 U 3'v c U4.3 AYERS SURVEYING 1 8111 NC OLD 86 Old Hillsborough Road CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516 Telephone (919) 942 JAN 8 1991 RICIM15. �.3 K " e ?-� . lu-t- V. c�rv�c.e� 2 •7906 4 -ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION AN MEN 10 13 All persons requesting an amendment to the Land Use Plan of Orange County are required to complete the following application as completely as possible: OFFICE USE ONLY REQUEST LUP- I - DATE RECEIVED: I --`s -9 q STAFF PERSON(Sl RESPONSIBLE: �e1� �S�QnGt GENERAL DATA: Property Owner (s) Name: ob C Z cl' Mailing Address: �L Z-7 -'5) Phone: (Home) -5yZ -_Jq O (Work) Agent(s) Name: `-- Mailing Address: 1 C 17L� �C Z Phone: SPECIFIC DATA: Tax Reference: Township Tax Maip Block Lot._» � Public /Private Road Name: S 100 1- Lot Size: Acreage C, Srnaare Footage. oo 1 O L•;> G,. 1 -W / w_". %W Lot Frontage 22,00/ 1-!±O- Lot Depth Current Plan Plan Category Designation (s) : General ru,� �.D'`�•� Activity Node Watershed N7 Joint Planning Area tx Dekyribe Tend REQUEST: REQUEST UP- 4 continued): in the General Area: Ga r,.&t& +-c� I +h-Q� �.ah -� -� N F ' I ' 1 l Adjacent Parcels of Land: NI Land Use Plan Category Designation(s) Requested: Type of Amendment: Primary Secondary S2 \I I ooh This application should be submitted with the following materials: Fully dimensioned tax map on which is highlighted the parcel, or portion thereof, in question. �V/ Legal description of the parcel, or portion thereof. Letter of -request to include: o/ the tax reference, general location and owner of the parcel el/ the current and requested land use plan,category designation(s) o/ a narrative stating the manner. in which the proposed amendment will carry -out the intent and purpose of the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof d / a statement of any other circumstances, factors and reasons.which the applicant offers in support of the /proposed amendment a statement of the changed or changa.ng conditions in the area, or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary. I (we), the undersigned,' certify that all statements furnished in this application are true and to the best of my (our) knowledge and that the application as submitted is complete. 42� NAME OF .APPLI CANT GNATU OF A_pPLI C T(S) h.L4ck)T FDtZ gc3C'1,i k'JCV, I I q ) Ell hOr., IO Yk\ S DATE 9 January 7,1991 Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 To the Orange County Planning Department: We, the undersigned owners hereby request an amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Hillsborough Township Tax Lot =: 4.49.B.13B Sincerely, t J. yers Harold M. Harris Y N' CONTACT: MARY AYERS RLS 8111 OLD NC 86 CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516 (919) 942 -7906 15 16 Background Information: The Subject Property of this proposal lies in the southeastern quadrant of the intersection of I -40 and Old Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road. The parcel is the merger of the northern portion of tax map Lot 7.2..29K with tax map lot 4.49.B.13B Lot 4.49.B:13B has been held as undeveloped rural property by the present owners since 1961. It was originally a portion of a 67.6 acre tract which was divided by the 1982 dedication of the interstate right -of -way. The merger of the remaining lands with the undeveloped 7.3 acre tract acquired in 1987 created a parcel of 33 acres. Proposal: The owners propose that the current land use for this parcel be Changed from agricultural use to a 10 OR 20 YEAR CDNMERCIAL TRANSITION ACTIVITY NODE. The Orange County Land Use Plan is scheduled for a 10 year evaluation in 1991. The target advisory committee has recommended the re- assessment of land use policy along the I -40 corridor. The owners believe that 1991 is an appropriate time to begin the long -term planning for this area. The joint planning agreement between the Economic Development Commission and the County Planning.Board offers an opportunity for well planned growth in central Orange County. This proposal is consistent with that goal. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: 1) Water Supply: an existing 16" OWASA pipeline runs along the , property boundary at Old Chapel Hill- Hillsborough Road;. A pump station near Calvander allows for water transfer. -2) Water Quality: The proposal area is outside any existing water protection areas and has no significant drainage areas or waterways crossing the parcel. The proposed Seven -Mile Creek Reservoir would not be affected by any development on this Property 3). Topography and Soil Type: The site is rolling wooded land with slopes varying from 2% to 7 %. The soil is predominantly TaD type, well drained with moderate permeability and potential for development. HrC and HrB types with similar permeability occur on the northern portion of the tract, and GeC soils predominate in the southwestern corner. All of these soil types are appropriate for building or development. The soil report included with this proposal more specifically addresses the potential for septic tank absorption fields on this property. . 17 4) Effects on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Historic Sites: This property, although zoned agricultural, is wooded and unsuitable for farming. There are no environmentally sensitive or historic sites on the property. 5)- Transportation and Demographics: The location of this tract at the intersection of a principle arterial and a minor arterial road makes its development as a commerical property consistent with the intent of the Land Use Plan to focus such development in a concentrated manner at or near major intersections. I -40 access to Raleigh Durham International Airport, Research Triangle Park, Durham, Chapel Hill, Raleigh, and several major universities is a factor which currently supports central Orange County's negative net commutation pattern. Commercial development at the proposed site would be a step towards a more evenly balanced commuter flow in and out of the area and could at the same time help create a broader tax base for the county. 6) Population and Economic Projections: The county's existing in- migration pattern is a major factor in the negative commuter -flow out of central Orange County. This tendency to live in one area and work in another becomes significant when looking at .projected growth for Hillsborough Township. - Interstate access and the fact that 43% of the Orange County work force is employed by the government sector points to the conclusion that few opportunities exist for such employment in a township experiencing significant growth. Increased commercial opportunities, such as more available office space, are consistent with the land use plan strategy of evaluation and designation of new activity nodes. 7) Category Description: The Subject Property location, the existence of a water source and the existence of sanitary sewer within a mile of the proposed site points to its suitability as a 10 or 20 year Commerical Transition Activity Node. All locational criteria of this category are favorable for this proposal. 8) Trends Specific to Hillsborough Township: Hillsborough Township has experienced a growth rate higher than that of the county as a whole.: The-existing land use shows a disparity between residential-- use-(13 %) and c rcial use (0.9 %) which exceeds the ratio between the same two uses in both Eno and Bingham Townships. Although Chapel Hill Township has a similar ratio of 13.8% residential to 0.3% commercial, the intensive economic affect of UNC-CH offers employment opportunities which are unavailable within the Hillsborough Township limits. This proposal would be a step towards employment opportunities for Hillsborough residents which would not entail commuting. As pollution and energy consumption concerns affect all county residents more and more, such caanmercial development becomes more attractive. Supporting Factors for this Amendment: The increased property values which would result from the commercial development of the subject property would directly benefit the County through - -an increase in property tax amounts. Currently, the tax value of the property is $101,719. This generates $778.15 yearly in taxes for the County. An informal survey of commercial properties in Chapel Hill Township along 15 -501 shows the following: A) Tax Map Lot 7.27.E.2C (Europa Center) 7.33 acres and building, valued at $15,204,079 County tax rate: .00765 Approximate yearly tax paid to county: $116,311 (Undeveloped value in 1981: $86,047) B) Tax Map Lot 7.27.A.2C (CCB Branch Office) 0.92 acres and building, valued at $155,961 Approximate yearly tax paid to county: $1,193 C) Tax Map Lot 7.27.A.2 (Forum One Office Park) 0.92 acres and building, valued at $980,255 Approximate yearly tax paid to county: $7,499 D) Tax Map Lot 7.45A.B.2 (Franklin Square Office Condominiums - one unit only) Area: office space only Valued at $73,974 Approximate yearly tax paid to county: $566 The properties surveyed range from individual offices to entire multi -story complexes. They show a range of uses and accommodations similar to what could be developed on the subject property. Their combined areas are approximately 9.20 acres. Their combined yearly taxes are approximately $125,569. Using -these figures as guides, it is immediately apparent that the taxes generated by the co ircial development of 33 acres could be significant.. This proposal offers potential benefits for both the citizens and government of Orange County. `..�3: Changing Conditions In Central Orange County This pr- cperty has,been advertised.in the Multiple Listing Service for more than two years. Inquiries have been made by cowerical brokers in Charlotte, Lumberton, Durham, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and, most recently, by the State Efaployees Credit Union. We have contacted local Real Estate Agents and the Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce, as well as lessors of existing office space in Hillsborough, and find that there is a shortage of available office space in the area. This shortage is especially restrictive for employers of large groups of personnel. The two existing commercial zones on Old Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road are eight miles apart. Currently there are no residences to the north, east, or south of the subject property. Of the eight houses located to the west, only one is less than 500 feet from the parcel. The property has more than 2200 feet of frontage directly on the I -40 right -of -way. This makes it unsuitable for residential use. We believe that the property's location at a major interchange, with its proximity to the town of Hillsborough and the Research Triangle Park, makes it an excellent site for an office park suitable for corporations with a need for modern, spacious facilities. The resulting employment opportunities for local residents and the increase in county revenues from greater tax values make this request a sound and reasonable one. r 19 20 Comments on Meeting with Planning.Department Staff and Economic Development Commission Staff, January 7, 1991 The property owners.met with comprehensive planners and EDC staff members to discuss this amendment application, and would like to address two concerns which were mentioned. 1. The point was made that there is currently a substantial amount of coimn?rcially zoned property at the I -85 / NC 86 interchange. The owners are of the opinion that the proposed amendment area represents a more direct link to Research Triangle Park. The proposed amendment area has the additional advantage of being in an area which has no pre- existing development (such as convenience marts, truck stops, etc.) which might conflict with its aesthetic appeal and desirability to potential corporate office tenants. The I -85 / NC 86 interchange is also zoned to include industrial development, and therefore the proposed use of commercial office space for the subject parcel would not neccessarily be in competition with existing land use at I--85 / NC 86. The inquiries which have been made concerning the subject property seem to support this. 2. There was some discussion that the location of the parcel in the southeast quadrant of the interchange might preclude it from the commercial transition activity node category, since historically there has been some feeling that I -40 would represent a southern boundary for future annexation by the town of Hillsborough. The owners are of the opinion that the interchange itself is the operative factor in the development possibilities for this area. Potential clients will be more interested in the interstate (and intra -state) aspect than the local aspect. Although the property is near Hillsborough, it is not in Hillborough's jurisdiction. It is separated from the town by two interstate highways and lies partially within Chapel Hill Township. Water service is directly available via the 04ASA pipeline. This makes the proposal .very feasible,.given the existing water supply situation in Hillsborough... , In the northeast interchange quadrant there is no direct water line access, since the line follows the abandoned Old NC 86 roadbed. The owners hope that the decision on this proposed amendment will not be affected by the geographic location of the parcel within the- ;interchange. Certainly, it is the case that in all other interchange areas within the county, all properties abutting the interchanges have equal development potential and are not arbitrarily denied use because of perceived future municiple.limits. 21 Since we Are the first property owners to make application for land use change in this area, there is also a concern that past publicity mentioning "mega - malls" and large residential areas within the northeast quadrant may afffect this proposal. Since there has been no prior application for land use change in the northern quadrants, we can see no conflict or detriment to the county based solely on the parcelrs juxtposition to Hillsborough or the other quadrants of this interchange. Finally, the continuation of agricultural use will limit the owners' use of the property to alternatives which will not add to the county tax base and will probably diminish the appearance of the half -mile of interstate frontage. We hope that the decision for this amendment will offer potential for the growth of central Orange County, as well as providing a reasonable use for the property owners. 2: A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE EFLAND AREA STUDY What is the Efland Area Study? The Efland Area Study is an attempt to pull together community residents, organizations and county planners to try and take a look at the future of .Efland, and develop specific plans designed to reflect community services, needs and development patterns over the next 20 years. Why is it being conducted? The Efland Area Study is a direct result of concerns expressed by Efland residents in 1988 about the future of their community. These concerns from Efland citizens prompted the County Planning Board in 1989 to call for an Area Study to help define needed planning for the future of Efland - with citizen involvement. What will the area study involve? Four meetings between July and November are to be scheduled with the Efland community. These meetings are designed to allow citizen input into drafting a community -wide plan addressing the concerns and needs of Efland. What will be the end - result? A plan for Efland, recommending strategies for the community's character, and service and facility needs for the next 20 years. One such strategy might consider how Efland should grow (should Efland become a Town or a suburb); and how the future growth of the village can be coordinated with the surrounding environment (man- made and natural). What can I do to help? For starters, please fill out the questionnaire to be handed out tonight by July 31. This will help us get a feel for what elements you think are important for the Efland Area Study. Your input is always welcome in the Efland Area Study! We want the plan that comes out of this to be YOUR PLAN. Therefore, please feel free to call the Planning Department at any time (732 -8181 or 229 - 2031). Ask for David Stancil (Extension 2590) or Emily Crudup (Extension 2580). We'll be glad to hear from you. Your Cheeks Townshi Advisory Council will be the lead community group in coordinating this study. Please get to know your neighbors on this council - chances are you already do! The next Efland community meeting will be THURSDAY AUGUST 23, when we will present questionnaire results and an in -depth look at other data as we seek to learn more about the community of Efland: 23 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Article 8.8.6 Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC x Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle ,x —Low comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC SEARING DATE: February 25, 1991 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To add a new section addressing Golf Driving and Practice Ranges to the Zoning Ordinance. Golf Driving and Practice Ranges would be classified as a Class B Special Use in the Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R -1) zones. They would be permitted uses in the Community Commercial (CC -3), General Commercial (GC -4), and Industrial - 1 (I -1) zones. IMPACTS /ISSURG: Golf Driving and Practice Ranges are currently considered as Recreational Facilities for profit and are permitted uses in the Community Commercial (CC -3), General Commercial (GC -4) and Industrial -1 (I -1) zones. Mr. John T. Bradshaw has requested that these ranges be permitted in the AR and R -1 residential districts. These ranges may be appropriate in low density residential areas, however, special conditions should be attached which allow for minimum disturbance in residential areas. This amendment would specifically set up a Golf Driving and Practice Range as a Class B Special Use Permit and - provide specific standards that would apply in Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R -1) zones. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Article 8.8.6 - RESERVED PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 8.8.6 Golf Driving and Practice Range LClass B Special Use) 8.8.6.1 Additiona-1_Information 24 In addition to the information required by Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the following shall be submitted as part of the application: a) A site plan showing all existing or proposed buildings, tee areas, lawn areas, distances to nearest residential structures, and all other requirements as indicated in Subsection 14.2. b) Access road(s) to the site, as well as on -site parking and roads, with an indication of type of proposed surface. 8.8.6.2 Standards of EvalmAtion The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an application for this use: a) Unless public sewer is proposed to be extended, the adequacy for the method of sewage disposal will be determined by the lot size and soil suitability. Appropriate letters from the Orange County Environmental Health Department, local.jurisdictions and /or the State Division of Environmental Management shall be submitted to indicate preliminary approval. b) The landscape plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from the adjacent properties. A Type A buffer, as indicated in Section 12.7.m for recreational facilities, shall be observed around the perimeter of the property. c) The depth of a range along the driving axis shall be not less than three hundred fifty (350) yards measured from the locations of the tees and the breadth not less than two hundred (200) yards at a distance of three hundred fifty (350) yards from. the tees. d) On ranges that provide lighting, the lighting shall be located /angled /shielded so as not to cast direct lighting on adjacent properties. e) Service to customers shall be halted and floodlights extinguished no later than 11:00 p.m. ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCONKITTEE: PLANNING G BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: iol �z m m Q u z z `a c N N a a s � m u u a C6 Obi O N N vij ms E+ 4 m w N y ul CA 4 4 a u u A q A � 4 � 4 -19 h 25 N l u 01 ...4 vl m Boom limmommom C m E+ v @ % J m Ch w .1 -d w u O@ A m C 1 0 a .,Q N r•l do 6, yl C c" c m v a 0 m �■■■nssos■� m A .0 MEm�s�s� 10 2 () �an�■o�■ ■o� ++ V O O+al lup Y OI •�i x C 7 L CP 7 ... 1nO1+0e0► O le L J6 mlV � 1 e 1 e b .w .0 b 'a 10 m v m m O d m ^ l l e l e o w E �+ a 9.0 + v 4 -19 h 25 u 01 ...4 vl m % C m E+ v @ % J m Ch w .1 -d w u O@ A m C 1 0 a .,Q N r•l do 6, yl C c" c m v a 0 m m A .0 'p 10 2 () a X ++ V O O+al lup Y OI •�i x C 7 L CP 7 ... 1nO1+0e0► O le L J6 mlV � 1 e 1 e b .w .0 b 'a 10 m v m m O d m ^ l l e l e o w E �+ a 9.0 + v ul CA let u1 IA m w Ida O a w w b > �. �. r. r .�. ... ... ... 4 o .� .. m v n a..0 O w 10 b do .. a o o x v .... .,w o c _ m O m .r a, Cr 0 O m Al 41 41 r JL a a ++ m v o— it o O m ti w V a.l ..n +a m .. m E ti 0 O O O a s O m m m .4 Ai m 0 m o o v y a d .+ v .4 m m m n w p E O A d m m m Co to x s �a 4Zex v q M) T In �O I . N N N m m 0 m m m m N m m V1 4 -19 h 25 John T. Bradshaw 2 2227 wildcat Creek Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 (919) 9294903 January 4, 1991 SUBJECT: Orange County Zoning Ordinance Table 4.3 TO: Orange County Planning & Zoning Board I respectfully request'a review and revision of Orange County Zoning Ordinance Table 4.3 concerning golf courses to permit driving and practice ranges in AR & R1 residential areas. Recreational practice ranges provide an outlet for those persons wishing to improve skills but who may have limited weekly hours to devote to a full round or game. They are best located in proximity to residential areas and are low traffic generators so as not to interfere with pattern or flow of local traffic. The open acreage required for such an endeavor is found in AR areas and one of the best applications for open space conservation is a well manicured driving and practice range. These additions to Table 4.3 are needed to obtain an additional dimension in recreation in our county. Sincerely Yours, I am /1 /John T. Bradshaw Amendments to the Orange County 27 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance (Votes: The underlined text will be added to the Ordinances and the crossed- through text deleted. Most of these amendments are required by the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission for the Ordinances to comply with the State's Model Ordinance. Other amendments not required by the State are noted in the commentary as being proposed by the staff. All Sections of the Ordinance The subheadings underlined and in this font shown in the following amendments will be added and others, not shown in this document, . will be added throughout the Ordinances to improve readability. Every example of these headings is not included in these amendments because they do not change the Ordinance. Section 3 Definitions C rnoletion of Construction or Development: means that no further land - disturbing activity is required on a hase of a RLoject excgRt that which is necessa for establishing a mmanent gMund cover. COMAffWT ARY.• This definition will be added to the Ordinance. Department: means the North Carolina Department of Environment. Health. and Natural Resources. COMMENT ARY.- The name of this State agency has been changed. Discharge Point: means that point or j22ints at which runoff leaves a tract of land. COMMENTARY.• This definition will be added to the Ordinance. High uali Waters: means those classified as such in 15A NCAC 2B.0101 (e) 5 - General Procedures, whack is into rated herein by reference to include further amendments Rmrsuant to G.S. 15013-11(2)., Ex lanato Note: The tom lete official definition of High gK4ity Waters is contained in 15A NCAC 2 .0101 e 5 - General rocedures. In Lmeral Hi h i Waters are defined b the Division of Environmental Management as those waters which are: those rated as excellent based on biological and physical /chemical characteristics: native trout waters, vriMM or fnactional nursery areas] critical habitat areas, all water gWIY watersheds which are either classified as WS -I or WS -II or those for which a formal 2ggtion for reclassification as WS-I or WS -II has hM received by the Division of nvironmental Mane t• and all Class SA shellfish waters. COMMENTARY.• This definition along with the note will be added to the Ordinance. h Ouality Water n : means areas in the Coastal Counties that are within 575 feet of HU h Quality Waters and for the remainder of the state areas that are within one mile and drain to HOW'S. C0A6ffjV iARY.• High Quality Waters in Orange County are UmversityLake (WS -I) and Cane Creek (WS- I) wxershedr and the Nonh and South Forks of the Little River (proposed WS -I) because of their water supply watershed classifications. Seven Mile Creek would become an HQW if the requested change to its classification is approved by the State. Local Government: means any county, incorporated village, town or city, or any combination of counties, 1 -15 -91 z incorporated villages, towns, and cities, acting through a joint program pursuant to the provisions of this Aw icle the Act. COMMENTARY.• This change corrects the reference to the Act, the N. C Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. Section 4 Jurisdiction Sseffe and Effect COMII+IR'NMY.- The title of this section is changed for the .addition of the jurisdiction (see below) and "Scope "is deleted in this section and added to Section 4 below. Jurisdiction This ordinance shall a 1 within Oran a Count including the munici alities of Carrboro Hillsborou h and the Rgrtion of Mebane within Oran a County. but excluding the munici al boundaries and 121anning extraterritorial limits of QLaMl Hill. COMMENTARY.• This change is proposed by the staff. This statement is added to clearly specyy where the County's and Chapel Hill's ordinances apply so there is no confusion over jurisdiction. Chapel Hill's ordinance will state "within the Town of Chapel Hill and its extraterritorial jurisdiction. " Effect It shall be unlawful, within the jurisdiction of this Ordinance, to engage in land- disturbing activity, except as provided herein, without first obtaining a permit as required by this Ordinance and without complying with the conditions of the issuance of said permit. Conflicts and duplications among portions of this Ordinance shall be resolved in favor of the more stringent regulation. Whenever conflicts exist between federal, state or local laws, ordinances, or rules, the more restrictive provision shall apply. Section 5 Scope and Exclusions (County -wide) b. Forestland Those undertaken on forestland for the production and harvesting of timber and timber products and which are conducted in accordance with Forest Practice Guidelines Related to Water QualLtX t mans ement Rracti2W as ad Wed hl the D artment. f -disturbing activi unde en on forestland for a production aad hawse ' of ti her and timim Rmducts is not conducted in accordance with Forest ctice Guidelines Related to Water 09991Y. the„ provisions of this ordinance shall apply to such activity and any related Isgd:listurbjneQ_ activity on the t;ac.,t: and COMMENTARY.• This amendment allows exceptions to the forestry exclusion where the landowner fails to implement best management practices to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation, protect streams, and stabilize disturbed areas. Enforcement action can be taken against these sues when voluntary compliance with the standards does not occur. d. State Jurisdiction Those land-disturbing activities over which the State by statute G -S. 113A -56 a ;has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction, which are activities: (1) Conducted by the State, (2) Conducted by the United States, (3) Conducted by persons having the power of eminent domain, 2 1 -15 -91 W (4) Conducted by local governments, (5) Funded in whole or in part by the State or the United States. COMMENTARY.' This change is proposed by the staff. the reference to the specific statute will be added. Section 7 Basic Control Objectives An Erosion and Sedimentation, Control Plan may be disc roved purs uant to Section 18 of this ordinance if the Rlan fails to address the following control objectives: COM*ff_N ARY.- This amendment to the first paragraph in this section will make it clear that plan approval can be denied if the objectives in Section 7 are not met. b. Plan for Erosion Control - Design the develo went and 12MRare the site plan so that the necessa r sediment-=ing sediment-=in devices and erosion control measures can be accommodated and are accessible for maintenance and removal. Observe the Mguirements and standards in oranize Court 's Soil ,Erosion and Sediment Control Manual. COMMENTARY.- This is an amendment proposed by the staff. The purpose is to ensure that erosion control is considered and incorporated into the site design during the early stages of planning the development and not left as an afterthought. A plan can be denied when erosion control standards cannot be met because of a conflict with the site design. This paragraph will be inserted in the text and the letters of the following paragraphs adjusted. Section 8 Mandatory Design-and Performance Standards for Land- Disturbing Activity No land-disturbing activity subject to the control of this ordinance shall be undertaken except in accordance with the following mandatory standards: a. Buffer Zone 1. No land- di t to land shall be permitted iq xi RMmily to a lake or Rgural wets arse unless a buffer zone is Drg5dded along the margin of the watercourse of sufficient width to confine- visible siltation within the twenty-five -five _ t (25%) of the buff M ggve nearest the land-disturbing activity. Waters that have been classified as trout waters by the EVv 'ronmental Management Commissi 1 bae an undisturbed buffer zone 25 feet de or of cient width to confine visible silts 'on thim the twee -five percent 2S of the buffer earest the land-disturbing activity, Mk2heyK is Provided, however that e County may approve plans which include land- distug activity along trout waters when the duration of said disturbance would be Morary and e e Ztmt of said disturbance would be mini mat. s subdivision shall not a 1 to a land-disturbing. ' ac v' in connection with the construction of facilities to be located on, over, or under a lake or natural watercourse. 2. The 25 foot minimum width for any undisturbed buffer zone adjacent to designated trout waters shall be_ measured horizontally from the top of the bank. 3. Where a temporary and minimal disturbance is permitted as an exception by Section 8 (a) (lj of 3 1 -15 -91 year storm runoff in the receivin¢ watercourse to the _ discharge point does not exceed the greater of: 1. the velocity established by the table in RLiAgaph 3 of Ac--subsection: or 2. the velocity of the 10 -year storm runoff in the receiving watercourse prior to development; If conditions (I)- or 2 of this para ra h cannot be met then the receiving watercourse to and including the dischaMep2int shall be designed and constructed to withstand the expected velocity any—where-the velocity exceeds the "prior, to development" velocity by 10%. COMMENTARY.• These revisions are made to clarify the intent of this section which is to protect watercourses on the site from the impact of increased runoff`' velocity and to ensure that the design results in a nonerosive - velocity at ahe point of discharge. Section 10 Borrow and Waste Areas When the person conducting the land- disturbing activity is also the person conducting the borrow and waste disposal activity, areas from which borrow is obtained and which are not regulated by the provisions of the Mining Act of 1971, and waste areas for surplus materials other than landfills regulated by the Departments Division of Solid Waste Management , shall be considered as part of the land- disturbing activity where the borrow material is being used or from which the waste material originated. When the person conducting the land- disturbing activity is not the person obtaining the borrow and /or disposing of the waste, these areas shall be considered a separate land- disturbing activity. COJIDAENTARY- ?his revision addresses a name change in this agency. Section 15 Existing Uncovered Areas b. Notice of Violation The Erosion Control Officer will serve upon the landowner or other person in possession or control of the land written notice of violation by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means reasonably calculated to give actual notice. The notice will set forth the measures needed to comply and will state the time within which such measures must be completed. In determining the measures required and the time allowed for compliance, the authority serving notice shall take into consideration the economic feasibility, technology, and quantity of work required, and shall set reasonable and attainable time limits for compliance. C0II0WFJMRY.- This revision is intended to improve notification to the person responsible for a violation. Section 17 Permits d. Expiration of Permits For the numm of determining the a iration date of the - jZIM NM=al and 2nding the land - disturbing activity is considered to have started when the reconstrac 'on conference has been held the necessary erosion control practices have been properly installed,, and the site clearing or grading has begun. COM dENTARY.- This revision is proposed by the staff. The purpose is to emphasize holding the preconstruction conference, and, for the purpose of determining the expiration date of the permit, the conference must have been held in order to consider work to have started. 6 1 -15 -91 32 Section 18 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans 33 a. Plan Reauirement An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared for all land- disturbing activities subject to this Ordinance whenever the proposed activity is to be undertaken on a tract comprising more than 20,000 square feet, if more than 20,000 square feet are to be uncovered. Three 3 copies of the Plan shall be filed with the Erosion Control Officer --and• one of which will be forwarded to the Orange Soil and Water Consery ation District, at 30 days prior to the commencement of the proposed activity. COMMENTARY.• This revision is made to speck the number of copies of the proposed erosion control plan to be submitted and their distribution for review (proposed by the staff). c. Review and Response to Plans The Erosion Control Officer will review each complete plan submitted and within 30 days of receipt thereof will notify the .person submitting the plan that it has been approved, approved with modifications, annroved with conditions• approved with performance reservations, or disapproved. Examples of conditions of gpRroval are but not limited to: channel stabilization must be successful or another tvve of lining must be used, delineating certain areas to be graded and stabilized within a SMified number of days to reduce the 2gteixtial for erosion and Rrotect critical areas : Rroviding a pgrformance secudt to jZrovide Rgrmanent ground cover and ui ' the rson financial) nsible to fain the services of a 1professional en inee or architect to su rv'se i lementation of the a roved erosion control Tan. COMMENTARY• Adding 'complete" is required by the State to emphasize that only complete plans will be reviewed Staff proposes adding `approvedwith conditions. "This allows attachment of conditions to the plan that are considered essential to its success by the Division staff. The examples given are typical conditions that would be imposed. Amendment of Section 19 (a) (1) allows the applicant to appeal conditions of approval. e. Plan Amendments Application for amendment of an erosion control plan in written and/or graphic form may be made at any time under the same conditions as the original application. Until such time as said amendment is approved by the Erosion .Control Officer, the land - disturbing activities shall not proceed except in accordance with the erosion control plan as originally approved. After 1RRroving the Rlan, if the Erosion Control Officer, either upon review of the Erosion G=tml such plan or on inspection of the job site, determines that a significant risk of accelerated erosion or off-site sedimentation exists, revisions to the plan will be required. Pending the preparation of the revised plan, work shall cease or shall continue under conditions outlined by the Erosion Control Officer. COW&NTARY.• These words are added so that the local ordinance conforms with the rext of the State's Model Ordinance. f. statement of Ownersh!12 and Financial Resl2onsibilfty Erosion Control Plans abaH be may be disatroroved unless accompanied by an authorize) Statement of Ownership and Financial Responsibility. This statement shall be signed by the person financially responsible for the land- disturbing activity or his/her attorney -in- fact. The statement shall include the mailing and street addresses of the principal place of business of the person financially responsible and of the owner of the land or their registered agents. If not a resident of North Carolina, the applicant must designate a North Carolina agent and include that agent's name and address in the Statement for the purpose of receiving notice of compliance or noncompliance with the plan the a Act or this Ordinance or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance. COMNE11 MY: This change allows disapproval of the Plan if the Statement is not received The text has been changed to conform to the State's Model Ordinance. 7 1 -15 -91 g` Review 'of Other Environmental Documents 34 36 Agents, officials, or other gualified Rgrsons authorized by e County Mrill oe *odically ingMt the sites of land- disturbing activity to determine: compliance with the Act, this ordinance, or rules or orders adopted or issued-pursuant to this ordinance: whether the activity is being conducted in accordance with an approved plan: and s whether the measures reauired in the lap are effective in controlling erosion and sediment resulting from_ land - disturbing activity. , Notice of the night to inspect shall be included in the ,notification of plan approval. COAOMNTARY.• 'This chang'o-is'intended to -clearly give the rightfor authorized personnel to enter and inspect sites. b. Notice of Violation If, through inspection, it is determined that a person engaged in land -disturbing activity has failed to comply with the Act. this Ordinance or rules, or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or has failed to comply with the approved plan, a notice of violation shall be served upon that person by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means reasonably calculated to give actual notice. The notice shall set forth the measures necessary to achieve compliance with the plan, specify a reasonable time period within which such measures must be completed, and warn that failure to correct the violation within the time period will result in the assessment of a civil penalty or other enforcement action. However, no time rind for con liance need be given for failure to submit an erosion control Dlan for p2proval or for obstructing, hImMring or interfering- with an authorized resentative while in the 1process of carrying out their official duties. If the person engaged in land - disturbing activity fails to comply within the time specified, enforcement action shall be initiated. COMl1MNTARY.- Failures that constitute a violation are clarified. A time limit to correct certain specified violations (failure to submit a plan and interfering with the right to inspect) is not required. Section 22 Penalties a. Civil Penalties (1) Assessment of Penalties Any person who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this ordinance, or who initiates or continues a land-disturbing activity for which an erosion control. plan is required except in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of an approved plan, shall be subject to a civil penalty of $1* $LOO except that the penalty for failure to submit an erosion control plan shall be as provided in a.3. of this section. No penalty shall be assessed until the person alleged to be in violation has been notified of the violation by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the offender. The notice shall describe the violation with reasonable particularity, specify a reasonable time period within which the violation must be corrected, and wars that failure to correct the violation within the time period will result in the assessment of a civil penalty or other enforcement action. However, no time riod for compliance need be giKen for failure to sub 't M_EMgion Control Plan fora roval or for obstructing, hampering or interfering with an authorized representative while_ in the process _of carrying . out his official duties._ Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation under Section 22(a)(1). C0JGff_ NT lRY.- Fines are increased to $500 per day. No time period for compliance is allowed for failure to submit a plan or interfering with the right to inspect. (2) Demand for Payment of Penalty The Orange County Board of Commissioners shall make written demand for payment upon the person 4n 7_7G_dt 37 responsible for the violation, and shall set forth in detail a description of the violation for which the penalty has been invoked. Notice of the assessment shall be by re 'stered or certified mail or other means reasonably calculated to give actual notice. If payment is not received or equitable settlement reached within 30 days after demand for payment is made, the matter shall be referred to the town or county attorney for institution of a civil action in the name of the town or county in the appropriate division of the General Courts of Justice for recovery of the penalty. COMNF."y- This change requires notice of the assessment to be sent by a means that ensures receipt by the person responsible. Section 26 Revisions to this Ordinance The Coun shall inco to revisions uired b the Commission within 8 months followin receipt of the uired revisions. If standards and RrOvisions of this Ordinance currently meet or exceed the rgguired revisions the Commission shall be so notified within 90 days of their recei t. COSY.• This change is added to ensure that local programs keep ordinances current with the Model and that revisions'are made in a timely manner. 11 1 -15 -91 MMAF . T ' AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, the historic heritage of the State of North Carolina is one of our most valued and important assets; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Statutes authorize counties to safeguard the heritage.of the County by preserving any historic sites therein that embody important elements of its cultural, social, economic, political, archaeological or archi- tectural history and to promote the use and conservation of such site for the education, pleasure and enrichment of the residents of the County and State as a whole; and WHEREAS, the conservation of historic sites will stabilize and increase the values in their areas and strengthen the overall economy of the State;.and WHEREAS, the County Commissioners of Orange County desire to safeguard the heritage of the county by preserving historic landmarks and historic districts; to enhance the environmental quality of neighborhoods; to establish and improve property values; to foster economic development; and WHEREAS, the County Commissioners of Orange County do therefore desire to create a commission to be known as the Historic Preservation Commission of Orange County to perform the duties of regulating historic landmarks and historic districts pursuant to NCGS Chapter 16OA, Article 19, Part 3C and the provisions of this ordinance. NOW,, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COIINTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY AS FOLLOWS: Article 1. Historic Preservation Commission Section 1.1 Establ'shment Under the authority of Chapter 160A, Article 19, Part 3C, of the North Carolina General Statutes, there is hereby established the Orange County Historic Preservation Commission, hereafter referred to as the "Commission ", consisting of seven (7) members. Members shall serve without compensation, but they may be reimbursed for incidental expenses incurred in connection with official duties. we] f Section 1.2 Qualifications Each member shall be a resident of Orange County. In addition, a majority of the members of the Commission shall have demonstrated special interest, experience or education in history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or related fields. Section 1.3 Tenure Each member of the Commission shall be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. The tenure of office shall be three (3) years, and appointments shall be made so that-one -third (1/3) of the terms expire in February of each calendar year. Members are eligible for reappointment for a second consecutive full term. However, after two (2) consecutive terms, a member shall be ineligible for reappointment for one year after the expiration of the previous terms. In determining eligibility of reappointment, appointments made to fill vacancies for unexpired terms shall not be counted as a term. Section-.1.4 Meetings A quorum for conducting business of the Commission shall be a majority of the appointed members. The Commission shall meet at least once each month; provided, however, a regularly scheduled meeting may be canceled due to inclimate weather, or due to the lack of a quorum of members or business to conduct. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public, and the Commission shall cause notices to be given as required by Article 33 -C, Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes, G.S. 143 - 318.11 ET.SEQ., as amended. A public record shall be kept of the Commission's resolutions, proceedings, and actions. Section „1.5 .,Attendance of Meetings Attendance at the regular meetings of the Commission shall be considered a prerequisite for maintenance of membership on the Commission. The County Commissioners may declare a vacancy on the Commission because of a member's non - attendance. Absence due to sickness, death of an immediate family member or similar reason shall be considered approved absences and shall not affect the member's status. In the event of long illness or other cause for prolonged absence, the member shall be replaced. 40 Section 1.6 Rules of Procedure Prior to any official action, the Commission shall adopt rules of procedure governing its meetings and the conduct of official business, and bylaws governing the election of officers and related matters. The Commission shall also prepare and adopt principles and guidelines for altering, restoring, moving, or demolishing properties designated as landmarks or within historic districts. Section 1.7 Powers and Dut es The powers and duties of the Commission are as follows: 1. Undertake an inventory of properties of historical, prehistorical, architectural, and /or cultural significance. 2. Recommend to the County Commissioners areas to be designated by ordinance as "historic districts" and individual structures, buildings, sites, areas or objects to be designated by ordinance as "landmarks ". 3. Recommend to the County Commissioners that designation of any area as a historic district, or part thereof, or designation of any building, structure, site, area or object as a landmark, be revoked or removed for cause. 4. Review and act upon proposals for alterations, demolition or new construction within historic districts, or for the alteration or demolition of designated landmarks. 5. Conduct an educational program with respect to historic districts and.landmarks within its jurisdiction. 6. ' Cooperate with State, Federal, and local governments in pursuance of the purposes of this ordinance, and to offer or request assistance, aid, guidance or advice concerning matters under its purview or of mutual interest. The County Commissioners, or the Commission when authorized by the Commissioners, may contract with the State or the United States, or any agency of either, or with any other organization provided the terms are not inconsistent with State or Federal law. 7. Enter, solely in performance of its official duties and only at reasonable times, upon private lands for examination or survey thereof. However, no member, employee or agent of the Commission may enter any private building or structure without express consent of the owner or occupant thereof. 8. Prepare and recommend the official adoption of a Preservation Element as part of the Comprehensive Plan. 41 9. Acquire by any lawful means the fee or any lesser included interest, including options to purchase, to properties within established districts or to any such properties designated as landmarks; to hold, manage, preserve, restore and -improve the same; and to exchange or dispose of the property by public or private sale, lease or otherwise, subject to covenants or other legally binding restrictions which will secure appropriate rights of public access and promote the preservation of the property. 10. Restore, preserve, and operate historic properties. 11. Negotiate at any time with the owner of a building, structure, site, area or object for its acquisition or its preservation, when such action is reasonably necessary or appropriate. Article 2. Historic Districts section 2.1 Establishment of Historic Districts Historic districts may be established as districts which overlay other zoning districts as set forth in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Upon the establishment of a historic district, its boundaries shall be shown on the official Orange County Zoning Atlas, and the use and development of any land or structure within a historic district shall comply with use regulations and dimensional requirements applicable to the underlying zoning district. Section 2.2 Procedure for Establishia Historic Districts Historic districts, as provided for in this Section, may from time to time be designated, amended or repealed; provided, however, that no district shall be recommended for designation unless it is deemed to be of special significance in terms of its historical, prehistorical, architectural or cultural importance. Such district must also possess integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and /or association. No district shall be designated, amended or repealed until the following procedure has been carried out: I. An investigation and report describing the significance of the buildings, structures, features, sites or surroundings included in any such proposed district, and a description of the boundaries of such district has been prepared; and 2. The N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, acting through the State Historic Preservation Officer or his or her 4 designee, shall have made an analysis of and recommendations concerning such report and description of proposed boundaries. Failure of the Department to submit its written analysis and recommendations to the County Commissioners within thirty 130) calendar days after a written request for such - analysis has been received by the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources.shall relieve the County Commissioners of any responsibility for awaiting such analysis, and the County Commissioners may at any time thereafter take any necessary action to adopt or amend the appropriate ordinance. The County Commissioners may also, in their discretion, refer the report and the proposed boundaries to any other interested body for its recommendations. With respect to any changes in the boundaries of such district subsequent to its initial establishment or the creation of additional districts within the jurisdiction, the investigative studies and reports required by Subsection 1 of this Section shall be prepared by the Commission and shall be referred to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation. Changes in the boundaries of an initial district or proposals for additional districts shall also be submitted to the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 2 of this Section. Upon receipt of these reports and recommendations, the County Commissioners may proceed in the same manner as would otherwise be required for the adoption or amendment of the appropriate ordinance provisions. Article 3. Historic Landmarks Section 3.1 Ado tion of an Ordinance of Desi nation Upon complying with the required landmark designation procedures set forth herein, the County Commissioners may adopt and from time to time amend or repeal an ordinance designating one or more historic landmarks. The ordinance shall describe each property designated in the ordinance, the name or names of the owner or owners of the property, those elements of the property that are integral to its historical, architectural or prehistorical value, including the land area of the property so designated, and any other information the governing board deems necessary. For each building, structure, site, area or object so designated as a. landmark, the ordinance shall require that the waiting period set forth in this ordinance be observed prior to its demolition. A suitable sign for each property designated as a landmark may be placed on the property at the owner's consent. Otherwise, the sign may be placed on a nearby public right -of- way. 43 Section 3.2 Criteria for Designation No property shall be recommended for designation as a landmark unless it is deemed and found by the Commission to be of special significance in terms of its historical, prehistorical, architectural or cultural importance, and to possess integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and /or association. Section 3.3 RegMired Procedures No property shall be designated as a landmark until the following steps have.been taken: 1. As a guide for the identification and evaluation of landmarks, the Commission shall, at the earliest possible time and consistent with the resources available to it, undertake an inventory of properties of historical, architectural, prehistorical, and cultural significance within orange County. 2. The Commission shall make or cause to be made an investigation and report on the historic, architectural, prehistorical, educational or cultural significance of each building, structure, site, area or object proposed for designation or acquisition. Such report shall be forwarded to the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources. 4. The N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, acting through the State Historic Preservation Officer or his or her designee shall, either upon request of the Department or at the initiative of the Commission, be given an opportunity to review and comment upon the substance and effect of the designation of any landmark. All comments will be provided in writing. If the Department does not submit its comments to the Commission within thirty (30) days following receipt by the Department of the report, the Commission and the County Commissioners shall be relieved of any responsibility to consider such comments. 5. The Commission and the County Commissioners shall hold a joint public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Reasonable notice of the time and place thereof shall be given. 6. Following the public hearing, the Commission shall: a. Recommend adoption of the ordinance; b. Recommend adoption of ordinance subject to conditions; or c. Recommend denial of the ordinance. 44 If the ordinance is recommended for adoption, or recommended for adoption subject to conditions, the ordinance shall be placed on the next regular meeting agenda of the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners shall: a. Approve the adoption of the ordinance; b. Approve the adoption of the ordinance subject to conditions; or c. Deny the adoption of the ordinance. 7. Upon adoption of the ordinance, the owners and occupants of each landmark shall be given written notification of such designation insofar as reasonable diligence permits. One copy of the ordinance and all amendments thereto shall be filed by the Commission in the office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County. Each landmark shall be indexed according to the name of the owner of the property in the grantor and grantee indexes in the Register of Deeds office and the Commission shall pay a reasonable fee for filing and indexing. A third copy of the ordinance and all amendments thereto shall be submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The fact that a building, structure, site, area or object has been designated a landmark shall be clearly indicated on all tax maps maintained by the County for such period as the designation remains in effect. 8. Upon the adoption of the landmark ordinance or any amendments thereto, it is the duty of the Commission to give notice thereof to the Tax Supervisor of the County. The designation and any recorded restrictions upon the property limiting its use for preservation purposes shall be considered by the Tax Supervisor in appraising it for tax purposes. Article 4. certificate of Appropriateness Section 4.1 General Provisions From and after the designation of a landmark or a historic district, no exterior portion of any building or other structure (including masonry walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and pavement, or other appurtenant features), nor any above - ground utility structure nor any type of outdoor advertising sign shall be erected, altered, restored, moved or demolished on such landmark or within the historic district until after an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness as to exterior features has been submitted to and approved by the Commission. Such a Certificate is required to be issued by the Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for the purposes of constructing, altering, moving or M61 demolishing structures, which Certificate may be issued subject to reasonable conditions necessary to carry out the purposes of this ordinance. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required whether or.not a building or other permit is required. For-purposes of this ordinance, "exterior features" shall include the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a building or other structure, including the kind and texture of the building material, the size and scale of the building, and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs and other appurtenant features. Exterior features may also include historic signs, significant landscapes, and archaeological and natural features of the area. In the case of outdoor advertising signs, "exterior features" shall be construed to mean the style, material, size and location of all such signs. The State of North Carolina (including its agencies, political subdivisions and instrumentalities), Orange County, and all public utilities shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction, alteration, moving or demoli- tion within the historic district or on designated landmarks. Section 4.2 ARRlication for Certificate of ARprORriateness Applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be obtained from and when completed, filed with the Planning and Inspections Department. The application shall be filed thirty (30) days prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. Each application shall be accompanied by sketches, drawings, photographs, specifications, descriptions, and other information of sufficient detail to clearly show the proposed exterior alterations, additions, changes or new construction. The names and mailing addresses of property owners filing and /or subject to the application and the addresses of property within five hundred (500) feet on all sides of the property which is the subject of the application must also be filed. No application which does not include the aforementioned information will be accepted. It shall be the policy of the Commission, in regard to applications involving new construction or extensive alterations and /or additions to existing structures, that a subcommittee of the Commission shall be available to meet with persons involved in planned or pending applications in order to advise them informally at an early stage in the development process concerning the Commission's guidelines, the nature of the area where the proposed project will take place, and other relevant factors. The members of the subcommittee, collectively and individually, shall refrain from any indication of approval or disapproval. Advice or opinions given by any member of the sub- committee at such an informal meeting shall not be considered 46 f official or binding upon the Commission. Section 4.3 Action on APDlication for Certificate of AyRropriateness The planning and Inspections Department shall notify, by mail, not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the meeting at which the matter is to be heard, the owners of property within five hundred (500) feet on all sides of the subject property. Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness shall be acted upon within sixty (60) days after filing, otherwise the application shall be deemed to be approved and a Certificate shall be issued. An extension of time may be granted by mutual consent of the Commission and the applicant. As part of the review procedures the Commission may view the premises and seek the advice of the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources or other such expert advice as it may deem necessary under the circumstances. The Commission may hold a public hearing on any application when deemed necessary. The action on an application shall be approval, approval with conditions or denial, and the decision of the Commission must be supported by specific findings of 'fact indicating the extent to which the application is or is not congruous with the special character of the historic district or landmark. section 4.4 Hearings for Certificate of-ARRrOPriateness Prior to the issuance or denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant and other property owners likely to be materially affected by the application shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The Commission shall have no jurisdiction over interior arrangement and shall take no action under this ordinance except to prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures, appurtenant features, outdoor advertising signs or other significant features which would be incongruous with the special character of the historic district or landmark. In any action granting or denying a Certificate of Appropriateness, an appeal by an aggrieved party may be taken to the Board of Adjustment. Written notice of the intent to appeal must be sent to the Commission, postmarked within thirty (30) days following the decision. Appeals shall be in the nature of certiorari. Appeals of decisions of the Board of Adjustment shall be heard by the Superior Court of Orange County. The State of North Carolina shall have a right of appeal to the North Carolina Historical Commission, which shall render its decision within thirty (30) days from the date that a notice of appeal by the state is received by the Commission. The decision 47 of the Commission shall be final and binding upon both the State and the Commission. Section 4.5 Administrative Approval of Minor Improvements Notwithstanding the Subsection above (Action on Certificates of Appropriateness), upon receipt of a completed application, the Planning and Inspections Department may issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for minor improvements. Minor improvements are defined as those exterior changes which do not involve substantial alterations, additions or removals that could impair the integrity of the property and /or district as a whole_ Such.minor improvements shall be limited to those listed in the Commissions "Bylaws and Rules of Procedure." No application may be denied without the formal action of the Commission. All minor improvements applications approved by the Planning and Inspections Department shall be forwarded to the Commission in time for its next scheduled meeting. Section 4.6- Review standards No Certificate of Appropriateness shall be granted unless the Commission finds that the application complies with the principles and guidelines adopted by the Commission for review of exterior changes. It is the intent of these principles and guidelines to insure insofar as possible that the exterior portion of buildings, structures, and their appurtenant features within historic districts or on buildings, structures, sites, areas or objects designated as landmarks, shall be congruous with the historic aspects of the district or landmark. The Secretary of the Interior's Of Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" shall be the sole principles and guidelines used in reviewing applications of the State of North Carolina for Certificates of Appropriateness. Section 4.7 Time Limitations on Certificates of AR2KORriateness A Certificate of Appropriateness shall expire six (6) months after the date of issuance or, in the case of demolition, six (6) months after the effective date of the Certificate, if the work authorized by the Certificate has not been commenced. If, after commencement, the work is discontinued for a period of six (6) months, the permit therefor shall expire immediately. No work authorized by a Certificate that has expired shall thereafter be performed until a new Certificate has been secured. Section 4.8 Certain Changes Not-Prohibited Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the M s ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in a historic district or on a landmark which does not involve a change in design, materials, or outer appearance thereof; or the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration or demolition of any such feature which the Building inspector shall certify is required by the public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the maintenance of or, in the event of an emergency, the immediate restoration of any existing above - ground utility structure without approval by the Commission. In case any building, structure, site, area or object designated as a landmark or within a historic district -is about to be demolished, whether as a result of deliberate neglect or otherwise, materially altered, remodeled, removed or destroyed, except in compliance with this ordinance, the County, the Commission or other party aggrieved by such action may institute any appropriate action or proceeding to prevent such unlawful demolition, destruction, material alteration, remodeling or removal; to restrain, correct or abate such violation; or to prevent any illegal act or conduct with respect to such a building or structure. Section 4.9 Delay in Demolition of Landmarks and Buildinars within Historic Districts 1. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness authorizing the demolition or destruction of a designated landmark or a building, structure or site within a historic district may not be denied except as provided in Subsection 3 below. However, the effective date of such a Certificate may be delayed for up to 180 days from the date of approval. The period of delay shall be reduced by the Commission if it finds that the owner would suffer extreme hardship or be permanently deprived of all beneficial use or return from such property by virtue of the delay. During the delay period, the Commission shall negotiate with the owner in an effort to find a means of preserving the building, structure or site. If the Commission finds that a building, structure or site has no special significance or value toward maintaining the character of a district, it shall waive all or part of such period of delay and authorize earlier demolition or removal. If the Commission or Planning Board has voted to recommend the designation of a landmark or the designation of .an area as a historic district, and final designation has not been made by the County Commissioners, the demolition or destruction of any building, structure or site in the proposed district or on the property of the designated landmark may be delayed by the Commission or the Planning k • Board for up to 180 days or until the County Commissioners take final action on the designation, which ever occurs first. 2. The County Commissioners may enact an ordinance to prevent the demolition by neglect of any designated landmark or any structure or building within the established historic district. Such ordinance shall provide appropriate safeguards to protect property owners from undue hardship. 3. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness authorizing the demolition of a building, structure or site determined by the N.C. State Historic Preservation - Office as having statewide significance as defined in the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places may be denied except where the Commission finds that the owner would suffer extreme hardship or be permanently deprived of all beneficial use or return by virtue of the denial. 1/28/91 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (2) Watershed Protection (a) Article 4.2.27 PW -II District n 8 (2) Article 4.2.28 WQCA District 1J (3) Camp /Retreat Centers (a) Article 4.3 Permitted Uses (b) Article 8.8 Special Uses (c) Article 22 Definitions b..Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Preliminary Plat Approval (a) Section III -D -2 -e Amended Phasing Plan c. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Amendments (1) Revised FEMA Regulations (a) Article 2 Definitions (b) Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes MOTION: Best moved to approve Agenda Item #9. Seconded by 1. Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2/25/91) a. Assignment of House & Building Numbers (1) Rural Routes 2,3,5,6, and 7 - Mebane Eidenier stated that this is the last of the assigning of the rural routes. b. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) CP -1 -91 Robert Ayers & Harold Harris 501 Stancil stated that the property is located at the intersection of Old 86 and 1•-40 on the southeast quadrant. The applicants are looking for a land use plan designation of commercial activity node for 33 acres. They have indicated a possible desire for pursuing an office park on that site. Stancil stated that this would involve a primary plan amendment which could onl) be heard at the February public hearing. Property owners will be notified in the next two weeks and an analysis of the proposal will be prepared. Best asked if the EDC had mentioned that the Office Institutional is something that the count) is in need of. Stancil stated that the Target Advisory Committee has not ruled that out as of yet. He stated that this committee had talked about identifying site: in the county and this is one site that will be looked at. Best asked about the water line from Chapel Hill 51 _ Stancil stated that there is a 16 inch water main that runs up Old 86 that is not always in use. This main is designed to move water from Chapel D n� Hill to Hillsborough in emergency situations and W not designed for tap -ons. Stancil stated that he had talked to Ron Williams of OWASA today. Williams could not preclude their Board permitting tap -ons to occur. Stancil stated that all avenues would be pursued between now and the date of the hearing. Cantrell asked if the notifications, that the property owners are to receive in the next few weeks, will be the first time they have heard of this proposal. Stancil stated that the applicants have indicated that they have spoken with a number of small property owners and indicated that most of the owners are in favor of the request. The property will be posted and owners within 500 feet will be notified. (2) CP -2 -91 Efland Area Study Presentation by David Stancil. On July 12, 1990, the Efland Area Study - initiated by requests to the Planning Board in 1988 - was kicked off with a community meeting. Since that time, a citizen survey and eight community meetings have been held to involve the citizens of this community in the area study process. A core group of 15 -25 citizens and an appointed steering committee of eight residents have been instrumental in helping staff develop the text and recommendations of this study. The Efland area contains a diverse group of citizens, but from this diversity the following conclusions can be drawn from discussion to date: 1. Efland residents have varying ideas of the boundaries of their village, but agree on the northern, southern and eastern limits. 2. Efland residents have a strong sense of community. 3. Efland residents wish to maintain their "small- village feel ". 4. Efland residents prefer incorporation to annexation by surrounding municipalities, but are undecided whether to become a town without annexation pressure such communities. M S. Efland residents feel that preserving open space and sites of community character are important. ©The draft area study is scheduled to be presented (J� Q to Efland residents and the Cheeks TAC at a meeting to be held January 24 at Efland- Cheeks School. Pending revisions from this group, the area study will then be finalized and presented for preliminary review to the Planning Board on February 20. This item is tentatively scheduled to be heard at the February 27 public hearing. Stancil stated that there have been seven committee meetings to discuss the study. The study was scheduled to be adopted by the Township Advisory Council at the January 24th meeting, but that meeting was cancelled. That meeting will be rescheduled with a probable meeting date of February 11th. He briefly went over the draft study. A copy of the draft study is an attachment to the minutes, pages c. Zoning ordinance (1) Golf Driving (a) Article (b) Article (c) Article Text Amendments Ranges 4.3 Permitted Uses 8.8 Special Uses 22 Definitions Scearbo stated that Eddie Kirk is working on these amendments and the ordinance Review Committee is scheduled to meet on tomorrow, January 29th to discuss these amendments. 53 d. Erosion Control Ordinance Text Amendments DW Presentation by Warren Faircloth. The North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission allows local governments to enforce their own erosion control programs under certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the local ordinance conform to the Commissions Model Ordinance. The Model Ordinance was revised by the Commission in 1990, and the majority of the proposed amendments are for updating the County's Ordinance so that it conforms with the Model. Additional amendments are proposed by staff and are noted as such in the commentary. These amendments will also be made to the Chapel Hill Erosion Control Ordinance which is administered by the County staff. Erosion Control Staff recommends that the proposed amendments be advertised for the public hearing on February 25, 1991. Faircloth stated that changes are noted in the proposed ordinance amendments. Jacobs asked when is an erosion control plan required. Faircloth stated that if more than 20,000 square feet of contiguous land is being graded, then an erosion control plan is required. Jacobs referred to a newspaper article from another county where they were concerned with people disturbing 3/4 of an acre, leaving a small strip undisturbed, and disturbing 9/10 of an acre without having an erosion control plan because the land is contiguous. Faircloth stated that the biggest problem that Orange County has encountered is in subdivisions where several lots may be disturbed at the same time but may not be contiguous. The State's ordinance requires an erosion control plan if the area exceeds one acre and the County's ordinance requires 1/2 acre. Jacobs asked how much land is normally graded for a house. Faircloth stated usually less than 1/2 an acre is graded for a house. There are exceptions where there are small lots and very large houses are being put on them. This involves disturbing S� most of the lot. Problems usually don't arise if there is an acre of land and the house sits in the middle of the lot. He also stated that even o in cases where the area is less than 20,000 p square feet, if there is a problem, the County can still take enforcement action through the ordinance. Waddell asked what if a property owners disturbs 10,000 square feet of land at one point and then 10,000 square feet at some other point. Faircloth stated that the rule applies if more than 20,000 square feet is disturbed at one time. If they disburb 10,000 square feet and stabilize it before disturbing another 10,000 square feet on the same property, then plan approval is not required. If they start on one area of 10,000 square feet and don't finish it before starting on the other 10,000 square feet, then plan approval is required. He stated that this wording is in the ordinance. Also, if the property owner does not want to go to the expense of an erosion control plan, they can do the project in phases. Hamilton asked what is meant by grading. Faircloth stated that grading is removing the vegetative cover and disturbing the earth. Stabilizing means to put down some kind of grow cover. Ground cover can be seeding with grass, mulching, putting a building on top, or paving with asphalt. Faircloth stated that smaller sites are monitorec to make sure that erosion control is being provided even though submittal of an erosion control plan was not required. MOTION: Eidenier moved that the proposed ordinance amendments be presented for public hearing on February 25, 1991. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. e. Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance Presentation by Marvin Collins. In 1986, the Planning Department completed preparation of An Inventory of Sites of Cultura Historical Recreational, Biological, and Geo o ical Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of orange County. While some field surveys were conducted, the inventory was based almost exclusively on existing documentation. c W In 1988, a Master Recreation and Parks Plan was prepared for Orange County. During the same © p year, the Triangle Land Conservancy completed the d Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange _County. These studies provided a more detailed identification of sites than identified in the 1986 Inventory. A goal of the Planning Department and Planning Board has been the completion of the detailed inventories through a survey of historic sites and structures. Application is being made for Planning and Survey Grant funds to initiate the inventory process in Chapel Hill Township. A separate agenda item provides information about the grant application. Discussions were held with representatives of the N.C. Preservation Fund and the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources ( NCDCR) about ways and means of preparing an inventory and preserving historic sites and structures. They recommended that Orange County consider establishing an Historic Preservation Commission, empowered to conduct an inventory, prepare a preservation plan, and administer programs for the preservation of both individual sites; e.g., landmarks, and historic districts. Following the meeting, Beth Thomas of NCDCR provided Staff with a draft ordinance. The ordinance was subsequently presented to the Ordinance Review Committee for consideration. Following several meetings and ordinance revisions, the draft ordinance was recommended for public hearing. The attached ordinance has been re- formatted, and several clarifications have been added concerning the appointment and attendance of members. It is, however, the same basic ordinance as recommended by the Ordinance Review Committee. The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be presented for public hearing on February 25, 1991. Collins stated that the ordinance would basically create a 7 member commission which would be separate and apart from the Planning Board. It would be another advisory board but would also have power to issue Certificates of Appropriateness. He stated that the members of the commission would have experience in architecture, landscape architecture, history, historic preservation, and similar kinds of fields. An option to that would be to have the Planning Board carry out that function. In order for the Planning Board to do that, there would 56 have to be at least three members with experience in the above mentioned fields. Dp Cantrell asked Collins if he meant professional experience and not just people who have served on different boards. Collins stated that he was talking about people with professional experience with design type backgrounds. The powers and duties of the commission would be conducting inventories. Once the inventories are conducted, the commission could recommend the creation of historic districts or recommend that certain property be designated as historic landmarks. These are generally sites with one main building and accessory structures located on one piece of property. Once a historic district or landmark is designated, then a person would not be able tc make any changes to the exterior of the building or to the ground around that building until they had applied for and received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission. The Commission would have to adopt guidelines for structures within the historic districts or specific landmarks which would guide the owner it terms of any changes to the building or grounds. There are also powers that would delay the demolition of historic buildings up to 180 days. During that time period, an effort would be made to determine if the building could be preserved. Waddell asked if any given property could be dedicated as historic without the owners consent Collins stated that historic districts could be recommended by the Commissioners without the consent of the owners. He stated that in the case of historic landmarks, the approach is strictly voluntary. Hamilton asked if there is an option to propert owners once the property is sold. Collins stated that historic districts and historic landmark designations could be eliminated. While this was in effect, if the property is sold it would be sold with restrictive covenants. Best asked if the Ordinance creating the Histor: Preservation Commission of Orange County would l a freestanding ordinance. Collins answered yes Best stated that he thought the ordinance shoulc be written whereas there are no questions about problems of taking someone's land. He stated that it should better explain the County's T. Ml intentions of historic preservation. It should include what is involved in getting your house on the list and what the overlay district would involve. u� LJn��1 Collins stated that the purpose of this ordinance is to create a committee to draft guidelines. Jacobs asked if the Certificate of Appropriateness had to be included as part of the mechanism. Collins stated it is enabling legislation. If the Board wants to adopt the ordinance which gives the Commission the power to utilize Certificates of Appropriateness, then this should be included in the ordinance. If the Board does not want the Commission to have that power, it should not be included in the ordinance. Eddleman suggested to re -word Item 2 on Page 102, Section 3.3 to state that for an individual piece of land it is an election of the owner to voluntarily enter into the agreement. Cantrell commented that she knew of one situation where a house was virtually inhabitable and the owner was trying to make it a historic landmark so that they would not have to upgrade the house. Collins stated there are advantages in terms of building code compliance. If a house is designated as a historic landmark, either on the local, state, or national level, certain building code requirements can be waived. Collins suggested to re -word Item 2, Section 3.3 to read: No property shall be designated as a landmark unless the property owner agrees to such designation until the following steps have been taken. Collins stated that the commission's function will be similar to that of the Planning Board. They will make recommendations on areas to be included in the Historic District. They cannot do that until an inventory is done and they have identified what the historical significance of the site or area is. He stated that this is not any different from the Planning Board doing a land study of Efland and recommending that the Board of Commissioners hold a public hearing on it or make changes to the Land Use Plan or Zoning Ordinance based on the study. The purpose of this ordinance is to give the commission the power to recommend but the final decision rests with the Board of Commissioners. The citizens will have the opportunity to object to the 58 designation of a historical district at the public hearing. Cantrell reiterated that her main concern is Dthat this commission be a stable one with a three LJIf or six year term so that it is predictable and comprehensible. Collins stated that the change to the ordinance suggested by Eddleman will be made when the ordinance goes to the Commissioners for consideration. Waddell expressed concern with Item 9, Section 1.7 of the ordinance. He questioned whether anyone had thought through the budgetary impacts. Collins stated that this again would be one of the powers in the enabling legislation. The real control is that the Commission cannot do any of this unless the Board of Commissioners appropriates the funds in order to acquire property. He stated that he did not know what the budgetary impacts would be until he knew what all the historical resources were. Eddleman suggested to revise items 9 and 11 of section 1.7. Cantrell suggested to add to the beginning of each item, "with the approval of the commissioners ". Collins suggested to delete Items 10 and 11 and revise Item 9 to read: Recommend to the Board of Commissioners the acquisition by any lawful mean: the fee or any lesser included interest... He stated that the assumption should be that in any acquisition there is a point of negotiation. Waddell stated that he did not agree with the land acquisition. Best commented that he felt the draft ordinance should go back to the Ordinance Review Committe MOTION: Cantrell moved that the proposed ordinance be presented for public hearing on February 25, 1991 with corrections as noted. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: 6 in favor, 2 opposed (Best, Waddell) AGENDA ITEM #11: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS a. Township Advisory Council Appointments ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.-X-0 Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 4, 1991 SUBJECT: MANAGER'S PARTICIPATION IN AIRPORT RELOCATION PROCESS WORK GROUP - -- ---------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X - - -- -------------------------------;- ATTACHMENT(S): NO INFORMATION CONTACT. MOSES CAREY JR. TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -5501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 - PURPOSE: Respond to the request of the Coordination, - Consultation -and Communication Committee to approve the Manager's participation in examining process options for relocation of Horace Williams Airport. BACKGROUND: The CCC Committee has discussed the need, desire and potential for relocation of Horace Williams Airport at several of its meetings. on each of these occasions this group has been informed that relocation of the airport is not one of the goals of the County Government and that the County does not intend to play a significant role in such an effort. They have further been reminded that the County's capital improvement plans do not include an airport. However, it has been acknowledged that the County has acquired an abundance of information which could be useful to any group interested in a relocation effort. Therefore, the CCC Committee has requested that the orange County Board of County Commissioner approve the Managers Participation with the managers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro in discussions which would explore alternative process models for relocation of the airport. As part of this group, the manager would also make information, developed by the County, available to this group. It is not anticipated that any staff other than the manager would participate in this effort. The efforts of this group would not constitute a search for a new airport site. Each manager would report periodically on this groups work to his respective elective board. The results of this groups work would include recommendations on procedures which may be pursued to relocate the Airport. No search will commence without approval by the elective boards in Orange County. The Manager's group will report their recommendations to their elected boards and the CCC. RECOMMSNDATION(S): As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT SUBJECT: Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 4, 1991 MINUTES ------------ - ft------------ - - - - -- ------------------------------- 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 22, 1991 - 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. R . n F 41991 January 31, 1 Mr. Moses Carey, Chair Members, Orange County Board of Commissioners PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Chairman Carey and Commissioners: The press has carried statements suggesting that some county commissioners oppose cooperating with the University and the towns to study ways to relocate Horace Williams Airport. We urge the commissioners to appoint the county manager to the committee proposed by the Chapel Hill town manager. There is general agreement that Orange County does not need a full- blown general aviation airport, with a 5,000 foot runway that would invite significant jet traffic. There is also general agreement that a small airport is needed, one able to serve University airplanes and the local residents who currently base their small aircraft at Horace Williams Airport. Finally, there is general agreement that the Horace Williams Airport site is inappropriate for an airport of any size. Pilots flying in and out of this airport cannot avoid flying directly over homes and schools, however hard they might try. For 25 years, citizens have appealed to public bodies to relocate the airport to a less developed area. Why would the county commissioners oppose investigating the possibility of a small alternative to Horace Williams? Mr. Horton proposes that we cooperatively seek a solution that serves the public good. There are reasons why this search need not be either futile or divisive. During the previous airport development effort, the University's lukewarm stance undermined the entire process. Now University officials state that they would be active in creating an alternative to Horace Williams. This certainly is an appropriate step that serves UNC's future building expansion needs as well as the broader community needs. The public good should not be sacrificed to punish the University for a past error. V' 1" There may well be no acceptable site in Orange County for a larger commercial airport. This does not mean that there is no acceptable site for a small airport, similar in scale to Horace Williams. Even a SCRAP leader, Michael Jolly, said that although his group opposes a major, countywide airport with turbo prop and jet access and freight operations, they would be willing to consider a smaller airport that accommodated limited, small - plane traffic (Chapel Hill Newspaper, Jan. 15, 1991). Importantly, Mr. Horton' s proposal invites cooperative work by the four major governmental bodies in Orange County -- Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the University. It does not imply any expenditure of tax money. It makes no commitment to building an airport. It is merely exploratory. But it would explore an issue of great local importance. Horace Williams Airport presents a valid and serious problem of safety and noise that affects a substantial segment of Orange County's population, including school children. These citizens deserve your consideration as much as citizens in other parts of the county. Your commitment of a small amount of staff time, and your willingness to keep this issue open, is essential. We urge you to take part in this collaborative effort. _7 o 's Schaeffer Diane Bloom C Rosemary Waldorf For CITIZENS FOR AIRPORT PLANNING cc: Dr. Ben Tuchi Chapel Hill Mayor and Town Council Carrboro Mayor and Board of Aldermen Chapel Hill- Carrboro Board of Education Calvin Horton 1't';yler og — Z/— w RESOLUTION OF REMEMBRANCE for JAY THOMAS WHEREAS, Jay Thomas entered the Navy in 1984 and just recently reenlisted for his second term achieving the rank of Second Class Petty Officer, and WHEREAS, Jay Thomas served as a Navy Aircraft Technician and was • lifelong resident of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and • student of Chapel Hill High School, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has learned with deep regret of the death of Mr. Jay Thomas, on January 6, 1991, and WHEREAS, Jay Thomas was the first soldier from the Raleigh- Durham area to be taken from our midst in Saudi Arabia, and WHEREAS, Jay Thomas served the citizens of the United States faithfully and honorably in the military. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners on behalf of all the citizens of Orange County wish to present this Resolution to Mr. and Mrs. Phil Thomas, the parents of Jay Thomas, as an expression of sympathy and loss to our community, and as a remembrance of his dedication to serve his country, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution be spread upon the minutes of this meeting as a reminder to those who come after this time of Jay Thomas' human compassion, and willingness to give his life in the service of his country. Adopted this 4th day of February, 1991 in Orange County, North Caro ina. Of r Moses Carey, Jr., C 'r Stephen H. Halkiotis ul� - Alice M. Gordon L� WFkla C. Insko L &' k& __,-*00e Don Willhoit DATE: February 1, 1991 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: John T. Horner, Direcctor of Revenue SUBJEST: Unpaid Real Properety Taxes and Tax Lien Advertisement The Orange County Department of Revenue reports the following unpaid taxes that constitute a lien on all Real Property for the year 1990. COUNTY $ 2,458,372.49 CHAPEL HILL $ 819,006.07 CARRBORO $ 173,217.59 HILLSBOROUGH $ 57,616.28 TOTAL $ 3,508,212.43 Recommends the Tax Lien Sale be set for May 8, 1991. ITEMS FOR FOLLOWUP BOARD MEETING DATE: og — el— ITEM # TITLE TYPE OF FOLLOWUP /V114- a — ell FOLLOW—UP COMPLETED NOTES: t1