Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-19-1991ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1991 ON ALL ABSTRACTS 7:30 P.M. AVAILABLE IN THE OLD POST OFFICE CLERK'S OFFICE. CHAPEL HILL, NC NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request. If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 968 -4501. I. BOARD COMMENTS II. COUNTY 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. Exercise of Lease Option - -Carr Mill Mall (Health Department) B. Lease Renewal -- Drivers License Bureau C. Resolution to Apply and'Enter into Agreement with N.C. Department of Transportation for UMTA Section 18 Capital Funds D. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment- -Camp /Retreat Center E. Proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Text Amendments F. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment -- Development Advisory Committee G. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment-- PWII /WQCA District Intent H. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment --- Action Subsequent to Approval of Preliminary Plat I. Budget Ordinance Amendment #8 J. Change of Meeting Date Vi. SOLIITIONS PROCLAMATIONS VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. For Citizen Comments and a Decision 1. Continuation of Feasibility Study - -NC 54 Widening IX, REPORTS A. Poe Center for Health Education X. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA A. 1991 -96 Capital Improvements Plan B. 1991 Board of County Commissioners Goals C. Orientation Program for County Appointed Boards/ Commissions D. Annual Achievement Award Competition (NACo) X1. APPOINTMENTS SIT. MINUTES X111. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Litigation XIV. AWQURNMENT ( *) Indicates items that need immediate attention. J MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FEBRUARY 19, 1991 REGULAR MEETING Approved March 4, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. at the Franklin Street Post office in District Courtroom in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman hoses 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, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Finance Director Ken Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Personnel Director Elaine Holmes, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo, Department on Aging Director Jerry Passmore, Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass, Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve, Health Director Dan Reimer, Planner David Stancil, Budget Analyst Donna Wagner, and EMS Director Nick Waters. I. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Gordon reminded the Board members about the lecture and discussion on Neo- traditional town planning. She. thanked the responsiveness of the County staff for their attendance at the Groundwater Conference held today. Commissioner Halkictis commended those involved with the tin can recycling at the County Jail.. He asked for information about the vender and how much money the County is being paid. With regards to Carden's Mobile Home Park, the landscaping is now being completed and the pipeline is in for the self- contained water treatment plant. II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT John Link introduced the County's new Budget Director Sally Kost. III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA ADD under Appointments - "Triangle J. Emergency Medical Council" REPLACE agenda item V -J with the agenda abstract distributed this evening. IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENE3,(5, Chair Carey announced that those citizens who would like to speak on an item on the printed agenda would be recognized at the appropriate- time. B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - NONE V. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSEWT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as stated below: A. EXERCISE OF LEASE OPTION -- CARR MILL lUtLL HEALTH DEPT. This item was postponed to the next meeting. Additional information on the consumer price- index will be provided as requested by Commissioner Willhoit. B. LEASE RENEWAL -- DRIVERS LICENSE BUREAU To approve and authorize the Chair to sign the lease renewal through January 31, 1994 with SAD Realty Corporation for space used for the Driver's License Bureau at Carrboro (formerly Plantation Plaza). C. RESOLUTION TO APPLY AND ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR UMTA SECTION 18 CAPITAL FUNDS To approve a resolution as stated below to apply for UMTA Section 18 capital funding and authorize the Chair to sign the necessary documents subject to the review of the County Attorney. RESOLUTION SEEKING PERMISSION TO AMEND FY 1990 -91 /FY 1991 -92 APPLICATION FOR SECTION 18 FUNDING WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has received a grant from the US Department of Transportation authorized by Section 18 of Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, to provide assistance for rural public transportation projects; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to provide grant monies to local agencies for the provision of rural public transportation services; and WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as the agency responsible for administering funds received through Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange, has assured and certified to the NCDOT that it will comply with the Federal Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Special Section .13(c) Warranty, a- and all administrative_ requirements which relate to the applications made to and grants received from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, as well as the provisions of Section 1001 of Title 18, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Chairman of the Orange CoL:: -y Commissioners is hereby authorized to submit a grant application amendment for funding under Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. D. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - CAMP RETREAT CENTER To approve Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 8.8.5 - Camp /Retreat Center, Article 22 Definitions and Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table as presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and recommended by the Planning Board on January 28, 1991. These are incorporated in the Zoning ordinance in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's office. E.• PROPOSED FLOOD DAPS -,GE PREVENTION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS To approve Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 2 Definitions and Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes as presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and recommended by the Planning Board on January 28, 1991. These are incorporated in the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. F. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE To approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Article 2.4.2.1 which deletes any role for the Development Advisory Committee in the issuance of Stop Work Orders. This was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting held on January 28, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance that is in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. G. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS - PWII /WOCA DISTRICT INTENT To approve the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Article 4.2.27 PWII District Intent and Article 4.2.28 WQCA District Intent which corrects a technical discrepancy between the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas and provides consistency in the wording. This was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting held on January 28, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance that is in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. H. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT - ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT To approve a Subdivision Regulations Text amendment to Section III -D -2 -e with regard to action subsequent to approval of preliminary plat. This would add another basis for allowing the phasing plan for a major subdivision to bEo revised. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting on January 28, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the Subdivision ordinance that is in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. I. BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT "8 To approve amendments to the 1990 -91 Budget Ordinance as listed below: GENERAL FUND Source -- Intergovernmental $ (2,546) Appropriation Contributions to Outside Agencies (2,546) (To budget CBA funding reduction.) Source - Miscellaneous $ (20,000) Appropriation - Human Services 20,000 (To transfer additional funds for the DSS Child Day Care program from Contingency.) Source -- Intergovernmental 25,210 Appropriation Contributions to Outside Agencies 25,210 (To budget for additional funds awarded to the Orange County Arts Commission.) Source - Intergovernmental 19,992 Appropriation - Human Services 19.992 (To budget for additional state Child Day Care funds.) COUNTY CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Source - Appropriated Fund Balance 20,000 Appropriation - Transfer to County Capital 20,000 Projects Fund (To budget additional funds for the Jail renovation project.) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND Source - Intergovernmental 51,400 Appropriation -- Orange Community Housing 51,400 (To establish budget for Orange Community Housing project). J. CHANGE OF MEETING DATE To approve the following resolution which changes the meeting date of the March 19th meeting to March 20 and the meeting place from District Courtroom in Chapel Hill to Lincoln Center in Chapel. Hill: WHEREAS, General Statute 153A--40(a) requires the Board of County Commissioners to fix the time and place of its regular meetings; and WHEREAS, this Board desires to change the date of the regular meeting scheduled for March 19, 1991 at 7 :30 p.m. WHEREAS, this Board desires to change the place of the regular meeting scheduled for the courtroom in the old Post Office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that the March 19 regular meeting shall be held on March 20 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This notice is provided pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153 -40. VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS VI. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS -- NONE VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE VIII. PUBLIC HEARING 1, CONTINUATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING Planning Director Marvin Collins stated that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen adopted a resolution opposing the project. The Town of Chapel Hill will have no comments. The Bingham Township Advisory Council (TAC) also adopted a resolution in opposition to the project as did the Orange County Planning Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to close the public hearing and direct the staff to draft a letter to the Department of Transportation to express the County's opposition to this proposal and request that it be removed from the 1990 -96 Transportation Improvement Program. This letter will include a list of those improvements the County would like to be added to the program. TX. REPORTS A. POE CENTER FOR HEALTH EDUCATION Mary Rendleman, Development Chairman, presented a video which explained the educational programs that would be offered at the Poe Center for Health Education. She explained that they have raised 2.7 million of the 3 million they need for the project. They expect the Center to open the first of November. She asked that Orange County consider a one -time sponsor fee of $6,000 for the center. This is not a prerequisite for participation by the schools in the service area. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the statistics in the video and Ms. Rendleman will provide him with additional information. Various questions about the programs were answered by Ms. Rendleman. X. ITEMS FOR DECIS101Z - REGULAR AGENDA A. 1991--95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN County Manager John Link gave an overview of the "newcomers" to the 1991 -96 CIP. Discussion ensued and it was decided that: (1) a study shall be done to determine how many days a month and how many hours a day the four courtrooms are being used and the feasibility of using night court and weekend court, (2) the possibility of utilizing an existing building to house an additional EMS base station would be explored, (3) consideration would be given to conducting a long -term facility study and availability of financing for the study, (4) the goal for utilization of space will be to move the existing programs out of rental space into the Court Street Annex and make a determination for providing the space necessary for the Small Business Training Center and other training programs, and (5) a fee for parking will be considered. Population projections for the schools were discussed. David Stancil stated that since 1975 there has been an increase in the birth rate of 480. Zt is expected that the increase in the Chapel Hill /Carrboro System by the end of the decade will be 45% for a total of 8,000 students and the increase in the Orange County system will be 20% for a total of 6100 students. The areas that are expected to see the influx of new enrollment are in the transition areas north and west of the towns, Eno and Little 'River Townships and the Rural Buffer area. Chairman Carey asked that the discussion be focused first on the need for a new high school. He would like for that planning to be considered in the context of that high school serving all of Orange County. When it comes on line it should be planned to serve all of Orange County and be strategically placed to serve both school systems. Second, he would like to focus on the remaining needs. He suggested a citizens group which will recommend timing and the other components of a bond issue. John Link stated that with regard to the requested 90 million dollars for a bond issue, the staff could not recommend, from a fiscal accountability standpoint, that the Board consider anything more than 30 million. That would create a three cents property tax increase for three years, a total of nine cents. Discussion ensued 'on the responsibility of the County to provide school facilities and the best way to finance these facilities. Commissioner Willhoit questioned if the housing had already been built for this increased student population and what revenues a proposed impact tax might generate. John Link will develop a charge for a citizens committee for consideration by the Board at the March 4 meeting. It was decided that the County Manager would work with the school superintendents on the concept of one high school and develop a proposal on how this may be accomplish and report back to the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to set a Public Hearing on the entire CIP proposal. for March 20. It will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Aoom at Lincoln Center in Chapel Hill. A final decision by the Board on what items to include in the CIP will be made no sooner than April 1. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. 1991 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GOALS This item was postponed to the March 4th meeting. C. ORIENTATION PROGRAM FOR COUNTY APPOINTED BOARDS/COMMISSIONS Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the program as presented in the agenda abstract with an addition to the charge to formulate a recognition program for those citizens going off a board cr commission. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD COMPETITION (NACo) Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve the five entries as presented in the agenda abstract for submission to NACo for their consideration of an Annual Achievement Award. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XI. APPOINTMENTS The following appointments were unanimously approved by the Board: BOARD OF HEALTH Barbara Chavious to complete the unexpired term of Ruth Royster ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Joan jobsis - Cheeks representative CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD Toy Cheek - Extraterritorial Representative TRIANGLE J EMERGENCY MEDICAL COUNCIL Barbara Overby - Volunteer Provider XII. MINUTES - February 4, 1991 Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the February 4, 1991 meeting as revised. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Willhoiu to adjourn the Executive Session and to reconvene into Regular Session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIV. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for Board considerat;on, Chairma.1 Moses Car?y, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on March 4, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey,Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk -! j. Approved March 4, 1991 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FEBRUARY 19, 1991 REGULAR MEETING The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. at the Franklin Street Post Office in District Courtroom in Chapel Hill, 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, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Finance Director Ken Chavious, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Personnel Director Elaine Holmes, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo, Department on Aging Director Jerry Passmore, Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass, Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve, Health Director Dan Reimer, Planner David Stancil, Budget Analyst Donna Wagner, and EMS Director Nick Waters. I. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Gordon reminded the Board members about the lecture and discussion on Neo- traditional town planning. She thanked the responsiveness of the County staff for their attendance at the Groundwater Conference held today. Commissioner Halkiotis commended those involved with the tin can recycling at the County Jail. He asked for information about the vender and how much money the County is being paid. With regards to Carden's Mobile Home Park, the landscaping is now being completed and the pipeline is in for the self - contained water treatment plant. T_I. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT John Link introduced the County's new Budget Director Sally Kost. III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA ADD under Appointments -- "Triangle J. Emergency Medical Council" REPLACE agenda item V -J with the agenda abstract distributed this evening. OF= IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENnA Chair Carey announced that those citizens who would like to speak on an item on the printed agenda would be recognized at the appropriate. time. B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - NONE V. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSEWT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as stated below: A. EXERCISE OF LEASE OPTION - CARR MILL NLrL HEALTH DEPT. This item was postponed to the next meeting. Additional information on the consumer price- index will be provided as requested by Commissioner Willhoit. B. LEASE RENEWAL - DRIVERS LICENSE BUREAU To approve and authorize the Chair to sign the lease renewal through January 31, 1994 with SAD Realty Corporation for space used for the Driver's License Bureau at Carrboro (formerly Plantation Plaza). C. RESOLUTION TO APPLY AND ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR UMTA SECTION 18 CAPITAL FUNDS To approve a resolution as stated below to apply for UMTA Section 18 capital funding and authorize the Chair to sign the necessary documents subject to the review of the County Attorney. RESOLUTION SEEKING PERMISSION TO AMEND FY 1990 -91 /FY 1991 -92 APPLICATION FOR SECTION 18 FUNDING WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has received a grant from the US Department of Transportation authorized by Section 18 of Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, to provide assistance for rural public transportation projects; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to provide grant monies to local agencies for the provision of rural public transportation services; and WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as the agency responsible for administering funds received through Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange, has assured and certified to the NCDOT that it will comply with the Federal Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Special Section 13(c) Warranty, and all administrativ(_ requirements which relate to the applications made to and grants received from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, as well as the provisions of Section 1001 of Title 18, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Chairman of the Orange Cot.:--y Commissioners is hereby authorized to submit a grant application amendment for funding under Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. D. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - CAMP RETREAT CENTER To approve Zoning ordinance Text Amendments to Article 8.8.5 -- Camp /Retreat Center, Article 22 Definitions and Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table as presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and recommended by the Planning Board on January 28, 19 91. These are incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. E.- PROPOSED FLOOD DAIS -.GE PREVENTION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS To approve Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 2 Definitions and Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes as presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and recommended by the Planning Board on January 28, 1991. These are incorporated in the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. F. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE To approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Article 2.4.2.1 which deletes any role for the Development Advisory Committee in the issuance of Stop Work Orders. This was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting held on January 28, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance that is in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. G. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - PWII W CA DISTRICT INTENT To approve the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Article 4.2.27 PWII District Intent and Article 4.2.28 WQCA District Intent which corrects a technical discrepancy between the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas and provides consistency in the wording. This was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting held on January 28, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance that is in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. H. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT To approve a Subdivision Regulations Text amendment to Section III -D -2 -e with regard to action subsequent to approval of preliminary plat. This would add another basis for allowing the I,- phasing plan for a major subdivision to be revised. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990 and the Planning Board recommended approval at their meeting on January 28, 1991. This text amendment is incorporated in the subdivision Ordinance that is in the Ordinance Book in the Clerk's Office. I. BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT "8 To approve amendments to the 1990 -91 Budget Ordinance as listed below: GENERAL FUND source - Intergovernmental $ (2,546) Appropriation Contributions to Outside Agencies (2,545) (To budget CBA funding reduction.) Source - Miscellaneous $ (20,000) Appropriation - Human Services 20,000 (To transfer additional funds for the DSS Child Day Care program from Contingency.) Source - Intergovernmental 25,210 Appropriation Contributions to Outside Agencies 25,210 (To budget for additional funds awarded to the Orange County Arts Commission.) Source - Intergovernmental 19,992 Appropriation - Human Services 19.992 (To budget for additional state Child Day Care funds.) COUNTY CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Source - Appropriated Fund Balance 20,000 Appropriation - Transfer to County Capital 20,000 Projects Fund (To budget additional funds for the Jail renovation project.) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND Source - Intergovernmental 51,400 Appropriation - Orange Community Housing 51,400 (To establish budget for Orange Community Housing project). J. CHANGE OF MEETING DATE To approve the following resolution which changes the meeting date of the March 19th meeting to March 20 and the meeting place from District Courtroom in Chapel Hill to Lincoln Center in Chapel Hill: WHEREAS, General Statute 153A -40(a) requires the Board of County Commissioners to fix the time and place of its regular meetings; and WHEREAS, thi.,s Board desires to change the date of the regular meeting scheduled for March 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. WHEREAS, this Board desires to change the place of the regular meeting scheduled for the courtroom in the old Post Office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that the March 19 regular meeting shall be held on March 20 at 7 :30 p.m. in the Board Room of Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This notice is provided pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153 -40. VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS VI. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS - NONE VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE VIII. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING Planning Director Marvin Collins stated that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen adopted a resolution opposing the project. The Town of Chapel Hill will have no comments. The Bingham Township Advisory Council (TAC) also adopted a resolution in opposition to the project as did the Orange County Planning Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to close the public hearing and direct the staff to draft a letter to the Department of Transportation to express the County's opposition to this proposal and request that it be removed from the 1990 -96 Transportation Improvement Program. This letter will include a list of those improvements the County would like to be added to the program. IX. REPORTS A. POE CENTER FOR HEALTH EDUCATION Mary Rendleman, Development Chairman, presented a video which explained the educational programs that would be offered at the Poe Center for Health Education. She explained that they have raised 2.7 million of the 3 million they need for the project. They expect the Center to open the first of November. She asked that Orange County consider a one -time sponsor fee of $6,000 for the center. This is not a prerequisite for participation by the schools in the service area. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the statistics in the video and Ms. Rendleman will provide him with additional information. Various questions about the programs were answered by Ms. Randleman. X. ITEMS FOR DECISIO -- REGULAR AGENDA p,. 1991 -96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN County Manager John Link gave an overview of the "newcomers" to the 1991 -96 CIP. Discussion ensued and it was decided that: (1) a study shall be done to determine how many days a month and how many hours a day the four courtrooms are being used and the feasibility of using night court and weekend court, (2) the possibility of utilizing an existing building to house an additional EMS base station would be explored, (3) consideration would be given to conducting a long -term facility study and availability of financing for the study, (4) the goal for utilization of space will be to move the existing programs out of rental space into the Court Street Annex and make a determination for providing the space necessary for the Small Business Training Center and other training programs, and (5) a fee for parking will be considered. Population projections for the schools were discussed. David Stancil stated that since 1975 there has been an increase in the birth rate of 48 %. It is expected that the increase in the Chapel Hill /Carrboro System by the end of the decade will be 45% for a total of 8,000 students and the increase in the Orange County system will be 20% for a total of 6100 students. The areas that are expected to see the influx of new enrollment are in the transition areas north and west of the towns, Eno and Little River Townships and the Rural Buffer area. Chairman Carey asked that the discussion be focused first on the need for a new high school. He would like for that planning to be considered in the context of that high school serving all of Orange County. When it comes on line it should be planned to serve all of Orange County and be strategically placed to serve both school systems. Second, he would like to focus on the remaining needs. He suggested a citizens group which will recommend timing and the other components of a bond issue. John Link stated that with regard to the requested 90 million dollars for a bond issue, the staff could not recommend, from a fiscal accountability standpoint, that the Board consider anything more than 30 million. That would create a three cents property tax increase for three years, a total of nine cents. Discussion ensued on the responsibility of the County to provide school facilities and the best way to finance these facilities. Commissioner Willhoit questioned if the housing had already been built for this increased student population and what revenues a proposed impact tax might generate. John Link will develop a charge for a citizens committee for consideration by the Board at the March 4 meeting. It was decided that the Countv Manager would work with the school superintendents on the concept of one high school and develop a proposal on how this may be accomplish and report back to the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to set a Public Hearing on the entire CIP proposal for March 20. It will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Board $oom at Lincoln Center in Chapel Hill. A final decision by the Board on what items to include in the CIP will be made no sooner than April 1. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. 1991 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GOALS This item was postponed to the March 4th meeting. C. ORIENTATION PROGRAM FOR COUNTY APPOINTED BOARDS /COMMISSIONS Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the program as presented in the agenda abstract with an addition to the charge to formulate a recognition program for those citizens going off a board cr commission. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD COMPETITION NACo Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve the five entries as presented in the agenda abstract for submission to NACo for their consideration of an Annual Achievement Award. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XT. APPOINTMENTS The following appointments were unanimously approved by the Board: BOARD OF HEALTH Barbara Chavious to complete the unexpired term of Ruth Royster ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Joan jobsis - Cheeks representative CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD Toy Cheek - Extraterritorial Representative TRIANGLE J EMERGENCY MEDICAL COUNCIL Barbara Overby - Volunteer Provider XII. MINUTES - February 4, 1991 Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the February 4, 1991 meeting as revised. VOTE: UNANIMOUS X111. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit., seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Cor',missioner Willhoit to adjourn the Executive Session and to reconvene into Regular Session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIV. ADJD!!LAMENT Chairman With no further items for Board considerat'.' Moses Caray, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on March 4, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey,Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk I ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda A Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: EXERCISE OF LEASE OPTION; CARR MILL MALL (HEALTH DEPT.) ----------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:XX - -}- ^- ATTACHMENT(S). INFORMATION CONTACT:T PAM - JONES FORM OF LEASE OPTION Telephone Number - EXT 2650 Hillsborough --732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham -688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider exercising a two year option on the lease for the Health Clinic space at Carr Mill Mall, Carrboro, NC. BACKGROUND: In March, 1979 Orange County leased 4136 square feet for Medical Clinics and offices at Carr Mill Mall. The cost was $26,884 per year. In September, 1979, the County received grant funds from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to operate a primary care dental clinic. An option to lease an additional 1444 square feet of space was exercised in order to provide space for the clinic. The cost for this space was $9,386 per year, bringing the total annual lease amount to $36,270 or $6.50 per square foot. The lease amount is adjusted annually by the "Consumer Price Index for Atlanta, Georgia, . . . for the first month of the first lease year and for the corresponding month in each lease year thereafter" (November, in our case). For your information, a schedule of renewal amounts is provided: Inception of lease Expiration of lease Annual lease amount 3 -13 -79 11 -1 -82 $36,270 11 -1 -82 10 -31 -85 44,640 11 -1 -85 10 -31 -88 54,405 11 -1 -88 10 -31 -90 60,281 E Current amount of the lease is $67,270. This amount will increase by the CPI in November, 1991. The lease in effect since November, 1985 provides for two two -year renewal options. The attached option form proposes that the remaining two year option be exercised. Although ownership of the shopping center changed in 1989, all terms and conditions of the present lease remain the same. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the execution of one, two -year renewal option on the Carr Mill lease, and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda V Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: LEASE RENEWAL; DRIVERS LICENSE BUREAU - ^ DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERV. PUBLIC HEARING -YES: - N0: X ----------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES LEASE Telephone Number - EXT 2652 Hillsborough -732 -8181 Chapel Hill -967 -9251 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider lease renewal for space used as the Driver's License Bureau at Plantation Plaza. BACKGROUND: For several years the County has provided space for a Driver's License Bureau to be located in the southern part of the County. It is the State's policy to provide one Driver's License Bureau per County. If the County desires to have more than one facility, it must pay for space to house it, with the State providing personnel and operating costs. The Orange County Commissioners voted to support this satilite center several years ago. The office has been housed in several locations. The latest move occured in 1986 when the office was relocated from the Carrboro Town Hall to leased space at the Plantation Plaza Shopping Center (now called Carrboro Plaza). The current owners of the Shopping Center are SAD Realty, Vienna, Virginia. The new location provided better accessibility for citizens taking the driving test. Since semi - trailer truck drivers are regularly tested at this facility, easy accessibility in a less conjested area is critical. The semi - trailer trucks presented considerable problems at the Town Hall. In addition, the lease rate at Plantation Plaza was considerably lower than comparable sites in the area. The site continues to serve the needs of the Driver's License Bureau staff well. 2 It is proposed that the existing lease be extended for a period of three years, with expiration on January 31, 1994. The leasing agent has maintained last year's lease rate ($13,230 /year) with a five percent (5 %) increase proposed for year two and year three. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the lease through January 31, 1994 with SAD Realty Corporation; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Hoard. ' 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.—V--C- ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: Resolution to Apply and enter into agreement with N.C. Dept. of Transportation for UMTA Section 18 Captial funds DEPARTMENT: Aging- C.A.T. Program ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: % INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry M. Passmore, ext 2000 TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To authorize a resolution to apply for UMTA Section 18- Capital funding and enter into an agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation. BACKGROUND: Orange County Commissioners approved on January 22, 1991 an updated Transportation Development Plan (TDP). The approved plan makes the County eligible for federal and state funding of vehicles and equipment requested in the document over a four year period. The plan for FY91 -92 involves the purchase of five 14 - passenger vans, two 14 - passenger vans with lifts, one 24 - passenger bus, two minivans and five mobile radios to provide human service transportation. The C.A.T. (Coordinated Agency Transportation) Program will administer the grant and coordinate the use of approved equipment. The total cost is $233,300 with 60% requested from UMTA 200 from the N.C. Department of Transportation and 20% from local agencies. Local match is provided by participating C.A.T. agencies assigned use of the equipment. A required public hearing on Orange County's proposed UMTA, Section 18 application will be held by the Orange County Human Services Transportation Advisoryu Board on Tuesday, February 26, 1991, 9:30 P.M., 300 W. Tryon St., Hillsborough, N.C. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Chair to sign necessary documents subject to the review of the County Attorney. Appendix A RESOLUTION Seeking Permission To Amend FY 1990 -91 / FY 1991 -92 Application For Section 18 Funding. A motion was made by - and seconded (Board Member's Name) by (Board Membee■ Name) fur the adoption of the following resolution, and upon being put to a vote was duly adopted. WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has received a grant from the US Department of Transportation authorized by Section 18 of Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, to provide assistance for rural public transportation projects; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to provide grant monies, to local agencies for the provision of rural public transportation services; and WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North. Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) as the agency responsible for administering funds received through Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964; and WHEREAS, The County of Orange , has assured and certified (App U=f4 NA WD) to the NCDOT that it will comply with the Federal Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Special Section 13 (c) Warranty, and all administrati ve requirements which relate to the applications made to and grants received from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, as well as the provisions of Section 1001 of Title 18, U. S. C. 3 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the arised Oiiicia)'a 19Ue) of the orange county commissioneris hereby authorized to submit a grant (Name of Luca) uav mwg Boas)` ~. application amendment for funding under Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. EWs_c.7,csnsc' --- I Kcera�� tl'a rams) (Title oeCerti$ing o�) ' do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the minutes of a meeting of the , duly held on the (Noma oPL�oeal cooee►ung B0=0 day of 19 •(Sigaatm of CeaUwzng uncial) (Name of iaeal uorergung Board) Subscribed and sworn to me this day of (seal) •Notary Pnblic My commission expires 19 * Note that the official authorized to submit the grant application, certifying official, and notary public should be three (3) separate individuals. t O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19. 1991 1 Action Agenda Item # V- D SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 8.8.5 - CAMP /RETREAT CENTER ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS ARTICLE 4.3 - PERMITTED USE TABLE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment 12/11/90 Public Hearing Minutes 1/28/91 Draft Planning Board Minutes 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 proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to add a new section addressing Camp /Retreat Centers as Class B Special Uses. A definition for Camp and Retreat Center would be added to the definition section of the ordinance. BACKGROUND: Camp /Retreat Centers are not specifically addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. This amendment would provide specific standards and set up a Camp /Retreat Center as a Class B Special Use. If a new Camp /Retreat Center were proposed under the existing ordinance, it would be classified as non - profit recreation or a community center, both of which are classified as Class B special uses. Existing camps or retreat centers would not be affected by the amendment unless they were proposing to expand. At the time of proposed expansion a Class B Special Use Permit would have to be obtained. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990. There were no comments. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendments on January 28, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval as per the Planning Board recommendation. s 2 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 8.8.5, Article 22, Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle _X —Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 11, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To add a new section addressing Camp /Retreat Centers to the - Zoning Ordinance. Camp /Retreat Centers would be classified as a Class B Special Use in the Agricultural Residential (AR), Rural Residential (R -1) and Rural Buffer (RB) zones. Appropriate definitions would be added to the definition section of the ordinance. IMPACTS /ISSUES: The Zoning Ordinance does not presently address Camp /Retreat Centers. If a new Camp /Retreat Center were proposed under the existing ordinance, it would be classified as non - profit recreation or a community center, both of which are classified as Class B Special Use Permits. This amendment would specifically set up a Camp /Retreat Center as a Class B Special Use Permit and provide specific standards that would apply. Existing Camps or Retreat Centers would have to obtain a Class B Special*Use Permit to expand. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Article 8.8.5 - Reserved Article 22 - "Camp" - no present definition "Retreat Center" - no present definition PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 8.8.5 Camp /Retreat entgr (amass B, Special Use) 8.8.5.1 Ad Ton at o i A 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, campsites, storage areas, fencing and gates, outdoor recreation areas and all other requirements as indicated in-Subsection 14.2. b) Access road(s) to the site, as well as on -site roads, with an indication of type of proposed surface. C) A description of the type of facility planned, the size, capacity, and use of proposed buildings; a signed statement from the owners or operators that there shall be no activity allowed that will have adverse effects on adjacent property. The statement shall also include a complete list of all recreational activities that will take place on the site. d) A phasing plan, when necessary, indicating the area to be developed in each phase with time periods for construction of each phase. This may be indicated on the site plan. 8.8.5.2 Standards of „gyaluation 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 site plan shall show the distances to the nearest residential structu =es. C) The landscape plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from the adjacent properties. A minimum 30 foot Type B buffer, as indicated in Section 12.6.1 shall be observed around the perimeter of the property. d) If private recreational facilities are proposed, the improvements must meet the site improvement requirements in Section IV- B -7 -b -4 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The site plan for recreational facilities shall be reviewed by the Orange County Recreation and Parks Director. e) Off street parking requirements shall be as required in Section IV- B -7 -b -4 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations for improved recreation facilities. Retreat 3 Centers must meet the same parking requirements as for churches in Article 10 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Article 22 Definitions "Camp" - A recreation use which may include locations for tents, cabins, or other recreational sleeping structures, but would not include mobile homes or recreation vehicles. A camp may be owned by a profit or not - for - profit corporation. "Retreat Center" - A new or existing facility operated by a corporation or association of persons or churches for social and recreational purposes. A retreat center may be owned by a profit or not -for- profit corporation. R ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1990 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: November 19, 1990 BOCC REVIEW: December 11, 1990 4.I a a Ln n au cv � Ll� 1 1 r► N u C v v c a 9 it =►_ ° 1 I� I I I�I Iml �I �I w a� oa �I � I I� I� I I° I �•I � is J J I J W W WJJ I ° III al I�Ir � Lu I.0 4n Ly a vi V7 n M C F- cc In an w c� ¢ C V1 W J J my. is W o. 7T m a+ C v+ 4 O u m +. N N 7 w a ! � w di u a N C L rp L Q a L m N La 4A 0 N E f= t0 u _ v m Im 7 H a a 0 U C J .. �.. J . L6. C m O �+•� C IO u Lu a O m O W o v i ... CL y a ++ .. w .. .. L N Amp V) Con w— In u 0 Q N Amo a m yi 4) OJ D u L L L t0 d Q O L d G a w C $' a a vEi L u L m c o m? n ;; o. ro d o u u 0 c C >� O�— E m w3 Cx to H H x m CL N N N a Ln n au cv � Ll� 1 1 r► N u C v v c a 9 4 1 2 A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by 3 Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these matters to the Plann ng 4 Board for recommendation to be returned. to the Board of 5 Commissioners no sooner than February 4, 1990. 6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7 8 Items 3 (d), (e) & (f) were presented together. 9 10 d. Article 4.3 Permitted Uses (Camp /Retreat Centers) 11 This item was presented to amend ARTICLE .3 12 PERMITTED USE TABLE by adding "Camp /Retreat Centers" as a use 13 permitted in the Rural Buffer (RB), Agricultural - Residential (AR), 14 and Rural Residential (R -1) zoning districts following the approval 15 and issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit. 17 e. Article 8.8 Special Uses (Camp /Retreat Centers) 18 This item . was presented to amend ARTICLE 8.8 19. regulations governing individual special uses by adding a new 20 Article 8.8.5 Camp /Retreat Center which sets forth specific site 21 plan and development standards applicable to camp /retreat centers. 22 23 f. Article-22 Definitions (Camp /Retreat Centers) 24 This item- was presented. to amend ARTICLE 22 25 DEFINITIONS by adding the definitions of "camp" and "retr at 26 center ". 27 28 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF 29 COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. 30 31 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 32 Commissioner Insko, to refer these matters to the Planning Board 33 for recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no 34 sooner than February 4, 1990. 38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 36 37 4. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments 38 a. Section III- D--2 -e Application Requirements 39 This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. This item 40 was presented to amend SECTION III -D -2 -e APPLICATION REQUIREME TS 41 by adding another factor which the Board of Commissioners ay 42 consider in determining whether or not to approve an amended 43 phasing plan for a subdivision. The new provision would allow 44 approval of an amended phasing plan if the time available to 45 install improvements (roads, etc.) was not extended. 46 47 THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF 48 COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. 49 50 Commissioner Gordon asked if the Four Birch Subdivision w uld 51 have been approved with this proposed amendment. Scearbo indic ted 52 that this amendment would have made a stronger case for t em, MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: VOTE: AGENDA ITEM J9: Draft 1 -28 -91 Planning Board Minutes access to the creek. Cameron stated that 60 parkland dedication is required. Unless Recreation and Parks decides that dedication will not fit into the system, then payment -in -lieu of dedication could be recommended. Due to the lower number of lots, the amount required results in a fairly small strip of land. Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (20 Lots) (1) Buck Run /Deed of Easement Acceptance (20 Lots - Cheeks Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. On March 5, 1990 the Orange County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan and Resolution of Approval for Buck Run Subdivision. In this resolution it was indicated that a deed would be provided to Orange County for a public right -of- way between lots 14 and 15 to allow future access to property east of the subdivision. A 60' wide deed of easement has been prepared and recorded with the final plat. The County Attorney has indicated this deed should be accepted by the County in an amended Resolution of Approval. The attached amended Resolution of Approval has been approved by the County Attorney. The neighboring property owner has indicated his concern with the 60' wide right -of -way in that he would like to connect a 50' wide right -of -way when he develops his property. NCDOT has indicated that a 50 foot right -of -way has been connected to a 60 foot right -of -way in the past and it would probably be acceptable in this situation. They indicated they would have to see development plans for the adjoining property before approval could be given. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended Resolution of Approval. Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs. Unanimous. MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/11/90) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Development Advisory Committee (a) Article 2.4.2.1 (e) - Duties (2) Watershed Protection (a) Article 4.2.27 PW -II District (2) Article 4.2.28 WQCA District (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 19. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2125/91) 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 Stancil stated that the property is located at the intersection of Old 86 and I -40 on the southeast quadrant. The applicants are looking for a land use plan designation of commercial activity node for 33 acres. They have indicates a possible desire for pursuing an office park or that site. Stancil stated that this would involve a primary plan amendment which could on] be heard at the February public hearing. Property owners will be notified in the next twc 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 coun 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 sites in the county and this is one site that will be looked at. Best asked about the water line from Chapel Hil 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February-19, 1991 Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: PROPOSED FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (ARTICLE 2 - DEFINITIONS, ARTICLE 4.5 - MANUFACTURED HOMES) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Ordinance Amendments 12/11/90 Public Hearing Minutes 1/28/91 Draft Planning Board Minutes PUBLIC SEARING 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 proposed amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to comply with revisions recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. BACKGROUND: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has revised the floodplain management regulations and is recommending changes to the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance based on these changes. The proposed revisions are additions and clarifications of existing definitions to correspond to the model ordinance definitions and new requirements concerning manufactured homes. Replacement manufactured homes in existing parks will now have to elevate to the base flood elevation or 36 inches in height above grade on reinforced piers. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990. There were no comments. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendments on January 28, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval as per the Planning Board recommendation. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2 ORDINANCE: FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Article 2 - Definitions Article 4.5 - Manufactured Homes ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle _x —Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 11, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To comply with revisions recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. IMPACTS /ISSUES: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has recently revised the floodplain management regulations. Orange County received a memo from the agency in Atlanta recommending changes to the Orange,County Flood Damage ?prevention ordinance. These revisions are additions and clarifications of existing definitions to correspond to the model ordinance definitions and new requirements concerning Manufactured Homes. Replacement Manufactured Homes in existing parks will now have to elevate to the base flood elevation or 36 inches in height above grade on reinforced piers. The proposed amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance reflect these recommended changes. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give ;.hem the meaning they have in common usage and to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. n eal" gr means a reuest for a review of the Zoning Officer's interpretation of any provision of this ordinance. "Area cf special f lood hazar " is the land in the floodway and floodway fringe as defined in this ordinance. "A�-t_ificizl obstruction" means any obstruction, which is nct a natural obstruction, including any which, while not a significant, obstruction in itself, is capable of accumulating I debris and, thereby, reducing the flood- carrying capacity of the stream. "Base flood" means the flood having a one percent chance of being equally or exceeded in any given year, also known as the 100 -year flood. "Development" means any man -made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. "Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision" means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities including utilities, final grading or pouring of pads and the construction of streets is completed before the effective date (March 2, 1981) of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance adopted by Orange County. (AMENDED 9-20 -88 TO ADD DEFINITION) "Expansion to an Existing sting Manufactured ?dome park or subdivision" means the preparation of additional manufactured home sites in an existing manufactured home park or _ subdivision beyond those that had been completed prior to the effective date (March 2, 1981) of the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. (AMENDED 9 -20 -88 TO ADD DEFINITION) "Flood Bou_ ndary - Floodwav Mate 1FB -FM)" means the official maps for Orange County, on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. "Flood Insurance Rate Mate IFIRM1" means the official mans for Orange County, on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. "Flood Insurance Study" is the official report written for Orange County by the Federal Insurance Administration. The report contains flood profiles, as well as the Flood hazard Boundary-= loodway Map and the water surface elevation of the base flood. "Floes" means that portion of the stream channel and floodplain of a stream designated to provide passage for the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. As used in this ordinance, the term refers to that areas designated as floodway on the Flood Boundary- Floodway Map or on the Flood Insurance Rate Naps prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration. "BAbi4able Floor" means any floor usable for living purposes which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof. A floor used only for storage is not a habitable floor. K "Lowest Floor ", means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or floor resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area :s not considered a building's lowest floor provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non - elevation design requirements of thid ordinance. (AMENDED 1 -3 -89 TO ADD DEFINITION) "Ma Lufactured Home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. "Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. '!New Construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of this ordinance. "Start of Construction" for other than new construction or substantial improvements under the Coastal Barriers Resources Act (Public Law 97 -348), includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a sot.-e, such as the pouring of slab, or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land tretaration, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and /or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, tiers, or foundations or the erection cf temporary forts; ncr does it include the installation of property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. "Stream" means a water course that collects surface runoff from an area of one square mile or greater. "Structure" means a walled and roofed building that is principally above ground, as well as a mobile home. "Substantial imtrovement" means, for a structure built prior to the enactment of this ordinance, any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost o- which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure either (1) before the improvement or repair zs started or (2) if the structure has been damaged and is be ;ng restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes o= this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to 1k r occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration effects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either (1) any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living_conditions or (2) any repair, rehabilitation or restoration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State of North Carolina Inventory of Historic.Places. "Variance" means a relaxation of the terms of this ordinance where such relaxation will not be contrary to the public interest and where, owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of actions or the situation of the applicant, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship. 4.5 MANUFACTURED HOMES a. On the effective date of this ordinance, no manufactured home shall thereafter be placed in a - floodway. In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, a manufactured home removed may be replaced at the same location. b. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or above the base flood elevation, provided, however, the elevation requirement applies only to manufactured homes placed or substantially improved in expansions to existing manufactured 'home Darks or subdivisions. The elevation requirement does not apply to other manufactured homes placed or substantially improved in existing manufactured home parks or subdivisions except where the repair, reconstruction, or improvement of the streets, utilities or NO in the existing manufactured home parks equals or exceeds fifty percent (50 %) of the value of the streets, utilities or pads. (AMMUD 9-20-8S) In addition, all manufactured homes to be _placed or substantially improved within Zones P_1 -30, RE, and PE shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system in accordance with the following provisions: (P-ZNDED 9- 20 -88) (1) over - the -tap ties be provided at each end of the manufactured home, with one additional tie per side at an intermediate location on manufactured homes of less than fifty feet and one additional tie per side for manufactured homes of fifty feet or more; 5 G (2) frame ties to be provided at each corner of the manufactured home with four additional ties per side at intermediate points for manufactured homes less than fifty feet long and one additional tie for manufactured homes of fifty feet or longer; (3) all components of the anchoring system be capable of carrying a force of 4,800 pounds; and (4) any additions to the manufactured home be similarly anchored. Other anc oring techniques specified in the.FEM A's manual, "Manufactured Home Installations in Flood Hazard Areas" published September, 1985, may be utilized in place of the methods specified in subsections 4.5 (b) (1) and (2). (c) Manufactured homes may be placed in the floodway fringe for manufactured home parks or subdivisions - and for manufactured homes not placed in a manufactured home park or subdivision as long as the following requirements are met: (1) stands or lots are elevated so that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated to or above the base flood elevation; (2) adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler are provided; and (3) in the instance of elevation on pilings: (a) lots are large enough to permit stets; (b) piling foundations are placed in stable soil no more than 10 feet apart; and • (c) reinforcement is provided for pi'_ings -more -than 6 feet above the ground level- PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. "kniition cto an existinz building)" mear_s ary jai leg roofed expansion ho t-e yerimeter o= a bu_ _lama in,which the addition is connected by a common load - bearing Egli g0 er w than a re wall. Pnv walled and roofed addition which connected by a 11 re wall or is separated indenende^t perimeter logd-bearina walls is new construction. "Appeal" means a request from a review of the Zonin Officer's interpretation of any provision of this ordinance. "Area of Shallow Flooding" means a designated AO or vO zone on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Mao (FIRM) Hijt base flood deaths from one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not. exist, .,where _the .math flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate and where velocity flow may be evident. "Area of Special Flood Hazard" is the land in the floodolain within a community aatject to a one percent or treater chance of being equaled o exceeded in any given vear. "Artificial obstruction" means any obstruction, which is not a natural obstruction, including any which, while not a significant obstruction in itself, is capable of accumulating debris and, thereby, reducing the flood- carrying capacity of the stream. "Base Flood" means the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also knowr. as the 100-year flood. "Basement" means that lowest level or story which has 4ts floor subarade on all sides. "Breakaway Wall" means a wall that is not tart of the structural support of the building and is intended through its desi n and construction ao collapse under specific lateral loading forces without causing damage to the elevated portion of the bui_ ldina o-- the sutportinc foundation system. breakawav wall shall have a design sa=e loading resistance of not less than 10 and ro more than 20 pounds ter scuare foot. L wall with loading resistance e= more thar. 20 pc;:nds scuare moot reot;].rea a ng ofessionai enci veer on architect's cert ficate "Building" means any structure bu;lt for �9=ort, shelter, o- enclosure -for a_nv occupancv or storage. ` "Pevelgipment" means any man -made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling opera7,ions, or s`..oraae o` ecuinment or materials. "Elevated 3uildinc" means a non - basement buildint (a� in the case .Qj Z build =nvn 2ones!_ -A30, AE', � ApS, FO, P $ . _C� � X ao have the tot of the elevated floor, on t .1 case 2f a bui ld;inc_ in Zones V2-V30, VE or V to have the bottom of the lowest horizontal structure member of she elevated ,kloor above the round ears of Min_ as, columns osts and piers), she walls aplel to the flow of water and_, u adecruately anchored so as _ not to impair the structural inte r't of the building during a flood un *_o the ma5nitude of the base flood. In the case of Zones Al-A30— p;E, A ` A99, A0, F"H,_ B, C1 and X.,_ "elevated building" also includes a building elevated by means of fill ar solid fou~ non walls with openings sufficient tv faci hate the unimpeded movement of flood warmers• L the case of Zones VI-V30, VB< or Vl "elevated building also includes a buildi otherwise meeting the definition of "elevated building" ..even is._enclosed thou( by means of breakaway- walls if the breakaway walls meet the standards of Article 1 Secti n 3151 of this ordinance. "Existing Manufactured Home Park or Manufactured Home Subdivision" means a manufactured 'home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots Qn, which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a mi imum, the installation of ut ;lities, the const uctian of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of this ordinance. "Expansion to an xisting Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision" means the preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities or ser icincr the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed 1- including the' installation of utilities the construction of street and either final site grading or the po ring of concrete slabs. "Flood" or "Flooding" means a genera and temporary condition of ary viol 2Z- comnlere inundation of normally- dry ,l� areas from: the overflow of inland , or tidal watera-L a ^.d jZj the unusual and raL,id accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. "Flood Hazard Soundar Map (FHBM ) " means on official :gap Of a com--nunity issued bX thg Federal Emergency Management AcTencv- _, where the boundaries of the areas of sperm l -food hazard have been define as Zone A. of insurance Rate ap Fl ?R)" means an official ;map of a communitv,L A which the Federal Emergencv Manacemer... Agency- ho_s delineated both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. "Flood insurance Study-" is the official report provided by the Federal Emergency Management Ages The report contains flood profiles, as well as the Flood Boundary Floodway Nap and the water surface elevation of the base flood. 16rloodwav" means e c annel 2f a river o= o� watercourse a o t ° e ad�ae t and areLl _ must be es and _ discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. "Floor" means.the = surface of an enclosed area in a building includin basement i.e„ tot of slab - concrete slab construction or top of wood flooring in wood =rase construction. The term does not include the floor of a garage used solely for oarkin vehicles. "Functionally Dependent Facility" means a facilitv which cannot be used for its intended purcose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water, such as a dock ^c os. gort- facility- necessary_ for -the loading-and unloading of cargo or passengers, shipbuildina_ shin repair, or seafood processing facilities. The term does not include lor.c -term storage, manufacture sales, or service facilities. "Richest Adjacent Grade" means the highest natural el- evation of the ground surface, prior to construction next to the ro osed walls of the structure. "Historic Structure" means a__nv structure that is: (a) listed individually in the National Recister of Historic places ra listing maintained by t e US De artment of- Interio wL or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of Interior as meetinct the recairements for individual listing On the National Recister; (b)_ certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a recistered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to cualifv as a registered historic district: individually i its ed on a State inventory of historic places; Ld1 individually listed on a local inventory of hi s �o= is nlaces in communities with historic preservation nroc,ams that have been certified Ll)_ by an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or 12)_ directly by -he Secretary of Interior in states without approved procrams_ "Levee" means a man -made structure usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance y,_-:h sound engineering ractices to contain, controi, 2M- 0. divert -he =low = water so as to p--ovide protection from temporary "loodinc. "Lowest F oor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or floor resistant enclosure,.usable solely for parking of vehicles, building 'access, or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a buildings lowest floor provided that such an enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non - elevation design requirements Of. this ordinance. "Manufactured Home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with o_ without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. 'the termn '_manufactured home" does not include a recreational vehicle". e" N .0 " Manufactured Home park or Subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. "Mean Sea Level" means Lhe average height of the sea for all stages of the tide. It is used a_s a reference for establishin various elevations within the zloodplain. For ur oses of this ordinance the term is svr.anvmous with Nat.ional Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). "National�Geodetic Vertical atum NGLD� as corrected in 1929 is a vertical control used as a reference for establishing varying elevations within the floodolain. "New Construction" means structures for which the "start Of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of this ordinance and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. "New Manufactured Home Park ar Subdivision" means a manufactured home irk ar subdivision for which the con- tructrion of facilities for servicing the tots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including —at a rr,inimumt the installation of utilities the construction of streets, and either final site aradinQ or the pouring of concrete slabs ) is completed on or after the effective date of this ordinance. on- Conformin Building or Use" means anv legally ex_ issting^ building or use which fails to comtly with the nrovisior.s or the ordinance. "Recreational Vehicle' � means a vehicle which is: La_j built o —n a00 Square feet or Less when measured a sin le chass_s� - - (c designed to �e at the argest horizontal prolec -Ion; �— self - traDell_e or permanently towable by a light duty truck. and de. ed primarily not for use a_s a me-- man dwel? i nc� but os temtorary living cum =terms =or recreational ca: tj *fig, -4ravel,_ o! seasonal use. "Remedy $ Violation meals to briny the structure or other develot),ment in =o Compliance with State or local floodtlain manage nt r Ovl t' ns _o� this is not possible. to ,reduce Yhe. Pllbacts � its - r -comR Lance. Ways .that imtacts Iiiay bP a uC d cal de p'r tecti_ ^_.G Lhe szzuctur a Or othe'; affected develo=eDt mom fl- .2od dames , -implementing the e fo ee e t p ovions ,of t ordinance or o}. h rwise reduci na ed eral geteQ tune mi ar violations, or financial ex.* osYe w; th re_ c�ra to the s - -uc t•,re o- other deve I o=me .t . "SI;F of Ca st"'uc` i o " (for other than new const_ucti on ar substantial improvements under the COaszal Bar_ier ResoLrceS Act (public Law 97- 348)), includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual Start of construction, repair, recorst_uct ;On, rehabilAtat' °n� dd't'on or, 'mnrovement was within 180 days i -1 of the permit date. The actual start means the first placement of permanent construction of a structure _(including a manufactured home on a site, such as the pouring of slabs, or footings, the installation of piles, construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and /or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, o; foundations or the'erection of temporary forms;.nor.does it include the installation of property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part Of the main structure. Far a substa t'al improvement the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor; or ocher structural part of the buildin whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. "stream', means a water course that collects surface runoff from an area of one square mile or greater. "Structure" means-,- for floodplain manacemer.t mu ,poses, a walled and roofed building,_ a manufactured 'home, ir.cludina a gas or liquid sty tank, or other mar. -made facilities or� infrastructures that are principally above ground. "Substantial Dam�ace__' means damage of any origin sustained by _ z structure wherebv the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the da- occurred. See definition of "subs;. antial irr,mrovemen -: . "Substantial Improvement" means any repair, reconstruction, rehabilitat ion Addition, or o -her improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds -i=tv pence =t Of the market value of the structure before the structur " st-ar � -o- f construction" of the _ mprovemen . This term � nclodes es which have kncurred suhst antral regardless of the actual Lena it work a =formed. T' does not The term however, include either: (1) any project for improvement of a structure to eo -Lett existing viola` ions of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been iden;.ified by the local code �nforcemen f c' a a.nd Vnigh are the mJ nimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or, (2) any a!- g,: ;on or a historic st uct re provided that the alterat on w �i no p eclude the strut- r -; f �u_e s can,_nuea des�enation as a historic $ truct rem ~Vance" ils a grant Of re_ ,� �o � p�� L�^O*[t ^e requirements of this ordinance which net`s- construction 'n A manner otherwise n }_ohib by t?: ;s ordinance where sne..fi-c a forcement would re su11t in ur.necessa -v hadshin. "Violation" means the failu -e 2-f -.A structure or other developmento be fully compliant wit h the comr„urity , s god lain mana eme t re u at'ons. A structure or other' } ' ,out the elevation certif' cat_e, other aevelo men4 wK� certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in Articles 4 and 5 is presumed to be in violations um-11 such time as that documentation is rovided. 4.5 MANUFACTURED HOMES a. Manufactured homes that are placed or subs ta ^.t`ally improved .within ..Zones, Al -A Pte. and AE on s i tes (e.)_ outside a manufactured home park or subdivision• Lb„1 in a new manufactured home park or subdivision; u in an ex ansion :ro an exist"n manufactured home park or subdivision_ o un an existing manufactured home nark or subdivision on which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood, must be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated to or above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adeauately anchored fou dation system to resist flotation, collapse, - and lateral movement. b. Manufactured homes that are 1p.aced or substantially improved on sues in an existin manufactured home ar or subdivision within Zones Al -A3� AK, and pE x &= ; c e that are not subs to the provisions o� 5, Section g(3a) of this ordinance must be elevated so that eit' er Si the lowest floor 2;� the manufactured home is elevated to or above the base flood elevation or LLLI the manufactured home chassis is supooted by reinforced tiers ors foundation elements of at least eau'valent stye ^cth that are no less than 36 inches i n heir"' a'zove Z ade and be secureiv anchored to an adecuateiv anchored foundation to resist flota!'on collapse and lateral movement. c, pa evacuat'one an must he^develoted fc_ evacuation i all residents of a manuract, -red home Dz k on subaiv's' ors located ; =th_;n =1ovd nsrone areas and su filed wish snd s��roved � the cou::ty a= local me aency Manaaeme t Goo r-dinator. ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1990 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: November 19, 1990 BOCC REVIEW: December 11, 1990 13 1 however, they did not have a very strong case for approval. 2 3 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 4 Commissioner Insko, to refer this matter to the Planning Board for 5 a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no 6 sooner than February 4,. 1990. 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 10 8 9 5. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Text Amendments 10 a. Article 2 Definitions 11 b. Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes 12 These presentations were made by Eddie Kirk. This 13 item was presented to amend ARTICLE 2- DEFINITIONS and ARTICLE J4,5- 14 MANUFACTURED HOMES to conform with changes to the floodplain 15 management regulations administered by the Federal Emergency 16 Management Agency (FEMA). The proposed amendments include new 17 definitions, clarifications to existing definitions, and new 18 requirements concerning manufactured homes. In designated 19 floodplains, replacement manufactured homes in existing 20 manufactured home parks will have to be elevated to the base flood 21 elevation or 36 inches above grade on reinforced piers. 22 23 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF 24 COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. 25 26 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by 27 Commissioner Willhoit, to refer this matter to the Planning Board 28 for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners 29 no sooner than February 4, 1990. 30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31 32 D, ADJOURNMENT 33 34 With no further business for consideration by the Board, 35 Chairman Moses Carey, Jr, adjourned the meeting. The next meeting 35 will be held on Tuesday December 18, 1990 at 7:30 p,m, in the 37 Courtroom of the Old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 38 39 Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman 40 41 Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk 42 Draft 1- 28--91 Plannina Beard Minutes �4 access to the creek. Cameron stated that parkland dedication is required. Unless Recreation and Parks decides that dedication wil not fit into the system, then payment -in- -lieu of dedication could be recommended. Due to the lower number of lots, the amount required result in a fairly small strip of land. MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (20 Lots) (1) Buck Run /Deed of Easement Acceptance (20 Lots - Cheeks Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. On March 5, 1990 the Orange County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan and Resolution of Approval for Buck Run Subdivision. In this resolution it was indicated that a deed would be provided to Orange County for a public right -of- way between lots 14 and 15 to allow future access to property east of the subdivision. A 60' wide deed of easement has been prepared and recorded with the final plat. The County Attorney has indicated this deed should be accepted by the County in an amended Resolution of Approval. The attached amended Resolution of Approval has bee approved by the County Attorney. The neighboring property owner has indicated his concern with the 60' wide right -of -way in that lie would like to connect a 50' wide right -of -way when he develops his property. NCDOT has indicated that a 50 foot right -of -way has been connected to a 60 foot right -of -way in the past and it would probably be acceptable in this situation. They indicated they would have to s e development plans for the adjoining property before approval could be given. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended Resolution of Approval- NOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/11/90) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Development Advisory Committee (a) Article 2.4.2.1 (e) - Duties (2) Watershed Protection (a) Article 4.2.27 PW -II District (2)'Article 4.2.28 WQCA District (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 Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2125/91) 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 Stancil stated that the property is located at the intersection of Old 86 and I -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 only 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 county 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 sites in the county and this is one site that will be looked at. Best asked about the water line from Chapel Hill. 15 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 1 Action Agenda Item # V- F SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Article 2.4.2.1 - Development Advisory Committee DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes —X-No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo ext. 2583 Proposed Amendment 7/25/90 Letter from Co. Attorney TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 12/11/90 Public Hearing Minutes Hillsborough - 732 -8181 1/28/91 Planning Board Minutes Durham - 688 -7331 (Draft) Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning ordinance amendment deleting any role for the Development Advisory Committee in the issuance of Stop Work Orders. BACKGROUND: On October 17, 1989, the Board of Commissioners approved an amendment which allows the Zoning Officer is issue a Stop Work Order for activity which violates provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and could cause irreparable injury if allowed to continue. The amendment involved changes to several sections of the Ordinance. Article 2.4.2.1 was amended to expand the duties of the Development Advisory Committee to render advise to the Zoning Officer in the issuance of Stop Work Orders. The County Attorney has indicated that the Development Advisory Committee should have no role in the enforcement of the Ordinance. The proposed amendment would delete paragraph 2.4.2.1(e), which was inadvertently recommended for approval on October 17, 1989. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990. There were no comments. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on January 28, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. v� PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT K ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 2.4.2.1(e) (Development Advisory Committee) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: County Attorney STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 11, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To consider a Zoning Ordinance amendment to delete any role of the Development Advisory Committee in the issuance of Stop Work Orders. IMPACTS /ISSUES: On October 17, 1989, the Board of Commissioners approved an amendment which allows the Zoning Officer is issue a Stop Work Order for activity which violates provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and could cause irreparable injury if allowed to continue. The amendment involved changes to several sections of the Ordinance. Article 23 (Violations, Penalties and Remedies) was amended to establish a Stop Work Order as a penalty for a violation. Article 2.3.3 (Board of Adjustment Administration) was amended to establish an appeal procedure. Article 2.4.2.1 was amended to expand the duties of the Development Advisory Committee to render advise to the Zoning Officer in the issuance of Stop Work Orders. The County Attorney has indicated that the Development Advisory Committee should have no role in the enforcement of the Ordinance. In practice, decisions regarding Stop Work Orders have been made by the Zoning Officer, with input from the County Attorney when needed. The proposed amendment would delete paragraph 2.4.2.1(e), which was inadvertently recommended for approval on October 17, 1989. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 2.4.2.1 Duties and Responsibilities The Development Advisory Committee has the following duties and responsibilities. The Committee shall: a) Review proposed amendments, Planned Developments, Special Uses, rezonings, and subdivisions for the Zoning Officer on the technical issues raised; and 3 b) Review in cooperation with the Zoning Officer the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and this code; and C) Produce, as required, for all County governing bodies and planning boards a report on such amendments, Planned Developments, Special Uses, rezonings, subdivisions or other technical issues that may be referred to the Committee; and d) Render technical advice and recommendations related to this ordinance and its operation. E f M— — aa...__s - - - - �k* deer** �k�kdedk�r****# * *�kie�k�itiede�fe�e�eie�k * * * ** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1990 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: January 28, 1991 BOCC REVIEW: COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 129 E. TRYON STREET P.Q. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 919 -732 -2196 919 - 942 -5000 FAX 919 -732 -7997 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 300, THE CENTER 1506 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 919 - 929.7151 FAX 919- 929 -3R92 ALONZO B. COLEMAN, JR. STEVEN A. BERNHOLZ ROGER B. BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE G. NICHOLAS HERMAN KIM K. STEFFAN MARILYN E. TOME[ JOE L. WEBSTER TERRY G. HARN JANET B. DUTTON Of Counsel BONNER D. SAWYER (1902 - 1972) July 25, 1990 Ms. Mary Scearbo Planner III Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Zoning Ordinance - 10/17/89 amendments related to stop work orders Dear Mary: 4 While looking for something else, I ran across Section 2.4.2.1(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. That section calls for the "Development Advisory Committee" to render advice to the Zoning Officer pertaining to the issuance of a stop work order. On or about October 51 1989, you sent me a copy of the proposed Board of Commissioners action agenda item abstract dealing with the stop work order revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. We spoke briefly thereafter by telephone. During that telephone conversation I opined that the Development Advisory Committee has really no place in Ordinance enforcement and should not be rendering advice to the Zoning Officer pertaining to stop work orders. Further, I suggested that the power to issue the stop work order should not be repeated in this section. It is included within Article 21 of the Ordinance. I suggest, as a technical correction, that this reference to the stop work order and the authority to issue a stop work order be removed from Section 2.4.2.1. GEG /lsg very truly yours, Gledhill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 '2 34 '5 36 ;, 7 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 5 TH.E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED A motion was made by Commissioner Halkictis, seconded b, Commissioner Insko, to approve the proposed house and buildinc numbers, followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster, the Efland Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A -240. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Zoning Atlas Amendments a. PD -4 -90 - Weston Place Planned Development This item was deleted. 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments These presentations were made by Mary Scearbo for iterr: (a), (b) and (c) and by Eddie Kirk for items (d), (e), and (f), y a. DEVELOPMENT Committee in Work Orders. Article 2.4.2.1 (e) Development Advisory Committe_ This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 2.4.2.1(e ADVISORY COMMITTEE by eliminating the role of ;,n= advising the Zoning Officer about the issuance of Sto: THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD 0' COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded b Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this matter to the Planning Boar, for recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners n- sooner than February 4, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Items 2 (b) & (c) were heard together. b. Article 4.2.27 Protected Watershed (PW -II) This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 4.2.2 PROTECTED WATERSHED -II (PW -II) DISTRICT by clarifying that the PW• II Zoning district overlay will be applied in the zoned portion, of the county designated as Water Supply Watershed in the Land Us Element of the Comprehensive Plan. C. Article 4.2.28 Water Critical Area (WQCA) This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 4.2.2 WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA (WQCA) DISTRICT by clarifying that to WQCA zoning district, overlay will be applied in the zoned portion of the county designated as Water Quality Critical Area in tr Land Use Element Of the Comprehensive Plan. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD C COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS, MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: VOTE: AGENDA ITEM 09: Draft 1- 28--91 planning Board Minutes 6 access to the creek. Cameron stated that, parkland dedication is required. Unless Recreation and Parks decides that dedication wil not fit into the system, then payment --in -lieu of dedication could be recommended. Due to the lower number of lots, the amount required result in a fairly small strip of land. Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (20 Lots) (1) Buck Run /Deed of Easement Acceptance (20 Lots - Cheeks Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. On March 5, 1990 the Orange County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan and Resolution of Approval for Buck Run Subdivision. In this resolution it was indicated that a deed would be provided to Orange County for a public right -of- way between lots 14 and 15 to allow future acces to property east of the subdivision. A 60' wide deed of easement has been prepared and recorded with the final plat. The County Attorney has indicated this deed should be accepted by the County in an amended Resolution of Approval. Th attached amended Resolution of Approval has beer approved by the County Attorney. The neighboring property owner has indicated his concern with the 60' wide right -of -way in that le would like to connect a 50' wide right -of -way when he develops his property. NCDOT has indicated that a 50 foot right -of -way has been connected to a 60 foot right -of -way in the past and it would probably be acceptable in this situation. They indicated they would have to s e development plans for the adjoining property before approval could be given. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended Resolution of Approval. Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs. Unanimous. MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/11/90) a. Zoning Ordinance (1) Development (a) Article Text Amendments Advisory Committee 2.4.2.1 (e) -- Duties (2) Watershed Protection (a) Article 4.2.27 PW -II District (2)'Article 4.2.28 WOCA District (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 D, Revised (a) (b) MOTION: Best moved Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. amage Prevention Ordinance Amendments (1) FEMA Regulations Article 2 Definitions Article 4.5 Manufactured Homes to approve Agenda Item #9. Seconded by 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 Stancil stated that the property is located at the intersection of Old 86 and I -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 only 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 county 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 sites in the county and this is one site that will be looked at. Best asked about the water line from Chapel Hill. 7 r ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT Article 4.2.27 PWII Article 4.2.28 WQCA DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment 12/11/90 Public Hearing Minutes 1/28/91 Planning Board Minutes (Draft) AMENDMENT District Intent District Intent PUBLIC HEARING 1 Action Agenda Item Yes —X-No INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo ext. 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment that would correct a technical discrepancy between the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas, and provide consistency in wording. BACKGROUND: Section 4.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the PW- II Protected Watershed Zoning Overlay may be applied to the zoned portions of the University Lake, Cane Creek and Upper Eno Watersheds. At the time that the PW -II district was first adopted, these were the only water supply watersheds designated on the Comprehensive Plan. In late 1988, the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was amended to designate Back Creek, Flat Creek, and Little River Watersheds as Water supply Watersheds. The Zoning Ordinance was also amended to apply the PW -II overlay on the zoned portion of those watersheds. Article 4.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance should have been amended as well to reflect the expansion of area designated as water supply watershed. The proposed amendment would allow the PW -II overlay to be applied to any watershed designated as a water supply watershed in the Comprehensive Plan. Article 4.2.28 applies the WQCA Water Quality Critical Area overlay. The proposed amendment to this section is for clarification only. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990. There were no comments. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on January 28, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. x PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2 ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Section 4.2.27 PW--II District Section 4.2.28 WQCA District ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 11, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To correct a technical discrepancy between the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas, and provide consistency in wording. IMPACTS /ISSUES: Section 4.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance describes the intent of the PW- II Protected Watershed Zoning Overlay, and.identifies the areas to which the overlay may be applied. The application criteria specifically refers to the zoned portions of the University Lake, Cane Creek and Upper Eno Watersheds. At the time that the PW -II district was first adopted, these were the only water supply watersheds designated on the Comprehensive Plan. In late 1988, the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was amended to designate Back Creek, Flat Creek, and Little River Watersheds as Water supply Watersheds. Although the water impoundments to which the streams flow is not located in Orange County, is it likely that the water contained within those impoundments may be used by residents of Orange County in the future. The Zoning Atlas was also amended in late 1988 to apply the PW -II Zoning Overlay to the portions of those watersheds within Cheeks, Hillsborough and Eno Townships. Article 4.2.27 of the Zoning Ordinance should have been amended at that time to reflect the expansion of area designated as water supply watershed. Article 4.2.28 describes the intent and application criteria for the WQCA Water Quality Critical Area overlay. The proposed amendment to this section is for clarification only. 3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 4.2.27 Protected Watershed II (PW -II) District a) Intent It is the intent of Orange County to regulate the uses of land and structures in watersheds which drain to reservoirs supplying drinking water to the people of Orange County. . . . . b) Application Criteria The Protected Watershed II (PW -II) is established as a district which overlays other zoning districts established in this ordinance.. . . . 1. This district will be applied to the zoned portions of sr.s; ue— r-s- ,-t-.:68ke, Cana eree'k a-1fei -fie UPPea' Rae w=ater4-heds as land designated as Water suRRlY Watershed on the Land Use Element of the adapts Comprehensive Plan. 4.2.28 Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District a) Intent It is the intent of Orange County to regulate the uses of land and structures in the portions of water supply watersheds which are immediately adjacent to the water supply impoundments.. . . b) Application Criteria The Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District is established as a district which overlays other zoning districts established in this ordinance.. . . . 1. This district will be applied to portions of protected water supply watersheds as designated as Water Ouality Critical Area in the Land Use Element of the s�bed Comprehensive Plan. ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1990 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: January 28, 1991 BOCC REVIEW: 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2' 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ' 2V 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 n--1 1:)i - N, --:.. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconder Commissioner Insko, to approve the proposed house and bull numbers, followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmas the Efland Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportat as required by G.S. 153A -240. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Zoning Atlas Amendments a. PD -4 -90 - Weston Place Planned Development This item was deleted. 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments These presentations were made by Mary Scearbo (a), (b) and (c) and by Eddie Kirk for items (d), (e), I by ding ter, ion, for items and ( f ) . a. Article 2.4.2.1 (e) Development Advisory Committee This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 2.4.2.1(e) DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE by eliminating the role of the Committee in advising the Zoning Officer about the issuance of Stop Work Orders. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon. seconde Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this matter to the Planning for recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissione sooner than February 4, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Items 2 (b) & (c) were heard together. b. Article 4.2.27 Protected Watershed (PW -II) This item was presented to amend AP.TICLE 4. PROTECTED WATERSHED -II (PW -II) DISTRICT by clarifying that the II zoning district overlay. will be applied in the zoned port of the county designated as Water Supply Watershed in the Land Element of the Comprehensive Plan. C. Article 4.2.28 Water Critical Area (WQCA) .This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 4. WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA (WQCA) DISTRICT by clarifying that WQCA zoning district overlay will be applied in the zoned port of the county designated as Water Quality Critical Area in Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. by and no 2.27 Pw- ions Use 2.28 the ions the OF I Draft 1 -28 -91 Plannina Board Minutes access to the creek. Cameron stated that - -� parkland dedication is required. unless Recreation and Parks decides that dedication will not fit into the system, then payment -in -lieu of dedication could be recommended. Due to the lower number of lots, the amount required results in a fairly small strip of land. MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (20 Lots) (1) Buck Run /Deed of Easement Acceptance (20 Lots - Cheeks Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. On March 5, 1990 the Orange County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan and Resolution of Approval for Buck Run Subdivision. In this resolution it was indicated that a deed would be provided to Orange County for a public right -of- way between lots 14 and 15 to allow future access to property east of the subdivision. A 60' wide deed of easement has been prepared and recorded with the final plat. The County Attorney has indicated this deed should be accepted by the County in an amended Resolution of Approval. The attached amended Resolution of Approval has been approved by the County Attorney. The neighboring property owner has indicated his concern with the 60' wide right -of -way in that he would like to connect a 50' wide right -of -way when he develops his property. NCDOT has indicated that a 50 foot right -of -way has been connected to a 60 foot right -of -way in the past and it would probably be acceptable in this situation. They indicated they would have to see development plans for the adjoining property before approval could be given. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended Resolution of Approval. MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/11/90) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Development Advisory Committee (a) Article 2.4.2.1 (e) - Duties 1 (2) Watershed Protection (a) Article 4.2.27 PW -II District (2)'Article 4.2.28 WQCA District (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 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 Stancil stated that the property is located at the intersection of Old 86 and I -40 on the southeast quadrant. The applicants are looking for a land use plan designation of commercial activity node for 33 acres. They have indicate a possible desire for pursuing an office park or that site. Stancil stated that this would involve a primary plan amendment which could only be heard at the February public hearing. Property owners will be notified in the next tw 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 c 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 sites in the county and this is one site that will be looked at. Best asked about the water line from Chapel Hill. 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19 1991 Action Agenda SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT Item Section III -D -2 -e Action Subsequent to Approval (of Preliminary Plat) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes -X —No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment 10/1/90 Commissioners Minutes (Four Birches) 12/11/90 Public Hearing Minutes 1/28/91 Planning Board Minutes (Draft) INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo ext. 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which would add another basis for allowing the phasing plan for a major subdivision to be revised. BACKGROUND: on January 8, 1990 the Subdivision Regulations were amended to allow revisions to the phasing plans of major subdivisions. Six criteria used to justify revised phasing plans were set forth in Section III- D -2 -e. On September 4, 1990, the Board of Commissioners approved a revised phasing plan for Four Birches Subdivision. Four Birches' justification for a revised phasing plan, when compared with the current criteria set forth in Section II- D-2-e, did not present a strong case for approval. The fact that proposed phasing would not extend the time limit for completion of improvements was found however to be a reasonable basis for approval. The Board of Commissioners directed Staff to prepare of an amendment to Section II -D -2 -e allowing approval of a phasing plan if the time available to install improvements was not extended. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on December 11, 1990. There were no citizen comments. Commissioner Gordon asked several questions related to Four Birches Subdivision and expressed concern with the breadth of the existing and proposed criteria. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on January 28, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. wi PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Section III -D -2 -e ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: —X Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High X Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 11, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To consider a proposed amendment which would add another basis for subdivision to be revised. IMPACTS /ISSUES: 2 to the Subdivision Regulations allowing the phasing plan for a major On January 8, 1990 the Subdivision Regulations were amended to allow revisions to the phasing plans of major subdivisions. The amendment provides a remedy for development plans for which the 12 -month time limit for obtaining Final Plat approval had expired or was about to expire. Six criteria used to justify revised phasing plans were set forth in Section III- D -2 -e. On September 4, 1990, the Board of Commissioners approved a revised phasing plan for Four Birches Subdivision. The Preliminary Plat for Four Birches expired on August 1, 1990. Road and landscaping improvements were not complete, and there had been no security posted to assure their completion. The revised phasing plan allowed an additional four months (December 1, 1990) to receive Final Plat approval. If the improvements are not completed by that time, then security must be posted. However, conditions of the phasing plan approval state that, even if secured, the improvements must be completed by August 1, 1991. Had the subdivision been approved on August 1, 1990, security could have been posted for a period of one year, requiring the applicant to complete the improvements by that same date of August 1, 1991. Four Birches' justification for a revised phasing plan, when compared with the current criteria set forth in Section II- D -2 -e, did not present a strong case for approval. The fact that proposed phasing would not extend the time limit for completion of improvements was the basis for the administration's recommendation for approval, and the Board of Commissioners approval of the Four Birches phasing plan. The Board of Commissioners directed Staff to prepare an amendment to Section II -D -2 -e allowing approval of a phasing plan if the time available to install improvements was not extended. I 3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: III -D Application and Approval Procedures 111 -D -2 Preliminary Plat Approval III-D -2 -e Action Subsequent to Approval . . . In determining whether to approve an amended phasing plan, the Board of Commissioners shall consider: (1) whether or not approval of other diligently pursued regulatory requirements can be obtained before the expiration of the time periods established in the phasing plan; and (2) the quality of and length of time of the experience of the subdivider in managing development projects; and (3) whether factors other than market conditions and beyond the control of the subdivider caused a delay in meeting the phasing plan; and (4) whether the development project, if completed consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat, will tend to aid or meet an important public policy goal established by the Board of County Commissioners; and (5) whether the application for an amended phasing plan was submitted before the previously approved time limit(s) has lapsed; and (5) the possibility of and practicality of the subdivider and developer completing the development project consistent with Orange County regulations applicable if the phasing plan amendment is not granted; and 7 whether the time by which im rovements must be com leted or installed would not be extended by the revised phasing plan. *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1990 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: t -- 1 asked that there be an appeal procedure that would involve the Planning 2 Director, the Manager and County Attorney. John Link indicated they 3 would set up such a procedure. 4 Commissioner Willhoit referred to Section 3.2.2 which refers 5 to hazardous materials and Mary Scearbo indicated this should be changed 6 to hazardous waste. 7 8 Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by 9 Commissioner Marshall to approve the Environmental Impact Ordinance as 10 amended. The Ordinance is hereby made a part of these minutes by 11 reference and is attached to these minutes on pages 12 13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 14 15 E. FOIIR BIRCHES - MENDED PHASING PLAN 16 Planner Mary Scearbo presented an amended phasing plan for 17 Four Birches Subdivision. The preliminary plan was approved by the 18 Board of Commissioners on August 1, 1989. On July 25, 1990, the 19 applicant submitted an application for Final Plat approval. The 20 application was considered incomplete since the required improvements 21 had not been made and security was not provided for their completion. 22 On January 8, 1990, the Subdivision Regulations were amended to allow 23 revisions to the phasing plans of major subdivision. The applicant has 24 indicated that improvements will be completed by August 1, 1991. 25 Motion ,was made by. Commissioner Marshall, seconded by 26 Commissioner Halkiotis to approve extending the deadline for receiving 27 approval of the Final Plat for Four Birches to December 1, 1990, and 28 that Section II -D -e -2 of the Subdivision Regulations be amended to add 29 that a phasing plan may be approved if the time available to complete 30 the construction-of.-improvements---is-not extended. 31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 32 33 F. M CHA PB L - WIDTH RIG -OF -WAY Motion was made by Chair Carey, seconded by Commissioner 34 35 Halkiotis to approve a partial width right -of -way of 30 feet from High line Lot 15H (approximately 36 Rock Road to the northernmost property of 37 550 feet in length). 38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 39 40 G ER 27, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING - TERNATIVE DATE 41. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Chair 42 Carey to change the date for the Quarterly Public Hearing from November 43= -27, 1990 to December 11, 1990. 44 VOTE: AYES, 3; NOES, Commissioner Willhoit. 45 46 47 XI. APPOINTMENTS The following appointments were made to the AGRICULT L 48 DISTRICTS ADVISORY ROM Elizabeth Walters - Cedar Grove Township 49 5p Chris Hogan - Chapel Hill Township 51 Robert Nutter - Bingham Township 52 Pearson Stewart - Chapel Hill Township 5 1 2 A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by 3 Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these matters to the Planning 4 Board for recommendation to be returned to the Board of 5 Commissioners no sooner than February 4, 1990. 6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7 8 Items 3 (d), (e) 8 (f) were presented together. 9 10 d. Article 4.3 Permitted Uses (Camp /Retreat Centers) 11 This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 4.3 12 PERMITTED USE TABLE by adding "Camp /Retreat Centers" as a use 13 permitted in the Rural Buffer (RB), Agricultural - Residential (AR). 14 and Rural Residential (R -1) zoning districts following the approval 15 and issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit. 16 17 e. Article 8.8 Special Uses (Camp /Retreat Centers) 18 This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 8.E 19 regulations governing individual special uses by adding a new 20 Article 6.8.5 Camp /Retreat Center which sets forth specific site 21 plan and development standards applicable to camp /retreat centers. 22 23 f. Article 22 Definitions (Camp /Retreat Centers) 24 This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 22 25 DEFINITIONS by adding the definitions of "camp" and "retreat 25 center ". 27 26 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF 29 COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. 30 31 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis. seconded by 32 Commissioner Insko, to refer these matters to the Planning Board 33 for recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no 34 sooner than February 4, 1990. 35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 35 37 4. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments 38 a. Section III -D -2 -e Application Requirements 39 This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. This item 40 was presented to amend SECTION III -D -2 -e APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 41 by adding another factor which the Board of Commissioners may 42 consider in determining whether or not to approve an amended 43 phasing plan for a subdivision. The new provision would allow 44 approval of an amended phasing plan if the time available to 45 install improvements (roads, etc.) was not extended. 46 47 THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF 48 COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. 49 50 Commissioner Gordon asked if the Four Birch Subdivision would 51 have been aooroved with this proposed amendment. Scearbo indicated 52 that this amendment would have made a stronger case for them. 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 '0 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 L� rT ti however, they did not have a very strong case for approval. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than February 4, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Flood Damage Prevention Ordi/An Text Amendments a. Article 2 Definitions b. Article 4.5 Manufactures These presentations wer by Eddie K�rk. This item was presented to amend ARTICLE 2- DIONS and ICLE J4.9- MANUFACTURED HOMES to conform with s to e floo pla'r management regulations administered e Fe ral Eme genc� Management Agency (FEMA). The propoend nts inclu e new definitions, clarifications to exisde nitions, and nE� requirements concerning manufacture In desi natec floodplains, replacement manufactuhomes in existirz manufactured home parks will have to bated to the base flocs elevation or 36 inches above grade on rced piers. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR q0AMENTS FROM THE BOA D Or COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOAR OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded t, Commissioner Willhoit, to r er this matter to the Planning Boarc for a recommendation to b returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than February 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT With no rther business for consideration by the Boar--, Chairman Mos Carey, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next ee,in= will be h d on Tuesday December 18, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in th=_ Courtroo of the Old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. . v I J v- , Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman r Draft 1 -28 -91 Plannina Board Minutes C1 access to the creek. Cameron stated that = - -. -- parkland dedication is required. Unless-----. Recreation and Parks decides that dedication will not fit into the system, then payment -in -lieu of dedication could be recommended. Due to the lower number of lots, the amount required results in a fairly small strip of land. MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (20 Lots) (1) Buck Run /Deed of Easement Acceptance (20 Lots -- Cheeks Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. On March 5, 1990 the Orange County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan and Resolution of Approval for Buck Run Subdivision. In this resolution it was indicated that a deed would be provided to Orange County for a public right -of- way between lots 14 and 15 to allow future access to property east of the subdivision. A 60' wide deed of easement has been prepared and recorded with the final plat. The County Attorney has indicated this deed should be accepted by the County in an amended Resolution of Approval. The attached amended Resolution of Approval has been approved by the County Attorney. The neighboring property owner has indicated his concern with the 60' wide right -of -way in that he would like to connect a 50' wide right -of -way when he develops his property. NCDOT has indicated that a 50 foot right -of -way has been connected to a 60 foot right -of -way in the past and it would probably be acceptable in this situation. They indicated they would have to see development plans for the adjoining property before approval could be given. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended Resolution of Approval. MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jacobs. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM 09: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/11/90) a. zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Development Advisory Committee (a) Article 2.4.2.1 (e) - Duties (2) Watershed Protection (a) Article 4.2.27 PW -II District (2)'Article 4.2.28 WQCA District (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 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 Stancil stated that the property is located at the intersection of Old 86 and I -40 on the southeast quadrant. The applicants are looking for a land use plan designation of commercial activity node for 33 acres. They have indicate a possible desire for pursuing an office park on that site. Stancil stated that this would involve a primary plan amendment which could only 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 coup is in need of. Stancil stated that the Target Advisory Committ e has not ruled that out as of yet. He stated that this committee had talked about identifying sit s in the county and this is one site that will be looked at. Best asked about the water line from Chapel Hill. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: Budget Ordinance Amendment #8 DEPARTMENT Budget ATTACHMENT(S) Proposed Budget Amendments 1 Action Agenda Item No PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X INFORMATION CONTACT Budget Office, ext 2450 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To approve proposed budget ordinance amendments. BACKGROUND: (1) Orange County has received notification of a reduction in the 1990 -91 CBA allocation. The amount of the reduction is $2,546. The Youth Task Force met in November and decided on the following program reductions: Sheaffer House - $576; Planned Parent -hood - $55; Dispute Settlement Center - $45; Goodbye Cinderella - $20; OPC Drug Program - $35; Volunteers for Youth - $30; Project Attend - $70; OPC Day Treatment - $60; OPC Respite - $55; Adolescent Sex offenders - $1,600. The attached budget amendment will reduce the 1990 -91 allocations to those agencies. (2) At the August 21, 1990 meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved a capital project ordinance authorizing the appropriation of an additional $20,000 in County funding to complete the Jail Renovation project. The attached technical budget amendment will complete the transfer of $20,000 from fund balance in the County Capital Reserve Fund to the Jail Renovation project in the County Capital Projects Fund. (3) At the February 4, 1991 meeting, the Board of Commissioners authorized the an appropriation of $20,000 from Contingency for an emergency allocation for the DSS Child Day Care Subsidy Program. This amendment will appropriate these funds from the Contingency account. E (4) The Orange County Arts Commission has received two grants from the NC Arts Council. The first grant, totalling $1,000, is a local government challenge grant which will enable the Arts Commission to further support the arts in Orange County. The second grant, totalling $24,210, is a grassroots grant. This grant will allow the Arts Commission to provide sub - grants to various organizations throughout the County as they promote art programs for citizens. (5) The Orange County Department of Social services has received notification of a reallocation of state Child Day Care funds. There have been two reallocations, totalling $19,992, received since December. No County match is required for the receipt of these funds. (6) At the January 7, 1991, meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved an employment agreement with the orange County Housing Corporation. Orange County will be reimbursed by the Housing Corporation for all costs associated with this employment agreement. The attached budget ordinance amendment will authorize the expenditure of these funds for the purposes outlined in the agreement. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the attached budget ordinance amendments. ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1990 -91 BUDGET AMENDMENTS The 1990 -91 Orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is hereby amended as follows: 1 1: 1) GENERAL FUND Source Intergovernmental $6,344,446 Appropriation Contributions to Outside Agencies $1,941,410 To budget CBA funding reduction. 2) COUNTY CAPITAL RESERVE FUND 3 AFTER AMENDMENT $ (2,546) $6,341,900 $ (2,546) $1,938,864 source Appropriated Fund Balance $ 103,804 $ 20,000 $ 123,804 Appropriation Transfer to County Capital Projects Fund $1,329,404 $ 20,000 $1,349,404 To budget additional, funds for the Jail Renovation project. 3) GENERAL FUND Source Miscellaneous $ 653,012 $ (20,000) $ 633,012 Appropriation Human Services $10,640,980 $ 20,000 $10,660,980 To transfer additional funds for the DSS Child Day Care program from Contingency. BEFORE AMENDMENT 4) GENERAL FUND 4 AFTER source Intergovernmental $6,341,900 $ 25,210 $6,367,110 Appropriation Contributions to Outside $1,938,864 $ 25,210 $1,964,074 Agencies To budget for additional funds awarded to the orange County Arts Commission. 5) GENERAL FUND source Intergovernmental $6,367,110 $ 19,992 $6,387,102 Appropriation Human Services $10,660,980 $ 19,992 $10,680,972 To budget for additional state Child Day Care funds. 6) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND Source Intergovernmental $3,047,100 $ 51,400 $3,098,500 Appropriation Orange Community Housing $ 0 $ 51,400 $ 51,400 To establish budget for Orange Community Housing project. BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 8 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No . _ Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: CHANGE OF MEETING DATE - - - -- ---------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X --- - - - - -- ---------------------------------- ATTACHMENT(S): YES - NOTICE INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 ------------------------------------------------------- PURPOSE: To officially change the date of a regular Board of Commissioners meeting from March 19 to March 20. BACKGROUND: The 1991 NACo Legislative Conference is scheduled to begin on March 15 and end on March 19. The regular meeting schedule approved in September, 1990 listed March 19th as a regular meeting date. Since three Commissioners will be attending the NACo Conference, it will be necessary to change this meeting date to March 20. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the "Notice of Change of Date of Meeting" as provided pursuant to N.C.G.S. 153 -40. COUNTY OF ORANGE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF DATE OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, General Statute 153A -40(a) requires the Board of County Commissioners to fix the time and place of its regular meetings; and WHEREAS, this Board desires to change the date of the regular meeting scheduled for March 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that the March 19 regular meeting shall be held on March 20 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This notice is provided pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153--40. Beverly A. Blythe Clerk to the Board O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 1991 Agenda Abstract Item # Y SUBJECT: FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: _X—Yes No ATTACSMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Feasibility Study Planning Director X2592 10 -15 -90 Planning Board Minutes 12 -18 -90 Commissioners Minutes PHONE NUMBERS: Notice of Public Hearing Hillsborough 732 -8181 1 -22 -91 Public Hearing Minutes Mebane 227 -2031 2 -7 -91 Bingham TAC Comments Durham 688 -7331 Citizen Correspondence Chapel Hill 967 -9251 2 -11 -91 Town of Carrboro Comments PURPOSE: To receive comments from the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill, and citizens submitted since the January 22, 1991 public hearing on a feasibility study for the proposed widening of N.C. Highway 54 in Orange County. Upon closing the public hearing, the Board of Commissioners may act on the proposal. BACKGROUND: NCDOT has provided a copy of the proposed widening of N.0 I -85/40 in Burlington to the in Carrboro /Chapel Hill. The the 1990 -1996 Transportation feasibility study but is not a feasibility study of Highway 54 from N.C. Highway 54 Bypass project is included in Improvement Program for currently funded. According to NCDOT, N.C. 54 is classified as a minor arterial on the County Functional Classification Plan. In the Orange County Transportation Plan, N.C. �4 is classified as a principal arterial on the rural portion and as a major thoroughfare on the urban (Chapel Hill) portion. The existing N.C. 54 is a two -lane, 24 -foot paved road with 12 --foot shoulders, located in a 120 -foot right -of -way. A four -foot section of the shoulders on either side is paved. The existing speed limit in the rural portions of Orange County is 55 mph. The volume of traffic using the route ranges from 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd) at the Orange County line to . - i 13,000 vpd near Carrboro. Volumes are expected to increase to 12,000- 17,000 vpd by 2010. The capacity of the existing road is 5,000 vpd. The proposed project is divided into three sections: A, B, and C. Section C comprises the majority of the Orange County portion, extending eight miles from Stanford Road (SR 1100) to the Chapel Hill Bypass. The total cost of Section C is $20.8 million, with $8.8 million earmarked for actual construction. The remaining funds would be used for right -of -way acquisition and relocation expenses. The recommended cross section is a four --lane divided section with two, 24 -foot pavements and a 46 --foot median width in a 200 -foot right --of -way. All widening would be accomplished on the north side, and 48 residences and.businesses would have to be relocated. If staging of the project occurs, Section C would be the second phase. No time period for the construction of Section C is cited, but the total_ project is to begin in 1991, provided funding is available. Alternative locations were considered but were not recommended because of the high cost of a new route and the adequacy of the existing alignment. Possible negative environmental impacts include: 1. Loss of forest land; 2. Relocation of 96 residences and eight businesses; 3. Increased noise levels for adjacent development; and 4. Possible impacts on two watersheds (Cane Creek and University Lake). If the project is to be implemented, all feasible routes and their impacts are to be evaluated in a planning /environmental document. A final decision will then be made as to the most appropriate location. Staff comments regarding the feasibility study include the following: 1. The proposed widening of NC 54 is consistent with its classification and use as a principal arterial highway. NCDOT should give consideration, however, to adding bike lanes to the shoulders on either side of the, highway. 3 2. N.C. 54 bisects the southern tip of Cane Creek watershed and traverses the middle of University Lake watershed. In both, sediment retention ponds should be installed before construction begins. The existing impervious surface of N.C. 54 in Section C is approximately 31 acres. The widening project would increase the impervious surface area by 50 percent to 46 acres. 3. One site identified in the Natural Areas Inventory is located south of N.C. 54. Where Cane Creek crosses the highway, three types of habitats are found: a riparian strip; a steep, dry, west - facing bluff; and mesic slopes. �_. Several important animal species are found in the habitats, including the State - listed notched rainbow mussel, the regionally -rare otter, and a large roost of black vultures Because this is one of the most important wildlife corridors in the county, potential impacts to plant /animal species should be mitigated and the highway designed to permit the movement of wildlife from one side to another. 4. One National Register site, the Inn at Bingham School, may be impacted by widening on the north side. The site is located on the northeast corner of N.C. 54 and Mebane Oaks Road, and contains a mid -19th century Greek Revival house and outbuildings. A determination should be made as to whether or not the Section 106 review process will apply. If applicable, NCDOT should comply with the provisions of that act. 5. Three major drainages tributaries, Cane Creek, Collins Creek, and Morgan Creek, and their floodplains cross N.C. 54. If there are wetlands associated with these floodplains, 404 permits, if required, should be obtained from the Corps of Engineers before construction begins. 6. OWASA and American Stone Company have discussed plans to expand the quarry on N.C. 54. NCDOT should contact both organizations to determine the impact, if any, of the widening project on quarry expansion. RECOMMENDATION: 46 The NCDOT planning /environmental document may satisfy the environmental assessment required by the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance. The document must be submitted to the Planning Staff for review and determination as to whether a full environmental impact statement would be required. At its October 15, 1990 meeting, the Planning Board considered the feasibility study. In addition to the Staff comments, the Planning Board recommended that additional concerns be expressed to NCDOT. Their comments are provided as part of this abstract. At its December 18, 1990 meeting, the Board of Commissioners considered the Planning Staff and Planning Board comments, and set January 22, 1991 as the public hearing date on the feasibility study. At the request of the Board, representatives of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well as OWASA were invited to comment on the study. NCDOT officials were also asked to attend and present the study findings. At the January 22 public hearing, 11 citizens from both Orange and Alamance Counties spoke in opposition to the project. The Chair of the OWASA Board of Directors also expressed concerns about the effect of the proposed project on the quality of Cane Creek and University Lake reservoirs. The Board of Commissioners held the public hearing open until comments were received from the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. During this period, additional written comment from citizens would also be received. At its February 12, 1991 meeting, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen considered the proposed project. The Board's comments are provided as an attachment to this abstract. The Town of Chapel Hill, through its Planning Director, informed the County staff that the Town would have no comment on the project. Written comments have been received from the Bingham Township Advisory Council and 18 citizens. The Administration recommends that the public hearing be closed and that any comments, recommendations or statements that the Board may have be forwarded to the N.C. Department of Transportation. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNItiG DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 4b HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FEASIBILITY OF WIDENING N.C. HIGHWAY 54 IN THE RURAL PORTIONS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to the direction of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the District Courtroom of the Old Chapel Hill Post Office, Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on Tuesday, January 22, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to comment on the following matter: FEASIBILITY STUDY - N.G. HIGHWAY 54 WIDENING PROJECT The N.C. Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) has prepared a study regarding the feasibility of widening a 20 -mile section of N.C. Highway 54 from I- 40/I -85 in Burlington to the N.C. Highway 54 Bypass in Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Although the project is included in the 1990 -1996 N.C. Transportation Improvement Program for study, it is not currently funded for right -of -way acquisition and construction. NCDOT has circulated the feasibility study and asked for comments on the project. According to NCDOT, N.C. 54 is classified as a minor arterial on the County Functional Classification Plan. In the Orange County Transportation Plan, N.C. 54 is classified as a principal arterial on the rural portion and as a major thoroughfare on the urban (Chapel Hill) portion. The existing N.C. 54 is a two -lane, 24 -foot paved road with 12 --foot shoulders, located in a 120 -foot right -of -way. A four-foot section of the shoulders on either side is paved. The existing speed limit in the rural portions of Orange County is 55 mph. The volume of traffic using the route ranges from 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd) at the Orange County line to 13,000 vpd near Carrboro. Volumes are expected to increase to 12,000 - 17,000 vpd by 2010. The capacity of the existing road is 5,000 vpd. The proposed project is divided into three sections: A, B, and C. Section C comprises the majority of the Orange County portion, extending eight miles from Stanford Road (SR 1100) to the Carrboro- Chapel Hill Bypass. The total cost of Section C is $20.8 million, with $8.8 million earmarked for actual construction. The remaining funds would be used for right -of -way acquisition and relocation expenses. 4( The recommended cross section is a four -lane divided section with two, 24 -foot pavements and a 46 -foot median width on a 200 - foot right -of -way. All widening would be accomplished on the north side, and 48 residences and businesses would have to be relocated. If staging of the project occurs, Section C would be the second phase. No time period for the construction of Section C is cited, but the total project is to begin in 1991, provided funding is available. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Questions regarding the feasibility study 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: January 15, 1991 January 22, 1991 12 -18 -90 Commissioners Minutes Ad 1 attached to these minutes. It will cost approximately $30,000 to 2 implement these changes. 3 Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 4 Commissioner Insko to approve the adoption of the Phase I Classification 5 Study changes to the Orange County Classification and Pay Plan with all 6 classification changes, salary grade changes, and salary increases to 7 be effective January 7, 1991. 8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9 10 D. E911 /GIS CONSULTING AGREEMENT 11 Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by 12 Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the E911 /GIS consulting agreement with 13 Richard J. Taylor in the amount of $13,600 and authorize the Chair to 14 sign. 15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 16 17 E. FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING 1$ The proposed widening of NC 54 would - be.from I- -85/40 in 19'.:". Burlington to the NC•54 Bypass in Chapel Hill.. The widening project as 20 `'.` it extends through Orange County would include widening NC 54 to four 21 lanes --- two twelve foot lanes going both east and west. The right -of- 22 way would be increased from 120 feet to 200 feet in width. The project 23,- . -_:_is included.in the 1990 -96 Transportation improvement for feasibility 24 y study but is not currently, funded.-_ The Planning Department staff listed 25x: -in the'-agenda-abstract some potential problems that need to be further 267 % -. studied by NCDOT.v The'Planning Board also made' comments which are 27_..!.:-,_ included in the agenda abstract. The purpose for widening NC54 is not 28= :clearly_ defined,- by_ the- Department_ of Transportation. 29 After a brief discussion, it was decided that a public hearing 30 on the proposal to do a feasibility study would be held with the other 37. Governing Boards and OWASA on January 22. Transportation officials will 32: be requested-to explain what they intend to do in this project. 34Y F. MATERNAL CARE COORDINATION 35 Health Director Dan Reamer reported that the legislature has 36 allocated $500,000 for FY 90 -91 to create additional Maternal Care 37 —'Coordination positions. These funds will be allocated to those health 38 ::.:_:_.._departments which apply on the basis of a demonstrated, unmet need. 39 °- Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chairman 40 Carey to endorse the Orange County Health Department's application for 41 the Maternal Care Coordinator funds, approve the addition of a Maternal 42.- :Care Coordination position with continuation of the position contingent 43....- upon Medicaid revenue sufficient to cover the cost of the position; and 44- authorize the signature of the Agency Director and the Agency Finance 45 - == Officer -- on the statement of assurance which must accompany the 46 - -- - application of funds.- 47.-.:- - VOTE_:... UNANIMOUS ` 48._'= Chairman Carey -asked that a report showing the Medicaid 49:: billings for those served by this new position be prepared and provided 50 =: to the Board. Dan Reimer will also provide a report on the funds being 51` generated by the Childcare Coordination Program. 10 -15 -90 Planning Board 11inutes case, the issue was lot size. Lots had been created by deeding a series of 25 -foot wide strips. In may cases, four strips were combined for a lot width of 100 -feet and lot area of 36,000 square feet. Some of the combinations occurred after the zoning was adopted for Cheeks Township. A citizen with a 36,000 square foot lot was denied a variance. The staff considered rezoning the area to R2, as it was in a Transition Area. However, application criteria for the R2 district require that the lots be served by both public water and public sewer. Perry Hill is served only by public water. Scearbo pointed out that this was one of the issues which lead to the recent proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations (Lot Standards). That amendment would have allowed lots served by public water and septic tanks to contain 30,000 square feet. Under existing regulations, there was no rezoning solution available to.Perry Hills. (Perry Hills was late resolved through additional information related to the lot -of- record.) Much discussions ensued. Waddell asked how often these situations occur. Scearbo responded that it would not occur often, but that when it did occur, the problems could b very severe, resulting in the inability of property owners to build on this land, even if the lot was large enough to accommodate water an septic disposal facilities. A Planning Board member asked if a title search would reveal illegal subdivisions or other problems which could result in the inability to obtain permits. Scearbo and Collins stated that such information could be obtained in a title search, but sometimes the attorneys retained by the owner do not do sufficient research. Eddleman stated that the potential buyer was responsible for researching the property before purchasing it, and that the Board of Adjustment was not responsible for resolving situations which resulted from failure to do so. The Planning Board felt that there would be few problems with non - conforming lot size, since mos of the lots could be developed as a lot -of- record.. c. Feasibility Study - NC 54 Widening C. (A copy of the abstract with information as presented by Marvin Collins is an attachment to these minutes on pages . A copy of the Feasibility Study is on file in the Planning Department.) Jacobs asked about the level of service for NC 54 and Collins responded that, according to NCDOT, it is classified as a minor arterial. Jacobs indicated that he felt lowering the speed limit would increase the road capacity and eliminate the need for widening the road. Board members also expressed concern about the following: 1. The current level of service is not identified. Even though the capacity of the road is exceeded, the level of service may be such that higher volumes can be accommodated. This would mean that trips may take longer but the -road would not have to be widened. 2. The distribution of automobile vs. truck traffic is not identified. This raises a question about the purpose of the improvements. Is the widening needed to carry automobile traffic or provide an alternate truck route to I- 85/I -40 or both? Additional information is needed. 3. Bingham Township is a focal point for agricultural activity in the county. Cane Creek and University Lake Watersheds are also located there. The widening of NC 54 may increase the probability of farmland conversion and contribute to water quality degradation. 4. The widening of NC 54 is premature in relation to Orange County's transportation planning efforts. Phase II of the Transportation Plan includes an explanation of standards for scenic roads, and pedestrian and bikeway facilities (including bridge design). Phase II should be completed and standards adopted before the widening project is pursued. The Planning Board asked that Chapel Hill and Carrboro be provided a copy of the feasibility study in the event that those jurisdictions wished to comment. The Board also asked staff to determine if the County Manager and Board of J T Commissioners have received copies of the study and wish to comment. d. Noise Problem - Eddleman Planning Board member Dan Eddleman expressed concern with a motion detector alarm at a commercial operation on NC 54 near his home. He noted that, on the weekend of October 12 -14, the alarm was almost constantly being activated, but no one was available to turn it off. He indicated he contacted the Sheriff's Department and a Deputy informed him that they were unable to do anything since Orange County does not have a noise ordinance. Collins responded that Orange County does have a Noise Ordinance but that alarm systems may be exempt. Collins indicated he would obtain a coy of the ordinance and provide it to Mr. Eddleman. , Meeting adjourned 9:35 p.m. Prepared By Approved By Date 3 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611 -5201 October 5, 1990 Mr. Marvin Collins Planning Director Orange County 306 Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Collins: R ��l�1 JD 8 � ar101 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GEORGE E. WELLS. P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: Feasibility Study - R -2538, NC 54 from I -40/85 in Burlington to Chapel Hill Bypass, Alamance - Orange Counties Our staff has completed a feasibility study for the subject project. This brief analysis suggests the location and improvements that would be logical if the project was funded. A copy of our report is attached for your information. We would appreciate any comments you may have on this project. Thank you for your assistance during our study. Sincerely, L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager Planning & Environmental Branch AHS /plr Attachments cc: Dr. M. R. Poole, P. E., Assistant Manager for Statewide Planning An Eoual oaoonunity / Affirmative Action Emolover 14 FEASIBILITY STUDY NC 54 From I -40/85 in Burlington to Chapel Hill Bypass Alamance- Orange Counties R -2538 Prepared by Planning and Environmental-Branch Division of Highways N. C. Department of Transportation r nge a mit Dawson, jr., �. Project Planning Engineer Head of Feasibility & Specie Studies Unit fN2��94 to L. . Ware, P. c., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch i 19 NC 54 From I -40/85 in Burlington to Chapel Hill Bypass Alamance- Orange Counties R -2538 I. DESCRIPTION This report covers a preliminary study of a proposed widening of a 20 -mile section of NC 54 from I -40/85 in Burlington to the NC 54 Chapel Hill Bypass (see Figure 1). This project is included in the 1990 -1996 Transportation Improvement Program for feasibility study and /or right - of -way protection and is not currently funded. The project begins just beyond-the I -40/85 interchange at the intersection of NC 54 and SR 2106 to the east and SR 2217 to the west. The Y -line improvement for the I -40/85 widening project (I -303K, con- struction scheduled to begin in 1990) includes a 5 -lane curb and gutter section tapering back into the 2 -lane section just south of SR 2106. The project terminates approximately 0.3 mile west of SR 1107, where the proposed widening of the western portion of NC 54 Chapel Hill Bypass ends. This widening project (U- 2003AA) is scheduled to start construc- tion in 1991. II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT Existing Conditions NC 54 is classified as a minor arterial on the County Functional Classification Plan. NC 54 acts as an important connector between the Chapel Hill /Carrboro areas and Burlington. Existing NC 54 is generally a 2 -lane, 24 -foot paved facility with 12 -foot shoulders (4 feet of which is paved). Left turn lanes are pro- vided at all major intersections and along short sections of NC 54 from I -40/85 to SR 2106 and from SR 2136 to NC 119. .The speed limit from the I -40/85 ramps in Burlington to SR 2136 is 45 mph, rising to 55 mph as NC 54 continues to the project terminus in Carrboro. The existing development along the project consists mainly of light density residential and industrial.uses. Existing right -of -way is generally 120 feet throughout most of the project length, except for the section from I -40/85 to SR 2109, where only 100 feet was reserved. The existing alignment of NC 54 is generally good and built through rolling terrain. The maximum degree of curve is 6 degrees (maximum safe speed of 55 mph), and the maximum percent grade is 5p. ' 2 Four bridges are located on the project. They are as follows: Clear Bridge Length Width Age Rating No. Location Ft. Ft, rs.) New =100 17 Cane Creek 151 44.0 17 92.6 11 Haw River 316 44.0 62 85.6 34 Back Creek 172 44.0 17 96.6 70 Haw Creek 148 44.0 17 97.9 Bridge number 11, originally built in 1928, was reconstructed and widened in 1973. This improvement accounted for the high sufficiency rating. Traffic Volumes, Capacity, and Accident Record The volume of traffic that utilizes this route ranges from approxi- mately 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd) near the Alamance- Orange County line, to 13,000 (vpd) near Burlington and also near Carrboro. These volumes are estimated to increase to 12,000 to 17,000 vpd by the year 2010. The capacity of the existing road is approximately 5,000 vpd. The actual volumes presently using the facility (6,000 to 13,000 vpd) indi- cate that the capacity is exceeded along the entire studied route. Accident data for a recent 3-year period shows a total of 282 accidents along the studied section. ,This yields a total accident rate of 118.1 accidents per hundred million vehicle miles (ACC /100MVM), which is less than the statewide average of 214.2 ACC /100MVM for comparable 2-lane rural NC routes. Rear -end slow or stop (23A), angle (17A), and left turn same road (15%) were predominant accident types. Need for Project The improvement of NC 54 from the Chapel Hill Bypass to Burlington is needed to provide adequate capacity for existing and future traffic volumes. III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND COSTS For purposes of recommendations and possible staging of construc- tion, the project has been divided into 3 sections: A, 8, and C (see Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5). For Section A, from SR 2106 (south of the I -40/85 interchange) to SR 2138, it is recommended the existing roadway be widened to a 5 -lane, 64 -foot curb and gutter facility due to the concentration of existing roadside development and lower speeds. This would match the proposed cross section of the Y -line improvement for the I -303K 12 project. All widening can be accomplished symmetrically within the existing 100 -foot right -of -way with possible construction easements required at certain locations. Bridges at Back Creek and at Haw Creek would require widening to accommodate the proposed cross section. It is recommended a new bridge be built to replace Bridge No. 11 at Haw River. The recommended cross section for Section B, from SR 2138 to SR 1100, where the roadside is lightly deveT'ope is a 4 -lane divided section with two, 24 -foot pavements and a 46 -foot minimum median width on an estimated 200 -foot right -of -way. Widening should be accomplished on the north side of the existing road. A new bridge would parallel the existing bridge at Cane Creek. Section C extends from SR 1100 to the Chapel Hill'Bypass project terminus. The recommended cross section is a 4 -lane divided section with two, 24 -foot pavements and a 46 -foot minimum median width on an estimated 200- foot right -of -way, with all widening to be accomplished on the north side. The recommended 4 -lane divided section should taper at the project terminus to match the proposed cross section for the Chapel Hill Bypass project (two, 24 -foot pavements with curb and gutter, divided by a 21 -foot raised median). These recommendations are consistent with the anticipated traffic volumes, the development in the project area, and the function of the route. The estimated costs of the recommended improvements are as follows (residential and business relocations are indicated in parentheses for Sections B and C): Length Construction (miles) Cost Section A 4.0 58,200,000 Section B 8.0 $9,000,000 Right -of -Way Cost S 700,000 (utilities only) $ 9,500,000 (56 relocatees) Total Cost $ 81900,000 $18,500,000 Section C 8.0 58,800,000 $12,000,000 520,800,000 (48 relocatees) The total cost of the proposed project (including all sections) is 548,200,000. Cost estimates were prepared by the Preliminary Estimate ngineer an the Right- of- Way.Branch. If staging of the total project length is desired for funding reasons, Section A should be the first stage, because no right -of -way costs would be incurred, it connects with an interstate highway, and it serves higher volumes of traffic. Section C should be the second stage, since it would tie into the planned NC 54 Chapel Hill Bypass widening project and also serves higher volumes of traffic. Section B is recom- mended to be the third stage since it carries the lowest volume of traffic. 4 -IV. OTHER COMMENTS 1.3 No other alternative locations for the proposed project were found to be more desirable or feasible from overall cost and traffic service considerations. The existing route has adequate alignment for high speed operation with limited.roadside interference along most of the project length. Complete relocation of NC 54 was considered, but it is not recommended, because it would require considerably higher expenditure of funds for construction and would serve much less traffic. Possible negative environmental impacts of the proposed widening of NC 54 are as follows: (1) loss of forested land; (2) relocation of approximately 96 residences and 8 businesses; (3) increased noise levels for adjacent development; and (4) possible impact to two watersheds in Orange County (Cane Creek and University Lake), shown in Figures 4 and 5. The Nello -Teer Rock Quarry is located near the end of the proposed project, on the north side of'NC 54 at SR 1104 (see Figure 5). The Quarry appears to have an adequate setback to allow the proposed im- provement. The Carrboro Community Park is located at the end of the project,.off of NC 54. Its boundary does not abut'NC 54 and thus is not anticipated to present any problems. If the project is to be implemented alternatives and their associated impacts planning and environmental document prior decision made as to the most appropriate AS /pl r in the future, all feasible will need to be evaluated in a to that time, and a final improvement. o. yCS 14 Z LU C=r O-v co 66T z r_. ,Iz � i - d , � - a ate. ;� . � : ~ . ; , .;• `_ • ':•� a .° Lu 6 7- 9 Uj IV ido ♦ 6 LU Go 17 LU IL ui 6 Z2 Z 4u 17:�-111\ v NC 119 Z-1 <q NI i-o 12C;� 71 , A\'k L-Jwl ,, O\ ���� • ,i) .- a • "J�. , � • --.,� - �: ��`.1�.,�_ ^ � `,\ ,; Al' A 110 V 4AI' ffN "I - 5P lir Lf-5 1. _ � � �,�`, '�..�—J�. •% gar- �o�^ r 11, �� �•' =�1G 3p�' xe�oic /r • V y. L ti . .� _;tif ^ ��� �,,. � ;� ?vim ,;F '��. � /C%••�_ �,��:., �f i�� 1 `C\•`, .•, � - o`er .,✓✓ —:�� %� ` /` �l asi,� •"�. - ��,�_ ,'�ln' - �6 �� •� Imo. '-' J� - = J // II � - .� :(cf, o zo j :/ V 14. �••�1 •%` /� � :�_ (,rte —•... s_ r f I C y ,�L.?j. -��. �•��' � ' � L -fir � �� ` `, /, ri _ ` � �•, \ by , `� - . • r: i '77' r � / rr 1. ;l ,� �n �1 / , 'tom- -�it ��, :��ytrY.L�/ `� -��}• \ 1�� r"-'!/ j '•� ��a7e °iu r•, li�O � )� / .ice � �j _r .•_ � ��`., r ��� , r r{ �• � :f�� �- � -� j 1 �' /"� ter' ` .•._/,;, �--"� �, r '���`�I �I / +,�• •.� °,�c Syr '�� k •' •` =��. %� �- r� \ U ��l / • �f 1p �/ .,..` f ,�,) '`� � ��._ ,�� �f � .` / /��-`' •'` ,�! MR! ill f 17 WT LU ir �a1_•. ,�r�` m• �� ,// Q��I ¢rte/ � /• �•�'j • ? � "'r � ;~ )�,� ��� � "� �ti► ' �_' � w �� _•`-� ���`, mil. 1, - •_ ���•�;, �� ' � ;1� -:r 7 �'� ,. .o .�_'� /� � '���'. ��...�tr �,r,j" 1' l; y�l • '` - �i 1 �" p IhN G G } %� j" . I��i .'� '�w:%( •"�* -ter ur ��. \ A&• it XW 0 'Ilk - 7 If uj cn tL77 dr" �—. `� •L.,� rrJ �•�;. � 1,~. �f,�.,s� 11 ri "fit 1 •'._ •",3�' •�� w Aa o CK —lei Z!!V Its it XW 0 'Ilk - 7 If uj cn tL77 dr" �—. `� •L.,� rrJ �•�;. � 1,~. �f,�.,s� 11 ri "fit 1 •'._ •",3�' •�� w Aa o CK —lei Z!!V :J 0 �� w GJ W Z 01 tP � 0 Lb Yw I a cG U OU I z W) O rn O w U O Q Ln M Q w W J J Q � U' O u7 r� w c• w U J Q cn � W N Ctl :J 0 �� w GJ W Z 01 tP � 0 W 0 �� 0 O GJ Z tP � Yw I a cG U OU I z O O w U O Q Ln H y. O d ❑ U W ❑ Q z O C U 0 J O Z C } H U W O t7 z .. r� F -z N a x W F z� O Q ►+ U yyr+• v1 3 N �F U r z x D 7Ui F«aF 0 w] °z- 5" wfm p.rO z00 UYF aza IX FO p+.FW z -7 a I U,+cn o c LU 00z ~z.7 cy00 ° a oxa Vi�O C7 H•^ C�4W N P1 O G M P1 0 11 m to a 4 00"(D 1n V1 O, o m MInN lT in coyxiww OaaUU O m O m O ' e 0.' �p ., L9 C� N F W �+ O rX Nz2 Oz c .Or LM •--W (n za�o+ T. - a N r1 4] W .►4, r a D I M to m D M a O CZ) D � I a z F O y .. 0 O y, u v N y wx U O a ap W� 4] N O a a . a ia� o 0 0 a FC O D O y a m O w N �O 1F U N N O b O �^ o to m r � Q 1n O v � N (A f� U O u� N a W Ln G 0 H u. F�' ti }» p C w }+ F N ,.7z a MNw wFM a�C C7 xa x0U a O e�vwU Water, (nxt4a FzW w _ m m _ OD a'. a, Lu En <� J N 0 0 M Li 'I L+� M M� U _ a ? 7 h FO m �x xNC Ny.] }' O OW _�+7 N M • O 4 V E^ U Z �- ry .0 `••O z0 F y'� 2 .el � w •F z ON FO?• �cox z Fa U. LN.4 ..� u O �W mx a uac z n xWD ]NC u�WF Fx a U=u m w .., t•��F.t v74 ~�� � La e1 p, a s Ln 0 D L.] wy a Yn .• M �••I C A X ►'M I" xW a4 CWO tn.r w ia, H C. CG D W W D 4 f'Y V .W b N 1n LM ...t AM +a N N 10 N N a a a ec c x 0 F x s N G ►+ rr 7 -5 U W a W C N Q Lt: Z 4A Q U 5 z t I � N 7 I z O 1n O v � N (A f� U O u� N a W Ln G 0 H u. F�' ti }» p C w }+ F N ,.7z a MNw wFM a�C C7 xa x0U a O e�vwU Water, (nxt4a FzW w _ m m _ OD a'. a, Lu En <� J N 0 0 M Li 'I L+� M M� U _ a ? 7 h FO m �x xNC Ny.] }' O OW _�+7 N M • O 4 V E^ U Z �- ry .0 `••O z0 F y'� 2 .el � w •F z ON FO?• �cox z Fa U. LN.4 ..� u O �W mx a uac z n xWD ]NC u�WF Fx a U=u m w .., t•��F.t v74 ~�� � La e1 p, a s Ln 0 D L.] wy a Yn .• M �••I C A X ►'M I" xW a4 CWO tn.r w ia, H C. CG D W W D 4 f'Y V .W b N 1n LM ...t AM +a N N 10 N N a a a ec c x 0 F x s N G ►+ rr 7 -5 U W a W C N Q Lt: Z 4A Q U 5 z t 7 -5 U W a W C N Q Lt: Z 4A Q U 5 z t 2 8 ORANGE COUNTY ROAD MAP � T PROPOSED ROAD FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION K ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSTVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3 LEGEHp AMLL a •.e,. em a,wwT wmcx�L ANT"W'L y MEMO% APTIFLa, ewsc� �Ka� tFs7w. �o — u�awi �qr T►p4pll�.wi1� � � FAT � M ■ �. x 20 LEGEHp AMLL a •.e,. em a,wwT wmcx�L ANT"W'L y MEMO% APTIFLa, ewsc� �Ka� tFs7w. �o — u�awi �qr T►p4pll�.wi1� � � FAT � M ■ �. x a K • u O J L O C C a r r V L a a . - c a O O u O C V � 4 b t « L N O � N N C a '0 N •- O C Y X L Y r u c D A c} v O r O r b a� � D ] •� r V a Y U . D •� L L a V L o L D x �• M a • V a t L x c V a 7 O Y C 4 0 E.0 u 0 O a a r r V L a a . - c a O O u O C V � 4 b t « L N O � N N C a '0 N •- O C Y X L Y r N z C- r z P V1 c z C] •D b 4 N V L N C C L S p L a fJ V D p D v •O V r 6 N u c D A c} v O r O r b a� e •P Z •- w C V Y• A V o D x �• M a • V a t L x c L O u a eta L u o L m: a { L V V . E a P D a C L V a E 4 V L L 4 O L q T o N o u 4 - o ?. •� a u N rl N O O a D J O a L - 4 Y V •� 3 V x L' u C Y A o — p y L Y a 4 E C ✓ 4 U L L u V C C r �� L •O u L� d +w 4 v 4 Y L a • P Y 4- V 4 a b 4 V 4 r• O N C O w V r 4 4 C p[ 0. O 4 .+ a u r• O u X r N G!: W H a y.• C ~ r a N u C • C a . Uro 4 r E« .a u 4 a 4 «- A L E a A a E 4 4 n IA r a a� N 4 S L L L V 4� = ••- � P H q a •- — d Z r O D L r O V a A C U r {� r L E r r �e 0. •� O G N r C 3 ••• 0 0 („� ,..� V D c 4 O a L r E a O ). a L C L 4 W 4 ^ 4 ..+ U •� d O C •r E N N r l • N 4 N p w _ A •^ C F C ••- � V •P C7 C r r •p C L C 4 C 4 P V 4 V O D p L C t x r 0. C e r ►+ C Y P O C O A L t o- C O 4 U a r N r w u U Ct •+ a« N e .. E u W ✓+ p M U c or, � a O O a ••` L S L L a 7 7 7 C 4 a P m L C u C E L L .0 L V - 4 N r V .+ L u P C D+ D m V P L O +• c C .e E e - ^' 7 4 N q y L 1 4 O 4 C a r a V �•' V A D .. VL c - a 4 e •- 4: L u E Z w L L o o r o xY z Y 4 c 4 r 4 o L L ro P O r r C •� ro a O r D C - 4 4 V Y L C O L C a s L1 O p c .D -. p ii. a x V ••• 6 r' S L r V O Y [ O H r •r i r a N •J' � 4 L 4 y a D V 7 V L N r 7 G c L r C L •� r 4 4 +� V Gr � e o L .• r o r C— r se 7 N L L V c L N ++ 4 p u +r O { C f O V L C 4 +. •r r L L U L D r a s D r 6 4 U V O l m L7 V r C S } C 4^ O e C �+ C C. L p L r ... .r L u D C 7 C C D C w a N C r p v C L Y D U Y 4 A.) L V V u w O V r C L t. •� C — V 4 r .r P �- - u CC, O C 'O L7 V u r 0. S � � � � .n q - � •.� N N z C- r z P V1 c z C] •D b 4 N V L N C C L S p L a fJ V D p D v •O { PL W K Li p r { V w Vf { J u { 3 P 1 C♦ 22 p . _ - - ._._.._ - -- ...4 O + M Y r x a CL C O p O r O M w •� V V • r w •r O E u a b O � w •p L O .� O • M L v .- G s O C O C .0 N o f Y r U , C r S7 [ Y O e r e v } c r [ 4 r— e N r O w V Y r u •' u Y K y u E • � o .� r C � u .� [ G r Y .� L • .. r� u Y e b Y r r V e L O V C o P O � r 7 u� G •- C r A M O Y {. b E V V r 4 P • p _ •� u C Y G 7 C E E e L u e w r Y o •� O Y O M 4 A r •r r •• E u r o L. V Y c • Y x 4 Y Q [ L r - Y y X V r Y O .[ 4 Y e r ✓ Li n r t N } C C [ }- V N [ r C L N Y e e N C•� O w .- O r' - r r J •- � Y u} c e Y a Y V V C O C u o u S 4 c b O L p V .r P •� 4 V r C N } e e a o a }. N y O. }• � t r r L r L L • � r O •-- u u o y u u u r h- C •- - x b c ci o V r v r e x r y rn C e V 7 r V Y 4 4 4 C N G r •� u E� �- r o e e x V C .+ E P e u G � � L V r r r A e r C O + V V u e L � •+ a Y v b c C C 7 10 4 V e m rt N c a � u a C •- t Y E L C V 4 mf w V w Y r Y I. r C G r r y ] �+ O 22 Ff:GC:r'e' 1 � TcvnS,',i, Arterial �:ir�ar niter er C!,eeki US 70 (N DINE If T "?:E 2 (C�fairr:'e6i a! (why% ... - .1 ..nlaU. ,Giie:tOf SR 1120 iKT ,ILLI►;S R!) 5R 1310 !NOFTF� FRrIIER) SR 1340 (KI;H 11OCK RD) SR 1144 (,'EST TEN) °ifiahet N. 54 SP 1005 (OLD HIM Ri') SR 1006 &ORANSE 6F:OYE P9) SR 1102 (2115H iPfA1.S 5) SR 1007 (iEBF.NE C,'):5 RD) SP 1551 (B►!T.ER RD) 5F 1115 (BRAN HA,' PARRY) SR 1991 !FHITE CF,OSS RD) SP 1117 (Gnu; 6807E CH RD) SP 11:4 (rr,RTIN SR 4177 (DAl AKI► REi (CH:STN•r'i RIDGE CH Pi ►) SR 1105 5R 1942 (ONES 'FERRY R:►) SP 19 -.8 G;F;6:)SOn RD) SR 1996 (CPn�'OFi► DAIRY RD) SR 199:1 SP 1356 (ORnN:E Crin ?EL (.rAcx ,AYI SR 1952 . «:►YzF GAPHN £D) 10 �R 1:37 (B.s -:Y .ruor; RD) SP 1438 ;Y11;It, 5�. 1,�9 �rltt'RVh �hur'1,n) SP, 1310 6 +:EST LEFANIk PH r SR 1110 (XO.ih rh,n(1tR) S'. 1342 (N, FRQlEk R SR 1346 (SAi C!LE CLUB PD) r V�. 77 1 r-for , �;i .. tir •, �. 1 „5 ��J��rI r��J RJi r , SR ;.i,3 , 7v OE PUN RD SR 1374 (t.�!E P.vK Fig) Sr, 184 ,in�ti 5R S R 1353 !'rr,YLOR) SP, 1394 (PEFFy) SR�. 1�,4 4PtLirnn R.; .:til�:i S” 144- !n.rr♦ni SP 14 %S (S,.E-I LAK' AC .ES 5R i100 (S AGIRD RD) SR 41 {; ! ?E:F FG) SR 1101 (TEEF Pb) SF 4116 inFPLE !!ILL PP SF 1117 (OP" GROVE CH RD) 5P 1116 (REPNuti n0) 5R 4115' (HICK'S RD) SP 11:4 (rr,RTIN RD) SF 1115 (CH:STN•r'i RIDGE CH Pi ►) SR 1105 iaAr'S PD) SP 19 -.8 G;F;6:)SOn RD) SR 1113 ,111ERIAhi SR 199:1 (CnlRl IWPQ PP) SF 121; (.rAcx ,AYI SR 1952 (WN17E CR'?SS F1►) SP. 1947 li4'EY) SR rl 1 41 SR l?R i.rVit's ri, PD) q L SR 1 5J ,hlnnr) r urn «�ul, RID) SR 1?50 (rGF:P:O,' rill RD) SP 1 ?S7 !:O.D r NE IOG =': SR li61 (Sn'lPA'4 Rif) S;; 1559 (rI.IKn;' FU) SF 19610 (LLOYD. �h R ;. �F, 457_ S i nll rur:r,u. ,► r:.�, iwILLiS RO) nn •nc Jr. i'G.J , -I`,, n,y ttn.,l ;i.l SP 2 L L If F. ilr -A fir. •,nit n r t�tn 24 TABLE 3 RECOMMENDED AND URBAN THOROUGHFARE PLAN COMPARISON OF CLASSIFICATIONS (SR 1538) The results of the comparison above is summarized in Table 4. I2 Thoroughfare Recommended Plan Planning Road Name (SR Nod Classification Qlassificationn AArea Jones Ferry (SR 1942) Collector Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill Old Greensboro Road Minor Arterial Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill (SR 1005) NC 54 Principal Arterial Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill Dairyland Road (SR 1177) Collector Major Thoroughfare Chapel Hill Dodsons Crossroads North Minor Arterial Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough (SR l 102) Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) Collector Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough Bradshaw Quarry Road Collector Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough (SR 1115) Chestnut Ridge Church Road Major Local Unclassified -- (SR 1125) Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120) Collector Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough Bushy Cook Road (SR 1137) Major Local Unclassified -- West Ten Road (SR 1144) Collector Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough 1_85 Principal Arterial Freeway Hillsborough LIS 70 Principal Arterial Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough Lebanon Road (SR 1306) Collector Minor Thoroughfare Hillsborough High Rock Road (SR 1340) Collector Unclassified -- Harmony Church Road Major Local Minor Thoroughfare Hillsborough (SR 1339) Governor Scott Road Major Local Unclassified -- (SR 1351) Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) Collector Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough NC 86 Principal Arterial Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough Edmund Latta Road (SR 1550) Minor Local Unclassified -- NC 57 Minor Arterial Major Thoroughfare Hillsborough Schley Road (SR 1548) Collector Major Thoroughfare Durham Niger Road (SR 154 1) Major Local Unclassified -- Guess Road (SR 1003) Minor Arterial Major Thoroughfare Durham New Sharon Church Road Collector Major Thoroughfare Durham (SR 1538) The results of the comparison above is summarized in Table 4. I2 Overall Map of Natural Areas in Orange County 2 A A • - Hot L04 Hyco H02 - - Creek A A Section ' I L03 � 1 r a I % ittl( I ` A River I Lot Se Lion I I I I r _ , 1 Ell , A I E09 A A E04 A E05 E08 A E12 ` E13 En l E06 Eto 1 Rive (( Sectio E02 A � Eot Ea3 E14 A E15 1 A r E07 E16 Cane Creek 7 Section 1 1 w07 A A A A A A, ti - x06 x08 x09 x10 wt3 A x1$ I I x02 x05 x11 A A w16 New :�o7e A'LA xtz x14 A,, Creek Section igt `swot w03 M04 Cal \ I I 2 A N0 8a3 W3 I � - • BD1 Bolin Creek A Sec-.ion \ X2 \ A SAG K7D K17� )K15 \ Kai M06 P109 &Pm Kay M07�Ka8 K7 3 X16 �7 Morcan Creek A. Section • K18� N, 2t) Gap CO3 Z7.,= C47 G&Pmn ?�M n, Ts r\ IJSGS Topographic map 5. Sites: CO2, CO3 I inch = 24,000 feet Quad: Wh4,,.te Crass, SaxaDahaw ORANGE COUNTY NATURAL AREAS SURVEY. SITE DESCRIPTION. Site name: Lower Cane Creek Slopes and Bottom Site number: CO3 Significance: 3 - County High Integrity: 1 - Prime Threat status: 4 - Slight Location: South of NC 54 along Cane Creek. USGS Quad: White Cross and Saxapahaw Approx. acreage: 140 Jurisdiction: Bingham Township Reasons for significance: Although the plant communities along this section of Cane Creek are mostly in young second growth, there are several important animal species here, including the state - listed notched rainbow mussel (Villosa constricta) and the regionally -rare otter (Lutra canadensis). A large roost of black vultures (Coragyps atratus) was also observed in the forest next to the creek; this species is considered threatened state -wide, and the only known roosting population of this species in Orange_ County occurs in the Cane Creek valley, both here and upstream near the reservoir (C01). This is one of the most important wildlife corridors within Orange County, due to its connection to the Haw River and Cape Fear system. The water quality in Cane Creek is excellent, and supports one.of the best remaining fish and mussel faunas in the Piedmont. General description: This site includes three types of habitats: a riparian strip; a steep, dry west - facing bluff; and mesic slopes with a more sheltered, gentler aspect. The most unique of these botanically is a dry, 30 foot bluff of felsic volcanic tuff supporting a stunted forest composed vainly of beeches Qgaus arandifolia) and white oaks ( uercus zlba). This is the driest situation where the usually mesic beech is found. Other species here include red maple (Ater rubrum), dogwood (Corpus flor-lda), and red cedar (Juniperu5 virginiana). The most abundant hems are beechdrops (Erifaaus vir iniana), woodrush (Luzula acuminata), hepatica ( Hepatica americana), and Christmas fern (Pol.vstichum acrostichoides). One interesting zoological feature is a large den, possibly of a groundhog (Marmota monax) or for. (yulnes vulnes or Urocvon cinereoaraenteus). Contiguous with this bluff is a large forested area covering the gentle slopes and ravines which rise approximately two hundred feet in elevation from the creek. Parts of this forest are disturbed, but the section downstream from the bluff is a particularly good example of mixed mesic hardwoods. Rich mesic herbs are abundant here, including bloodroot (Sancuinaria canadensis), trout lily Qrythronium americanum), spring beauty (Clavtonia virginity), toothwort (Cardamine anaustata), hepatica (Hepatica americana), trillium (Trillium catesbaei), and extensive colonies of wild ginger (Asarum canadensis). Upland animals seen here in addition to the groundhog are red - tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), yellow - throated vireos (vireo 45 M flavifrons) , ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapillus) , summer and scarlet tanagers (Pir�ga rubra and P. olivacea), and gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) . The more important habitat for animals, however, is the riparian area along the creek.. The forest here is mainly in young second growth, consisting of such species as walnut (Jualans n�i r_a), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweet gum (Liauidambar st raciflua), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Though heavily disturbed, the presence of pawpaw (Asimina triloba) and spicebush (Lindera benzoin) thickets attest to the richness of the alluvial Chewacla soil. These thickets also provide habitat for two low- nesting warblers, the Kentucky (ODorornis formosis) and hooded (Wilsonia citrina), the first being exceptionally abundant here. An outstanding feature of this site is the creek itself; the water quality of Cane Creek has been widely recognized as one of the best within the Piedmont. Reflecting these prime conditions are the rich mussel beds, which include the rare notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), and fish diversity. This watershed was formerly the only place within the Cape Fear drainage where the state - listed Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis) was found. Although most of its habitat is currently being destroyed by the Cane Creek Reservoir, this species could still persist within - this section downstream. Other riparian animals of interest include the regionally - rare river otter (Lutra canadensis), which we observed denning here, as well as beaver (Castor canadensis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), parula warbler (Parula americana), and Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla). One non - riparian species of interest is the black vulture (Coragvns atratus), which roosts in the trees on the west bank of the creek. While this species is still found fairly commonly in neighboring Chatham County, it is quite rare and declining throughout the rest of the state. This is the only site within Oranae County (except for a winter roost observed just upstream) where they are still known to roost. Protection Status: None Surrounding land use: N: NC 54, agriculture E: Forest, agriculture S: Forest W: Forest, agriculture Threats: Immediate: A survey line recently run alongside the creek (1987) indicates the possibility of development. Potential.: Same Recommendations for management or protection: Alert landowners of the significance of the natural values of their propermy; negotiate for a conservation easement. Ownership: See Appendix A MI I .off _ � =� �•© .I � 1 � `1 � � ~�" , r ~r• cC � 1 �I qs it IL 2 ororve ttD �..�. ... 7 1 L/ CL J^ �•� CEZ 1 � �a b e � s �T fce,erw- ` :r•ea�eJ � ' '� 1 a , B I IiSHRrl' TOLIKSH I P ° hi N sca k e : ❑ 1. Oak Grove Baptist Church 2. Bethsada Baptist Church 3. Cane Creek Baptist Church A. Bethlehem Presbyterian Church 5. Clover Garden United Methodist Church 6. Grange Chapel United Methodist Church 7. Antioch Baptist Church B. Alston Grove Conareptionalist Church 9. Terrell's Creel( Missionary Baptist Church 10. Mw hope Baptist Church f' - CDETER16 1. Sykes Cemetery 2. D*sley Andrews Family Cemetery 3. Mamie Woven (Mirmis- Pickard- CrawfOrd) 4. Mimi$ Pickard S. Kame Unkrum E. Bivins C wtery 7. Eh&ards for Granny Cabe) Cemetery & Durham Family Cemetery S. Old Terrell's C mtery 10. Name Unknroan o - BUl1DIhG 1. Seline Sykes Howe Z. S. S. Webb Howse 3. Old Stafford Howe A. Binghn School 5. Lloyd House L Sam T1>omipsorh Howe 7. Pikney Strand Fars -MILL PwwSr w 1. Th mp!swls hill 2. Pq)ple's hill 3. The Kill at Teer (Union Kill) 4. Hopson's Kill S. ft ram's Kill - CDIM.I m /FECEMON sra 1. Oak Erove Athletic Park 2. Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Aepartser►t I. Orange arm Commeority Buildirg f A. Tarheel 5ertama Club 5. Write Cr s Recreation Association C_,. 30 A Z C, BUILDINGS 1. SELINE "M FQSE n/s Oak Grove Church Road ISR11171 0.8 miles e/o junction with Vernon Road [SR11183 tmr: 6.10.. Nineteenth century two-story frame house with plain exterior and turned porch posts. Victorian arched windows added lat Private. 2. S. S. W BB 0-M e/s Mebane -Oaks Road [[SR10073 approximately one mile south of Bradshaw Quarry Road ISR11151 ter: 6.17.. Two- story, five bay house, part of which dates to the 1840's. House has four chimneys, one of which is laid in Flemi bond. Additionally, some of the original interiors, with paneled doors and louvered blinds, resain. Private. 3. OLD STAFFORD HIM 0.333 miles down a dirt road east of Mebane -Oaks Road ISR100711 0.2 miles north of NC54 ter: E.17.. Eclectic one -story house with additions. Enclosed breezeway connects two small houses. Much interior work dates from 19 though some original glass and hardware survive. Private. 4. SINM Sm northeast corner NC54 and Mebane -oaks Road [SR10073 - ter: 6.17..19 National Register of Historic Places site. Rural complex consisting of mid- nineteenth century Greek Revival house outbuildings. Was site of Bingham School 1845 -1884. Private. 5. U.OYD HIM -- - _. .............. n/s leer Road ISR11002 1.3 tiles west of Orange Grove Road ISR10063 ter: Two - story, three bat frame house with hip roof, box cornice, and plain exterior trim. Original hip roof porch remains, story wing dates from early 1900's. Private. ?1 6. SAK 11M.Xi H31=— e/s Crawford Dairy Road [SR19563 ter: E.39.. Circa mid- nineteenth century. Two -story gable roof frame house built twenty feet west of original log home on fasily hoaestead. Extensive outbuildings, including a V -notch log dairy. Private. 7. PI*V STM FAM e/s Collins Mountain Road [SR19%) 0.8 miles south of Old Greensboro Highway [SR100S3 ter: 6.41: Circa mid - nineteenth century. Two -story frame farmhouse with Greek Revival details, symmetrically molded frames, blocks, and molded sills. Flush sheathing under porch. Common bond chimneys at east and west gables. Private. C. KILL PM AND SITES L MOPSW S KILL Turkey Run Creek 0.33 miles from confluence with Cane Creek tKr: 6.15.. Circa 1811 Only the dam remains of the mill. Dam is about 200' long and 15' high and in good condition. Private. 6 -4 Draft BOCC 1/22/91 Minutes 32 n 1 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 A. FEASIBILITY STUDY - NC 54 WIDENING 3 Planning Director Marvin Collins presented this item to 4 receive citizen comment on a feasibility study for the proposed widening 5 of N.C. Highway 54 in Orange County. The proposed widening would be 6 from I -85/40 in Burlington to the N.C. Highway 54 Bypass in 7 Carrboro /Chapel Hill. Mr. Collins listed the possible negative 8 environmental impacts as well as staff comments to the feasibility 9 study. 10 Mr. Collins entered into the record a letter from Blair 11 Pollock. Mr. Pollock opposes the widening of NC 54 for three reasons: 12 (1) displaces existing buildings, people and agricultural land, (2) 13 disrupts important areas of the local drinking water supply watersheds 14 especially University Lake, and (3) implies that the only way to handle 15 transportation needs is with more roads with no examination of 16 alternatives. He supports the development of passenger rail service 17 between the Burlington area and Chapel Hill / Carrboro, and also 18 encourages carpooling or convenient, regular, cheap, good bus service. 19 Mr. Richard Davis from North Carolina Department of Transpor- 20 tation (NCDOT) stated that they would explore all feasible alternatives 21 to the widening of NC 54. It has not been definitely decided that this 22 widening will be planned. 23 In answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit about how 24 an item is proposed for a feasibility study, Mr. Davis indicated it 25, .:. could be by a request from a member of the Board of Transportation or 26- a member of the DOT staff 27 In answer to a question from Chair Carey about the need and 28 where this fits into the proposal, Mr. Davis indicated that it is a need 29 perceived by someone -- a Board member or citizen. He stated that what 30 the feasibility study was saying was that to choose another location 31. would be too expensive. 32 In answer to Commissioner Willhoit's concern about increased 33 truck traffic, Mr. Davis stated that this would be a longer route 34 because of the many stops for signals and intersections. 35 Mr. Davis stated that the next step is that the project could 36 be added as an active project. 37 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon on the 38 impact that action by the Board of County Commissioners would have on 39 this widening, Mr. Davis stated that it would depend on the level of 40 support. .It would either move it along or slow it down. 41 42 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS 43 44 RAY SPARROW spoke against the widening of NC 54. He agreed 45 with the letter received from Blair Pollock. He feels that some 46 alternate form of transportation could be looked at to ease the traffic 47 on NC 54. He stated that this road is a shortcut for truckers. They 48 dodge the scales on Highway 85 and use this route because it is still 49 the most direct route to many points. He indicated that if the project 50 must be done that it be done with minimal impact on the road. 51• 52 LOIS HERRING, Chair of the OWASA Board, read a letter into 33 1 the record. In essence she voiced OWASA's concern about possi 2 effects of the proposed project on the quality of Cane Creek 3 University Lake water supply reservoirs. OWASA is concerned about 4 direct effects of the construction work itself, and about the lon 5 term effects of increased traffic and subsequent activities that 6 follow the project. A copy of the complete letter is in the permar, 7 agenda file in the Clerk's Office. 8 g JANE KELLY purchased and restored an old home on NC 54. 10 spoke in opposition of the proposed widening of NC 54 stating it we 11 destroy her property. She questioned why North Carolina is first 12 highway construction and last in education. 13 14 MIRIAM MURDOCK spoke in opposition of widening NC 54. 15 agreed with all the environmental concerns stating that not only we 16 this destroy homes but it is most inappropriate at this time. The St 17 cannot afford it and it is no time for more highways and more cz 18 'Funds should be diverted to more needed social and educational this 19 She suggested a rail line between Chapel Hill and Burlington as 20 alternative means of travel. She asked that the Board not encoui 21 more automobiles. She feels the widening of NC 54 is not inevitable 22 stated that now is the time to stop this proposal. 23 24 HENRY WILSON, owner of Wilson and Staples Auto Serv, 25 . stated that this widening would take his business. He expressE 26 concern about the people who may be hurt by this widening. He appr 27 'of money being spent on public transportation.. 28 .29 - JAMES ASBAUGH stated that when 54 was redone in the 7 30 money was allocated in 1956. If DOT had thought it through then, 31 would have changed some things at that time instead of doing it 32 He questioned the traffic count of 6,000 vehicles per day and asked 33 that count was conducted -- before Highway 40 was opened or after. 34 feels this is a shortcut for trucks and widening would increase tra 35 on NC 54 and create a need for aweigh station. He noted that Sout 36 Bell has a fiber -optic line along NC 54 which would need to be moved 37 the widening. Also, one of the main feeders to University Lake v 38 ..have to be crossed. The widening of NC 54 will cause more runoff 39 = ..erosion of the land. He feels the intersection of Fayetteville Roac 40 NC 54 is dangerous and needs to be studied for a solution. 41. _ .42 PETER TODD, member of the Sierra Club and Orange Cc 43` -Greens, made reference to a transportation study done by TJCOG. "44' study points our the need for all governments to work togethe 45 coordinate their transportation needs. He advocates that no actic *-46 � taken before 1992. This would give all the governing bodies tin 47 respond to the land use issues. He referred to an EDC target adv: 48 group which advocated development of Highway 54. He feels this C 49 encourage sprawl and further promote congestion and increase air, i 50 and soil pollution. Another primary concern is that Highway 54 51 through several feeders of the University Lake Watershed. He doe: 52 feel this project is f inancially prudent. The highway fund is prof i ble and the ger may ent She uld in She uld ate rs. gs. an age and ,ce, d a )ves )'s, :hey low. then He -=fic iern for Auld and and unty This to n be e .-o sory ,ould rater goes not acted 34 10 1 to be twenty million short this year. He encouraged all local 2 governments to work with Triangle Transit Authority and TJCOG to 3 encourage ridesharing /carpooling in West Orange County. 4 5 EDDIE WILLIAMS, business owner in Alamance County, stated 6 that this widening would take the buffer he has in front of his 7 business. He feels this will be necessary at some time in the future 8 but not at this time. He feels it is important to plan ahead but asked 9 that the widening be kept at a minimum. He feels the 200 feet right - 10 of -way is excessive. 11 12 MARGARET BROWN expressed concern about the effects of this 13 widening on University Lake Watershed. She asked that the Board of 14 Commissioners not look favorably on this proposal. 15 16 .7EF asked who originally suggested that the road be widened 17 and why. No one could answer this question. 18 19 LADY FROM ALAMANCE COUNTY stated that there is less traffic 20. now since 1 -40 has opened. She lives on 54 and does not support the 21' proposal. She questioned if this has been considered by Alamance 22 County. 23 24 ;_..y MARTIE MANDELL stated -that there seems to be a great deal of 25 contusion about why the proposal was made. She questioned if this is 26_Z; 'an;:_7 8 -10 year,. plan or. a -.30- year.. plan. She supports other means of 27 1' ="- ,transportation if'. there,. is indeed a problem.- She asked that the 28` ,:y,,, Department of-- Transportation give the citizens some choices to the 29 problem. If this is a 30 -year plan, she asked that a light rail system 30-.;7:..between Chapel Hill and Burlington be considered. If this is an 8 -10 31.- ...year plan, other solutions or studies need to be considered. 32 ` 33 Commissioner Willhoit questioned the increase in the amount 34 of impervious surface this widening would create. Marvin Collins stated 35 that in the description of the existing facility there was reference 36 made to four-foot paved shoulders on each side which were counted in 37 terms of calculating the impervious surface. When the new project was 38 described, there was no reference to the paved shoulders. 39 There were several questions about the traffic count and Mr. 40 Davis will find out exactly when and where the traffic count was done. 41 Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by 42 Commissioner. - Gordon to hold the public hearing open until a written 43: ;`_: response is received from the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and for 44 additional written comments. 45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS Er= 47'. IX. REPORTS - NONE 48 49 X. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 50 A. ARTSCENTER APPROPRIATION 51 The Board was asked to consider releasing $5,000 that has 52::a_ ;' been held in escrow for the ArtsCenter. The County has received all to 35 MEMORANDUM To: Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Betty Eidenier, Chair orange County Planning Board From: Norm Gustaveson, chair tiG I a5 Bingham Township Advisory Council Date: February 11, 1991 Subject: Feasibility Study on Widening N.G. 54 The purpose of this memorandum is to pass along the concerns on the .Bingham Township Advisory Council (TAC) regarding the Feasibility Study for widening NC 54 currently being undertaken by N.C. DOT. The Township Council, met on February 7 to consider this and other items. While the TAC recognizes that the current issue is not a project in itself, but a study to determine the feasibility of widening NC 54, the TAC is nonetheless quite concerned about the transportation, environmental, and social impacts that such a proposal would create if implemented. Among the concerns listed by TAC members were: The potential effect on structures on the north side of NC 54, such as the historic Bingham Inn, since the current proposal would involve widening on the north side of the road. Likely negative impacts on environmentally - sensitive lands in the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds, both of which are traversed by N.C. 54 in whole or in part. The potential negative impact of increased traffic on a four - lane facility, especially as it might affect the "rural character" of communities such as white Cross and oaks. Questions regarding the necessity of this project with Interstate 40 now completed from Burlington to Chapel Hill. - The potential for expanded truck traffic on NC 54 if it were a four -lane facility. Concern presently exists that some trucks are using this stretch of NC 54 as a bypass of the weigh station on Interstate 40/85. The appearance of Alamance County residents at the recent public hearing - indicating inter- county concerns. Having stated these concerns, although they oppose even the widening N.C. 54 ,sou 36 the Bingham TAC would also add that concept of a feasibility study for ................. ... > The TAC recognizes the n eea :::.::..° for safety additions, and encourages that safety concerns on this roadway continue to be addressed. In summary, the Bingham TAC would like to express its opposition to the proposed feasibility study, as it might open the door to future funding of this widening project. The TAC is deeply concerned about this issue, and asks the Planning Board and County Commissioners to recommend that DOT take no action beyond the feasibility study on this issue. xc: Bingham TAC Marvin Collins, Planning Director Gene Bell, Staff, Transportation Advisory Subcommittee pds /21191 January 30, 1990 Mr. Moses Carey County Commissioner P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: DISTRIBUTED I 37 10101 A soil. iry Eq M 1771/ii I would like to ask for your help in opposing the N.C. Department of Transportation's proposed widening of NC 54 -- from the current two -lane to a four -lane highway, extending from Chapel Hill to Burlington. This project is excessive in cost and totally unnecessary considering the present amount of traffic. Considering our state's ever - growing economic problems, it would seem more prudent to wait until the demand exists. At present I think that 46 million dollars could be put to more constructive uses. Please express your opposition to this project to the N.C. Department of Transportation. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Best regards, "-YU— f�AMVN,) Arlene Furman 119 Leslie Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27516 DISTRIBUTED Orange / - Grsl�As Orange County Commissioners Chairman Moses Carey POB 8181 Hillsborough NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey and other Commissioners: 8232 Morrow Mill Chapel Hill, NC 27° January 31, 1991 Thank you for opposing the widening of NC54 west in Orange County. is 4 is When North Carolina is unable to give its teachers a raise, this is NO time to consider wasting millions of dollars on the Department of Transportation's massive highway- widening and road - building project. With lives being sacrificed in the Gulf crisis we should be conserving oil by cutting back on unnecessary driving, encouraging or even man- dating car - pooling, and developing a well - planned mass - transit system. Random suburban development and reliance on individual autos uses ten to fifty times as much land and wastes many times the energy of mass transit .Autos pollute our water supplies with toxic run -off and foul the air with poisons that damage our lungs and brains. We must plan and work toward mass - transit BEFORE we have wasted the needed funds on highways and parking -lots and spread ourselves out to where the convenience of mass - transit is not feasible. Furthermore, mass transit must be made available to all, including those who cannot afford an individual car to get to a job or a doctor, and those who through age or disability are unable to operate a vehicle safely. Nov is the time for planned land -use to concentrate development at appropriate centers along mass - transit corridors. Several of these corridors have already been studied by the Joint Greater Raleigh- Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee. Also the Triangle Net -work for Transportationthas worked out a comprehensive Triangle -wide Public Transportation System incorporating light rail, buses, park - and -ride lots and bike lanes, which I urge you to consider. One particularly unwanted and unnecessary high- way - widening plan which should be scrapped entirely is NC 54 between I85 at Graham and the By -pass at Carrboro. The supposed future "need" for this was apparently based on car - counts on a football Saturday in 1989, before completion of I40 actually decreased traffic on this section of road. On these special occasions buses could be chartered from Exit 148 of I85 to the game. The only part of this proposed plan that should be executed at all is a stop -light at the intersection of Fayetteville Road and NC54 at Carrboro, and that is needed now. Now is the time to balance the budget and hasten the end of the Gulf War by concentrating on energy - saving and mass transit instead of building unneccessary roads. At this time of crisis our love - affair with the auto is downright immoral! Very truly yours, tef. 7oz- 3 749 DISTRIBUTED Gig 119 Leslie Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27516 January 30, 1991 Mr. Moses Carey County Commissioner P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: 39 f'� r ` 4 !y{ I am writing to urge you to oppose the N.C. Department of Transportation's proposed widening of N.C. 54 -- from the current two -lane to a four -lane highway, extending from Chapel Hill to Burlington. This $46 million project is supposedly anticipating a demand trend extending over the next 20 years. However, beyond the project's excessive costs, and beyond the fact that there is no present need for a superhighway through Graham, one can't help but be somewhat amazed and alarmed that this type of action is our state's solution to long -term transportation problems. Considering the present war in the Middle East, considering our current overdependence on oil imports, and considering our own state's ever - growing environmental concerns, this short - sighted (and unsightly) quick -fix seems absolutely unacceptable. We would rather expect that our officials would be considering long -term alternatives to conventional traffic management. That is, rather than anticipating future demand by current automobile trends, we ought to be seriously trying to change the trend itself. Clean mass- transit solutions (electric trolley or light -rail systems) would lessen the number of cars on our available roads and highways, and would offer a sensible alternative to the expanding asphalt tangle which threatens our own area and much our state. Please express your opposition to this project to the N.C. Department of Transportation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jack Nestor Lg � I L11, Dear Chairman: 1/28/91 I am increasingly distressed as I hear about the possible widening of NC 54 from Graham to Carrboro. I feel this would have detrimental effects to the environment (watershed effects), homes and businesses along the proposed route, and to tax dollars, specifically the cost to change the location of the four million dollar water line recently installed on the north side of NC 54. It is unnecessary to widen the road when interstates are so conveniently located. I live seven miles west of Carrboro and just north of NC 54. In ten minutes I can reach I -40 and in fifteen minutes I am at I -85. THe entire reason I live in the country is to have a peaceful atmosphere with a minimum of traffic. I choose to live farther out and commute via I -40 /I- 85 to work - the freeways are very convenient. Why does NC 54 need to be widened when these freeways are so close? The end result will be increased trucking, increased congestion and decreased safety. - Additionally, during these trying times in the Persian Gulf when oil is such an issue, why not use tax dollars towards mass transit which would decrease the need for widening roads and decrease oil consumption? As a taxpaying citizen of North Carolina, I strongly object to the widening of NC 54. Sincerely, , Louise R. ads 9118 Collins Creek Dr. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 L.1 January 29, 1991 To: Board of County Commissioners From; Jean Stanford Mann 8422 Stanford Road Chapel Hill, N. C. 27516 Subject: Proposed widening of Highway 54 41 D�@ �ad� IA�, 3 01991 D I am writing to let your board know that I oppose the widening of Highway 54. I live on Stanford Road in Bingham Township where our family farm is located. We own land on both sides of Highway 54 and have several years ago been forced to sell a large portion of our land to OWASA for the Cane Creek Reservoir. In 1972 8.65 acres were sold to the N.C. Highway Commission to improve Highway 54. I am not convinced that there is a need to have more land taken by government. We travel Highway 54 everyday and only on UNC sports events or student holidays do we see an increase in traffic. I think your Board should do some studies of traffic midway between Chapel Hill and Graham. I feel that widening this road will just increase traffic and development in this area. It will become a shortcut to Carrboro and Chapel Hill and to Highway 40. I am especially concerned for the 48 residences and businesses which would be destroyed. We know many of these families and these are friends: I would suggest that you request the DOT spend money on paving many,of the dirt roads in the county which are very difficult to live on. Better still, spend our tax money on education, children's needs and the elderly,'etc. Let's protect our land, our houses, our businessess, and our environment. If this project proceeds it will cause much pain to many of the citizens of rural Orange County by destroying their homes and their land. January 29, 1991 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Edward N. Mann, Jr. 8422 Stanford Road Chapel Hill, N. C. 27516 Subject: Proposed widening of Highway 54 This letter is to let you know of my opposition to the proposed widening of Highway 54, and of my reasons for the opposition. As a resident.of Bingham Township (Stanford Road) for the past 20 years I am familiar with the traffic volume on that roadway. I drive to work in Chapel Hill and return home five times each week. Also, we attend UNC football games and basketball games on a regular basis. Also, we drive to both Chapel Hill and Burlington for shopping, entertainment, etc. I must _ have made 10,000 trips on that road. Highway 54 is not overly crowded, not even close. At peak daily times in the morning and afternoon commutes there is a great deal of traffic, but it is nowhere near dangerous or inefficient. Even on the worst of days- - football Saturdays - -the increased traffic is not an overload situation. If you want to see what it is really like I invite you to drive from Carrboro to Graham at anytime between nine in the morning and four in the afternoon. You will be amazed at how light the traffic is at that time. It is always a surprise to me to drive that approximate 20 miles and not meet more that 10 to 12 cars at that time of day. It is difficult to understand how the numbers were obtained to indicate the capacity use concerns. My feelings are that Highway 54 is nowhere near capacity, and the proof is in the seeing that I do on a daily basis. And, I can tell you, it-just ain't so. Before this idea gets very far I would request that Orange County do some counting of its own. DOT's numbers are misleading. - . �e 42 0 tit z 2A j M411 -� I Isba�rM'G, 1.� 212 8 �i)� d.'i v s t91SA o f Aide Gains ,�ut�rl►, rrv&ovt A sw• ' 6e�� W4,�4 k-A� Kok Vvwvt &aAJ6W&ja We o'eSU7 A 43 vl� m ose s Care y �r�e gl l NC P.7 a78 / - d7-`iI 44 .a.t. Mr. Care� � �, q lQ-nes � a ''� N, e. � zver a/ i A. rum 1c. Diu ✓e e•n `� � 1 g to / V c SVt t:�L ai 7.",30 A/ C t/ ace • c� rov"O'ls . Does. ,.e tat n1 C -�c P,ven f.�w�.c`s rvi �.� lcu p-r ees ?-fin 5 U hd s �.2e n ~-fie la-va 46 /o !.[42 I.C. �� �s � &b o- d' b ,{.cs.� -�!� e a�5�t �tp cr�arLt d-,I-1 v er -A� Aj 5�V qA OLt it pi a la"t-t r&zlol mA, 2t 5� 0 V�C_r 45 As a d &7L �J C do v,07L is a4, aj ov " (V, a-, qv 1"Or-ff 16t . I vl•� �? cf�cx -� `�.e� Locier -ir%ei c.+ C- I -Miarr. cil-d�/ Mil �t Z7s'i r/ r L S 4f r 46 January 28, 1991 Orange County Commissioners PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Members: In the proposed widening of 54 West, my concerns are: 47 vI I) More traffic taking a short cut from.185 to 40. I have lived on 54 for 24 years. I know that the tractor trailers run this road all the tame. If you approve this preposal, that traffic will double or triple in no time. 1I) By reducing the speed limit to 45 on the existing highway from 185 to Chapel Hill, this would induce people to continue down I85 until they reached 40. III) We have worked very hard on our home and yard for the last 24 years. In 1970, when the highway was widen, we gladly signed the papers - because there was a great need for that improvement. We saw this and gladly practicaly gave our land for this improvement. But now, if my calculations are right, we would have to give up our home. We are dead set again this. Our plan was to live in our home until we die and then pass it down to our children. You say with us having a 10 acre plot, we could relocate our home. I do not think that Orange County would allow this because of the health department. So we would have a useless lot on our hands. This year, our assessed tax value is $100,753.00. IV) Our daughter has an acre lot but her septic system is on our land. The proposed widening of the highway would take the system. What would happen to her? She had wanted to add a bedroom to her system last year and Orange County wouldn't allow this. She is a single parent and barely making end's meet. How cruel to uproot two small children from their home. V) Our grandchildren meet the school bus on Highway 54. If the proposed widening takes place with a medium, the safety of meeting the school bus is greatly reduced. Even now cars coming from the opposite direction do not want to stop for the bus. We are two families that are against this proposal. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs Charles E. Mauer Linda F. Binder 48 January 16, 1991 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey, I am writing to you because of my concern about the proposed widening of Highway 54 West. My husband and I own a home in the Dodson's Crossroads area of Orange County, and I travel Highway 54 daily. I do not find the traffic on 54 so heavy as to warrant further development of that highway. The only time traffic is a real concern in the area is before and after major sports or entertainment events in Chapel Hill. With Interstates 85 and 40 nearby and the limited need, I do not see how the economic, ecological, or personal human costs can be justified. I urge you to vote against the widening of this highway. In addition, I want to thank you for continuing to recognize the concerns of citizens against the proposed Orange County airport. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Lydia A.Aydlett, Ph.D. 49 ... 'tom - ... _._......� -�� E. Foreman -- -- �� 9118 Collins Creek Drive, Chapel C. 27516 29,:x; Alice Cordon Crane County 'oard of Ccmmissicners As a new commissioner, I hope you have an appreciation for the necessity of fighting to maintain the rural quality of life in Crange County. I urge you to oppose the widening of W ;4. The state is widening 1 40 &- 84 which is only 10 miles North. v ideninz 54 will not improve traffic flow asi t will result in more trucks & vehicles —vi±± turn'—/ off at Craham. it is a relief as a senior citizen to have a quieter highway that does not have trucks j hounding alonz with you. I