Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-07-1991ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1991 ON ALL ABSTRACTS 7 :30 P.M. AVAILABLE IN THE OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE CLERK'S OFFICE. HILLSBOROUGH, NC NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request. If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 968 -4501. I. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA II. 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 UBLIC 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. III. ITEMS F R DECISION -- CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) A. Budget ordinance Amendment #4 B. Petition for Abandonment -- Portion of Gibbs Lane in Eno Township C. Amendment to Chatham County Emergency Medical Protection Contract D. Change of Meeting Place for Regular Tuesday Meeting E. Contract Approval-- Efland- Cheeks Community Center and Park IV. RESOLUTIONSIPROCLAMATIONS V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy B. SUP -1 -91- -Green Hill Bed and Breakfast VII. REPORTS A. Hillsborough Request to Purchase OWASA Sixteen Inch Water Line B. Efland Sewer System C. Visitor Bureau D. State Watershed Classifications and Standards VIII. ITEMS FOR_DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA A. Bid Award -- Equipment for Frazier Road Solid Waste Collection Center B. 911 Expansion Project -- Change Order Approval C. Historic Inventory Consultant D. Zoning Ordinance /Subdivision Regulations Text- Amendments--Vested Rights E. Proposed Lease Graham Building F. Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement IX. BOARD COMMENTS X. COUNTY MANAGERIS REPORT XI. APPOINTMENTS x1l. MINUTES XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION XIV. ( *) Indicates items that need immediate attention. 1 APPROVED 10 /22/91 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 7, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, October 7, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the Old Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., Vice -Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis and 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 Managers Albert Kittrell and Rod Visser, Economic Development Director Ted Abernathy, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes, Personnel Director Elaine Holmes, Planners Eddie Kirk, Mary Scearbo and David Stancil, Purchasing Director Pamela Jones, Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo, and County Engineer Paul Thames. NOTE: ALL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ITEMS LISTED IN THIS AGENDA ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE BOARD COMMENTS Item XI Appointments was postponed for further information. Commissioner Halkiotis asked that the Board consider the question of whether or not this Board needs to have a Commissioner representative on the Regional Library Board. A report will be forthcoming on this topic. He also noted to the Board that the bumper stops for the new Government Services Building will be made from recycled plastic. He commended Pam Jones for this wise decision. Commissioner Gordon made reference to a memo about the Clean Air Amendments and commented on how they relate to the Durham - Chapel Hill Thoroughfare Plan. Chair Carey stated that because of the construction of the new parking deck in Chapel Hill, it will be necessary to move the location of the regular Tuesday meeting. The OWASA community meeting room has been selected for these meetings for the present time. Chair Carey noted that he has been in contact with the Chairs of Durham and Wake counties about the county's share of the request from the Triangle Transit Authority for part of their operating expenses that the legislature assumed we were going to share when they approved the Authority's use of the vehicle tax for operating expenses. This will be discussed further and presented for Board action in the near future. With reference to the recent decision by the Utilities Commission opposing county -wide toll free calling, Chair Carey recommended that options be explored, involving the citizens, to decide on further action. This will be discussed in detail at the next regular meeting. s 2 Chair Carey congratulated Tara Fikes on receiving a $250,000 grant for the development of Whitted Forest which will provide affordable housing for the central portion of Orange County. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT County Manager John Link announced that the Report to the People has been distributed and copies are available to any organization that need additional copies. He thanked the County staff and department heads for their contributions to this report. I. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA - NONE II. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Chair Carey announced that those citizens who would like to speak to an item on the printed agenda will be recognized at the appropriate time. B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Mr. Duane Stewart, representing White Hall Investments who own Duke Forest Park, a mobile home community located between US 70 and Old NC 10, asked for the Board's support on a problem involving right - of -way. He stated that the wastewater treatment system currently consist of a septic tank and a sand filter discharging into a dry creek. The discharge is currently not meeting the limits of the Division of Environmental Management permit. The only alternative to them is to pump into the City of Durham wastewater system to which they have agreed. The problem is getting from the Mobile Home Park to the city system. The Department of Transportation does not normally allow private utility construction within their right -of -way. He has attempted to get an easement from the property owners along this road but has been unsuccessful. He asked the Board to consider accepting this force main for maintenance, ownership, etc. This was referred to the County staff for followup. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey read the public charge. III. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Item D was removed and considered as a separate item. Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve those items on the Consent Agenda as listed below: A. BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT #4 The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign an agreement with Durham Technical Community College to provide support to the college for emergency service training courses offered within Orange County, and the following budget ordinance amendments and Section 8 Program Block Grant Project Ordinance: 3 GENERAL FUND Source - Charges for Services $ 6,430 Appropriation - Public Safety 6,430 (To budget for Durham Tech training contract) LITTLE RIVER FIRE DISTRICT Source - Miscellaneous $ 1,521 Appropriation - Little River Fire Dist. 1,521 (To budget for Greater Triangle Foundation Grant) SECTION 8 PROGRAM BLOCK GRANT GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners that pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant project is hereby adopted. Section 1. The project authorized is the Housing Authority project as described in the work statement contained in the grant agreements NC19 -K104 -001, NC19 -V104- 001 -005 and NC19 -E104- 001 -009 between this unit and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This project is more familiarly known as the 1990 -91 Section 8 Project. section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to proceed with the grant project within the grant document, the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the budget contained herein. Section 3. The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project: Intergovernmental: Existing $1,788,903 Moderate Rehab 440,355 Voucher -----448,323 Total Revenue 2,677,581 Section 4. The following amounts are appropriated for this project: Rental Assistance: Existing $1,612,968 Moderate Rehab 398,304 Voucher 405,120 Administration: Existing 175,935 Moderate Rehab 42,051 Voucher 43,203 Total Appropriations $2,677,581 Section 5. This ordinance supersedes all previous Section 8 Program Grant Project Ordinances. 4 Section 6. The finance officer is hereby directed to maintain within the Section 8 Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting records to provide the accounting to the grantor agency required by the grant agreement and federal and state regulations. Section 7. Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the purpose of making payments due. Reimbursement requests should be made to the grantor agency in an orderly and timely manner. Section 8. Copies of this grant project ordinance shall be made available to the finance officer for direction in carrying out this project. Section 9. This project ordinance if effective July 1, 1991. B. PETITION FOR ABANDONMENT - PORTION OF GIBBS LANE IN ENO TOWNSHIP The Board approved a petition from NCDOT for the abandonment of approximately 264 feet of maintenance at the end of Gibbs Lane from the State - maintained Secondary Road System. C. AMENDMENT TO CHATHAM COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROTECTION CONTRACT The Board approve an amendment to the Chatham County Emergency Medical Protection Contract which will allow Orange County to disclose confidential patient information to Chatham County for billing purposes. D. CHANGE OF MEETING PLACE FOR REGULAR TUESDAY MEETING Moved to the end of the Consent Agenda. E. CONTRACT APPROVAL FOR THE EFLAND CHEEKS COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign a contract with O'Neal Construction Company, Chapel Hill, NC for a sum of $224,147 for construction of the Efland- Cheeks Community Center and Park. VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS D. CHANGE OF MEETING PLACE FOR REGULAR TUESDAY MEETING Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve changing the meeting place for the Board's regular Tuesday meeting to the OWASA Community Meeting Room for an indefinite period. VOTE: UNANIMOUS IV. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS - NONE V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE 5 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY Tara Fikes, Director of Housing and Community Development, stated this item is presented to receive citizen comments regarding the Consolidated Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for Orange County. This document assesses county housing needs and outlines future plans for addressing these needs. All comments will be incorporated into the final document prior to submission to HUD on or about December 16, 1991. No comments were received. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to close the public hearing for public comments. Written comments may be received until December 1, 1991. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. SUP -1 -91 FOR THE GREEN HILL BED AND BREAKFAST Eddie Kirk, Vic Knight and James F. Davis were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board. Planner Eddie Kirk gave an overview of the request for a Special Use Permit. He stated that the applicants, William Thomas Proctor, III and Evelyn D. Proctor, have requested a Class A Special Use Permit for a Non - Residential Reuse /Mixed Use of an historic Green Hill residence. The property is located at the southwestern corner of the intersection of US 70 and Lawrence Road. The property contains 6.46 acres. The proposed request would allow for the house to be used as a bed and breakfast facility for a maximum of six (6) adults. The Zoning Officer recommends approval with the attachment of three conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. James F. Davis, neighbor of the Proctors, indicated he needed additional information before he decides if he is for or against this proposal. The house has been for sale for 1 -1/2 years. He is for the proposal if it will help his property, but against it if it will hurt him. He questioned the motive of the need to have a bed and breakfast with a $600,000 or $700,000 investment. Chair Carey suggested that Mr. Davis could get a lot of his questions answered by talking with the Proctors or by talking with the County Planning staff. Commissioner Insko described for Mr. Davis the process that will be followed before the Board will formally consider this proposal for approval. There will be ample opportunity for him to comment and ask questions. It was clarified that if a Special Use Permit is issued and the property is sold that the Special Use Permit runs with the sale of the property. Mr. Davis indicated this was his main objection. Also, the information received tonight as well as written comments received before the Planning Board meets will be taken into consideration. Mr. Davis stated that he would be happy for the Proctors to have what they want if they can convince him and his wife that it is going to be for the good of the community. L Eddie Kirk cited the Ordinance requirements as listed in Article 8.2.2. Mr. Davis feels that the granting of this SUP will enhance the salability of the property. Vic Knight, local appraiser, stated that he was hired to evaluate the impact that this particular use would have on the subject property. With regard to the value aspect as it pertains to the adjoining and contiguous properties, he looked at the sales of surrounding properties of two other bed and breakfast establishments and how they may have been impacted by the granting of a SUP. What he determine was that the value impact seems to be negligible or nil. Mr. Davis' property was not used as a comparable because his property did not change ownership. The use of the property as a bed and breakfast would cause a significantly less impact than other uses might on this property in that particular location. Mr. Davis stated he doesn't want something in his neighborhood that is not needed. Chair Carey stated that it would be Mr. Davis' responsibility to present evidence that the value of his property would decrease if this proposal is approved. After this public hearing, the Planning Board may receive and take into consideration any written evidence, including that which would be contrary to what has been presented. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon that the application be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than November 4, 1991 and no later than December 4, 1991. VOTE: UNANIMOUS VII. REPORTS A. HILLSBOROUGH REQUEST TO PURCHASE OWASA SIXTEEN INCH WATER LINE This report is in response to Hillsborough's request to OWASA to purchase the OWASA sixteen inch water line which has been used to transport water between Hillsborough and OWASA. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Paul Thames stated that OWASA questioned that if Hillsborough got control of the line and they developed in the area served by the line to such an extent that the demand for water used up a large portion of the carrying capacity of that line and OWASA needed to get water in or out of Hillsborough through that line, how would that be accomplished. Thames stated that in any event Hillsborough would have to have a new pump station built at the boundary of the service area because OWASA's existing pumps would not be able to pump into a high pressure zone. This pump station would need to be designed to overcome the high pressure zone and be able to run enough water through to satisfy the Hillsborough service area water demand plus be able to carry the water from OWASA to Hillsborough. He feels that this pump station can be designed to OWASA's satisfaction. The problem is that building a pump station would be costly and the feasibility of buying this line comes into question. Hillsborough may be better off financially to build a 12" line instead of buying this 16" line. VA Chair Carey emphasized that the Board's interest is assuring that the user permit only uses which are consistent with Orange County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and /or any Joint Land Use Plan which may be developed and in the continued availability of that line for transmission of water. Hillsborough must determine if it will be economically feasible to purchase this line and OWASA must determine if it will be economically feasible for them to convey this line either by selling or leasing to Hillsborough. Commissioner Insko stressed that it is important for the County's appointees to take the information that is provided and make their own judgment about it. The information received does document that it is feasible for this to take place and also documents the problems that Hillsborough would have going under Churton Street and under I -85. She suggested that this information be forwarded to the OWASA Board as information the Board of Commissioners has received which OWASA may want to take into consideration in making a decision to sell or not to sell this line to the Town of Hillsborough. Chairman Carey will write a letter to OWASA reflecting the comments made at this meeting. In answer to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis, Geoffrey Gledhill stated that the remedy of eminent domain is available. Hillsborough Commissioner Bob Rose emphasized that the town would not want to do anything that would jeopardize the capability of transmittal of water from OWASA to Hillsborough or from Hillsborough to OWASA. Hillsborough is only asking the County Board of Commissioners to support their wishes to investigate the feasibility of purchasing this line. They will have an engineering plan done which must prove that the transmission of water won't be jeopardized or they won't continue with the plan to purchase this line. Ed Holland, Research and Planning Administrator with OWASA, stated that there is a joint application from the water providers in Orange County for an allocation from the Jordan Lake. This 16 -inch water line will be the best way to get that water to the Hillsborough area. B. EFLAND SEWER SYSTEM This report provided information to the Board on the current operational status of the Efland Sewer System and gave several scenarios for the constructing and financing expansions to the system. County Engineer Paul Thames used a colored map to show the six phases of the Efland Sewer system. Part of phase one has been completed. The remaining section of phase one is the section that has the highest number of people who are still interested in connecting to the sewer system. Phase two is downtown Efland and contains most of the commercial facilities in Efland. Phases two and three can be constructed independently of each other or any other section. Phase four is designed to be constructed after phase three is constructed. However, it could be redesigned so that it could be constructed alone. The construction of phase five requires that either phase two or phase one be constructed prior to its construction and phase six is depended upon the remaining section of phase one being constructed. 8 Thames reported on the construction costs for all the six phases and the total cost for expanding the System. These figures are in his report in the Permanent Agenda File. He reported that 111 taps have been installed in phase one. Of that number there are 76 paying customers. The remaining 35 customers have not tapped on or are buildings standing empty. Most of these people are paying a monthly sewer rate of $15.20. If CDBG funds can be obtained, the customer base would increase approximately by 60 customers in the existing phase one. Mr. Roy McAdoo spoke for those citizens who are paying the monthly sewer fee and who cannot afford to tap onto the system. He emphasized that these people really do need the sewer line. There is one person who has granted an easement but has not received a stubout. Benny Cecil, Chairman of the Efland Environmental Group, spoke in support of finding a solution to complete the system. There are a lot of problems in the Efland area with failing septic tanks which has caused a health hazard for that community. He offered to work on a special study group that would look into the situation to help all those citizens in that area. Chair Carey referred to the staff the question on the easement. He is aware of the public health problems and asked the staff to look into funding options that may be available including CDBG monies. The options will need community involvement so they can comment on the desirability of the options for the community. It will require time and energy. Commissioner Halkiotis agreed, emphasizing that something needs to be done in that area because it is a public health hazard that needs to be corrected. C. VISITOR BUREAU The County Manager asked for Board comments on materials distributed last week. The materials covered draft position description, recruitment plan, advertisement, Visitor Bureau timetable, and suggested initial Board meeting agenda. The Board had no comments or questions. D. STATE WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS Planner David Stancil gave an overview on a proposed Orange County position paper regarding the State watershed protection classifications and development standards. This item was presented at public hearing on August 26, 1991. The Board received this as a report. This item will be placed on the next agenda as a decision item. VIII. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA A. BID AWARD - EQUIPMENT FOR FRAZIER ROAD SOLID WASTE COLLECTION CENTER Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to award the bid for equipment to be used at the Frazier Road Solid Waste Collection Center to Waste Industries West, Inc. at a cost of $27,001. Other bids were received from NuLife Environmental for $28,352, McClain Industries for $27,442.39 and Cavalier Equipment for $27,412.40. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9 B. 911 EXPANSION PROJECT - CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the change orders as presented and to authorize the Purchasing Director to execute the necessary paperwork. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. HISTORIC INVENTORY CONSULTANT Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a contract with Kelly Lally and Ruth Little to conduct the inventory of historic sites and structures in the unincorporated portions of Chapel Hill Township per the Historic Preservation Commission recommendation. The consultants will be reimbursed for their services in an amount not to exceed $10.000. The approval of this contract is contingent upon staff and attorney review. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ZONING ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT _AMENDMENTS - VESTED RIGHTS ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS Article 22 - Definitions (Site Specific Development Plan, Vested Right) Article 14.3 - Site Plan Review Article 8 - Special Uses SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS Section II - Definitions (site Specific Development Plan, Vested Right, Minor Subdivision) Section III -D - Application and Approval Procedures These amendments are included in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances located in the Clerk's Office). Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the proposed amendment revised to include a statement on the approved plan that a vested right has been established. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. PROPOSED LEASE - GRAHAM BUILDING Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a lease, contingent upon staff and attorney review, with Hillsborough Savings and Loan, for a period from November 1, 1991 through June 30, 1995 at the following rates: November 1, 1991 through June 30, 1993 at $500 per month July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994 at $525 per month July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995 at $552 per month VOTE: UNANIMOUS its] F. HILLSBOROUGH COOPERATIVE PLANNING AGREEMENT After a brief discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the revised Cooperative Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough, including the proposed amendment to Article 4 and the punctuation corrections as recommended by the Planning Board and a revision to change the wording of the last two sentences in Article 1, Section 1.2 -D "Open Space Area" to read as follows: "The Open Space Area is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an urban or transition area, is generally non urban and which is generally not expected to become urban and will generally contain low density residential uses. This area may be served by public water and sewer but solely for the purpose of the development of large developments, or a combination of small developments, with significant preserved open space. (delete the rest of the sentence). VOTE: AYES, 3; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Willhoit) Commissioner Willhoit opposed this change in language because he feels something should be something than not be something. It should be defined. IX. BOARD COMMENTS - listed on page 1 of these minutes X. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT - listed on page 2 of these minutes XI. APPOINTMENTS - postponed to next meeting XII. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair Carey to approve the minutes for the Regular Meeting held on September 17, 1991 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION -- NONE XIV. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for consideration, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting. The next Regular Meeting will be held on October 22, 1991 in the OWASA Community Meeting Room, Carrboro, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk a ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 SUBJECT: Budget Ordinance Amendment #4 DEPARTMENT Budget ATTACHMENT(S) (1) Proposed Budget Amendment (2) Section 8 Program Block Grant Grant Project Ordinance (3) Agreement Between Durham Technical Community College & Orange County Emergency Management (4) Community Emergency Communication Awareness Project for Little River Fire District 1 Action Agenda Item No 7rr-A ------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARING YES NO XX INFORMATION CONTACT Budget Office, Extension 2450 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To approve proposed budget and grant project ordinance amendments. BACKGROUND: (1) Orange County Housing /Community Development has received additional funding for the Existing program. The attached grant project ordinance will increase appropriated grant funds by $386,578. (2) Orange County Emergency Management has received an offer from Durham Technical Community College to provide support to the College for emergency service training courses offered within Orange County. Durham Tech has agreed to reimburse Orange County $6,430 for these services. In September, 1991, the Orange County Chief's Council unanimously voted to support this agreement. This amendment will cover all costs of training as well as allow the department to offer additional training concerning SARA Title III. (3) On February 4, 1991, the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorized the County Finance Director to act as fiscal agent for the Little River (Caldwell) Fire District for grant purposes. This Greater Triangle Foundation grant has been received, and it will be used to pay costs associated with a Community Emergency Communication Awareness Project. The proposed budget for this project is attached, and the associated budget amendment will appropriate these pass -thru funds to the fire district. PA RECOMMENDATION(S)S The Manager recommends that the Board of Commissioners adopt the proposed Budget Ordinance Amendments, the Section 8 Program Block Grant Project Ordinance, and authorize Chairman to sign agreement with Durham Technical Community College. 3 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1991 -92 BUDGET AMENDMENTS The 1991 -92 Orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is amended as follows: BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT (1) See attached Section 8 Grant Project Ordinance. (2) GENERAL FUND Source: Charges for Services $1,750,909 $ 6,430 $1,757,339 Appropriation: Public Safety 3,255,477 6,430 3,261,907 To budget for Durham Tech training contract. (3) Little River Fire District Source: Miscellaneous $ 0 $ 1,521 $ 1,521 Appropriation: Remittance to Little River Fire District 55,042 1,521 56,563 To budget for Greater Triangle Foundation Grant. BUDGET AMENDMENT #4 4 SECTION 8 PROGRAM BLOCK GRANT GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners that pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant project is hereby adopted. Section 1. The project authorized is the Housing Authority project as described in the work statement contained in the grant agreements NC19 -K104 -001, NC19- V104- 001 -005 and NC19- -E104- 001 -009 between this unit and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This project is more familiarly known as the 1990 -91 Section 8 Project. Section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to proceed with the grant project within the grant document, the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the budget contained herein. Section 3. The following revenues are anticipated to be available to complete this project: Intergovernmental: Existing $1,788,903 Moderate Rehab 440,355 Voucher _ 448,323 $2,677,581 Total Revenue Section 4. The following amounts are appropriated for this project: Rental Assistance: Existing $1,612,968 Moderate Rehab 398,304 Voucher 405,120 Administration: Existing 175,935 Moderate Rehab 42,051 Voucher 43,203 Total Appropriations $2,677,581 I Section 5. This ordinance supersedes all previous Section 8 Program Grant Project Ordinances. Section 6. The finance officer is hereby directed to maintain within the Section 8 Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting records to provide the accounting to the grantor agency required by the grant agreement and federal and state regulations. Section 7. Funds may be advanced from the General Fund for the purpose of making payments due. Reimbursement requests should be made to the grantor agency in an orderly and timely manner. section S. Copies of this grant project ordinance shall be made available to the finance officer for direction in carrying out this project. section 9. This project ordinance is effective July 1, 1991. Adopted this 7th day of October, 1991. 61 1.1 LITTLE RIVER FIRE DISTRICT COMMUNITY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION AWARENESS PROJECT BUDGET Mailing 750 Letters to Community Residents letter copying and folding $ 25.00 envelopes 55.00 mailing labels 22.50 bulk mailing 138.00 $'240.50 Inclusion of 31000 311 High, Black with White Border, Reflective, Adhesive Numbers $.30 each plus handling fee $ 931.00 Telephone Stickers 54.50 Erecting Information Signs 8 - 18" x 24" reflective Sign Making Set Up Fee 8 - 4" x 4" x 6' treated 8 sets of mounting bolts Along the 911 Emergency Boundary signs $ 25.62 each $ 205.00 20.00 posts $ 5.00 each 40.00 $ 2.50 set 20.00 $ 285.00 500 - $11 x 1111 Fire District Maps $ 10.00 TOTAL $1,521.00 I No. Department 30 Account Code 7300 DURHAM TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT Orange County Emergency Management agrees to provide the following services to Durham (Contractor) Technical Community College on the indicated dates: Start inp, August 1 1991 and ending June 30 1992. The Emergency Manage- ment Services will provide administrative support for Emergency Services training classes conducted in Orange County. ^ Durham Technical Community College agrees to the following in return for the services rendered: Upon completion of services and receipt of an invoice; Durham Tech will p_ay Orange County Emergency Management $6,430.00. Quartely invoices will be accepted. This the 14th day of August 199 1 Contractor is (check appropriate category): Individual Sole Proprietorship Partnership Corporation j Program Director President, Durham Technical Community College Contractor Orange ounty Emergency Management Social Security Number -E ,O. Box 8181 Address - P. O. Box / Route Hillsborough NC 27278 City State Zip Code DISTRIBUTION: WHITE/CANARY - Business Office . PINK - Program Coordinator • GOLDENROD - Vendor . OR AN G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7 1991 1 Action Agenda Items -B SUBJECT: PETITION FOR ABANDONMENT - PORTION OF GIBBS LANE IN ENO TOWNSHIP DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x —No ATTACHMENT(S): E.M. Cowan letter of 8/21/91 Secondary Road Abandonment Report Vicinity Map Petition INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 2582 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a petition from NCDOT for approval of the abandonment of a portion of Gibbs Lane (SR 1564) from the State- maintained Secondary Road System. BACKGROUND: The N.C. Department of Transportation has submitted a petition for the abandonment of approximately 264 feet of maintenance at the end of Gibbs Lane. Gibbs Lane is scheduled for paving in the 1991 -92 construction program with a cul -de -sac as shown on the attached map. The cul -de -sac would be provided on the Wanda Brandt and Benjamin Bradsher properties. There are several reasons for abandoning this section of maintenance. First, homeowners at the end of Gibbs Lane have petitioned for this portion of the road to be abandoned (attached). Secondly, there is a well next to the road which would prohibit additional grading. Thirdly, the proposed cul -de -sac would provide school bus and emergency vehicles a turnaround which is not presently available. The Planning Staff would therefore recommend this section of maintenance be abandoned by the State. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the abandonment of maintenance on this portion of Gibbs Lane in Eno Township. JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY Orange County "L ST , 4 Y STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. Box 766 Graham, North Carolina 27253 -0766 August 21, 1991 Mr. John M. Link, Jr., Manager Orange County 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Petition for Abandonment Portion of Gibbs Lane, SR 1564 Eno Township Dear Mr. Link: 2 i DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR- P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Attached is Form SR -5, Secondary Road Abandonment Investigation Report for the above subject road. This is being forwarded to you for review by your Board of Commissioners. Y urs v y trul , E. M. Cowan, P.E. DISTRICT ENGINEER /acr Atta. cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer File: 0-91 -19 NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECONDARY ROAD ABANDONMENT INVESTIGATION REPORT County orange Co. File No. Date Township Eno Div. File No. SR No. & Local Name If Any Gibbs Lane (Portion of) — SR 1564 Length 264 Ft, Width 10 -12 Ft. Type ABC Condition Fair 3 Number of homes having entrances into road 4 Other uses having entrances into road None Is the road a school bus route? No Average Daily Traffic Count (estimated) 24 Date of last State maintenance performed August 1, 1991 Is the road a mail route? Yes Is a petition for this request attached? Yes Is the County Commissioners' Approval attached? If not, give reason Additional information applicable Gibbs Lane is scheduled in the 1991 -92 progran to be constructed with a cul—de —sac as shown on attached plan. Submitted by Reviewed and approved by E. M. Cowan, TRICT ENGINEER J. W. Watkins, DIVISION ENGINEER Reviewed and approved Board of Transportation Member (Do not write in this space - For use of Planning and Research Department) Form SR -5 (11/77) (Do not write in this space - For use of Secondary Roads Department) Petition No. (Do not write in this space - For use of Planning.Department) a a � m y co co 0 W fv 'C a n1 C CJ1 � e a \O `o MARY C. P I TTMA N `' N 5211BS 0� •o to ' y N a to w ?t 1 1 a ioJ ul -.t g6 OQ 9� (7 r9! o ti tb 9 G 1, ti x ,gyp 11 W M+ jo Q O O tk d ti co 3 aa'o 4 66\ y w IN C� o w z y loo 0z d m Z rb v O Q �r o to 1 v, n� 'C a n1 C CJ1 � e N ..�k.__...at ._- - •. �����.. Yr: F•�^'c'�.'.- y +��.- �•y.�^+ .-- - rr.yr.•�..slY ... 0 IV! TTEV - 28,25A,33, 42,61,2A,55,15, 9A,59,44A147A,78, i 924-M SM17 e ` -� - - _ - - - 4750 144.7z 4.3AC.CAL. _ � 9.70 AC c 6sz3 Z.51 'AC. A (�w 5 1,8 S 8. S AC ,,. B _ ' -- p 3 AC. r G . 16A 17A £ &79 : 3as5 37AC -CAL. w'S ,y zto izo OIOs szs d` tZ3 AC. z 1224 Al SA 4� rs I.8 9 AC.. f 8 20 5.03 AC iJ.50AC• -or2o -- 8.77AC- 19 2 SAC 1 8169 -303 s° r6 I A 4 S�aS t r �� e d " 939 2778 000 3 t n C . Q 14 A 351 AC. 21 - I1 �0 3O�ee 8849 s �. J �87s7 1716 4835 4- n AC• - - - - 1�4 C I - - , I g . I CAL t, I ��' � 1 22 22B 0 4SE!> A III''`' r 17 1 - 3 s 5 zz t3 I 22A OZ)Z _IPIC -.5 fc y I �,° 16B :3.29 1 2614 t" I 7 1AC• r -� 5 46 24 t 2.31 5 AC. 3.54 -1 I -- AC. / a z4 0428 4445 fn C C? / 07034 2.57AY 4.86�C z m �. I 2.08 AC. ; m SE-E MAP 21A f N r�.rn:. _ _. �'/ 1 n m (GREENHILL) !� C-) _ 1_�... BETTY L. RAY G SCARLET? _ 00N N I E & 407 AC W A r 18-G AC. CHARLES L- F - 29 37. 29 = - C is , 27 rte_ _=tea' :. r jpp8p' +32 �+ so97 _ 0069 - a .37 9 - �� +_60 .01 - ,`; - 4,4 r :!I .16.9808 - { _:�AC. WC IL 29 AC� NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ABANDONMENT PETITION North Carolina County of Petition request for the abandonment of,4Secondary Road, from the State Maintained System. We the undersigned, being all of the property owners on Secondary Road /:ZP4 in County do hereby request the Division of Highways of the Department of Transportation to abandon the road from the State Maintained System. NAME PROPERTY OWNERS I:oe: *79 n r4 R Form SR -3 (6 -78) [:1 ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 Amendment to Chatham SUBJECT: County Emergency Medical Protection Contract DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Emergency Management ATTACHMENT (S): (1) 1985 Chatham County Emergency Medical Protection Contract Action Agenda Item # =- C Yes XX No INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Waters TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham -- 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To allow Orange County to disclose confidential patient information to Chatham County Emergency Medical Services for billing purposes. BACKGROUND: In 1985, Orange County entered into a contract with Chatham County to provide emergency medical services for that portion of Chatham County served by the Southern Bell Telephone Company, Inc. Orange County answered 221 calls last year, and was reimbursed at the rate of $110.00 per call. The ambulance call report is maintained by Orange County EMS. This report contains information about patients that is considered confidential. Chatham County has requested the ambulance call report be forwarded to their office to allow the county to bill the patients. The present contract does not provide for the ambulance reports to be released nor does it assure the protection of patient confidentiality. This amendment to the original contract allows Orange County EMS to submit the ambulance report by the 15th of each month to Chatham County, and assures that patient confidentiality is protected. The amendment has been approved by the Chatham County Board of Commissioners and agreed to by Orange County EMS and South Orange Rescue, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that Orange County approve the amendment to the current contractual agreement as submitted. 11 2 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROTECTION CONTRACT This amendment to the contract by and between Orange County, Chatham County and South Orange Rescue, Inc. is made and entered into this 1st day of September, 1991. WHEREAS, the Counties have established a District within North Chatham County consisting of an area wherein residents now being served by the Southern Bell Telephone Exchange are provided Emergency Medical Services by Orange County Emergency Medical Services and South Orange Rescue Squad. - WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 20, Chapter 160A of the N. C. General Statutes, Orange and Chatham Counties are empowered to enter into this agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the Counties and South Orange Rescue Squad, Inc. hereby agree to the following amendment: Orange County shall submit to Chatham County by the the 15th of the month following the event, a copy of ACRs (Ambulance Call Report) of all calls in Chatham County. Chatham County shall assure patient confidentiality is protected at all times. This amendment is entered into the day and year first above written. CHATHAM COUNTY BY: Henry Dunl p, Chairman Chatham County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Hazel Bbone, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners ORANGE COUNTY BY: Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners SOUTH ORANGE RESCUE SQUAD, INC. BY: Raymond D. deFriess, Chief ATTEST: Secretary 3 t 'e0o", . 1 5 { �a C x W S J STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROTECTION CONTRACT Y 4 ..This agreement is made and, entered into this 1st day of July, 1985, by and between Orange' County, Chatham County and South Orange Rescue, I ne. WHEREAS, the Counties have established a District within North Chatham County consisting of an area wherein residents now being served by the Southern Bell Telephone Exchange are provided Emergency Medical Services by Orange County Emergency Medical Services and South. Orange Rescue Squad. MEREAS, pursuant to Article. 201 Chapter 160A of the N.C. General Statutes, Orange and Chatham Counties are empowered to enter into this agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the Counties and South Orange Rescue Squad,- Inc. hereby agree as follows: 1. ' Orange County and South Orange Rescue shall, to the best of .their ability, furnish equipment, supplies, and personnel deemed necessary by them for the purpose of providing emergency medical services protection to persons needing assistance within the District as the boundaries of such District are now constituted or May . hereafter be amended. 2. I n provi di ng -the emergency medical services protection described in paragraph l of this agreement, Orange County shall retain its governmental immunity to the extent provided by law as if 5 the emergency medical services were being provided by it in Orange County. 3. The obligation of Orange County and eSouth Orange Rescue .,to res•pond.to calls In accordance with this agreement shall be secondary and 'subordinate to their duty to furnish protection to the residents of Orange County Count co 4. 1 n consi deration. for th e* services described in this agreement, Chatham County shall pay Orange County annually an V amount determined as follows: Z A. Determine Orange County and South Orange Rescue- protection expense for .the prior 4palendar year. B. Divide the total number of Emergency Medical Services calls within Orange and Chatham County into the total protection expense determined in A b determine cost per call. C. Orange County shall submit to Chatham, County by May 15 of each year the total calls for the prior year and a cost per call. o D. Chatham County shall pay to Orange County the sum of the cost .per call times the number of Chatham County calls and. any additional insurance premium-cost which would-resuIt from Chathim Cbunty calls.' 5. The sum shall be paid to Orange County by Chatham County in four quarterly installments, one each being due on July 1p October 1, January 1, and March 1 following the May 15 submittal. 6. This contract shall be effective July 1. 1985, and may be cancelled by either party upon written notice to the other not less than 00 days prior to the end of the fiscal year which Will conclude with the cancellation of this agreement. r. i I This contract is entered into the day and year first above written. -CHATHAM COUNTY BY Earl Thompson, Chairman Chatham County Board of Canmiss�pner$ AT T ES_ . a z e Boone, _ Clerk to the Board of Commissioners ORANGE COUNTY B Y.. oit, Chairman, Donald 'IV!Flh Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: BeV_e_ _rP i-Iffft-hp; _Qkfir k to the Board of Canmissioners ATTEST: um —_Q , Secretary SOUTH ORANGE RESCUE SQUAD, INC. BY:,. Chief 6 I ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 SUBJECT: CHANGE OF MEETING PLACE FOR REGULAR TUESDAY MEETING DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S): YES - NOTICE INFORMATION CONTACT: MOSES CAREY,JR. TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -5401 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To change the meeting place for the regular Tuesday meeting held by the Board of County Commissioners. BACKGROUND: The Town of Chapel Hill is building a parking deck next to the old Post Office where the County Commissioners hold their regular Tuesday meeting. The parking lot of the Post office is being used for construction trailers and the parking lot next to the old Post Office is the site of the new parking deck. The location is being changed so that adequate parking is available for everyone who wishes to attend the regular Tuesday Meeting. OWASA has offered the use of its meeting room for as long as is needed. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the change of meeting place for the Board's regular Tuesday meeting as stated on the attached notice of change. 2 COUNTY OF ORANGE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLACE OF MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, N.C.G.S. 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 regular meeting scheduled each month in Chapel Hill as listed on the approved meeting schedule for 1991 and 1992; NOW, THEREFORE E, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that the meeting place for the Tuesday regular meeting be changed from the old Post Office in Chapel Hill to the OWASA Operations Center Building located at 400 Jones Ferry Road in Carrboro beginning October 22, 1991 and for the remainder of 1991 and 1992. This notice is provided pursuant to N.C.G.S. 153 -40. Beverly A. Blythe Clerk to the Board 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. -ZEL--_ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 SUBJECT: CONTRACT APPROVAL; EFLAND - CHEEKS COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK ------------------------------------------- ----------------------- _ ---_ -- DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVS. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:XX ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES CONTRACT EXT 2650 NOTICE TO PROCEED Telephone Number - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham -688 -7331 PURPOSE: To approve a contract for construction of Efland- Cheeks Community Center and Park. BACKGROUND: On September 17, 1991, the Board of Commissioners awarded a bid to O'Neal Construction Company for construction of the Efland- Cheeks Community Center and Park. The Board approved the acceptance of both Alternates two and four, for playground equipment and a concrete storage building. Upon approval by the Board, a Notice to Proceed shall be issued with a completion date to be 150 days following the date of Notice to Proceed. In order to expedite the building project, it si requested that the County Manager be authorized to execute any necessary change orders; within the project budget. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends approval of a contract with O'Neal Construction Company, Chapel Hill, NC for a sum of $224,147; authorization for the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board; and authorization for the County Manager to approve future change orders. e��-r_MA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy DEPARTMENT: Housing /Community Dev. I Action Agenda Item No. V PUBLIC HEARING YES: xx NO: ATTACHMENT(S): (Separate Cover) INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy - Draft TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill -- 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- PURPOSE: To receive citizen comments regarding the Consolidated Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for Orange County. BACKGROUND: The new National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 replaces many of the old HUD housing assistance programs and provides new opportunities for local governments to provide housing assistance to their low /moderate income residents. In order to participate in the new housing programs being developed as a result of this Housing Bill, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires local jurisdictions to prepare a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) which assess housing needs in a jurisdiction and outlines future plans /strategies to address these identified needs. A draft CHAS for Orange County has been prepared. Federal regulations require local governing bodies to conduct a public hearing to receive citizen comments relating to the CHAS. Chapel Hill held their public hearing on September 30, 1991, Carrboro on October 1, 1991 and Hillsborough plans to hold a hearing on October 22, 1991. Comments received will be incorporated into the final CHAS prior to submission to HUD on or about December 16, 1991. A public information meeting was held on Wednesday, September 25, 1991 to acquaint local human service providers with the document. Further, notices were published in the local newspaper and copies of the document are available at all County housing offices and local libraries. RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive comments as information. a 1 OR AN G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: SUP -1 -91 "GREEN HILL" BED AND BREAKFAST DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X —Yes No ATTACffidENT (S) : Application Vicinity Map Staff Memorandum Findings of Fact Site Plan Agency Letters INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 2582 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment concerning a request fora Class A Special Use Permit for the non - residential use of the historic "Green Hill" residence. BACKGROUND: The applicants, William Thomas Proctor, III and Evelyn D. Proctor, have requested a Class A Special Use Permit for a Non - Residential Reuse /Mixed Use of an historic structure for the property commonly known as the Green Hill residence. The property is located at the southwestern corner of the intersection of US 70 and Lawrence Road (SR 1561). The property contains 6.46 acres. The proposed request would allow for the house to be used as a bed and breakfast. Three out of the four existing bedrooms would be used for the bed and breakfast: There are no proposed changes or additions to the existing house or changes to the property. The property is specifically described as Lots 66 and 67 of Tax Map 20 in Eno Township. The current zoning of the property is Rural Residential (R -1) and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Rural Residential. The use of the property, as proposed, requires the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit. Certain development standards must be met and a Special Use Permit must be obtained for the proposal to proceed. Approval of the request would allow for the use of "Green Hill" as a bed and breakfast facility for a maximum of 6 adults. 2a • s RECOMMENDATION: Article 8.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 45 days of receipt of an application. The 45 -day period may be extended up to 60 days with the written consent of the applicant. The public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer recommendation. Zoning Officer Recommendation The Zoning officer has not received information which would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County. The Zoning Officer has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the specific standards and required regulations. Provided the Planning Board and County Commissioners find in the affirmative on the general standards, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the request. The Zoning Officer does, however, recommend the attachment of conditions to the approval which are specified as follows: 1. Roads, parking areas, walkways, utilities, and landscaping shall be maintained as shown-on the approved plans. All such facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 2. The final site plan and narrative of the project are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. 3. The Bed and Breakfast shall be operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. No decision on the application is made by either the Planning Board or Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Instead, the Planning Board has 60 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation, without 2b conditions. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the application be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than November 4, 1991 and no later than December 4, 1991. 3 (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY) 8/88 APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE: 7 APPLICATION NUMBER: I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for in Article of the. Orange County Zoning Ordinance for use of the property as a Bed & fac The following information is provided in support of this request: A. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Street Address or Location: Orange County Tax Map 20 Block Lot(s) 66 & 67 Township Fns Zoning District(s): Orange County Lot /Parcel Size: 6.46 acres or N square fee, Number of Existing Buildings: 4 Gross Floor Area: square fee: Number of Proposed Buildings: same Gross Floor Area: souare fee: Water Supply: well Public (Specify) N/A Community N Individual Wastewater Disposal: sentie sys.Public (Specify) N/A Community N/A India icual - School District: Orange County Fire District:_ OrangP Rural General Land Uses in Area: rcsi6pnrial o - Critical Areas: none Stream /Drain aeewa) a Flood :rang r.rea NIA Watershed (Specify) :Iistoric Site Other (Explain) none B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: Twenty -six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Ca- rolina surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the following information: * see sate plan ' * N rtfi point, scale, and date. �- Extent of area to be developed. * Locations and widths of all easements and rights -of -way within or adjacent to the site. * Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site. none Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard of inundation as shown on flood maps or soils maps. none Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow. * Existing topography at a contour interval of five (3) feet based on mean sea level datum. * Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage areas. s * Access to site, including sight distances on. all roads used for access. .- (PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE) 4 : C. OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: ram Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. � d Two (2) full -size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax Map, one (1) copy With the property in question clearly narked. item 3jL The names and addresses of the propert}' owner(s) and /or applicant(s), and the names and addresses are all persons owning property within five hundred (500) feet of the property in question. item S Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. irPm 6 Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. it,.Tn 2.R. Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. item ln, i ] Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating: 12, 13 1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not available,'a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the suitability of the existing and /or proposed wastewater treatment system for the property. 2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection. 3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting docuzeentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our) responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimon3l, exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the Class A Special Use Permit. IN APPLICANT SIGNATURE(S) 7 / c'l, / DATt NOTE: It title to the above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant(s), please include •a- Fetter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request. rrrr�rrrrrrrr*• rrrrrrrrwsfw rrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrwrrrrrrrrrr rrrr�rrrr �` FBES: Amount S S Gr �'el Date Paid.: / / °/ Receipt � -�: t 4� I APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL, USE F E:F�M I "1' STYLE: Restored 18th C. colonial AGE: 240 years (oldest part dates from 1750) BEDROOMS: Four' BATHS: Three full and one half HEATED SPACE: 4,718 --sq. ft. TOTAL ENCLOSED SPACE: 7,298 --sq. ft. "DT SIZE: 6.4 —+Acres NEIGHBORHOOD: Greenhill of Hillsborough SCHOOLS. Cameron. Stanford and Orange 5 Greenhill 1205 Lawrence Road Hillsborough SPECIAL FEATURES: From its seven working fireplaces to its heart pine floors, six panel 'Christian' doors, and 18th century window glass, Greenhill projects a sense of heritage and timeless stability that's almost tangible. Originally built in 1750, this historic home has undergone expansion twice — once in 1810 and again in 1975 — with complete restoration in late 1989 and early 1990. Most recent improvements include a complete update of the kitchen and master bath, installation of central heat and air conditioning, new carpeting in the section built in 1975, new interior and exterior paint, extensive landscaping and much more. One fascinating feature to this grand home is its "birthing room`, a windowless interior space in which the births of 56 babies have beer. recorded during the past two and a half centuries! Outbuildings include a grainery that performs triple duty as two -car, garage /workshop and office , a rookery., a restored 19th cemun well house and a dog pen. -r._. — µy - - - M•, .. r 'tom �'._��' �,., •,,� � ._>; - r �fy/ .-t --�. '-+7 � _ - . - . =y_; - ah :.,_ -Y 7 Z.�.� 1� -_~ � - �;` \ate -� -•- .- ��•�1�- �,_ -•���� _^ _ if �`r �?'.ar�_ ��. * �r. .;` .-�r= •- _ -.hie• . ��,••� ••t_'y -�+3� ���� :�;,.`_- �'� •. +:.' ^. .: may }.-'-or:�.��� r „�:+..�•• -�•..� +�.��:� -ice,- _� _� ��e_ .r�:f�.;fy. - -- ,_., '., i= r•.+3: �ti,- .`•.'�s -mot r�••"� +'4:irY,rr<: =. i� •� _� _' ..' _`.^`ly' -�` - ,r. --ti` `:k'. '~ •_.: == ,RAY.- • -F^ .: - t"�r,`7...'N1�.'� w! OL �ai":'� �_ ���'''��4�.�x fit•- '77 tit `�'_ _ _ Ewa ' � • - " .�"�y =�YY.. ��F��' - ° - =1��' 1W�� - _ s� •;a��� r. �. •.' '. -,;�� - -- � ?fit -�'+- �.� =';:�s. - -r. �`-"�'�� -+,' ^''��,- ; �'�-�� '- • - +• = = =�"� �:- '*"max -a.. � � ��� _ •` -x _ = .ice,- :•_.�.- •, �- �.�,:'- ;,'�1:: �: = ';=,'; t:^7'�rsM�- "-'+'�y'i�'z `:���,r . S'•.`.i.'�M_� -_ •;L•'Ati �v JILL —,NED fs rf.!`��•."�'Fa,r'-r r�. _fi n;-T �x� � _.• �-•y TO -_! �, � - wl for �J., ,d�=- ;�` - -� _ �,`.�_ =_:�'. ��. + ;Sfi_�-� =_ _ _ _ _ A �• r., ++era �_w _ -_� _ -�--� �...'�,,- .. 9 ITEM 6. TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT AFTER CONSULTING WITH A MEMBER OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PL...ANN 1 NE BOARD, WE WERE ADVISED THAT A FORMAL - TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY" WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE ATE OR NEEDED. THIS STATEMENT -IS SUBMITTED 11\1 LIEU OF THE .FORMAL. "TRAFFIC IMPACT AC'T' STUDY" PER ADVICE OF PLANNING BOARD. THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS PROPERTY AS A BED AND 9REAKFAST WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT -- IF ANY - UPON THE EXISTING TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC . COUNTS , TRAFFIC FLOW OR TRAFFIC PATTERNS OF THIS AREA BECAUSE -r I. AS A "WORST CASE SCENARIO" THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC COULD AMOUNT TO AN ADDITIONAL:. THREE (W) AUTOMOBILEG ENTERING AND DEPARTING FROM THIS PROPERTY. 2. THE PROPERTY IS SERVICED BY TWO (2) DRIVEWAYS; ONE A PAVED DRIVEWAY OF APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET LONG. IT LEADS TO THE HOUSE VIA A CIRCULAR DRIVE - OR BRANCHES OFF INTO AN APPROACH TO THE GARAGE. THE SECOND, A LONG, GRAVEL DRIVEWAY OF APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET IS PRESENTLY USED AS A SERVICE DRIVEWAY. POTH OF THESE DRIVEWAYS COULD PROVIDE PARKING FOR NUMEROUS AUTOMOBILES. w_ THERE IS A LARGE TURN -A- ROUND, PAVED'AREA AT THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE WHICH ALSO PROVIDES SEVERAL PARKING SPACES WELL AWAY FROM LAWRENCE ROAD. a. THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ADDITIONAL. THREE (C) AUTOMOBILES ENTERING OR EXITING LAWRENCE ROAD OFFERS SUCH A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT IT WOULD NOT IMPACT IN ANY WAY ON THIS ROADWAY. S. TO SUMMARIZE: IN VIEW OF THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC EVEN A "WORST CASE SCENARIO" MIGHT CREATE, THE OPERATION OF A BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY AT THIS PROPERTY WOULD HAVE NO ADVERSE EFFECT UPON NOR CREATE ANY PROBLEMS RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA. ITEM 7. I ITEM 7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 0 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE: REFERENCE E3. 7. 1 CRITERIA TO BE USED IN DETERMINATION A) THERE IS NO PROPOSED CHANCE IN ANY CONDITION. H) THERE WILL BE NO ENLARGEMENT OF THE FACILITY. C) INCREASE IN INTENSITY OF USE WOULD BE POSSIBLE USE OF EXISTING BEDROOMS AS FEED AND BREAKFAST ACCOMMODATION. AT THE MOST, ONLY 3 BEDROOMS WOULD BE USED. THESE w BEDROOMS CURRENTLY EXIST. NO ALTERATION, ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER R I S PROPOSED WTHE EXISTING STRUCTURE. AGAIN, THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO BE ACCOMMODATED AT ONE TIME IS 1 TO "+ COUPLES (OR AT MUST 6 ADULTS). D) NO STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED. E) NO CHANGE IN AMOUNT ANT] /OR LOCATION OF OPEN SPACE, RECREATION FACILITIES OR LANDSCAPE= SCREENING IS PROPOSED. F) NO INCREASE IN THE SIZE OR NUMBER OF SIGNS IS PROPOSED. G) NO CHANGE IN PARKING AREA IS NEEDED --NO INCREASE OR DECREASE IS PROPOSED. H) NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN PEDESTRIAN AND /OR VEHICULAR ACCESS OR CIRCULATION I S PROPOSED. I) 1\10 CHANGE IN SETBACK IS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE. J) NO CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OR EXTENT OF STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ,RIGHTS -OF --WAY, ETC. WHICH WOULD PROVIDE A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF SERVICE IS PROPOSED. I 11 ITEM S. REFERENCE: ARTICLE 8.6.24.1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A) SITE PLAN BY N. C. REGISTE RED LAND SURVEYOR IS ATTACHED. 1) LOCATION, WIDTH AND TYF ::'E OF ALL 1 NTERNAI... VEHICULAR ANI.) PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IS INDICATED. C) THEW IS NO ON—SITE S I GNAGE EXCEPT FOR ENTRANCE "GREEN HILL" SIGN WHICH HAS BEEN AT THE PROPERTY FOR MANY YEARS. 0) BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE ARE INCLUDED. DISTANCE" TO NEAREST RESIDENCE'S AkE : al) BOUNDARY ON RIGHT SIDE OF PROPERTY IS M.S. HWY 7(:) SO THERE ARE NO RESIDENCES IN THIS DIRECTION. b) THERE ARE NO RESIDENCES AT FRONT OF PROPERTY AS PROPERTY FRONTS ON LAWRENCE ROAD AND GOLF COURSE IS ON OPPOSITE SIDE OF LAWRENCE ROAD. c) THE THREE ACRE TRACT OF LAND ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS VACANT LAND. d) THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY BACKS UP TO LARGE LOTS THAT ARE PART OF THE POPLAR RIDGE AREA. THE NEAREST RESIDENCE is APPROXIMATELY .: 00 FEET FROM THE RESIDENCE AT SUBJECT P='ROP='ERTY. B) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE OF THE SITE AND THE BUILDINGS THEREON: i.INCLUDING AMOUNT OF AREA ALLOCATED — Ch BEDROOMS. C.NUMPER OF FULL AND PART—TIME EMPLOYEES — NONE Z.NUMESEB OF CLIENTS AND /OR OCCUPANTS EXPECTED TO USE THE FACILITY: i TO 6 M COUPLES AT MOST) 4.PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION: EVENINGS THROUGH THE BREAKFAST HOUR. C) BUILDING PLANS FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. NO NEW STRUCTURES ARE PROPOSED. SEE ATTACHED DRAFT OF FLOOR PLANS. STATEMENT OF ENHANCEMENT OF THE PROPERTY IS ATTACHED D) LANDSCAPE PLAN — SEE ATTACHED SITE— LANSCAPE PLAN SHOWING EXISTING LANDSCAPING. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. E) STATEMENT FROM APPROPRIATE PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES CONCERNING THE METHOD AND ADEQUACY OF WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR THE PROPOSED USES IS ITEM 10 HEREOF. ITEMIB. (CONTINUED) REFERENCE: ARTICLE B.B.24.1 12 F) STATEMENTS FROM THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES CONCERNING THE PROVISION OF FIFE, POLICE AND RESCUE PROTECTION TO THE SITE ARE ITEMS 11,12,AND 1Z HEREOF. G) THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA -- SEE ITEM P. HEREOF - AS OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND ]: KPORTANCE . THE PREVIOUS OWNER, MR. COMAN , ADVISED THE CURRENJ- OWNERS THAT THE PROPERTY 15 ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL, HISTORIC REGISTER. HOWEVER, THE PROCESS IS 50 LENGTHY AND COSTLY THAT THE CURRENT OWNERS HAVE NOT UNDERTAKEN THE PROCESS. H) THERE IS NO P='ROP'OSED FURTHER DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS SITE. rt ..N 13 ATTACHMENT TO ITEM B. REFERENCE: 8.8.24.1. (C) STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY AND OF THE APPROPRIATENESS AND CHARACTER ENHANCEMENT WH 10.1 SUPPORTS AP'P'ROVAL OF USE OF THE PROPERTY AS BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY THE INITIAL RESTORATION APPROXIMATELY CC YEARS AGO BY COMAN. AT THAT TIMEITHE HOUSE - WAS LITERALLY SAVED FROM SIGNIFICANT CONTR I BUT I ON TO THE SOME DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THEIR COMAN VACATED THE PROPERTY. APPROXIMATELY THREE Q) YEARS. OF THIS PROPERTY WAS-UNDERTAKEN THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, MR. AND MRS. -- PART OF WHICH DATES TO THE 1750S DESTRUCTION. AFTER THIS VERY COMMUNITY, WITH ADVANCING AGE AND PERSONAL SITUATION, MN. AND MFRS. IT LANGUISHED ON THE MARKET FOR IN 19a9, WHEN WE ACOUIRED THE PROPERTY, IT WAS AGAIN ON' THE VERGE OF SERIOUS DECAY AND NEGLECT. IT HAD BEEN VACANT FOR MORE MORE THAN TWO YEARS. RESTORING THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN AN Y. EXTENSIVE AND EXPENSIVE UNDERTAKING. WE ARE SEEKING THE SPECIAL_ PERMIT AT THIS TIME TO FURTHER ESTABLISH THIS PROPERTY AS A VITAL PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND TO HELP PROTECT IT FROM EVE=R AGAIN FALLING INTO AN ABANDONED AND NEGLECTED STATE. WE BELIEVE=' ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROPERTY AS A BED AND BREAK AST , MAKING IT POSSIBLE TO REALIZE SOME REVENUE TO HELP SUPPORT THE UPKEEP AND MAINTAINANCE OF THE P'ROP'ERTY, IS ESSENTIAL TO THE FUTURE PRESERVATION OF THIS PROPERTY. FURTHER, THIS IS A MOST APPROPRIATE USE OF THIS PROPERTY AND IN CHARACTER WITH THIS TYPE OF HISTORICAL ESTATE. THE SIZE AND LAYDUT__OF THE STRUCTURE MACE IT VERY AMENABLE TO USE AS A DED AND BREAKFAST. THE SIZE OF THE LOT (6.46 ACRES) MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO ACCOMMODATE PATRONS OF A BED AND BREAKFAST WITHOUT IMPACTING NEGATIVELY-UPON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR AREA TRAFFIC. FURTHER, THIS PROPERTY AND THIS COMMUNITY ARE THE TYPES OF PROPERTIES AND COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ATTRACTIVE TO BED AND BREAKFAST PATRONS. AND, HISTORICALLY, THIS TYPE OF BED AND BREAKFAST HELP'S COMMUNITIES MAINTAIN THEIR CHARACTER AS WELL. 14 OPERATION OF A BED AND BROAKFAS7 INVOLVES MJNIMAL TRAFFIC TO THE PROPERTY. REALISTICALLY, AT BEST, ONE WOULD PROJECT THAI- THE FACILITY WOULD ONLY BE USED FOR ACCOMMODATING CLIENTS 2 OR 3 NIGHTS PER WEEK. AT MAXIMUM USE, ONLY THREE (3) BEDROOMS WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR USE SO THAT A MAXIMUM OF THREE (W COUPLES OR 6 ADULTS WOULD BE USING THE FACILITY AT ONE TIME CUSTOMARILY, OWNERS ACT AS THE OPERATORS OF A BED AND BREAKFAST SO THAT NO EMPLOYEES OR EXTRA STAFF ARE REQUIRED. IN SUMMARY, THIS IS AN IDEAL FACILITY FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST; IN CHARACTER AND SIZE AND SETTING. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WHICH WOULD ALLOW THIS USE. � -~ ITEM 13 METHOD ALREADY BEEN HEREOF). . A STATEMENT OF METHOD AND ADEQUACY OF VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE AND OF' TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AROUND THE SITE OF ACCESS AND ADEQUACY OF VEHICULAR ACCESS HAS ADDRESSED IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (ITEM 6 SPECIFICALLY, ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS VIA TWO LONE DRIVEWAYS: ONE PAVED AND APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET LONG AND ONE GRAVEL_ AND APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET LONG. THESE DRIVEWAYS PROVIDE MORE THAN ADEQUATE w IN FACT, EXCELLE=NT - ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AROUND THE SITE ARE ALSO MORE THAN ADEQUATE. THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS PROPERTY AS A BED AND BREAKFAST WOULD HAVE NO IMPACT UPON SAME. I r 7 43 > {� J v o � I7\ z �I lu i .2 o tj IS- Vo i 1 I i � c•t � �� � `. i - - 1 M l I� l� I i IF�C' W $ Q x LU 10 jo I C r�u u,1y-� r _ � I 0 n� I . � 1 nil , 4 � l/1 DO 0 �I x cp wct 1_ F I � w u 0 u a. (� lA - d � �'uuttt�� too I I o 1 ' I I I' I ro Y a .J- J `' �r L 0 7A a 0 0 0 Q e O H w � tL- UL lo 1 ca Gil W � i I � w u 0 u a. (� lA - d � �'uuttt�� too I I o 1 ' I I I' I ro Y a .J- J `' �r L 0 7A a 0 0 0 Q e O H w � .g C.CAL. �... 14 �� R 1.47 �.► 6 AC- ero 1/1 cl, 4L5p81 /� 6,40 AC. -0784 // � SZ726 13 5-OS 14 AC.CAL. \ j0 N \\ �O a� \� \° 4L_ 148.8 \�\ 4.8 AC.CAL. 'SE E MAP20 \ \\ \ \\ 10 \il / „ 713 \` 'D / 1 �O 924 \ \ \ \21.57AC.CAL\ 2.79 AC. ° \ \ \ (POPULAR RIDGE ,0 (5 � \ \ \ \ \ 11 FU ? p664 \ \ \ 11 B 2B) 2.54 AC. 75 e w I 3.5 A C. a \\ \ 11 76 z \ \ 110.5 AC. n04 9 0344-J 67 \ �� \ 2.75 AC. 2.6 AC. 69 p P aR . lw 3.06 C. r } 3.2 AC. e \ PR0p�1 v � .. 66 7D82 � � i) 71 4 73 1 1 '70 �j\ \ sp r 1.9 I A 3 -4 AC_ CAL \ 2 ' 2.9 AC. \�\ 2.02 AC. E 88 \ s / 3 -2 AC. CAL SEE MAP 21-50 \ 19.45 AC. 1'/0121.46 AC. \ \\ MAT of AN, DREWS 5 DOV EN BARGEE V:`ILL ARD M I TC& 51- gg I °o $ SUSAN DOV ENBARGE 5D- �7 / '� ILBER i -Y JOHN K.POLc ... ag- ��/ m WILLARD MITCHELL. — JAIMEt GALJNDO.... a5- I °' DENNIS SE= LYE. w S^^ -.RA J CENT 43• -105 WILLARO MITCHELL 3-1 -76 25-160 w W,^,,,YNE W,^-r'Nf"i PLAT REFERENCES KRISTIE D. LEMMON _ I `'MARY 176-' W') :.�c 7-E FOREST P/6 3- 1:41ARIEL HILL 134-147. cpuMrr LINE ')GE P/B 15 -134 W. V ARMFIELD 35 -16 rowMS►+ir urrc 1 P/8 4-631 0. p. W H I C KER 1 11-47 cos Ppw..rE urnr 19 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 a•• ' e r. 0 1 VI lI TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: EDDIE KIRK, PLANNER II DATE: JULY 24, 1991 SUBJECT: SUP -1 -91 GREEN HILL' GE ER AL_XNFORMATION Applicants: William Thomas Proctor III and Evelyn D. Proctor 1205 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Location: Southwest corner of US 70 and Lawrence Road (SR 1561) Requested Motion: Approval of Class A Special Use Permit for Non - Residential Mixed Use /Reuse of an Historic Structure Purpose: To allow Green Hill to be used as a bed and breakfast with a three bedroom capacity. Lot size: _- _ 6.46 acres or 281,397.6 square feet Existing Land Use: Single - family residential Surrounding Land Use: North - US 70 and land zoned AR on the north side of US 70 East - Lawrence Road and Occoneechee Golf Course South - Residential land zoned R -1 West - Residential land zoned R -1 MEMORANDUM SUP -1 -91 GREEN HILL JULY 24, 1991 PAGE 2 Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan: Rural Residential Zoning: The property is zoned Rural Residential (R -1) The intent of the Rural Residential (R -1) district is provided in Article 4.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) Intent The purpose of the Rural Residential (R -1) District is to provide locations for rural non -farm residential development, at very low intensities, in areas where the short and long -term solutions to domestic water supply and sewage disposal shall be individual wells and ground absorption system. b) Application riteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan as Rural Residential. 2. Urban services, including water distribution and sewage collection mains are not likely within 10 -20 years. !.1 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: SUP -1-91 GREEN HILL Special Uses must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written finding certifying compliance with the following: (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article 8.8. These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards for Historic Structures - Non - Residential Reuse /Mixed Use (Article 8.8.24 refers to these standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4). (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, including the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements). Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Board regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Commissioners in its deliberations. ARTICLE 8.2.1 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates Non - compliance) Ordinance Requirements 8.2.1 The applicant shall have the burden of establishing by competent material and substantial evidence compliance with all required regulations and standards including the following general conditions: 1. The use will maintain or promote the public health;' safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. 2. The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Will Will Not Witt Witt Not EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Will Wilt Not Witt Will Not ARTICLE 8.2.1 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (continued Ordinance.Requirements 3. The use is in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EViDENCg SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Is is Not To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at pubic hearing. 2 Is Is Not ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS "Yes" indicates a liance• "No" indicates Non -c liance PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 8.6 - Application submitted on forms providing full and accurate description of proposed use, including Location, appearance and operational characteristics 8.8 a) - Twenty -six (26) copies of the site plan prepared by a registered land surveyor or engineer 8.8 b) - Elevations of all proposed structures to be'' used in the development 8.8 c) - A fee, as set by the Board of County Commissioners _X—Yes No _x—Yes No A complete application on appropriate Yes No forms has been submitted. Twenty -six copies of the site plan, prepared by Credle Engineering have been submitted. _x—yes No Shown on the site plan. Applicant proposes to utilize existing house for bed and breakfast. _x—Yes No 5345.00 application fee has been paid. Yes No Yes No Yes No z ARTICLE 14.2.2 - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS-( "Yes" indicates compliance, "No" indicates Non - compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO-SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance-Requirements a) Twenty -six (26) copies of _x —Yes No 26 copies submitted as previously Yes No' the site plan submitted referenced in 8.8a. b) Site plan application form _x—Yes No Appropriate application form has Yes No been submitted. c) A copy of the Orange County _x—Yes No Tax Map has been submitted. Yes No Tax Map with the subject property identified d) Legal documentation _x _Yes No The applicants, William Thomas Yes No establishing entities responsible Proctor, III and Evelyn D. Proctor for control of common areas and are the owners of the property. facilities to be approved by There are no common areas the County Attorney proposed. ARTICLE 14.2.3 -- SPECIFICATIDN FOR PLAN PREPARATION-( indicates compli "No” indicates Non=compliance) „ante: PLANNING PLANNING STAFF. BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Reouirements a) Boundary of lot labeled with bearings and distances b) Name, address, and phone number of the applicant and the property owner C) Name of project, vicinity, map, north arrow, scale, tax map reference rxmber, date of plan preparation, and subsequent revision dates d) Zoning of the property to be developed and all adjacent zoning and existing adjacent Land uses e) Adjacent right -of -way widths with road names and numbers _x—Yes No Provided on site plan. _x—Yes No Provided in application. _x —Yes No Provided on site plan. „x —Yes No Zoning and land uses are provided in the application. _x —Yes No Right -of -way widths with road names are provided on the site plan. Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ARTICLE 14.2. - JPSCIFICATION FOR PLAN PREPARATION tc0ntJnued2• PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Reauirements f) Total gross land area of the _x—Yes No parcel, maximum and proposed floor area, minimum and proposed open space, and minimum and proposed pedestrian/landscape area (refer to Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance) g) maximum and proposed _x Yes No impervious surface and required stream buffers in PWII and WOCA (Article 6.23 and 6.24) h) Estimated traffic generated _x Yes No by the proposed development in trips per day (if it exceeds 800 trips per day, submit a traffic impact study in accordance with Article 13) i) Front, side, and rear _x_Yes No building setbacks as required by Articles 5 and 6 of the Zoning Ordinance j) Location of all proposed _x—Yes No buildings and structures labeled according to floor area, building height and function, and proposed finished floor elevation k) Vehicular use, areas_ingluding _x_Yes No existing and proposed streets and access drives, off street parking and loading to comply with Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, and entry/exit points of adjacent parcels l) overhead and underground _x —Yes No utilities with accompanying easements and storm drainage facilities /easements; (including septic tanks and wastewater disposal fields, wells, fire hydrants, irrigation, and security lights.) Ll Land Use Intensity figures are Yes No provided in the application. Not applicable. Yes No The estimated traffic generated would Yes No be minimal since a maximum of three bedrooms will be used for the Bed & Breakfast. Front, side and rear setbacks are Yes No met. There are no additional structures proposed. Location of existing structures are Yes No indicated on the site plan. There are no additional structures proposed. Vehicular use areas are indicated Yes No on the site plan. There are two access drives off Lawrence Road Leading to parking areas. Existing utilities are not proposed Yes No to be changed. ARTICLE 14.2.3 - SPECIFICATION FOR PLAN PREPARATION (continued PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Reouirements m) Solid waste disposal `x —Yes No Solid waste is collected by private Yes No facilities contractor. n) All free-standing and wall- _x—Yes No The existing entrance sign is Yes No mounted signs in accordance indicated on the site plan. with Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance o) A landscape plan demonstrating _x_Yes No A landscape plan has been submitted. Yes No compliance with Article 12.3 of The existing landscaping complies the Zoning Ordinance with Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. p) Existing contour lines (dashed) _x_Yes No Contour Lines are indicated on the Yes No and proposed contours (solid) at site plan. 5-foot intervals with 10 -foot contours bold. Where site conditions warrant, 2 -foot contours may be required q) Retaining walls, tree wells, _x_Yes No There is no grading proposed. Yes No or rip rap as part of the grading plan r) Streams, ponds, drainage ,x�Yes No The site plan indicates there are no Yes No ditches, swamps, floodway and streams, ponds or flood areas on the floodplain boundaries property. s) Phase lines and numbers if _x_Yes No Phasing is not proposed. Yes No the development is to be phased 6 ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance= "No" indicates Non - compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Regyirements Article 5 Lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and Lot coverage, and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a Class A SUP -R1 designation. The standards for that district are set forth in Article 5.1.1 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per dwelling „x_Yes No Article 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Yes No unit - 40,000 sq. ft. Planned development approved on site basis. b) Minimum lot width - _x—Yes No The lot has 234 feet of frontage on Yes No 130 sq. ft. Lawrence Road. c) Required front setback - _x—Yes No The house is approximately 400 feet Yes No 40 ft. from Lawrence Road. d) Required side and rear _x —Yes No The house is approximately 110 feet Yes No setbacks - 20 ft. to nearest property line. e) Maximum building height - ,x —Yes No Applicant is proposing no new Yes No 25 ft. structures. Existing residential structure is 2 stories in height. Compliance with lot coverage and development intensity standards is addressed in Article 6. f ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS '( "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates Non - compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 6 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. Article 6.12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LU1) system, a) Minimum gross land area - N/A b) Maximum gross land area - N/A c) Maximum floor ratio - .088 d) Required minimum open space ratio - .84 Required minimum open space - 253,554 sq. ft. e) Required minimum pedestrian/ Landscape ratio - .21 Required minimum pedestrian/ Landscape space - 63,388 sq. ft. _x—Yes No Applicant's site contains 6.92 acres Yes No or 301,851 sq. ft. gross land area. _x —Yes No Applicant's site contains 6.92 acres Yes No or 301,851 sq. ft. gross land area. _x—Yes No Maximum permitted by ordinance is Yes No 26,562 sq. ft. Applicant's plans indicate floor area of 3,211 sq. ft. _x—Yes No Applicant's plans indicate 277,429 Yes No sq. ft. of open space. _x—Yes No Applicant's plans indicate Yes No pedestrian /landscape areas totalling 256,352 sq. ft. Note: See Appendix A for "Definitions". ARTICLE 8.2.4 - SPU IFIC STANDARDS LL SPECIAL USES "Yes" indicates coWtiance, "No" indicates Non-c Hance PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Reguirements Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of provision for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service. b) Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection. c) Method and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. E: 8 _x—Yes No Letter from the Health Department Yes No indicates the existing well and septic tank are functioning properly. Solid waste will be placed in individual trash cans at each home and will be collected by a private contractor. ,x —Yes No Fire protection will be provided by Yes No the Orange Rural - Hillsborough Fire Department, rescue service by the Orange Rescue Service, and police protection by the orange County Sheriff's Department (see attached correspondence). _x —Yes No Access to the site is provided by Yes No two private drives from Lawrence Road (SR 1561). ARTICLE 8.8.24 - SPECI,FIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /HISTORIC STRUCTURES - NON- RESIDENTIAL REUSE /MIXED USE -1-Tres" indicates compliance: "No" indicates Non compliance) Article 8.8.24.1 indicates that the following information is required to be submitted as part of the application_ PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements a. Site plan containing the following: 1) location, width, and _x—Yes No There are two existing drives which type of all internal will provide adequate circulation. vehicular and pedestrian circulation 2) Location and dimensions "x,Yes No A small sign is existing at one of on-site signage entrance. There are no new signs proposed. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Yes No Yes No ARTICLE 8.8.24 - SPECI.FIC STANDARDS (continued PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements '3) boundaries of site and x_YeS No distance to nearest residences b. description of proposed uses of site and structure including the following: 1) amount of area allocated x Yes No to each use 2) number of full /part -time _,x —Yes No employees 3) number of clients /occupants _x—Yes No 4) proposed hours of operation _x Yes No c. building plans including x_Yes No description of impact on historic features d. landscape plan _x—Yes No e. service agencies comments x Yes No on adequacy of water/ r wastewater system proposed f. service agencies comments _x —Yes No on fire, police and rescue protection g. listed on National Historic _X —Yes No Register or recognized by N.C. as place of historic interest h. proposed development _x—Yes No schedule for site Boundaries are indicated on the site plan. The nearest residence is 300 feet away. There are three bedrooms proposed to be used. There are no full -time or part -time employees proposed. There is proposed to be a maximum of 6 occupants, or 3 couples. Evenings through the breakfast hour There are no changes proposed to existing structures. A landscape plan has been submitted that meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements. A letter from the Health Department was submitted with the application indicating adequate water and wastewater systems. Appropriate letters were submitted with the application. Letter of authorization submitted with application. Recognized by N.C. Dept. of Cultural Resources as a structure of historical significance. The Bed & Breakfast could begin operations immediately upon approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. If approved, this Class A Special Use Permit would only be valid for 6 years. u 9 p Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No -� r. 10 ARTICLE 8.8.24.2 - STANDARDS OF EVALUATION "Yes" indicates c Hance• "No" indicates Non - compliance) Article 8.8.24.2 indicates that the following standards of evaluation be used in deciding on an application for this use: The Class A special Use Permit, if approved, shall be valid for six (6) years. PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Reguirements a. site plan meets requirements `x —Yes No Site plan meets all requirements as Yes No of 8.8 and 8.8.24 specified. b. proposed uses and facilities —x—Yes No The proposed bed & breakfast, Yes No are complementary and presently utilized as a residential compatible with surrounding structure, does not conflict with area; use preserves historic residential uses of the area; character of site and preserves the historic character building; development has of the site; and generates no no adverse impact beyond adverse impact. building, except for parking facilities c. historic character of building _x_Yes No Historic character of building is Yes No is preserved preserved as evidenced in narrative and photographs. d. protective and water/ _x—Yes No Proposed services are adequate as Yes No wastewater services are evidenced by the Health Department adequate letter. e. recreational /service /parking ,x_Yes No Existing service /parking and Yes No areas and screening are screening facilities are adequate. adequate There are no recreational services proposed. f. site is served by direct —x—Yes No Site has direct access via two private Yes No access to a state-maintained driveways to Lawrence Road (SR 1561). road - g. internal vehicular/ _x —Yes No Internal vehicular and pedestrian Yes No pedestrian circulation circulation is adequate. adequate h, all applicable requirements _x—Yes No ALL requirements of the referenced Yes No of Article 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 articles have been satisfied. and 12 have been satisfied i. the property must be in an _x —Yes No The property is located in an R-1 Yes No AR or R-1 residential zone zone. The Class A special Use Permit, if approved, shall be valid for six (6) years. 'x I II T ARTICLE 8 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS /ALL SPECIAL USES ( "Yes" indicates canpliance. "No" indicates Non- comoliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED To SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 8.2.2 Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare, will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property or is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development, of the County shall have the burden of establishing, by competent material and substantial evidence the specific manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application for a Special Use. Where the Board finds a preponderance of evidence to indicate compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards the application must be approved unless the Board shall also find, in some specific manner that: a) The use will not maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. b) The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). a) The use is not in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan-, or- portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Will _Will Not To be determined by Board after Will _Will Not receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. _Will Will Not To be determined by Board after Will Will Not receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. Is Is Not To be determined by Board after Is Is Not receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. \ ITEM . 9. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James G. Martin, Governor Patric Dorsey, Secretary October 6, 1989 Mr. J. H. Coman P . t . 2, Box 1 1 2 Sparter, NC 26675 Re: Green H i l l Hillsborough, Orange County Dear Jim. 1 Division of Archives and History William S. Price, Jr., Director As per your request, I am sending you this letter of support for a special use permit for Green Hill, located just outside of Hillsborough on US 70 and Lawrence Road, as required by the Orange County Planning Board, in order for the house to be used as a bed and breakfast inn. Although Green Hill is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places, it is both historically and architecturally significant. I am well aware that this 18th century house, originally locate:: in the New Hope Creek vicinity, would have been demolished by Fiber Industries if you had not decided to move the structure to your property near Hillsborough. At the time that you made the decision to acquire Green Hill, I made a study of the stru—ture with you and determined that it was 18th century and that it had a great deal of architectural nificance. Later you did research on the property - and- found;tbat� the original builder was a man named Charles Johnston-_aad"that= h-.., -- _ , built the house on land grant property which he had _r�ceiv�dEfto�►+ == the King of England, thus giving it also historicaV7si'giiifiC&b 0- 77. : ; 7 The restoration work which you carried out was - quite'- svccessfi and helped to highlight the many important architectural-= featiarra""°" of the house. You are to be commended for doing sucb,&='-.oN - standing job of saving and rehabilitating the house: - - - 109 EastJones Srrect • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 - _ 32 '1 vr�' 2 There are numerous examples of National Register properties throughout North Carolina which have been successfully converted from residences to inns of this type. It is my opinion that converting the use of Green Hill from a residence to a bed and breakfast would be a sympathetic use of the structure and would once again ensure its continued preservation. with best regards, I am Sincerely yours A. L. Honeycutt, Jr., Supervisor Restoration Branch State Historic Preservation Office cc: Michael Southern x a October 13, 1989 This letter concerns your property listed as Eno Township, Tax Map 20, Lot 67 on the corner of Hwy. 70E and Lawrence Road. I collected a bacteriological water sample at this residence on October 3, 1989. The results of the water sample were negative for coliferm bacteria. The well head appears to be properly protected from surface contamination. - I also checked the sewage disposal system and saw no evidence of sewage disposal system failure or malfunction (surface discharge). The sewage disposal system should be suitable to serve a bed and breakfast type establishment. I have notified .Mary Scearbo of the Orange County Planning Department of these findings. If you have any questions please call me at 919- 732 -8181 extension 315 between 8 -9 a.m. Sincerely, _ - on s. David D. Hecht, R. S. Environmental Health Section DDH:bb SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE- Carr Mill Mall, Suite 225, 1DD N. Greensboro SL. C2rrboro, N.C. 27510, (919) 942-4 168 Cc''f, ±� eaQth lTepantment Daniel 8, Reimer, MPH, Director ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION C.��Ir �r O, PERSONAL HEALTH DIVISIC r 0. E :x 8141. 306(' Revere Rd. •+ DENTAL HEALTH DIVISION I I'll /bOrOugn. N.C.. 7278 d • f I i� P.Q. BOY B1B1. 300 N' T ryon 17 ��^lJgr "h i HIIISDO(puoh. N C 27278 r HILLSBOROUGH CHAPEL HILL i" �`''e 1919) 732 -B1B1 (919) 967 -9251 t,.� MEBANE DUAHaLI (919) 227.2= 19 19) 666 -7333 October 13, 1989 This letter concerns your property listed as Eno Township, Tax Map 20, Lot 67 on the corner of Hwy. 70E and Lawrence Road. I collected a bacteriological water sample at this residence on October 3, 1989. The results of the water sample were negative for coliferm bacteria. The well head appears to be properly protected from surface contamination. - I also checked the sewage disposal system and saw no evidence of sewage disposal system failure or malfunction (surface discharge). The sewage disposal system should be suitable to serve a bed and breakfast type establishment. I have notified .Mary Scearbo of the Orange County Planning Department of these findings. If you have any questions please call me at 919- 732 -8181 extension 315 between 8 -9 a.m. Sincerely, _ - on s. David D. Hecht, R. S. Environmental Health Section DDH:bb SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE- Carr Mill Mall, Suite 225, 1DD N. Greensboro SL. C2rrboro, N.C. 27510, (919) 942-4 168 rtr�. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT P.O. Box. 8181 929 -8109 732 -8161 June 28, 1991 ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Ms. Lyn Proctor 1205 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Emergency Medical coverage for Bed & Breakfast Application Dear Ms. Proctor, The Orange County Emergency provides emergency medical services Please direct questions or concerns of Emergency Management Services in If we can be of further assistance, contact us. .Sincerel Nick Waters Director J 9 Communications Emergency Medical Services Fire Marshal ganagement Services to 1205 Lawrence Road. to Nick Water, Director Hillsborough, NC. please feel free to ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT P.O. Box 8181 929 -8109 732 -8161 June 28, 1991 Ms. Lyn Proctor 1205 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Fire Coverage for Bed & Breakfast Application Dear Ms. Proctor, Communications Emergency Medical Services Fire Marshal The Orange Rural Fire Department provides fire Protection services to 1205 Lawrence Road. The location of the Orange Rural Fire Department is Churton Street, Hillsborough. Please direct questions or concerns to Chief Mark Gordon; address correspondence to P. 0. Box 30, Hillsborough, NC 27278. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Mike.- Fire Marshal ;V October 15, 1991 The Orange County Planning Dept. ATTN: Ms. Elizabeth Eidenier " 127 E. Union St. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Eidenier: Concerning the application for the residence known as Green Hill to be designated a bed and breakfast, we submit the following as reasons to reject the request. First, the property as proposed does not appear to fit the ordinance for public safety. It is located on a dangerous intersection of Hwy 70 and Lawrence Rd. with the identifying entrance to the house at a corner where cars whiz by, leaving the highway where the speed limit is 55 mph. Long range plans include widening of Hwy 70, which would further limit the frontage of the plot which is now shown as 235 feet. Even if the entrance and exit to the public facility were limited to the second gravel driveway, slower traffic looking for the establishment cannot but endanger the public. The "worst case scenario" is a traffic fatality. If in fact this residence does become a public facility, the least that should be done should be: 1- Removal from the corner the existing sign and lights which are very distracting and dangerous at night (and in fact are on public right -of -way) and 2- Installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection. Secondly, the designation of Green Hill as a bed and breakfast will not maintain or enhance the value of neighboring property. The current owners, the Proctors, have greatly improved the home they purchased, which was in a deteriorating condition. As adjoining property owners, we greatly appreciate the time and investment involved. We, too, did a similar restoration in 1972 on property owned by James Coman II, parcel #65 on your map. We can never hope to regain costs even if we rented rooms; only personal satisfaction can repay our efforts. We feel the small amount a bed and breakfast can return could do little to defray costs the Proctors have undergone or continue to undergo in maintainance. We, too, have a large investment, which in short we do not feel would be enhanced by having a public facility on the adjoining property. W, r'- Since the Proctors' property has been for sale for at least • year, we fear this designation as bed and breakfast is to attract • buyer who may be misled into thinking such an establishment is • money making proposition, whereas, such a project would be doomed to failure. Thank you; James F. Davis Mary Sue Davis 1311 Lawrence Rd. Hillsboroug, NC 27278 cc: Mr. Moses Carey Jr. Mr. Stephen H. Halkiotis Ms. Alice M. Gordon Ms. Verla C. Insko Mr. Don Willhoit 3 O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 Hillsborough request SUBJECT: to Purchase OWASA's 16 Inch Waterline DEPARTMENT: County Manager Planninn Dent„ ATTACHMENT(S): 10/1/91 County Engineer Memo Under separate cover: - 10/3/91 Planning Director Memo Action AgendaL Item # VIL PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X —No INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins. Planning Director Paul Thames County Engineer TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To present answers to questions related to land use and engineering feasibility posed by the BOCC regarding the Town of Hillsborough's proposal to purchase a portion of the existing sixteen inch finished water transmission main which lies between Hillsborough and OWASA's water distribution system near Calvander. BACKGROUND: In 1976 OWASA constructed a sixteen inch water line between its water system and the water system belonging to the Town of Hillsborough. The OWASA line was constructed with funding obtained both from public. grant monies and OWASA's own capital projects funds. The purpose of this line was to transmit treated (or finished) water from Hillsborough to OWASA. At the time the line was constructed. Hillsborough had a surplus water supply and treatment capacity. while OWASA suffered critical raw water shortages during periods where drought conditions prevailed or nearly every summer. During the early and.mid 1980'x. Hillsborough's own water demands grew to the point where it could no longer supply water resources to OWASA. In 1987. OWASA constructed a pumping station in the Calvander area so that it could pump water to Hillsborough. OWASA did not supply water to Hillsborough until the summer of 1990. when Hillsborough's water demand and water withdrawal restrictions mandated by the Eno River Capacity Use Agreement created a situation whereby Hillsborough was forced to purchase water from OWASA. These water purchases also pass through the sixteen inch water transmission main between Hillsborough and OWASA. 1 1 2 Over the past several years the Town of Hillsborough's consulting engineers. Finkbinder. Pettis and Strout. have developed preliminary engineering studies to determine remedies to problems involving alternating high and low water pressure in its water distribution system in an area south of town. Among other recommendations, the engineers have suggested that Hillsborough purchase a section of the existing sixteen inch transmission main from OWASA and use it to set up a high pressure subsystem in that area. The use of the.existing transmission main for the high pressure system may provide cost savings and eliminate construction problems that could be associated with the installation of a new, smaller diameter water line laid adjacent to the existing main. OWASA has cited several potential problems with the use of a section of the existing main for a high pressure system, in that this use may cause difficulties for OWASA in getting water supplies to Hillsborough and other areas in north - central Orange County. Some of these problems have yet to be resolved. If all of the potential problems cited by OWASA are to be resolved prior to sale of the water line to Hillsborough, additional in -depth engineering analysis will be required. The attached report from the County Engineer reflects his discussions with Hillsborough and OWASA staff and engineers. Linder separate cover. the Planning Director is submitting a report on the compatibility of Hillsborough's plans for the area in question with the existing and potential land use plans and the Hillsborough CPZ. RECOHMENDATIONo The Manager recommends that this report be received for information only. 3 MEHORANDUM TO:. County Commissioners John Link, County Manager FROM: Paul Thames, County Engineer DATE: October 1, 1991 SUBJECT: Purchase of the segment of OWASA owned 16 inch water transmission main between Exchange Club Park and Davis Road by the Town of Hillsborough This report is submitted in response to questions asked by the BOCC in regard to the engineering and economic feasibility of Hillsborough's proposed purchase of a segment of the existing OWASA 16 inch water,transmission main for the purpose of creating a high pressure water service area. In my efforts to gather information regarding Hillsborough's proposal. I have studied written documentation offered by both the Town's consulting engineer. David Cain of Finkbinder. Pettis & Strout, and the OWASA staff. On September 30, 1991. I met with David Cain. Hillsborough Town Manager Eric Swanson, and Ed Holland, Ron Williamson and John Greene of OWASA to discuss issues of engineering concern regarding Hillsborough's proposed acquisition of a portion of the main. Basically. Hillsborough has asked OWASA to sell a segment of the 16 inch water transmission line, the whole of which lies along Old NC 86_ between Calvander and downtown Hillsborough. The segment which Hillsborough wishes to purchase is approximately 17.000 feet long and lies between Davis Road, which intersects Old 86 south of Interstate 40, and the main's termination point near the Hillsborough Exchange Club, which lies approximately 200 yards west of Churton Street and south of the Eno River. Hillsborough proposes to use the segment of the existing main from Mayo Drive to Oakdale drive to establish a high pressure water zone. which would help the Town to provide adequate and stabilized water pressure in the existing water line loop serving the customers in the roughly triangular area bounded by Mayo St, Churton St, Orange Grove Rd and Oakdale Drive. The Town proposes to use the existing segment of 16 inch main between Mayo St and the Exchange Club F 4 to create a relatively low pressure zone which would provide adequate fire protection by increasing the water flow capacity in the area along Churton St north of Mayo St. Hillsborough proposes to use the segment between Oakdale Drive and Davis Road to provide for future development in the southern Hillsborough service area. The segment of line between Oakdale Dr and I -40 would eventually be to create a loop in the Town's future water system. This loop would connect -the Old 86 line segment to an elevated water storage tank which would be located in the area between old and new NC 86. This elevated tank would also be connected to the existing 12 inch water main at or near the intersection of NC 86 and New Hope Church Road. The remaining section of the purchased 16 inch segment between I -40 and Davis Road could be used to serve future development, if any. around the I -40 and Old NC 86 interchange. The proposal by Hillsborough to purchase the segment of line described above reflects sound engineering judgement in terms of addressing the long and short term needs of the Town of Hillsborough. If Hillsborough does not obtain the segment of the existing OWASA main, it will have to install at least a 12 inch line along the same route as the existing line to fulfill its long term plans for water service areas, elevated storage tanks and looped system of mains. The construction costs for 13.000 feet of 12 inch main from Davis Drive to Mayo Street would be approximately $450.000 in 1991 dollars. There would probably not be any significant near term financial saving for Hillsborough in purchasing the existing sixteen inch main as opposed to constructing a new twelve inch line. In addition to the cost of purchasing the existing main from OWASA, construction of a new OWASA pump station in the vicinity of Davis Road would be required. The existing OWASA pump station at Calvander would be unable to pump water from OWASA into Hillsborough's high pressure zone without replacing its existing pumps. As OWASA plans to use the Calvander pumping station to create a high pressure zone of its. own, it would not be interested in changing the pumps in the Calvander pumping station, thus the need for the new pump station at pavis Road. The total cost of the construction of the Davis Road pump station. moving the water meter from the Exchange Club to Davis Road, and the purchase of just the 13.000 foot segment of the 16 inch main from Mayo Street to Davis Road (at the price per foot offered by Hillsborough) would be in the $500,000 to $600,000 range. This cost is comparable to the cost of $500,000 for the construction of 13,000 feet of twelve inch main, engineering and contingencies. - There are several other advantages to the Town with the purchase of the existing line. however. The Town would not have to find a way to construct a new main along Churton Street and under I -85. Considering the already crowded utility situation in that area, this construction would be an undertaking of considerable difficulty and it could involve causing considerable obstruction of Churton Street traffic. Other advantages to Hillsborough in using the existing sixteen inch line include the greater water carrying capacity in the larger line and less expensive pump capital, operation and maintenance costs. During the meeting between OWASA. Hillsborough and myself. I believe that most of the questions of an engineering nature regarding the feasibility of the proposed water main sale were addressed satisfactorily, at least in a preliminary sense. Representatives for.OWASA did bring up two points regarding the total carrying capacity of the 16 inch main in relation to the ultimate water demand on the main when.that segment of the Hillsborough water system reaches complete build -out. OWASA indicated that a future need might arise for having 2.000.000 gallons per day pumped through the line to OWASA. Hillsborough's future water demands in the area served by the sixteen inch main could conceivably become so great that the pipe might be unable to accommodate the additional OWASA need because insufficient water carrying capacity remained. In a similar vein. OWASA indicated that it might need to use the existing pipeline to convey water from southern Orange or Jordan Lake to the future Mebane - Efland area commercial development. The most likely scenario for routing for a large water line connecting OWASA to the Efland area would be to connect a sixteen inch line running along the northern side of I -85 to the existing 16 inch line in Hillsborough. If OWASA were to sell the segment of the existing line between Davis Road and I -85 to Hillsborough. OWASA would have to construct a parallel segment of water line or use the Hillsborough segment of water line. If OWASA was forced to use a segment of line belonging to Hillsborough and .Hillsborough's water demand in that area had already used all or most of the carrying capacity of the pipe. then OWASA would not be able to convey water toward Efland. With pumps that have sufficient pumping capacity at high head conditions, a sixteen inch pipe could be reasonably expect to carry--four to five million gallons of water per day or perhaps more. Under the same head and residual pressure conditions, a twelve inch pipe will carry slightly less than half the flow carried by sixteen inch pipe. It seems likely that if the water demand for ultimate build out of the Hillsborough system could be satisfied with a twelve inch pipe. then a sixteen inch pipe could meet that demand and an additional two million gallon per day demand by OWASA. The engineering questions raised by OWASA relating to ultimate water demands, pipe carrying capacity, pump selection, residual pressures and head loss. etc., cannot be answered with any degree of certainty without more in depth study by the engineers of Hillsborough and OWASA. V 6 If OWASA agrees to sell the section of waterline requested by Hillsborough, contingent on satisfactory resolution of these questions prior to consummation of the sale, I believe all questions and problems can be resolved. I do not believe that Hillsborough will commit the funds necessary to answer the questions proposed by OWASA without some sort of conditional commitment from OWASA to make the sale. Hillsborough's engineer will have to take the design of Hillsborough's proposed system utilizing the existing OWASA main before OWASA's questions can be answered. The BOCC also asked if the construction of the water line between Hillsborough and Durham was more financially feasible than to continue buying water from OWASA. This question is somewhat more complicated than it appears, because it compels one to make a number of assumptions about future water rates, amount of water purchase, etc. These assumptions are based on existing conditions projected into the future. and this . procedure has a great deal of room for error. The basic facts that are used in making an economic comparison between the cost of constructing the Durham water line and buying water from Durham and the cost of continuing to purchase water from OWASA are as fellow: 1) the cost of construction of the entire water line and pumping station is approximately $800,000 - engineering costs are not included as this is already a sunk cost; 2) the water rates charged by the City of Durham to Hillsborough are $0.75 per thousand gallons, and the water rates will remain constant throughout the study period; 3) the water rates charged by OWASA to Hillsborough are $1.53 per thousand gallons, and the water rates will remain constant throughout the study period; 4) although the useful life of the water line may exceed 100 years. the payback period for this study is 20 years; 5) Hillsborough's water purchases will remain constant at three million gallons per week for sixteen weeks for a total purchase of 48 million gallons per year; 6) cost of operation and maintenance of the Durham line are not included in the costs of water purchases from Durham; 7) the additional labor costs in the purchase of water from OWASA are not included in the OWASA -rates.;_8) the rate of return calculated is 7.0% The assumptions above. when used in economic analysis calculations show that the annualized debt service of line and pump station construction is approximately $75,000 and the cost of water purchase from Durham is an additional $46,000 per year for.a total yearly cost of $111,000. This compares with a total annual water purchase cost from OWASA of $73.000. This analysis shows that the construction of the Durham pipeline costs approximately $38,000 per year more than purchasing water from OWASA. There is another facet of the construction of the Durham pipeline that is not shown in the analysis above. 7 Hillsborough's master plan for water main layout calls for a water main loop in the area south and east of town. Hillsborough plans to extend the existing twelve inch water main at the intersection of NC 86 and New-Hope Church Road up New Hope Church Road to Old NC 10. then up Old NC 10 to University Station Road, then north on University Station Road to US 70 where it will be tied into the Durham pipe line. Hillsborough has indicated that this loop will eventually be built. even if the Durham pipeline is not built. Given this scenario, it is reasonable to calculate that the only costs that would be attributable to construction for buying water from Durham would be the pump station and the section of line between University Station Road and the existing Durham line. That cost is approximately $300.000. Using the other assumptions outlined in the earlier cost analysis. the total annualized cost of' capital construction would be approximately $28.000. When the construction costs are added to the $36.000 annual cost for water purchase alone. the total annualized cost to purchase water from Durham is $64.000. or $11.000 per year less than purchasing water from OWASA. RCC1001 1 O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 SUBJECT: Efland Sewer System Action Agenda Item # VIC-B DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X ___N0 ATTACHMENT(S): Report Under seperate cover: 2 maps blank sewer service contract INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Thames, County Engineer TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To provide information to the Board on the current operational situation of the Efland Sewer system and to provide several scenarios for the construction and financing of expansions to the system. BACKGROUND: The Efland sewer system has now been in operation for approximately three years. During those three years, a number of problems have arisen in terms of general customer dissatisfaction and in terms of the system's failure to generate sufficient revenue to meet expenses. Presently, a new challenge has appeared in regard to the provision of sewer service to the Efland area. In 1985, a number of Efland citizens signed agreements requesting that the County provide sewer service and agreeing to tap onto the sewer service whenever that service became available. This agreement set the condition that a minimum of 179 citizens. residing in the area designated as Phase I by the Efland area sewer study, must have applied for sewer service by a specified deadline before the County would construct the sewer system. Only a portion of the sewer system for Phase I was constructed, serving 107 of the customers who originally entered into the sewer service agreement with the County. Now many of those citizens who had officially requested sewer service but who were not served in the original construction project are asking the County to provide the sewer service in the immediate future. In addition. some citizens who currently have. sewer service available but are unable to pay plumbing contractors to tie their houses into the existing system have requested County financial assistance to enable them to tie onto the system. FA Expansion of any segment of the Efland sewer system, as indicated on the Efland area master sewer plan. would be a substantial construction project. The construction costs for Phases I through_V range from a low of $92,000 to a high of $893.000. The cost of construction for sewering for most of the rest of Efland is projected to total nearly 1.7 million dollars. If monthly sewer billings are to represent the entire source o -f revenue to pay all construction costs, operation and maintenance expenses. etc., Efland will have by the far the highest sewer rates in the state. The attached report presents some potential construction funding scenarios and outlines the potential revenue outlook for both the existing and expanded system. RECOMMENDATIONS The Manager recommends that the Board receive this report as information. K3 MEMORANDUM TO: County Commissioners John Link. County Manager FROM: Paul Thames, County Engineer DATE: October 1, 1991 SUBJECT: Expansion of the Efland Sewer System This memorandum is in response to your request for information on the costs for expansions to the Efland sewer system. In this report, reference is made to phasing of construction.of the system as laid out in engineering reports by the J R MacAdams Company and by Hazen and Sawyer. A map of Efland showing the sewer construction phases, which have been color coded, is attached for your convenience. Please note that the color coded phases are the development phases as conceived by Hazen and Sawyer. However. the Hazen and Sawyer map is a modification of the MacAdams map. As the original phases are delineated by very heavy dashed lines which were crossed out by Hazen and Sawyer, it is quite easy to see the limits and boundaries of the original phases. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The history of the Efland sewer project is a very important . element of this report. The financial performance of the existing sewer system will have an impact on the financial performance of an expanded system and the ability of the expanded system to be able to generate sufficient revenue to be self sufficient. In 1984, Orange-County became aware of the need for a sewer collection system in the Efland area to serve the many residents of Efland Estates who had failing septic systems and the Efland - Cheeks Elementary School which had a failing package waste treatment plant. The County commissioned the MacAdams Company to perform an engineering study to determine how the area could be sewered and estimate construction costs, sewer revenues. funding and grant sources, etc. By the time the study had been completed. the County had determined that the financial feasibility of Phase I development was dependent on having at least 179 paying sewer customers being served by that phase. To that end. the County began a process. using staff and community resources, to convince at least 179 residents of the area which would be Ell served by the Phase I sewer to commit to tapping onto the system. The County agreed to provide those citizen who signed for sewer service with sewer service at no charge for tapping fees. The County agreed to pay those tapping fees and did in fact prepay the tapping fees for 212 sewer customers to the Town of Hillsborough. The agreement also stated specifically that sewer system might not be constructed if commitments for at least 179 taps in Phase I, as defined by the sewer system phasing map contained in the MacAdams report, were not obtained. During the sign -up period for customers and taps, which ended on January 31, 1985, 191 taps were requested by 137'customers who consisted of individuals, companies,- churches, clubs and one voluntary fire department. The County decided to build at least a portion of the Phase I section of sewer system, even though there were not 179 taps requested in the entire area designated as Phase I,. Of the total of 191 taps requested, nineteen taps requested by eleven of the customers were in the areas originally designated as Phases ii, IV or V. Most of these customers who were not located in Phase I would have been able to tap into the proposed Phase I gravity sewers or force mains by using individual sewer pumping stations located at each customer's building or home. At least partially because of the MacAdams report's proposed use of many sewer pumping stations. the County chose Hazen and Sawyer to restudy the Efland area sewer situation and make new recommendations. The Hazen and Sawyer study of the area made a number of modifications to both the sewer layout and the phasing limits recommended in the MacAdams report. The new study also set up the sewer design whereby Phase I could be divided into two sections which could be constructed separately. Hazen and Sawyer was awarded the contract to design and oversee the construction of as much of the sewer project as funding would allow. In 1987 construction began on the portion of Phase I west of Efland_ -Cedar Grove Road. The scope of project was limited due to the cost of the project and the lack of available funding. The p-ortion of Phase I that was constructed was targeted particularly because it contained the highest concentration of failed septic tanks, the failing treatment system at the school and the greatest number of low income and elderly households. These factors were very important with regard to the availability of grant funding for construction of the project. On the attached map. the area served by the sewer which was constructed is shaded in red. The area that was sewered was projected to serve ninety -two of the original customers who had requested one hundred and eleven taps. By the time sewer construction was completed in late 1988, two taps had been omitted because one customer had died and his house abandoned and one could not be served with gravity sewer. M P CURRENT SEWER SYSTEH OPERATION In the past three years, eight additional customers or taps have been added to the original 109 taps for a total of one hundred seventeen taps. Currently, only seventy -five of these taps are in service or being used, while forty -two are not used. Of the unused taps, thirty are for buildings which have never connected to the sewer, three more taps are for buildings which have not yet been built, and nine taps are not in use because the buildings to which they are connected are vacant. The existing sewer system has a collection and pumping capacity of 500,000 gallons per day or 15,000,000 gallons per month. Currently, the system handles a total flow of roughly 450,000 gallons per month and produces a revenue from the sewer use billings of $2500 per month. The system's operating costs for waste treatment. maintenance, billing and power have been averaging approximately $2400 per month. The Town of Hillsborough, which provides treatment for the waste collected in the Efland system, has just increased its waste treatment rate charged to the Efland sewer system by twenty - four percent. The increase in treatment cost represents a $300 per month increase in the Efland system's operating expenses. Even without considering the rise in treatment costs. the Efland sewer system does not generate sufficient revenue to repay the County's General Fund for the original construction expenditures. Repayment of expenditures from the General Fund, plus interest. is a condition of the Efland sewer system's Rules of Operation, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 1985. There are also insufficient funds to set aside any monies for future replacement of failed or worn out equipment or to make other major repairs. When costs for future equipment repair and replacement and for repayment of General Fund expenditures with interest are included in the, existing system's operating expenses, the monthly revenue shortfall is approximately $2400. One option that will make the existing system become financially solvent is to double the existing sewer rates. If the existing system is to become comoletely self sufficient at the e�xistina sewer r tes the existin system's customer base will have to reach 280 households with a total sewer usage of 2-500,000 allons Per month. Given the existing economic conditions in the Efland area, it is not reasonable to anticipate that the customer base or the sewer usage will grow to the extent necessary for the existing system to reach a financial break -even point in the foreseeable future. Considering that the present sewer rate r� structure is already very high for the amount of sewer flow used, a large rate increase is not a desirable option for making a viable enterprise operation of the existing Efland sewer system. The best options for operating the sewer system as an enterprise involve increasing the service area and the customer base of the existing system by expanding the system if the expansion can be undertaken without increasing the system's capital debt burden. EXPANSION OF THE SEWER SYSTEM Recently. citizens of the Efland area have approached the County Commissioners about expanding the Efland sewer system along the lines of the future phases shown in the attached map. Many of these citizens residing in the remaining section of Phase I, shaded in yellow on the map, are of the opinion that the County has a contractual obligation to expand the system to serve them. Several citizens have demonstrated a need for expansion of the sewer system by presenting evidence to individual County Commissions of irreparable septic tank failures and other environmental health hazards. A portion of the remaining phases of the Efland sewer system has already been designed. The section designated as Phase II, shaded in green on the attached map, was bid as an alternate when the original sewer project was bid. This phase was omitted from the project due to insufficient funding. The remaining phases of the expanded system have been designed only conceptually. However, Hazen.and Sawyer used the best available mapping and property information as well as on -site visits to arrive at a preliminary design that should prove to be reliable. The estimated construction cost figures for expansion of the sewer system, on a phase by phase basis are shown in .the table below. These total cost figures are based on quantities taken from the Hazen and Sawyer sewer construction phasing map of Efland, which is attached to this report and which has been__. -color coded by phase. The quantities used to calculate costs are very rough, as the,maps are of very small scale. The individual construction element unit prices as well as the engineering, survey. legal, administrative and contingency costs were provided by Hazen and Sawyer on September 19, 1991. If all of the remaining phases were to be built simultaneously, there could be substantial savings on engineering related costs. 7 . TABLE 1 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES FOR EFLAND SEVER EXTENSION NOTE: All Phase designations refer to Phasing Map entitled "West Orange Sanitary Sewer" by Hazen and Sawyer PHASE I Relocate Pump Station $ 35,000 (Remainder) New Pump Station 33,000 1900 LF -12" Gravity 91,200 13275 LF - 8" Gravity 424,800 2000 LF - 10" Force Main 50,000 2200 LF- 4" Force Main 26,400 Contingency, Engineering, Legal, Admin., Survey 182,600 TOTAL $ 843,000 PHASE II 5850 LF - 8" Gravity Line $ 1870000 Contingency, Engineering, Legal, Admin.. Survey ____46.000, TOTAL $ 233,000 PHASE III New Pump Station $ 16,000 5600 LF - 8" Gravity 179,200 2450 LF - 6" Force Hain 22,000 Contingency, Engineering, Legal, Admin., Survey 63.800 TOTAL $ 280,000 PHASE ,IV New Pump Station $ 15,000 4000 LF - 8" Gravity 128,000 2200 LF - 2" Force Hain 13,200 Contingency, Engineering. Legal. Admin., Survey 46.800 TOTAL $ 203,000 PHASE V New Pump Station $ 15,000 1500 LF - 8" Gravity 48,000 1200 LF-- 2" Force Main 7.200 Contingency, Engineering, Legal, Admin., Survey 21.800 TOTAL $ 92.000 CONSTRUCTION OF ENTIRE SYSTEM - TOTAL $ 1.651,000 FINANCING CONSTRUCTION COSTS THROUGH THE SEWER RATE STRUCTURE The major part of financing for the existing Efland sewer system was through grant funding provided by the Farmer's Home Administration and by state Clean Water Fund monies administered by the NC Division of Environmental Management. Unfortunately, both of these sources of grant funds have not been available in the last several years and are not likely to be available in the foreseeable future. Available sources of funding for the majority of the construction costs outlined above include the County -wide tax base, the Efland area tax base or the customers of the existing and expanded sewer system. The table below shows the total costs of constructing and operating the Efland sewer system on a phase by phase basis if and when the system is expanded. There are a number of assumptions used in obtaining the numbers shown in this table. These assumptions are used to calculate treatment and administrative costs which will vary according to the number of households served and the waste generated by each household. For example, it is assumed that sewer flow per customer, both existing and new, approximates normal domestic sewer flow for a three person household or about 300 gallons per day. This assumption has not held true in the area served by the existing system. because there are many single user customers. The numbers used below do not account for any increased flow which might be anticipated from the commercial sites in central Efland. The water usage records for these sites show that sewer flow from all of these facilities would not sufficient to cause a major skew in cost assumptions used. 'Another assumption is that the existing debt on the existing sewer system has not been accumulating unpaid interest on the unpaid balance. On a private sector financial transaction the accumulated interest would actually amount to an additional $50,000. in accrued interest, which would be added onto the initial deb., of $23.6,000. The assumptions dealing with the number of customers which would be served by each phase are based on a percentage of the number of property parcels which could be served in each phase. Sixty additional customers are assumed to come on line if the remainder of Phase I is constructed, an. additional 35 customers for Phase II, an additional 45 for Phase III. an additional 30 for Phase IV and an additional 12 customers for Phase V. The cumulative customer base for all phases, including the existing system, is assumed to be 312 customers. Other assumptions are listed above the table. �i TABLE 2 MONTHLY INCREMENTAL & TOTALIZED COSTS INCURRED BY EXPANSION OF THE EFLAND SEWER SYSTEM Assumptions 1. Debt reduction is over a 20 year period at 7.0% 2. Existing debt to General Fund is $236.000 or $1850 per month 3. Existing customer base is 130-households 4. Existing and new customers generate 300 gpd waste flow 5. Administrative cost average $3.00 per customer 6. Treatment costs are $3.30 per 1000 gallons 7. Existing maintenance costs are approximately $900 per month, including funds set aside for equipment replacement, and future costs will be $200 per new pump station PHASE DEBT SERVICE I - 0 & M ADMINISTRATIVE I TREATMENT I TOTAL INC.-J TOTAL IINC. I TOTAL INC. I TOTAL AINC. I TOTAL I INC. I TOTA I 6550 8400 1 200 1100 1 200 1 550 1 1800 1 5700 1 8750 1 15750 II 1800 10200 1 50 1150 1 100 1 650 1050 6750. 1 3000 1 18750 III 2200 12400 1 150 1300 150 1 800 1350 8100 1 3850 1 22600 IV 1600 14000 1 150 1450 100 1 900 900 9000 2750 1 25350 V 700 14700 1 150 1600 50 1 950 400 9400" 1300 1 26650 As can be seen from the table above, the monthly operational costs for an expanded sewer system can be quite expensive. It should be noted that debt service ranges from fifty -three to fifty -five percent of the total operating expense for every phase of sewer development. It is nearly impossible to cover the costs of debt service within sewer use rates. For this reason. most utilities utilize sewer assessments as construction cost recovery method. When the assumptions and the total costs for all debt service and operation expenses per phase from the table above are used to calculate the average customer's monthly sewer bill. Phase I expansion sewer_ bill would be approximately $85 for existing and new customers. This rate compares unfavorably with a monthly bill of $42 for the same amount of sewer usage at the existing rate structure and with OWASA's rate of approximately $20 month for a slightly higher sewer usage. Assuming that Phase I and its customer base is developed first, the development of any or all successive phases will have very little impact on the average sewer bill. If other phases of the sewer system are constructed singly or together before the construction of Phase I. the incremental increase in the average sewer bill would be less than it would be with Phase I construction alone. However, whenever Phase I is constructed, the sewer bill will rise above $80. It is also important to remember that construction of Phases III and V would be difficult if Phase I were not constructed first. I0 ALTERNATIVE HEARS OF FINANCING SEWER CONSTRUCTION Finding methods of funding sewer construction that do not require the imposition of very high utility bills on the sewer customers or without involving the County tax system is a very challenging task.' Estimating sewer use billing rates on the basis of estimates of construction costs, system operating expense. customer base. average sewer usage. construction financing alternatives can also become quite complicated. If the assumptions regarding all of the cost and sewer use factors which are built into the preceding tables can be taken as fact, then it can be surmised that every $100.000 in capital expense that does not have to be borne by the sewer rate structure will reduce the average sewer bill by approximately.$2.50 per month when the entire Efland system is constructed. Community Development Black-Grant Funding of Sewer-Construction A windshield survey of the Efland area by the Orange County. Engineer and the Director of Housing and Community development indicates that there is a good possibility that CDBG funding could be obtained for construction of sewer in the Phase IV area, which is shaded in orange on the attached map. Additional funds for paying tapping fees and plumbing construction costs may be available for the existing section of Phase I. The CDBG funds for sewer construction and for sewer tapping costs must be tied in with other housing needs which would also be addressed by the grant funds. In all probability. the County would have to provide some of the funding for the entire,housing improvement and sewer construction project. The County's funding share of the entire project might be only about fifty percent of the funds required for Phase IV sewer construction alone. If the County's share of the funding were counted as housing improvement costs,'and not charged to the sewer system's debt, the sewer bills for all existing and future customers would be lessened. Unfortunately, none of the other phases are likely to be eligible for any CDBG funding. Sewer Assessments Phase's II, III. IV and V were not included in the County's original proposal to provide sewer service to the Efland area. If the construction costs for all of phases except Phase I were paid by the owners of property which could be served and the debt service costs of construction of Phase I were added to the total system's operating expenses, the average monthly sewer bill could be lowered to approximately $65. If Phase IV construction costs Are paid from community development funds and Phase II, III and V construction costs are paid by a full sewer assessment on the potential customers of those sections, the average assessment would be about $5200 per property owner for 116 parcels of property served by Phases II. 11I and IV sewer. Public Health Exuenditures_from___the General Fund There are certainly some public health aspects to sewering the remainder of Efland. The Orange County Health Department, Environmental Health Section reports that a number of septic systems in the area have had to be repaired in unsuitable soils and could fail at any time. Additionally, much of the soil in Phases III and IV is not very good for on site waste treatment. Mobile home parks in the remainder of Phase I and in Phase III are suspect because of the high concentration of septic systems with relatively small areas available for effluent disposal. The County may consider putting some funds. which would not have to be repaid from sewer revenues. into construction of an expanded systemm to address public health needs. As was stated earlier in this report. each $100,000 reduction of the capital debt burden carried as an operating expense reduces the average sewer bill by $2.50 when all phases are constructed. Sewer Service Districts The creation of an Efland area sewer service district with the authority to levy taxes within the district is yet another sewer construction financing alternative. This alternative is somewhat complicated in that a sewer service district must have a governing board. The 80CC. in creating the service district, could choose to become the governing board of the service district itself or could choose to appoint a board for the service district. If the sewer service district was created, it could levy a supplemental property tax on all land owners within the district. These tax revenues could be used to pay sewer construction and operating costs, while holding down sewer rates. The advantage to this type of system is that those whose land was most greatly increased in value by the provision of sewer service would pay the greatest portion of sewer development cost. The sewer service district would also spare the remainder of the County from having to carry the financial burden of sewering Efland. I hope that I have presented you with sufficient information that will help clarify the complex situation that describes the Efland sewer system, at least to the point that you can begin the process for making decisions on the future of the system. The situation outlined above regarding the existing sewer system is obviously undesirable in terms of service provided to the citizens. revenues generated. and repayment of debts to the County General Fund. With careful planning. the County may be able to rectify the problems with the existing system and expand the system into other areas of-Efland, which would be well served if the sewer system is expanded. If I can provide any additional information or answer any questions. please advise. 11 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: SUBJECT: VISITOR BUREAU DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ATTACHMENT(S): Action Agenda Item #�— PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine Holmes Ted Abernathy TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham -- 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To provide for Commission comments and questions concerning materials distributed last week. The materials covered draft position description, recruitment plan, advertisement, Visitor Bureau timetable, and suggested initial Board meeting agenda. BACKGROUND: The Economic Development Commission's Strategic Plan's Challenge 9 is to develop and implement a program to attract and serve visitors to Orange County. Several different options for structuring a visitor bureau as the vehicle to meet this challenge have been explored and, at their September 17th meeting, Commission appointed the interim Chapel Hill /Orange County Visitor Bureau Board. The proposed agenda for the first meeting of the interim board includes review of the draft position description and other material related to initiating the process of hiring the Director of the Visitor Bureau. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Commission provide the Manager with comments on the material provided to them earlier so that this information can be included in the presentation to the interim Chapel Hill /Orange County Visitor Bureau Board. 2 ORANGE COUNTY IIILLSHORZ ►UG 1 NOR'T'H CAROLINA llurayer s Lue Memorandum to: Board of County Commissioners From: John Link v Date: September 17, 1991 Subject: Visitor Bureau Enclosed is information concerning the initial steps for starting the Visitor Bureau. Elaine Holmes has completed a survey of similar positions around North Carolina and has provided a draft position description, comparative salary data, draft recruitment and selection plan, selection panel recommendations, and a draft advertisement. Ted Abernathy has studied office location options and has identified at least 10 comparably priced potential sites in Chapel Hill. The timetable allows for Board of County Commissioner comments at the October 7th meeting. In early October, the plan calls for Chairman Carey to convene the first Visitor Bureau Board meeting; a draft agenda for that meeting is enclosed. The transition of the Bureau, from that first meeting to incorporation as a private non -- profit with strong ties to the County, will be an important topic for the Interim Board. AREA CODE (919) 732 -8181 • 968 -4501 • 688 -7331 • 227.2031 • FAX (919) 644 -3004 Ext. 2300 A DRAFT AGENDA FIRST VISITOR BUREAU BOARD MEETING 1. Review of the Process to Form the Visitor Bureau 2. The Bureau's Focus, Priorities, and Structure - Discussion 3. Review of the Draft Job Description and Hiring Plan Formation of Selection Panel 4. Possible Locations to House the Bureau 5. Formation of By -law Subcommittee Visitor Bureau Formation Draft Timetable Initial 9/17 BOCC Appoints Visitor Bureau Interim Board 9/17 BOCC Receives Personnel and Other Background Information 10/7 BOCC Discusses Any Visitor Bureau Concerns 10/8 -10/18 First Visitor Bureau Board Meeting 3 4 DRAFT September 12, 1991 MEMORANDUM TO: Chapel Hill /Orange County Visitor Bureau Board Members FROM: John Link, Orange County Manager SUBJECT: Visitor Bureau Director Enclosed for your information and review are five items related to the new position of Visitor Bureau Director. These are: Attachment Subject 1 Draft Position Description 2 Comparative Salary information 3 Draft Recruitment and Selection Plan 4 Selection Panel Appointment Recommendations 5 Draft Advertisement It is planned that, initially, the Visitor Bureau Director will be appointed as a Temporary Orange County employee. After a period of time, the Director may become an employee of the Bureau as the necessary payroll and other systems are developed to handle this. In recognition of the projected duties and available labor market information (Attachment 2) for comparably sized organizations, we recommend a salary range of approximately 5 -2- $29,000 to $42,000 for the position. The actual starting salary within the salary range would be based on job related education and experience in relation to the minimum requirements and any labor market factors identified in recruitment. The objective of the recommended recruitment and selection process is to identify the best qualified candidate available to carry out the position's responsibilities. We will be meeting with you regarding the position and planned recruitment activities and look forward to receiving your feedback and suggestions. cc: Mr. Ted Abernathy Ms. Elaine Holmes Enclosures 6 DRAFT VISITOR BUREAU DIRECTOR POSITION DESCRIPTION ��j * -F IdF Attachment 1 September 12, 1991 This position serves as director for the Chapel Hill /Orange County Visitor Bureau. In this role the position provides leadership, organization and coordination for visitor services in Orange County. The position reports to the Chapel Hill /Orange County Visitor Bureau Board. MAJOR DUTIES: Planning Assesses the needs and recommends initiatives to attract visitors and promote effective visitor services. Performs primary research to enhance visitor services including identification of activities and services available for Orange county visitors and marketing research to target visitor groups. Develops plans and strategies to implement visitor programs, including pr6vision for participation by involved community groups. Marketing/Information Develops a marketing program to.increase the number of visitors to the County and encourage longer stays. Creates and distributes marketing and information materials including maps and brochures that will inform and attract visitors. Develops and distributes a calendar of events of interest to Chapel Hill /Orange County visitors. Serves as a spokesperson for visitor services, including meeting with visitors individually and in groups to communicate about available services and making presentations to attract events and groups to the County. IF CE Promotes local citizen awareness of the benefits of visitors. Recruitment Recruits new destination visitors to Orange County., including conferences, conventions, bus tours, events, church groups and others as deemed appropriate by the Board. Coordination Coordinates visitor activities and services throughout Orange County. Provides liaison among visitor services providers - Coordinates and provides staff support to Visitor Bureau committees working to enhance visitor services. Coordinates visitor group activities and local response such as transportation, group packages, local briefings and business responses. Administration Establishes and operates systems to track visitor activity and services. Compiles reports on activities and services. Recommends by --laws and administrative policies to the Board. Develops the recommended Visitor Bureau budget for Board consideration. Establishes appropriate accounting and audit procedures. Administers day -to -day business activities of the Bureau. Negotiates any necessary performance contracts for local funding sources. Seeks other funding to supplement existing sources. Develops recommended personnel policies and benefits for the Board's consideration. Negotiates and secures office space for the Bureau. Does related work as required. 7 8 3912 REQUIRED KNOWLEDGES, SKILLS AND ABILITIES: Extensive knowledge of the visitor services, hospitality, tourism industry including convention /conference marketing and management. Thorough knowledge of laws and regulations underlying the visitor services industry. General knowledge of organization and management principles and practices. Preferably knowledge of the Chapel Hill /Orange County area. Effective oral and written communication skills including ability to make effective oral and written presentations. Ability to analyze and evaluate a variety of programs and develop plans, structures and systems responsive to the needs. Ability to coordinate the work of others. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with a wide range of public and private organizations and the general public. MINIMUM EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE: Requires graduation from a four year college or university with a major emphasis on coursework in business administration, public administration, hotel /motel management, sales, marketing or related field and four years professional level experience in hospitality, tourism or visitor services program management, including responsibility for program development, marketing and budgeting. i 9 Attachment 2 September 12, 1991 COMPARATIVE SALARY INFORMATION* VISITOR SERVICES DIRECTORS CATEGORY SALARY Average Salary for Lower 25 Percent $19,923 Average Salary for Middle 50 Percent $29,303 Average Salary for Top 25 Percent $41,737 0 *Source: 1991 Compensation Survey conducted by the International Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus. Data covers 27 bureaus with annual budget of up to $200,000 and average budget of $153,541. 10 Attachment 3 September 12, 1991 DRAFT RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION PLAN VISITOR BUREAU DIRECTOR ActiviY Responsibility 1. At the first meeting of the Visitor Bureau Board: a. Review draft position description Board* and determine final version for recruitment purposes. b. Review draft recruitment plan and Board advertisement. Provide any feedback. c. Appoint a Visitor Bureau Director Board Selection Panel. (the Panel) to review candidates and recommend one or more finalists to the Board for its final selection decision. (See Attachment 4.) 2. Carry out planned recruitment activities. Orange County Personnel 3. Review applications rec6ived, conduct Orange County preliminary screening activities and Personnel refer the best qualified candidates to the Panel for interviews. 4. Arrange for candidate interviews with Orange County the Panel. Personnel 5. Complete any final review including Panel /Orange reference checks. County Personnel 6. Recommend finalist(s) to the Board. Panel /County Manager 7. Make final selection decision. Board 8. Offer position. Orange County Personnel *Chapel Hill /Orange County Visitor Bureau Board Attachment 4 September 12, 1991 VISITOR BUREAU DIRECTOR SELECTION PANEL APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Panel consist of no more than six members. 2. The Panel should include: Two at -large members either from the Visitor Bureau Board or appointed by the Board - A representative of the hotel /motel industry The Orange County Manager The Orange County Economic Development Director An Orange County Commissioner 3. The Orange County Personnel Director serves as staff support to the Panel. 11 12- Attachment 5 Draft Advertisement* CHAPEL HILL /ORANGE COUNTY VISITOR BUREAU DIRECTOR Description: The newly formed Chapel Hill /Orange County Visitor Bureau is seeking a Director. The Director is responsible for providing leadership, organization and coordination for visitor services in Orange County. Duties include assessing the needs; recommending initiatives to attract visitors; implementing programs to promote effective visitor services; providing liaison among visitor service providers; and serving as a spokesperson for visitor services. Requirements: Bachelor's degree in business or public administration, hotel /motel management, sales, marketing or related field and four years professional level experience in hospitality, tourism or visitor services program management, including responsibility for program development, marketing and budgeting. Salary Range: $29,000 - $42,000. Closing Date: (date) Apply To: Orange County'Personnel Department PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 732 -8181 Extension 2550 An official County application is required and must be received on or before the closing date. Refer to Posting 118 -000. Resumes will not be accepted unless accompanied by an application form. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER *The plan is to advertise in the following newspapers: The Chapel Hill Newspaper The Charlotte Observer (non -- display ad) The Durham Herald - Sun The Greensboro News and Record (non - display ad) The News and Observer.of Raleigh The News of Orange C ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COI24ISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7 1991 Action Agenda Item # y Zr- D SUBJECT: State Watershed Classifications and Standards. DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): * State Rules and Classifications * Staff Report (previously provided) * 8 -26 Hearing Minutes /Comments * Staff Recommendations * 9 -18 Planning Board Minutes * Planning Board Recommendations * Proposed BOCC Resolution * Proposed County Position Statement PUBLIC HEARING: YES —X —NO INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Stancil, Extension 2590 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To report to the Board of Commissioners on a proposed Orange County position paper regarding the State watershed protection classifications and development standards. This item was presented at public hearing on August 26, 1991. BACKGROUND: The Water Supply Watershed Protection Act 1989 requires every local government in the state to protect water supply watersheds to, at a minimum, the level of new classifications and standards adopted by the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). The EMC has proposed preliminary classifications for each of Orange County's 11 water supply watersheds. The EMC has conducted public hearings across the state to hear citizen and local government comment. The closing date for receipt of public hearing comment is October 31, 1991. The EMC is required to adopt classifications by July 1, 1992. There are currently no plans by the EMC to hold additional public hearings on this question prior to this classification. As such, October 31 may be local government's last opportunity to request different classifications or changes to the rules. A staff report was presented to the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners in July and August of this year that examined the issues and implications for each of the County's watersheds, many of which are shared with other jurisdictions. 1 2 Citizen comment on the proposed state classifications and rules was solicited through an August 26 public hearing in Hillsborough. Eleven (11) persons spoke at the hearing, with seven indicating general agreement with - or strengthening of - the State rules. Four persons spoke in opposition to part or all of the State rules, in particular those rules relating to agricultural buffers. The Planning Board considered this item for recommendation on September 16. Their recommendations are attached. In summary, the Planning Board recommends changes in classification for the Back Creek and South Hyco Creek watersheds, and also recommends Critical Watershed designation for University Lake Watershed. The Eno River basin is proposed to be split into three sub -basin watersheds to reflect the different nature of these sub - basins. The Planning Board also endorses the Durham City - County Planning Department's recommendation of buffers for the Lower Eno basin, and recommends that existing farm operations be exempted from agricultural buffers, endorsing instead the Agricultural Cost -Share Program as an alternative protective approach. In order to provide the EMC with comment on the classifications and proposed rules before- the deadline, the Board of Commissioners must approve comment by its October 22 meeting. . RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board receive the report for information only, and make a decision at the October 22 meeting on the County's official position paper and public hearing comment. Action must be taken October 22 in order to meet the EMC's public hearing comment deadline. r R �1 x � B �� R •R w K � ro r p T . r � R � 8 B P N r /FC • P � O p � V w w w P � ~ iiiTTT s � g I 1 w ... 1 B. Lr N P Q 1 8 T . r � R � 8 B P N r /FC • P � O p � V w w w T . r � R � 8 B P N r /FC • P p � V w b ro p � R � 8 B P N r /FC • P p � V w w w P � ~ iiiTTT s I 1 w ... 1 B. b ro p I n b ^ 6 r 6 � R � 8 B P N r /FC • P p � V w w w I n b ^ 6 r 6 9 F G m Y 0 3 8 P N r /FC • P p � V P � ~ iiiTTT s I 1 w 9 F G m Y 0 3 E MINUTES QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 26, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners held a Quarterly Public Hearing with the Orange County Planning Board on Monday, August 26, 1991 at-7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr.. Vice- Chairman Stephen Halkiotis and Commissioners Alice Gordon, verla Insko (arrived at 9:25) and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Betty Eidenier and members Paul Hoecke, William Waddell, Dan Eddleman, D. Kent Scott, Clinton Burklin, Virginia Boland, Amanda Carol Cantrell and Larry Reid. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planners, Gene Bell, Mary Scearbo and David Stancil. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Moses Carey, Jr. announced that Item C2 - Special Use Permit for the Green Hi l l Bed & Breakfast has been deleted from the agenda. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey read the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. PROPOSED STATE WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This was presented by David Stancil. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed State watershed classifications and development standards. The Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989 requires each local government in the state to protect water supply watershed, at a minimum, to the level of new standards adopted by the Environmental Management Commission [EMC]. The EMC ,has proposed preliminary classifications for each of the 11 water supply watersheds that are completely or partially within the county's boundaries. The proposed classifications as proposed by the EMC were shown on a map and described by Planner David Stancil. Recent legislation in the N.C. General Assembly has delayed the final classification of watersheds until July 1, 1992. A series of public hearings on the classifications and standards were held in mid- August by the EMC. The hearing for jurisdictions in the Triangle region occurred on August 15, 1991. Although the hearings have been concluded, the EMC is accepting written comment as part of the hearing process until October .31, 1991. In addition, the EMC has indicated that it will hold a second public hearing (currently unscheduled) for the Triangle region prior to October .31. The hearing process that closes on October 31 may offer the only chance for local governments to request different classifications and.-standards for watersheds than those proposed. As such, A staff report was presented to the Board of Commissioners on August 5 that: 1. Identified the classification of each watershed as Proposed by the EMC; 2. Compared existing and proposed development standards applicable in each watershed; 3. Identified issues of both regional and watershed - specific importance; and 4. Listed possible alternative actions to those proposed by the EMC and adjoining local governments. The report was presented to the Planning Board at its July 15, 1991 meeting. Comments were provided by the Planning Board in the form of a "Summary of Recommendations" (copy attached). THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Nancy Mueller spoke on behalf of the League of Women voters. She indicated that the Leagues believes that protection of the source of the water supply is the most economical and effective way to protect our water. They support the Critical Watershed designation for University Lake as well as rules on wastewater discharges and limits on development densities. They also support the new rules proposed for agriculture in WS -1 watersheds and WS- 11 Critical Areas. A copy of her statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Lois Herring spoke on behalf of Orange Water and Sewer Authority. She indicated that OWASA supports standards which promote the protection rather than degradation of our water. A copy of this statement in its entirety is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Ed Harrison, a resident of Chapel H i l l and a member of the North Carolina Sierra Club, requested support for a strong statewide water supply protection program. He asked specifically that the Critical Area designation be strengthened and protected. He also requested that Orange County take whatever action is necessary to control agricultural pollution. 6 Barry Jacobs commended Orange County Government for once again taking the time to involve its citizens in the governmental process. He asked that the Eno River Basin receive a more restrictive classification than the WS -4 that the State is proposing. If, in fact, the classification is going to be changed it must be done only after careful planning. Marty Mandell, ,a Carrboro property owner, thanked the Board of Commissioners for their willingness to protect our drinking water. She Presented a petition containing 150 names in support of HB -156 and the proposed WS -2 classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. This petition also supports recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area. She requested that the Public Hearing remain open in order to receive comments from citizens who were unable to attend this meeting. Bobby Nichols spoke on behalf of the Hillsborough Savings and Loan. In response to his question, David Stancil indicated that the State has made provisions to allow non conforming uses to continue on.a case by case basis. He indicated that he personally supports the minimum State requirements. Ellie Kinniard spoke in favor of keeping our watershed standards high. She mentioned that we are still in a position to avoid the serious problems that many parts of the world are now facing and we need to make the necessary decisions to protect our water now. Billy Ray indicated that he wanted to be fairly compensated for any land that the county took as a result of these watershed restrictions. Ben Lloyd indicated that the county was overregulated which was making it impossible to run a profitable dairy farm. He was against the higher standards. Louis Cheek indicated that his land is located at the headwaters of Morgan Creek which is the main stream which flows into University Lake. He indicated that his land has been a dairy farm since 1925 and he believes that the cow manure filters out of the water before it reaches the lake. He asked that the regulations be made with the farmer in mind. John Kent, a member of the New Hope Audobon Society, indicated that he supported stricter standards for our water. He thanked the Board of Commissioners for their willingness to address this issue. Commissioner Carey entered a Resolution from the Town of Chapel Hill encouraging the designation of University Lake as a Critical Water Supply- Watershed with recommendations regarding standards to be developed after discussion and study. He also entered comments from Allen Spalt to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on proposed amendments to rules 7 G G G' for surface water supply watersheds. Both of these documents are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Dan Eddelman indicated that the 10 foot buffer and the possibility of building water management structures seem to be the major issues for the farmers. He asked for clarification f rom those in disagreement with these regulations as to what exactly they see as the problem. Ben Lloyd indicated that these regulations would require building a fence ar %.ound the stream and pumping the water to the COWS. He believes this is an impractical solution. Commissioner willhoit asked if a fence would be required only in the water quality critical area of WS -II? David Stancil indicated that there are two provisions and they both apply in critical areas of the watershed in WS-2 and WS-3 categories; one is that there woul.d need to be a 10 foot vegetative buffer along all perennial waters; secondly, any animal operations greater than 100 animals would be required to employ Best Management Practices. Commissioner Gordon asked if there would be circumstances which would require a landowner to fence off a stream and pump water out to another area. The staff will research this question and forward a written reply to the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner willhoit also indicated that we need to point out to the State that if the farmers are to bear any of this burden it would put them at an economic disadvantage with the farmers in areas which are not required to follow these practices. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Ha1F;iotis, to hold the Public Hearing open to receive written comment until September 13th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS a. SUP -1 -91 GREEN HILL BED & BREAKFAST This item was deleted from the Agenda. 3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. News Used Car Sales - Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table This item was presented by Mary Scearbo . In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment in the Table of Permitted Uses to allow car sales in industrial districts. A citizen request was made to allow a specific parcel of land A Xa " I , xpa)L LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF '1'0MEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA "CO`LMEI:TS PUBLIC HEARINGS N.C. E- NVIRONMENTAL I•.ANAGEMENT C0 :::9ISSIOI� (EfiC ) PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATIONS AND AtIEI•:DMENTS TO RULES FOR SURFACE i•;ATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS PURSUANT TC THE RE;�U1R_*: 3E.NTS OF HE 150 August 15,1991 at Ralezgn, N.C. The League of Women Voters of N.C. strongly supports State Government role as set forth in HB 156 and worked for its passage in the 1989 Legislature. HB 156, Water Supply 'Iatershed Protection Act, established a cooperative program between the state and local ccvernments to protect and anhance tine cuality of the state's Su_face Water Drinking :water Suoclies. .:e commend t hard work of the Environr:,entat I•;a ae.nent Cornrnission that passed good regulations in December 1990 after tare recommen- dations of the ;rater Supply Watershed Protection Advisory Council. ;:e do not want to see them weakened. HB 156 was written without a stated goal but we suggest a goal of "Minimal degradation over the next 20 vears" which has been stated as a coal is several watar qu-21i ;✓ reservciz studies in the state. r The reco,=ended four proposed :rater Supply Classi_ications provide flexibility for local governments to provide the highest water protection possible decending on their local wat- srshed cnaracter -- istics. it is sugcested that the state use the te,m "Most Protective Appropriate" classification. rater Supply `� :atershecs of local governments that have already reached the nigher classifications should automatically continue in that protective class. It will be im?ortanL to encour :�e local cove,nments to write local orYw- nances that will provide a protective land use plan for their present and future water supplies. Citizens need to take oast in .forming the watershed ordinance and to know that regulations in a protective local ordinance once adopted will continue to be in place. Local covernmenis that have testy_ onsibi i tv for a protection Or.^.cra `or a porticn of a watershed in their jurlsdiction, but not their water supply, shoulc work re,ionally with that water supply aovern- Ment throuch interlocal asreemenz which s :•could include monitorinc. The position of-the League of Womnen Voters of Forth Carolina is for WATER SUPPLY PROTECTICI•1 TIz` i•;ILL PREVENT PCLLUTION. 1. '.';e support the one -Nile Critical Area as well as the five -mile Protected Area. 2. We support the rules on wastewater discharges and limits on development densities. The most ef:ective practice for' highest water protection is low density development oarticularly in the Critic _--1 anc PrctecteC arses . tOr.^water _ 101aing aCrOSS pert" u 5 surfaces sL'Ch _=s r^G_` t :- , - __ng lots an: _ Qu=S =!C n5 4 C :C' _'J �- 2 n is that c--.n result In Serious - . ^.pac- ;ter: avatar Cua l i CV . tBu, ZE.?.r zones are also needed to Prevent damage from episodic events such as spills and- e ::tra heavy storm run -off. 3. We support the 100 foot buffers on oerennial streaMs. 801 Oberlin Road Suite 325 Raleigh, N.C. 27605 919/839-5532 `re] LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA COMMENTS PAGE 2 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED HEARINGS August 15,1991 4. We oppose the WS -III proposed change under Stormwater High Density Option to be 12 -50% built upon area. The state needs to go back to the Dec. 1990 rule of 12 -30 %. 5. We support Best Management Practices (BI4P'S) for Agriculture and Silviculture activities but ask for BmP's for all animal units with-separate controls for those farms with animal waste lagoons. It is ,important that BMP's be monitored and that excess amounts of chemicals such as pesticides not be used. 6. We support the rule that local government will assume ultimate responsibility for operation and maintenance of stormwater controls. i. Construction of new roads and bridges in Critical Areas should be avoided. In protected area proposed roads should have environ- mental impact statements as to construction pollution and i,7pacz of resulting traffic flow. °. .9e are concerned that one needs a more cautious approach to handling of hazardous materials with no new storage in Critical Area. Inventory and spill failure plans should continue to be updated at frequent times with emergency management. 9. We strongly endorse the provision prohibiting new landfills in i,'S -II and t;S -III watersheds as well as vas -IV Critical Area. ;-7e also support no new sites for sludge application in Critical Areas, as well as no application of petroleum- contaminated soils in the protected areas of the watershed. •Public Citizens need to be aware that their local ❑ overnments will be entering watershed management as well as land use for the first time. They need to be a part of strong local action in helping develop their Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinances. It is important that the State Division of Water Quality have adequate financing for personnel to assist local governments in developing plans and ordinances for the niehest watershed protection possible for their people. In summary the League of .Iomen Voters of North Carolina regards the adoption of the proposed rules as an important step in North Carolina's Water Supply Watershed Protection Responsibility for the health of all its citizens. North Carolina must orotect .•;atsr �uallty now while there 1s still Quality Water to Drotect. Nargavet U. Holton, Director .eater /Air in natural Resources LINVoters of North Carolina STATENIENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING CALLED IY:THE ORANGE COUNTY 130ARD OF COA4MISSIONERS, August 26, 1991. at the County Courthouse in Hillsborough, regarding PROPOSED STATE WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. IMPACT ON ISSUES 1990-92, WATER RESOURCES, The League supports: ' ��rf��e�l! cc�171/'n1s tn,nrnlc�Gi the qu:�llt►° c7lcurre�X anc�,nntenlf,�l t► Wirer su�?�lies, �nclua�n��rnzeclinn o/• rr 3tershedcJnr .rurl:�ce ,rub plies .end c7l reel�,�rk�e ::.peas l'c�!' ground- u :ter. The LeaguE of-Women Vote1,S of Chapel Hill and Carrboro thanks you for the opportunity to speak at this public hearing. The League of Women Voters, nationally, has been a strong advocate of `eater quality protection for more than three decades. Our position has been that the best, most effective and most economical means of maintaining drinking water quality is by protection at the sources of supply, Locally, the League has made statements on several occasions regarding the protection of University Lake watershed, including the public hearing (December 16, 19$7) of the Environmental Management Commission, regarding granting WS- -1 status to University, Lake as a source of drinking water and at the public meeting (February 2, 1989) called by the Division of Environmental Management, On August 15, 199 1, Margaret Holton spoke for the League of women Voters of North Carolina at a public hearing in Raleigh sponsored by the . nvironmental 1,Ianagement Commission. The position of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina is for T?TER SUPPLY P TEC" NT THAT P NT P r The local League supports: 1. The proposed WS-11 classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. We would favor the even more restrictive Critical Watershed designation for University Lake, due to its special vulnerability, as documented by the Camp Dresser and McKee Study and supported by stringent local actions taken by Carrboro and Orange County. It is importa::t that the presently strong University Lake protection not be weakened by future local actions. University Lake watershed must remain predominantely, undeveloped. 11 1 We support the rules on wastewater disdharges and limits on development densities, The most effective practice for highest water protection is loaf density of development particularly in S Ljylcal and 21nitc areas, (Stormwater flowing across impervious surfaces such as rooftops, parking lots and roads picks up pollutants that can result in serious impact on water quality, Buffer zones are also needed,to prevent damage from episodic events such as spills and extra heavy storm run -off,) 3. We support the new rules proposed for agriculture in WS -1 watersheds.and WS -II Critical Areas and the proposal that these rules apply thrnwgbnQt WS -II watersheds, not just in the WS -II Critical Areas. The League urges citizens to be a part of strong local action in helping develop watershed protection ordinances for the health and quality of life for everyone. We must protect Water Quality_ now while there is still OuaJity Water to Protect. Nancy S. Mueller Chair, Natural Resources LWV of CH /C Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.O. Box 366 Cartoro, NO 27510 (919) 96$ -4421 Comments to the Orange County Board of Commissioners And Orange County Planning Board Joint Public Hearing on Proposed State Watershed Classifications and Development Standards Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, North Carolina August 26, 1991 Good evening. I am Lois Herring, Chairman of the Orange Water- and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, and am speaking tonight on their behalf. Your agenda package includes a copy of OWASA's comments submitted to the EMC on August 15 as well as a resolution adopted by the Chapel Hill Town Council. We hope the County will support these recommendations in your own response to the environmental Management Commission. Given the vocal opposition expressed during the August 15 EMC public hearing, OWASA urges you to demonstrate Orange County's strong support for the overall package of reclassifications and regulations. We strongly disagree with those speakers who felt that "minimum standards" should be no more protective than the requirements for WS-1V watersheds. Orange County is blessed with high quality water. We believe the state standards should promote their protection, rather than deoradation. The future welfare and economy of Orange County will depend on preserving our water resources now. In particular, we ask you to support the proposed WS —II classification for the Cane Creek and University Lake watersheds, which provide the drinking water for more than 55,000 citizens in southern Orange County. We are disappointed that Alamance County has requested Cane Creek to be classified only as, WS —III. given with a WS —I1 desionation, there will be a relaxation of some e the present WS —I protection standards. An Equal Opporlunity Employer 14 Orange Water and Sewer Authority Comments to Orange County Commissioners and Planning Board August 26, 1991 Page 2 Both House Bill 156 and Section .0104(k) of the 'state regulations allow the EMC to "designate water supply watersheds or portions thereof as critical water supply watersheds and impose management requirements that are more stringent than the minimum statewide water supply . . . requirements." In order to preserve the status.of University Lake, both OWASA and Chapel Hill have asked the EMC to designate University Lake as a Critical Water Supply Watershed, as provided by state statute and regulations. We believe that the 1969 Camp Dresser and McKee report and the stringent zoning and subdivision requirements adopted last year by Orange County and Carrboro solidly document University Lake's need for protection that goes beyond the "statewide minimum." I am aware that Critical Water Supply Watershed designation is easily confused with the critical areas delineated around each water supply. Critical Water Suocly Watershed designation, as provided by state law, would reinforce the Camp Dresser McKee and Orange County recommendation that the entire University Lake watershed be treated as a critical area. Such designation by the EMC would help protect the currently strong University Lake program from future actions that might weaken it.. Similar protection may be needed for Cane Creek, depending in part on the findings of a special analysis that OWASA plans to sponsor during the 1992 -93 fiscal year. Although it's unlikely that the EMC will designate either University Lake or Cane Creek as Critical Watersheds until after completing the reclassification process and after reviewing our current local standards and ordinances, OWASA urges the County to support this request now in order, to emphasize to the EMC the importance that Dranoe County places on its water supplies. Retarding stream buffers around new development, you'll note tha: we asked the EMC to extend the 100 foot buffer requirement to all perennial and intermittent streams in WS -II watersheds shown on USGS topographic maps. , Present state rules apply only to Permanent streams. Although Orange County's and Carrboro's 15 Orange Water and Sewer Authority Comments to Orange County Commissioners and Planning Board August 26, 1991 Page 3 standards generally provide the protection we seek for all streams, the Chatham and Alamance County ordinances do not. Strengthening the statewide minimum would bring the Chatham and Alamance buffer requirements closer to those of Orange County. Although many developers represented by the North Carolina Homebuilders Association claim that the state regulations fail to control agricultural pollution, and many groups favor stricter control of farmers, OWASA believes that the most effective protection from agricultural pollution will come not through regulation, but through voluntary collaboration between farmers and utility providers. During the past six years, OWASA has reimbursed thousands of dollars to Orange County's many conservation minded farmers installing best management practices for cropland and animal waste. We plan to continue this assistance to these front line stewarCs of our watersheds. Nevertheless, OWASA supports the EMC's proposed. requirements governing certain agricultural practices in water supply watersheds. Furthermore, we believe that the rule requiring vegetated buffers of at least ten feet around all agricultural activities and requiring special BMPs for animal operations greater than 100 animal units should apply to perennial waters throughout WS —II watersheds, and not just within the one mile Critical Area. Watersheds such as University Lake and Cane Cree'� typically include agricultural activities that may be siun1fica7- pollution sources, and need to be regulated accordingly. Cattle manure does not belong in our drinking water supplies. OWASA will work cooperatively with Orange County's farmers to eliminate this pollution. OWASA appreciates the opportunity to provide input as you prepare Your comments to the Environmental Management Commission. Please feel free to contact our staff for any further information. v+A 3S ...D 1?ZG- LATICAS AND 32 V:-4SS1rICATIO\' 16 S TZEW 13.3 I'A�.,IDE HEARING - A'JC'J5T 1991 5,,,��rcres The Nor-.h Carolina 'KanaEemen. Commission and the ---- ----�- Orange Ccunty Board of" Commissioners will conduct hearings pursuant to H3 156 - the 1989 Watershed Protection Act. The ZMC is receiving comments about the proposed statewide reclassi- fication of water supply sources and changes to statewide minimum reculations adopted in Deoember, 1990. A public hearing was held August 15th in Raleigh; written comments will be accepted throuc.h October 31st: Steve Zoufaly; DEM, ?.0 - Box 29535; • Raleigh, N.C. 27626 . The Orange County Board of Commissioners will receive citizen comment regarding the County's response to the EMC during a public hearing scheduled for Monday, August 20, 7:30 pm, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough. " . ee support the proposed WS -II classification of University Lake and Cane Creek. watersheds. We support recognition of the entire University lake Watershed as a critical arm?, as documented by the CDMi study. Due to this lake's special vulnerability, such a statewide designation would help ensure that the presently strong University- Lame program is not weakened by local actions in the future. W° ask the Orange County Board of Commissioners to support these regu- lations and urge at they be included In the 3oard's comments to J i LA.'S I•v�. �J /�?' /, 1i�Y., 1, qi / - -� zg '�• cx,�.n...�. �;,bl tee. iL / �rtolr ti U J rKj S� 3.:Q I,, Cof L 1, I o-ak r l • (' J1 .-U p J � /G 17 4 RESOLUTION COI- MENTING ON PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONS F0 PROTECTING ATER SUPPLY.WkTERSHEDS VHERyA.S, the Council of the Town Of Chapel Hill requested on July 9, 1990 by Resolution 90- 7- 9/R--6 that the Env± ronental T'.nnagomer.t Co-,,-mission consider special standards for speacific watersheds; and �HERE,AS, the water supply rules adopted by the Environmental /Janagement Commission on December 13, 1990 include a provicion at 15 %YCAC ZB .0104 (Y.) which allows the Cor.=ission to designate critical !dater supply watershed %; 11410W, TFEREFORE, BE aT RESOLVED by the Council or the TawIn of Chapel 11 that the Council requests the Environmental Management Commission to: F Designate University Lake watershed as a Critical water supply watershed, with rec- =nendations regarding standards to be developed after discussions among the local governments involved; and 4, After completion of appropriate tech -,ical studies by the Orange (Pater and Sewar Authority (now tentatively scheduled for FY 1992- 93) , that the Com: ission consider designating Cane Creek watershed es a critical water supply watershed if supported by the conclusions of the study. -T'-.4s the Sth day of July, 1991. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES CENTER PESTicide Bucation project 115 West Main Street Carrborc, North Carolina 27510 Allen Spelt. Director John Link, Manager Orange County P.Q. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Watershed. Hearing Dear Mr. Link: '00�147 2 — -7/ Telephone: 919/967 -1886 August 19, 1991 Thank you for scheduling a hearing on the state's Proposed Watershed Classifications and Standards for August 26th. I will not be able to attend but wanted to submit some information for consideration by the commissioners and staff as comments are prepared by the county.. Enclosed please find a copy of comments submitted to the Environmental Management Commission ( EMC) on behalf of the non--profit Agricultural Resources Center and the citizens group Protect Our Water. We believe it is important for Orange County, which has done so much to protect its water supplies, to comment to the EMC on their proposed revisions to watershed protec-tion rules and on the proposed classifications for local watersheds. We are pleased that the county is planning to do so. We hope that the comments will offer strong support for the rules and for the classifications proposed for the county's watersheds. I understand that the deadline for comments has been extended by the state to October 31 , I would appreciate it if you would share this letter and these comments with the Commissioners. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there are any questions or if I can be of further assistano~. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Allen Spalt Director cc: Moses Carey, Chair, Board of Commissioners 19 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES CENTER 'RESTicide Mucation project 15 West Main Street Carrbara, North Carolina 21, S i O, 919/967 -1886 COMMENTS TO THE NORTH CAROLINA ENYIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES FOR SURFACE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS August 19, 1991 Please accept these comments by Alen Spalt, Director of the Agricultural Resources Center (ARC) and its PEST icide EDucstion project (PESTed), a private, non - profit public interest organization with offices in Carrboro and Raleigh which is particularly interested in the effects of agriculture on water quality. These comments are made on behalf of ARC /PESTed and Protect Our Water ( POW), citizens of Carrboro and Orange County concerned about watershed protection. Thank you for the opportunity to comment to the Environmental Management Commission ( EMC) on proposed amendments to rules for surface water supply watersheds [ I SA NCAC 28.0101, .0101,.0202,.02 1 1, &.03011 under House Bill 156 [GS 193- 219.5 -6). It is ayear since we testified in support of strong watershed protection standards before this commission. We were pleased that the EMC adopted rules in December, 1990 to carry out the mandate of 1-113-156 which offered significant protection to the state's surface water supplies. The EMC is to be commended for those rules. They are not overly burdensome and deserve a chance to operate. We are dismayed, however, that we must come back so soon asking you to maintain the rules which are now threatened by short - sighted pressure from special interest groups. The current rules are not perfect, but they are better in almost every respect than the proposed modifications. If anything, the rules should be strengthened, not relaxed. General Comment: The Division of Environmental Management's (DEM's) Public Information Package asked for comments, "on areas you would like to see remain the same or become more stringent as well as those that you feel should become more flexible." [p.3) P lease consider these comments a request for all areas not specifically addressed below "to stay the same or become more stringent." We do not oppose "flexibility "in principle, but we do oppose it where it is used as a euphemism for weakening need levels of protection. Specific Comments: The following comments are on specific changes as proposed: .0101 (c) Freshwater Classifications: We support the use of four classifications for freshwater water supply watersheds with a gradation of levels of protection ranging from WS- 1, for natural and undeveloped watersheds, to WS- IV, for generally moderately to highly developed ones. We reject totally the view that WS -II & I I I are unnecessary and /or too burdensome. It is completely appropriate for the EMC to adopt a hierarchical system with various levels of protection depending on the nature of the watershed, including its present level of development. EMC WATERSHED COMMENTS Page 2 20 Protection of water supplies through prevention of pollution at its source is much better, much cheaper, and much more certain than clean up or treatment after the fact. Just bemuse W5- IV waters are axpeptable to use and drink with appropriate treatment does not mean that all watersheds should be allowed to degrade to that level. .0104( c) Standard for Classification: The Commission should use the criteria of "highest and best use" for classification as originally proposed rather than the proposed "most appropriate" standard. .0104(1) Exemptions: Proposed changes in the this section give the EMC the power to grant exemptions to any section of the rules on a case -by -case basis for any reason. While exemptions may be necessary in certain cases, such sweeping power is unwise and runs counter to the goals for these rules. Criteria for considering exemptions should be retained, as in the current provision that varian&s are to assist in obtaining a higher classification. The exemption authority could be used as a reason for adopting a stricter set of rules, knowing that exemptions can be made upon a reasnable showing, rather than settling for the "lowest common denominator ". However, if this section is adopted as proposed, it is more likely that it will be seen as an open invitation for interests unhappy with even minimal restrictions on land use in the name of protecting water supplies. The ENC can expect a flood of politically motivated requests for exemptions. .0104( g) Agricultural Activities: As a basic principle of fairness, we believe that agricultural activities should be treated the same as other activities which have the potential for threatening surface water supplies. The proposed change., unnecessarily favor special agricultural interests and subject water supplies to unnecessary risk. It is unwise and inadequate to rely on existing conservation programs to assure protection of surface water. Conventional agriculture is a - -by some measures the - - leading contributor to non -point pollution despite substantial efforts to reduce runoff. Compliance with the 1985 and 1990 farm bills is important, but their provisions are not designed to protect water supply watersheds. It is, for example, folly to presume that such measures are sufficient for pristine WS -1 and predominantly undeveloped WS -II watersheds. Even when conservation plans are adequate, compliance and enforcement often are not. Some operators may be too small to be affected by farm bill provisions. And, as we noted last year, many conservation programs designed to reduce soil runoff involve substantial increased use of pesticides, especially herbicides, which put ground and surface water at risk. This is hardly a trade -off that the EMC should seek.. We wholeheartedly support the NC Agricultural Cast Share Program (ACSP) and encourage farmers to participate in it. It is, however, important to note its limitations. Despite great interest and support from the General Assembly, the program is voluntary, underfunded, and unable to serve all the farmers who seek to participate. in some areas it is essentially a demonstration program. "Encouraging" use in the program, which is all the proposed rules would require, is inadequate and does nothing to protect watersheds from those unable or unwilling to participate. Performance is what is needed. If the goal to protect water supplies is to be met, there must be stronger incentives than just "encouragement" for farmers in water supply watersheds to use effective BMP's: The rules should require demonstration that agricultural activities provide the equivalent protection of the 100 foot buffer which is required for other activities. If that can be achieved with a smaller buffer, and with cost - sharing, so much the better. We urge expansion of the cost -share program with an emphasis on the reduction of the use of ag chemicals which threaten water supplies. EMC WATERSHED COMMENTS Page 3 21 We support the establishment of a buffer for agricultural activities but believe that setting it at a mere 10 feet is grossly inadequate. The rules should require a nominal 100 fool buffer, the same as for other activities, with the provision that it can be reduced in practice by the use of BMP's which provide an equivalent level of protection. The proposal for only a ten foot buffer, besides perpetuating the appearance of special provisions for agriculture, increases pressures for other interests to seek, reduced buffers thereby further diluting needed protection. The proposal to require BMP's only for 'animal operations with more than 100 animal units" is also inadequate. BMP's should be. required for all animal operations in water supply watersheds. Many small operations add up to es big a problem as one larger one, and controls for small operations need not be extensive or expensive. The ACSP may also provide some assistance. We believe the process for developing the proposed changes for agricultural operations was seriously flawed. D6M's Public Information Package states that, because of comments received at last year's hearing, "the EMC instructed) the DEM staff to review [agricultural) activities and conduct meetings with representatives from [ agricultural] groups to discuss possible protection measures -" [p. 9] Whatever review and meetings took place, the process,Nas selective at best. ARC, among other agricultural groups, was not informed, contacted, consulted, or invited to any meetings on the subject despite the fact that we have expressed concerns about the impact of agricultural operations, testified at last year's hearings, and submitted written comments on the subject a year ago. .0 l 01(j ) Cooper- "'on Among Jurisdictions: This section provides encouragement for cooperative efforts among jurisdictions to protect water- supplies. Since it is common for water supplies for one community to be located in the jurisdiction of another, such action is much needed to be commended. However, the proposed rules inappropriately stop neighborliness at the state's borders. Classification of waters where the downstream users are out state are to be downgraded so as of to not interfere with development within North Carolina. [ Public Information Packet, p. 5.) Being good neighbors should apply as much to folio out of state as' it does to those in adjacent watersheM within NC. Or have we determined that we don't need "foreigners" cooper -ation to protect any of our water supplies? .0104( n) Road Constructi ^n: The proposed rules take a step forward in requiring the Department of Transportation ( DOT) to follow best management practices. However, BMP's as developed by DOT in its "Water Supply Watershed Best Manaosment Practices" dxument are. inad°quate. They do not, for example, require such obvious practices as limitations on applications of pesticides, including herbicides, in regulated watersheds. Use of these chemicals, many of which are known water contaminants, is inconsistent with water supply watersheds. Regulation of fertilizers to prevent excessive nutrification from runoff is also needsd. Construction of new or expanded roads and bridges in critical watersheds has important water quality consequences. The EPiC should require an environmental review for all such construction in regulated watersheds as many, includino ARC and the Triangle J Council of Governments (CO3), recommended last year. The purpose such assessments is to ensure that all reasonable alternatives and consequences are considered and to allow a more informed public debate for the benefit of decision makers. .0104( s) Existing Development: The definition of "existing development" is too broad. it should not include all "projects with a recorded plat or areas zoned" by the date of these hearings. 22 EMC WATERSHED COMMENTS Page 4 .0101( u) Forestry Activities: Forestry activities should be subject to the same type of requirements and equivalent buffers as other activities with the potential to threaten water supplies. They should not be permitted in WS -I and severely restricted in critical areas of other watersheds. Following the NC Forest Practice Guidelines, as the draft proposal would require, is a step forward and should provide substantial protection to water supplies and partially remove the forestry exemption from the state's sedimentation laws. We applaud the efforts of the NC Division of Forest Resources and the NC Forestry Association in cooperating to develop and implement the Forest Practice.Guidelines. It is important, however, to recognize their limitations. The standards only apply to tree harvesting not to other forestry operations, including land clearing and pesticide applications, and need substantial increased financial support for technical assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement. As with the case of agricultural operations, the new House Bill 124, which prohibited localities rrom regulating forestry activities more strictly than the state, clearly intended for the state to take sufficient action protect water supplies. The EMC should do so. ..0202( 1 1) Critical Areas: The rules should retain the one mile limit for defining critical areas. The EMC is to be commended for accepting one mile, instead of the original proposal for one -half mile, in the adapted rules. Any less would be inadequate. Engineering studies show that even 1 mile is not enough for some important watersheds.. .0202( 39) Protected Area: The existing 5 and 10 mile limits should be retained. Boundaries should follow ridge lines and natural watershed boundaries to the greatest extent possible. Substituting, "major landmarks such as highways or property lines" for, natural boundaries should be the exception granted only after a clear demonstration of need. .021 1( d) ( 3) ( B )( if ) ( I I ) BMP's in Critical Areas: The existing section with this designation, which prohibits engineered storm water controls in critical areas of WS -I I watersheds, should be retained. Intensive development, including cluster development, which requires structural BMP's is inappropriate in critical areas of WS - II water supply watersheds. .021 l (d)(3)(B)(i)(Y) Maintenance of BMP's: Because operation and maintenance of engineered storm water controls is so important, and because the track record of private owners of such facilities is so poor, public inspection and maintenance of such BMP's are critical to protecting water supply watersheds from adverse effects of development. Public ownership would provide an even greater margin of safety. This section and similar ones for WS -III & IY should be maintained and strengthened. Alternative Community Sewage Systems: The performance record of community waste water treatment systems is so poor that they should not be allowed in water supply watersheds. The economics of such systems does not allow sufficient supervision and maintenance to achieve acceptable routine performance. The state, despite its best efforts, is unable to monitor and 'inspect such systems often enough to ensure compliance -- inspections average only once in 5 years! The risk of failure poses too great a risk to public water supplies to be consistent with their use Community systems should be prohibited in WS - II watersheds. Landfills: Landfills should not be allowed in WS -11 watersheds. They are not compatible with the need5d level of protection of public health and safety. Sludge Applications: The use of sludge is inappropriate in high quality watersheds. Caution is required for the use of any sludge. Composition, quantity, and location of application sites are all critical to the appropriate use of sludge. Sludge applications should be prohibited in WS -1, 11 &111 watersheds. Controls on the composition, quantity and location should be required. 23 EMC WATERSHED COMMENTS page 5 Water and Sewer Lines:. The history of intensive development is the history of extension of utilities. The only sure way to permanently control the extent of development in water supply watersheds is to limit the extension of water and sewer lines. Sewer lines should not be allowed in the critical area of W5 -II watersheds. Carrboro has developed what might serve as a model policy on the extension of utilities consistent with the protection of water supplies. It addresses questions of the sizing of lines, location in relation to existing service and sensitive areas, and only allows extensions to relieve an existing public health emergency. Classification of Watersheds: We support the classification of watersheds according to their highest and best use. In particular, we support classification of University Lake and Cane Creel, Reservoirs in Orange County as proposed W5 -11. ( Though we regret the unnecessary loss of their old W5 -1 classifications, an actual and psychological downgrading.) We note the special character of rlorgan Creek, which requires protection as a unique Piedmont resource. We support classification of Lake I'lichie and other Durham wate, sheds as WS -II. We support classification of Falls Lake as W5 -I11- We support classification of the whole of Jordan Leke as WS -IV. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Agricultural Resources Center, PESTicide EDucalion project, and Protect Our Water support the Environmental Ilanaoemenl Commission's efforts to implement the worthy goals of House Bill 156 thorough the adoption of the strongest possible watershed protection rules. We applaud the efforts to date in adopting good regulations; they need time to work and to prove themselves. We regret the need to revisit the watershed regulations adopted so recently and strongly urge the Commission to resist pressures to significantly weaken levels of protection in the current rules. There is always room for adjustment, and there are places where the rules need to be strengthened, but this is no time to begin to dismantle them. We urge the E11C to hold fast to high standards for each of the four levels of watershed protection proposed. The Commission's job has been made more difficult by the combination of hearinos on the nature of each of classification together with particular classifications for each watershed. Opposition to a proposed classification may result in calls to weaken standards for an entire classification. We uroe you to resist such pressure in the name of protecting the public health and safety by assuring clean water, Diluting protection for all watersheds in a classification in order to deal with complaints about a particular one would be a poor trade -off. Prevention of pollution through strong watershed protection is by far the best, and cheapest, long -term policy for North Carolina. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. AS. rev.8.19.91 SS° -13 -1991 16 15 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISS:ONERS TO ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE ENO! IMCORPOZATED Orange and Durham Counties, North Carolina 7010 Thunder Mountain, Efland, N. C. 27243 Moses Carey, Chair Orange County Commissioners 3000 W. Tryon Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: PLANNING P. 01 24 77 t SE i� P 1 31991 VALLEY The Eno River Assocation thanks the Orange County Commissioners for the measures taken In Orange County to secure the -hsatth and welfare of its citizens through the careful protection of the County's water and natural resources. At this time of reclassification of the State's drinking water resources through House Bill 156, the Eno River Association writes to support the designation of the Eno River from the emergency raw water intake at the Nello Teer Quarry in Durham County to Lawrence Road (SR1561) in Orange County as WS -IV B. Currently only the one and a half mile length of river that lies between Roxboro Road (SR 501) and Guess Road (SR 1003) in the City of Durham's Eno River parklands is suggested for a WS -IV B designation. The Association believes that the added protection given to swimmable waters against point source pollution by the B designation should be extended to the entire length of the Eno River parklands, both to the Eno River State Park in Orange and Durham Counties and to the City of Durham's West Point on the Eno.. We believe that the primary classification WS -IV and the supplemental classification g will give the Eno River parklands the maximum protection afforded by the present reclassifications proposed through House Bill 156, It is our understanding that Terry Rolan, Director of Water Resources for the City of Durham, wishes to retain the Nello Teer Quarry as an emergency raw water intake for flood- skimming from the Eno so that a back -up water supply can be stored utilizing the combined waters of Little and Lake Michie in the Nelio Teer Quarry after the turn of the century. We applaud this long -range thinking, with its regional implications for Durham acid Orange. - - With this understanding we seek the support of the Orange County Commissioners for a "run -of- the - river^ WS -iV B designation from the Nello Teer Quarry in Durham County to Lawrence Road In Orange. We thank you for your consideration. Y�o � �rs sincerely 7, 2e ry- Donald N. Cox President cc. Orange County Commissioners Terry Rolan, Director, Durham City Water Resources Paul Norby, Head, Durham City Planning Dr. Phil McKnelly, Director, Divison of Parks and Recreation,EHNR Susan Tillotson, Suptd., Eno River State Park Organized in 1965, and incorporated in 1975 as a tax - exempt, non- profit Corporation to assist federal, state and local agencies to establish public parks along the 'Eno River Valley, to'prosnote the preservation of the Eno through educational and scientific means, and to cooperate with other local, state and national conservation groups to preserve the environment. Urctly C CGutl �� Cr�xt'l� e C:GUt1L�, C/ C) Ml:. Da V 1Ci G ariy k~ C:oun1 y P.O. FAUX siol hilisborouyh, I.L. 7, Lox 552 I:' 1i51- ver�L:EIZOLr 13, 1J'J1 Lc-,a�d cf Ccnu,lisswcnuz -, alid La�arinLng boara S tc.nL.LI Planning Depar-LI/1eIii LdC- f-/2` 8 Dea 4 C:Or[ mi:3.4. icin,@eL (Jx &,aid merL L—L . a 11 tl +l L; UULC,Li�11 U11 ilUCjl::T t LE,., - i1LL1,:rldUd the ilUb, C: ilErar _11 j tJ t;Eltllu C:or1G114n '-• Carl L.11U LJl70J1U':e6 `,L_,LU VJU1~a.LS -1UCI C1Ci;b�LiUciL1U1_� clliCl C{cve Girll)Utl� ��.and�lz us• lil LhC C1 ,CUSsicn� ciux..ri,� file :li :s1 _ii:3 ruul.l__o :i W,L, rlaluc scvt:r:ui timl:lr GL a VC e1- atiVC: b ui.L c:L aioln aLrCrllil: �G 11Cip rlUVtrllt Wuit;1 C1Lia�j,Ly aeyrai'A- L-La.. C, UL: L.0 clyL- C.;Ui- LL.rc.L 3L�1ViL.�ES Ul? Lhe uG _)U_ -n }i: Lurid- �. rlU1Tu)-t C.'i C1lie 0 1 1 ,AbOL1L rSl cal :, buiLer were: rctl::UU, ul:�U119 thC:111 -por- Lill: jJIGmGLlil.j wCilt= Y L.Lud.,l'Ly, whaL yGUd is a l e:je1,$tiv(-- lUr1� a wc�CCi 7 CC) UZ:,t.:' „ U.IU (iL lt' ., Ljood 10l Lwat,�--.L C uR -Lity) , how w.Lde sliouId It bG'? Tile uL” CiiuileCl cirLiCiCi "]:itcit—il,' i)y Dr GtAor,.1C CUiirLarlLL , lsEe Item 1), addresses tizt:,e: Klutal�Uil�; clllCi 1 uIil serldir;) 1L. wain LIAu hope; L_hat a L wlli bE of Orr;E iniGi_IfiatlGrl iii you.: del- iuera•i_ionb oll to - pLcpu ea sta-e water supply Vic:tel- slled ,t anda-ds. �Pl4ase l -u ..e �r;L.EC��l1ly ,ayes 2, 3 Lr1C 4 cf Lna� 1 would like: �-o add fu,- your �r:iozrla�ivrl : -haL i an a rner,>b1 c-, f and CoI- S.ervation Chart for) the Ldec-. Hope A1..dubon Chapter "ViliCn hug m mbG, s (5or<le 12U'u) '_r- O::&n. e, Durham, and lioi 4hern Cnatilam CcUf1t -L' es. • i am ai- :,o a mGraber or the Fi ierids L -1 the i -ew 11c,; L Creel: a peC_ai project C-;i Lne ire -ang lE Land Con i ervaricy . Du�'irlg the iac L year i and L rlu7tu el: of utaers Bern both tine 1bcJvL- groups. (Audubon and Friends or tilt: I.C:w Hole) have been active Sri U S Ll: ealli Wa tcn pro f t:c, Uri New ::Cite (:l:'ELri • i'i11S rias _iIVU V CU monthly LhGmicui and b1�1 G�iLui water Auality 111014-L LCJl•'_C1y pit -L WC) sites on the New hope. (One site is in Ora.hye County, aL. tilt: Erwin Rd. cress.Lnq ; and the o�h(-r _s in Durnanl County, at lne Ci(:a Chapel Hill Rd . crossing.) We do realize that New Hope Creel- not presently de.�ignaLed as a water supply Watershed. However, we au cc:re ubol-L WEItL-r c�ucliity, ar:a wt-: aupport yuur effu�ts erlsure ;.hat our area waters eitne dG conr_J nue a be clean, o- will become so N0'% -e Lhere is a connection between our SczEan Watuh aCLiV>_t-Le:, and the (Item 1) a -tiC-e by Dr Geoxye Constantz_ Di . Coiistal.t� gave a taik sponsored by the F'i•ieiAds cJf the Jvuvj hope on a River? How Do We Preserve it ?,, at t'ne New Home Voluritee,- Fire Dept. or1 UnitfJ.e -d Rd. i i i !`lurch c.;i ;.his year.• . See item 2 az -- 4aciled w;1���1 anl'iQLl1Cer1 that evenL and mLnLiontci Dr. CUna 4antL' baci:yrouncl. See alsa-- Item 3 attached %:n --c:n includes -a sumlrtary k "how to PiG_ect a SLicam" I of tht! tall; repcvr4trd in the fli:"-ir Issue off: t1lC F'Llellds Ot Lnt: New HcPe r,cwslette>_. NUte eSjJeCially lt4n rluzil�er a 11-4, _hat Summary. 'i:1a11� i UIlC:c1''S'tai7C] that WC- zten camrnt_,1� •w>_11 ue i eL4ived L:IICU,:y11 Lrlt r-Lll of tl"11S iilbili�n card am tl' u,,: e rildte�Ials wl -z�n tnIS _.11 rL4.Lnd . lr you nave any LluustiL:n- , ple:asc dorl t nes�,.1La•Lt. LL• Cdll. IaE :t . Tz1ar11: rou zc, your cu1.:�ldeiciL] Uzl . Since;. E- -L y , M �:ili:ili , CC111..it.:VutJ . lrr1 C:JCiUilILCeE: NGw HUL c Nc1t:iUllai Audu'i tin Society uilCi SL1CuIii 6r'ar.Ch CiiC.lL:�� Ct�11�uC:L L'L1e11Ctn Ci t1lu IvCw hopu Tr_any 1r- Laii6 Conn el: valley item I acapon PUBLISHED BY PINE CABIN RUN ECOLOGICAL LABORATORY d by George Constaniz riparia (ri per' a a) n. pl. new word; terrestrial ecosystems along water courses; s. riparium. In my opinion, excessive silt is the most damaging current environmental insult to the Cacapon River. If the River were to get mud- dier, the numbers and kinds of insects and fishes that live and lay eggs on the bottom would dwindle (Berkman and Rabeni 1987). 27 Summer 1990 Vol. 2, No. 3 Smallmouth bass and rock bass, and the in- sects they eat, will decline, whereas carp and mud will increase. The River will also get a lot uglier. Failing (= slumping) riverbanks are major sources of this silt. The most effective measure we can take to reverse this degrada- tion is to enhance the Cacapon's riparia. Therefore, we dedicate this issue to the Ca- capon's riparia, their structure, function, abuse, and husbandry. Ecological Importance of R.iparia What is a riparium? As the above defini- tion states, "riparium" is my word for the ter- restrial ecosystem found along a river. I prefer this term because "riparian ecosystem ", "riparian corridor ", and other widely used phrases are more cumbersome. r\ - A typical Cacapon riparium might include alluvial soil, log jams, various ferns, virginia bluebell, spicebush, red osier dogwood, black willow, tulip poplar, silver maple, sycamore, paw paw, river birch, American elm, beaver, wood duck, wood turtle, northern water snake, cedar waxwing, red -eyed vireo, Louisiana water thrush, and belted kingfisher (See Ca- capon vol. 2, no. 2). In essence, a riparium is the entire riverside ecosystem, including soil, plants, and animals, whose presence or char- acteristics is determined by the nearby main- stream. Three views of paw paw, a common riparian plant along the lower half of the Cacapon. 2 28 If you have spent any time sitting on the Riparia export animals to upland areas. Riverbank wondering how tihe whole thing Doyle (1990) suggested that riparia act as works, you have probably arrived at an intu -,... sources of mammalian species, while uplands itive feeling for the importance of riparia. In-.: act as dispersal sinks. Sinks are marginal this section, I briefly discuss seven scientific'' areas to which surplus individuals disperse, reasons why riparia are crucial to the Ca-.-' and where survival and reproduction are capon's health. c : poorer than in high - quality habitats. First, the roots of riparian plants hold soil Fifth, riparia serve ,as corridors for disper- particles. Streamflow velocity increases on. thee, sal. As the forest of the Cacapon River basin outside of a bend, increasing the drag on the­: more fragmented into isolated wood - streambank caused by passing water.(Kunzig _lots, riverside greenbelts will hold together 1989). Thus, all streambanks erode, even in':077 these biological islands, allowing movement pristine forests (Wehnes 1989). Man - caused,`' 'of living things among patches and consequent accelerated streambank erosion, however,:,.. outbreeding, and promoting the recolonization adds excessive silt, which degrades the River F, of patches that have lost their original natural (Turner and Speas 1988). :'.. populations (Hunt 1988). Second, riparian trees contribute to the Ca- c,;. :.. - ...Sixth, riparia contribute to the health of the capon's fishery. Trees shade the water, keep. : floodplain. An intact streamside plant com- ing it cool; they topple into the river, providing munity slows flood waters, allowing silt to cover; and they create overhangs, which are yet:;. , precipitate and enrich the floodplain (Naiman another kind of cover site (Hunt 1988).. et al. 1988). During extreme flood, streamside trees buffer bottomlands from scour and gravel Third, stream ecosystems receive much of deposits (Wehnes 1989). their energy from riparia. Leaves and twigs,,, from streamside plants fall into the River:. And seventh, and to me most important, ri- This organic debris is the food for many types" -. paria play crucial roles in maintaining .the of aquatic insects which -in turn - nourish -f`ish ` Cacapon's high water quality. Riparia fulfill and birds. Bacteria and fungi break this plant this crucial function by, removing excess sed- material into even smaller particles (Kundt iment, nutrients, and other pollutants from 1988). Because of the dependence of aquatic in -;'' water running off the land (Naiman et al. sects on terrestrial plants, the insect species in :, 1988). In one study, riparian galleries reduced the Cacapon may actually reflect the`;`. sediment entering a river by.94 %. characteristics of the riparian vegetation more than the River's mainstream _features... How do riparia neutralize the pollution (Petersen et al. 1987). ;. ,:�:.;,� carried by run -oO. Sediment particles precipi- . tate as the water is slowed by the greenbelt Fourth, riparia serve as wildlife refuges. (Hunt 1988). Nutrients, which would cause There are more individuals and a greater di- blooms of nuisance plants, are also removed. versity of species along the Cacapon than else- For example, phosphorus, carried by sediment where throughout our basin. One reason for in surface run -off (Peterson et al. 1987), is this is that riparia are ecotones, a type of ecolog- trapped by the forest. Nitrogen, on the other ical community bordering two different com- hand, which is primarily carried in the munities. Ecotones support more species than, groundwater, is retained within the riparium's either adjacent habitat because, in addition to soil, where it is denitrified and contributes to attracting species typical of each habitat, eco- the growth of riparian plants (Peterson et al. tones host organisms that require both. Farm- 1987, Kundt 1988). stead shelterbelts, another type of ecotone, also show a high species diversity (Yahner 1983). Hill and Warwick (1987) provided a spe- �r,ar,gpl2ZI is published quarterly, with the arrival of each equinox and solstice, by Pine Cabin Run Ecological Laboratory, Route 1, Box 469, High View, WV 26808; (304) 856 -3911. Nancy Ailes, George Constantz, Jane Licata, James Matheson and Willard Wirtz; ,fit Dr. George Constantz, Laboratory Director; Nancy Ailes, Cacauon Editor; Zechnical Advisors: Dr. Joe Calabrese, Dr. Stephen Freiwell, Dr. Robert Kahn, Charles Licata, J.D., Dr. Michael Masnik, Dr. Chris Sacchi. cific example of how a healthy riparium neu- tralizes pollution. They discovered that ripar- ian substrates quickly remove ammonium from springwater. They suggested that micro- bial activity, rather than adsorption, was the more likely cause of ammonium uptake. This example underscores why feedlots should be separated from streams by a riparian buffer strip. Factors that affect the efficiency of riparia to neutralize pollution in run -off include pol- lutant load, width of the buffer, slope, resis- tance to flow, infiltration capacity, vegetation species, and ability of the "soil to hold moisture (Peterson et a1. 1987, Phillips 1989a). 3 From a cost - benefit point of view, healthy riparia pay for themselves. In Sweden, the monetary value of nutrient retention by riparia equals the cost of building a water treatment plant, the cost in agricultural produce, or the going rate for land as farmland (Peterson et al. 1987). In summary, riparia are ecologically im- portant because they reduce riverbank erosion, enhance fish habitat, contribute nutrients and energy to the stream, serve as wildlife refuges, provide dispersal corridors, promote fertility of the floodplain, and safeguard the water quality of the River's mainstream. And yet these valu- able ecosystems need help. Riparia Under Siege In the early 1900's, Appalachia's riparia were being raped, causing streams to be un- dercut and to fill with silt (Glenn 1911). Large - scale changes of native riparian vegetation were largely complete by the 1930's (Petersen et al. 1987). Of America's 123 million riparian acres within the 100 -year floodplain, only about 23 million remain now in semi- natural con- dition (Hunt 1988). Compared to other rivers in the mid -At- lantic region, the Cacapon's riparia are in fair shape, but they could still use more protection and rehabilitation. Local threats include all - terrain vehicles, logging, land development, and cattle herds. Ideal Riparia Riparia should be wide enough to filter and ameliorate run -off, as I described above. Rec- ommended widths vary from 25 to 250 feet (Jones and Battaglia 1986, Kundt 1988, Wehnes 1989, Phillips 1989, Gore and Bryant undated). Considering this variation (mean = 104 ft., range = 25 -250 feet), and the Cacapon's soil and slope characteristics, I recommend 100 feet as a general width for initial consideration, to be adjusted according to local circumstances. I am currently counseling .two land developers along the Cacapon to meet this goal. In addition to having a minimum width, a riparium should contain no buildings, mini- mal bank erosion, no failing banks, and a natural riparian plant community that in- cludes trees, shrubs, and thick leaf litter (Jones and Battaglia 1986, Wehnes 1989). Aerial view of a rlparium that is too thin for optimal river protection.... but better than nothing. a �•s: y�w1 14. v%, : -- .`err `fir PIZ 4 Husbanding Riparia By promoting ideal riparia, we have the power to ultimately determine the quality ofour River. What can we do to promote the Ca- capon's riparia? First, stabilize failing and rapidly eroding streambanks. Depending on the nature of the problem, the solution may be simple (= inex- pensive). or complex (= expensive) (Jones and Battaglia 1986, Keown 1983). Available meth- ods include vegetation plantings, bank shap -; ing, mats of used tires, stone riprap, gabions (wire baskets filled with ''rocks), and combina- , tions of these and other techniques. Consult ex- perts at the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, WV , University Extension Service, WV Div. Forestry, or WV Div. Wildlife Resources. For erosion problems that are correctable with tree plantings, Lorenz et al. (1989) suggest three varieties appropriate for the Cacapon River area: 'streamco' purpleosier willow (Salix purpurea), 'Bankers' dwarf. willow (Salix cottei), and 'ruby' redosier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera). - Second, avoid disturbing the soil and plants within the riparium. Keep vehicles, soil fill, dumps, and buildings out of the floodplain. Roads and buildings should be separated from the River by a riparium. And third, the most important step we can take toward improving riparia, indeed towards aiding the overall health of today's Cacapon River, is to exclude cattle herds from riverbanks. Cows trample plants, loosen bank soil, and wallow in the stream. Further, cattle add sewage pollution: on average, a single cow produces as much sewage as ten humans (Turner and Sepas 1988). Thus, the effect of a 100 -head herd is equivalent to 4 -5 Capon Bridges discharging sewage directly into the River. I am not suggesting that we stay completely out of the Cacapon's riparia. For example, cat- tle may access the River in small areas stabi- lized by stone or bedrock. The corridor may be selectively cut (Wehnes 1989), but trees whose roots hold the bank together must be spared. The Effects of Dams on Riparia A flood - control dam, such as the one pro- posed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for Kimsey Run in the Lost River valley (See Ca- capon vol: 1, no. 4.) is designed to dampen floods. It will also trap silt. However, healthy riparia are products of water and silt supplied in pulses that ap- proximate the rhythms of natural streams (Hunt 1988). Both the timing and amount of flow are crucial. As floods are controlled, the riparian plant community changes from a system influenced by seasonal flooding to a primarily terrestrial forest (Neiman et al. 1989). For example, riparian trees that depend on a springtime' deposit of silt for seedling es- tablishment will not regenerate (Hunt 1988). If the Cacapon's flow were to become more even through the year, the riparian plant com- munity would change from a pioneer forest determined by changing flood regimes, to more of an oak hardwood forest, typical of pure terrestrial habitats. Such a change in plant species would lessen 'a riparium's capacity to filter run -off from uplands to the River. In order to preserve the Cacapon's riparian ecosystem, that unique natural association of soil, flora, and fauna that depends on periodic flooding, and that contributes so much to the health of the River, the Cacapon must have guaranteed in- stream flows. This is one of several reasons why Nancy and I are plain- tiffs in the Lost River Committee's legal suit to stop the construction of the Kimsey Run dam. Conclusion Although the entire Cacapon River basin is the ultimate unit of ecological preservation, we can begin the task by focusing on riparia as the most crucial immediate priority. This is why I 041 am supportive of the Cacapon/Lost Rivers Land Trust, an embryonic organization dedicated to preserving the Cacapon's riparia. .}. �r� �.�p`„� � f._.4e�.�,¢.- 15 r� n�;a•rJ:.C. �JJ�ti G'A'L 31 5 You've known all along that - groves of paria are vital to the health of _the Cacapon trees, walls of wildflowers, and songs of birds River's flowing mainstream. are rich beside the free - flowing Cacapon. And now I hope this article has helped you under - What will you do to insure that healthy ri- stand some of the scientific reasons why ri- paria remain part of our Cacapon heritage? RefereDees Berkman, H.E., and C.F. Rabeni. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. Env. Biol. Fishes 18: 285 - 294. Doyle, A.T. 1994. Use of riparian and upland habitats by small mammals. J. Mamm. 71:14-23. Glenn. L.C. 1911, Denudation and erosion in the southern Appalachian region and the Monongahela basin. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 72.37 p. Gore, JA, and F.L. Bryant. Undated. River and stream restoration. In: J. Cairns (ed.), Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems, vol. 1: 23-38. Hill, A-R., and J. Warwick. 1987. Ammonium transformations in springwater within the riparian zone of a small woodland stream. Canad. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 44 :1948.1956. Hobbs, RJ., B.M.J. Hussey, and DA Saunders. 1990. Nature conservation: the role of corridors. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer.: 48-49. Hunt, C.E. 1988. Down by the river. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 266 p. Jones, D., and M. Battaglia. 1986. A streambank stabilization and management guide for Pennsylvania landown- ers. Div. Scenic River, Penna. Dept. Envtl. Resources, Harrisburg, PA. 79 p. Keown, M.P. 1983. Streambank protection guidelines. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 60 p. Kundt, J.F. 1988. Streamside forests; the vital, beneficial resource. Univ. Maryland Coop. Ext. Serv., College Park, MD. 16 p. _Kunzig. R. 1989. Wandering river. Discover (Nov.): 69 -71. Lorenz, D.G., W.0 Sharp, and J.D. Rufrner, 1989. Conservation plants for the northeast. Soil Conservation Ser- vice, U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Program 1154.43 p. Naiman, RJ., H. Decamps, J. Pastor, and CA. Johnston. 1988. The potential importance of boundaries to n uvtal ecosystems. J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7:289-306. Petersen, R.C., Jr., 1987. Stream management; emerging global similarities. Ambio 16:166-179. Phillips, J.D. 1989a. An evaluation of the factors determining the effectiveness of water quality buffer zones. J. Hydrol. 107: 133 -145. Phillips, J.D. 1989b. Evaluation of North Carolina's estuarine shoreline area of environmental concern from a water quality perspective. Coastal Management 17: 103 -117. Pringle, C.M., R.J. Naiman, G. Bretschko, J.R. Karr, M.W. Oswold, J.R. Webster, R.L. Welcomme, and MJ. Win - terbourn. 1988. Patch dynamics in lotic systems: the stream as a mosaic. J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7: 503 -524. Turner, W., and C.C. Speas. 1988. What do you know about streams? Missouri Conservationist (Mar): 25 -28. Wehnes, R.E. 1989. "A creek runs through part of the farm ..." Missouri Conservationist (Jan): 13 -14. Yahner, R.H. 1983. Seasonal dynamics, habitat relationships, and management of avifauna in farmstead shelter - belts. J. Wildl. Manage. 47: 85 -104. 32 -.- YOU ARE INVITED TO THE ANNUAL SPRING GATHERING OF FRIENDS OF THE NEW HOPE (A group working to implement the "Open Space Plan for Durham and Orange Counties ": a plan for the New Hope River system.) 10:30 a.m. GUEST SPEAKER WHAT IS A RIVER? HOW DO WE PRESERVE IT? Our guest speaker, Dr, George Constantz, will describe the structure and function of a river from an ecological perspective and will suggest ways to protect the health of a river system. He has been working on the Lost River and Cacapon River in West Virginia for the last six years. Dr. Constantz is Director of the Pine Cabin Run Ecological Laboratory. 12 :00 Noon PICNIC LUNCH Bring a bag lunch; get to know your neighbors! Punch provided. 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. HIKES ALONG THE CREEK Including a "Stream Watch" (water monitoring) demonstration. SATURDAY, MARCH 30 19 9 z at the New Hope Volunteer. Firehouse on Whitfield Road on the north side of Whitfield, 2.2 miles east of Airport Road 1.3 miles west of Erwin Road For further information; call Gary Evans (489 -5285) , Winnie Morgan (732 - 1524), or Hildegard Ryals (489- 5897). Item 3 Our Current Agenda At the most recent meeting of the Friends of The New Hope Steering Committee, a number of goals were adopted to serve as guide to our activities over the next year. This is our agenda: 1. Work to ensure that the four jurisdictions adopt the Open Space Master Plan as official policy. Judging from recent events in Orange county (landfill) and Durham county(Laurel Hill), this cannot be accomplished too soon. 2. Expedite the establishment of a permanent Advisory Committee which can guide the jurisdictions in their execution of the Open Space Master Plan. 3. Push for conversion of the old sewage treatment plant on 15.501 into a city park as described in the Master Plan. 4. Push for purchase of land along Sandy Creex as described in the Master Plan. 5. Extend the Stream Watch program. There is the potential for 3 groups to be operating in the New Hope Corridor by this time next year. 6. Use the new video of The. New Hope to educate the Durham and Orange county communities on the history, value and promise of the stream. 7. Set up a phone tree that can be used to mobilize individuals quickly when needed. $. Establish Eyes and Ears, individuals who will watch for activities or plans on the part of governments or individuals that could impact on The New Hope. 9. Establish a library of all planning documents, reports, maps and other material pertinent to making the Open Space Master Plan a reality. This library will be maintained in the TLC office in Research Triangle Park, where it will be readily acces- sible. In addition, we should all promote discussion of a better vision for the Triangle, one which, though recognizing the need for development, insists that the inherent aesthetic and ecological values ofrttral and natural areas be givena leading role, protected by local government. This is a very ambitious set of goals. If we are to meet them, we will need active participation by a lot of people. Please look over the list of committees to your left and call the contact person for the one that best fits you. How to Protect a Stream Friends of the New Hope held its Annual Spring Gathering on March 30, 1991, at the Mldtfield Road Community Center. Over 60 people attended the morning session which featured Dr. George Constants as guest speaker. Dr. Constantz, an ecologist visiting from West Virginia, spoke about the preservation of river systems. Using his experience with the North and CacaponRivers, Dr. Constantz described those features of any river that require special attention. The take home message: 1. Protect the banks! Keep a tree buffer of at least 100 feet j on either side of the stream for its entire length eliminate motor vehicle access to the stream. Cover exposed banks with plants and trees This prevents silt build -up that can threaten the whole aquatic food chain. 2. Protect the water! Eliminate livestock actress to the stream. Monitor the output from sewage treatment plants. This helps keep the e.coli count to a minimum. 3. Meet the landowners! A stream can only be preserved with the cooperation of those who own the land adjacent to it. Join with the landowners to teach local governments the true value (beyond real estate) of the stream. After a brown bag picnic lunch, several of the participants took advantage of a break in the weather to hike along the stream as it runs though Duke Forest. Interpretation was provided by David Cook Others observed a Stream Watch sponsored by the New Hope Audobon Society. A fall gathering is planned, although theme and location are yet to be decided. If you would like to participate in the planning, call Gary Evans at 489 -5285 after 8:30 p.m. The NEW HOPE VIDEO IS HERE! The long awaited New Hope Creek video is now available at local libraries or from members of the Steering Committee. Producedby NaturVision ofRaleigh, the twelve minute cassette is narrated by well-known author Reynolds Price, and features local music by Dulcimer Dan, the Badgett sisters and Durham's Willie Trice. It tells the story of the creek as it flows southward from Orange county, through Duke forest, under the boulevard and I-40 until it reaches Jordan Lake. It tells the story of the long record of human settlement along the creek and gives a close -up view of the flora and fauna which thrive in this extrordinary MEMBERSHIP in the TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY ❑ $1000 Patron ❑ $100 Guarantor El S500 Benefactor ❑ $25 Contributor ❑ $50 Supporter ❑ $15 Subscriber Name Address Telephone (day) (Evening) Date Q Interest in the FRIENDS of THE NEW HOPE Checking the box above makes you a member of both the Friends and TLC 34 RECEIVED J u! 2A 1991 zil k-, July 22, 1991 Mr. Marvin Collins, AICP Planning Director Orange County Planning Department 306 F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Marvin: I'm sorry to be so long in responding to you concerning your July 3 letter. I've just come back from vacation, and the last few days I have become more informed about the issue you asked about. We were not aware until the last couple of weeks that the Eno River basin would have State watershed rules applied to it. To add to the confusion, my understanding of all the different things you described about the emergency intake, the raw water lines, the quarry, etc. suggests that they 1111 are true (not just the last understanding you had). The raw water lines from Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir intersect with the emergency raw water intake on the Eno. Any or all of those intakes could be used to supply our treatment plant. Also, .plans have been in existence for some time to use the nearby quarry, once mining is completed, for water storage if necessary. Although our Director of Water Resources, Terry Rolan, expects that the combination of Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir will serve us well in the short run, he is very reluctant to abandon the option of using the Eno River intake in case of emergency, severe drought, or long term outstripping of the raw water capacity of both reservoirs before a third reservoir is on line. Therefore, the State applied the proposed watershed rules and water supply classification to the Eno River basin. The City is concerned about that, due to the possible impacts for development in a large portion of the northern section of the City and central Durham County. The City Council has asked for a report discussing the impact and implications of these regulations by mid - August, so it can decide whether it wants to comment to the Environmental Management Commission. We will be glad to send you a copy of that report once it is ready, since I'm sure your people may have similar concerns. 35 Mr. Marvin Collins July 22, 1991 Page 2 By copy of this letter, I am asking Terry Rolan to provide any further comment or information to you that he feels is appropriate, since he is more knowledgeable about the emergency intake and quarry use plans than I. Also, please feel free to communicate directly with him on any details I have described that still leave questions for you. I hope this lets you know a little bit more where things are here. I must say that we were surprised as well to realize that the Eno River basin would have these rules attached to them - our previous planning was for Falls, Jordan, Michie and Little River reservoir watersheds. Hopefully, things will clarify over the next few months. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely,. PPaul or by, AICP Planning Director APN /bd cc: Terry Rolan, Water Resources Director Keith Luck, Principal Planner Orville Powell, City Manager Paul Warren, Acting County Manager 9 -13 -91 3r> (9 -16 -91 CHANGES BY PLANNING BOARD SHOWN IN ITALIC) STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS Recommended Water Supply Watershed Classifications Back Creek Watershed: Recommend change to WS -3 Cane Creek Watershed: Agree with WS -2 Flat River: Agree with WS -2 Haw Creek: Recommend change to WS -3 (PB KEEPS WS2) Haw River: Agree with WS -4 South Hyco Creek: Recommend change to WS -3 Jordan Lake: Agree with WS -4. Little River: Agree with WS -2. University Lake: Agree with WS -2, also recommend (Morgan Creek) designation of CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW). Eno River Basin: Recommend separating the basin into three sub - basins. The "Upper Eno ", upstream of Corporation Lake (intake point 105.0) is recommended for WS -2 classification with one current water supply and two potential supplies. The "Middle Eno ", between Lake Ben Johnson (intake point 103.0) and Corporation Lake (including the Seven --Mile Creek basin) . is recommended for WS -3 classification. For the "Lower Eno" basin, staff recommends, pending final decisions by Durham, that the Eno emergency intake continue to be classified WS -4 for the 10- mile protected area only. If the City and County of Durham choose not to protect this intake as a future water source, or protect it in a different manner as proposed by Durham City- County staff, there would be no watershed protected area within Orange County. (PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS BUFFERS AS FIRST APPROACH) Summary: Upper Eno: WS -2 Middle Eno: WS -3 Lower Eno: WS -4 commends that completion of special watershed studies primary criterion for determining whether other qualify for CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW) STATUS. 37 COMMENTS RELATING TO WATERSHED RILES ISSUES OR DEFINITIONS 1. DEFINITION OF "CRITICAL AREA" Staff feels that the best methodology to determine the true geographic area critical to protecting water supplies is the concept of stream "travel time" for pollutants to reach water supplies. However, staff recognizes that detailed research must be completed to reasonably project travel time. Given this `• ¢ XMR to ne usea as a "ctetau_.t� statewide mnimum: shou'd`'be "noted that local governments can adopt regulationd that expand the critical area, where warranted. 2. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATIONS The use of a sliding scale for impervious surfaces is a part of the comprehensive water quality protection package for University Lake watershed. It is not clear from the state rules that such a sliding scale, based on lot size, would be permitted. ��t;::;: ����7�dt��fi��> �����:'. �:' �1�:::: ?��r:�::a.l:����d::;�or;: »suc�i 3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES `': <wa s.8, a.. lowing V :; .. :..... { K.'{ i•.} i:: k.{ 4• C :•Mioi}.;%:tiv:::.;: •neve'tt,::r::' {'J\s..i:\Ri sormwa er control`s to be used onlv'•as addeprotection. The low- density method is the "preferred" approach by the Environmental Management Commission, and staff commends the retention of this statement in the rules. Staff further commends the requirement of local government responsibility for stormwater control facilities ( if they are to be utilized) to ensure adequate monitoring and maintenance. Added flexibility for civil penalties to be imposed by local governments may be advisable. 4. NON- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .:�mFe?€a€a?aa zna� nave peen ana Will con inue to be raised. Staff` would also oppose any new interpretations of the rules to allow non - residential development on an unrestricted basis in such watersheds. The WS -4 category, which provides few limitations on non- residential development, would seem more appropriate for this sort of interpretation. o r T D S. DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT 6. 7. A recent clarification of the rules states that local governments, in meeting the watershed density standards, can regulate either by using minimum lot sizes OR by limiting impervious surfaces. For example, in WS -2 watersheds, either a two -acre lot density standard or smaller lots with 6% impervious coverage would be acceptable under the state minimums. Most local governments in this area link these two concepts and utilize both annrdaches as nne_ #�,� 'ste�F4 fiteashA DEFINITION OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DEFINITION OF NEW - DEVELOPMENT a. ^. •rnis zlmezrame is seen as adequate to al ow f`lexibx a. y or developers without permitting a "rush to subdivide" window of 12 -18 months. 8. EQUITY ISSUES: UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM JURISDICTIONS 9. CHANGES TO ORDINANCES AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Staff recommends a two - pronged approach toward changing the County's relevant water supply watershed protection regulations in both the Zoning ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and Water and Sewer Policy. Since this is a local policy matter, comment to the state need not be made at this time. Staff will develop this approach concurrent with final classifications on July 1, 1992. 10. CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW) STATUS 3°► s The University Lake watershed IN o 1 emonstraec special conditions that warranted protection measures adopted by the Board of Commissioners in that year. The current protection measures go above and beyond the state minimums, and CW status would provide recognition of that fact. Staff also recognizes that impending study of the Cane Creek watershed iqi 1992 may lend credence to a like designation for this water supply. By the same token certain portions -of the Upper Eno basin containing the proposed WS -II segment of the watershed might also be appropriate for this designation, although there is no data to quantify such status at this time. The::::.ountr.,.,.. and:.v:.t:Kawn<: >: of :::a : lebruchn:mav::<::ws:: >:::r P�OJ!14*15: r91 § :KTj4,IID@O=T*l44_ x4�;J The preliminary classification of the Eno basin treats all portions in Orange County the same, even though there are no water sources east of Hillsborough in Orange County. Historically and currently, orange County has separated this basin into the "Upper Eno ", north and west of Lake Ben Johnson in Hillsborough; and the "Lower Eno", from Lake Ben Johnson to the Durham County line. As such, watershed protection measures similar to that of the current WS -III classification have been applied to the zoned portions of the Upper Eno basin since 1984. NCDEM, however, has recommended a classification of WS -IV, the lowest quality drinking water classification, for the entire basin. There are a number of complicating factors in the Upper Eno and Lower Eno. In the Upper Eno, what water sources should be protected long -term? How should the suburban corridor/ commercial industrial node along US 70/1 -85 in Efland factor into the classification? In the Lower Eno, is there in fact a watershed "Protected Area" extending west from Durham? Durham City /County staff is recommending the use of buffers rather than WS -IV "protected Area" standards for this area. Staff recommends the following approach to the Eno basin. ER 12. PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL BUFFERS A late addition to the state rules calls for a 10 -foot vegetative buffer to be applied along perennial streams within the critical areas of WS -2 and WS -3 watersheds. In addition, all animal operations with more than 100 animal units would be required to conform with Best Management practices. OTHER GENERAL ISSUES OR COMMENTS • Staff agrees with the approach recommended by Durham City /County staff to ask the EMC to protect the Eno emergency water intake (in north Durham) in manner more reflective of its emergency role, i.e. through using buffers in Durham along the section of the Eno immediately adjacent to the intake, rather than WS -IV classification. • Staff recognizes that the Commercial and Industrial nodes at Buckhorn Road in Cheeks and NC 49 in Cedar Grove will be affected by these watershed minimums. However, the recommended classification for both relevant watersheds would appear to be able to provide for substantial non - residential development, 41 without adversely affecting watershed status or water quality. Staff recommends that future consideration be given to "allotments" of non - residential development to be focused on existing nodes such as the two mentioned above. It should be noted if all the nodes were built out completely for non- residential purposes (beyond current acreage limits) , they would still comply with WS -II standards by comprising less than 10% of the watershed. It should further be noted that the proposed regional transit corridor concept could be compromised by the lower density of residential development required for a WS -3 watershed. • The mandated watershed standards will require zoning of Cedar Grove and Little River Townships. Staff recommends that integration of the watershed classifications and other related studies (such as the Rural Character Study) be completed prior to zoning of these townships in order to ensure that once zoning is applied it will not be altered substantially by these other studies' recommendations. • Staff recognizes the reservations of the University of North Carolina administration about the proposed Jordan Lake WS -IV protected area which covers much of the "south campus" area. However, since Jordan Lake is a future water supply source for Orange County, Hillsborough, and OWASA, staff is hesitant to recommend relaxing the WS -IV standards in this area. 0 Planning 42 Board Minutes 9 -16 -91 future access to the 32 -acre tract which, if subdivided, would contain three (3) 10 -acre lots. MOTION: Reid moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: Unanimous. (Item #10 a was heard at this time) AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT 8/26/91 PUBLIC HEARING a. Watershed Protection Classifications Marvin Collins reviewed the changes recommended by the Planning Staff from those recommended by the State. This list is an attachment to these minutes on page Using a map, he indicated locations for the recommendations for the Eno River Basin. Collins referred to the handout dated 9/16/91 from David Stancil regarding a new DEM interpretation on the Lower Eno Basin. He reviewed the options included in this memo. A copy of this memo is an attachment to these minutes on pages Collins noted that the Planning Staff concurs with the State classification of WS -II for University Lake Watershed. OWASA and the Town of Chapel Hill have requested that the State create a Critical Watershed classification for University Lake Watershed which would permit a higher standard than the minimum designated by the State. Collins reviewed the specific recommendations (an attachment to these minutes on pages ). He noted an item of concern is the definition of new development. If a property was zoned to permit a higher density than proposed in the standards, current zoning could be considered a "grandfather situation ". Staff does not feel this is equitable since it becomes involved in the issue of vested rights. The State Legislature has adopted provisions for vested rights. This seems to countermand what the General Assembly has passed defining a "vested right ". Existing zoning is not a given; it should be changed to meet the standards. Another area of concern is proposed agriculture buffers. Greg Walker, District Supervisor for 43 SCS,'-has worked with OWASA in dealing with some cattle crossings in Cane Creek. Collins, as well as Walker, are of the opinion that vegetative buffers accomplish nothing. In order to stop cattle from crossing the stream, a fence would have to be constructed. Such fencing would be a tremendous burden on any farm operation. If buffers are to be required, it is suggested that the State be requested to provide more funding for cost -share programs. Waddell asked about the request for Critical Watershed for University Lake. Collins responded that higher standards could be required than " those proposed by the State. The fear is that following State standards would allow for a change in zoning permitting higher density than the present 5 -acre minimum. Jobsis expressed the concern that fencing could be a tremendous expense. Burklin expressed approval of the statement that existing farms be exempted from compliance since this would seem to address and preserve present water quality which appears to be acceptable. Reid expressed concern that the farmer was being imposed upon and being "run out of business ". He indicated he felt it is not the farm animals creating the pollution, but people. Collins continued that the Planning Staff agrees with the approach recommended by Durham City /County staff to ask the EMC to protect the Eno emergency water intake (in North Durham) in a manner more reflective of its emergency role, i.e. through using buffers in Durham along the section of the Eno immediately adjacent to the intake, rather than WS -IV classification. Staff recognizes that the Commercial and Industrial nodes at Buckhorn Road in Cheeks and NC 49 in Cedar Grove will be affected by these watershed minimums. However, the recommended classification for both relevant watersheds would appear to be able to provide for substantial non- residential development without adversely affecting watershed status or water quality. In terms of the transit corridor along I -85, I -40 and the railroad, the impact of the watershed classifications may be such that the density needed to support the transit system cannot be achieved. This could cause the need to get into M1 a transfer of development rights program where densities are transferred from the outlying areas into the corridor itself. This would net the same density over the entire watershed, but, would be concentrated in one area. The mandated watershed standards will require zoning of Cedar Grove and Little River Townships. Since the State has now set the implementation date for 1994, there is more't,ime to deal with the zoning of these two townships. The Rural Character strategies must balance with the watershed classification standards and any zoning plan must be considered carefully and be well " developed. Another concern is the impact of Jordan Lake on the University of North Carolina property. Since Jordan Lake is a future water supply source for Orange County, the staff is hesitant to recommend relaxing the WS -IV standards in this area. There seems to be sufficient flexibility within the standards for the University to be able to develop their campus plans without having to be exempted or to have the boundaries changed significantly at this time. MOTION: Waddell moved to strike the recommendation of the additional designation-as Critical watershed for University Lake. Seconded by Reid. Eidenier disagreed, noting that she felt that area is under such impact from housing needs around Chapel Hill that there could be a great interest in changing the regulations. Waddell expressed concern that OWASA desired to have all watersheds be declared Critical Watersheds. He felt the governmental process was the form by which to discuss and make such decisions. Burklin stated that he felt at this point in time that the water quality could be maintained with a higher density. He felt studies and changes could occur in the future as needed or required. He agreed with the recommendations of the Staff. VOTE: 3 in favor (Waddell, Reid, Scott). 6 opposed (Burklin, Cantrell, Eidenier, Hoecke, Jobsis, Ramsey). Motion failed. 45 MOTION: Jobsis moved to delete the phrase "except through cost -share program" from the proposed agricultural buffers. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: - Unanimous. MOTION: Eidenier moved approval of the State WS -II classification for South Hyco Lake. Seconded by Cantrell. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Cantrell moved to approve the Planning Staff's recommendation with the exception of the two previous motions. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: 8 in favor. 1 opposed (Waddell- opposed to University Lake as Critical Watershed). b. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Section IV- B -7 -b -6 Payments in Lieu of Dedication Presentation by Emily Cameron. The North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 153A- 331(a) describes the contents and requirements of a county's subdivision control ordinance. Effective June 10, 1991, this Section, as applicable to Orange County, was amended to allow the County to develop recreation areas using funds received from subdividers who make payments in lieu of dedicating land for recreation. Previously, the County could only acquire land with payment -in -lieu funds, but not develop the recreation area with monies from the same source. The proposed amendment to Section IV- B -7 -b -6 will include development of recreation areas as a use for funds received from payments made in lieu of dedication. The proposed amendment was presented at public hearing on August 26, 1991 and no citizen comments were received. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Burklin. 4Cv 9/18/91 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD STATE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS Recommended .Water SupR_ly Watershed Classifications Back Creek Watershed: Recommend change to WS -3 Cane Creek Watershed: Agree with WS -2 Flat River: Agree with WS -2 Haw Creek: Agree with WS -2 Haw River: Agree with WS -4 South Hyco Creek: Recommend change to WS -3 Jordan Lake: Agree with WS -4. Little River: Agree with WS -2. University Lake: Agree with WS -2, also recommend (Morgan Creek) designation of CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW). Eno River Basin: Recommend separating the basin into three sub - basins. The "Upper Eno ", upstream of Corporation Lake (intake point 105.0) is recommended for WS -2 classification with one current water supply and two potential supplies. The "Middle Eno ", between Lake Ben Johnson (intake point 103.0) and Corporation Lake (including the proposed Seven -Mile Creek basin) is recommended for WS -3. For the "Lower Eno" basin (from Lake Ben Johnson through Hillsborough into Durham, the Planning Board recommends that the Eno emergency intake in Durham be protected as follows. As a primary approach, the use of vegetative stream buffers, as proposed by by the Durham City- County Planning Department is recommended. Failing this, the Planning Board recommends that the Lower Eno Protected Area continue to be classified WS -4 - for the 10 -mile protected area only. Summary: upper Eno: WS -2 Middle Eno: WS -3 Lower Eno: Buffers, or WS -4 The Planning Board also recommends that completion of special watershed studies be used as the primary criterion for determining whether other watersheds may qualify for CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW) STATUS. 4-7 9/18/91 COMMENTS RELATING TO WATERSHED RDLES ISSUS OR DEFINITIONS 1. DEFINITION OF "CRITICAL AREA" The Planning Board feels that the best methodology to determine the true geographic area critical to protecting water supplies is the concept of stream "travel time" for pollutants to reach water supplies. However, it is recognized that detailed research must be completed to reasonably project travel time. Given this. the P R €> .: >.; .. <K >€ e # zo oe usea as a "de au,. . " "sta ew de m`*n mwa:`" t` sfio 3` ae noted that local governments can adopt regulations that expand the critical area, where warranted. 2. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATIONS The use of a sliding scale for impervious surfaces is a part of the comprehensive water quality protection package for University Lake watershed. It is not clear from the state rules that such a sliding scale, based on lot size, would be permitted th nnfiffiffIRIM8926d. f����ecc�m��«: >�?:l::e��1:�' >`" 3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES a�� a€ , allowing stormwater controls to be used only as acc ed+ protection. The low - density method is the "preferred" approach by the Environmental Management Commission, and the Board commends the retention of this statement in the rules. The Board further commends the requirement of local government responsibility for stormwater control facilities (if they are to be utilized) to ensure adequate monitoring and maintenance. Added flexibility for civil penalties to be imposed by local governments may be advisable. 4. NON- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT also oppose any new interpretations of the rules to allow non- residential development on an unrestricted basis in such 2 4$ 9/18/91 watersheds. The WS -4 category, which_ provides few limitations on non - residential development, would seem more appropriate for this sort of interpretation. The rules state that local governments, in meeting the watershed density standards, can regulate-either by using minimum lot sizes QR by limiting impervious surfaces. Many local governments in this area, including orange county, link these two concepts and utilize both approaches as one. 6. DEFINITION OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 7. DEFINITION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT rnis timelrame is seen as aaequate to a ow'exibili y for developers without permitting a "rush to subdivide" window of 12 -18 months. 8. EQUITY ISSUES: UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM JURISDICTIONS 9. CHANGES TO ORDINANCES AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The Planning Board recommends a two - pronged approach toward changing the county's relevant water supply watershed protection regulations in both the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and Water and Sewer Policy. Since this is a local policy matter, comment to the state need not be made at this time. Staff will develop this approach concurrent with final classifications on July 1, 1992. 3 49 9/18/91 10. CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW) STATUS demonstrated °special conditions that warranted protection measures adopted by the Board of Commissioners in that year. The current protection measures go above and beyond the state minimums, and CW status would provide recognition of that fact. The Planning Board recognizes that impending study of the Cane Creek watershed in 1992 may lend credence to a like designation for this water supply. By the same token certain portions of the Upper Eno basin containing the proposed WS -II segment of the watershed might also be appropriate for this designation, although there is no data to quantify such status .....: A:! ;: "•i ?:•i:{^4?nx...:9: ?�. P }:rx:.• -..• ::'�Y,.•: {+�•. x:•,y}v ?(tr.;^.hF..,:.•:: •: at this time. the` r :: h :F r z o i c cr> ria - =IMri 11. UPPER ENO BASIN CLASSIFICATION The preliminary classification of the Eno basin treats all portions in Orange County the same, even though there are no water sources east of Hillsborough in Orange County. Historically and to this day, Orange County has separated this basin into the "Upper Eno", north and west of Lake Ben Johnson in Hillsborough; and the "Lower Eno ", from Lake Ben Johnson to the Durham County line. As such, watershed protection measures similar to that of the current WS -III classification have been applied to the zoned portions of the Upper Eno basin since 1984. NCDEM, however, has recommended a classification of WS -IV for the entire basin. There are a number of complicating factors in the Upper Eno and Lower Eno. In the Upper Eno, what water sources should be protected long -term? How should the suburban corridor and commercial - industrial node along US 70/1 -85 in Efland factor into the classification? In.the Lower Eno, is there in fact a watershed "Protected Area" extending west from Durham? Durham City /County staff is recommending the use of buffers rather 4 ;E& r 9/18/91 than WS -IV "protected Area" standards for this area. The Planning Board recommends the following approach: 12. PROPOSED AGRICIILTURAL BUFFERS A late addition to the state rules calls for a 10 -foot vegetative buffer to be applied along perennial streams within the critical areas of WS -2 and WS -3 watersheds. In addition, all animal operations with more than 100 animal units would be required to conform with Best Management practices. 5 C 51 9/18/91 OTHER GENERAL ISSUES OR COMMENTS • The Planning Board agrees with the approach suggested by Durham City /County staff to ask the EMC to protect the Eno emergency water intake (in north Durham) in manner more reflective of its emergency role, i.e. through using buffers in Durham along the area immediately adjacent'to the intake, rather than WS -IV classification. • The Planning Board recognizes that the Commercial and Industrial nodes at Buckhorn Road in Cheeks and NC 49 in Cedar Grove will be affected by these watershed minimums. However, the recommended classification for both relevant watersheds would appear to be able to provide for substantial non- residential development, without adversely affecting watershed status or water quality. The Planning Board recommends that future consideration be given to "allotments" of non - residential development to be focused on existing nodes such as the two mentioned above. It should be noted if all the nodes were built out completely for non - residential purposes (beyond current acreage limits) , they would still comply with WS -II standards by comprising less than 10% of the watershed. It should further be noted that the proposed regional transit corridor concept could be compromised by the lower density of residential development required for a WS -3 watershed. • The mandated watershed standards will require zoning of Cedar Grove and Little River Townships. The Planning Board recommends that integration of the watershed classifications and other related studies (such as the Rural Character Study) be completed prior to zoning of these townships in order to ensure that once zoning is applied it will not be altered .substantially by the recommendations of other studies. • The Planning Board recognizes the reservations of the University of North Carolina administration about the proposed Jordan Lake WS -IV protected area which covers much of the "south campus" area. However, since Jordan Lake is a future water supply source for Orange County, Hillsborough, and OWASA, the Planning Board is hesitant to recommend relaxing the WS -IV standards in this area. 11 52 RESOLUTION OF COMMENT TO THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ON PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONS AND RULES FOR WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County have considered the proposed state minimum rules for water supply watersheds in North Carolina; and WHEREAS, Orange County has long been an advocate of protection of our critical water resources; and WHEREAS, Orange County contains part or all of 11 water supply watersheds that would be protected under this program, and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners is in general agreement with the concept and program of statewide protection of all water supplies; and WHEREAS, Orange County has held public hearings-on the state minimum rules and classifications to receive citizen comment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners have received recommendations from the Orange County Planning Board and Orange County Administration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners that the Board requests the Environmental Management Commission to: 1. Persevere with adopting a statewide program of water supply watershed protection. 2. Adopt changes to the classifications and rules as spelled out in the attached Position Statement for Orange County. Requested changes in classification are summarized as follows: a. Change the proposed classification of the Back Creek and South Hyco Creek watersheds to WS -III. b. Designate University Lake Watershed as a "Critical Watershed" under the provisions of 15 NCAC2B .0104 (k). c. Change the proposed Eno River classification by splitting the basin into three sub - basins, to more accurately reflect the different character and nature of these sub- areas. The specifics of this proposed classification change are spelled out in the Position Statement. 5. Exempt existing farms from the provisions of agricultural buffers, endorsing instead the Agricultural Cost -Share Program as an alternate protection measure. 6. Keep the one -mile definition of the critical area as adopted. 7. Allow flexibility is using a "sliding- scale" approach to limiting impervious surfaces. 8. Allow inter - jurisdictional transfers of non - residential development "allotments" to address equity issues between upstream and downstream jurisdictions. 9. Expressly permit in the rules the allowance of "average - lot sizes" as an alternative to minimum lot sizes for low - density options. 10. Change the proposed definition of existing development to exclude "zoned" land, as this provision may allow areas of undeveloped but zoned land to develop at standards inconsistent with watershed protection efforts. 11. Make the effective date of compliance for all "new" development the same date as that of classification of watersheds; July 1, 1992. 12. Consider other comments on certain issues within the rules as spelled out in the Position Statement. 13. Pursue, in the future, linking water quality protection measures to water quality goals. 14. Continue to provide flexibility for local governments that choose to protect their watersheds above and beyond the minimum state rules. This, the 7th day of October, 1991. Moses Carey, Jr. Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Beverly A. Blythe Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 53 54 �occ &*j Charles L. Baker, Chairman N.C. Environmental Management Commission PO Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626 -0535 RE: ORANGE COUNTY POSITION STATEMENT: STATE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS Over the past nine months, Orange County staff, advisory boards and elected boards have been analyzing the adopted State rules for protecting water supply watersheds in North Carolina. Substantial data has been collected and reported, and thorough staff report of watershed standards and implications has been presented. As per tradition, Orange County held its own public hearing to receive citizen comment on this matter of August 26, 1991. This and further deliberation by the County's boards have been utilized to prepare this position paper to be received as the official comment of Orange County on the EMC's public hearing process closing October 31, 1991. Orange County contains part or all of 11 water supply watersheds, more than any other county in the state. As such, careful thought and deliberation has gone into the implications of these statewide minimums. This document contains requests and comments of two types. First are specific requests for changes in the preliminary classification for three of the County's watersheds. Second, a number of comments and requests regarding the language and intent of the rules and standards are also provided. Orange County commends both the Environmental Management Commission and the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management in its diligence and hard work on this complex program. The concept of statewide watershed protection minimums represents, in our opinion, a positive step for protection of our vital water resources. Orange County has been a leader in local governments in North Carolina in watershed protection. Chronic water supply shortages in this County during the 1960's and 1970's spotlighted attention on water resources at an early date, and the creation of a Protected Watershed and Water Quality Critical Area zoning district was among the first efforts of this type in the state. In this vein, Orange County offers its requests and comments on the adopted State rules and preliminary watershed classifications as follows: z 55 Recommended Water SuPRly Watershed Classifications Back Creek Watershed: Orange County ,requests a change in classification to WS -3 from the proposed WS -2. The WS -3 classification is consistent with protection measures being requested by other jurisdictions, including those using water from this supply. Cane Creek Watershed: Orange County agrees with the classification of WS -2 Flat River: Orange County agrees with the ` classification of WS -2 Haw Creek: Orange County agrees with the classification of WS -2 Haw River: Orange County agrees with the classification of WS -4 South Hyco Creek: Orange County recommends change in classification to WS -3 from WS -2. The WS -3 classification is more consistent with classifications requested by other jurisdictions, including those using this water supply. Jordan Lake: Orange County agrees with the classification of WS -4. Little River: Orange County agrees with the classification of WS-2. University Lake: Orange County agrees with the (Morgan Creek) classification of WS -2, and further recommends designation of this watershed as a CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW). Eno River Basin: Orange County requests that this basin be separated into three sub- basins, consistent with long- adopted local actions and policies regarding water supplies in this basin. The first sub- basin, the "Upper Eno", lies upstream of Corporation Lake (intake point 105.0). Orange County recommends that this sub -basin be upgraded to WS -2 to reflect its very low density pattern of development and the existence of one current water supply and two potential supplies. 56 The "Middle Eno" sub -basin lies between Lake Ben Johnson (intake point 103.0) and Corporation Lake. This sub -basin includes the proposed Seven -Mile Creek reservoir. orange County recommends that this sub - basin be classified WS -3 to reflect its land use pattern. Future land uses in this basin should not affect this sub - basin's potential for meeting WS -3 standards. For the "Lower Eno" basin (from Lake Ben Johnson through Hillsborough into Durham, Orange County recommends that the Eno emergency intake in Durham be protected as follows: As a primary approach, the use of vegetative stream buffers rather than any watershed classification, is recommended (as proposed by the Durham City - County Planning Department. Failing this, Orange County requests that the Lower Eno Protected Area continue to be classified WS -4 - applying to the 10- mile "protected area" only. Summary: Upper Eno: WS -2 Middle Eno: WS -3 Lower Eno: Buffers, or WS -4 Finally, regarding the classification of watersheds, orange County requests that completion of special watershed studies be used as the primary criterion for determining whether other watersheds may qualify for CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW) STATUS. COMMENTS RELATING TO WATERSHED RULES ISSUES OR DEFINITIONS I. DEFINITION OF "CRITICAL AREA" orange County feels that the best methodology to determine the true geographic area critical to protecting water supplies is the concept of stream "travel time" for pollutants to reach water supplies. However, it is recognized that detailed research must be completed to reasonably project travel time. Given this � .• ro ne usea as a ,aeraulL, : {�. , f ••'i#•;•;o.::4s ..}:. EiE3• s, Y)3:��s;:eo-x't4ax'a'�5.%Sr:;:✓ 3r�wY�:�'f�:F::f;:;;: 'suss; ^.•- :i,3s;:::::. stat grange bo _wide minimum. unty further applauds the provisions in the rules that allows local governments to expand the critical area, where warranted. 2. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATIONS The use of a sliding scale for impervious surfaces is a part a 3. of the comprehensive water quality protection package for University Lake watershed. It is not clear from the state rules that such a sliding scale, based on lot size, would be STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ��►<< :<: >:wex : ;rss ailowing stormwater . �..} r>•:.h:.::.tii}.��: •�' G x'"'i}: •.fie.':. �A; �Li. / con rods to "be used only "'as added protection. The low - density method is the "preferred" approach by the Environmental Management Commission, and the County commends the retention of this statement in the rules. orange County further commends the requirement of local government responsibility for stormwater control facilities (if they are to be utilized) to ensure adequate monitoring and maintenance. 4. NON- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT www Y•. <:.:}: {:•%: ? �-->::: ; > >.;<. :. unty ..Lnar- nave Deen and wi: llcontinu.e to :be irised.: e C}o further opposes any new interpretations of the rules to allow non- residential development on an unrestricted basis in such watersheds. The WS -4 category, which provides few limitations on non - residential development, would seem more appropriate for this sort of interpretation. 5. DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT 6. The rules state that local governments, in meeting the watershed density standards, can regulate either by using minimum lot sizes OR by limiting impervious surfaces. Many local governments in this area, including orange County, link these two concepts and utilize both approaches as one. DEFINITION OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 57 58' rte •�= ��������•� #���:������r•��;�� subdivide" window of 12 -18 months. 10. CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW) DESIGNATION permitting :??: °:t:. :.:.aJ►€G; <:i {a 'rne universe t T�ake Watere l"ectu�yo198 c emons rat`ed"special conditions that warranted protection measures adopted by Orange County and Carrboro in that year that provide for no further degradation of the water quality in this watershed. The current protection measures go above and beyond the state minimum standards for WS -2, and Critical Watershed designation would provide recognition of that fact. 11. UPPER ENO BASIN CLASSIFICATION As previously stated, the preliminary classification of the Eno River basin treats all portions of the basin in the same manner. There are significant differences, however, between sub - basins in the Eno River. These difference range from density of existing development to location of existing and future water supplies. There are three existing water bodies (two serving as supplies) and three proposed water supplies in the Upper and Middle Eno basins. There are no water supplies existing or proposed in the Lower Eno basin, with the exception of the City of Durham's emergency water intake on the Eno. The future disposition of this emergency water source is currently being discussed by Durham County and Durham City. Historically and to this day, Orange County has separated this basin into the "'Upper Eno ", located north and west of Lake Ben Johnson in Hillsborough; and the "Lower Eno ", from Lake Ben Johnson to the Durham County line. As such, watershed protection measures similar to that of the proposed WS -III classification have been applied to the zoned portions of the Upper Eno basin since 1984. Recent policy discussion on the implications of Interstate 85/40 and the Efland community have led the County to add a third sub -basin to reflect the different character of the "Middle Eno ", from Corporation Lake to Lake Ben Johnson. in its preliminary watershed classifications, NCDEM has recommended a classification of WS -IV for the entire basin. 59 Orange County requests the EMC separate these three distinct sub - basins and accordingly classify them differently. The County thus requests the following: As a final note, Orange County will discuss with the Town of Hillsborough the possibility of further, detailed study of the Upper and Middle Eno sub - basins. 12. PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL BUFFERS A later addition to the state rules calls for a 10 -foot vegetative buffer to be applied along perennial streams within the critical areas of WS -2 and WS -3 watersheds. In addition, all animal operations with more than 100 animal units would be required to conform with Best Management practices. 6d OTHER GENERAL ISSUES OR COMMENTS • Orange County recognizes that Commercial and Industrial Nodes in Cheeks and Cedar Grove Townships will be affected by these .watershed minimums., However, the recommended classification for both relevant watersheds would appear. to be able to provide for substantial non - residential development, without adversely affecting watershed status or water quality. it should further be noted that a proposed regional transit corridor concept for the Research Triangle Area could be compromised by the lower density of residential development required for a WS -3 watershed. • Orange County recognizes the reservations and concerns of the University of North Carolina about the proposed Jordan Lake WS -IV protected area, which covers much of the "south campus" area. However, since Jordan Lake is a future water supply source for Orange County, Hillsborough, and OWASA, the County is hesitant to recommend relaxing WS -IV standards. On behalf of Orange County, let me thank you again for your diligence and hard work on this complex issue. Orange County supports your efforts to protect North Carolina's drinking water supplies, and requests your considerationof the comments provided herein. If we may provide further information or clarification, please contact our staff. Sincerely, Moses Carey, Jr. Chairman, Orange County Commissioners -gym - 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. ZX :A MEETING DATE OCTOBER 7, 1991 SUBJECT: BID AWARD: EQUIPMENT FOR FRAZIER ROAD SOLID WASTE COLLECTION CENTER DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING AND CENTRAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING YES _X —NO ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: DAVID CANNELL BID TABULATION EXT: 2651 PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732 -8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732 -9361 CHAPEL HILL 967 -9251 MEBANE 227 -2031 DURHAM 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider awarding a bid for equipment to be used at the Frazier Road Solid Waste Collection Center. The equipment necessary to operate the site will consist of one (1) three yard compactor, two (2) 40 yard compactor containers and three (3) 40 yard open top roll -off containers. BACKGROUND: Funds were allotted in the 1991 -92 budget for the purchase of equipment necessary for the County to open a pilot solid waste collection center on Frazier Road. Visits were made by County staff to facilities of similar scope in Lee County and .Moore County. Specifications were developed for equipment that would meet Orange County's needs. The bid was advertised and sent to seventeen prospective vendors. The bids were opened on August 29, 1991 with six vendors responding. Attached is a tabulation of the bid opening. Waste Industries West, Inc. of Graham, N.C. submitted the lowest responsible for the equipment at a cost delivered and set up of $27,001.00. Waste Industries West, Inc. met or exceeded all requirements listed in the bid package. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends awarding the bid to Waste Industries West, Inc. at a cost of $27,001.00. BID FOR: CLOSING DATE: CLOSING TIME: VENDOR c .✓ u3 i� rs [sT �IG /d f � �.,✓ I i�CC. /c�/ n/ ��✓dv.� 7��'� r� � I yd It P/ I I I I I I I I . I �rMS I I &./e 3 I I I �I I ^.1e f 3� l t Ale, 36 I I I I I I I I I, I I I . I I BID TABULATION FOR OFFICE USE: BID AWARDED TO: BID PRICE: BUDGETED AMOUNT: st�l Dt /I v e/y I Qe /� �•e /r I 300&Y' �Jt11 /001.0ol I I I I /y0ays ��a�d, 3si. Oo � YLae,e ks I y yZ.3 I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I, I I I I I, l I I, I I I I I. --I;, Z. I ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. V ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 SUBJECT: 911 EXPANSION PROJECT; CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL ----------------------------- DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVS. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO :XX ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES EXT 2650 CHANGE ORDER DETAIL Telephone Number - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill -967 -9251 Mebane -227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To approve change orders for the 911 Expansion Project. BACKGROUND: The 911 Expansion Project was begun in April, 1991 and is nearing completion of Phase I. Phase I is the construction of the new addition to the building. The new addition consists of new conference /training room on the top floor and a new communications center in the basement. Phase II, which includes the renovation of the existing building to accommodate office areas on the top floor and an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in the basement, is scheduled to begin following completion of Phase I and will be completed within 75 calendar days. Delay in console equipment delivery and subsequent training will extend the November 11, 1991 contract completion date by approximately 45 -60 days. Exact contract date of completion will be determined following equipment delivery and installation. The expansion project has.gone smoothly, however as with any building /renovation project, unanticipated events occur which require revisions in the plan and hence change orders. The Architect has submitted a request for $6,318 in change orders as detailed on the attached information sheet. Funds are available to support these change orders. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends approval of change orders as presented and authorization for the Purchasing Director to execute the necessary paperwork. 2 CHANGE ORDER JUSTIFICATION 911 EXPANSION PROJECT DATED: SEPTEMBER 25, 1991 CHANGE ORDER REQUESTED AMOUNT OF CHANGE ORDER JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE ORDER 1. Tree removal due to $400 Environmental Health recommended a larger repair field relocation of front for the on -site low pressure septic system. The revised driveway. repair field required that two additional trees be removed. 2. Supply electrical $287 Dispatchers need to be able to control access to the area. conduit and devices associated The rear exterior door will be a primary entrance for employees with security and communications since the Communications Center will be located on the lower level. at the exterior basement door. This modification was requested by Nick Waters. The work has not been completed. 3. C.T. cabinet for electrical $168 The original plans called for a combination cabinet and meter box to be service. installed under the service connection contract with Piedmont Electric. When the time came for installation Piedmont stated a 15 week delivery period. The project timeline could not tolerate such a lengthy delivery period. 4. Nail over existing roof on $300 The roofing contractor installed the wrong color shingle on the new old section of 911 Center. section of the building. Since there is less roof area on the old section, the County allowed the contractor to install shingles on the old area which match the new addition, rather than requiring him to remove and replace the new shingles on the new section. The net effect is that the County is able to install a new roof on the old section for $300. 5. Concrete stairs $1683 These stairs will connect the upper sidewalk and the lower sidewalk. The original plans did not call for the sidewalks to be connected, however EMS personnel indicate that access to the EOC as well as for FNS personnel will be greatly enhanced with the addition of these steps. If the steps are not installed, you must access the lower level by walking around the driveway and down the hill. 6. Level basement floor $1427 Floor was sloped for drainage in the "garage" area of the exisiting building. The slope was not identified until items being stored against the wall were moved during the construction process. The slope begins approximately 4" into the room and slopes for a total of about 6 ". If the floor is not leveled there will be a 2" drop in the middle of the room where the old floor level and the floor level of the new addition meet. 7. Fill dirt over boulder in east parking lot. $ 424 A boulder, approximatley the size of a small automobile was discovered in the east parking lot during excavation. It was estimated that the cost of removing the boulder would exceed the cost of raising the grade of the sidewalk and parking lot. 3 911 CHANGE ORDER SYNOPSIS 8. Re- terminate the water line The purpose of this request is two -fold. First, the line was better out the back of the building and suited to terminate in the rear of the building Were there was install extra interior water no passibility to cut telephone cables rather than to extend holding tanks. $1629 across the driveway and around to the front of the building as originally designed. Second, the well at the 911 facility pumps 4 gal per minute. The additional bladder tanks will provide a stable water source during times of heavy water usage, such as when the EX is in full use or when large training classes are ongoing. TOTAL CHANGE ORDER REQUEST $6318 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 Agenda Abstract Item # V III -0— SUBJECT: SELECTION OF HISTORIC INVENTORY CONSULTANT DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes S No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Grant Application Planning Director X2592 Request for Proposals Consultant List ' PHONE NUMBERS: Summary Sheets - Consultant Hillsborough 732 --8181 Proposals [Separate Mebane 227 -2031 Enclosure] Durham 688 -7331 HPC 9/25/91 Minutes Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider the selection of a consultant to conduct an inventory of historic sites and structures in the unincorporated portions of Chapel Hill Township. BACKGROUND: In January, 1991, the Board of Commissioners authorized the County Manager to apply for up to $5,000 from the Survey and Planning Grant Program administered by the State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO]. The amount would be used to match County funds and conduct an inventory of historic sites and structures in the unincorporated portions of Chapel Hill Township. In May, the Planning Director was notified that the application had been approved. A Memorandum of Agreement with the SHPO was subsequently signed, and a certification of matching funds provided. During the same month, the SHPO supplied a list of interested consultants and approved a draft Request for Proposals [RFP]. During May, RFPs were sent to seven consultants recommended by the SHPO. However, only two proposals were received by the June 12 deadline. Given County /State policies suggesting that efforts be made to obtain at least three proposals, RFPs were sent out again at the beginning of July. Besides the original seven consultants, RFPs were sent to two more firms recommended by the SHPO. By the September 2 deadline, four proposals had been received from the following firms /persons: 2 - Kelly Lally Ruth Little [Longleaf Historic Resources] - Dan Pezzoni [Preservation Technologies] - Barry Jacobs Ruth Little [Longleaf Historic.Resources] - Mary Reeb [Historic Preservation Services] At its September 25, 1991 meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the proposals submitted by the four firms /persons and unanimously approved :a recommendation that Kelly Lally and Ruth Little be employed to conduct the historic inventory. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that Kelly Lally and Ruth Little be employed to conduct the inventory of historic sites and structures in the unincorporated portions of Chapel Hill Township per the Historic Preservation Commission recommendation. The Administration further recommends that the consultants be reimbursed for their services in an amount not to exceed $10,000. This amount includes the $5,000 grant from the State Historic Preservation Office and the $5,000 cash match included in the Planning Department's FY 1991 -92 budget. The Administration further recommends that the Board authorize the Chair to execute a contract, contingent upon staff and attorney review, that incorporates the terms of the approved proposal. �/ 1991 SURVEY.AND PLANNINC GRANT APPLICATION FORM State Historic Preservation Office North Carolina Division of Archives and History I. PROJECT INFORMATION (Please type or print with black ink) Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures Project title: Orange Cgunty. NC Project Type: Archaeological Survey: Architectural Survey; X National Register Nominations: Other (specify): Landscapes Local I-la[ehing Funds: (non - federal) Attach separate list if nccessary Donor: County of Orange Source: General Fund Date Available: Available now but also on 7/1/91 Kind (cash /other): Cash II. APPLICANT INFORMATION Amount: $5,000 Contact Pi:rson: w@r%,;1., Cnlllns Title: planning Director Address: gFyp_rf_ goad. Hill5bgrough, NC 27278 Tt:lr.phone: p to Applicant Organization or Agency: County of Orange Loral Project Coordinator: Same as Contact Person 3 Address: Telephone: 1/28/1 SIG AN TITL : Officer of. Spoaisoring Organization DATE III. TRACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT: On a separate sheet, please describe in one well developed paragraph exactly what will be accomplished with the grant and matching funds, including in- kind contributions. Applications for architectural surveys should include an estimate of the number of acres and properties to be surveyed. Historic_ Preservation Office staff are available for assistance in developing the project description, including an estimated budget. The Project Abstract may also include one or two additional paragraphs describing methods to be employed or information on how the proposed project fits into an overall plan of preservation activities for your community. For example, if this is Phase II of a four - phase action plan, what was Mist: I and when was it completed, and how will Phases III and IV build on Phases I and II? PLEASE LIMIT THE ABSTRACT TO THREE DOUBLE SPACED TYPEWRITTEN PAG 7S. d III. ABSTRACT OF PP.OPOSED.PROJECT: Since the inception of its comprehensive planning program, a goal of Orange County has been the completion of detailed inventories of its cultural, historical, recreational, biological, and geological resources. In 1986, the Planning Department completed a general listing of such sites in the unincorporated portions of the county. While some field surveys were conducted for site verification purposes, the listing was based exclusively on existing documentation. In 1588, a Master Pecreation and Parks Plan was prepared for Orange County. During the same year, the Triangle Land Conservancy completed an Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County. These studies provided the detailed inventory of recreational, geological, and biological sites. Orange County is now applying for Survey and Planning Grant Funds with which to undertake an inventory of historic sites and structures. Rather than initiating a county -wide inventory, Orange County wishes to begin with an inventory in the unincorporated portions of Chapel Hill Township, a 34,000 -acre area which contains approximately 300 dwellings built prior to 1939. There are several reasons for this approach. First, the Town of Chapel Hill, a Certified Local Government, is also applying f-ox funds to update historic district inventories and prc-duce a survey of historic sites and structures in the remaining portions of its incorporated area. The Town of Carrboro has been extensively surveyed, and any remaining inventory work will be accomplished with local resources. Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill would like to work cooperatively by employing the same consultant. The end product will be a complete inventory of historic sites and structures in Chapel Hill Township. 5 Second, Chapel Hill Township is the most urbanized and populous portion of the county. Almost 70% of the county's approximately 54,000 citizens reside there. In addition, over 267. of all building permits issued since 15815 have been for new construction in the unincorporated portions of Chapel Hill Township_ During the past decade, development has added 2,500 new residents to the unincorporated areas, most being housed in scattered, low- density subdivisions. The area's 22% growth rate is 5% higher than the remainder of the county as well as Chapel Hill. Third, since'1SB4, Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro have, through a mutually adopted agreement, jointly prepared and administered land use plans for the southeastern portion of the county. an area which includes Chapel Hill Township. Pecently, ,joint planning efforts have focused on developing strategies for preserving the rural character of a designated Rural Buffer area. The strategies have been developed by a Study Committee comprised on farmers, developers, environmentalists, and preservationists, and range from conventional twcn -acre lot subdivisions to rural villages. The strategies have received enthusiastic support, and the Study Committee is now focusing on the remainder of the COUnty. Using the same basic approach; e.g., township -to- county -wide expansion, Orange County would.like to develop a means of identifying rural landscapes. The methodology is based on the master's thesis of the Project Coordinator and would utilize viewshed definition techniques; data from the on -going historic sites inventory; existing natural areas and landscape inventory data; local histories of area development; and property research. The methodology would then be used in subsequent inventory efforts to identify sites, structures, and landsc=apes. Finally, the Chapel Hill Township inventory will be the first of a four -phase project. The second phase will consist of an inventory of the 6 remaining portions of the county, including the identification of rural landscapes. Orange County will work cooperatively with Hillsborough and Mebane by assuming responsibility for inventories in the unincorporated areas. Utilization of the same consultant for both municipal and county inventories will also be .sought. The third phase will consist of two parts, including the publication of a county —wide inventory and the preparation of an Historic Preservation Element as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Orange County will seek the support of municipalities and private interests in publishing the inventory. The Planning Department will prepare the Historic Preservation Element. The final phase will consist of preparing nominations for the National Register of Historic Places. All phases will be subject tc- local funding approval as well as the availability of Planning and Survey Funds. 1991 SURVEY AND PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION FORM Page Two 1 VI. BUDGET: AN ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COSTS (1) (2) Line Items Grant Funds Cash Match In -Kind Match Principal Consultanc $ 4 Lon ^� S 4,400„ S ., c re Cary Project Coordinator Daher Personnel (specify) Office Space Telephone Travel and Per Diem 845 milCs @ _L23 /mi.le $ 95_ days @ c /day Film and Dev#:loping Office Supplies ,Maps Camara (purchase /rental) Printing and Copying Ocher (specify) 5 95 S 590 5 590 S 2 2 40 S 150 S 60 S 150 S 180 S�., 450 Total S 8.800 S 590 S 590 _5 2,240 S _ 440 $ 150 F�� S 270 S 740_ 5 150 5 60 5 1.50 S 180 5 450 TOTALS nn L==15; nncl S'000 S15,000 7 w Budget Notes: (1) Cash funds must be :available for payment of salaries, travel, film and developing. Be sure that grant funds are matched With sufficient non - federal cash match to meet this requirement. (2) In --kind contributions could include office space, telephone costs, photocopying, supplies, indirer.t costs and project coordination, provided they are essential to the project and properly documented. Matching funds must constitute 50% of actual costs. Return by 1/31/91: Attn. Lloyd Childers, Scate Historic_ Preservation Office, N.C. Division of Archives and HiStor . 109 E. Jones. NC 27601 -2807 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8 306F REVERE ROAD H1LI.SBOROUGH, NORTH CAaOLINA 27278 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Submission Deadline: June 12, 1991 -Architectural Historian Consultant Services Attn: Marvin Collins, Planning Director Orange County 3.06F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 919/732 -8181 Extension 2592 Orange County is seeking a professional consultant to conduct a comprehensive survey of the unincorporated portions of Chapel 'ill Township. The project is Phase I of a multi - phased county -wide survey of the county. Project Description Orange County is under intense development pressure, with Chapel :ill Township experiencing the most intense pressure. The County's land use planning program is extremely advanced, and the fi ^dincs of the survey will be actively integrated into the planning process. The purpose of the Phase I project is to identify, record, and evaluate historic properties in the unincorporated portions of Chapel Hill Township. It is estimated that approximately 300 dwellings and 50 other types cf buildings will be examined and recorded through inventory forms and /or mapping. Project activities will include field surveys, research, compilation of files, and interpretation necessary to produce the inventory. All elements of the project must be completed in accordance with standards set forth by the State Historic Preservation Office, Division of. Archives and History, N.C. Department of Cultural Resources. Cozies of all documentation anc photographs provided to the State Historic Preservation Office will be provided to Orange County. During the course of the projec4, the consultant will make at least, two public presentations with the assistance of the Project Coordinator. Project Schedule The project will take approximately four months to complete. T preliminary starting date of mid -July, 1991 is desired. All work must be completed by September 30, 1992. Project Budge The total project budget is $15,000, funded by $10,000 from Orange County and a $5,000 Survey & Planning Grant. The County's total share includes $5,000 of in-kind services and materials. The total cash amount for the project is $10,000. $8,800 is budgeted specifically for the consultant's salary. Consultant Selection /Qualifications Consulting firms will be evaluated in part on the basis of the following criteria: 1. The person /firm must have performed satisfactorily on previous surveys and /or National Register nominations, as indicated by the State Historic Preservation Office; 2. The person /firm must have adequate experience and staff to perform the work required, including previous work in the Chapel Hill, Orange County, and /or Research Triangle area; 3. The person /firm must have the ability to meet the time schedule established for the work; and 4. The person /firm must meet the qualifications of 36 CFR 61. The Town of Chapel Hill has also received a Survey and Planning Grant as a Certified Local Government. The Town is sending out a separate Request for Proposals for its project. Though separate projects, it is the desire of Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill to employ the same consultant. Preference will thus be given to a consulting firm interested in and submitting proposals on both projects. Although familiarity with the area will be a consideration in the selection, it will not be the controlling criteria. Submission of Proposals Consulting firms interested in the project are invited to submit a proposal, including a statement of qualifications which addresses the above mentioned criteria. References and samples of previous work must be submitted as part of the proposal. proposals must be submitted to Orange County by 5:00 p.m. (DST) on June 12, 1991. Proposals may be mailed or delivered to: Marvin Collins, Planning Director Orange County 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Telephone: 919 /732 -8181 Extension 2592 All proposals received will become the property of Orange County and will be evaluated to determine which proposal most closely meets the requirements of the County. At the discretion and option of Orange County, oral interviews may be conducted with one or more firms to assist in the selection process. Orange County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to accept the proposal most favorable to the County. 10 CONSULTANT LIST ORANGE "COUNTY - CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP SURVEY AND PLANNING PROJECT Request for Proposals Consultant /Firm Sent Received I. Black and Black Yes No Ms. Allison Harris Black Mr. David Black 620 Willis Forest Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919/828 -4616 2. Longleaf Historic Resources Ms. M. Ruth Little 2709 Bedford Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 919/836 -8128 3. Ms. Mary L. Reeb 608 Laurel Hill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 919/967 -2303 4. Ms. Mary Beth Gatza 228 -E East Seventh Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28204 704/342 -2268 5. Mr. Barry Jacobs 2201 Moorefields Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 2727 919/732 -4941 6. Ms. Ardell Jarratt 9707 Morgantown Road Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101 7. Ms. Lynn. David 1334 -1/2 State Street Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101 8. Preservation Technologies Mr. Dan Pezzoni P.O. Box 7825 Roanoke, Virginia 24019 703/992 -0036 9. Ms. Kelly Lally 1412 Glenwood Avenue, #2A Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919/7551898 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes With [5] With [9] Yes MW Yes With [2] RE R&I Yes Yes With [2] Consultants recommended by: State Historic Preservation Office N.C. Department of Cultural Resources Raleigh, North Carolina M M Gl ff V ,1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES - September 25, 1991 AGENDA ITEM #5: DECISION ITEMS b. Inventory Consultant Selection (1) Overview of Chapel Hill Township Cameron explained the Orange County - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan map to the Commission. She pointed out the entire Chapel Hill Township which is the study area. She identified land use and development patterns, and described land use categories and zoning districts applicable in the township. She pointed out the Town's jurisdictional areas and the growth or "transition" areas. She stated that the only non - residential uses in the County's jurisdiction are located at the intersection of NC 86 and Mt. Sinai Road. Sheridan asked if Calvander was included in the area. Cameron stated that Calvander is in Carrboro's jurisdiction. Anderson asked if there was a landmark of some kind on the northern boundary that would be recognized. Cameron stated that there was a Duke Power Transmission line right -of -way at the very edge of the township near Old NC 86 (Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road). Cameron then discussed University Lake Watershed where special water quality protection is observed. She stated that New Hope Creek Watershed is not designated as a protected watershed so there are no restrictions there. She also pointed out other protected watersheds, the Upper Eno and Seven Mile Creek. She stated that the township will be looked at more closely as the inventory is done. (2) Consultant comparison Collins distributed the consultant proposals. The following consultants had submitted proposals: Kelly Lally & Ruth Little (Joint Venture) Dan Pezzoni Barry Jacobs & Ruth Little (Joint Venture) Mary L. Reeb The Commission then took time to look over the proposals. Pat Dickinson stated that she would be willing to make a recommendation. She stated that the list of consultants was really impressive. She referred to Ruth Little, who, in her opinion, is the dean of survey work in the State, and Kelly Lally, who has recently finished the Wake County Survey, as the "dream team ". M M p ff 4 1, Jean Anderson stated that she knew Ruth Little and would highly recommend her. Peloquin asked why have teams. Dickinson stated that its efficient. One person could take photographs while the other is interviewing and filling out forms. It is also safer, especially in rural areas. Peloquin stated that he was unfamiliar with the names on the list except for Barry Jacobs. He suggested that the Commission start with Lally and Little because of Dickinson's advice and her previous work as a consultant. Ward questioned the budget for the consultant. He questioned how much time will be spent in the field as opposed to time spent on reports, documentation, travel, etc. Dickinson stated-that there is a certain amount of money that the consultants know the grant is for. She stated that the consultants will do a windshield survey first to see what is out there and then estimate the time. Peloquin stated that Mary Reeb has the proposed budget broken down on her summary sheet. Dickinson also stated that the State outlines what the budget will entail when the grant proposal is drawn up; i.e., how much for the film /photography, the mileage, the consultant's salary, etc. She asked what would the County provide for the consultant. Collins stated that the Planning Department would provide office space, telephones, matching staff time, and the use of an intern. He stated that the Department was strongly encouraged to have someone ride with the consultant. He stated that Dan Pezzoni from Roanoke would be using one of his partners to jointly do the survey. He stated that the basic budget includes approximately $8,800 for consultant fees. In addition, there is approximately $700 for travel, $400 for photographic services, and the remainder would be for copying. There are also funds in the Department printing and copying budgets that could pay for some of the photographic work if the initial budget was not enough. He stated that one copy of the document forms are provided and that goes to the State. If the Department wanted a copy then there would be a charge. This is one of the reasons additional money was included in the budget. Collins then reviewed the individual consultant summary sheets. He stated there was some difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of proposals. He stated that RFP's were sent out initially in June to seven different firms that were recommended by the State. Only two were received (Jacobs - Little, and Mary Reeb). The State indicated that they would like to have at least three proposals if at all possible. This is also consistent with County policy. He stated that the State contacted other consultants who had initially expressed interest in the survey and recommended them to Orange County. As a result, the County DaGI� a 13 ended up with the Pezzoni and Lally- Little proposals. Collins stated that he had met with Barry Jacobs, Kelly Lally and Ruth Little, and Dan Pezzoni, but not Mary Reeb. He stated that he ranked the Lally- Little proposal as being the highest in terms of their qualifications and type of work they have done in this general region. The team will be ready to start next month if chosen, with a completion projection date of July, 1992. Field work would be done one to two days per week from October through February when the leaves have fallen from the trees and the structures can be seen better. The team submitted no budget proposal. They simply indicated that the budget salary would be divided equally between them. He stated that the consultants are interested because they are looking at the second phase, the rest of the County. They are willing to work within the constraints of the budget now with hopes of being awarded a bigger project in the future. Collins stated that Dan Pezzoni was also highly recommended by the State Historic Preservation Office. Pezzoni completed the county -wide inventory for Onslow County which included about 780 sites. Pezzoni has done a number of National Register nominations based on his survey work. He stated that Pezzoni has a keen interest in historic architecture and historic landscape elements. The consultant indicated that the project could be commenced in September, 1991, and would take 3 to 3 -1/2 months to complete. No budget proposal was submitted by the consultant. The consultant indicated that the inventory could be completed within the budget submitted as part of grant application. Collins stated that in terms of the Jacobs- Little proposal, Jacobs' knowledge of the County is extensive. Jacobs has never undertaken a historic survey of this scale, but he has done a number of National Register nominations. He stated that Jacobs is quite a good writer and researcher. He also stated that Jacobs and Little would be working as a team, and Little would be basically training Jacobs on how to do historic survey work. Their estimated time for completion of field work was two months. An additional two months would be required for research and final documentation.____They also agreed to work within the confines of the budget. He stated that Jacobs requested additional support which would include the use of a County automobile, copies of various maps, intern assistance in coordination of appointments and cataloging of materials, film and photo processing, and reimbursement for phone calls and work related mileage. All of these items were covered by the proposed project budget with the exception of the use of an automobile. Insurance restrictions would eliminate the use of a County automobile unless driven by a Planning Intern who is an employee of the County. Collins stated that the final proposal was sent by Mary Reeb. The consultant estimated the time for completion to be 175 hours (1 -1/2 months). She also submitted a proposed budget which is generally in line with preliminary budget submitted as part of grant application. The difference.could be negotiated. He stated that Reeb has done work in Ohio counties in terms of doing DpGlfi', 14 architectural surveys. It may take some time for her to adjust herself to the architectural styles and settings of a rural North Carolina county such as Orange County. She has also worked in suburban settings, most recently with the Town of Chapel Hill. She has also done some survey work related to highway projects which included historical sites. Collins stated that the order of preference of the consultants is as follows: (1) Lally - Little, (2) Pezzoni, (3) Jacobs - Little, and (4) Reeb. Peloquin asked if there would be a problem for Dan Pezzoni to conduct the survey since he lives in another state. Dickinson stated that it would be easier for someone closer by to conduct the survey, but if Pezzoni were chosen, he could come and stay overnight as much as needed. She also stated that she agreed with Collins' recommendation and how he ranked them. Anderson stated that the Lally - Little team was very familiar with source materials and documents from this area. She stated that the process is quite complicated if you are unfamiliar with such .documents. Collins stated that if a recommendation is prepared for the Commissioners, it would go to their meeting on October 7th. If the Commissioners approve the recommended consultant, the next step in the process would be a Phase I contract. This would be where the consultants would do a reconnaissance survey of the township. From the survey the consultant will develop a specific project description and projected time payment schedule. Next would be the Phase II or detailed contract. Collins mentioned that of the four consultants, the Lally - Little team were the only ones that said they would allow time for public presentation of the survey work. MOTION: Jeff Peloquin moved to use the Lally - Little team for the consultant. Seconded by Trawick ward. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #b: DISCUSSION ITEMS Bylaws and Rules of Procedure Cameron stated that the Bylaws and Rules of Procedure were not ready to be discussed at this time. AGENDA ITEM #7: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Dickinson thanked Emily for including sections of the Enabling Legislation which will be very helpful to the Commission. A O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS (Site Specific Plan, Vested Right) ARTICLE 14.3 - SITE PLAN REVIEW_ ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES Action Agenda Item #—VZrr- D Development SUBDIVISIONS REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS SECTION II - DEFINITIONS (Site Specific Development Plan, Vested Right, Minor Subdivision) SECTION III -D - APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment 8/26/91 Public Hearing Minutes Memo from N.C. Association of County Commissioners Staff Memo in response to above 9/16/91 Planning Board Minutes (draft) INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo - Extension 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider provisions for the vesting of property rights as required by Senate Bill 766, ratified July 22, 1990. BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 766 provides that local governments establish ordinance provisions pertaining to the point at which property rights become vested. The provisions of Senate Bill 766 go into effect on October 1, 1991. Currently, the right to complete a development, even if zoning regulations change, is vested when a building permit is issued. The project remains vested for as long as the building permit remains valid. A development may also be vested if there have been "substantial expenditures" made in good -faith reliance an a approved permit. The new vesting legislation is in addition to this current law, and requires that a vested right be established for at least 2 years upon the approval, after a public hearing, of a "Site Specific Development Plan ". The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on August 26, 1991. There were no comments. K Attached is a model ordinance received from the N.C. Association of County Commissioners concerning the legislation, and a staff response. The proposed amendment was found to be for the most part, consistent with the provision found in the model ordinance. Staff does recommend that the draft presented at the public hearing be revised to require that the following statement be placed on all approved Site Specific Development Plans, as recommended in the model. "Approval of this plan establishes a zoning vested right under G.S. 153A- 344.1. Unless terminated at an earlier date, the zoning right shall be valid until " (See italics in excerpt from Article 14.3 in proposed amendment.) The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment, as revised, on September 15, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment revised to include a statement on the approved plan that a vested right has been established. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE (ZO) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (SR) REFERENCE: (ZO) ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS (Site Specific Development Plan, Vested Right) (ZO) ARTICLE 14.3 - SITE PLAN REVIEW (ZO) ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES (SR) SECTION II - DEFINITIONS (Site Specific Development Plan, Vested Right, Minor subdivision) (SR) SECTION III -D -- APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public x_ Other: County Attorney STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENI EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To establish provisions required by Senate Bill IMPACTS /ISSUES: 3 RATION: x High Middle Low Comment: DATE: August 26, 1991 for the vesting of property rights as 766, ratified July 22, 1990 Senate Bill 766 provides that local governments establish ordinance provisions pertaining to the point at which property rights become vested. The provisions of Senate Bill 766 go into effect on October 1, 1991. Currently, the right to complete a development, even if zoning regulations change, is vested when a building permit is issued. The project remains vested for as long as the building permit remains valid. A development may also be vested if there have been "substantial expenditures" made in good -faith reliance an a approved permit. The new - vesting legislation (described below) is in addition to this current law. SB 766 requires that a vested right be established for at least 2 years upon the approval of a "Site Specific Development Plan" (SSDP). A SSDP must describe with "reasonable certainty" the type and intensity of use proposed for the specific parcel(s). It is up to the local governments to define the types of projects which may be considered a SSDP. In order to obtain the vested right, a public hearing must be 4 held. Local ordinance provisions may further allow for vesting of SSDPs for up to 5 years and My also provide for vesting of "Phased Development Plans" having a lesser degree of specificity. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC HEARING It is proposed that a Site Specific Development Plan be defined so as to include Site Plans, Special Use Permits, Planned Developments, and Preliminary Subdivision Plats. Special Use Permits special Use Permits already require a public hearing, by either the Board of Adjustment or Board of Commissioners. There is currently no time limit applied to Special Use Permits. The proposed amendment would establish a 12 -month time limit for starting construction. If the applicant requested that the project be vested, the Special Use permit approval could extend this deadline to not less than two years nor more than five years. Standards for approval are included in which specifies additional application evaluation standards for Site Specific The applicant would provide additional he /she were requesting that the vested two years. Planned Developments a new Article 8.8.27 requirements and Development Plans. justification if period be more than Planned Developments require approval of a Special Use Permit, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat (if applicable). The provisions applying to Special Use Permits would also apply to Planned Developments. Site Plans site Plans currently receive administrative approval. If the developer chose to vest a Site Plan, a public hearing would be.required. The public hearing would be before the Board of Commissioners, following the same application and approval procedures as is required for Class A Special Use Permits. Preliminary-Plats Currently, subdivision plats provide a one -year period within which to obtain Final Plat approval. If the applicant wished to vest the subdivision for not less than two nor more than five years, the subdivision would be processed as a. Class A Special Use Permit and presented to the Board of Commissioners at a quarterly public hearing. Proposal Presented to Ordinance Review Committee and Planning Board The proposal as recommended for public hearing is a preferred alternative to that presented to the Ordinance Review Committee, and to the Planning Board on July 15, 1991. The original proposal included a public hearing conducted by Planning Staff for Site Plans, and a hearing before the Planning Board prior to the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for Preliminary Plats. In order to recover advertising costs, a fee of $200.00 was recommended since a special public hearing notice would be required. Subsequent to the Planning Board meeting on July 15, 1991, the proposal was revised. The original proposal focused on minimizing the amount of time involved in obtaining approval, given that a public hearing must be added to the process. The costs, to be paid by the applicant, would be significant. The approval procedures would also be more complex. The revised approach incorporates the procedures into an existing public hearing process (Special Use Permit Approval), and there is no additional cost to the applicant. The time period required for approval is longer, but the vesting procedure is not required. It would be initiated only at the request of the applicant. In addition, the vesting procedure may result in project completion schedules which are considerably longer than those allowed by the current ordinance provisions. The procedure for obtaining a Class Special Use Permit allows the Board of Commissioners closer scrutiny of such requests and to attach conditions to the approval. EXISTING AND PROFOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS_ ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS Site Specific Development, Plan - A Rlan approved by the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or2arcels of property located within, the County's zoning jurisdiction. A Site Specific Development Plan shall be deemed „Approved upon the effective date of the Board of_ Commissioners' _action. Site Plans. Special Use Permits, Planned Developments, and Preliminary Subdivision Plats may be approved as Site S ecific Develo went Plans in accordance with Section 8 of the Orange County Zoning ordinance. Site S ecific Development Plans are regmired only where an aRplicant wishes to vest his RrORerty rights fora Period longer- than that otherwise Rermittpd by this Ordinance. Vested Right - The right to undertake and complete the development of a Rroperty under the terms and conditions of an- apioroved Site Specific Development Plan. provided' however, failure to abide by such terms and conditions shall resul in a forfeiture of vested rights. The vested right is attached to and runs with the applicable property and may be exercised by success rs to the on 'nal landowner. The a urin which a yes ri ht is in affect may be extended by amendments or modifications to the Site Specific Development Plan. An application for an amendment or._mgdification to an approved Site Specific Development Plan shall_ be treated _as anew ag lication. Once established, a vested right supersedes any zoning action whic ould of ect with the ty2e and intensity of use aRRroved in the e S ecific Development Plan EXCEPT: a) upon written consent of the landowner; b) upon findings after a pgbalic hearing, that if the development were to proceeds natural or man- made_hazards would pose a serious threat to the public health, safety and welfare4 c.) to the extent that the landowner is compensated for costs and expenses other than loss at-property_yalue; d) upon findings, after a public hearing, that the applicant ,hisJher rgnresgntative(s_ intentionally_ sut� plied inaccurate or misleading information which led to the aa22roval of the project; or e) upon findings, after a public hearing, that a change in a State or Federal law or___recrulation_precludes_ development of the project as approved. Vesting of rights does not Rreclude the application of overlay zoning d'stricts which impose additional regulations, provided that the reaulations are applicable to all property subject to this Ordinance and the allowable t e and intensity of use is not affected The vested right terminates at the end of the approved vesting period_for buildings and uses for which building permits have not been issued. Building permits do not expire durin -m the approved vesting period. ARTICLE 14.3 - SITS PLAN REVIEW 14.3.2 Where an application is found to be inconsistent with the above criteria, Staff may recommend changes to the site plan. Following review of the site plan, except as provided by Article 14.3.3 of this Ordinance, the Planning and Inspections Department will take final action on the application within 21 days of acceptance. Such action will be one of the following: a. Approval, 7 b. Approval subject to conditions, or c. Denial. Failure to meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3, and /or to address agency comments solicited during plan review, will result in denial of the application. If a plan is approved subject to conditions, no zoning permit or subsequent building permit shall be issued until all conditions of approval have been met to the satisfaction of Orange County. At th o t'on of t e ARRlicant. a Site Plan may be vested for a D@riod of not less than two 2 nor more than five (5) years. To become vested, a Site Plan must be approved by the Board of Count Commissioners as a S ecial Use Permit pursuant to Article 8 of this Ordinance. An approved Site Sj2@cific Develo ment Plan shall contain the zoning right shall be valid until ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES Article 8.4.11 - Time Limits on Special Uses Tf no construction has started within the stated time frame the Special Use Permit becomes null and of no effect. If a Leggest is received before the RLrmit expires, the Board of county Commissioners for good cause shown may extend the expiration deadline six 6 months upon the favorable recommendation of the Planning Board. No changes shall be made to the conditions_ of approval only ,one such aRRroval of the ti a extension is er Litted and it shall be based on evidence Rresented by the a licant showing that Rermits have been pursued in a timely manner, and that delays have resulted from factors beyond the control of the develo er. For develo ments which require aRRroval of a S ecial Use not less than two 2 nor more than five 5 ears. For vest ing ur oses Site Plans and Preliminary Pats may also as specified in Article 8.8.27. 8 Article 8.8 - Regulations Governing Individual special Uses The regulations for each Class A and Class B Special Use are divided generally into two sections: the first consists of additional and specific components of the application beyond those necessary to comply with Section 8.6, while the second consists of the specific standards which are supplementary to the general standards in Section 8.2 and to the required conditions in Subsection 8.4.7. The following additional information is required for all Special Use Applications: a) For Class A Special Uses, twenty -six (26) copies of the Site Plan, and for Class B Special Uses, ten (10) copies of the Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina land surveyor, landscape architect, architect, or engineer, which shall contain the information listed in Article 14.2.2. Where the a lication involves a P elim'nar Subdivision Plat, twenty -six (26) copies of the Plat PreRared in accordance with Section V of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations shall be provided. b) Elevations of all proposed structures to be used in the development. c) For Class A Special Uses twenty -six (26) copies and for Class B Special Uses ten (10) copies of the Environmental Assessment and /or Environmental Impact Statement, if required by the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance. d) A fee, as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Article 8.8.27 - Bits s ecific Develo meat Plans 8.8.271 - Additional Information In addition to the information required-in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8. the-following shall be submitted as part of-the aRRlicat _io a For Site Plans and Pggliminary Preliminary Plats a list of all parcels located within 500 feet of the subject parcel and the name and address of each property, owner. b) Statement from the develop r indicating the anticipated_ development sgh__gdule for the build -out of the ro'ect. c) Statement from the deveigper in justification-of any reguest for vesting or a er'od of-Egre of-E than two years five years_ maxiaium)� 8.8.27.2 - Standards of Evaluation The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an an2lication for this use: a) The prolgct meets all applicable design standards and other requirements of the Orange Count Zoning Ordinance and Orange CouLat-y Subdivision Regulations. b) The development can reasonably be completed within the vested period requested.,, c)`. Where vesting in excess of two (2) years is requested_ e o'ect is located in an area where current issues under study do not involve potential amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance, or Orange,County Subdivision Regulations_ SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION II - DEFINITIONS Site Specific Development Plan - A Alan aWroved by the Orange Count Board of Commissioners following a ublic h-earing and which describes, with reasonable certainty, the type and intensity of use for a suecific parcel or parcels _of property located within the County's zoning igrisdiction. A Site Specific Development Plan shall bg deemed approved upon the effective date of the Board of Commissioners' action. Site Plans Special Use Permits, Planned DevgloRments and Preliminary Subdivision Plats may be approved as Site S ecific 02YRIORment Plans in accordance with Section 8 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Site S ecific Development Plans are re 'red only where an aRDlicant wishes to vest his RrOReXty rights fora period longer than that otherwiss ROXMitted by this Ordinance. Vested Right - The right to undertake and com late the doveloRment of a Rro2jrty under the terms and conditions of an , approved Site Specific Development Plan, provided however, failure to abide by such terms and.�conditions, shall result in a forfeiture of vested rights; The vested right is attached to and runs with the aDRlicable RroRarty and may be exercised by successors to the original landowner. The pgiziod during ,which a vested right is in affect may be extended by amendments or modifications to the Site Specific Develo ment Plan. An application for an amendment 10 or modification to an a oved Site S eci is Development Plan shall be treated as ..a new aRRlication. Once-established, a vested right supersedes any zoning action which would affect with the type and intensity of use aRRroygd in t -0 Site S ecifiC Develo ment Plan EXCEPT: a) upon written consent _of,the_ landowner: b) upon findings, after a public hearing, that if the development were to proceed, natural or man -made hazards would pose a serious threat to the py„blic health, safety and welfare; W to the extent that the landowner is , compensated for costs and expenses other than loss of property value_ . approval_of_ the project; or e) upon findings, after a public hearing, that a change in a State or Federal law or regulation precludes development of the project as approved. Vesting of rights does not preclude the application of overlay zoning districts wh'c "m ose additional regulations,_ provided that the regulations are applicable_to_all_ property_ subject to this Ordinance, and the allowable type and intensity of use is not affected. The vested right terminates ,at __the, _endof_ the approved _vesting_ period for buildings and uses for which building permits have not been issued. Building permits do not expire during the approved vesting period. Subdivision, Minor - A division of a tract of land that does not: (1) Create more than five (5) lot, including the residual acreage, from any one (1) tract of land in any twenty -four (24) month period; (2) Dedicate or improve any new public street other than widening an existing public street; (3) Extend public water and /or sanitary sewerage systems other than laterals to serve individual lots; and (4) Necessitate the installation of drainage improvements which would require easements through one (1) or more lots to serve other lots. 11 III -- APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES III -D - Approval Procedures for Major Subdivisions III -D -2 - Preliminary Plat Approval ARRlig4tjon and aRRroval edures specified in this Section may be ag ied to a1-1,Preliminary Rlats. In areas where otherwise providea by this Section. If he she wishes to exercise this option, the application approval procedures ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING HOARD REVIEW: � -sL�40��z 4Ci A ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 12 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 i31 M E M O R A N D U M To: John Link, County Manager Marvin Collins, Planning Director Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney FROM: Mary Scearbo, Planner III DATE: August 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Vested Rights A memorandum dated August 22, 1991 regarding Vested Rights was sent to "Managers, Attorneys, and Planning Directors" by the N.C. Association of County Commissioners. Enclosed was an analysis of Senate Bill 766 (effective date October 1, 1991) and a copy of a Model Ordinance drafted by the League of Municipalities and modified for application to counties. An amendment to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the provisions of Senate Bill 766 will be presented at the public hearing on Monday, August 26. In comparing the model ordinance, and the proposed amendments, I found that the provisions included in the model ordinance are, for the most part, covered in the proposal, though the arrangement is different. The model ordinance does contain the following concepts, which are not in the proposed amendment: 1) Specifying that a variance is not a Site Specific Development Plan. 2) Notation on vested site plan, plat, etc.: "Approval of this plan establishes a zoning vested right under GS 153A- 344.1. Unless terminated at an earlier date, the zoning right shall be valid until MEMORANDUM AUGUST 23, 1991 Page 2 13 3) Repealer - if legislation is repealed, then ordinance is automatically repealed. I recommend that #2 (notation of the vesting on the plan) above be incorporated into the proposed amendment. I do not think it is necessary to specify that a variance does not constitute a Site Specific Development Plan, since it is clearly stated what does constitute a Site Specific Development Plan. Also, I do not think that a repealer provision is appropriate, since the provisions are incorporated into several places in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. If GS 153A -344.1 is repealed, then we need to amend ordinance as soon as possible. If there are no objections, I will mention the model ordinance at the hearing, and propose that the notation language be added. -- 14 W NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF goy oy COUNTY COMMISSIONERS } CouNT4 c MEMORANDUM TO: Managers, Attorneys, Planning Directors FROM: C. Ronald Aycock, Executive Director JoAnne Spell, Staff Counsel DATE: August 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Vested Rights During the 1990 short session, the General Assembly ratified Senate Bill 766 - Vested Rights. This complicated law, most of which is codified at G.S. 153A -344.1 (for counties) and G.S. 160A -385.1 (for cities), has an effective date of October 1, 1991. The bill also contemplates the adoption Of a local ordinance implementing the law effective that same date. Enclosed is an analysis of the law and a copy of a model ordinance drafted by the League of Municipalities and modified for county application. A copy of the relevant portions of Senate Bill 766 is also enclosed. If you have any questions or suggestions, please call JoAnne Spell at (919) 832 -2893. enclosures f: \joanne \vested.doc ALBERT COATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER - 215 NORTH DAWSON STREET P. O. BOX 1488, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602 -1488 • TELEPHONE (919) 832 -2893 15 `1 North Carolina Association of County Commissioners ZONING VESTED RIGHTS G.S. 153 -344.1 (SENATE SILL 766) At the urging of the North Carolina Home Builders Association, (hereinafter "HBA ") during the 1989 session of the North Carolina General Assembly, the Senate passed a version of Senate Bill 766 that would have allowed a property owner to acquire a vested right upon filing a "notice of,' intent to develop. " The vested right would have frozen the allowable uses, density and dimensional requirements applicable to the property for a period of two years. This version of the bill was unacceptable to North Carolina counties. However, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (hereinafter "Association ") and the North Carolina League of Municipalities (hereinafter "League ") did indicate a willingness to discuss a more rational approach to establishing certain vested rights before the issuance of a building permit. Specifically, the Association and League offered as a model a Colorado law that moves up the point at which development rights vest to the time when a "site specific development plan" or a "development agreement" is approved by a local governing body. In the 1990 short session, the House subcommittee considering Senate Bill 766 urged the Association and the HBA to negotiate a compromise. Using the Colorado law as a starting point, the Association, the League and the HBA hammered out a compromise that was ultimately ratified by the General Assembly as Chapter 996 of the 1989 Session Laws (1990 Regular Session) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Act,- most of which is codified as G.S. 153A- 344.1 (for counties) and G.S. 160A -385.1 (for cities), has an effective date of October 1, 1991. Through a series of questions and answers, this document provides a,basic analysis of the new law. The appendix includes a copy of the portions of the G.S. 153A -344.1 that are applicable to counties and an annotated model ordinance that may be adapted for use by individual local governments. In reviewing these materials, please note that. they, are intended only as a resource for local officials and not as the final word on a complicated law. Also, since this new law is, with limited exceptions, self- implementing, local officials' need to become and remain familiar with it in addition to any locally adopted ordinance. Since the issues raised by G.S.. -153A -344.1 involve important legal and planning concerns, the. county attorney and planning professionals should be consulted early and fully. -OVER- . 16 -2- What is a vested right for purposes of G.S. 153A -344.1 ( "the Act ")? A "vested right" means "the right to undertake and complete the development and use of property under the terms and conditions of an approved site specific development plan or an approved phased development plan." It is the Association's position that a vested right established under this statute provides protection only against zoning changes that would affect the allowable type or intensity of use. In addition to this statutory vested right, other "vested rights" may be established either by issuance of a building permit (G.S. 153A- 344(b)) or upon making substantial expenditures in good faith reliance on a governmental approval (the common law vested rights doctrine recognized by North Carolina courts). Hoar is a vested right established under the Act? A vested right is established with respect to any property upon the valid approval, or conditional approval, of a site specific development plan or a phased development plan, following notice and a public hearing by the county with jurisdiction over the property. A site specific development plan is "a plan which has been submitted to a county by a landowner describing with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels of property." A phased development plan is "a plan which has been submitted to a county by a landowner for phased development 'which shows the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels with a lesser degree of certainty than the plan determined by the county to be a site specific development plan." The Act. requires each county to identify by ordinance what constitutes a site specific development plan that will trigger a vested right... Among the types of approvals or permits that may constitute a site specific development plan are: a subdivision plan, a conditional or special use permit, a site plan, and a planned unit development plan. The identification of the zoning or other land use approvals that constitute a site specific development plan is the major discretionary decision delegated to counties under the Act. Conversely, the Act gives a county the option of adopting an ordinance that provides for the vesting of rights on the basis of an approved phased development plan. If vested rights are granted upon approval of a phased'development.plan, the county may require the landowner to submit -for final approval a site specific development plan for each phase of development. 17 -3- A county may condition approval of a development plan upon such terms as may "reasonably. be necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare." However, a county cannot require a landowner to waive his vested rights as a condition of approval. Since the Act does not affect the standard for establishing vested rights upon issuance of a building permit or upon meeting the court -- created common law or constitutional standards (the good faith substantial expenditures test), a property owner may still acquire the rights that are vested by those methods. What procedures are necessary in order to establish a vested right? Generally, the Act does not require additional procedures beyond those established by statute or ordinance for the underlying land use approval that constitutes the site specific development plan or phased development plan. However, the Act does provide that the approval follow notice and public hearing. The Act does not indicate what kind of notice and hearing is required. With respect to the notice requirement, one plausible interpretation is that the provisions of G.S. 153A -323 and Chapter 160A, Article 19 apply and, therefore, notice must be published in a newspaper having general circulation once a week for two successive weeks. On the other hand, these sections apply to proposed ordinance amendments and not permitting decisions. In fact, there is no statutory notice requirement for permitting decisions. Rather, notice of a pending permit, whether by publication, posting or mail, is typically given pursuant to an ordinance provision. Since the vested right follows from a quasi - judicial or administrative approval, compliance with the ordinance notice requirement for the underlying land use approval should be sufficient. However, a county may choose to comply with the notice requirements of G.S. 153A -323 and Chapter 160A, Article 19. Regarding the hearing requirement, the first issue is what kind of hearing is required. Although the Act uses the term "Public hearing ", thereby implying the kind of broad policy discussion-typically conducted when legislative.dec,isions such as zoning amendments are pending, the vested right is established upon the- -- approval -of - -a land - use permit, a quasi - judicial or administrative -- decision, and a quasi- judicial or "evidentiary" hearing should be- sufficient. Therefore, the type of hearing typically - conducted by the governing board or board of adjustment when considering a conditional or special use permit application is appropriate. -OVER- 18 -4- A second concern raised.,by the public hearing requirement is who is authorized to conduct a Tublic hearing and therefore, grant the land use approval that establishes the vested right. Since an argument can be made that an administrative official such as a zoning officer is not authorized to conduct a public hearing, it may be appropriate to designate the governing board or the board of adjustment as the only bodies authorized to grant an approval that establishes a vested right. Once established, how long is a vested right valid and who is entitled to the vested right? Generally, a vested right remains valid for two years. A vested right with a duration of longer than two years, but not exceeding five years, may be authorized by the county for either a site specific development plan or a phased development plan. In the event that the county subsequently approves an amendment or modification to the plan, the vesting period is not extended unless such an extension is expressly approved by the county. Once established, a vested right runs with the land. This means that a successor in interest is entitled to exercise the vested right held by the previous owner, as long as the vested right remains otherwise valid. How does the Act affect building permits? The Act provides that a building permit shall not expire or be revoked because of the running of time while a vested right is outstanding. Therefore, despite the fact that G.S. 153A -358 provides that a building permit expires six months after its issuance if the authorized. work has not commenced, or if the work has commenced, if, the work is discontinued for a period of twelve months, so long as the vested right remains valid, a building permit cannot expire regardless of whether work has commenced or been "discontinued. The Act also provides that a vested right shall terminate at the end of the applicable vesting period with respect to buildings and uses for which no valid building permit applications have been filed. Should a valid application for a building permit be filed within the vested period, the applicant is entitled to issuance of the - permit. Thereafter, if the vested period expires, the expiration of the building permit is governed by G.S. 153A -358. Does the establishment'of•- a-vested right preclude the application of subsequently enacted or amended land use regulations? 09*1 The Act only protects the holder of a vested right from zoning amendments that affect "the allowable type or intensity of use of property." Specifically, the Act does not preclude the application of overlay zoning that does not affect the allowable type or intensity of use (i.e. an historic district ordinance) or ordinances that are general in nature such as building, fire, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical codes. In addition, the Act does not prevent a county from adopting and enforcing zoning provisions that govern nonconforming situations or uses. When and how can an unexpired vested right be terminated? A vested right may be terminated in any of the following five ways: 1. The landowner agrees, in writing, to relinquish the vested right; 2. After notice and hearing, the county determines that there are natural or man -made hazards that would pose a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare if the project were to proceed; 3. The county compensates the landowner for ail out of -'f pocket costs, expenses, and other losses (including interest) incurred after plan approval; 4. After notice and hearing, the county determines that the landowner or his representative intentionally supplied inaccurate information or made material misrepresentations that made a difference in the approval of the plan; 5. After notice and hearing, the county determines that a subsequently enacted State or federal law or regulation would have a fundamental effect on the plan, thereby precluding development as contemplated in the plan. What happens if a county fails to adopt an ordinance that sets forth what constitutes a site specific development plan? If a county fails to adopt an ordinance identifying the land use approvals or permits that constitute a site specific development plan, a landowner may establish a vested right upon the approval of a zoning permit or by seeking appropriate relief in court. In addition, it must be remembered that the Act was a compromise reached by the Association and the HBA after the HBA was successful in pushing an extremely objectionable bill through the -OVER- 20 8. full Senate. If counties do,.not comply with the law, 'the HSA is likely. to use that fact in seeking additional legislation from the General Assembly. Conclusion At the outset of G.S. 153A- 344.1, the General Assembly states its purpose for enacting the law by declaring that "it is necessary and desirable, as a matter of public policy, to provide for the establishment of certain vested rights in order to ensure reasonable certainty, stability, and fairness in the land -use planning process, secure the reasonable expectations of landowners, and foster cooperation between the public and private sectors in the area of land =use planning." This Act, although not perfect, addresses these objectives. Significantly, the Act allows local governments to consider their own land use ordinances and local situations in determining what land use approval decision should trigger the creation of a vested right. The critical task for each county is to draft an ordinance that not only complies with the mandate and provisions of the Act, but also reflects the county's own special needs. At a minimum, the ordinance should contain precise definitions of a site specific development plan and phased development plan (if the 'latter is desired), indicate what decision and procedural requirements are necessary to trigger a vested right, and set forth the duration of a vested right and how such a right can be terminated. The attached ordinance is only a model. Each county should carefully draft an ordinance that takes into account the particular . zoning and land -use problems facing their community. If you have questions or comments about the Act or the model ordinance, please feel free to contact JoAnne Spell at the Association at (919) 832 -2893. a: \Q &AVEST.SAK \pc \dhwkdisk r� ti 1 21 AN ORDINANCE 'IMPLEMENTING THE STATU'T'ORY VESTED RIGHT PROVISIONS OF G.S. 153A -344.1 WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly ratified Senate Bill 766 on July 20, 1990 as Chapter 996 of the 1989 Session Laws (1990 Regular Session), effective October 1, 1991; and WHEREAS, Chapter 996 has been codified as G.S. 153A- 344.1; and WHEREAS, G.S. 153A -344.1 provides for the establishment of a statutory "vested right upon approval of a "site specific development plan "; and WHEREAS, the County of is authorized and required to identify the specific types of zoning or land use approvals that constitute a "site specific development plan" within the meaning of G.S. 153A- 344.1; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the (governing body) of the County of , North Carolina: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the provisions of G.S. 153A- -344.1 pursuant to which a statutory zoning vested right is established upon the approval of a site specific development plan. [Comment: Since the Act, gives counties the option of granting a vested right upon the approval of a phased development plan and given the varied types of approvals that could constitute a phased development plan and procedures for reviewing such developments, phased development plans are not addressed in this model ordinance.] Section 2. Definitions As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning indicated:' _. -. _- - - - - Approval authority_`- - -The (governing -board), - board of adjustment or other board or official.. designated by ordinance or - this chapter as being. authorized .to,.grant the specific -.... -- -- zoning or land use permit or_ approval that -: constitutes a site =- specific development plan: Site s ecific develo ment 'Rian A plan of land development submitted to the county-for purposes of obtaining one of the - OVER Fes• -2- following zoning or land use permits or approvals: ( list those permits or approvals that rshall establish a statutory vested right pursuant to G.S. 153A -344.1 and reference the ordinance provisions that provide for such permits or approvals). Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither a variance, a sketch plan nor any other document that fails to describe with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for a specified parcel or parcels of property shall constitute a site specific development plan. [Comment: The identification of those approvals or permits that will trigger a statutory vested right is the major discretionary decision delegated to counties under the Act.1 Zonin vested ri ht - A right pursuant to G.S. 153A -344.1 to undertake and complete the development and use of property under the terms and conditions of an approved site specific development plan. Section 3. Establishment of a Zoning Vested Right. (a) A zoning vested right shall be deemed established upon the valid approval, or conditional approval, by the (governing board) or board of adjustment, as applicable, of a site specific development plan, following notice and public hearing. (b) The approving authority may approve a site specific development plan upon such terms and conditions as may reasonably be necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), approval of a site specific development plan with the condition that a variance be obtained shall not confer a zoning vested right unless and until the necessary variance is obtained. (d) A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved upon the effective date of the approval authority's action or ordinance relating thereto. (e) The establishment of a zoning vested right shall not preclude-:the application of overlay zoning -that imposes additional, requirements but does not affect the allowable type or intensity of use, or ordinances or regulations that are general in nature., and are applicable to all property subject-to land -use regulation by the county, including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical codes. Otherwise applicable new or amended regulations shall become effective with 23 --�1 -3- respect to property that is subject to a site specific development plan upon the expiration or termination of the vested right in accordance with this chapter. • (f) A zoning vested right is not a personal right, but shall attach to and run with the applicable property. After approval of a site specific development plan, all successors to the original landowner shall be entitled to exercise such right while applicable. Section 4. Approval Procedures and Approval Authority. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an application for site specific development plan approval shall be processed in accordance with the procedures established by ordinance and shall be considered by the designated approval authority for the specific type of zoning or land use permit or approval for which application is made. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) , if the authority to issue a particular zoning or land use permit or approval has been delegated by ordinance to a board, committee or administrative official other than the (governing board), board of adjustment or other planning agency designated to perform any or all of the duties of a board of adjustment, in order to obtain a zoning vested right, the applicant must request in writing at the time of application that the application be considered and acted on by the (governing board)[or board of adjustment], following notice and a public hearing as provided in G.S. 153A -323 and Chapter 160A, Article 19. [Comment: Due to a concern that only the governing board, board of adjustment and other planning agency designated pursuant to G.S. 153A -345 are authorized to hold a public hearing, and since a public hearing is a prerequisite to obtaining a vested right, this subsection was drafted in order to give the applicant the ability to obtain a vested right by agreeing to have his /her application considered by either the governing board or board of adjustment.] (c) In order for a zoning vested right to be established upon approval of - - a-- • site specific . development. plan, the applicant must indicate at the -time of..application, on a form to be provided by the county, that a zoning vested right is being - sought. [Comment: A model form is attached as an appendix to this ordinance.]_ , - OVER -;` 24 -4- (d) Each map, plat, site plan, or other document evidencing a site specific development plan shall contain the following notation: "Approval of this plan establishes a zoning vested right under G.S. 153A- 344.1. Unless terminated at an earlier date, the zoning vested right shall be valid until (date)." (e) Following approval or conditional approval of a site specific. development plan, nothing in this chapter shall exempt such a plan from subsequent reviews and approvals to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the original approval, provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with the original approval. (f) Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the revocation of the original approval or other remedies for failure to comply with applicable terms and conditions of the approval or the zoning ordinance. Section S. Duration. (a) A zoning right that has been vested as provided in this chapter shall remain vested for a period of two years unless specifically and unambiguously provided otherwise pursuant to subsection (b). This vesting shall not be extended by any amendments or modifications to a site specific development plan unless expressly provided by the approval authority at the time the amendment or modification is approved. [Comment: The governing board could also provide by ordinance that the vesting period begins anew upon approval of an amendment or modification or, alternatively, that the vesting period is never extended by an approved amendment or modification.] (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the approval authority may provide that rights shall be vested for a period exceeding two years but not exceeding five years where warranted in light of all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the size of the development, the level of investment, the need for or desirability of the development, economic cycles, and market conditions. These determinations shall be in the sound discretion of the approval authority at the time the site specific development plan is approved. [Comment: The governing board may choose to limit the duration of all vested.rights to two years.3 (c) Upon issuance of a building permit, the expiration provisions of G.S. 153A -358 and the revocation provisions -5- of G.S. 153A -362 shall permit shall not expire running of time while a section is outstanding.. Section 6. Termination. 25 apply, except that a building or be revoked because of the zoning vested right under this A zoning right that has been vested as provided in this chapter shall terminate: (a) at the end of the applicable vesting period with respect to buildings and uses for which no valid building permit applications have been filed; (b) with the written consent of the affected landowner; (c) upon findings by the (governing board), by ordinance after notice and a public hearing, that natural or man -made hazards on or in the immediate vicinity of the property, if uncorrected, would pose a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare if the project were to proceed as contemplated in the site specific development plan; (d) upon payment to the affected landowner of compensation for all costs, expenses, and other losses incurred by the landowner, including, but not limited to, all fees paid in consideration of financing, and all architectural, planning, marketing, legal, and other consultant's fees incurred after approval by the county, together with interest thereon at the legal rate until paid. Compensation shall not include any diminution in the value of the property which is caused by such action; (e) upon findings by the (governing board), by ordinance after notice and a hearing, that the landowner or his representative intentionally supplied inaccurate information or made material misrepresentations which made a difference in the approval by the approval authority of the site specific development plan; or (f) upon the enactment or promulgation of a State or federal law or regulation that precludes development as contemplated in the site specific development plan, in which case the approval authority may modify the affected provisions, upon a finding that the change in State or federal law has a fundamental effect on the plan, by ordinance after notice and a hearing. . -OVER- 26 T 1 Section 7. Limitations. Nothing in this chapter is intended or shall be deemed to create any vested right other than those established pursuant to G.S. 153A- 344.1. Section B. Repealer. , In the event that G.S. 153A -344.1 is repealed, this ordinance shall be deemed repealed and the provisions hereof no longer effective. Section 9. Effective Date. This chapter shall be effective October 1, 1991 and shall only apply to site specific development plans approved on or after October 1, 1991. a: \vested.bak \pc \dhwkdisk' 27 l APPENDIX CERTIFICATION THAT A STATUTORY ZONING VESTED RIGHT IS BEING SOUGHT PURSUANT TO G.S. 153A -344.1 As applicant for a (identify land use approval or-permit that is being sought), I hereby certify that I am also seeking to acquire a vested right pursuant to G.S. 153A- 344.1. If the county provides that the approval authority for the type of land use approval or permit for which I am applying is a board, committee or administrative official other than the (governing board) or board of adjustment, I understand and agree that my application will be considered and acted on by the (governing board), following notice and a public hearing. Date 3 a: \vested.bak \pc \dhwkdisk Applicant 1989 Re sess .._.._ -.. _...._ - -- - 199Q Session C. 966 Sec. 5. G.S. 153A- 344(b) reads. 'as rewritten: "(b) Amendments, modifications. supplements,'repeal or other changes in zoning regulations and restrictions- and - zone boundaries shall'. not 'be applicable or enforceable without consent of the- owner with regard to 1•& buildings and uses for which either i building permits have been issued pursuant to G.S. 153A -357 prior to the enactment of the ordinance making the change or changes so long as the permits remain valid and - unexpired pursuant to G.S. 153A -353 and unrevoked pursuant to G.S. 153A -362 or (ii) a vested right has been established pursuant to G.S. 153A -344.1 and such vested risrht remains valid and unexpired pursuant to G.S. 153A- 344.1." Sec. 6. Part 3 of Article 18 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: " 153A -344.1. Vesting rights - 1.l) `Landowner' means any owner of a legal or equttanie interest in real property, including the heirs. devisees, successors, _assigns, and nPrannal renresentative of such owner.- The landowner may allow M (Z M section, in the manner allowed by ordinance. _County' shall have the same meaning as set forth in G.S. 153A- ,D ncorl rtavalnnmNnt nlnn' menn,; a nlan which has been i'Zs'♦kTil development plan, - a conditional or sl2ecial use permit. a conditional or special use district zoning Ian or any other land - use a royal desi nation as may be utilized by a county. Unless the site: he apgrgximate location on the site of the ro osed 28 T `1,R] buildings, structures, and other impro-_ementsL the approximate dimensions, including height, of the_.Droposed buildings and other structures and the al2proximate location of all existing and ana Deaestrlan walkwnve What rnm -%zn mtpc It cite cnor -iFir- develo menr plan under- this section that would trijZkjer a vested right shall be finally 'determined_ by the Caunty pursuant to an ordinance, and-the-document that tri�•�� , ers such vesting shall be so � .,_ identified at the time of its approval. However, at a „minim_um the ordinance to he adopted by the county shall designate a vestin,r paint . earlier than the issuance of a building_ permit. A variance shall not constitute a site specific development Dian_ and aonroval Until the necessary variance is obtained. Neither a sketch plan nor anv other document which fails to describe with reasonable certainty the tvpe and intensity of tie, for a specified parcel or 12arcels or property may constitute a sitespecific development plan. (6� `Vested right' means the right to undertake and complete the development and use of l2roperty under the terms and conditions of an approved site specific development plan or an approved phased development plan. (c ) Establishment of vested right. A vested right shall be deemed established with _respect to any property upon the id anoroval, or conditional approval, of a site soecific develooment Dian or a phased development plan, followinlr notice and Dublic hearing by the cnunty with rt v rlgnt to undertake and complete_ the development and use of said oronerty under the plan including any amendments thereto. A county may agl2rove a site s ecific develol2ment plan or a phased development plan u on sLIch term; and conditions as may reasonabl be necessary to proleCE the public health safety. and welfare. Such conditional approval shall result in a vested ri ht. althou h failure to abide by such terms and conditions will result in a forfeiture of vested ri hts. A county shall not require a landowner to waive his vested ri hts as a condition of developmental approval. A site specific _ de-velopment elan or a phased development plan shall be deemed app-roved upon the effective date of the county's action or ordinance relating thereto. d Duration and termination of vested right. u A right which has been vested as provided for in this section shall remain vested fora period of tw-o years. This yesting shall not be extended by anv amendments or modifications to a sitespecific develooment plan unless exi)ressty provided by the county M2 e tha v ma relevant circumstances including, but not limited to -the size and phasing of development, the level of investment the need for the development. economic cycles_ and market conditions. These determinations shall be in the sound discretion of the county C31 Notwithstanding the provisions of (d, )(1 and (d)(2). the county may provide by ordinance that._a,pproval by a county of a phased development plan shall vest the zoning classification or classifications so approved for_ a _ period not to exceed five vears. 111C UUCument mat triggers sucn vestin snail be so tdentified at the time of its approval. The county still may re uire the landowner to submit a site specific development plan for approval by the county with resnert to Parh nhaca nr nhneAc in nrri mr UVW111 1111ai du JrUVaI W Ueyeinn Wltnln tne,_restrlCUOn OC the Vested zoning classification or classifications. Nothing in this phased development plan. 30 electrical, and mechanical codes. Otherwise ai)plicahle ne« raoidntinnc shall hecnm& effective with resnect to nrnnerty which I'S development' plan upon the expiration or -termination of the vesti� ni rights period provided for in this section. L3� Notwithstanding any provision of this section— tlie_estcihlish►nent of a vested right shall not preclude, change or impair the authority of a county to adopt and enforce zoning ordinance provisions governing nonconforming situations or uses. Miscellaneous provisions. L11 A vested right obtained under this section is not a_personal right. but shall attach to and run _with_ the applicable._ property._ After approval of a site specific development plan or a phased development plan, all successors to the original landowner shall be entitled to exercise such rights. Nothing in this section shall preclUde iudicial determination hayed on common law principles or other statutory provisions, that a vested right exists in a particular case or that a compensable taking has occurred. Except as expressly provided in this section nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the existing common law. In the event a county fails to adopt an ordinance setting forth % %hm constitutes a site specific development plan triggering a vested ri ht a landowner may establish a vested right with respect-to property upon the approval of a zoning permit. or otherwise ma% CPAk- nnnrnnriate relief from the Suoerior Court Division of the Sec. 7. This act shall become effective on October 1, 1991, and shall apply only to site specific development plans or phased development plans approved on or after that date. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 20th day of July, 1990. JAMES C. GARDNER James C. Gardner President of the Senate J. L MAVRETIC J. L. Mavretic Speaker of the House of Representatives (OMMITTING SECTIONS 1, 2, 3 and 4) Senate Bill 766 C31 m Following 011212roval or conditional approval of a site s ecific 31 development plan_ or a phased development plan_ nothing in this ,...u12 WUMV Lu cnsure com fiance with the terms and conditions gf the original approval. provided that such reviews and rovals are not inconsistent with said original approval. Nothin in this section shall prohibit the county trnm revnkina the nrioinnl A right which ha.-_ een vested as provided in this section shall terminate at the end of the anplicable vestine period with re-nect applications have been filed. e Subsequent changes prohibited, • exce tions. A vested right, once established as provided for in this section precludes any zoning--action by a county which would change, alter, impair, prevent, _ diminish, or otherwise delav the development or Use of_ the l2roperty as set forth in an approved site specific development plan or an approved phased development plan. except: a. With the written consent of the affected landowner: b. Upon findings, by ordinance after notice and a public hearing, that natural or man -made hazards on or in the immediate vicinity of the oropertv, if uncorrected_ would m pose a serious tnreat to the public health, safety, and welfare if the project were to proceed as contemplated in the site specific development plan or the phased development plan; C. To the extent that the affected landowner receives com ensation for all costs expenses, and other losses incurred by the landowner- incluciina hnr nnr limirari to all thereon at the legal rate until aid. Compensation shall not include an diminution in the value of the property which is d. Upon findings. by ordinance after notice and a hearing, that the landowner or his re resentative intentionally supplied inaccurate information or made material misrepresentations which made a difference in the approval--by the county of the site s ecific development plan or the 12hased develo ment plan, • or I. Upon the enactment or romul ation of a State or federal law or reeulation which precludes develnpment ac n swimcaLign or overlay zoning which imposes additional re uirements but does not affect the allowable type or intensity of use or ordinances or re ulations which are ederal in nature and are ap2licable to all property subject to land -use regulation by a county including, but not limited to building, fire plumbing, 3, �gqQ A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. Density Bonuses (1) Article 6.27 - Affordable Housing (2) Article 7 - Planned Developments This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In Summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment which would allow application of density bonus provisions for affordable housing to all residential development projects. In May, 1990, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow a density increase of up to 50% for developments which reserve a percentage of the units for occupancy by low or moderate income households. At this time, the density bonus provisions apply only to Planned Developments. Recent legislation provides the authority for Orange County to extend the provisions to all developments subject to the Zoning Ordinance. The bonus provisions could then be applied to Site Plans, Special Use Permits, and Subdivisions. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD None. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. Jeff Peloquin asked if other concessions could be made for affordable housing, such as a leniency in the area of building permits, where, the housing could be located, or to downsize the lot size. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to.the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d . Vested R i 9hts (1) Article 8.4.11 - Time Limits on Special Uses (2) Article 8.8 a) - Regulations Governing Individual Special,Uses (3) Article 8.8.27 - Site Specific Development Plans (4) Article 14.3.2 - Site Plan Review (5) Article 22 - Definitions This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented, in conjunction with item 4(a), tc receive citizen comment. See 4 (a) for the presentation and motion. s6f �� ? 4. - SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS A--- Vested Ri hts (1) Section 11 - Definitions (2) Section III- D -2 Preliminary Plan Approval This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this provisions were presented to receive citizen comment for the vesting of property rights as required by Senate Bill 776, ratified July 22, 1990. Senate Bill 776 provides that local governments establish ordinance provisions pertaining to the point at which property rights become vested. The provisions of Senate Bill 776 go into effect on October 1, 1991. Currently„ the right to complete a development, even if zoning regulations change, is vested when a building permit is issued. The project remains vested for as long as the building permit remains valid. A development may also be vested if there have been "substantial expenditures" made in good -faith reliance an a approved permit. The new vesting legislation is in addition to this current law, and requires that a vested right be established for at least 2 years upon the approval, after a public hearing, of a "Site Specific Development Plan ". A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Payments in Lieu of Dedications - Section IV- B -7 -b -6 This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations regarding the use of funds received from payments made in lieu of recreation dedication. The North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 153A- 331(a) describes the contents and requirements of a county's subdivision control ordinance. Effective June 10, 1991, this Section, as applicable to Orange County, was amended to allow the County to develop recreation areas using funds received from subdividers who make payments in lieu of dedicating land for recreation. Previously, the County could only acquire land with payment -in -lieu funds, by not developing the recreation area with monies from the same source. The proposed amendment to Section IV- B- 7--b -6 will include development of recreation areas as a use for funds received from payments made in lieu of dedication. A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING FEES \(a) Re- Approval of Expired Subdivision Plats (b) Site Plan Approval - Non - Residential Projects 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. VjT-� ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7, 1991 SUBJECT: PROPOSED LEASE; GRAHAM BUILDING -------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVS. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO :XX - ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:-PAM JONES ALBERT KITTRELL, MARTI COOK Telephone Number - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 Mebane -227 -2031 Durham -688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider leasing the Graham Building at 118 N. Churton Street for use as DSS offices and the Veteran's Office. BACKGROUND: The Department of Social Services continues to struggle with space constraints at the Tryon Street location. Although approximately 1200 additional square feet were allocated during the past- 18 months, the shortage is still critical. In an effort to provide minimal relief, the County is considering leasing the Graham Building at 118 N. Churton Street. The Graham Building is a structure of approximately 700 square feet which is situated-between CCB and Hillsborough Savings and Loan on North Churton Street. It is comprised of three offices, plus a larger reception /waiting area. The building is owned by Hillsborough Savings and Loan and was most recently occupied by Piedmont Rehabilitation Services, a physical therapy provider. Piedmont Rehab has moved to larger quarters in the North Hills Shopping Center on North Churton. It is proposed that the initial lease begin November 1, 1991 and run through June 30, 1995. The Lease payment to be as follows: November 1, 1991 through June 30, 1993 $500 per month (approx $7 sf) July 1, 1993 -June 30, 1994 525 per month July 1, 1994 - June 30, 1995 552 per month. K Highlights of the proposed lease include: Orange County will pay for utility costs. Orange County will provide normal maintenance to facility, including HVAC units and,plumbing with a maximum expenditure of $1000 per year. Hillsborough Savings and Loan will provide maintenance beyond the $1000 figure. Orange County will provide janitorial service to the building. Hillsborough savings and Loan will maintain the exterior of the building including roof, sidewalks, etc. It is anticipated that two social workers as well as the Veterans Administration officer will occupy the building. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends a lease be approved, contingent upon staff and attorney review, with Hillsborough Savings and Loan, for a period from November 1, 1991 through June 30, 1995; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. OR AN G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 7 1991 Agenda Abstract Item #_ Vim_ SUBJECT: HILLSBOROUGH COOPERATIVE PLANNING AGREEMENT DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director X2592 7/5/91 Carey Letter 8/21/91 Draft Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement 9/10/91 Gordon Memorandum Planning Board 9/16/91 Minutes Hillsborough Planning Director 9/20/91 Memorandum Gordon 9/15/91 Memorandum Hillsborough Town Attorney 9/26/91 Memorandum PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough Mebane Durham Chapel Hill 732 -8181 227 -2031 688 --7331 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a revised Cooperative Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough. BACKGROUND: During recent months, two representatives from the governing boards of Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough met to discuss issues and objectives inherent in a cooperative planning and land use agreement. On June 4, 1991, the governing boards met to review a proposal drafted by the work group. The two governing boards agreed to the proposal except for two locations in the Transition Area. These included: 1. The area bounded generally by I -40, Old Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road (South Churton Street Extension), N.C. Highway 86, and the current Transition Area boundary; and 2. The area bounded generally by U.S. 70 Bypass, U.S. 70 Business, and Lawrence Road. The two boards agreed to resolve these differences, and the Board of Commissioners indicated it would ask the County Attorney to draw an agreement E consistent with the concepts and policies included in the proposal. The Planning Boards of the two jurisdictions would be asked develop appropriate land use plans and development standards for the area. - On July 5, 1991, Chairman Carey outlined a time schedule for activities related to the completion of a Cooperative Planning Agreement with Hillsborough. At its August 5, 1991 meeting, the Board of Commissioners received the recommendation of the Planning Board regarding the inclusion of the two areas mentioned above in the Transition Area. It was the concensus of the Board to adhere to the time schedule outlined in Chairman Carey's July 5 memorandum. A decision regarding the two Transition Area locations was scheduled for the Board's August 20, 1991 meeting. On August 14, 1991, the County Attorney completed the first draft of the proposed Cooperative Planning Agreement. The draft was forwarded to the Board of Commissioners, the County Manager, and the Planning Director. The Planning Board considered the draft Agreement at its August 19, 1991 meeting and recommended approval of the document. On August 20, the Board considered the two locations. However, Commissioner Bob Rose of the Hillsborough Town Board questioned provisions within the draft Agreement which identified a "Rural Character District" and proposed strategies - applicable therein. Another concern voiced by the Board of Commissioners was whether an Agreement was in effect if the two jurisdictions did not carry out the main provisions, including joint adoption of the Land Use Plan for the area. The Board of Commissioners asked the County Attorney to revise the draft Agreement to address these concerns. it --also asked that a revised time schedule be prepared to reflect the additional time needed to review the proposal with the Town of Hillsborough. On August 21, 1991, the County Attorney revised the draft Agreement. The Agreement was forwarded to the elected representatives of the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County on August 22, 1991 by Chairman Carey. At its September 3, 1991 meeting, the Board of Commissioners reviewed a revised schedule for consideration of the draft Agreement. The schedule is as follows: Activity Joint meeting of Hillsborough /Orange County governing boards to review draft Agreement Planning Board prepares recommendation on draft Agreement Planning Board recommendation on draft Agreement presented to Board of Commissioners Hillsborough /Orange County governing boards sign CPZ Agreement Date of Completion 9/10/91 9/16/91 10/7/91 10/22/91 On September 10, 1991. the two governing boards met and reviewed the draft Agreement. Only one provision was of sufficient concern to warrant amending the proposal. Article 4 contained a limitation on the extension of public water and sewer service into the Upper Eno Watershed. Town Board members indicated there are water lines (and customers) already in existence in the watershed. Plans are also being considered for construction of an elevated water tank in the watershed. Both governing boards agreed that Article 4 could be revised or a separate Addendum prepared which recognized existing service lines (and customers) as well as the proposed water tank. The Town Attorney will be asked to draft an amendment or addendum for future consideration. - "Fn terms of .concluding work Town Board felt that it mig approve the document at its meeting. If this occurs, it the Agreement signed at the October 22, 1991 meeting. on the Agreement, the at be in a position to October 14, 1991 regular may be possible to have Board of Commissioners, At its September 16, 1991 meeting, the Planning Board considered the proposed Agreement for a second time, including an amendment to Article 4 or an Addendum discussed by the two governing boards and those proposed by Commissioner Gordon. The Planning Board recommended approval of the document with the amendment to Article 4 or an Addendum. The Planning Board also approved of the punctuation corrections as noted by Commissioner Gordon in the last sentence 4 of Section 1.2 D. Commas should be added before and after the phrase, "or a combination of small developments." The Hillsborough Town Attorney has provided a proposed amendment to Article 4 to address the concerns raised at the joint meeting of the two governing boards. The Orange County Attorney has reviewed the proposal and sees no problem with the amendments to Article 4. He is providing a separate letter to the Board of Commissioners with his comments. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the revised Cooperative Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough, including the proposed amendment to Article,4 and the punctuation corrections, as recommended by the Planning Board. ORANGE COUI\= COMMISSIQI`TERS P.Q. Box 5161 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. Moses Care'. )r. Al,,, bi. Corson Stephen H. Halkiotis Verls 1. Insko Don Willhoit REM LE DUM A - 31•61i"sl 96t` -4501 fi6F•�331 644.30(x (F TO: orange County Board of Commissioners Mayor Horace Johnson and Hillsborough Town Commissioners FROM: Moses Carey, Jr. DATE: July 5, 1 991 RE: Hillsborough/ orange County CFZ Meeting Follow -up This is simply'to confirm' the results of our meeting which focused on a CFZ proposal'developed'"by a joint subcommittee cF these boards. - .. Overall, there was general agreement by both Boards with the concepts and key elements - presented in the proposal. . There also was- general agreement'. with -the - daps presented with two exceptions raised by the Town of -Hillsborough-__ These included the Northeas�_ corner of the intersection of 7-40 and Old Chapel Hill H i llsbor ough Road and the area east of-Hillsborough bounded by US 70 Business, US 70 Bypass and Lawrence Raad.,,'Hillsborough wished these to be included it its transition n 'area .' ' - While_. the Orange County Board of County Commissioners -could..not agree at the meeting to include these areas in the transition area, there --was consensus to sr-udy the request and notify Hillsborough of -the Board's decision prior to approval of the formal agreement. The joint boards agreed to instruct the County attorney to begin drafting language for an agreement consistent with the concepts and policies included in the proposal. They also agreed to refer the concept proposal to the planning boards and staffs cf both jurisdictions to begin drafting of an ordinance, policies, and land use plan revisions necessary to implement the agreement. While the work of the planning staffs and boards will continue aster the agreement is executed, Y have asked the County Attorney to present a drat agreement for consideration by the boards by mid August. Y suggest we try to revise as necessary `or signing in mid September. X have also asked the Orange County 6 Page 2. July 5, 1991 Planning Board to make a recommendation to the Commissioners on whether to include the areas requested by Y.i•llsborough into the transition area. This recommendation will come to us by early August for a decision by the board soon thereafter. Therefore, the timeline for formal agreement is as follows: ACTIrITY DATE OF COMPLETION 1. Planning Boards /Staff drafting Ongoing ordinance, policies and land use revisions to implement agreement 2. Planning Board recommendation August 5, 1991 on transition areas requested by Hillsborough 3. Attorney drafting of formal August 14, 2.991 CPZ Agreement- 4. Orange County Board of County August 20, 1991 Commissioners decision on addition of areas requested by Hillsborough in transition area S. Planning Board review of Draft September 3, 1991 agreement completed with recommendations to Board of county Commissioners -� 6. Hillsborough /Orange county September 3, ,991 Boards review draft agreement 7. Hillsborough /orange County September--17, 1991 Boards sign CPZ agreement cc: John Link Marvin Collins Geoff Gledhill Betty Eidenier Moses Carey Jr. Alice M. Gordan Stephen H. Halkiotis Verla I. Insko Don Willhoit ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 August 22, 1991 7 732 -6181 966 -4501 686 -7331 227.2031 644 -3004 (Fax) Ms. Alice Gordon Dr. Stephen Halkiotis Ms. verla Insko Mr. Don Willhoit Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 ' Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Mr. . Horace Johnson, xr . Allen L . Lloyd Ms Carol Lorenz Mr. Bobby Riley - Mr. Robert Rose Mr. Remus Smith r.. y,,ayor and Hillsborough ,Town.' COmmissioners . Town Hall ' c F ;::,, , Yom, t' t° i 101 East Orange Nth Crna, 2728 .r Hillsborough, Dear Board Members;. and CMayor Johnson :-= ` Z`~ �L" Enclosed is a revised ,'draft`of-�the::Cooperative Planning Agreement between Orange County and - --the Town of Hillsborough. It is different from and Aug st 14, 19_91.z�. draft in ;that it divides the Cooperative Planning Area into ..._aftransition� area and an open space area doing away`-with any reference,••.. even for illustrative purposes, of the Orange County Rural:Character Committee development options. It also expressly states that the transition area contains land likely to be annexed by Hillsborough in the foreseeable future. Finally, it clarifies that either party may withdraw from the agreement upon 30 days' ._written notice to the other party at any time before adoption by Orange County and Hillsborough of the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map. No public- hearing is required for withdrawal before those two key documents -are adopted. Thereafter, the withdrawal period is one year after written notice from the withdrawing party to the other which notice follows a public hearing on the proposed withdrawal. The Board of County Commissioners appreciates the observations made by Bob Rose at the August 21, 1991 County . - ft E; Orange County Board of Commissioners Mayor Johnson Hillsborough Town Commissioners Page 2 August 22, 1991 Commissioners meeting concerning the August 14, 1991 draft of the agreement and further appreciates the consideration of the Mayor of Hillsborough and the members of the Town Board of Commissioners of this Cooperative Planning Agreement. Very t my yours, Moses Carey, Jr. Chairm Orange County Board of Commissioners MCjr /GEG /lsg Enclosure xc: Marvin Collins Geoffrey E. Gledhill, Escruire John M. Link, Jr. _.J August 14, 1991 Revised August 21, 1991 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 199, by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the County" or "County ") and THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, a municipal corporation duly created and existing under the laws of North Carolina (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the Town" or "Town ") . W I T N E S S E T H: In consideration of the public benefits expected to flow from the cooperative efforts of Orange County and Hillsborough in establishing a coordinated and comprehensive system of planning within their area of joint public concern, County and Town hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE I. PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS, EFFECTIVE DATE Section 1.1 Purpose of the Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a method of coordinated and comprehensive planning in the Orange County - Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Area (hereinafter referred to as "Cooperative Planning Area"), as defined herein. Section 1.2 Definitions. A. Cooperative Planning Area. The area designated on the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map lying outside the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction of Hillsborough. The perimeter boundaries, the transition area boundaries 1 10 and the open space area boundaries of the - Cooperative Planning Area are shown on Exhibit A to this Agreement. B. Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan to be developed jointly by Orange County and Hillsborough and to be adopted by Orange County and as it may be amended from time to time. C. -- Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map. The Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map, to be developed jointly by Orange County and Hillsborough and to be adopted by Orange County and as it may be amended from time to time. D. Open Space Area. That portion of the Cooperative Planning Area designated on the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map as such and containing development options as may be approved by Orange County from time to time. The Open Space Area is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an urban or transition area, is generally rural and which will generally remain rural and generally contain low density residential uses. This area may be served by public water and sewer but solely for the purpose of the development of large developments or a combination of small developments with significant preserved open space and that therefore tend to preserve the rural nature of the area. E. Transition Area. That portion of the Cooperative Planning Area designated on the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map as such. This area is further defined as r 11 being in transition from rural to urban or already urban in density. Urban services (public water and sewer and other town services) are now provided to this area or are projected to be provided to this area. This area is further defined as likely to be annexed by Hillsborough in the foreseeable future. F. Development Permit. Major subdivision preliminary plat approval and any discretionary permit (whether called conditional or special use permit or some other term) issued by the Orange County Board of Commissioners or the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners. G. Involuntary Annexation. Annexation authorized or undertaken pursuant to Parts 2 and 3 of Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes. H. Voluntary Annexation. Annexation authorized or undertaken pursuant to Parts 1 and 4 of Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes. Section 1.3 Effective Date and Duration. A. Articles 1 and 2 of this Agreement shall become effective on the effective date of an Orange County ordinance or ordinances: (1) adopting this Agreement (after it has been approved by Hillsborough); and (2) amending Orange County's Zoning Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations as prescribed in Section 2.1 of this Agreement; and (3) adopting the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan; and (4) adopting the Cooperative 3 E 12 Planning Area Land Use Map. Articles 3 and 4 of this Agreement shall become effective -upon the execution of this Agreement. B. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by mutual agreement or by withdrawal of either party. A party may withdraw from this Agreement at any time before the adoption of the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Alan and the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map thirty (30) days following written notice to the other party. Any such withdrawal shall be effective thirty (30) days following receipt by the party not withdrawing of the notice of withdrawal. After the adoption of the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map, a party may not withdraw until it holds a public hearing on the proposed withdrawal followed by written notice to the other party within thirty (30) days of the public hearing. Any such withdrawal shall be effective one (1) year following receipt by the party not withdrawing of the written notice. Subject to termination provisions of this Agreement, annexation provisions of this Agreement shall be valid for not more than 20 years and may thereafter be renewed. C. Upon execution of this Agreement, the parties agree that each will take, in a timely manner and without unnecessary delay, all steps (including but not limited !� 13 to preparation and adoption of the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan, the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map, Zoning Maps, appointments of Transition Area representatives to the Hillsborough Planning Hoard and Board of Adjustment and all required land use ordinance amendments) required to cause this Agreement to.become effective. Each party will notify the other party when each step has been taken. Orange County will notify Hillsborough by resolution when Articles 1 and 2, of this Agreement become effective. ARTICLE 2. ADOPTION, ADMINISTRATION AND AMENDMENT OF STANDARDS Section 2.1 Standards Within the Transition Area. A. Hillsborough shall prepare a Zoning Map for the Transition Area and shall recommend its adoption by Orange County which, upon approval and adoption as prescribed in Subsection B of this Section, shall become part of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Map shall be prepared using zoning districts which correspond to the text of the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance and which correspond with the density designations and plan classifications as prescribed in the adopted'Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and the adopted Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map. B. Upon completion of the Zoning Map referred to in Section 2.1A, Orange County shall amend its Zoning Atlas in 5 14 accordance with said Map. Orange County shall also adopt by reference the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance and the Hillsborough Subdivision Regulations and make their provisions applicable to the Transition Area. Section 2.2 Standards Within the Open Space Area. Within the Open Space Area, the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations that are in effect on the effective date of this Agreement shall remain in effect until amended in accordance with Section 2.6 of this Agreement. Section 2.3 Permit Administration Within the Transition.Area. A. Except as otherwise provided in Sections 2.5 and 2.6, Hillsborough shall perform all functions related to the administration of the ordinances referenced in Section 2.18. Subject -to the remainder of this Section, Hillsborough shall administer the referenced ordinances just as if the land were located within Hillsborough's planning jurisdiction. Administration shall include but not be limited to the following: I. Receipt and processing of development applications; 2. Issuance of any required permits and certifications; 3. Review and approval of required site/ construction plans; 4. Conducting necessary site inspections; 5. Enforcement of all standards; 15 6. Any other acts or things necessary to administer the Ordinances; and shall be carried out in a manner so as to insure that a developer complies with all applicable ordinance requirements and the terms and conditions of any permit issued by the Town. The Town may charge fees for processing applications, conducting site /construction plan reviews, and carrying out site inspections in accordance with fee schedules applicable within the planning jurisdiction of the Town. B. Whenever Hillsborough receives an application for a development permit as defined in this Agreement relating to land within the Transition Area it shall forward a copy of the application to Orange County for review. The Town shall establish timetables to insure that Orange County has an opportunity to make recommendations regarding such applications, within the framework of the County's regularly scheduled meeting dates. To the extent possible, the timetables of the County and the Town shall provide for simultaneous review to expedite application processing; provided, however, the Town may not vote to issue or deny a permit until it has received the recommendations of Orange County or until the expiration of forty -five (45) days after Orange County has received the application, whichever occurs first. FA IV Section 2.4 Permit Administration in the Open Space Area. A. Except Ias otherwise provided in- Section 2.6 and. the remaining provisions of this Section, Orange County shall perform all functions related to the administration of the ordinances referenced in Section 2.2 in the same manner as if the land were located outside the Cooperative Planning Area. B. Whenever Orange County receives an application for a development permit as defined in this Agreement relating to land located within the Open Space Area, it shall forward a copy of the application to Hillsborough for review. The County shall establish timetables to insure that the Town has an opportunity to make recommendations regarding.such applications within the framework of the Town's regularly scheduled meeting dates. To the extent possible, the timetable of the Town and the County shall provide for simultaneous review to expedite application processing; provided, however, Orange County may not vote to issue or deny a permit until it has received the recommendation of the Town or until the expiration of forty -five (45) days after Hillsborough has received the application, whichever occurs first. Section 2.5 Enforcement Remedies. A. Permit revocation, if necessary and authorized by ordinance, shall be handled by the same individual or board authorized to issue the original permit. M. f 1 B. Within those portions of the Cooperative Planning Area where the ordinances specified - in Section 2.1B .are administered by the Town, enforcement efforts through the use of civil penalties, criminal penalties or injunctive relief shall be initiated by the Town. The Town shall have the duty to defend at its own expense and shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent it can legally do so, Orange County, its Board of Commissioners, its advisory boards, its staff and all members of its boards and staffs, in their official and individual capacities, from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, expenses, damages or liabilities, including attorneys' fees and court costs, resulting from the Town's administration of the ordinances specified in Section 2.1B. C. Orange County shall notify Hillsborough and Hillsborough shall notify Orange County as soon as practicable thereafter of any such claim, action or proceeding. Section 2.6 Text and Map Amendments. A. Proposed amendments to the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use-Plan and /or the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map may be initiated by (i) Orange County or (ii) Hillsborough or (iii) any other person by filing a request for such an amendment with Orange County. Any Petition or request to amend the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan received by the County shall be E 18 , referred to- Hillsborough. No such amendment-may become effective. until after it has been adopted by Hillsborough and Orange County following a joint public hearing by both governing bodies. Orange County and Hillsborough agree to periodically review the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map to consider changing conditions and circuihstances. This review will take place at five (5) year intervals unless some lesser or greater interval is agreed by the County.and the Town. B. Except as provided herein, proposed amendments to the text of the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances that are applicable within the Open Space Area as well as proposed changes in zoning district classifications (i.e., zoning map changes) that affect property within the Open Space Area shall be initiated and adopted in accordance with the procedures set forth in those County ordinances. All such proposals shall be referred to Hillsborough for review and recommendation. Orange County may not adopt such proposed amendments until Hillsborough has made its recommendations, or until the expiration of thirty (30) days following such referral, whichever occurs first. C. Whenever Hillsborough proposes to amend the text of its Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations, it shall deliver a copy of the full text of the proposed amendment 10 i 001 to Orange County not later than thirty (30) days before the date of the public hearing on any such amendment. However, with the written consent of the Orange County Manager or his designate, this thirty (30) day period may be reduced to not less than ten (10) days. Unless Orange County files with Hillsborough a written objection on or before the date of the public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment, then adoption of the amendment by Hillsborough shall automatically effect a corresponding amendment to the applicable ordinance adopted by reference by Orange County as provided in Section 2.1B. Any such objection shall be based on a determination by Orange County that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the adopted Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan. If Hillsborough adopts an amendment despite Orange County's objection, then it shall refer such amendment to Orange County with a request that the County make corresponding changes as expeditiously as reasonably possible so that Hillsborough may continue to enforce within the Transition Area the same standards that it enforces within its own planning jurisdiction. In the event of objection by Orange.County as provided herein, no such amendment shall be effective within the Cooperative Planning Area until it is adopted by Orange County. 11 20 D. Orange County may not unilaterally amend the -text of its zoning or subdivision ordinances applicable to .the Transition Area (i.e., those ordinances adopted by reference pursuant to Section 2.1B). Amendments to the ordinances referenced in Section 2.1B by Orange County may be accomplished only pursuant to Section 2.6C (including adoption by Orange County following a request to do`so by the Town) . Any petition or request to amend these ordinances received by the County or initiated by the County shall be referred to Hillsborough. E. Within the Transition Area, changes in zoning classifications may not be made unless and until an ordinance approving a zoning map amendment making the changes has been approved both by Hillsborough and Orange County following a joint public hearing by the two governing bodies. Requests for changes in zoning within the Transition Area that are filed with the County shall be referred to Hillsborough to initiate the amendment process. F. Proposed amendments to the text of this Agreement shall not become effective until approved by Hillsborough and until adopted by Orange County ordinance. Section 2.7 Representation of Transition Area Residents. Hillsborough shall revise its Zoning Ordinance to provide that at least one resident of the Transition Area shall be appointed to Hillsborough's respective planning board and 12 21 board of adjustment, in the same manner as representation of extraterritorial planning area residents is provided for in the Town's zoning ordinance. ARTICLE 3. LIMITATIONS ON ANNEXATIONS Section 3.1 No Annexation Into Open Space Area. Except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County, Hillsborough agrees that it will not annex into the Open Space Area (whether by voluntary or involuntary annexation or by any other method authorized by law) nor shall Hillsborough seek special legislation accomplishing such annexation. ARTICLE 4. LIMITATIONS ON THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. Section 4.1 Extensions of Public Water and Sewer. Except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County, Hillsborough agrees that it will not extend its public water and sewer into the Rural Buffer of the Orange County /Chapel Hill /Carrboro Joint Planning Area or into the Upper Eno Watershed. Except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County, Hillsborough agrees that it will not extend its public water and sewer into the Open Space Area of the Cooperative Planning Area except consistent with the development options for the Open Space Area adopted by Orange County from time to time. 13 THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of 199 Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Clerk to the Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Town Cler Mayor, Town of Hillsborough 14 22 EXHIBIT A 23 0 c 711 4 P qg.1 h r-4 Lb SEP- 10.1991 15 :00 FROM ALICE GORDON TO ELYTHE - LINK P.01 MEMORANDUM To: Participants in the Cooperative Planning Work Session From: Alice Gordon t #F Subject: Cooperative. Planning Agreement Date: September 10, 1991 I Since 1 will not be able to attend the work session this evening, let me share with you my thoughts on the Cooperative Planning Agreement. A. AgreementText In my opinion the agreement is in fairly Igood shape, so there is just one point I would like to make concerning the text. 1 believe that the Open -Space Area in the Hillsborough CP,Z should be clearly distinguished from the Rural Buffer;krea in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro JPA, so that the two are obviously distinct land use types. Therefore, I believe all reference to "rural' in the Open Space Area should be deleted and we should instead refer to areas that are 'not expected to become urban' or are 'not projected to require urban services.' We should also emphasize that the purpose of this area is to permanently! preserve open space. In Article 1, Section 1. 2 -- D, 'Open Space Area (page 2) the last two sentences could thus be worded something !like this (changes underlined): The Open Space Area is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an urban or transition area, is n-ot expected to become urban "ll contain significant a o nts of a anenti re erve o en s ace and generally contain low density residential ses. This area may be served by public water and sewer, � but soley for the Purpose of servicing large devg o2mentsl or a egmbination of d elo ent i h e si ni!ficant ermangntl erved oRgn s ace. B. R.Ca1 Character_Strateol I think the agreement can be signed without specifying Rural Character Strategies, if we agree that ope' n space should be permanently preserved. We may wish to work o%t a set of strategies for preserving open space using an underlying density of one acre (as opposed to two acres), but that Twill take time. TOTAL P.01 24 25 a caretaker position in the efficiency apartment. Discussion followed regarding what is an addition 'unui Ju�u� as opposed to an attached dwelling. The answer was that building codes designate a separate meter which indicates a habitable or self - contained unit with kitchen facilities. Eidenier noted this amendment had already been approved for stick -built dwellings. This amendment would allow the same for mobile or modular homes. MOTION: Waddell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Reid. VOTE: Unanimous. (3) Article 4.3 - Section S25 (Motor Vehicle Sales) (No presentation was required.) MOTION: Reid moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: Unanimous. (4) Article 6.27 - Affordable Housing (No presentation was required.) MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Reid. VOTE: Unanimous. d. Planning Fee Schedule (1) Preliminary Plat Re- Approval (2) Site Plan Fee (No presentation was required.) MOTION: Jobsis moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Burklin. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS �'� a. Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement 26 Eidenier referred to a memorandum from Commissioner Gordon dated 9/16/91 which recommends the description of promoting open space rather than restricting development. (A copy of this memorandum is an attachment to the agenda on page .) Presentation by Marvin Collins. This item is to consider a revision to the Cooperative Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough which addressed concerns regarding the two Transition Area locations: The area bounded generally by I -40, Old Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road (S. Churton St. Ext.), NC Highway 86 and the current Transition Area boundary; and The area bounded generally by U.S. 70 Bypass, US 70 Business, and Lawrence Road. On August 20, the Board considered the two locations. However, Commissioner Bob Rose of the Hillsborough Town Board questioned provisions within the draft Agreement which identified a "Rural Character District" and proposed strategies applicable therein. Another concern voiced by the Board of Commissioners was whether an Agreement was in effect if the two jurisdictions did not carry out the main provisions, including joint adoption of the Land Use Plan for the area. The Board of Commissioners asked the County Attorney to revise the draft Agreement to address these concerns. It also asked that a revised time schedule be prepared to reflect the additional time needed to review the proposal with the Town of Hillsborough. On August 21, 1991, the County Attorney revised the draft Agreement. The Agreement was forwarded to the elected representatives of the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County on August 22, 1991 by Chairman Carey. At its September 3, 1991 meeting, the Board of Commissioners reviewed a revised schedule for consideration of the draft Agreement. The schedule is: Activity Date of Completion 27 Joint meeting of 9/10/91 Hillsborough /Orange County governing boards to review draft Agreement Planning Board 9/16/91 prepares a recommendation on draft Agreement Planning Board 10/7/91 .recommendation on draft Agreement presented to Board of Commissioners Hillsborough /Orange 10/22/91 County governing boards sign CPZ Agreement On September 10, 1991, the two governing boards met and reviewed the draft Agreement. Only one provisions was of sufficient concern to warrant amending the proposal. Article 4 contained a limitation on the extension of public water and sewer service into the Upper Eno Watershed. Town Board members indicated there are water lines (and customers) already in existence in the watershed. Plans are also being considered for construction of an elevated water tank in the watershed. Both governing boards agreed that Article 4 could be revised or a separate Addendum prepared which recognized existing service lines (and customers) as well as the proposed water tank. The Town Attorney will be asked to draft an amendment or addendum for future consideration. Collins noted the concern that Dr. Gordon has about the definition of open space area. The definition as drafted by the County Attorney in Article 1, Section 1.2 -D is: "The Open Space Area is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an urban or transition area, is generally rural and which will generally remain rural and generally contain low density residential uses. This area may be served by public water and sewer but solely for the purpose of the development of large developments or a combination of small developments with significant preserved open 28 space and that therefore tend to preserve the rural nature of the area." The definition as recommended by Dr. Gordon is: ".The Open Space Area is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an urban or transition area, is not expected to become urban will contain significant amounts of erman ntl preserved open space, and generally contain low density residential uses. This area may be served by public water and sewer but solely for the purpose of servicing large developments, or a combination of small develo ments which have significant ermanentl reserved o en space." Planning Director's recommendation is to approve the revised Cooperative Planning Agreement and present the recommendation at the October 7, 1991 Board of Commissioners meeting. If the Hillsbotough Town Board approves the Agreement at its meeting on October 14, 1.991, it may be possible to have the Agreement signed at the Board of Commissioners' October 22, 1991 meeting. Once this is done, work begins on the Cooperative Plan for Hillsborough. Waddell asked about the map which indicated set boundaries for the Cooperative Planning Area. Collins responded that the Board of Commissioners do not wish to change the boundaries on the map at this time. However, they did make it very clear at the September 10, 1991 meeting are not set in concrete. They are subject to change by the process of the preparation of the Land Use Plan. Waddell continued that he felt the County Attorney's wording indicates the boundaries shown on the map are set. Collins responded that lines have to be adjusted due to topography, property lines, etc. One area still of concern is the area around I -40 /Old NC 86.. Another is the triangle formed by Lawrence Road and the two 70's. The I -40 /Old NC 86 interchange is currently under study by the Planning Board and Economic Development Work Group. If a recommendation is made by that group to include that area in the Transition Area, it is understood that the boundaries will change. Waddell asked that it be made clear that the intent is not to preclude major changes should it be necessary. Eidenier agreed, noting that.this map is an initial, not a final map, and boundaries will change after an 29 in -depth study takes place. Burklin asked that the concerns of Commissioner Rose regarding the Rural Character District be explained again. Collins responded that the concern is one of density and its relationship to providing developments within the open space area around Hillsborough with water and sewer. The Rural Character Strategies, as they stand now, basically state that the density is being reduced from one unit per acre to one unit per two acres. The density bonus would allow more units by providing more open space. Commissioner Rose is concerned that reducing the density to two acres is not sufficient to justify the extension of public water and sewer because of the high "front end costs" for those services. He feels that developers will not be willing to pay higher costs to achieve the density that was in place initially. He does not view this as feasible unless the density is one unit per acre. Burklin asked what changes were made in response to Commissioner Rose's concern about the rural character strategies. Collins responded that the only change was from Rural Character District to Open Space Area. Instead of Rural Character Strategies, change to development options as may be approved by Orange County from time to time. Collins continued that Commissioner Carey indicated this is a policy decision that the Board must make. Rural Character Strategy is another policy decision. There will have to be balancing between the two. Burklin stated that the Rural Character Study Committee feels that the County is not yet ready to use the strategies it has recommended. These options are more in preparation for the future. - - He continued that in areas that are under pressure for development, residents are paying high premiums to live in subdivision with large open space areas. Eidenier then asked if Burklin was stating that: In the projections of the Rural Character Study Committee, you are looking so far into the future, that whether or not this development option is taken now is not the important thing. But that there be the structure be laid down so that in the future people can have that option. Burklin responded yes, but, added that in the 30 future would be five to ten years. He noted that the Committee did intend to follow through with, the open space recommendations. Waddell was concerned with the possible future constraint on Hillsborough with the recommendation for open space. Burklin responded that the words open space convey more about the intent of the Rural Character Study Committee than the words low density. Burklin asked if the wording causing concern would still apply if the open space recommendations of the Rural Character Study Committee were adopted. Eidenier noted that they would have to be adopted by both Hillsborough and Orange County to apply in the CPZ. Collins agreed that would be the case as a part of the Cooperative Planning Agreement. Hillsborough would have to agree on the plan and the strategies. Board discussion indicated the desire to leave the last phrase of Article I, Section 1.2 -D (and that therefore tend to preserve the rural nature of the area), rather than delete it as suggested by Dr. Gordon. MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Director with the insertion of commas (as indicated below and suggested by Dr. Gordon for clarification). Seconded by Jobsis. "The Open Space Area is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an urban or transition area, is generally rural and which will generally remain rural and generally contain low density residential uses. This area may be - - -served by public water and sewer but solely for the purpose of the development of large developments, or a combination of small developments, with significant preserved open space and that therefore tend to preserve the rural nature of the area." VOTE: unanimous. b. Status Report FY 91 -92 Workplan Collins distributed the status report of the FY 91 -92 Workplan. He noted that some schedules had been adjusted but basically, the plan is on schedule. An addition to the workplan is an I 01 uurn of Nllshuruug4 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Johnson, Commissioners and Smith, Town Manager Eric Hillsborough Planning Board FROM: Joff Coe, Planning Director DATE: September 20, 1991 31 101 E. Orange Strcet P.O. Box 429 (919) 732 -2104 Rose, Reilly, Lloyd, Lorenz, Swanson, and members of the SUBJECT: Cooperative Planning Agreement Since 1989, the Town and Orange County have worked toward the creation of a cooperative agreement which would allow Hillsborough to participate in the land use planning for that area outside the town's jurisdiction. A tremendous amount of time and effort by the staffs, elected officials, and planning boards of both parties has already been devoted to this important project. In the last week, I have attended three meetings concerning the initial agreement in order to develop a staff recommendation. After the joint meeting of September 10th, Mayor Johnson, Bob Rose, Eric Swanson and I met and we discussed a long list of concerns (including those of Commissioner Smith) and possible adverse situations that could arise from the signing of the agreement currently before the Town Board. Subsequent to this meeting, I met .with Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director, to express these concerns and gain a better understanding of our role and the county's expectations. After carefully reviewing the results of these meetings and the implications.of- -the document itself, I am satisfied that adoption of the Cooperative Planning Agreement is in the best interests of the Town of Hillsborough. Since expansion of the Extraterritorial Jursidiction is probably not possible, we should consider that this agreement offers the only feasible chance for the town to participate in the land use and utility extension planning for areas that will eventually be annexed. While there is currently disagreement on many issues including boundaries, density, land use, and administrative responsibilities, we must note that concensus on these matters will emerge at a later date and the adoption of the agreement is in no way binding. Also, we need to remember that the transition area is not in our jurisdiction. That being the case, this agreement will allow the town to proactively plan for the future. The only alternative is the evenutal, and possibly indoluntary, annexation of areas where there has been no input at all. 32 Memorandum September 20, 1991 Page 2 Therefore, the Planning Director recommends the Board of Commissioners adopt the draft agreement as agreed upon at the September 10th meeting and subject to the advice of the Town Attorney. . In an effort to gain a better understanding of the agreement and to address the many unanswered questions on how this agreement will be implemented and administered, I have invited Mr. Collins to speak to you at the Planning Board meeting on October 3rd at 6:30 PM in the Town Barn. i would like to invite each of you to attend this important work session where there will be a opportunity to ask questions and express your concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please contact me if you have any further questions. i � M1�111 ,r- To: MVSes Catch � From: A {ice Gordon �► Subject: Cooperative Planning Agreement Date:. September 15, t 991 Text fCtmnge As we diced,, let me share with your 60"ested wording for a text c in the Cooperative Planning Apriement which only addresses the distinction between the Space Area of the CPZ and the Rural Bufler Area In the JPAr this change does Ut get into the gaesttoer of whether the defintilon shauid Include as emphasis on pet1nanerrtly preserved ope:7,, As 1 mentioned In my memo of Sept �0, 1 believe that the Open She Area i-n the Willsborovglmld be clearly distinguished front the Rwal B Wfer Aroa In the Chapel ti1T1- Carrtwo JPA, so that the two are obytololy distinct land UM types. Tlra Wore, 1 believe all referawe to 'rural' in the Open Space Area WM)d be deleted and we shoo d Instead refer to areas that W not e9RpeCted to become LwbwW am '*not Projected to require woban services.' to Article t, Section 1. 2 - U, 'Open Space Areal (page 2) the Iasi two sentences could thus be worded something .jum this (changes underlinea): The Open SpMe Area is further defined ' land which, although adjacent to an urban or transition, area, ld h2=2 BMW MW yzill generally contain I low density residec 141 Uses. This area may to by public water MW siwsr but solely for Um purpose of "v9l9pMSnt of I" developmm ls or a combination �f $mall developme im s with significant prsaerre� "Pon Mme. WOO the rM Id the nab=)' lime Phu!s s6 tits PWWMWMd pr'earrrst of q= sFM,1 Millet lira - sxming loom it prrasrre qw apses, and wet IN f't fenwow =all as W firms it imwy Glwitr (' I- am spa AW.- is M With sopfftmm pl'awad a�1en irl TOTAL P,O- 33- cL- 33 -b MICHAEL B. BROUGH & ASSOCIATES Attorneys at Law PECEIVFn sEp 3 p 1991 Memorandum TO: Mayor and Board of Commissioners of Town of Hillsborough FROM: Michael B. Brough 41/14/p DATE: September 26, 1991 SUBJECT: Cooperative Planning Agreement I have reviewed the proposed cooperative planning agreement and offer the following changes based upon direction received from Commissioner Rose as well as my own observations. 1. Section 4.1 of the Agreement entitled "Extensions of Public Water and Sewer" should be rewritten by dividing the present paragraph into subparagraphs (A) and (B) and adding a new subparagraph (C). The exceptions written into subparagraph (C) arise out of a meeting between Hillsborough and Orange County representatives. The section as amended reads as follows: A. Subject to Subsection ( C) , and except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County, Hillsborough agrees it will n d its public water and sewer into the Area of the Orange County /Chapel Hill /Carrbor Joint Planning Area or into the Upper Eno watershed. B. Except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County, Hillsborough agrees that it will not extend its public water and sewer into the Open Space Area of the Cooperative Planning Area except consistent with the development options for the Open Space Area adopted by Orange_County from time to time. C. The parties recognize that Hillsborough has already extended water and sewer lines into the Upper Eno Watershed, and nothing in this agreement is intended to prohibit these existing lines. in addition, the provisions of subsections (A) and (B) are not intended to prohibit additional service taps directly onto such existing lines, extensions of lines through the areas referenced in subsections (A) and (B) where necessary to serve areas not so restricted, or the construction of any water tower or related facilities necessary to 6 improve service in areas where service is not restricted under this agreement. 2.- Subsection (a) of Section 1.3 (Effective Date and Duration) should be amended by adding the underlined language to subdivisions 3 and 4 as follows: (3) "Adopting the Cooperative Land Use Plan (after it has been approved by Hillsborough) ; and (4) adopting the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map (after it has been approved_by Hillsborough)." The purpose of this amendment is to make it unequivocally clear that neither the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan nor the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map may be adopted by Orange County unless it, has been approved by Hillsborough. That implication is already contained in the document by virtue of the fact that the definition section states that each of these documents is to be "developed jointly by Orange County and Hillsborough." However, on occasion, documents or ordinances are "developed" by one group, such as a planning board, and then changed unilaterally by the body that actually adopts the ordinance. I believe there should be no ambiguity left in the document that Orange County is not free to make any changes in the plan or map not approved by Hillsborough. Additionally, I want to raise two concerns about Articles 3 (Limitations on Annexation) and 4 (Limitations on the Extension of Public water and Sewer) of the Agreement. First, the present policy of the Town of Hillsborough is that any property owner located outside the town who requests water or sewer service from the town must petition for voluntary annexation. To the extent that Article 3 contemplates that, under some circumstances, lines may be extended into the Open Space Area to serve certain developments but such developments may not be annexed into the Town, this is inconsistent with the current policy. I do not necessarily believe that the agreement needs to be amended at this time, but this should be kept in mind as the Town works with Orange County on developing the Cooperative Area Land Use Plan and Map. It may be that the agreement will then need to be modified or supplemented. Second, Article 4 presents a similar concern. There is a certain ambiguity inherent in this Article because it says that the Town may not extend its water and sewer lines into the Open Space Area except consistent with the development options for the Open Space Area adopted by Orange County from time to time. If development in the Open Space Area is consistent with the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance adopted by Orange County for this area, as it obviously must be, it is not clear why there should be any objection to Hillsborough providing water and sewer service to any development that wants it so long as the development meets the planning objectives of Orange County. Here too, I do not recommend any change in the language since I assume that this ambiguity will 34 35 3 be resolved as the Cooperative Area Land Use Plan and Map are jointly prepared by the Town and the County. If additional changes are required, or if you have any questions about the agreement, please feel free to contact me. cc: Geoff Gledhill i ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda No.-X-1- ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: OCTOBER 7, 1991 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER SEPARATE COVER PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: -X - INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY'BLYTHE EXT. 2130 TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 --2031 - Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: THE ATTACHED RECOMMENDATIONS -ARE BEING PRESENTED - FOR- THE-BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERATION. THE INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS ARE LISTED ON PAGE TWO. BACKGROUND: YOUTH SERVICES NEEDS TASK FORCE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION TRIANGLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION(S): As The Board Decides. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: OCTOBER 7, 1991 SUBJECT: MINUTES DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER SEPARATE COVER PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -5401 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To correct and /or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: September 17, 1991 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A -42 of the General Statutes, the governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners John Link, County Manager Geoffrey Gledhill, C ,Att�orney FROM: Marvin Collins, Planning Director SUBJECT: Purchase of OWASA -Owned 16 -Inch Water Transmission Line by the Town of Hillsborough DATE: October 4, 1991 This report is submitted in response to questions asked by the BOCC in regard to the land use policy implications of Hillsborough's proposed purchase of a segment of the existing OWASA 16 -inch water transmission main. The segment Hillsborough wishes to purchase is approximately 17,000 feet long and lies between Davis Road and the water main's termination point near the Hillsborough Exchange Club. The location of that portion of the transmission main in question is shown on Attachment A. Approximately 6,000 feet [35 %] of the main is completely within the County's jurisdiction. Another 2,500 feet [15 %] is divided, with one side of Old Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road in the County's jurisdiction and the other side in the Town's ETJ. The remaining 8,500 feet [50 %] is completely within the Town's jurisdiction. Current Land Use Policies Within the County's jurisdiction, land which could be served by extensions from or connections to the water main is situated in one of two Land Use Plan categories - Transition and Rural Residential. These categories as well as opportunities and limitations for public water service are discussed below and are shown on Attachment B. There are no Activity Nodes [commercial and industrial areas] in close proximity to the main. Transition Areas Transition areas surrounding the Town of Hillsborough, including 10 -Year and 20 -Year classifications, are shown on Attachment B. Transition areas include land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban -type densities, and should be provided with public utilities and services. Within Transitions Areas, many zoning district designations are possible, ranging from one unit /acre [R -1] to 13 units /acre [R -13]. Orange County does not pre -zone or zone property ahead of development. Instead, property is generally zoned at the lowest density or, in the case of Transition Areas, R -1. Persons wishing to develop land at higher densities thus make application for rezoning to another residential district. Within that portion of the Transition Area bounded by I -40, Oakdale Drive, and Old Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road, approximately 72% of the land is zoned R -1, 27% is zoned R -3 [Cornwallis Hills Subdivision], and the remaining 1% is zoned R -4 [mobile home park]. To the east, in the area bounded by Cates Creek, the Southern Railroad, N.C. Highway 86, and the Transition Area boundary, approximately 73% of the land is zoned R -1, 9% is zoned R -2, 7% is zoned R -4, and 11% is zoned.R -5. All land zoned at densities higher than permitted by R -1 is occupied by various phases of Wildwood Subdivision. The Orange County Water & Sewer Policy [Attachment C] indicates that water [and sewer] facilities will be encouraged, where they are available, in the Comprehensive Plan's Urban and Transition Areas. The Policy further states that a water [or.sewer] system built or extended within a Transition Area shall be designed, sized, and constructed to the standards of the probable future public utility provider. Furthermore, the location and size of utility easements shall be approved by and dedicated in the form of a deed of easement to the probable future public utility provider. If the Town of Hillsborough did purchase the 16 -inch water main from OWASA, it can be concluded that connections to and extensions from the 16 -inch main would be possible in Transition and Urban [Corporate Limits & ETJ] Areas. It should be noted, however, that higher densities would not necessarily result. The Division of Environmental Health has indicated that a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq.ft. would be required if a lot were served by public water and utilized a septic tank. Such a lot size is generally needed to accommodate the dwelling, account for setbacks, and provide adequate area for primary and repair fields. Such lot sizes are associated with R -2 densities of two units /acre. Public sewer service must be present if higher densities are to be achieved. Rural Residential Areas Rural Residential areas are also shown on Attachment S. These areas include land in rural areas of the county which is appropriate for low intensity--a -hd low- density residential development, and which would not be dependent on urban services. Within Rural Residential Areas, only one zoning district designation is possible, R -1 with densities of one unit /acre. The Orange County Water & Sewer Policy [Attachment C] indicates that water [and sewer] facilities will be discouraged in the Comprehensive Plan's Rural and Agricultural areas except where their provision will enhance the rural character and provide for open space by allowing clustered development. The Policy further states that outside of a Transition Area, extensions of water [and sewer] systems will only occur to provide service to an essential public facility, such as a school, or to remedy a public health emergency not otherwise correctable, such as groundwater contamination. where such extensions are permitted, they shall be sized according to the policies of the utility providing the water [or sewer]_ set'vice..When existing water [or sewer] service is contiguous.to a site, development projects may access that service. However, any such development project will only be approved at densities permitted by Orange County's Zoning Ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In the case of the Rural Residential Areas, densities would be limited to R -1 standards or one unit /acre. If the Town of Hillsborough did purchase the 16 -inch water main from OWASA, it can be thus concluded that connections to and extensions from the 16 -inch main would be possible in Rural Residential Areas as shown on Attachment B, provided they were carried out in accord with above policies. Cooperative-Planning Efforts The Orange County Water & Sewer Policy [Attachment C] also indicates that joint planning should be developed and implemented among the County, its municipalities, surrounding jurisdictions, and utility providers responsible for water [and sewer] service to guide the extension of lines in accordance with joint land use plans and water /sewer service area boundary agreements. The vast majority of this area is currently zoned R -1 which permits residential densities of one unit /acre. Such an agreement is currently being considered by Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough. If approved, the two jurisdictions would then begin the process of preparing a land use plan for the area shown on Attachment D. Once the land use plan is completed and approved by both jurisdictions, and applicable zoning standards and maps are adopted, public water [and sewer] extensions would be permitted in the Open Space Area to serve new development carried out in accord with approved open space preservation strategies. If the Town of Hillsborough did purchase the 16 -inch water main from OWASA, it can be thus concluded that connections to and extensions from the 16 -inch main would be possible to implement these open space preservation strategies. As part of the-initial discussions concerning the Cooperative Planning Area boundaries, the Town of Hillsborough requested that additional area be included in the Transition Area. These areas are also shown on Attachment D. Currently underway is another cooperative planning effort involving Orange County's Planning Board and Economic Development Commission. These advisory boards are exploring the possibility of expanding the Transition Area in the vicinity of the I -40 /Old Hillsborough - Chapel Hill Road interchange [see Attachment E]. A Work Group, comprised of representatives of both boards and their staffs, is conducting site analyses, preparing site plans, and defining performance standards to determine the feasibility of locating an "Economic Development District" at the interchange location. The Work Group's recommendations are scheduled for presentation to the Board of Commissioners in December, 1991. If accepted by the Hoard of Commissioners, the proposals would be incorporated into the preparation of the orange County - Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Area land use plan. If that plan is adopted by both governing boards, one means of providing water service to an expanded Transition Area or Economic Development District would be through the 16 -inch water main under consideration. CC: Paul Thames, County Engineer Ted Abernathy, Economic Development Director Gene Bell, Planner III /Comprehensive Mary Scearbo, Planner III /Current Attachment A LCCA.TITI MAP SCALE: c aa�� s000' LEGEND: 0 OWASA W, Water Main O �+ Rural Buffer Boundary :r ir�wr Hillsborough Corporate Limits S ETJ Attachment B N `SIM E,4 SCALD: 0 41=' BOOS' LEGEND: ,Activity Node Rural Residential Area Transit ion Areas OMEN' OWASA lb" Water Main = = Rural Buffer Boundary Attachment C - Excerpt from Qr�an ee Go_ unty. Waateer s Sewer Policy GOAL 3 - DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS -Within the county's planning jurisdiction, establish development patterns compatible with the goal of directing urban growth to areas where it is desirable and can be practically and efficiently served by water and sewer facilities. A. General Policies 1. Public water and sewer facilities should be extended in accordance with the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Such facilities will be encouraged, where they are available, in the Plan's Urban and Transition areas, and will be discouraged in Rural and Agricultural areas except where their provision will enhance the rural character and provide for open space by allowing clustered development. 2. Joint planning should be developed and implemented among the County, its municipalities, surrounding jurisdictions, and utility providers responsible for water and sewer service to guide the extension of lines in accordance with joint land use plans and water /sewer service boundary agreements. B. Service capability /capacity /Extension policies 1. A water or sewer system built or extended within a Transition area as defined in the Land Use Element of the orange County Comprehensive Plan shall be designed, sized, and constructed to the standards of the probable future public utility provider. The location and size of utility easements shall be approved by and dedicated in the form of a deed of easement to the probable future public utility provider. 2. A development project to be served by a public or private water or sewer system must be assured of installation of such service at the time it is approved. "Assured of installation" shall mean that the municipality, private association or water or sewer authority to whose system the development project is to be connected has reviewed and approved preliminary plans for proposed water and sewer lines, the adequacy of the existing system(s) to which the connection(s) will be made, the capacity of existing water and sewer treatment facilities, the carrying capacity of the discharge stream or discharge point, and the method of funding proposed extensions of water and sewer lines. The approval by the municipality, private association, or water or sewer authority shall contain a certification that service to the development project is authorized by any water management plan and discharge permit in effect at the time of approval. Following review and approval of preliminary plans as described above, the board of directors or governing board of the municipality, association or authority must have approved, through formal resolution or other agreement, the provision of water and /or sewer service to the development project. 3. Outside of Transition Areas, extensions of water or sewer systems will only occur to provide service to an essential public facility, such as a school, or to remedy a public health emergency not otherwise correctable, such as a failing septic tank or failing package treatment plant. Generally, system extensions into areas outside of Transition Areas shall be sized according to the policies of the utility providing the water or sewer service. However, system extensions into and within the Rural Buffer and Water Quality Critical Areas shall be sized to address only the concern for which the systems are extended. Valid written water and /or sewer service agreements for locations in the Rural Buffer and Water Quality Critical Areas which were valid prior to April 3, 1989, and in which a municipality (including Orange County) or a water /sewer authority is a party and is the water /sewer provider may be carried out to the level of service for which the agreements were originally written. However, the water and /or sewer service established by such an agreement shall be extended only for uses and densities permitted by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 4. Development projects outside the Rural Buffer portion of the Joint Planning Area and outside a Water Quality Critical Area may access water or sewer service when existing water or sewer service is contiguous to the site. However, any such development project will only be approved at densities permitted by the Orange County Zoning Atlas and consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. "Development project" refers to any place of residence, business, industry, or assembly, and any major or minor subdivision, special use or planned development which requires the approval of Orange County through administration and enforcement of the N.C. State Building Code or its Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. � I i North Y W C - � J i U c t71, °►► N 07 ?�yL4 � .: _may_ •``tit • � yN � ^�Y¢ ,`� ��" . '~ u. r T. i � •6 � .rte w -- _;--�5.�_s�'•c.,,...__..•,. North Y W C - � J i U c t71, °►► N 07 ?�yL4 � .: _may_ •``tit • � yN � ^�Y¢ ,`� ��" . '~ u. r T. i � i I— X. .h car ar _ i ••. :::;:;ti ; •. s. • ••ti •yy ti�rhh � ~'� •�' ��� ��•� tirti � � �,ys� 1 f i �• Ifs / i v ff'.'•'� • • .; ,� • 1 1 r` `f ;f 4•�; .?r; J 1 rr t . � i /• ., ,, . n I r, 4 •,��, ti; a. }� �:;r.;: �;:;.; •.titi : {ti ' ; :: }•:' { ) C `� I. i % •/ ON ::v, �+ C ,q v 1 ` " w • « �'\ ; 1 r 'r' �: ';'...:' L�.•: :err:; (1 /. ..::;:::;:; •: :;::. Eno . % G1 r � :J w.l�l I r �_„� �I '• -•• •• d:pf -•�.p ' • :vr .;.;:. • f \ ' �. F, \ 1 !• \ Ira } tI� J: -- f;i:'.•.'::�•: :'•:- •' wry WC NZ J 1 �i! K• - _��.;� IRL' • I1. I ii:��•::�� {•:: �i::��;:• • ( tl y 1 � /ti r 1 + r+ rc /' ; �u S 7;, yr •' •:ti : {•:tiff•:•:% {;:� ; � ,..•. (.. I r . I r lfln: M.. ` ,.f,.rt,:ti • r;• Ain. - ••h"•' �� r j tiff �• }• . }- 1 • . .L,,� �:�'�'ti?• •::: •.; r,••'•'{i:�:., .,� :• • ff:.r ::•:�- ,.. :- � . ••'�- %, •4`'••:: C` •�+ '.•.::.h ..O •.. •h �. v'' �. J slay ra. b 1 I t3 l A hrr�_. fti _ f...• 1 _ • ..:. -± �'r , F", 1 1.:':...Y. _ k�_ Ccc, i .•� 'E !+ I /- '\ 1721 \ In j� �� �. a �•. � � R., r fi r (% CAME C r1/0°E 1 / •� ' Attachment E LEGEND; CGOPEMTIVE PLANNING 00000 PB /EDC Study Area TRANSITION ALAS �r•���',.•. c Trans t ion Areas SCALD: �.t.0 OWASA 16" Water Ma i n o <000' eoa�' I�rrr �rn�l Rural Buffer Boundary a ITEMS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA If you would like to speak on an item that is not on the printed agenda please complete the following information. NAME: —b VA k e- S-7" ADDRESS: 3Z ZS 1X1 fflad �w /)-C— TELEPHONE NUMBERS: ' HOME: 4193-47o& WORK: �Qp -zQS BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Iuke- rer-I /--11r ~ry-e A446� f qe4Wx4 r i �Ir`a e C®v., Gti L c.G Ocv�er f�ii0 Ati., �..►C�P D-JI, 7iWP-Ce— 11A�h k,t'4 "4 N. C.Z.6T, 1' ?z 496 1`1�1 INTEROFFICE MENORANDUN TO: County Commissioners FROM: Paul Thames, County Engineer DATE: October 3. 1991 SUBJECT: Efland Sewer Agenda Item Attached to this memorandum, please find two color coded maps which are referenced in the agenda item regarding expansion of the Efland sewer system. Also attached is a blank contract identical to those signed by Efland area residents who originally requested connection to the Efland sewer system. T , NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY SEWER EASEMENT AND AGREL'M= This Easement /Agreement, made and entered into this day of 19^ by and between hereinafter called Owner /User, and orange County, 106 Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278, hereinafter called the County; WITNESSETH' Article I. Easement. in consideration of the promise of the County to permit Owner /User to connect to the County sewer system to serve the property of Owner /User and in further consideration of the promise of the County to maintain said sewer system and apparatus from and after completion of construction and installation as hereinafter specified, Owner /User, and his /her or their successors and assigns, hereby give, grant, and convey unto the County, and its successors and assigns, a perpetual right and easement over, upon and through the property or properties described in Attachment A, attached and incorporated herein, to maintain one or more underground sewer lines and apparatus over, upon and through the property described in Attachment A. This easement includes the perpetual right and easement unto the County to go upon said lands whenever the same is reasonably_ - necessary for the purpose of inspecting, maintaining and repairing said lines and apparatus; provided, however, that in repairing said lines, the County shall remove all surplus earth, shall make level the surface Of the ground above said lines and apparatus, 1 . s and shall interfere as little as possible with any plants, fences, or other improvements upon the property or properties. Owner /User, and his /her or their successors and assigns shall, from time to time, at the request of County, execute, acknowledge and deliver to County any and all future instruments which may reasonably be required to give full force and effect to the provisions of this Agreement. To have and to hold said rights and easements to the County and its successors, in perpetuity. Article II. Sewer Connection. A. County agrees, subject to the terms and conditions of the Resolution of the County Board of Commissioners adopted November 20, 1984, to construct and operate a sewer collection and treatment system which will serve the property of Owner /User described in Attachment A. A copy of the November 20, 1984 Resolution of the County Board of Commissioners is attached, labeled Attachment B, and incorporated herein. The construction and operation of the sewer collection and treatment system will further be subject to and performed in compliance with all regulations and ordinance which the County has now adopted and may adopt from time to time. B. Owner /User agrees to install and maintain at his /her or their own expense a service line from the sewer collection and treatment system to the dwelling or place of use of Owner /User and that he /she or they will commence use of the sewer collection and treatment system when it is placed in operation. An estimate of the cost to Owner /User to install the service line to his /her or 2 a their dwelling or place of use is stated in-Attachment C which is incorporated herein. C. Owner /User agrees to pay all charges made by County for connection to the sewer collection and treatment system and for the operation of that system according to duly enacted rate schedules of County and as they may be changed from time to time. Owner /User further agrees to pay all charges made whether or not he /she or they actually connect to the system once the system is placed in operation by County. A schedule of initial estimated charges for the operation of the system are contained in Attachment B. County is not bound to operate the system at these estimated rate levels and Owner /User agrees and understands that the actual charges may vary from the estimates but that Owner /User nevertheless agrees to pay the actual charges made. D. Owner /User agrees to comply with all ordinances, regulations and rules of County related to the sewer collection and treatment system. E. Owner /User hereby subjects the property described in Attachment A to a lien to secure the payment to County of all charges made by County for connection to the sewer collection and treatment system and far the operation of the system. Owner /User hereby further agrees that his /her or their obligation to connect to the system and to pay all charges made for connection and operation is one which may be specifically enforced by County in_.a_ civil action brought by County against Owner /User for such enforcement. F. Owner /User understands that he /she or they are entering M N into this agreement with County to induce County to construct and operate the sewer collection and treatment system which is the basis for this agreement ana LiiRa +¢ "7" •! -- likelihood only be constructed and operated by County if at least 179 persons, firms or corporations located in Phase I of the project Area as defined in Attachment B apply for, by entering into this agreement with the County, connection to and sewer service for existing dwellings and businesses during an initial application period established by the County Board of Commissioners. In the event the system is not constructed Owner /User shall not be obligated to pay any charges and. this agreement is in all respects null and void. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner /User has hereunto set his /her or their hands and seals; and, if corporate, has caused this document to be executed in its corporate name by its President, witnessed by its Secretary, and its corporate seal hereunto affixed all by authority of its Board of Directors duly given; and the County has caused this Easement /Agreement to be executed in its name be the Chairman of its Board of Commissioners, attested to by its Clerk and its official seal to be hereunto affixed, all by authority duly given be the Board of County Commissioners. (SEAL) (SEAL) 4 (SEAL) Witness ATTESTED TO: BY: _ SECRETARY ATTESTED TO BY: CLERK NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY (SEAL) NAME OF CORPORATION BY: PRESIDENT ORANGE COUNTY -BY: CHAIR, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I, the undersigned Notary Public, certify that on the day of 1 19 —, before me personally came and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing Easement /Agreement. Witness my hand and notarial seal this day of 19^ My commission expires: NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY NOTARY PUBLIC 5 a Notary Public for said County and that personally State, do hereby certify appeared before me this day, and being duly sworn, stated that in acknowledged the execution of his /her presence the foregoing Easement /Agreement. Witness my hand and notarial seal this day of NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I, the undersigned Notary Public, certify that on the day of 1g -- , before me personally came to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he /she is Secretary of the corporation described in the foregoing Easement /Agreement; that by authority duly given and as the act of said corporation, the foregoing Easement /Agreement was signed in its name by its President, sealed with its corporate seal and attested by said Secretary. Witness by hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC 6 My commission expires: NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY a Notary Public for. the above I, County and State, so hereby certify that on the day of 19,, before me personally Came Beverly Blythe to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, a body politic and corporate described in the foregoing Easement /Agreement; that by authority duly given and as the act of said county, the foregoing Easement /Agreement was signed in its name by the Chair of its Board of Commissioners, sealed with its seal and attested by said Clerk. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: NOTARY PUBLIC 7 Attachment A Property Description Property Owner: Property Address: Property Description: ATTACHMENT B Orange County Board of Commissioners RESOLUTION WHEREAS the Efland- Cheeks Elementary School, one of the schools in the orange County School System, has experienced and continues to experience serious problems with its wastewater treatment facilities in that those facilities have failed in the past and now, although functioning, are not doing so properly; and WHEREAS the improperly functioning wastewater treatment facilities are discharging incompletely treated sewage into McGowan Creek, a stream that is part of the Upper Eno watershed with a II -A nutrient sensitive classification by the State; and WHEREAS incompletely or poorly treated sewage is also entering McGowan Creek and other streams that are part of the Upper Eno watershed as the result of malfunctioning or non - functioning septic tanks in the Efland Estates Subdivision and other areas in the watershed; and the cause of the improperly functioning wastewater systems is the pervasiveness of soil types in this region of Orange County which do not provide a geologically suitable medium for subsurface wastewater treatment systems; and WHEREAS the Upper Eno watershed provides the raw water supply for Corporation Lake, the source of raw water Z] WHEREAS WHEREAS for the Orange- Alamance water system and for Lake Ben Johnson, the source of raw water for the Hillsborough town water system which in turn is a source of treated water for the Orange water and Sewer Authority, in times of drought; and all of the above has created and continues to create a health hazard that affects a substantial number of the people of Orange County; and on September 13, 1984 the Board of Commissioners, - recognizing the risk to the health, safety and welfare of the people of orange County affected by the conditions stated above, found that an emergency existed which warranted the issuance by Orange County of net debt reduction, general obligation bonds in connection with and for the purpose of repaying a $200,000.00 loan from the Farmers Home Administration which loan has been approved in principle by FMHR along with a grant to Orange County in the amount of 5589,300.00 for the construction by orange County of a sewer collection and treatment system to serve the area of orange County identified as the principle source of the risk to the health, safety and welfare to the people of the County; and WHEREAS the Board of A. Commissioners now has agreed on the conditions under which the sewer collection and distribution system will be constructed. �i[7 IT Is RESOLVED THAT: 1. Orange County will construct a sewer collection and treatment system (Hereinafter called the System) to serve existing dwellings and businesses within Phase I of the Project Engineer's Preliminary Report, 5th Edition dated April 5, 1984, last revised August 7, 1984. (Hereinafter called Phase I of the Project Area) 2. Orange County will appropriate $136,000 to the Orange County Utility Enterprise Fund. The principal plus interest at the interest rate charged on delinquent ad valorem taxes shall be repaid from that fund to the Orange County General Fund by the assessment of tap fees of $600 per residential equivalent connection. 3. Each person, firm or corporation connecting to the system, other than those initially connected from among those initially applying for connection, shall pay a $600 per residential equivalent tap fee to the Enterprise Fund. 4. Those persons,, firms or corporations initially connecting, from those initially applying for connection, shall be exempt from the $600 tap fee. The Board shall establish by Resolution deadlines for initial applicatior_ and initial connection. 5. The Enterprise Fund shall be perpetual in duration. Once the $136,000 plus interest appropriated by Orange County is repaid, the Fund shall be used as deemed appropriate 11 by the Board for further utility needs. 6. A tap fee of $10,000 shall be paid to the Town of Hillsborough by Orange County for the connection of the first 212 existing dwellings and businesses within Phase I of the Project Area. This $10,000 tap fee shall be an appropriation by Orange County to the System and shall not be recouped through user fees or otherwise by Orange County. Those persons, firms or corporations connecting to the system after the first 212 connections shall pay tap fees to Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough in a amount established by policies and procedures of the County and the Town of Hillsborough from time to time. 7. A tap fee of $5,000 shall be paid to the Town of Hillsborough by Orange County for the connection of the Efland Cheeks Elementary School to the system. This appropriation shall not be recouped through user fees or otherwise by Orange County. S. The System will be undertaken and funded by Orange County only if at least 179 persons, firms or corporations located in Phase I of the Project Area apply for connection to and sewer service for existing dwellings and businesses during the initial application period. 9. The operating expense portion of the System budget shall be prepared on the basis of 233 initial connections. 10. User rates shall be as established on the attached rate schedule and may be revised from time to time as 12 determined by the Board. 11. Orange County will appropriate annually to the operating revenues of the system operating budget the difference between annual expenditures and revenues received from user fees, investment and other income of the system. AND WHEREAS the System Engineer has identified 14 parcels of land improved with dwellings or businesses which are not located within Phase I of the Project Area but which are located adjacent to it and on Southern Avenue; and WHEREAS it may be feasible to connect these parcels to the System within the System budget. IT IS THEREFORE FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: Provided the bid for the System, including construction of the portion of the System necessary to serve these 14 parcels, 'which is accepted by Orange County is within the System budget, the 14 parcels shall be added to and considered to be part of Phase I of the Project Area in all respects except as follows: Priority shall be given to persons, firms or corporations located within Phase I of the Project Area without inclusion of the 14 parcels located adjacent to it with respect to tap fees paid to the Town of Hillsborough. If there are 212 applicants for connection to the System within Phase I of the Project Area without inclusion of the 14 parcels adjacent to it which apply during the initial application period, each applicant from among the 14 parcel shall pay tap 13 fees to the County and the Town of Hillsborough as determined by policies of the County and the Town. Applications for connection from among the persons, firms or corporations owning the 14 parcels shall be treated on a first -made basis with respect to tap fees to the County and the Town of Hillsborough in the event there are more than 198 but less than 212 applicants for connection during the initial application period from within Phase z of the Project Area without inclusion of the 14 adjacent parcels. This the day of • 1984 14 USER CATEGORY Residenti al Res i denti al Res i den ti al Res i denti -al Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Commercial I ndustr ial Commer ci al Commercial I nstitution al ESTIMATED RATE S CHEDUL E EFLAI'D AREA - WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SEWER SYSTEM ESTIMATED ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MONTHLY LSAGE CUSTOMERS 3,000 (Min.) 116 4,000 13 5,000 12 6,000 - 11 7,000 8 8,000 6 9,000 3 10, 000" 1 11,000 " 1 12,000 2 13,000 2 14,000 -.. 1 15,000 1 20,000 1 74,000 1 179 Unimproved Parcels 3,000 36 Improved Parcels (Adjacent-Southern 14 Avenue) 3,000 Unimproved Parcels (Adjacent-Southern Avenue) 3,000 54 1.013.000 233 ESTIMATED M OATTHLY WATER BILL 15.20 19.60 24.00 28.90 32.80 37.20 41.60 46.00 50.40 54.80 59.20 63.60 68.00 90.00, 328.00 15.20 15.20 15.20 Attachment C Service Line Connection Estimate Property Owner: Property Address: Tax Map Reference: you will have to construct a service line from your dwelling to the County connection line which will be located near the highway right -of -way. Estimated cost of connection will depend on the distance of line to be installed, and the cost per lineal foot that is charged by the plumbing company you select. The County has received two estimates of the cost per lineal foot from local plumbing firms. Each has estimated the cost to be between $4.50 and $5.00 per foot. Based on an estimate of $5.00 per lineal foot, we estimate the service line connection will cost you This estimate may vary from the actual cost depending on whether the plumber runs into substantial rock while digging or other unforeseen obstacles. 15 COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Including the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough DRAFT September 27, 1991 For more information, contact: Donna Dyer, Orange Community Housing Corporation, 116B West Main Street, Post Office Box 307, Carrboro, North Carolina, 27510, 919 -967 -1545. Tara Fikes, Orange County Housing and Community Development, P.Q. Box 8181, Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278, 919 -732 -8181, ext. 2490. Judy Russell, Chapel Hill Housing and Community Development, 317 Caldwell Street Extension, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27516, 919 - 968 -2850. James Harris, Carrboro Planning Department, 301 W. Main Street, P.O. Box 337, Carrboro, North Carolina, 27510, 919 -968 -7712. Joff Coe, Hillsborough Planning Department, 101 E. Orange Street, P.O. Box 429, Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278, 919- 732 -2104. COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY FOR ORANGE COUNTY INTRODUCTION The affordable housing needs of Orange County have been studied from many points of view and reported in these documents: Orange County Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force Report (September, 1987), Public Private Partnership Affordable Housing Task Force (May, 1989), Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan (June, 1989), and Carrboro 'Housing Report (May, 1990). These reports were the basis for this Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). The important issues in Orange County have not changed. The high cost of homeownership has left many families out of the housing market or sent them to surrounding counties to buy homes and commute into Orange County. The rental market, inflated by the, ability of UNC students to pay higher rents, is beyond the means of families with incomes below 60% of the area median. For families needing three or more bedrooms, very little stock exists. Clients at the homeless shelter continue to increase dramatically, and transition from the shelter into permanent housing in Orange County is nearly impossible. With this CHAS, staff from Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and the newly- formed Orange Community Housing Corporation have identified these specific needs and prioritized them based on severity of need and availability of resources to address the need. Section I, Community Profile, is a description of the housing need and market in Orange County. Section II is a five -year approach to addressing these needs. Section III is a one -year strategy, describing actions to be taken during the Federal fiscal year, October 1, 1991 through September 30, 1992. COMMUNITY PROFILE A. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. Current Estimates. Current estimates of countywide need are unavailable, but the Town of Chapel Hill has provided an estimated rental need of 2,234 very low- and low- income families (below 80% of the area median family income). The Town of Carrboro estimates 3,483 very low - and low- income renters, for a total in southern Orange County of 5,700 low- and moderate - income renters. The 1980 Census estimated that 37% of all renters paid more than 35% of their family income for housing.' Applying that percentage to the 'in this CHAS, income expended for "housing" includes not only rent payment but also basic utilities (electricity, gas, water and sewer service). A family is said to have a housing need if more than 30% of family income is spent on housing. Utilities are not included in calculations made by financial institutions to determine mortgage qualification. 1990 estimate of 16,156 renter - occupied units would yield nearly 6,000 families that pay more than 35% of their family income for housing. Countywide, only 1,190 total units of rental assistance are available, including project -based and tenant -based assistance, meeting less than 20% of the need expressed by these estimates. No information is available for families who meet Federal preferences for rental assistance except to note the waiting lists for existing units. The Section 8 waiting list is approximately 600 families and individuals countywide, and the Public Housing waiting list is approximately 250 families.. The Town of Chapel Hill recently received funds to construct an additional 24 units of public housing, but that will serve only 10% of the current waiting list. The public housing waiting list shows very slow turnover, as many families cannot move from public housing into unassisted housing even when they are paying the full fair market rent for public housing units, since units are not available in the private market at rents affordable to very low income families. In addition to public housing and Section 8 units, public - private assisted apartments, such as Adelaide Walters, Elliot Woods, Chase Park, Gateway, and Coachwood also have waiting lists, pointing to the need for additional assisted rental units. In addition, Residential Services, Inc., the major provider of assisted housing for developmentally disabled, handicapped, and mentally ill residents also maintains a waiting list of persons with special housing needs. Another serious need in Orange County is that of affordable homeownership opportunities, which is described below in the Market and Inventory Conditions. While some families are experiencing the cost burden associated with homeownership, most very low- and low - income families have not been able to become homeowners in Orange County. A family of four with income of 60% of the area median, or approximately $26,000, can afford a mortgage payment of approximately $505, which can support a mortgage of $61,500.2 Very few homeownership opportunities exist for such families in Orange County. Data on the actual number of very low- and low- income homeowners are unavailable. 2Mortgage amounts are calculated using the following methodology: Monthly Income X.40 (Total Debt Ratio) = Total Monthly Debt. Total Monthly Debt - Estimated Taxes and Insurance ($125) and Estimated Other Debt ($250 to $350) = Total Available for Mortgage. Assumed Mortgage Term of 30 years and Assumed Interest Rate of 9.25 %. While this methodology is more subject to variation based on Estimated Other Debt, it presents a more realistic view of mortgage qualification. 2 2. Five -Year Projections. No formal projections have been made by local governments in Orange County, but over the next five years, rising housing costs will continue to outpace income growth, creating a growing cost burden on low- income families. Nearby rural counties are now absorbing the families that cannot afford to live in Orange County, and as the housing markets in those counties "catches up" with Orange County over the next five years, fewer and fewer opportunities will be available for low- income families. While the Triangle area has experienced very low unemployment and a very stable economy throughout the 1980's, the majority of Orange County employment opportunities are in the service sector, usually lower wage and low skill employment. Recent budget cuts by the State threaten the main employer in the county, the University of North Carolina. At the least, income growth in the service and government sector will not increase and may slow down, as annual cost of living increases are reduced or eliminated. No proportional slowing of real estate appreciation has been experienced in the southern part of Orange County, indicating that the affordability gap will continue to grow, and the number of families paying disproportionate amounts. of income for housing will continue to increase. -- 3. Supportive Housing Needs of Homeless Persons. Data on homeless persons in Orange County come directly from the homeless shelter. A recent report from the Inter -Faith Council Homeless Shelter indicates a dramatic increase in the housing need of homeless persons in Orange County. For the entire calendar year 1990, the shelter served 468 clients for a total of 10,605 nights of shelter. From January through June, 1991, the shelter served 460 homeless persons for a total of approximately 9,000 nights of shelter, indicating nearly double the previous year's service. Most nights, the shelter is operating at capacity. A substantial number of clients for the shelter are persons who came to the Triangle area seeking employment without adequate funds to get reestablished. The Inter -Faith Council estimates that nearly $1,000 is needed to pay all the up -front costs needed to move into a standard rental unit in southern Orange County. With the rapid rise in clients at the homeless shelter has come a dramatic increase in the number of women, children, and families housed there. With a single homeless facility, meeting the different needs of single men, single women, mothers with small children, and families becomes a difficult task for the shelter staff. Special needs populations, such as persons recovering from substance abuse or persons discharged from 3 hospital care also provide service challenges to the shelter's current operation. No public or private single -room occupancy facilities exist in Orange County to provide transition for shelter residents who have jobs but still cannot afford to enter the housing market. Boarding houses, rooming houses, or other historic transitional facilities have suffered from economic displacement, as the large residences needed for such operations have been purchased by investors and converted to student housing or purchased by families for private residences. Further, only one halfway house exists for women recovering from substance abuse, and none are available for men, leaving the homeless shelter to serve this population. The battered women's shelter for Orange and Durham counties is located in Durham, so women who want to maintain their children's attendance in Chapel Hill- Carrboro Schools have no other option but the homeless shelter. Without facilities for special populations or transitional housing opportunities for working residents, the homeless shelter becomes the county's main source of short-term housing for a broad spectrum of clients. No data are available for unsheltered homeless persons who choose ridt to stay at the IFC Homeless Shelter; however, local officials have observed an increase in undocumented rural homelessness. Many of these homeless persons are migrant laborers or new arrivals who have not been able to find work or save enough money to move into permanent housing. 4. Supportive Housing Needs for Others with Special Needs. In Orange County, the special needs population includes developmentally disabled, handicapped, and mentally ill residents, persons with AIDS, older adults, battered women, persons recovering from substance abuse, and homeless teenagers (including teenage mothers). Each of these groups has a different severity of need and each has different types of housing needs. Data on the number and need of these groups is unavailable. In most cases, these groups will need increased support services and case management in order to live independently, even if low -cost housing opportunities are made available to them. Assisted housing opportunities for persons with special needs should provide a continuum of choices that offer transition from supervised housing situations to independent living with minimal support. Coordination of housing assistance with increased funds for case management is critical to the success of programs for persons with special needs. 4 In the case of older adults, the opportunity to "age in place" must be provided alongside new housing options, both rental and homeownership. Very low and lower income older adults are often subject to economic displacement, as they become less able to afford to maintain their family homes. In addition, as they age, older residents need modifications to their homes to make them more appropriate for older persons, such as ramps, wider doorways, and grab bars. Many older adults continue to live in substandard housing because they cannot afford to make needed repairs yet they have a strong desire to remain in their homes. B. MARKET AND INVENTORY CONDITIONS. 1. Housing Conditions. Although data are not readily available for current estimates of housing assistance need of low- and moderate- income households, recent reports from the Town of Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan, the Orange County Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force, and the Carrboro Planning Department summarize the market conditions in Orange County clearly. Generally, the cost of obtaining housing in the county has risen significantly faster than incomes of families seeking housing in the market. Rental Housing. In the southern part of the county, the rental market has been inflated by the large number of University of North Carolina students who compete with low- and moderate- income families for the lowest cost housing. Because students can live in groups and combine resources, they are able and willing to pay more for rental units than low- and moderate - income families can. Rental units represented 44% of the countywide housing market in 1987, and the 1980 Census estimated that 37% of those rental households paid more than 35% of their incomes for rent. While the number of multifamily rental units have increased since 1980, they are generally not affordable to or appropriate for families. In the Town of Chapel Hill, rental units were 60% of the total housing stock in 1980, and between 1980 and 1986, 75% of all building permits issued were for multifamily developments. In the late 1980's, many new multifamily projects were offering premiums of up to 9 months free rent to fill the oversupply of new units, but these premiums are no longer available. In order to afford Chapel Hill's average 3- bedroom rent in 1988 of $529, a family of four would have to earn at least $25,000, or 5 about 63% of the area median family income.3 Very low income families (below 50% of the area median) cannot afford even the 1988 average 2- bedroom rent of $442. In 1988, 53.2% of Carrboro's total housing stock was multifamily rental units, concentrated in 14 major apartment complexes. Average 2- bedroom rent was $455, comparable to Chapel Hill, and affordable to a family with $22,200 annual income. Very few 3- bedroom rental units are available in Carrboro. In addition to high market rents, very few apartment complexes have units with amenities for families with small children. One- and two - bedroom units comprise the majority of multifamily rental units in Orange County, and in fact, families have difficulty locating 3- bedroom units even with a.Section 8 voucher or certificate to make their rents affordable. Another gap in the rental market is the availability of single -room occupancy situations. No boarding houses or rooming houses exist in Orange County, to provide transition from the homeless shelter or short- term housing for other special needs groups, such as battered women. Among the rental units available, the Town of Chapel Hill reports only 2.4% substandard units, or approximately 350 units. Countywide, the 1980 Census reported 9.8% of all housing units as substandard, or nearly 4000 units. Over one -third of all dwelling units in Orange County are more than thirty years old, but many of the rental units in the market have been built since 1960. Future production of rental housing that meets the needs of low- income families will be limited in southern Orange County by the availability of land that can be acquired at a price that will support the construction of affordable rental units. Within the urban services district for which public utilities are available or can be extended, very few parcels are available, and for those vacant parcels, the highest and best use is not low- income rental units. In addition, cost of development in southern Orange County is the highest in the Triangle, including the cost of meeting public policies that are intended to increase the quality of life. Even using the Low Income Housing Tax Credits, units cannot be built and rented for 3Affordable Rent calculated using the following methodology: Monthly Rent + Estimated Utilities ($100) = Total Housing Payment. Total Housing Payment/30% (Housing Ratio) = Monthly Income Required. Monthly Income Required X 12 = Annual Income Required. allowable rents without some subsidized source of mortgage financing for at least a portion of the project costs. Further, with the large student population the market is more supportive of production of one- and two - bedroom units, rather than three - bedroom units needed by four - person families. Recent efforts by the Town of Chapel Hill to locate a suitable site for 24 new public housing units point to the limited available land in southern Orange County. After an extensive search, the site finally selected on Highway 86 north of town required substantial public investment in off -site utility extensions. These costs were not paid from the grant to construct the public housing, and had to be borne by the Community Development Block Grant program. A Low Income Housing Tax Credit project would be difficult to develop with high off -site costs of utility extensions without substantial local subsidy to complement the Tax Credits. Availability of land and utility capacity does not limit future production of affordable rental housing in northern Orange County; however, such development may be limited by the over 100 units of rental housing currently proposed to be built using Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Until those units are completed and occupied, additional construction cf rental housing will be deterred by market absorption. However, the majority of those units will be 2- bedroom, continuing the need for appropriate -size housing for larger families. Also, the proposed units will be affordable to lower income families, but the need for rental units for very low income families is still unmet in the northern Orange County market area. No loss of assisted rental stock is anticipated in Orange County within the next five years. Homeownership Market. Orange County has the highest cost of new housing development in North Carolina. The average new home sales price in 1991 was $143,577. To afford that new home, a family would need income in excess of $60,000, or 130% of the area median. In the Town of Chapel Hill, the 1991 average new single - family home sales price is $165,082, which could be purchased by a family with an income of about $68,000. Among cities statewide, the average new home sales price is $125,500. A recent look at the Multiple Listing Service revealed only 38 single - family houses in the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District listed at prices below $100,000. A family at 80% of the area median, or $35,120, can afford a mortgage payment of approximately $650, or a mortgage of about $80,000. Even with a large downpayment, the available housing in Chapel Hill and Carrboro is beyond the reach of low- income families. 7 Homeownership assistance efforts undertaken by the Town of Chapel Hill have resulted in housing being developed that is affordable to families with 70% to 80% of the area median income, even with second mortgages from the Town, assistance from the County and special first mortgages from the N.C. Housing Finance Agency. With such high costs of development, producing new homeownership opportunities will be impossible without assistance from local governments. In addition to new construction, existing low income homeowners continue to need assistance in order to rehabilitate and maintain their homes.. One -third of the housing stock in Orange County is over thirty years old, and many of those units are owned by low- and fixed - income owners who cannot afford to rehabilitate their homes. Particularly in Carrboro, Northside and Pine Knolls neighborhoods in Chapel Hill, and certain parts of rural Orange County, rehabilitation is a viable option for both maintaining homeowners in their homes and converting rental properties into homeownership opportunities. Some new homeownership opportunities under $80,000 are available in Carrboro as attached townhouse or condominium units; .however, many of these are two- bedroom units, not suitable to a family of four. More recent development proposals in Carrboro have been for housing units at prices above $100,000. Orange County Habitat for Humanity has an aggressive construction program, with a new subdivision underway that will eventually house 35 families. The Habitat model has been very successful in Orange County, and continued support of Habitat for Humanity will be important to meeting the need for homeownership opportunities for very low income families. One important concern about housing market pressure in Chapel Hill is the loss of black homeownership, particularly in the Northside and Pine Knolls neighborhoods. Pressure from student - driven investors have driven up the prices of homes in the traditional black communities in Chapel Hill, preventing other low- and moderate - income black families from purchasing homes in the communities. The units, often through an estate sale, are sold to investors and rented to students. This market phenomenon results in the reduction of black land ownership and neighborhoods in Chapel Hill. Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing. Another source of affordable housing in Orange County is mobile homes, comprising 16.4% of the County's total housing in 1987. While mobile homes do not appreciate in the same way as conventional homes and. in many cases the homeowner does not own the land underneath a mobile home, it may be the most affordable option for some families. Very few standards exist for mobile home parks, and the Orange County Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force Report stresses the need for some guidance for park owners to protect the mobile home owners who often cannot afford to move their home. Manufactured housing, which is conventional -style housing constructed in a factory and delivered to the site, is another affordable alternative. Recent improvements in construction technology have created a product similar in quality to a house constructed on -site, with features that result in affordable prices. One issue regarding manufactured housing is confusion around definitions and quality. Any manufactured housing built after 1976 must meet specific Federal guidelines regarding contruction and safety standards. Traditional perceptions of mobile homes must change to meet the changing quality standards now required. Many manufactured homes are indistinguishable from site -built houses, and can provide quality affordable housing options in Orange County. Local development regulations should be sensitive to permitting manufactured housing as an option for developers and builders who are trying to provide affordable opportunities. Transl2ortation. While the public transportation system in the Chapel Hill - Carrboro urban area is comprehensive, access to jobs and facilities outside the urban area is limited by lack of transportation. The homeless shelter, located in Chapel Hill, serves the entire county, yet no public transportation is available from Chapel Hill to northern Orange County for persons whose. employment or families are located there. The battered women's shelter is located in Durham, without adequate inter -city transportation to give women access to their jobs, schools and other support systems in Orange County. While some human services transportation is provided to give low income persons access to health care. For these and other special needs groups, transportation will continue to be a barrier to solving their housing problems. In other ways, private and public transportation has been used as a solution to housing issues in southern Orange County. Large numbers of individuals commute to Chapel Hill from adjacent counties (Durham, Chatham, Alamance, Person) to work at UNC or Memorial Hospital, either through personal vehicles or employer- sponsored transportation. 7 Resulting traffic problems on major transportation arteries into Chapel Hill from the south and east have created a- community -wide concern. Influence on use of funds. The market conditions described above have and will continue to influence decisions on use of funds for housing. Rental assistance will focus on rehabilitation of existing units and construction of new units with at least three bedrooms to accommodate families. Homeownership assistance will be through production of specific new affordable units with subsidies from local governments, since very few units exist in the market that are affordable to low- and moderate - income families. 2. Inventory of facilities and services for homeless gersons. The Inter -Faith Council (IFC) operates the homeless shelter serving the entire county, rehabilitated and operated with funds from many sources, including private fund - raising, HUD funds under the McKinney Act for homeless assistance and other HUD funds through the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange County, and energy funds from the N.C. Housing Finance Agency. Operating funds also come from many sources, including private fundraising, rent and utilities from the Town of Chapel Hill, and contributions from other local governments. The IFC Shelter has a total overnight sleeping capacity of 32 men and 18 women, and is currently operating at capacity most nights. The IFC Shelter also offers a Community Kitchen offering meals to anyone in need. No other overnight shelter for homeless persons exists. Both IFC and Orange Congregations in Mission (OCIM) operate emergency programs that offer financial assistance for rent, rent deposits, utilities, food, or other necessities to families at imminent risk of homelessness. * * ** 3. Facilities and Services for Persons with Other Special Needs. An inventory of residential facilities and services for populations with other special needs reflects the community's non - institutional approach to housing for these populations. For developmentally disabled, handicapped. and mentally ill persons, the major housing provider is Residential Services, Incorporated, providing 7 group homes and one apartment complex in Chapel Hill. There are currently no Independent Living Facilities for persons who do not need close supervision but would benefit from a structured living situation. The Mental . Health Association in Orange County has applied to HUD in conjunction with the Mental Health Association in North Carolina for a grant to build up to 14 units of supported independent living for persons with mental illness in Chapel Hill. W For battered women, the only facility specifically for them is located in Durham. In most cases, locating in Durham creates a transportation problem for women with school -age children, and dislocates the battered woman from her support network. The Orange County Mental Health Associaton indicates that there are approximately 35 chronically mental) ill persons in Orange County who have immediate needs for affordable housing. For persons with AIDS, the AIDS Services Agency of Orange County is working to provide both host homes for persons who need out - patient treatment at Memorial Hospital and a group home -type facility for long -term residents with AIDS. For persons recovering from substance abuse, Orange County has one halfway house for women, Freedom House, but no facilities for men are available. A private home for pregnant teenagers also exists in Chapel Hill. Very low and lower income older adults in Orange County may choose to live in Adelaide Walters Apartments in Chapel Hill, the only assisted housing specifically for elderly residents. The 1987 Report of the Orange County Task Force on Low and Moderate Income Housing estimated that ther are 6,845 persons over age 62 receiving a Social Security income in Orange County, 40% of whom are men and 60% women. There are also three nursing homes, five rest homes and 11 family care homes M Orange County. A significant number of the public housing population and Section 8 certificate- holders are also elderly. Many older adults are able to maintain their home environment, "aging in place ", if resources were available to provide home maintenance and repair and simple support services like transportation and meals. Additional rental opportunities would complement efforts to allow older adults to "age in place" by making assisted living situations available if staying at home is no longer possible. 11 II. FIVE YEAR-STRATEGY A. PRIORITIES FOR ALLOCATING INVESTMENT 1. Assigrihn-a Priorities able 3). Because the cost and price of housing in Orange County is so high, families with incomes between 50% and 80% of the area median are considered of equal priority with families below 50% of the area median. Renters. Direct local tenant -based rental assistance is not emphasized, since even with assistance, many families cannot find suitable rental stock. Instead, investment over the next five years would be directed toward the creation of new rental units for families needing three bedrooms and older adults. Lesser priority will be placed on creation of smaller units. Once the stock of affordable units is increase, attention can be given to those very low income families and individuals who may need extra assistance through local rental subsidy. Emphasizing a one -time investment in housing development through second mortgages or development grants rather than a long -term commitment to rental assistance is also more appropriate given the limited administrative staff available and limited local funds that could be committed for a long -term rental assistance program. Permanent affordability will be an important consideration in the funding of rental projects with local, state and federal funds. Priority will be given to projects that use federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Rental rehabilitation funds available through the N.C. Housing Finance Agency and supplemented as needed by local funds should also be used to upgrade neighborhood conditions, regardless of unit size to maintain value of all units in the neighborhood. Homeowners. Programs for first -time homebuyers with incomes below 80% of the median will be a very important part of all housing programs in Orange County. Very few affordable units are available for purchase, especially in southern Orange. All forms of assistance that will reduce the monthly cost of homeownership will be considered in the allocation of housing funds, including new construction, substantial rehabilitation, and related infrastructure /site development. Manufactured housing should also be considered a viable option for affordable housing. For existing homeowners, in a county where one -third of all units are over thirty years old, housing rehabilitation assistance will be an important part of an overall housing strategy, allowing homeowners to maintain their 12 property while keeping it in the affordable stock. No funds are currently available for housing rehabilitation assistance for homeowners. Public Improvements. In Orange County, utility extension into undeveloped areas may relieve some of the upward pressure on developed lot prices, and make land available for affordable housing development. In rural parts of Orange County, funds for public improvements will be used both for public utilities and for upgrading from outdoor toilets commonly found throughout the county. Homeless and Special Populations. For the next five years, assistance to homeless persons will be continued and evaluated regularly for a need for expansion of the existing facility or creation of an additional one. In 1989, the the former Chapel Hill Town Hall building was renovated into a homeless shelter through assistance from local governments, HUD, N.C. Housing Finance Agency, and private fundraising, and the Town of Chapel Hill continues to fund all utilities and rent for the facility. That shelter now operates at capacity, and provides emergency short-term shelter for many populations, including battered women, persons recovering from substance abuse, and persons with mental illness. Another important priority regarding the homeless and special populations will be providing transitional housing opportunities to bridge the gap between the homeless shelter and the private or assisted housing markets. In southern Orange County particularly, no affordable alternatives exist for individuals who have obtained employment but have not saved enough money to move into a private rental situation. Transitional needs for several groups will be addressed during this period. Regarding other persons with special needs, local governments will continue to support activities of local organizations that provide housing assistance to special populations through federal and state programs of grants and loans. Geographic distribution. Funds will be distributed equally among the jurisdictions proportional to the needs identified on an annual basis. B. RELEVANT PUBLIC POLICIES. 1. Orange County. Orange County enacted a density bonus for affordable housing in 1990, allowing up to 50% increase in density for developments that are all affordable and sold to qualifying low and moderate- income 13 households. Other public policies generally do not have an adverse impact on the cost of housing. 2. Chapel Hill. The Town of Chapel Hill has adopted zoning and development regulations that, while protecting the quality of life desired by its residents, add cost to the development of new housing opportunities. Within the designated urban services area, where access to employment, transit, day care, schools, and public utilities is located, the supply of vacant land is small and the price is high. In addition to the high cost of available land, development costs in Chapel Hill are high: plan preparation, processing fees, utility installation, street improvements, and lengthy review schedules all add to development costs. In Chapel Hill, the Town Council has responded by special accommodations for assisted housing development: waiving processing fees, expediting review schedules, and modifying street improvement requirements. Currently, the zoning ordinance provides a density bonus for rental projects that include units affordable to low- income families. As developers and non - profit organizations interested in housing development begin to identify the actual cost impact of local development regulations, the Town can provide subsidies or regulatory flexibility fd encourage development of affordable housing. 3. Carrboro. Carrboro's zoning ordinance offers flexibility in the design of infrastructure, and includes a wide variety of allowable housing types, including mobile homes, modular homes, townhouses, and condominium developments. The review process is streamlined to avoid unnecessary delays, and the resulting supply of affordable units is relatively large. 4. Hillsborough. Public policy for affordable housing in Hillsborough is in the process of being assessed by staff to determine the current situation and to compile a housing element to the Comprehensive Plan. While density bonuses are not provided for in the Zoning Ordinance, other regulations are supportive of affordable housing including numerous overlay and mobile home park districts that allow single -wide mobile homes. Also, doublewide mobile homes, duplexes, and modular homes are allowed in all residentially zoned areas including the Historic District. Site plan review for multi- family development is expedited by the use of consultants and approvals can generally be obtained in about three months. The town exacts no impact fees on development other than those required to provide appropriate infrastructure. C. PROGRAMS SERVICES AND SPECIAL INITIATIVE STRATEGIES. Generally, the participating jurisdictions will continue to use funds available through 14 CDBG small cities, CDBG entitlement, N.C. Housing Finance Agency, other HUD programs including new initiatives under the 1990 Act, and local appropriations to carry out housing development programs, with emphasis on new construction and rehabilitation to create new units of both rental and owner - occupied housing, along with related public improvements that reduce the cost of housing development. Local funds for gap financing for rental projects or homebuyer second mortgages for owner - occupied units will be considered on a project -by- project basis, based on the specific financing needs of the projects proposed and availability of local funds. While none of the participating jurisdictions have ongoing housing assistance programs funded from local sources, for the past three years, the Town of Chapel Hill has allocated $150,000 from general revenues for low income housing, representing the revenues from approximately one penny of the local tax rate. Those funds have supported the Tandler and Culbreth Park homeownership initiatives. Recently, Orange Community Housing Corporation (OCHC), a nonprofit housing development corporation, was established and funded as a cooperative effort of all local governments in the county. Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro share the cost of operation of OCHC. Orange County and the Town of Carrboro have both committed ongoing local administrative assistance to the CDBG small cities program. 1. Affordable Housing. a. Rental„ Housing. GOAL: Both the Orange County Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force and the Public Private Partnership Affordable Housing Task Force recommended construction of up to 50 new units of affordable rental housing each year, or 20% of the public housing waiting list. ' The Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan states a goal of 35 new rental units each year affordable to very low and low income families. Priority will be given to projects with projected rents at or below those established for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, affordable to families with incomes below 60% of the area median, with at least three bedrooms. Meeting this goal will require substantial local, state, and federal investment. Proposed actions during the five -year period include: (1) New construction of low- income rental projects with a majority of three - bedroom units using Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) will be supported by participating jurisdictions through assistance with applications for gap financing from the N.C. Housing Trust Fund, the small cities CDBG program, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta Affordable Housing 15 Program, new initiatives under the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, and local sources of funds as available. (2) The County will continue to provide Section 8 vouchers and certificates to families as they are available through HUD. (3) The Town of Chapel Hill will continue to operate its public housing and those of the Town of Carrboro, undertaking a rehabilitation and renovation program using CDBG entitlement and Comprehensive Improvements and Assistance Program (CIAP) funds. In addition, the Town of Chapel Hill is constructing 24 new units of public housing using a combination of HUD, Town, and CDBG entitlement funds, expected to be completed in 1992. (4) For older adults, applications for Section 202 assistance will continue as projects arise, including a current proposal from New Covenant United Church of Christ for 50 units. (5) The Town of Carrboro has established rental rehabilitation programs through both the N.C. Housing Finance Agency and CDBG small cities programs. Funds are still available under that program. b. Homeownership Opportunities. GOAL: Construction of new or substantially rehabilitated housing units that are affordable to families below 80% of the area median, with mortgage payments (principal and interest) below $700. Priority will be given to projects that provide homeownership opportunities for families below 60% of the area median, with mortgage payments below $550. All groups that have studied the housing need in Orange County agree that little or no opportunities exist for homeownership for families below 80% of the area median. The serious shortage of homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate- income families in Orange County has prompted the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County to participate in two projects intended for first -time homebuyers. These two projects did provide homeownership opportunities to first -time homebuyers; however, even with special financing these projects did not reach far below 80% of the area median family income. All participating jurisdictions are interested in the creation of affordable homeownership opportunities, and are looking to Orange Community Housing Corporation, Habitat for Humanity and other nonprofit developers to propose projects that will offer these opportunities. (1) The Town of Chapel Hill has committed to provide 30 second mortgages of $14,000 each for homebuyers in Culbreth Park, a project which has combined CDBG construction loan funds through the County, Town second mortgages, N.C. Housing if-I Trust Fund third mortgages, and N.C. Housing Finance Agency Mortgage Credit Certificates, -.to create 30 units priced at $92,000. (2) Orange County Habitat for Humanity, with a $200,000 site development grant from the CDBG small cities program through Orange County Housing and Community Development Department, is developing Chestnut Oaks, a 34 -unit homeownership project under the national Habitat for Humanity model. The Town of Chapel Hill purchased 8 lots in Culbreth Park and is working now with Orange County Habitat for Humanity, Inc. to develop the lots for very low income homeownership. (3) The Town of Carrboro, which initiated the Habitat for Humanity program in Orange County also contributed 6 single family lots to Orange County Habitat which have been developed and sold to very low income families. (4) Orange Community Housing Corporation is working now to locate a site for a homeownership development to begin construction in 1992. GOAL: To create a county -wide homeowner rehabilitation program for very low income homeowners (incomes below 60% of the area median family income). Some low- income homeowners cannot afford to make needed repairs to their homes, and deferred maintenance has created a need for homeowner rehabilitation assistance. Based on the existing CDBG homeownership rehabilitation program guidelines, a - local rehabilitation program could keep low and moderate - income families in decent, standard homes. This program is especially important to homeowners on fixed incomes, working poor, and rural poor with little borrowing capacity. c. Public Improvements. GOAL: To reduce the number of housing units without indoor plumbing. In rural Orange County, many families still live with outdoor privies rather than indoor plumbing. Lack of income to make needed improvements has left these families "land poor". Public facilities funds are needed in combination with rehabilitation funds to bring these rural homes up to minimum housing code. Orange County is one of only a few counties in North Carolina with a minimum housing code, and without funds for low income homeowners, enforcement of the code would result in displacement of these homeowners, as they cannot afford to make needed repairs. 17 GOAL: To reduce the cost of development and land costs in areas outside utilities service areas. The cost of developed lots in southern Orange County is a large contributor to the higher cost of housing development relative to neighboring counties. Providing water and sewer service to project sites, grading and filling on sites with extreme slopes, and building roads and other amenities to local standards, can result in very expensive site development costs. In Culbreth Park, an affordable housing project with participation from the private sector, Orange County, Chapel Hill, and the state CDBG program, the lot cost represents nearly 50% of the total price of the housing unit, while the conventional building industry standard is approximately 20 -25% of the total house price. d. Community Education and Partici ation. GOAL: To increase awareness and participation of consumers of affordable housing in the planning and program design aspects of local housing programs. Lack of involvement from low- income persons and housing consumers in planning and designing assistance programs results in programs that may not meet the needs in Orange County. Through community education, public information, and increased participation of consumers such as public housing residents in We management and operation of their housing units, a more responsive program can be designed. Programs such as the homeownership education program of Orange Community Housing Corporation are critical to increasing citizen awareness of the housing market and the types of assistance working families need to become homeowners. Over the next five years, an action plan for increased citizen involvement should be prepared and implementation begun, to create a housing program that addresses the specific needs of very low and lower income families in Orange County. e. Supportive Housing for Homeless Persons. GOAL: To continue operation of the InterFaith Council Homeless Shelter. The current shelter represented a substantial investment in the homeless population by the local community with assistance from HUD, NCHFA, and private fundraising, and the Town continues to provide the rent and all utilities for the building annually. The InterFaith Council, a local nonprofit service agency, operates the shelter program. This shelter currently operates at capacity, and this program should be regularly evaluated to determine if expansion or addition of a second facility is needed. No shelter exists in northern Orange 18 County, creating a transportation problem for persons who may be employed in that part of the County -.. In addition, the current shelter must serve persons with very different needs, from single mothers with young children to single men recovering from substance abuse, within the same facility. An additional location may be needed during the five -year period. GOAL: Creation of transitional housing units for shelter residents who can live independently. In 1992, the Interf=aith Council and OCHC plan to submit an application for funds to create a transitional housing program for those shelter clients who can live independently with some transition assistance, using local funds to match the federal contribution. A large number of shelter clients are persons new to the area seeking work; once they find employment, they still cannot afford to move to permanent housing. Also, battered women often cannot afford to move from their homes into the private housing market. A transitional program would allow them to leave the shelter environment while having an affordable- housing unit to help them save the funds necessary for rent and utility deposits. Such transitional housing may reduce the population needing services from the homeless shelter, especially those Mto can live independently but for whom no opportunities exist in the Orange County rental market. f. SuI212ortive Housing for Other Persons with Special Needs. GOAL: To assist local nonprofit human service agencies to provide a continuum of housing options for special populations, including older adults, disabled, mentally ill, and persons with AIDS. Such a continuum would provide for a variety of housing choices, from unassisted living to small group homes, including boarding house -style living and other supportive settings. As local agencies identify needs, plan projects that could meet those needs, and locate state and federal programs that could fund those projects, local funds for housing could be used to meet matching requirements, to provide up -front planning costs, or to provide extra amenities or services not otherwise included in other programs. 2. Institutional Structure. Important actors in achieving Orange County's low- income housing goals are: a. Orange County Housing and Community Development Department, responsible for administration of the Section 8 program for the county and for the CDBG small cities program. 19 rel C. R N h k Chapel Hill Department of Housing and Community Development, adminstrator of the Town's CDBG entitlement program as well as acting as the Town's Housing Authority, operating public housing for Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Chapel Hill Planning Department, responsible for long range planning and policy design for housing development. Carrboro Planning Department, which houses the Carrboro CDBG small cities program and the Rental Rehabilitation Program administration. The Carrboro Planning Department is responsible for planning and policy design for housing development. Hillsborough Planning Department, responsible for planning and policy development for the Town, including the recently- adopted 2010 plan. Orange Community Housing Corporation, newly- created nonprofit housing development corporation, whose operating budget is funded by Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro governing boards. OCHC is also a central clearinghouse for information about other nonprofits' housing efforts, including Orange County Mental Health Association, AIDS Service Agency, local churches and other involved in housing assistance. OCHC is planning at least one housing development project each year. Orange County Habitat for Humanity, Incorporated, a strong local affiliate of the national organization. InterFaith Council for Social Service, operators of the homeless shelter and chief advocates for the homeless population. IFC also offers a program to prevent homelessness through financial assistance to families that are at risk of losing their permanent housing. Orange Congregations in Mission, serving northern Orange County, offering programs that prevent homelessness through financial assistance to families that are at risk of losing their permanent housing, and proposing a 35 -unit rental project in Hillsborough. Joint Orange- Chatham Community Action Agency, offering a wide variety of rehabilitation, weatherization, counseling, and financial assistance to very low income families. Culbreth Park Community Development Corporation, a nonprofit formed to construct 50 housing units in Culbreth Park which has purchased adjacent land for additional housing opportunities. Triangle Housing Partnership, a private non -profit corporation with support from local governments and the private sector in Wake, Durham, and Orange counties whose goal is to facilitate the creation of affordable housing opportunities through creating funding pools for debt and equity financing. 20 m. - Private lenders (especially those interested in achieving the lending goals of the Community Reinvestment Act), public lenders like FmHA, builders, realtors, and developers, whose assistance will be crucial to the success of any housing initiatives undertaken in Orange County. Most organizations listed above work closely together on housing issues, with OCHC and Habitat for Humanity sharing an office to provide a central place for housing activity in the county. Local staff work with the nonprofits on a regular basis, since most nonprofit activities are supported with local funds. Communication could be improved between housing development agencies and social service agencies that provide support and empowerment for families receiving housing assistance, a common concern addressed in the 1990 Act. 3. Coordination of Resources. With the creation of Orange Community Housing Corporation, Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough demonstrated the desire to cooperate among the several jurisdictions to provide the best housing assistance that will serve the low and moderate income residents of Orange County. With respect to coordination of resources, all agencies will continue our history of communication regarding projects in progress, applications submitted to state and federal funding agencies, programs that are particularly successful or troublesome, and other sharing of information and sources of funds. 21 III. ONE -YEAR ACTION PLAN, October, 1991 through September, 1992 A. RESOURCES During this Federal fiscal year, participating jurisdictions intend to use the following resources for carrying out housing assistance activities: 1. CDBG Entitlement Funds (Town of Chapel Hill) in the amount of approximately $300,000. For FY 1991 -92, these funds are earmarked for: (1) rehabilitation and renovation of public housing; (2) off site improvements for the 24 new public housing units to be constructed in 1992. 2. A grant of $250,000 from the CDBG Small Cities Program has been requested to provide partial financing for 35 rental units for families in Hillsborough, sponsored by Orange Congregations in Mission with assistance. from Orange Community Housing Corporation and M.B. Corporation, a private developer based in Raleigh. The project will also use Low Income Housing Tax Credits to lower rents to be affordable to families with incomes below 50% of the area median. This grant will leverage over $1,000,000 in private mortgage funds and equity raised through the sale of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. 3. Over $600,000 in Section 811 funds for housing for special needs populations have been requested through the Mental Health Association of North Carolina and its local chapter, with assistance from Orange Community Housing Corporation. Those funds, if awarded, would be used to construct 14 subsidized apartment units for persons with mental illness, and funds would also be available for rent subsidies for the residents. 4. Section 202 funds for 50 rental units for older adults have been requested by New Covenant United Church of Christ through their national organization, United Church Homes, to be located near the intersection of Smith Level Road and Culbreth Road. 5. Funds from the McKinney Act Transitional Housing for the Homeless Program will be applied for during this fiscal year by Orange Community Housing Corporation and the InterFaith Council for Social Service. A 6- to-9 unit project is proposed, using existing housing stock and including supportive services for the residents who will be trying to move from sheltered to independent living. The proposal was considered this year, but delayed due to competing uses of the potential matching fund from the Town of Chapel Hill. If the Town continues its practice of allocating $150,000 for low- income housing, matching funds may be requested from the Town for the transitional project. 6. $175,000 in CDBG Small Cities funds will be expended during this fiscal year to construct a public street in Chestnut Oaks, a 34 -unit development sponsored by Orange County Habitat for Humanity. The CDBG funds ✓;q will leverage nearly $2,000,000 in private investment in the single family homes to be constructed on the site. 7. $252,000 in general funds earmarked for low income housing will be expended during this fiscal year to provide 18 second mortgages for Culbreth Park homebuyers. A total of 30 second mortgages will have been provided to Culbreth Park over a two -year period, primarily serving first -time homebuyers with incomes up to 80% of the area median. The County also assisted with the Culbreth Park project through a construction loan from the State's Small Cities CDBG Program. 8. Operating support for Orange Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) includes $35,000 from Orange County, $35,000 from Chapel Hill, and $10,000 from Carrboro. As a nonprofit corporation, OCHC can apply for and use funds for which local participating jurisdictions may not be eligible. The Town of Chapel Hill also provided $4,000 in operating support to Triangle Housing Partnership. 9. Orange County and Carrboro will continue to submit applications for Small Cities CDBG Grants for Community Revitalization activities. 10. Carrboro will continue its participation in the Rental Rehabilitation program of the N.C. Housing Finance Agency as long as funds are available. 11. Chapel Hill public housing residents, through the Housing and Community Development Department, have applied for a $150,000 grant from HUD for Drug Elimination activities in public housing units. 12. The Town of Chapel Hill has received a $1,200,000 award of funds under the Comprehensive Improvements and Assistance Program of HUD for improvements to several public housing developments. B. IMPLEMENTATION 1. One -Year Action Plan. a. With assistance from the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County, the Culbreth Park Community Development Corporation will complete Culbreth Park homeownership project in Chapel Hill, a total of 30 second mortgages to qualifying homebuyers in the project. b. The Town of Chapel Hill Housing and Community Development Department will complete 24 new public housing units in Chapel Hill, located on Highway 86 North. c. Orange Congregations in Mission, working with Orange Community Housing Corporation and M.B. Corporation, will work to obtain funding for 35 -unit rental development in Hillsborough. d. Mental Health Association in Orange County, with assistance from Orange Community Housing Corporation and Mental Health Association in North Carolina, will work to obtain funding for 14 -unit rental development for persons with mental illness. 23 e. - New Covenant United Church will work to obtain funding for 50 -unit elderly rental development under HUD's Section 202 program. f. InterFaith Council and Orange Community Housing Corporation will apply for funding for a 6 -9 unit transitional project for homeless persons under HUD's McKinney Act Transitional Housing Program. g. The Town of Carrboro, through the NCHFA Rental Rehabilitation Program, will provide fund to rehabilitate 10 rental units in Carrboro. h. All local governments will participate in continued operation of Orange Community Housing Corporation. 2. Monitoring Plan. The Orange Community Housing Corporation Board of Directors will serve as the monitoring agent for evaluating the success of the annual action plan. OCHC will prepare a report for all local governments in Orange County and HUD describing all housing activities in the county during the previous year, relating each to this action plan. All agencies and organizations providing housing assistance of any kind will be requested to comment on the evaluation and help determine ways to improve performance under this CHAS. 3. Supportive Housing Action Plan. a. Homeless Action Plan. During the past several years, local initiatives to address the needs of homeless families and individuals have been focussed on the renovation and expansion of a permanent shelter and community kitchen, located in the renovated old Town Hall building in Chapel Hill. That project was the result of a coalition of community fundraising, local funds, contribution of the building by the Town of Chapel Hill, work by Carrboro and Orange County to obtain grants under the McKinney Act for Homeless Assistance, and assistance from the N.C. Housing Finance Agency. Continued operation of the shelter is through volunteer efforts, fundraising by the InterFaith Council, and contribution of rent and utilities by the Town of Chapel Hill. Now the shelter is operating at capacity, and planning should begin soon to determine how to meet the growing needs of new types of homeless individuals and families, including single mothers with small children, new arrivals in Orange County, battered women, and teenagers. In addition to operating the shelter, IFC provides financial assistance to families in imminent danger of becoming homeless due to inability to pay rent or utilities. In northern Orange County, Orange Congregations in Mission provides a similar service. Now the emphasis has turned to providing housing for individuals in the shelter to transition into the private housing market. In the 24 - southern Orange County housing market, very few affordable opportunities are available for individuals and families moving from the homeless shelter. In addition to continued operation of the shelter, during the current year, IFC and OCHC plan to jointly submit an application for funds to provide transitional housing for guests at the shelter who have employment and need a place to live without the large upfront costs of renting a private apartment needed for rent and utility deposits. b. Other Special Needs Action Plan. Coordination between housing agencies and human service agencies that serve special needs populations has been improving during the process of development of the CHAS; however, the next year will be spent working to develop a strong connection between the housing and human service providers. This year will be a planning year for special needs housing, and will include regular communication among all agencies concerned about increasing housing opportunities for the special needs population. The goal for this year is to develop a long -term strategy specifically for the special needs groups such as developmentally disabled, handicapped, mentally ill, battered women, persons with AIDS, and older adults. That strategy will be a five -year plan to determine: (1) the interaction of housing activities and social services, including the types of support services needed to provide a continuum of housing opportunities for special needs groups; (2) the types and quantities of housing needed, including building styles for new construction and types of renovations needed for rehabilitation of existing units; (3) how to include the large mobile home stock in the provision of housing for special needs populations; and (4) the type and amount of resources needed to provide a full range of opportunities, from supervised residential settings to supported independent living. The planning process would include the Human Service Advisory Boards of all local governments, the Orange County Department of Social Services, Department on Aging, and Health Department, OPC Mental Health, Joint Orange Chatham Community Action Agency, Orange Chatham Comprehensive Health Services, the Mental Health Association in Orange County, the Association for Retarded Citizens, the Coalition for Battered Women, Residential Services, Inc., the InterFaith Council, Orange Congregations in Mission, the AIDS Services Agency of Orange County, the Orange County Women's Center, Orange County Commission for Women, and other groups or individuals identified with an interest in providing housing appropriate to persons with special needs. 25 v N g C V 0 ca 'O 0 .�r O E m$ c� r � d 4� C s 09 C O •r+ r� E s� O w r- 44 M 0 M v U a w O a ro v v 41 Ib id I -H b ro 0 a ac 0 N a1 ic CO 63 m a 11 — a H a a av N 4 A � O + [as N a% rn ri S.1 O j m s 9 A A ! a A O N ri r wi ed r: ai a+ a C O •r+ r� E s� O w r- 44 M 0 M v U a w O a ro v v 41 Ib id I -H b ro 0 a ac 0 �%0 p1 .. ON a s ai EMMWILB �: Ln T rl � W O A A A W f1i ai r N 1p rr �d s d � N -a a 4 O 0 r-1 4J St �° a A s? N s ON rn N Ch Q1 EAL D 4J r+l fig b S a � Q ra O Al O Ol �: rl y is I Ii J E F i� a ac 0 0 rrr Q O t � 0 � s ra O Al O Ol �: rl y is I Ii J E F i� a ac 0 CHAS Table 2A Population and Minority Data 01: ange County Category I. Total Population 2. White (Most - Hispanic) I Black (Non-Hispanic) Al. Hispanic (AA races) S. Native American S. Asian and Pacific islanders 7. Group lhrartem 9. Institutional 9. Non - Institutional 10. Household Population U.9. ()epartmenl of Housing and urban Dawlopmont ONioa of Community Planning and Development Comprehensive HousIng Affordability Strategy (CHAS) t`�re Yqr PsAo4: (snw Asod ray DRAFT FY: tw"h FY: 1992 I 1996 1900 Census Data (A) 77,055 62,522 13,326 309 163 735 ,597 ,993 ,879 DRAFT 1900 Census Date or Currant Eitlmate (el 93,851 75,871 14,893 1,279 .286 2,361 9,224 770 8,454 36,104 N CHAS Table 2A Population and Minority Data Nam of Jir OSarjo er C&va*m Town of Chapel Hill i Gay I. Total Population 2 While (Non - Hispanic) 3. Black (NowHispanic) 1 4. Hispanic (Al ram) IS. Native Mark= I ' i. Asian and Pwrc biandars 7. Group Quarters & Insti(utbnai 9. Nomnst*Aipnm j 10. Hmmhold Population U.3. Dapartrnent of Hvualnp and Urban Dewlepmunt onia of Community plannnp and DmvwkW,ent CO(MM11e113(ve Housing AffordabOdyr Strategy (CHAS) 71992 ar Pae+ad: (sDRq �P�� 1 1996 i M Census Dan (A) 32,421 27,690 3,947 330 77 531 9,075 133 8,942 23� DRAFT IM Census Dad or Currant Esdmm (9) 38,719 31,444 4,840 607 123 1,684 8,665 245 8,420 30,054 fp. jmM�*..,.n... ,.,..... CHAS Table 28 Market and Inventory Conditions Housing Stock Inventory Name o1 Juba i@1 a CWM,ftM Orange County U.9. Dapartnunl o/ Housln0 and Urbsn t7 ""nitent oMlca of Com :;, PlanNnp and pevelopment Comprehensive Housing Affordabiflty Strategy (CHAS) Five Yw Mriod pnar bw rry M. 1992 ftmO FY.1996 DRAFT N Current Esdrnow as d: (ww d,* 0 or 1 bedroom (a) 2 bedrooms 3 or more bed wnq DRAFT NOT AVAILABLE Category TOW (A) I. Total Year -Round Housing 38,683 2. Total Occupied Units 36,104 3. Renter Occupied Units 16,156 4. Standard 14,540 5. Substandard 1,616 6. Suitable for Rehab 1,616 7. Owner Occupied Unit 19,948 A. Standard 17,953 9. Substandard 1199 10. Suitable for Rehab 1,995 11. Total Vacalt Units 2,579 12. For Rent 1,194 13. Standard 1,134 14. Substandard 60 15. Suitable for Rehab 60 Is. For Sale 471 17. Standard 447 Is. Substandard 24 19. Suitable for Rehab 24 20. Aw4kkV 00m4 i y or Held 251 21. Other 663 U.9. Dapartnunl o/ Housln0 and Urbsn t7 ""nitent oMlca of Com :;, PlanNnp and pevelopment Comprehensive Housing Affordabiflty Strategy (CHAS) Five Yw Mriod pnar bw rry M. 1992 ftmO FY.1996 DRAFT N Current Esdrnow as d: (ww d,* 0 or 1 bedroom (a) 2 bedrooms 3 or more bed wnq DRAFT NOT AVAILABLE CHAS Table 28 Market and Inventory Conditions Housing Stock Inventory r� ar Jurisdcsa�(q a ca+rabnr Tom of Chapel Hill 1. Total YOU -Round HouMV 2. Total 0=4*d Una 3. Ranter Ooo P d Units a• Standard S. Substandard S• Suitable for Rehab 7. Owner Oom*ed Units 8. Standard 9. Substandard 10. Suitable for Rehab 11. Total Vacant Units IL For Rent 13 Standard Substandard t S• Suitable for Rehab 16. For Sala 17. Standard 1 L SubetarWW 1 a Suk" for Rehab 20. A**" Oooupsrgr or Meld 21. Other TONI NI 13,780 8,199 7,989 212 212 5,581 5,435 144 144 1,070 591 577 14 14 241 236 k U.!• Ooputmrm of Flouatn0 and Urban 0awlopnmW OA1ce of Cammuniry Planrtirp and 0evebpnA" Comprehensive Housing Affordallo Strategy (CHAS) Am Y (anrr 4cw yrzyra.) W. 1992 0I' � 1996 DRAFT a+.a� ansc B,.�Gnwa Cuns"Esdmm as a: (ware auq 0 or t baboons x beftons 3 a awns bleml s f91 (C) 1 (0) DRAFT 4-- %a- - - - CHAS Table 2C Assisted Housing Inventory NHXOarl or Gardarlim Orange County U.S. Do tawt of Houaing and Urban Development OMae of Community Planning and Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) T FM Yew Pseod: (end Ilwl ymi Dr FY: 1992 e+►a+on FY: 1996 GM asarnf= GO Or (rnrrr dw n..M..l....v. 77 7 ( do DRAF° Total SExlt and InvwnWy — - - - -- Category Total SFIO 0 or I bedrooms x bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms (A) lei (C) (D) l� 1. Project Based Tenant Assistance 686 122 348 216 2. Public Housing 312 32 126 154 3. Section 202 24 24 4. Section 9 240 37 141 62 S. Other HUD 29 29 G., FmHA .' 81 29 52 7. Tenant Based Tenant Assistancem 504 95 257 152 S. Section A 504 95 257 t- 152 9. Other Slatiskaesl NSA 1C.Honleo "er Asslstance 465 DAT NOT AVAILABLE DRAF° ' CHAS Table 2C u.a. o parb,raM of and onto. of comn,,,ily Assisted Housing Inventory . Comp Nn" Ha„ q Affordolky Strategy (CHAS) wn» a J"'+La CayeAi� pnwr %W pw Town of Chanel Hill �,''` —`- 1992 �:ft!04!h ►7 99 6 4'� E.mrw..� October 1, 1991 ToW Sleds am 1nwnlary ca Tor (A) 0 x 1 (H 2( m 3 or "W" bo mama 1. ProJact 6aaad (E) Tenant Assistance 413 74 160 179 2. Pubro H xmWq 282 32 106 144 3. Section 202 24 22 2 0 4. Section a 107 20 52 35 S. Other Huo S. FmHA 7. Tenant Baud Tenant Asalstanoa 153 33 a- Saco" a 81 39 153 33 81 39 9. Other Stm@4Acal 10ADntaownar Aaatatana DRAF__ T � = C H ,a a 0 ma oy �1 a W L y Ch CP% 0i CD CD lilyN crf e� p Ch N .--� V m �o r, o E ©mElmilaME-1 en © MENT t, m "I Liles N i f a 0 J J z W e� Ca � U C> �a r, o E ©mElmilaME-1 en © MENT t, m "I Liles N i f a 0 MR\\\�� mom m ImmsR's 'WhM Mffi\\\M\� SM \0\1\10 WN xNEEMNSOM som 00,50000 1 W"%"�11 IMMEN co On\ MON \ \\\\ . \\\W\\\\M XNEW 'MEME'l' EM imm\\l I INN 0 1, mmEMOR I IMIX, \\\\\\\X\ REM, 15 �O � Isom Imommu \M\� �i ONEXX EM"I" E\ � \"1'x'1'11" \t�l \MME ME �111�111��� \In 0, MEMMMER mm \01 \\\\\MNK\\W INEVER XW MRI xMIC NEEN x'11 \. \��II�IN VIII t�lllllllll llllllll :1I'1 °'Illilililal3liil I11ileM I \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ , MEN A Ad I � Illlil 111111 1111111 \� \ \'�1' I �INA IINII X111111111 IN111111111 - - - - -� SON i i t_ rr is _mm .2 LL ch Flil won , more!-;, s.- THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of r 199L, by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the County" or "County ") and THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, a municipal corporation duly created and existing under the laws of North Carolina (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the Town" or "Town"). W I T N E S S E T H: In consideration of the public benefits expected to flow from the cooperative efforts of Orange County and Hillsborough in establishing a coordinated and comprehensive system of planning within their area of joint public concern, County and Town hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE I. PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS, EFFECTIVE DATE Section 1.1 Purpose of the Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a method of coordinated and comprehensive planning in the Orange County- - Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Area (hereinafter referred to as "Cooperative Planning Area "), as defined herein. Section 1.2 Definitions. A. Cooperative Planning Area. The area designated on the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map lying outside the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction of Hillsborough. The perimeter boundaries, the transition area boundaries and the open space area boundaries of the Cooperative Planning Area are shown on Exhibit A to this Agreement. 1 S. Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan to be developed jointly by Orange County and Hillsborough and to be adopted by Orange County and as it may be amended from time to time. C. Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map. The Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map, to be developed jointly by Orange County and Hillsborough and to be adopted by Orange County and as it may be amended from time to time. D. Open Space Area. That portion of the Cooperative Planning Area designated on the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map as such and containing development options as may be approved by Orange County from time to time. The Open Space Area is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an urban or transition area, is generally nonurban and which will generally remain non- urban and generally contain low density residential uses. This area may be served by public water and sewer but solely for the purpose of the development of large developments, or a combination of small developments, with significant preserved open space. E. Transition Area. That portion of the Cooperative Planning Area designated on the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map as such. This area is further defined as being in transition from rural to urban or already urban in density. Urban services (public water and sewer and other town services) are now provided to this area or are K projected to be provided to this area. This area is further defined as likely to be annexed by Hillsborough in the foreseeable future. F. Development Permit. Major subdivision preliminary plat approval and any discretionary permit (whether called conditional or special use permit or some other term) issued by the Orange County Board of Commissioners or the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners. G. Involuntary Annexation. Annexation authorized or undertaken pursuant to Parts 2 and 3 of Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes. H. Voluntary Annexation. Annexation authorized or undertaken pursuant to Parts 1 and 4 of Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes. Section 1.3 Effective Date and Duration. A. Articles 1 and 2 of this Agreement shall become effective on the effective date of an Orange County ordinance or ordinances: (1) adopting this Agreement (after it has been approved by Hillsborough); and (2) amending Orange County's Zoning Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations as prescribed in Section 2.1 of this Agreement; and (3) adopting the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan (after it has been approved by Hillsborough); and (4) adopting the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map (after it has been approved by 3 Hillsborough). Articles 3 and 4 of this Agreement shall become effective upon the execution of this Agreement. B. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by mutual agreement or by withdrawal of either party. A party may withdraw from this Agreement at any time before the adoption of the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map thirty (30) days following written notice to the other party. Any such withdrawal shall be effective thirty (30) days following receipt by the party not withdrawing of the notice of withdrawal. After the adoption of the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map, a party may not withdraw until it holds a public hearing on the proposed withdrawal followed by written notice to the other party within thirty (30) days of the public hearing. Any such withdrawal shall be effective one (1) year following receipt by the party not withdrawing of the written notice. Subject to termination provisions of this Agreement, annexation provisions of this Agreement shall be valid for not more than 20 years and may thereafter be renewed. C. Upon execution of this Agreement, the parties agree that each will take, in a timely manner and without unnecessary delay, all steps (including but not limited to preparation and adoption of the Cooperative Planning 9 Area Land Use Plan, the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map, Zoning Maps, appointments of Transition Area representatives to the Hillsborough Planning Board and Board of Adjustment and all required land use ordinance amendments) required to cause this Agreement to become effective. Each party will notify the other party when each step has been taken. Orange County will notify Hillsborough by resolution when Articles 1 and 2 of this Agreement become effective. ARTICLE 2. ADOPTION, ADMINISTRATION AND AMENDMENT OF STANDARDS Section 2.1 Standards Within the Transition Area. A. Hillsborough shall prepare a Zoning Map for the Transition Area and shall recommend its adoption by Orange County which, upon approval and adoption as prescribed in Subsection B of this Section, shall become part of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Map shall be prepared using zoning districts which correspond to the text of the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance and which correspond with the density designations and plan classifications as prescribed in the adopted Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and the adopted Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map. B. Upon completion of the Zoning Map referred to in Section 2.1A, Orange County shall amend its Zoning Atlas in accordance with said Map. Orange County shall also adopt F1 by reference the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance and the Hillsborough Subdivision Regulations and make their provisions applicable to the Transition Area. Section 2.2 Standards Within the Open Space Area. Within the Open Space Area, the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations that are in effect on the effective date of this Agreement shall remain in effect until amended in accordance with Section 2.6 of this Agreement. Section 2.3 Permit Administration Within the Transition Area. A. Except as otherwise provided in Sections 2.5 and 2.61 Hillsborough shall perform all functions related to the administration of the ordinances referenced in Section 2.iB. Subject to the remainder of this Section, Hillsborough shall administer the referenced ordinances just as if the land were located within Hillsborough's planning jurisdiction. Administration shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. Receipt and processing of development applications; 2. Issuance of any required permits and certifications; 3. Review and approval of required site/ construction plans; 4. Conducting necessary site inspections; 5. Enforcement of all standards; 6. Any other acts or things necessary to administer the Ordinances; 11 and shall be carried out in a manner so as to insure that a developer complies with all applicable ordinance requirements and the terms and conditions of any permit issued by the Town. The Town may charge fees for processing applications, conducting site /construction plan reviews, and carrying out site inspections in accordance with fee schedules applicable within the planning jurisdiction of the Town. B. Whenever Hillsborough receives an application for a development permit as defined in this Agreement relating to land within the Transition Area it shall forward a copy of the application to Orange County for review. The Town shall establish timetables to insure that Orange County has an opportunity to make recommendations regarding such applications within the framework of the County's regularly scheduled meeting dates. To the extent possible, the timetables of the County and the Town shall provide for simultaneous review to expedite application processing; provided, however, the Town may not vote to issue or deny a permit until it has received the recommendations of Orange County or until the expiration of forty -five (45) days after Orange County has received the application, whichever occurs first. Section 2.4 Permit Administration in the Open Space Area. A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.6 and the remaining provisions of this Section, Orange County shall 7 perform all functions related to the administration of the ordinances referenced in Section 2.2 in the same manner as if the land were located outside the Cooperative Planning Area. B. Whenever Orange County receives an application for a development permit as defined in this Agreement relating to land located within the Open Space Area, it shall forward a copy of the application to Hillsborough for review. The County shall establish timetables to insure that the Town has an opportunity to make recommendations regarding such applications within the framework of the Town's regularly scheduled meeting dates. To the extent possible, the timetable of the Town and the County shall provide for simultaneous review to expedite application processing; provided, however, Orange County may not vote to issue or deny a permit until it has received the recommendation of the Town or until the expiration of forty -five (45) days after Hillsborough has received the application, whichever occurs first. Section 2.5 Enforcement Remedies. A. Permit revocation, if necessary and authorized by ordinance, shall be handled by the same individual or board authorized to issue the original permit. B. Within those portions of the Cooperative Planning Area where the ordinances specified in Section 2.1B are administered by the Town, enforcement efforts through the 8 use of civil penalties, criminal penalties or injunctive relief shall be initiated by the Town. The Town shall have the duty to defend at its own expense and shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent it can legally do so, Orange County, its Board of Commissioners, its advisory boards, its staff and all members of its boards and staffs, in their official and individual capacities, from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, expenses, damages or liabilities, including attorneys' fees and court costs, resulting from the Town's administration of the ordinances specified in Section 2.1B. C. Orange County shall notify Hillsborough and Hillsborough shall notify Orange County as soon as practicable thereafter of any such claim, action or proceeding. Section 2.6 Text and Map Amendments. A. Proposed amendments to the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and /or the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map may be initiated by (i) Orange County or (ii) Hillsborough or (iii) any other person by filing a request for such an amendment with Orange County. Any petition or request to amend the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan received by the County shall be referred to Hillsborough. No such amendment may become effective until after it has been adopted by Hillsborough and Orange County following a joint public hearing by both governing bodies. Orange County and Hillsborough 4 agree to periodically review the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map to consider changing conditions and circumstances. This review will take place at five (5) year intervals unless some lesser or greater interval is agreed by the County and the Town. B. Except as provided herein, proposed amendments to the text of the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances that are applicable within the Open Space Area as well as proposed changes in zoning district classifications (i.e., zoning map changes) that affect property within the Open Space Area shall be initiated and adopted in accordance with the procedures set forth in those County ordinances. All such proposals shall be referred to Hillsborough for review and recommendation. Orange County may not adopt such proposed amendments until Hillsborough has made its recommendations, or until the expiration of thirty (30) days following such referral, whichever occurs first. C. Whenever Hillsborough proposes to amend the text of its Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations, it shall deliver a copy of the full text of the proposed amendment to Orange County not later than thirty (30) days before the date of the public hearing on any such amendment. However, with the written consent of the Orange County Manager or his designate, this thirty ( 30 ) day period may 10 be reduced to not less than ten (10) days. Unless Orange County files with Hillsborough a written objection on or before the date of the public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment, then adoption of the amendment by Hillsborough shall automatically effect a corresponding amendment to the applicable ordinance adopted by reference by Orange County as provided in Section 2.1B. Any such objection shall be based on a determination by Orange County that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the adopted Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan. If Hillsborough adopts an amendment despite Orange County's objection, then it shall refer such amendment to Orange County with a request that the County make corresponding changes as expeditiously as reasonably possible so that Hillsborough may continue to enforce within the Transition Area the same standards that it enforces within its own planning jurisdiction. In the event of objection by Orange County as provided herein, no such amendment shall be effective within the Cooperative Planning Area until it is adopted by Orange County. D. Orange County may not unilaterally amend the text of its zoning or subdivision ordinances applicable to the Transition Area (i.e., those ordinances adopted by reference pursuant to Section 2.1B). Amendments to the ordinances referenced in Section 2.1B by Orange County 11 may be accomplished only pursuant to Section 2.6C (including adoption by Orange County following a request to do so by the Town). Any petition or request to amend these ordinances received by the County or initiated by the County shall be referred to Hillsborough. E. Within the Transition Area, changes in zoning classifications may not be made unless and until an ordinance approving a zoning map amendment making the changes has been approved both by Hillsborough and Orange County following a joint public hearing by the two governing bodies. Requests for changes in zoning within the Transition Area that are filed with the County shall be referred to Hillsborough to initiate the amendment process. F. Proposed amendments to the text of this Agreement shall not become effective until approved by Hillsborough and until adopted by Orange County ordinance. Section 2.7 Representation of Transition Area Residents. Hillsborough shall revise its Zoning Ordinance to provide that at least one resident of the Transition Area shall be appointed to Hillsborough's respective planning board and board of adjustment, in the same manner as representation of extraterritorial planning area residents is provided for in the Town's zoning ordinance. 12 ARTICLE 3. LIMITATIONS ON ANNEXATIONS Section 3.1 No Annexation Into Open Space Area. Except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County, Hillsborough agrees that it will not annex into the Open Space Area (whether by voluntary or involuntary annexation or by any other method authorized by law) nor shall Hillsborough seek special legislation accomplishing such annexation. ARTICLE 4. LIMITATIONS ON THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER Section 4.1 Extensions of Public Water and Sewer. A. Subject to Subsection (C), and except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County, Hillsborough agrees it will not extend its public water and sewer into the Rural Buffer of the Orange County /Chapel Hill /Carrboro Joint Planning Area or into the Upper Eno Watershed. B. Except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County, Hillsborough agrees that it will not extend its public water and sewer into the Open Space Area of the Cooperative Planning Area except consistent with the development options for the Open Space Area adopted by Orange County from time to time. C. The parties recognize that Hillsborough has already extended water and sewer lines into the Upper Eno Watershed, and nothing in this Agreement is intended to prohibit these existing lines. In addition, the provisions of Subsections (A) and (B) are not intened to 13 prohibit additional service taps directly onto such existing lines, extensions of lines through the areas referenced in Subsections (A) and (B) where necessary to serve areas not so restricted, or the construction of any water tower or related facilities necessary to improve service in areas where service it not restricted under this Agreement. THIS AGREEMENT entered into this Z�W day of , 199/ . hair, Orange County Commissioners ATTEST: Clerk to th oard of Co issioners -N,;= r, Town of HillsVborough ATTEST: TowV Clerk 14 VV-F • 0R-ANaE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22. 1991 Agenda Abstract Item SUBJECT, HILLSBOROUGH COOPERATIVE PLANNING AGREEMENT DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director X2592 PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a report on the proposed Cooperative Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough. BACKGROUND: At its October 15, 1991 meeting, the Hillsborough Town Board unanimously approved the Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 7, 1991. The Hillsborough Town Board will be unable'to have a representative present at the Commissioners' October 22 meetinq. since it is conducting a public hearing. Mayor Johnson indicated that the Chairman Carey could sign the Aqreement, then forward it to him for his signature. RECOMMENDATION: For information purposes only. I • C • /o-7 h[9)Z4$T WQ#c1%CTOltoo►i A LEASE ORANGE COUNTY T. J This lease agreement, dated the 7th day of October, 1991, by and between the County of Orange, hereinafter called the County, and Hillsborough Savings and Loan, hereinafter called the Landlord. Witnesseth: The Landlord hereby leases to the County and the County hereby leases from the Landlord, the following described property, sometimes hereinafter referred to as the Leased Premises to-wit: . The Graham Building 118 North Churton Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 1. TERM: The term shall commence ozvothe 1st day of suave November, 1991 and shall end on the $t day of bet -aber, 1995, on the terms and conditions set forth herein. 2. USE AND POSSESSION: It is understood that the Leased Premises are to be occupied by the Orange County Departments or organizations and agencies to which the County provides financial or in -kind support for general office purposes. The County at the expiration of the term, shall deliver up the Leased Premises in good repair and condition, damages beyond the control of the County, reasonable use, ordinary decay, wear and tear excepted. 3. RENT: a.) The County agrees to pay to the Landlord the monthly rental, in advance, on the first day of each and every month. Rent shall be paid to the Landlord at such location as is designated in writing. b.) Rental Schedule: 1st year (Nov 1, 1991 per month 2nd year (July 1, 1993 per month 3rd year (July 1, 1994 per month through June 30, 1993) through June 30, 1994) through June 30, 1995) GRAHAM BUILDING LEASE PAGE 1 $500 $525 $552 e. 4. NOTICES: For the purpose of notice or demand, the respective parties shall be served by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the County or the Landlord at their respective office address, as set forth herein: To County: Orange County Department of PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, Purchasing and Central Services NC 27278 To Landlord: Hillsborough savings and Loan Attn: Mr. Tyson Clayton PO Box 1000 Hillsborough, NC 27278 or at such other address as may hereafter be designated in writing by either party hereto. The time and date on which mail is postmarked shall be the time and date on which such communication is deemed to have been given. 5. COVENANT OF TITLE: The Landlord covenants, represents and warrants that it has full right and power to execute and perform this Lease. If at any time during the term hereby demised the title of the Landlord shall fail or it shall be discovered that the Landlord's title does not permit the Landlord to grant the term hereby demised, the County's remedy, which shall be exclusive of all other remedies, shall be: 1.) annul and void this lease and 2.) the Landlord shall indemnify and hold the County harmless against any claims for rents resulting from title claim. 6. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASE: The County agrees not to encumber or assign this lease or sublease all or any part of the Leased Premises without the written consent of the Landlord, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Such assignment shall in no way relieve the County from any obligations hereunder for the payment of rents or the performance of the conditions and provisions of this lease. 7. QUIET ENJOYMENT: The Landlord agrees that the County upon paying the stipulated rental and keeping and performing the agreement and covenants herein contained, shall hold and enjoy the Leased Premises for the term aforesaid, subject to the terms of this Lease. GRAHAM BUILDING LEASE PAGE 2 8. RIGHT OF ENTRY: The County agrees that the Landlord or his designee shall have the right to enter the Lease Premises during normal business hours or any other time with consent of County. 9. INSURANCE: The Landlord shall provide Fire and Extended coverage insurance to the Leased Premises. Contents will be insured by the County; County shall also insure any improvements and betterments made by it to the Leased Premises to the insurable value thereof. Unless the parties hereto then agree otherwise, the proceeds collected upon all such policies of insurance shall be used to repair and /or replace the Leased Premises, improvements or betterments so damaged or destroyed, and such repairs or replacements shall be prosecuted promptly by both the Landlord and the County with insurance funds. In the event of the total destruction of the Leased Premises by fire or other casualty, this lease shall terminate as of the date of such destruction, unless the Landlord and the County mutually agree to have the premises restored, during which restoration period the County shall be excused from the rental payment. In the event of partial destruction of the Leased Premises, rendering them unsuitable for the County's business, the parties shall repair and restore the Leased Premises as quickly as practical and during such period of repair and restoration there shall be an abatement to the County of the rental amount proportionate to the portion of the floor area of the Leased Premises rendered unsuitable for the County's business. 10. INDEMNITY: The County agrees to indemnify and save harmless to the extent permitted by the law and to the extent provided for by policies of insurance maintained by the County, the Landlord against and from any and all claims by or on behalf of any person, firm or corporation arising by reason of injury to person or damage to property occurring in the Leased Premises occasioned in whole or in part by any act or omission on the part of the County or an employee, agent, visitor, assign or undertennent of the County or by reason of any unlawful use of the Leased Premises or any breach, violation or nonperformance of any covenant in this lease on the part of the Landlord to be observed or performed, and also for any matter or thing growing out of the occupancy or use of the Leased Premises by the County. GRAHAM BUILDING LEASE PAGE 3 S 11. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE: a.) COUNTY REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE: County agrees to keep the Leased Premises in good condition and repair, excepting repairs which are the responsibility of the Landlord or which are made necessary by reason of fire and other unavoidable casualties covered by the Landlord's fire and extended coverage insurance, and excepting reasonable wear and tear. Within such repair responsibilities of the County shall be included: repairs, maintenance of heating and air conditioning systems; normal plumbing maintenance (including stoppage but does not include repair to water, drainage or sewer lines); normal minor electrical maintenance; maintenance of floor or floor coverings. County's cost of such repairs and maintenance not to exceed $1000 per calendar year. It shall be the County's responsibility to paint walls and /or ceilings as necessary prior to occupying the Leased Premises. b.) Landlord'S REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE: The Landlord agrees to keep, repair and maintain the exterior of the building (including the roof, exterior walls, foundations, gutters and downspouts), sidewalks, parking area, supply pipes for gas (if any) and water, drainage and sewer pipes (excluding stoppage), repairs of air conditioning and heating systems, plumbing and electrical above limits stipulated in the County Repair and Maintenance. If any portion of the Leased Premises which is the responsibility of the Landlord shall be at any time be in need of repairs, Landlord will promptly repair same upon receipt of written notice from the County to do so, except that the Landlord shall not be obligated to make or pay for any repairs rendered necessary by the fault, act or negligence of the County, or any of its agents, employees or business invitees. 12. ALTERATIONS: Any alterations, additions, improvements or partitions permitted herein shall be made at the expense of the County. The County agrees that the County will make no alterations, additions or improvements to the Leased Premises without the written consent of the Landlord, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. All alterations, additions or improvements made by and for the County, including but not limited to, any and all subdividing partitions, walls, special pluming, electrical fixtures of whatever type, material or height, but excepting moveable office furniture put in at the County's expense shall, when GRAHAM BUILDING LEASE PAGE 4 made, be the property of the Landlord and shall remain upon and be surrendered with the Leased Premises as a part thereof at the expiration or earlier termination of this lease. 13. SERVICES: The County agrees to furnish the Leased Premises with electrical service suitable for the intended use as general office space, including fluorescent tube and ballast replacements and light bulb replacements, heating and air conditioning for the comfortable use and occupancy of the Leased Premises, janitorial and trash removal from the Leased Premises, janitorial and trash removal from the Leased Premises, fuel oil, telephone and associated deposits and connection fees. 14. SIGNS: The County reserves the right to affix a sign that it deems appropriate to properly direct the public to the offices housed in the Leased Premises. Prior to installation, the County agrees to submit plans to the Landlord for approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. All signs erected by the County shall comply with the requirements of public authorities having jurisdiction with respect thereto. 15. PARKING: It is understood and agreed that contained within the Leased Premises is one (1) parking space. The County will direct employees occupying the Leased Premises to park in the Municipal Parking Lot located next to the Hillsborough Police Department. 16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This lease contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto, and no promises, agreements, conditions or stipulations not contained herein shall be binding upon either party hereto. GRAHAM BUILDING LEASE PAGE 5 BY: Hillsborough Savings and Loan (Title) Orarjgjw®County Att BY: Mos s Carey, Jr. Chair, Board of Co 's Toners Blythe Clerk to the Board This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. K neth Chavious County Finance Director GRAHAM BUILDING LEASE PAGE 6 T Hillsborough Savings and'Loan BY: (Title) CrarlgpAounty Atte I Mos s Carey, Jr. Chair, Board of Co /sZoners everly Blythe Clerk to the Board This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Kohneth Chavious County Finance Director GRAHAM BUILDING LEASE PAGE 6 i 41171�1 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROTECTION CONTRACT This amendment to the contract by and between Orange County, Chatham County and South Orange Rescue, Inc. is made and entered into this 1st day of September, 1991. WHEREAS, the Counties have established a District within North Chatham County consisting of an area wherein residents now being served by the Southern Bell Telephone Exchange are provided Emergency Medical Services by Orange County Emergency Medical Services and South Orange Rescue Squad. WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 20, Chapter 160A of the N. C. General Statutes, Orange and Chatham Counties are empowered to enter into this agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the Counties and South Orange Rescue Squad, Inc. hereby agree to the following amendment: Orange County shall submit to Chatham County by the the 15th of the month following the event, a copy of ACRs (Ambulance Call Report) of all calls in Chatham County. Chatham County shall assure patient confidentiality is protected at all times. This amendment is entered into the day and year first above written. CHATHAM COUNTY BY: ; Ir Henry Dunl p, Chairman Chatham County Board of Commi.ss�[iners., ATTEST: - Hazel B one, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners ORANGE COUNTY BY: / L,- V ( J Moses Carey, Chairman ATTEST: Orange County Board of everly ythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners SOUTH GE RESCUE SQUAD, NC. BY: Raym 4deF4iess, Chief ATTEST: c etary PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONTRACT for ORANGE COUNTY: CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP SURVEY Funded by FY 1991 Survey and Planning Grant and The County of Orange This,Fr03ept Description and Contract are herein agreed to this 11' day of A aetft s „, /y l , by the County of Orange, hereinafter known as the Grantee Kelly Lally, Independant Contractor, and M. Ruth Little, Longleaf Historic Resources, hereinafter known as the Consultants; and the Division of Archives and History, hereinafter known as the Division. The Grantee will identify a Local coordinator, Marvin Collins, who will work with the Consultant and the Division Representative throughout the project. The project will be conducted according to the Standards established by the Division, and will be subject to its review, supervision, advice and final acceptance by the Division. A. SCOPE OF WORK: This is Phase I or a multiphased county -wide survey of Orange County. Orange County is under intense development pressures, with the Chapel Hill township perhaps the most intense. The county's land use planning program is extremely advanced, and the finds of the survey will be actively integrated into the planning process. The purpose of the Phase I project is to identify, record and evaluated historic properties in the Chapel Hill township according to the state and federal standards for identification and evaluation and to integrate these into the county's land use plan. The Principal Investigator and project coordinator will meet qualifications of 36 CFR 61. B. TIME SCHEDULE: The project is scheduled for 7 months, beginning on or after the date of this contract and terminating no later than September 30,_ 1992. The attached Time - Product -- Payment Schedule is to followed throughout the course of the project_ C. SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY FOR INVIINMRY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES: The Consultants will conduct the Survey with the guidance and support of the Local Coordinator and the Division Representative and will follow guidelines in The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Survey Manual: Instructions for Recordin Historic Resources (hereinafter cited as NC Survey Manual), supplementary guidelines provided by the Division, and the calendar and details of the project schedule developed by the Consultants. These state standards are in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Identification" and "Standards for Evaluation." Any publications produced from the inventory must be reviewed and approved by the Division before publication. This review will include design and content. The Consultants will record all significant properties in the project area individually or in groups either by completion of the Statewide Survey inventory form and photographic recording and mapping or map- coding according to Division system for Statewide Survey. General standards (adapted to the resources of the project area) for inclusion of categories or types of properties individually, in groups, or by map coding will be established by the Consultants with the advice of the Division. These standards will be part of the project methodology developed by the Consultants. The Consultants will work closely with local historians and other individuals to ensure accurate coverage of local history. oral history and primary documentation will be collected and integrated where possible. The Consultants will evaluate properties using National Register criteria and with reference to appropriate contexts. For the purposes of payment and the satisfaction of the terms of this contract it is understood that the completion of the survey in specified areas of the county, represented by USGS quadrangles or other geographical units, consists of the following items: 1. Intensive field work in the designated area including a review of all structures on all roads and streets and map - coding or survey of all significant structures on all roads and streets. At the completion of the survey, the working maps used by the consultant in the field will be submitted to the Division, along with one complete set of clean neatly labelled USGS maps showing the specific location of all sites (building, properties, districts) recorded and map -coded during the survey. 2 2. Completed survey files for each significant properties will meet guidelines in NC Survey Manual and will include: a. a survey file folder correctly labeled; b. a completed North Carolina Historic Structure Data Sheet; C. all record photographs of each property, properly labeled, including overall views, detail views, interior views, and photographs of outbuildings and their details where applicable. These photographs are to be submitted in the form of enlarged contacts of not more than nine images per 8X10 sheet in the Division's standard format. If commercial photography laboratories are used in lieu of the Division's photographic services, photographic proofs must be equal to the Division's standard format; d. for most properties, a hand -drawn or other applicable site plan, showing outbuildings and related features, and a floor plan (where examination of the interior is possible and the plan is of significance to the understanding of the building). Such sketches may be done on the blank pages of the Historic Structure Data Sheet or separately on 8 1/2" by 11" paper, properly labeled. e. a typed, double- spaced summary description of the property (the "entry ") that summarizes its history, setting, architectural form and character, integrity, associated features, and significance. f. a typed, completed negative envelope containing the negatives (in their plastic sleeves) for the enlarged contacts of each property. g, any documentary information and notes collected on the property. 3. The gathering of historical information on the construction and occupation of each property will include all necessary on- site and telephone interviews with property owners, former owners, and other persons who can provide information on the construction, occupation, and development of the property. This information is to be recorded - -to the extent space allows ---on the blank pages of the data sheets and additional 8X10 sheets, and referenced by source and date of the conversation /interview. 3 4. The recording of any property includes the making of color slides of the property, as appropriate. In some instances there may be one slide of the property where in other cases of more significant buildings, there may be up to a dozen slides of the property, its pertinent details, its outbuildings, and its site. 5. The Consultants and Local Coordinator will make presentations at one to three public meetings to inform community of project and obtain information and support; additional presentations will be negotiated separately. 6. The Consultants with the assistance of the Local Coordinator and Division Representative, will make a Study List presentation (written and oral) to the State Professional Review Committee encompassing property and districts evaluated as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. D. FINAL REPORT: At the end of the project the Consultants will submit to the Division a final report before final reimbursement is made. This report will follow instructions in the NC Survey Manual and appropriate Federal bulletins. The re rt and the surve files will be reviewed by the Division staff and revised by the Consultants and the revisions approved before final payment is made. Time should be allowed for revision. The final report will consist of a brief methodological report and brief overview ofd the resources surveyed, plus a descriptive inventory list of properties surveyed. The final submission shall also include all survey materials described in item C.2.a. -f. above prepared to Division standards. Note: The grantee will also receive a copy of the final report. (The Grantee may also make photocopies of survey forms and entries, and may obtain duplicate photo proof sheets). The final budget for the project is attached to this project Description. Each time reimbursements are requested from the Division by the Grantee project expenditures should be documented with cancelled (or certified) checks and invoices, and attached to a cover letter addressed to: Ms. Lloyd D. Childers, Grants-in-Aid Administrator, 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27611. 4 At the end of the project the Grantee will submit to the Division a project completion report before final reimbursement is made, and it will include the following components: 1. Restatement of project description evaluating project's original goals and actual achievements. 2. Copies of any report, publications, or brochures generated by the project. 3. Statement of financial documentation. F. SERVICES AND GOODS PROVIDED BY DIVISION: In order to ensure the consistent application of Statewide Survey standards and to provide support and guidance to sponsoring agencies and the Consultants, the Division will provide the following services and goods as budget and staff permit: 1. Orientation for Consultants on all projects to ensure familiarity with Statewide Survey standards and procedures, resources of Archives and History, and National Register of Historic Places program. 2. Inventory forms, inventory folders, labels, and negative envelopes required for inventory. Nomination forms for nomination projects. 3. Clerical support for integrating photographs into Statewide Survey files. 4. Data entry into CREP program. 5. Archival storage and maintenance of inventory materials including negatives. 6. Professional instruction and guidance in defining the research design, conducting, and completing the inventory. A staff member of Archives and History will be assigned to work directly with the Consultants to serve as liaison with the Division and to provide on -site and office assistance, guidance throughout the project, support in conducting the work and assistance in evaluation according to National Register criteria and appropriate contexts. 7. Processing and printing of black and white photographs at Division cost, if desired by Grantee. A cost list will be provided to the Grantee for various photography items. (see note on following page) 5 i NOTE: The Division seeks to process photographs quickly to expedite the inventory projects, but problems of labor and supplies sometimes generate long backlogs. A three -week processing time is usual, but sometimes six weeks to two months may occur. If the Grantee chooses to use the Division's photo lab services, the Grantee acknowledges the possibility of backlogs noted as above. 8. Presentation coordination of Study List to the State Professional Review Committee. H. SERVICES AND GOODS PROVIDED BY THE GRANTEE: To ensure that the project will operate efficiently on the local level for the Consultants, the Grantee agrees to do the following: 1. Conduct local administration and accounting of the grant. 2. Provide prompt secretarial assistance (if a part of the budget) for the project, understanding that deadlines established in the project schedule must be met. 3. Provide adequate office space (if a part of the project budget) for the Consultants including a telephone and desk. 4. Assist Consultants in developing local contacts and generating publicity for the project. 5. Take responsibility for duplicating files and contents for local purposes. 6. Compile and submit completion report and all materials generated by the inventory. J. PERSONAL INCOME AND SELF - EMPLOYMENT TAX RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSULTANTS: It is understood that the Consultants are being employed as professionals and are independent contractors, and that payment for services constitutes fees which exclude all employment taxes and related benefits. The Grantee will be responsible for filing appropriate IRS income statements (FORM 1099) for the Consultants. KjM.13; ad1 W.11V a re" NIL W Please refer to the attached "Appendix for Subgrant Agreements" for stipulations regarding procurement; retention of records; changes in scope; prohibition of lobbying; non - federal audit; publications; suspension or termination of subgrant; standards for final products; equal opportunity; and other requirements. C*I NONDISCRIMINATION ASSURANCES: In consideration of work and furnishin g Parties hereto for servants agree not handicap, sex, race with reference to t remote. This provi the signing of this Contract for the performance of labor and materials as set forth herein, the themselves, their agents, officials, and employees to discriminate in any manner on the basis of age, color, creed, sexual orientation, o he subject matter of this Contract, n lion is hereby incorporated into this benefit of the Grantee and may be enforced by action for performance, injunctive relief, or other remedy as by la w of or r national origin o matter how Contract for the specific provided. We the undersiS22d, havin g read, understood, and agreed to the terms of this project description and contract, so affix our signatures this re Grantee: COUNTY OF 0RANPf Moses Carey, Chair Board of County Co issioners ATTEST: Beverly B1 he, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners 199 1 . Consultants: Kell y Indepen ant Contract At M. Rut Little Longleaf Historic Resources Dk--,,�on of Archives and History I& David Brook Division of Archives and History CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP SURVEY TIME /PRODUCT PAYMENT SCHEDULE 1991 -1992 Pay Period Product Salary Due December 15 Windshield Survey of township $ 2,500 Area 1: South section up to NC 54 and Chapel Hill - Carrboro city limits February 15 Area 2: West section from NC 54 to $ 2,500 1 -40, west of Chapel Hill - Carrboro city limits Completed Area 1 files April 15 Area 3: NE section from I -40 to Durham $ 2,500 County line, north of Chapel Hill city limits Completed Area 2 and Area 3 files June 15 Submission of all survey files in final $ 2,500 form, with survey report, index, maps Total $10,000 8 ti CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP SURVEY BUDGET Line Items Grant Funds Cash Match Tn -Kind Match Total Consultants 5,000 5,000 10,000 (1) Secretary 590 590 Project Coordinator 590 590 Planning Intern 2,240 2,240 Office Space 440 440 Telephone 150 150 Office Supplies 150 150 Maps 60 60 Camera (Purchase /rental) 150 150 Printing and Copying 180 180 Miscelaneous 450 450 Totals 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 9 APPENDIX for SUBGRANT AGREEMENTS The following stipulations apply to all subgrant projects funded in part by federal Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) monies awarded to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), by the U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. References to the stipulations may be addressed in the GRANTEE HANDBOOK FOR SURVEY AND PLANNING GRANTS, as indicated below. Questions about the application of these conditions to specific projects are available from the specialists assigned to subgrant projects or from Lloyd D. Childers, grants administrator, 109 E. Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27601 -2807. Telephone: (919) 733 -4763. 1. PROCUREMENT: Subgrantees must forward to the HPO evidence of compliance with Federal Competitive procurement requirements for professional services and .subcontracts prior to reimbursement, if applicable. Handbook: Federal Grant Requirements and A (See Appendix: 43 CFR 12.36) 2. RETENTION OF RECORDS: Acceptable Federal and nonfederal share supporting documentation must be submitted ELLor to reimbursement, if applicable. Documentation includes:' copies of contract, timesheets, front and back of cancelled checks (or computer printouts), invoices, etc. (see Handbook: Federal Grant Requirements and Appendix: 43 CFR 12.41 and 12.42) 3. CHANGES IN SCOPE: The approved scope of work, products, budget and performance /reporting milestones included in the contract cannot be changed without prior written approval from the HPO. (see Han dbook: Contracts and Project Descriptions) 4. LOBBYING PROHIBITED: Subgrantees must conform with the following text of 18 U.S.C. 1913, which prohibits the use of the subgrant funds for lobbying: No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, .advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designated to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation or Appendix for Agreement Page 2 appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legislation or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or its Department or agencies from communication to Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through the proper official channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business. 5. NON - FEDERAL AUDIT: subgrantees are responsible for obtaining audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 for State or local governments, or the audit requirements of OMB Circular A -110 for universities and nonprofit organizations. The audits shall be made by an independent auditor in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards covering financial and compliance audits. (see Handbook: A 12.26) _ PPendix: 43 CFR 6. PUBLICATIONS. Acknowledgement of federal assistance should be made in connection withathe Publication of any material based on, or developed under, any activity supported by HPF grant funds, as follows: The activity that is the subject of this (type of Publication) has been financed (in part /entirely) with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior. NOTE: The design and content of any publication produced from a survey of architectural or archaeological resources must be reviewed and approved by the HPO prior to its printing. Appendix for Agreement Page 3 7. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF SUBGRANT. Voluntary and involuntary suspension or termination of the subgrant, in whole or in part, by either the State or subgrantee may occur at any time prior to the date of project completion. (see Handbook: Appendix: 43 CFR 12.43, 12.44) 8. STANDARDS FOR FINAL PRODUCTS. Final products which do not conform to the terms and conditions of the grant agreement or which do not meet the applicable Secretary' of the Interior's "Standards" will not be reimbursed. (see Handbok: Appendix: standards and Guidelines) �• EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Subgrantee must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (see Handb�: Federal Grant Requirements) 10. OTHER REQUIREMENTS: In addition to the terms detailed in this Subgrant Agreement, all Federal requirements governing grants are applicable. (Office of Management and Budget Circulars A -87 or A -121, A--102 or A -110, and A -128) Prepared by: Lloyd D. Childers, Grants Administrator Historic Preservation Office, Division of Archives and History October, 1990 a `STA7Z° North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director December. 11, 1991 Ms. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk U 1 3 199 Board of Commissioners ; Orapge County Commissioners n PO Box 8181 ,\ Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Blythe: Enclosed are three fully executed copies of the contract for the Orange County Chapel Hill Township survey. One copy is for the county's files and the other two are for the consultants, Kelly Lally and M. Ruth Little. Please forward the consultants' copies on to them. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, (Ms.) Lloyd D. Childers Grants Administrator State Historic Preservation Office LDC:ro Enclosures cc: Michael Southenl/Catherine Bishir Marvin Collins 109 EastJones Street * Raleigh,. North Carolina 27601 -2807 Moses Carey, Jr. Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. Halkiotis Verla I. Insko Don Willhoit ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 December 4, 1991 Mr. Lloyd D. Childers, Grants Administrator State Historic Preservation office North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 109 East Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27601 -2807 Dear Mr. Childers: 732 -8181 968 -4501 688 -7331 227 -2031 644 -3004 (Fax) I have enclosed all four copies of the contract for the orange County Chapel Hill Township survey. You indicated that you will have David Brook sign each copy and that you will return one fully executed copy to the County for distribution. Please send the one fully executed copy to my attention and I will distribute copies to the appropriate staff personnel. Thank you. I hope you and your family have a joyous and safe holiday season. Sincerely, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Board of Commissioners YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY! S� 4� ST -t ` RECEIVED NOV 1 9 1991 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James G. Martin, Governor Patric Dorsey, Secretary NcIvember 15, 199-1 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director The County of Orange 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, r7C 27278 Dear Mr. Collins: Division of Archives and History William S. Price, Jr., Director bev, '' 11 -3%e, OA A, eA eeu ccC �S GJ�" kLA y �- _ease find enclosed four "or;cinai" copies of a. contract foz -'' the Orange County: Chapel Hill Township Survey_ There are sufficient copies so that each of the signers will have his /her own original once the contract is fully executed. If the contract is acceptable to all parties involved, please circulate it for each person's signature on each copy. Thep, pY � return all four-copies to me so that I can have David Brook: a d his signature. David also will ill in the date on each page. After David sians l will return ',] e o� � e ally executed copes to you for dispersal to the Town of Chapel Hill uyr obi l and the cons � ` -0,+ -G Also enclosed is a Financial Documentation Form and + instructions fcr helping you keep tract_ of actual prc.ject c,%6,�ta costs ar_c make reimbursement. requests. -The form reflects zhe budget attached to the contract. If there are any �roh�lems with the contract or if you have any questions about the Financial Documentation Form, please feel free to call me at (915) 733 -4753. Since 41 yr,yours , Lloyd D. Childers, Grants Administrator State Historic Preservation Office Enclosures cc: Catherine Bishir 109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 -2807 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONTRACT for ORANGE COURpTY: CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP SURVEY Winded by FY 1991 Survey and Planning Grant and The County of Orange This Project Description and Contract are herein agreed to this day of , by the County of Orange, hereinafter known as the Grantee; Kelly Lally, Independant Contractor, and M. Ruth Little, Longleaf Historic Resources, hereinafter known as the Consultants; and the Division of Archives and History, hereinafter down as the Division. The Grantee will identify a Local Coordinator, Marvin Collins, who will work with the Consultant and the Divisior_ Representative throughout the project. The project will be conducted according to the Standards established by the Division, and will be subject to its review, supervision, advice and final acceptance by the Division. A. SCOPE OF WORK: This is Phase I or a multiphased county -wide survey of Orange County. Orange County is under intense development pressures, with the Chapel Hill township perhaps the most intense. The county's land use planning program is extremely advanced, and the finds of the survey will be actively integrated into the planning process. The purpose of the Phase I project is to identify, record and evaluated 'historic properties in the Chapel Hill township according to the state and federal standards for identification and evaluation and to integrate these into the county's land use plan. The Principal Investigator and project coordinator will meet cualifications of 36 = 61. B. TIME SCHED[7rI E: The project is scheduled for 7 months, beginning on or after the date of this contract. and terminating no later than September 30, 1992. The attached Time - Product -- Payment Schedule is to followed throughout the course of the project. C. SLWy AkY OF N4E'I'HODOLCGY F'OR I :,!VEI'I'0FY OF' HISTOPIC =FSOURCES: The Consultants will conduct the Survey with the guidance and support of the Local Coordinator and the Division Representative and will follow guidelines in The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Survey- Manual: instructions for Recording Historic Resources (hereinafter cited as NC Survey Manual), supplementary guidelines provided by the Division, and the calendar and details of the project schedule developed by the Consultants. These state standards are in compliance- with the Secretary of the interior's "Standards for Identification" and "Standards for Evaluation." Any publications produced from the inventory must be reviewed and approved by the Division before publication. This review will include design and content. The Consultants will record all significant properties in the project area individually or in groups either by completion of the Statewide Survey inventory form and °photographic recording and mapping or map - coding according to Division system for Statewide Survey. General standards (adapted to,the resources of the project area) for inclusion of categories or types of properties individually, in groups, or by map coding will be established by the Consultants with the advice of the Division. These standards will be part of the project methodology developed by the Consultants. The Consultants will work closely with local historians and other individuals to ensure accurate coverage of local history. Oral history and primary documentation will be collected and integrated where possible. The Consultants will evaluate properties using National Register criteria and with reference to appropriate contexts. For the purposes of payment and the satisfaction of the terms of this contract it is understood that the completion of the survey in specified areas of the county, represented by USGS quadrangles or other geographical units, consists of the following items: 1. Intensive field wort: in the designated area including a review of all structures on all roads and streets and map - coding or survey of all significant structures on all roads and streets. At the completion_ of the survey, the working maps used by the consultant in the field will be submitted to the Division; along with one complete set of clean neatly labelled USGS maps showing the specific location of all sites (building, properties, districts) re--orded and map -coded during the survey. 2 2. Completed survey files for each significant properties will meet Guidelines in NC Survey Manual and will include: a. a survey file folder- correctly labeled; b. a completed North Carolina Historic Structure Data Sheet; C. all record photographs of each property, properly labeled, including overall views, detail views, interior views, and photographs of outbuildings and their details where applicable. These photographs are to be submitted in the form of enlarged contacts of not more than nine images per $X10 sheet in the Division's standard format. If commercial photography laboratories are used in lieu of the Division's photographic services, photographic proofs must be equal to the Division's standard format; d. for most properties, a hand -drawn or other applicable site plan, showing outbuildings and related features, and a floor plan (where examination of the interior is possible and the plan is of significance to the understanding of the building). Such sketches may be done on the blank pages of the Historic Structure Data Sheet or separately on $ 1/2" by 11" paper, properly labeled. e. a typed, double - spaced summary description of the property (the "entry ") that summarizes its history, setting, architectural form and character, integrity, associated features, and significance. f. a typed, completed negative envelope containing the negatives (in their plastic sleeves) for the enlarged contacts of each property. g. any documentary information and notes collected on the property. 3. The gathering of historical information on the construction and occupation of each property will include all necessary on- site and telephone interviews with property owners, former owners, and other persons who can provide information on the construction, occupation, and development of the property. This information is to be recorded - -to the extent space allows - -on the blank pages of the data sheets and additional 8X10 sheets, and referenced by source and date of the conversation /interview. 3 4. The recording of any property includes the making of color slides of the property, as appropriate. In some instances there may be one slide of the property where in other cases of more significant buildings, there may be up to a dozen slides of the property, its pertinent details, its outbuildings, and its site. 5. The Consultants and Local Coordinator will make presentations at one to three public meetings to inform community of project and obtain information and support; additional presentations will be negotiated separately. 6. The Consultants with the assistance of the Local Coordinator and Division Representative, will make a Study List presentation (written and oral) to the State Professional Review Committee encompassing property and districts evaluated as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. D. FINAL REPORT: At the end of the project the Consultants will submit to the Division a final report before final reimbursement is made. This report will follow instructions in the NC Survey Man_ ual and appropriate Federal bulletins. The report and the survey files_ will be reviewed b y the Division staff and revised by the Consultants and the revisions approved before final payment is made. Time should be allowed for revision. The final report will consist of a brief methodological report and brief overview ofd the resources surveyed, plus a descriptive inventory list of properties surveyed. The final submission shall also include all survey materials described in item C.2.a. -f. above prepared to Division standards. Note: The grantee will also receive a copy of the final report. (The Grantee may also make photocopies of survey forms and entries, and may obtain duplicate photo proof sheets). The final budget for the project is attached to this project Description. Each time reimbursements are requested from the Division by the Grantee project expenditures should be documented with cancelled (or certified) checks and invoices, and attached to a cover letter addressed to: Ms. Lloyd D. Childers, Grants -in -Aid Administrator, 109 East ,zones Street, Raleigh, NC 27611. 4 At the end of the project the Grantee will submit to the Division a project completion report before final reimbursement is made, and it will include the following components: 1. Restatement of project description evaluating project's original goals and actual achievements. 2. Copies of any report, publications, or brochures generated by the project. 3. Statement of financial documentation F. SERVICES AND GOODS PROVIDED BY DIVISION: In order to ensure the consistent application of Statewide Survev standards and to provide support and guidance to sponsoring agencies and the Consultants, the Division will provide the following services and goods as budget and staff permit: 1. Orientation for Consultants on all projects to ensure familiarity with Statewide Survey standards and procedures, resources of Archives and History, and National Register of Historic Places program. 2. Inventory forms, inventory folders, labels, and negative envelopes required for inventory. Nomination forms for nomination projects. 3. Clerical support for integrating photographs into Statewide Survey files. 4. Data entry into CREW' program. 5. Archival storage and maintenance of inventory materials including negatives. 6. Professional instruction and guidance in defining the research design, conducting, and completing the inventory. A staff member of Archives and History will be assigned to work directly with the Consultants to serve as liaison with the Division and to provide on -site and office assistance, guidance throughout the project, support in conducting the work and assistance in evaluation according to National Register criteria and appropriate contexts. 7. Processing and printing of black and white photographs at Division cost, if desired by Grantee. A cost list will be provided to the Grantee for various photography items. (sec note on following page) 5 NOTE: The Division seeks to process photo- graphs quickly to expedite the inventory projects, but problems of labor and supplies sometimes generate long backlogs. A three -week processing time is usual, but sometimes six weeks to two months may occur. If the Grantee chooses to use the Division's photo lab services, the Grantee acknowledges the possibility of backlogs noted as above. t3. Presentation coordination of Study List to the State Professional Review Committee. H. SE-RVICE5 AND GOODS PROVIDED BY THB GF_ANTGEE: To ensure that the project will - operate efficiently on the local level for the Consultants, the Grantee agrees to do the following: 1. Conduct local administration and accounting of the grant. �. Provide prompt secretarial assistance (if a part of the budget) for the project, understanding that deadlines established in the project schedule must be met. 3. Provide adequate office space (if a part of the project budget) for the Consultants including a telephone and desk:. 4. Assist Consultants in developing local contacts and generating publicity for the project. 5. Take responsibility for duplicating files and contents for local purposes. o. Compile and submit completion report and all materials generated by the inventory. J. PERSONAL INCOME AND SELF- EMPLOYNITUN]' TAX RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSULTANTS: It is understood that the Consultants are being employed as professionals and are independent contractors, and that payment for services constitutes fees which exclude all employment taxes and related benefits. The Grantee will be responsible for filing appropriate IRS income statements (FORM 1099) for the Consultants. I. OTHER STIPULATIONS: Please refer to the attached "Appendix for Subgrant Agreements" for stipulations regarding procurement; retention of records; changes in scope; prohibition of lobbying; non - federal audit; publications; suspension or termination of subgrant; standards for final products; equal opportunity; and other requirements. NOMISCRIMINATION ASSURA-NICES: In consideration of the signing of this Contract for the performance of work and furnishing of labor and materials as set forth herein, the parties hereto for themselves, their agents, officials, and employees or servants agree not to discriminate in any manner on the basis of age, handicap, sex, race, color, creed, sexual orientation, or national origin with reference to the subject matter of this Contract, no matter how remote. This provision is hereby incorporated into this Contract for the benefit of the Grantee and may be enforced by action for specific performance, injunctive relief, or other remedy as by law provided. We the undersigned, having read, understood, and agreed to the terms of this_project description and contract, so affix our signatures this day of egg Grantee: COUNTY OF ORAN Moses Carey, Chair Board of County Co issioners ATTEST: Beverly B1 he, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Consultants: /7 4 Kell y Indenerl an Contract M Rutn Little Longleaf Historic Resources Division of Archives and History David Brook Division of Archives and History CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP SURVEY TIME /PRODUCT PAYMENT SCHEDULE 1991 -1992 Pay Period Product Salary Due December 15 Windshield Survey of township $ 2,500 Area 1: South section up to NC 54 and Chapel Hill - Carrboro city limits February 15 Area 2: West section from NC 54 to $ 2,500 I -40, west of Chapel Hill- Carrboro city limits Completed Area 1 files April 15 Area 3: NE section from I -40 to Durham $ 2,500 County line, north of Chapel Hill city limits Completed Area 2 and Area 3 files June 15 Submission of all survey files in final $ 2,500 form, with survey report, index, maps Total $10,000 8 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP SURVEY BUDGET Line Items Grant Funds Cash Match In —Kind Match Total Consultants 5,000 5,000 10,000 (1) Secretary 590 590 Project Coordinator 590 590 Planning Intern 2,240 2,240 Office Space 440 440 Telephone 150 150 Office Supplies 150 150 Maps 60 60 Camera (Purchase /rental) 150 150 Printing and Copying 180 180 Miscelaneous 450 450 Totals 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 ri APPENDIX for SUBGRANT AGREEMENTS The following stipulations apply to all sub rant proects funded in part by federal Historic Preservation Fund](HPF) monies awarded to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Preservation Office State Historic Interior (HPO), by the U. S. Department of the , National Park Service. References to the stipulations may be addressed in the GRANTEE HANDBOOK FOR SURVEY AND PLANNING GRANTS, as indicated below. Questions about the a �- specific j application of these conditions to p.ro ects are available from the specialists assigned to subgrant projects or from Lloyd D: Childers administrator, 109 E. Jones St., grants Telephone: (919) 733 -4763. Raleigh, NC 27601 -2807. 1• PROCUREMENT: Subgrantees must forward to the HPO evidence of compliance with Federal competitive procurement requirements for professional services and subcontracts prior to reimbursement, if applicable. Handbook: Federal Grant Requirements and Appendix: (see 12.36) q Ppendix: 43 CFR 2• RETENTION OF RECORDS: Acceptable Federal and nonfederal share supporting documentation must be submitted reimbursement, if rior to applicable. Documentation includes :' copies of contract, timesheets, front and back of cancelled checks (or computer printouts) (see Hance oak: Federal Grant Requirements and nvoices etc. 43 CFR 12.41 and 12.42) Appendix: 3• CHANGES IN SCOPE: The approved scope of work budget and performance /reporting milestones included roducts the contract cannot be changed without prior written approval from the HPO. (see Hance oak: Contracts and Project Descriptions) 4- LOBBYING PROHIBITED: Subgrantees must conform with the following text of 18 U.S.C. 1913, which of the subgrant funds for lobbying: No prohibits the use appropriated by any enactment of Congress Part of then money absence of express authorization b the directly or indirectly to Y Congress, be used advertisement, telegram, Pay for any personal service, written matter, or other device�n nt�ndedror designated printed or to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to or oppose by vote or otherwise favor any legislation or Appendix for Agreement Page 2 apPropriation by Congress, whether before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legislation or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or its Department or agencies from communication to Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through the proper official channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business. 5. NON - FEDERAL AUDIT: subgrantees are responsible for obtaining audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act Of 1984 for State or local governments, or the audit requirements of OMB Circular A -110 for universities and nonprofit organizations. The audits shall be made by an independent auditor in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards covering financial and compliance audits. (see Hance k: Appendix: 43 CFR 12.26) 6. PUBLICATIONS. Acknowledgement of federal assistance should be made in connection withathe Publication of any material based on, or developed under, any activity supported by HPF grant funds, as follows: The activity that is the subject of this (type of Publication) has been financed (in part /entirely) with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interioz-, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior. NOTE: The design and content of any publication produced from a survey of architectural or archaeological resources must be reviewed and approved by the HPO prior to its printing. Appendix for Agreement Page 3 7. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF SUBGRANT. Voluntary and involuntary suspension or termination of the subgrant, in Whole or in part, by either the State or subgrantee may occur at any time prior to the date of project completion. (see Handbook: Appendix: 43 CFR 12.43, 12.44) 8. STANDARDS FOR FINAL PRODUCTS. Final products which do not conform to the terms and conditions of the grant agreement or which do not meet °the applicable Secretary of the Interior's "Standards" will not be reimbursed. (see Handbook: Appendix: Standards and Guidelines) 9. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Subgrantee must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (see Ha Requirements) dbo: Federal Grant 10. OTHER REQUIREMENTS: In addition to the terms detailed in this Subgrant Agreement, all Federal requirements governing grants are applicable. (Office Of Management and Budget Circulars A -87 or A -121, A -102 or A -110, and A -128) Prepared by: Lloyd D. Childers, Grants Administrator Historic Preservation Office, Division of Archives and History October, 1990 ORIGINAL SECTION 306 FORM OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (ALL PRIME CONTRACTS) THIS AGREEMENT, made the 7th the year of 1991 by and between O'Neal Construction of NC, Inc. day of October in hereinafter called the Contractor and the County of Orange, North Carolina, hereinafter called the County. WITNESSETH: That the Contractor and the County for the consideration herein named agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work: The Contractor shall furnish and deliver all of the materials, and perform all of the work in the manner and form as provided by the following enumerated plans, specifications and documents, which are attached hereto and made a part thereof as if fully contained herein: Advertisement, Instructions to Bidders, General Conditions, Supplementary General Conditions, Specifications, Accepted Proposal, Contract, Performance Bond, Payment Bond, Power of Attorney, Worker's Compensation, Public Liability, Property Damage and Builder's Risk Insurance Certificates, and Drawings entitled: Efland- Cheeks Community Center and Neighborhood Park, Richmond Road, Efland, North Carolina Consisting of the following sheets: SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4, Al, A2, A3, A4, P1, M1, E1, by LCDA Architects Dated: 7/31/91 Addendum No. ONE Dated 8/26/91 Addendum No. TWO Dated 8/28/91 Addendum No. THREE Dated 9/3/91 Addendum No. Dated d the following addenda: 2. That the Contractors shall commence work to be performed under this Agreement on a date to be.specified in a written order of the County and shall fully complete all work hereunder within 150 consecutive calendar days from said date. For each day in excess thereof, liquidated damages shall be as stated in Supplementary General Conditions. The Contractor, as one of the considerations for the awarding of this Contract, has furnished to the County a w ... .z �AI!11�IP� construction schedule setting forth planned progress of the project broken down by the various divisions or part of the work and by calendar days. In the event that the progress of the work is not maintained on schedule by the Contractor, or in the event the work is not completed within the time above specified, the County may upon fifteen 915) days notice, sent by certified .- maili return-- receipt requested, to ' the' Contractor and his Surety, declare this Contract in default, and thereupon, such Surety shall promptly take over the said work and complete the performance of this Contract in the manner and within the t1 me. above- Spec ified;- and,a11 funds due or to become due to. -the Contractor shall be paid to the Surety. In the event the Surety shall fail to take over the work to be,done under.this.contract. within fifteen (15) days after being so notified and notify the County in writing, sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, that he is taking the same over and stating that he will diligently pursue and complete the same, the County shall have the right to let the work remaining to be done to some other Contractor, either by public letting or negotiation, and thereupon the Contractor and the Surety on his Bond shall forthwith pay the County all increase in cost or loss and damage which it may sustain on account of such default on the part of the Contractor. 3. The County hereby agrees to for the faithful performance of this additions and deductions as provided Proposal, in lawful money of the Uni- Two Hundred Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Forty Seven Dollars Summary of Contract Award: pay to the Contractor Agreement, subject to in the specifications or Led States as follows: _( $ - 224;147.,00 - ) . 4. On or before the 20th day of each calendar month, the County shall make payments to the Contractor on the basis of a duly certified and approved estimate of work performed during the preceding calendar month by the Contractor, less ten percent (10$) of the amount of such estimate which formed strictly in accordance with this Agreement and until such work has been accepted by the County. 5. Upon submission by the Contractor of evidence satisfactory to the County that all payrolls, material bills and other costs incurred by the Contractor in connection with the construction of the work has been paid in full, final payment on account of this Agreement shall be made within thirty (30) days after the completion by the Contractor of all work covered by this Agreement and the acceptance of such work by the County. 6. It is further mutually agreed between the parties hereto that if at any time after the execution of this Agreement and the Surety Bonds hereto attached for its faithful performance, the County shall deem the Surety or Sureties upon such Bonds to be unsatisfactory, or if, for any reason, such Bonds ceases to be adequate to cover the performance of the work, the Contractor shall, at its expense, within five (5) days after the receipt of notice from the County so to do, furnish an additional Bond or Bonds in such form and amount, and with such Surety or Sureties as shall be satisfactory to the County. In such event no further payment to the Contractor shall be deemed to be due under this Agreement until such new or additional security for the faithful performance of the work shall be furnished in manner and form satisfactory to the County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and date first above written in — fox' counterparts, each of which shall without proof or accounting for other counterparts, be deemed an original contract. O'Neal Construction of NC, Inc. Witness: Contractor: (Tre4de or corporate name) 8y: Title: President Atte t: r on) By: eal Ti-t- —.--­Assistant Secretary - tC�S�lp Sec. or Asst. 8e "0.. only) _ = „ (_Z-ORPORATE SEAL) WIT S: (Owner, Partner, or Corp. Pres. or Vice -Pres. only) COUNTY OF ORANGE, NORTH CAROLINA BY: MOSES CAREY, JR. CHAIR, BOARD OF COMM ONERS S Bond No. 462 8725 PERFORMANCE BOND Date of Execution: October 7, 1991 Name of Principal: _O'Neal Construction of North Carolina, Inc. (Contractor) 1829 E. Franklin Street, 800D, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Name of Surety: Hartford Fire Insurance Company 3250 W. Big Beaver, P.O. Box 3001, Troy, MI.48007 '*me, of gantracting Body: Orange County P.O. Box 8181, Hillsborough, North Ca:rolina:27278 Two Hundred Twenty Four Thousand, One Hundred = .Amount i Baud: ($224,147.00) Forty Seven and �0/I00 PrgCje�:- Efland - Cheeks Community Center &-Park Project #3001 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, the PRINCIPAL and SURETY above named, -are held and firmly bound unto the above named Contracting Body, Ater- eiffaf.tir, called the Contracting Body, in the penal sum of,the amount ,atated-a&bv'�,for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we _- bind ourgelv_-s, our heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, _:Jointly and'-siverally, firmly by these presents. -- THE CONDIT10 OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas the principal _ -- entered in o =a certain contract with the Contracting Body,.identified as shown above and hereto attached: - NOW THEREFORE, if the principal shall well and truly perform and fulfill all the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements of said contract during the original term of said cont =act and any extension #� thereof that may be granted by the Contracting Body, with or without notice to the Surety, and during the life of any guaranty required under the contract, and shall also well and truly'perfo.rm and fulfill all, the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements'af any.and all; duly authorized modifications of said contract that may- hereafter-be suede, notice of which modifications to the surety being hereby waived, then, this obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above - bounden parties have executed this instrument under their several seals on the date indicated above, the name and corporate seal of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to authority of its governing body. Executed in Three counterparts. th Carolina, Inc. witness: (proprietorship or Partnership) Attest: (Corporation) By: Title: v r • 6"w - ,•.•-- (Corp. Sec. or Ass Sec. only) Wit as i M. �C.Li`cenSed ResIdenc A ent 1 Name and Add ss - Surety Agency p. fox 'ed -400 Surety Comp ny Name and N. C. Regional or Branch Office Address. O'Neal. Construction of Nor orate Name) Contractor: (Trade or Carp By Title: 4�/r4parcner, � or Corp. Pres. or Vice - Pres.. Only).---- J. (Corporate Seal': "� Hartford Fire..Insu ante C pan�T'" r C an By.. Title• Albert . Neubacher� (Attorney in Fafit. (Surety Corporate=S4al).. PAYMENT BOND Date of Execution: October 7, 1991 Name of Principal: O'Neal. Construction of North.Carolina, Inc. - (Contractor) 1829 E. Franklin Street, 800D, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Name of Surety: Hartford Fire Insurance Company -3250 W. Big Beaver, P.O. Box 3001, Troy, MI 48007 Tae -a€ Coh.tracting Body: Orange County P.O. Box 8181; Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 �^ Two Hundred Twenty Four Thousand, One Hundred B.ao ($224,147.00) Forty Seven and 00 /100 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Pxc�3 Efland - Cheeks Community Center & Park Project 163001 XN0W ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, the PRINCIPAL and SURETY above -named, are-held and firmly bound unto the above named contracting Body, hereinafter_ celled the Contracting Body, in the penal sum of the amount statedbok Or the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we -a bind ourse].v.esy our heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, v -" jointly and -severally, firmly by these presents. THE- CONDITIl3N OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas the principal esiCere_d..i�' a certain contract with the Contracting Body identified. as shown above and hereto attached: NOW THEREFORE, if the principal shall promptly make payment to all'per- sons supplying labor and material in the prosecution of the work provid- ed for in said contract, and any and all duly authorized modifications tr of said contract that may hereafter be made, notice of which modifica- tions to the surety being hereby waived, then .this - obligation to be -void; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above - bounden parties have executed this Jnscru- went under their several seals on the date indicated 4bove., the "me and corporate seal of each corporate party being'heieco affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to authority of its governing body. Executed in Three counterparts. Witness: (Proprietorship or-Partnership) Attest: (Corporation) By: Tit sec. only) pry I aw� 0 4 sw- 'IF 4 :�� his Jar f f N. c. Licensed Residenc Ajenc Name and Add ess - Surety Agency � D . A40 zsr4md Surety Company Names and N. C. Regional or Branch Office Address O'Neal Construction of North Carolina, Ir- Contractor: (7Xada or Corporate N. By Title: (Owner, Pgrtaer, ar „Corp. P or Vice_mfres. (Corparat:e-51p Hartford Fire IlLsurance Company (Sur y o arIy) By: _Title: Albert G tQeubach r T (AEtortley in Facts ^ ~ (Surety Caf�raze ;Seal)' ' HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Hartford, Connecticut POWER OF ATTORNEY Know all men by these Presents, That the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, and having its principal office in the City of Hartford, County of Hartford, State of Connecticut, does hereby make, Constitute and appoint ALBERT C. NEUSACHER, GEORGE M. FOSTER, III, JOHN T. FOSTER and JAMES S. KUROWSKI of LANSING, MICHIGAN its true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, with full power and authority to each of said Attorney(s)-in-Fact, in their separate Capacity if more than one is named above, to sign, execute and acknowledge any and all bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof on behalf of the Company in its business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons holding places of public or private trust; guaranteeing the performance of contracts other than insurance policies; guaranteeing the perfommnoe of insurance contracts where surety bonds are accepted by states and municipalities, and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or permitted in all actions or proceedings or by law allowed, and to bind the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof were signed by an Executive Officer of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and sealed and attested by one other of such Officers, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that its said Attomey(s) -in -Fact may do in pursuance hereof. This power of attorney is granted by and under authority of the following Provisions- (1) By -Laws adopted by the Stockholders of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 9th day of March, 1971. ARTICLE IV SECTION 8. The President or any Vice- President, acting with any Secretary or Assistant Secretary, shall have power and authority, to appoint, for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and other writirgs obligatory in tale nature tlraraot, one or more Resitlerrt Vice- Pre&dentS, Resilient Assistant Secretaries and Attorneys -in -Fact and at arty Wive 10 remove any shish Resident Vioe-President, Resident Assistant Secretary, or Atomey -in -Fact, and revoke the power and authority given to hkn. SECTION 11. Attorneys -in -Fact shall have power and authority, su biect to the to... and limitations of the power of attorney issued to them, to execute and deliver on behalf of the Company and to attach the seal of the Company thereto any and all bonds and undertakings, and otter writings obligatory in the nature thereat. and any such Instrument rarepiad by any such Atlamey-in -Fact shell be as birdhig upon the Comperiy as it signed Gy an Fxecutive Officer and sealed and attested by one other Of such O(rxpers. (2) Excerpt from the Minutes -of a meeting of the Board of Directors of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY duly called and held on the 11th day of June, 1976: RESOLVED: Robert N- H. Sener, Assistant Vice-President, shell have, as long as he holds such office, the same power as any Vice President under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Article IV of the By -Laws of the Company. This power of attorney is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following Resolution adopted by the Directors of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 6th day of August, 1976. RESOLVED, that, whereas Robert N. H. Sener, Assistant VicB PreBitlera, acting with any Secretary or Assistant Secrem y. has the power and authority. as long as he holds such office. to appoint by a power of attorney, Soh Purposes only of executing and altasdN bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory, in the nature thereof. one or more Resklent Vice- Presidhar Secretaries and Atomays -rn -Fact; Now, therefore, the signatures of such Officers and the seal of the Corhtperry mmaayy be affixed t1 any such power of Sta may of to arty certificate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such power of anorney or certtcete beat" such tttcsfrnile signantres or facs;rtnJO seal shall be valld and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified by laesimile signatres and fall simlfe seal shall be valid and binding upon the Comparry in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached, In Witness Whereof, the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by its Assistant Vice - President, and its corporate seal to be hereto affixed, duly attested by its Secretary, this 22nd day of August 1990. Attest: HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY " Richard R- Har anon secretary STATE OF CONNECTICUT '� Robert N. H. Sener assearem vice- Prhssidern sa COUNTY OF HARTFORD I On this 22nd day of August, A.D. 1990, before me personally came Robert N. H. Senor, to me known, who being by me duly swom, did depose and say: that he resides in the County of Hartford, State of Connecticut; that he is the Assistant Vice - President of the HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seal of the said corporation; that the seal affixed to the said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of said corporation and that he signed his name thereto by like order. / - •r�r�� STATE OF CONNECTICUT teen COUNTY OF HARTFORD \\ \`�J H. waahlak wry Public �, ktY Conur ton Expires Afarttr 11, 1994 CERi761CATE'_ , 1, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary of this HARTFORD rgElNSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and.atached POWER- OP'AMRNEY remains in full force and has not been revoked: and furthermore. that the Resolutions 0-the Board of Directors': se0orth in the Power of Attorney. are now in force. Signed and sealed at the City of Hamord. Dated th-6 7t,Cf say of October 1991 T yr Form S- 3507.5 (HP) Pnntec hn J.S A • ` CLSTCMER 0 15967 C E R T I F I C A T E J F - A "1 C S u r E ISSUE DATE: 10 /D10/01/91 91 PRODUCER - BRADLEY— CHESBRili6H— cc LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE - I THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER _ OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NISWON6ERt INC. - - "° I NJ RIGHTS UPON THE CEFTIFICATE HOLDER. I EXTEti4 JP ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, BY THE POLICIES BELOW. P. 0. BOX 1747 w..., I PERSONAL E ADV. INJURY z,000,UUG 1,000,000 1 ( ) .� ►± ANN ARBOR, MICHTSA(1': ZIP CCDE 48106 ` 4 �, •,:.. { COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE { I FIRE DAMAGE (ANY ONE FIRE) $ ------------- - ----- "! �--- 1 CJMFANY LETTER r AETNa LIFE ECASUALTY -I 5,0uO INSURED COMPANY LETTER E I Al (X) ANY AUTO 165FJOCZ017864 I (X) ALL OWNED AUTOS I GNEAL CCNSTRUCTI04 OF 506,000 I C]MFANY LETTER C I I BODILY INJURY (PER PERSON) g N.C. INC. E O'NEAL INC. I (X) NON -OWNED AUTOS I I ( ) GARAGE LIABILITY I I IE29 E FRANKLIN ST. I PROPERTY DAMAGE 1 I COMPANY LETTER L IEXCESS LIABILITY I CHAPEL HILL NO. CARCLINA I 16/011 /91 1C /C1 /9Z I EACH OCCURRENCE $ ZIP CODE 27514 ------------------------------ I COMPANY LETTER E 5,000,UUO CCVERAGES I ( ) STATUTGRY LIMITS- - -- 10/C1/91 10 /O1 /9Z I EACH ACCIDENT $ — 506,UDO -------------- ------ - - - - -- THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURA`+CE LISTED 6ELjl HAVE f•EEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY °ERICO INDICATED, !NOTWITHSTANDING ANY RECUIREME�oT, TERM GR CGNOITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT �hICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE iNSLRANCE AFFORDED 6Y THE POLICIES DESCRIBED TO HEREIN TC ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONCITIuNS OF SLCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. IS SUBJECT cc LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE - POLICY POLICY POLICY `Lr"ER EFF. 2ATE- EXP. DATE LIMITS )GENERAL LIABILITY 1_'- Al (X) COMMERCIAL r'ENERAL LIABILITY 1 GENERAL - AGGREGATE »- g= 06`'C05069265C IU /C. /91 1C /C1 /9Z I PRODUCTS- COPP /UP AGG. 1 h000,U0G 1 t ) CLAIMS MACE (X) OCCUR. I 1 ( ) OWNER'S E CONTRACTOR'S FRCT. I I PERSONAL E ADV. INJURY z,000,UUG 1,000,000 1 ( ) I EACH OCCURRENCE 1,000pOUG I 1 ( ) I FIRE DAMAGE (ANY ONE FIRE) $ 100,000 I I MED. EXPENSE (ANY ONE PERS) $ 5,0uO )AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Al (X) ANY AUTO 165FJOCZ017864 I (X) ALL OWNED AUTOS I 10 /C1 /91 10 /01 /9Z I COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 506,000 (X) SCHEDULED AUTOS I I (X) HIRED AUTOS I I I BODILY INJURY (PER PERSON) g I (X) NON -OWNED AUTOS I I ( ) GARAGE LIABILITY I I I BODILY INJURY (PER ACC) 8 I 1 ( ) I -----------•-------------•---------------------------------------------i---------------------------------------- I PROPERTY DAMAGE 1 IEXCESS LIABILITY I Al (X) UMBRELLA FOPM 1065SX5069Z66w ( ) OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM I 16/011 /91 1C /C1 /9Z I EACH OCCURRENCE $ 5,000,ODU ------------------------------ I AGGREGATE $ - - - - -- ----------------------------------- 5,000,UUO '------- I I AI CORKERS COMPENSATION 1065CBC99211CP I AND I ( ) STATUTGRY LIMITS- - -- 10/C1/91 10 /O1 /9Z I EACH ACCIDENT $ — 506,UDO I I EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY I I DISEASE- POLICY LIMIT b SUG,UUL - I I DISEASE -EACH EMPLOYEE 1 ( 50DyuU0 ---------- - - - --- ----------------------------------- It1THER - -.� -�- I -' - -- - - - - -- - -- --•---------•------------------------- AI E'7UIPMENT PER ITEI( 1065IH5089Z65 . 1 1C /01 /91 1C /01 /9Z I LEASEL /RENTED 150, 15000D ------------------ - I CESCRIPTICN OF OPERA TMSIVEHICLES /SPECIAL ITEMS HOLDER WWPI CHMOND IS OWNER OF PROJECT -E: EFLANC /CHEERS COMMUNITY CENTER AND MEEANE, 14t147. KC 273CZ CL START DATE 10/7/91 10/1/91 80 CERTIFICATE HOLDER I CANCELLATIO'+ ---- `-- ' -' - -- COUNTY CF GRANGE (N.C.) I ATT: PAMELA JONES PLRCH. SdOLLC ANY CF THE ABOVE LESCRI6ED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE FHE I 137 F. XING PO BOX 9181 1 EXPIRATION GtTE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 HILLSBORO) .NC I JAYS WRITTEN NLFICE TO THE CEkTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, ZIP CC'OE '-7275 I EUT FAILURE TC MAIL SUCH NCTICE ShALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION CR LIABILITY CF I,tiY :iI'.i LPGN TFE LJr.FANY, ITS AGENTS UR REPRESENTATIVES. - - - - -- -----------------------_---------------------------------- I. AUTHGRIZEJ REPFESENTATIVE - R CUSTCMER x 15967 I+ C ;, i: n C E d I N v E R ISSUE DATE: 10/01/91 THIS BINDER IS A TEMrORARY INSURANCE CCNTRACTy SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ShOWN BELOW. PRODUCER BRACLEY- CHESBROUGHr "`'`- : I COMPANY AETNA BINDER NO: BLREFLA I EFFECTIVE: NISWONGER? INC. EXPIRATION: I E1TE LIME DATE TIME F. 0. BOX 1747 iD/0191 M 12/07/91 12:01 AM NOUN ANN ARBORS MICHIGAN ZIP CODE 48106 CCDE 1 ThIS -INOER IS ISSUED TO EXTEND COVERAGE IN THE ABOVE NAMED COMPANY SUB CODE 1 PER EXPIRING FOLICY NO.: INSURED COUNTY OF ORANGE E I CESCRIPTICN uF L PER ATIONS /VEHICLES /PROPERTY (INCLUDING LOCATION) I C'NEAL CONST. OF 11.C.INC I EFLAND /CHEEKS COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK 1829 E FRANKLIN ST. I CHAPEL HILL '�9. CAFGLINA i Zip CODE 27514 I CCVERAGES LIMITS TYPE OF INSURANCE - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- ------ - - ---- --------- f COVERAGESiFORMS I AMOUNT DEDUCTIBLE COINSURANCE - - - - -- --- ------ - - -- PFCPERTY CAUSES CF LOSS - - ----------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - -_- I 5UIL61;iG ALL RISK R/C I '224147 1000 ( ) EASIC { ) SRC�:C (X) SPECIAL ( ) I 1 I I --------------------------------------- GENERAL LIABILITY — ------------- ------- ------- --------- r----------------------------- ___ -- - -_ I I GENERAL AGGREGATE ( ) CCMmERCIAL GE,NEFAL LIABILITY I I PRODUCTS- COMP /OP AGG. 3 ( ) CLAIMS yA�E ( ) JCC.'R. { l OWNER'S E CO'rTRACT,R'S PRLT. I I PERSONAL E ACV. INJURY $ I ( ) I EACH OCCURRENCE 8 ( ) ------------------------------------i------_-------_--_—.--__--_--•-_------------------r----------- I I FIRE DAMAGE (ANY ONE FIRE) $ IRET. {C GATE FGA CLAI "S TALE: I MED. EXPENSE (ANY ONE PER) I AUTOMOBILE LIAEILITY ( > AkY AIM I COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT ---------- ( ) ALL OWNED AUTOS I BODILY INJURY (PER PERSON) S I { ) SCHE ^UL" - -D AUTOS I BODILY INJURY (PER ACC) $ 1 ( ) HIREC AL'TJS I PROPERTY DAMAGE 1 I ( ) NCN -CWNEO AUTOS I MEDICAL PAYMENTS 3 I ( ) GARAGE LIABILITY I PERSONAL INJURY PROT. 1 1 UNINSURED MOTORIST g -------------------------- - - - - -- — -- I----------------------- AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE CEDLCTIBLE - -_—_— _-------------r------------------------------ 1( ) ALL VEHICLES ( ) SCHELULED VEHICLES I ( ) ACTUAL CASH VALUE — ~ ( ) CCLLISIC'v: ( ) CTHEP TVAN COL: I 1 ( ) STATED AMOUNT I - - --------------------- - - ---_ I ( ) OTHER E0CESS LI.AEiLITY UM?RELL'+ FORM __` ------------------- -- ---- "______ —_-- -_ I EACH OCCURRENCE s -- I ETHER THIN UMBRELLA FORM I AGGREGATE i IRETRO DATE FOR CLAIMS MADE: I SELF - INSURED kETENTION S CF!EF'S C'CIPENSAT?C� I ( ) STATUTORY LIMITS I A" I EACH ACCIDENT EMPL[YEP'S LIABILITY I I DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ I I DISEASE -EACH EMPLOYEE b ------------------------------------- SPECIAL C]ti0ITIONS /OTHE R+ ASE -------------- --------- - - - - -- ------ - --- -- ArE S !L RESS I ( ) MORTGAGEE ( ) ADDITIONAL INSURE& i ( ) LOSS PAYEE ( ) I LOAN# ZIP .DOE I 1 AU ZED E:=lojA!! CCNDITIC�'S lo 0 — ------- - - - - -- THIS COMPANY ?T 40S THE KINC(S) CF INSLI ANC LIMITATIONS Th'E POLICY(IES) IN ,ANCE STIFuLATEG AS ABOVE. FhIS INSURANCE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS CC!'6j. OF CURRENT LSE BY THE COMPANY. THIS EI';CE.R "AY :E _= NCELLE,; E THE WHEN CANC EL LA T 1D -N RILL b EFFECII;E. INS:REC -Y SJRRENCER JF THIS EINCER GR OY WRITTEN NOTICE TJ THE COMPANY STAI�nu !HIS ACCORC-ANC_ rITH THE POLICY 'INGER MAY BE CANCELLED EY THE COMFANY BY NOTICE TO THE INSURED Iv IHIS dINSEA IS CANCELLED WHEN REPLACED BY A POLICY. IF PEPLA,CED BY A FOLICY, THE C')'+FANY IS THIS 8•INCER IS NuI E'411LEC TO ChARGE A PREMIUM FOR THE BINDER ACCGRLING TO THE RULES USE BY THE CD"FANY. ANG RATES iN APPLICABLE IN NE'JAOA: ANY PER,CN :,hu FEFLSES IC. ACCEPT A. DINLER WHICH PROVIDES COVERAGE OF LESS THAN S1,000,UUu.u. 2IEN PRACFPGn ^�E4L1TP�.�;. lA) SHALLyDE Fi; E '• T :i hE^THAN '1560 -GUy AND (B) IS LIABLE TO THE FARTY PRESENTING THE F JF T SuIA �Ct F[) i tiL ui .1ti.LCS SuSlAINLc[ THEhEFRCM. co O 'S CL 3 (p CD C+ —j_ ct . (D \V 0 r r O �G . -o I� Im x U)