Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 10-22-1991
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1991 7:30 P.M. OWASA A OPE ORO NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL ON ALL ABSTRACTS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 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 PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. III. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) A. Economic Development Funding by the General Assembly B. Jail Inspection Report C. Proposed Closing of the Animal Control Satellite Office in Southern Orange IV. RESOLUTIONS PROCLAMATIONS A. Resolution of Appreciation for Serving.on the Planning Board V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Recognition of the Animal Protection Society for the Standard of Excellence Award VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS VII. REPORTS A. OWASA Quarterly Report B. Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement VIII. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA A. Extended Area Telephone Service B. Triangle Transit Authority Funding - .Request C. Participation in Regional Bicycle Plan D. Courthouse Square Project - -Phase III Bid Award/ Contract Approval E. State Watershed Classifications and Standards F. Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop Corridor Study G. Zoning Enforcement Cases -- Enforcement on Civil Penalties for Zoning Cases H. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment --- Affordable Housing I. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment--- Efficiency Apartments J. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment -- -Motor Vehicle Sales (New and Used) K. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment Payments In Lieu of Dedication IX. BOARD COMMENTS X. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT XI. APPOINTMENTS XII. MINUTES XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION XIV. ADJOURNMENT ( *) Indicates items that need immediate attention. 1 TUESDAY, OCrIUM 22, 1991 The orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on October 22, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the C n unity Meeting Room at the orange Water and Sewer Authority, Carrboro, North Carolina. BpAI2'D MaeERS PRA: Chairman Moses Carey, jr., and cmzftj.ssioners Stephen Halkic tis, Alice Gordon, Don Willhoit and Verla Insko (arrived at 8:00 p.m.) AR*- -X pR - Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRFSEW: County Manager John Link, Assistant County Managers Albert Kittrell and Rod Visser, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Public Works Directs Wilbert McAdoo, Animal Control Director Elms Johnson, Planning Director Marvin Collins, and Planners Mary Scearbo, Emily Cameron, David Stancil, and Jim Hinkley. r r i a•� • fflw� I. ADQMCNS OR CHAMM TO IM AGENDA' Item VIII I- Tabled Appointments - one additiornal appointment to the Human Relations Commission was added. A. NATO R4 CN THE PRINIM A1'@IDA 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. PUBLIC C HAIM.: chairman Carey dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. III. ITM FUR DOCISION - AGENDA See Item "C" for brief discussion. Motion was made by C mn.issioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve those items on the Consent Agenda as listed below: A. HQ»IIC FUNDING BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the Resolution, as stated below, releasing its share of the funds allocated by the General Assembly to help Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, amity development, and to support local industrial development activities and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local verrments. PIOOIT7 ON 91/92 BY ORANGE COUNry WFIERW' in North Carolina the Lead Regional organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the state: and WHEREAS, many counties and cities continue to need assistance in pursuing economic and con unity development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovenmental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS, the 1991 rural Assembly recognized this need through the appropriation of $864,270 to help the Lead Regional organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, and to support local industrial development activities and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local gents; and WHEREAS, these finds are not intended to be used for payment of nembers' dues or assessments to Lead Regional Organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the State's General Funds; and WHEREAS, in Region J funds in the amount of $48,015 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the eaoncmy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that ORANGE COLM1'Y requests the release of its $6,408.07 share of these funds to the Triangle J Cbuncil of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 689, House Bill 83, Section 19 of the 1991 Session Laws. B. JAIL qLMUN RII The Board received the jail inspection report for September 5, 1991. C. FR iPOEM giggM OF THE AMML CMIRCG 9►MUM OFFICE IN SO[TIY�i C12A UE In response to a question from, Con nissicmx Willhoit, Elora Jdumsn indicated that most animal licenses are issued through the mail. During the last two weeks of January the walk -in traffic u= eases due to the approaching deadline for licensing of animals. The suggested closing is in response to limited resources, difficulty in finding an available port for the computer and low usage of the satellite office. The Board recommended that the Southern orange Animal Control satellite office be closed as of January, 1992. VOTE: UNANIlMDUS M A. Resolutiaaz of &Unloigtj aan For Serving aai the PlarmiM Board A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Caumissioner Halkiotis, to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a Resolution of Appreciation for Dan Bddleman, who has served on the Planning Board for 5 years. The resolution is stated below: 10 0 8 J 0 Ke • •••� iV •� MENEM, Dan C. Bddleman actively served on the Orange County Planning Board from December 1, 1986 to October 8, 1991; and VMMM, Dan actively served on the Orange County Board of Adjustment as Planmrxj Board representative from January 19, 1988 to February 5, 1991. %IHMEAS, Dan inTwoved the quality of decisions through his service as a Planning Board representative on the ordinance Review Committee: and WEREAS, Dan gave of his skill and talent to benefit all the citizens of Orange County in judging the merits of potential land development; and MMZFAS, Dan, Uuvxjh his hard work and dedication, earned the respect and appreciation of goverm*xrt officials, his peers, and the citizens of Orange County. NOW, TORE BE IT RESOLVED that the orange Camty Board of Commissioners expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude for Dan's many years of service and contributions to Orange County. A. &e Xo i ticai of the Animal ggm= for the Standard of Mmell ence Award Chairman Carey recognized the Orange 0cxmty Animal Protection Society for receiving the Amexican HUMM Society Award. This award was presented to the Orange County Animal Protection Society for its him standard of the quality of its animal care and protection efforts. The award was established. in 1985 and strives to promote model standards for shelters throughout the country. Chaim Carey, an behalf of the Board Of Ccxmty C mmdssioners, ecmmexded the superlative job which is being dome by the shelter. G)?nthia Wise, Chair of the Animal Protection Society Board of Directors, thanked the Board for its recognition. She indicated that all of orange County benefits from the Shelter and from the Board of Carua i icners willingness, to support a high quality of care for the animals in this County. �r 4 The report was presented by Lois Herring, Chair of OWASA's Board of Directors. Mr. Norm Gustaveson addressed the issue of fencing around Cane Creek Reservoir. He indicated that this situation has been discussed at all of the Bingham Township Advisory council meetings. The consensus in Bingham Township is that the fencing is ugly, intrusive and unnecessary. Local residents are passing the word to refuse OWASA trucks entry to their land if the purpose of the visit is to install fencing. He also indicated that residents have made negative comments about OWASA's diesel-powered boat taking what looks like pleasure cruises on the lake. He indicated that this gives the impression that citizens are being refused access and OWASA is polluting the lake with diesel fuel and boating on the lake at OWASA's rate - payers expense. Ms. Herring assured Mr. Gistavesan and the citizens of Bingham Township that MM has no intention of fencing the entire lake. They are fencing only those areas where problems of vandalism and /or illegal trespassing have occurred. She stated that the boat is necessary in order to patrol the reservoir, do possible rescue activity, and haul seedlings and other work related activities. The residents may be referring to tours of the lake given to elected officials. Because of the size of the reservoir, the water occasionally becames very rough and for safety reasons a boat of this size is necessary. Mr. Everett Billingsly, Executive Director of OMSA, reiterated what Ms. Herring stated and invited the Board of Cooaissioners to tour the lake at their convenience. commissioner Insko meted that OWASA attend the Bingham Township Advisory Council meetings in order to open the lines of communication with the residents in the Cane creek Reservoir area and OWASA agreed to do so. all 11'�I •sft_f- The official signing of this agreawnt by Hillsborough and Orange County is scheduled for Wednesday, October 23, 1991 at 10:00 a.m. in the Hillsborough Town Hall. VIII. ITEMS FUR AGENM A. FMENDED AIM T SERVICE John Link presented this item. He reported on the options available to Orange County. On September 27, 1991 the North Carolina Utility C=mi.ssion denied the county's petition for Extended Area Telephone Service. Mr. Vic Knight, co -chair of the Orange County E&-anded Area Telephone Service Committee spoke in support of the County using every avenue at its disposal to appeal this ruling. He stated that Orange County citizens very much are in support of this proposal. Dr. Greg Smith spoke in support of the extended area service for Orange County. He mentioned many of the hardships experienced by Orange County residents because of the limited calling areas. In particular, he mentioned the difficulties experienced by the customers of the Mebane Home. Tel 'e System. Ms. Daryl M:30i a spoke in support of the extended area service for Orange County. She is a customer of the Mebane Home Telephone system and has a monthly bill of at least $250.00. Mr. Norm Gustaveson spoke in support of this improved telephone service. 5 A motion was made by Cm nisslc ner InSko, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to authorize the Ccaurty Manager and the Caulty Attorney to protect Orange Cotmty's right to appeal the Utility Commissions decision to deny area wide calling for Orange County. VOTE: LHU41MOUS A motion was made by Can issiotier Halkiotis, seconded by Ctunissioner Willhoit, to schedule a public hearing for November 25, 1991 at 7:30 p.m., in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, to receive citizen comment on this issue. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. TRIANGLE TRANSIT AUI'FIORI'I'Y FtAJDING A motion was made by r =u w1Cner Willhoit, seconded by Cormmisslcner Insko, to approve funding in the amount of $6,000 for the Triangle Transit Authority, with the appropriation to be funded from the Board of i ssioners' contingency fund- VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. PAR'IrICIPATIC i IN ICNAL BICYCLE PLAN A motion was made by Comm.isSioener Gordon, seconded by C m m a ssioner Ha]kiotis to approve funding for the Regional Bicycle Plan in the amount of $6,025, with the intent that these would be a bikeway plan for those areas outside of the mm cipalities. This will be funded from contingency. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. couRTHOUSE pgMM PRLITF]LT; PHASE III BID AER CONTRACT A motion was made by 001M :ssloner Gordon, seconded by Cmuissioner Halkiotis, to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a contract in the amount of $44,000, with Custom Stone Masonry, Inc., to constx� Phase III of the Courthouse Square Project. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Holt Construction Co. $53,000 CC Woods Construction Co. 71,310 Patriot Building 66,500 Custom Stone Masonry 44,000 E. SPATE VUd'ERS= CCA�CATIQi AND 9 ZYPID M This iteon was presented by David Stancil. can i— ssioners Willhoit and Ha.]kiotis indicated that they perceived a need for discussion with Durham to determine exactly what kind of developCmexit is in their future plans. Mr. Dawn Cox, a member of the Eno River Association, spoke in support of establishing watershed standards which will pro t the Eno for future generations. A motion was made by o mrro; ssioner Insko, seconded by Chairman Carey to approve the Resolution of Comment ent to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on Proposed Classifications and Rules for Water Supply Watersheds, as presented, with the following exception: That the lower Eno be classified as WSIII except for the area around Hillsborough which would receive special consideration. VOTE: LRZUB MXZ 6 Mr. Don Cox, a member of the Eno River Association, indicated that his group has been working closely with the Durham County and D.O.T. planners. He asked that the Board of Commussioners include in their ems the protection of the Eno River state Park because so much of the integrity of this State Park is located within Orange County. A motion was made by O®nissianer Willhoit, seconded by Connissiener Insko, to adopt the Planning Board's reccmendation and authorize the chair to sign the draft letter to NCDOT regarding the County's position on the proposed Northwest IDop. VQFT'E: U101TIMOUS G. 7CNM CASE'S ON CEM E%NUgIES F1OR 7AHM CASES Mr. Jim Hinkley presented this matter. He stated that Jack Hurley and John Clayton are both in compliance. Herman and Juanita Brown and Benjamin Pratt are not yet in compliance. Mr. Pratt's scan indicated his father could have his property in emtipliance within 30 days. Mr. and Mrs. Brown explained why they were not in compliance and agreed to work diligently toward cleaning up their property within the next 30 days. A motion was made by Coauiissioner Willhoit, seconded by Candssioner Halkiotis to continue the cases of Mr. and Mrs. Herman Brown and Mr. Benjamin Pratt for 30 days. VOTE: UNANIMOUS H. ZONING ORDINANCE TEM AMT' - ART'ICLE 6.27 -- AFFQR,DABT E HOUSING A motion was made by OM issioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the proposed amerltnent as presented at the August 26, 1991 Public Hearing. VOTE: LUV94I %]US `,• `•.'i�1 •;'�/ 1 •i' I r 11 IJ '� M I Di' 1 •: �. a T 170 -Y •ii n . R• `•M ZqNM •:'.1 1 F M' T= IJ i1 E '� M . $1 S V :1 `1DC•N1 VOTE: A motion was made by Comdsrioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiatis, to approve the proposed auermtnent as presented at the August 26, 1991 Public Hearing. 1/' 1.• K. PROPOSED SUIIVMCK � AMENEKM SE=CK IV-B777-b- PAiMERJS IN LIFT A motion was made by Comni_ssioner Willhoit, seconded by Cotmnuissioner Halkiotis, to approve the proposed amendment as presented at the August 26, 1991 Public Hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Xi. APPOIN: A motion was made by Camnissic ner Gordan, seamxW by CcmR'ssicaner IYLSkO, to approve the appointments as stated below: YOUTH SH.ZVICES NEMS TASK FCECE: Terms will expire on September 30, 1994 for the following appointments: Nathaniel Davis - Youth Services Needs Task Force Catherine Dickman - Women's Center Lynn Wareh - Volunteer Center Jenifer Montsinger- Dent of social Services Eileen Kugler - Department of Health 7 Karey Bley - Planned Parenthood Bernice Wilson - School Hamm MCMS STUN Appointments were made as follows: Name EWriesentations 'Perm End William Riordan At- Larne 94/09/30 Nathaniel Davis At -Large 92/09/30 Elizabeth Stiles Ctjapel Hill 94/09/30 Joyce Davis At -Large 92/11/30 Linda Love At -Large 94/09/30. v - PI.ANNMV B( 1ZD William Crowther to serve as an out -of -town representative. His term will expire September 30, 1994. David - s reappointed to serve as an out-of-town representative. His term will exp - am.- ileU UMXTW.6fJS • INS[ i D�: IVrT L•a4 1� ►T ���4'� A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to approve the October 8, 1991 minutes, as corrected. VUM: L]NANIIEUS X[V. ADJUUMMM There being no furtber business the meeting was adjamied. The next regular meeting of the Board of Coo issioners will be held on Monday, November 4, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., in the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. loses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly Blythe, Clerk 3 a OR AN G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: OCTOBER 22, 1991 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDING BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER ATTACHMENT(S): RESOLUTION PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X —No INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, EXTENSION 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To consider taking action to authorize the release of funds that were appropriated to Councils of Government by the General Assembly. BACKGROUND: A sum of $48,015 was appropriated to each COG to assist local governments in their economic development activities. Of the amount, $6,408.07 is due the COG based on Orange County's population. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve the attached resolution and authorize the Chair to sign. 1 z RESOLUTION 91/92 BY ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional Organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the state: and WHEREAS, many counties and cities continue to need assistance in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovernmental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS, the 1991 General Assembly recognized this need through the appropriation of $864,270 to help the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, and to support local industrialdevelopment activities and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of members' dues or assessments to Lead Regional Organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional.Council, the available funds will revert to the State's General Funds; and WHEREAS, in Region J funds in the amount of $48,015 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ORANGE COUNTY requests the release of its $6,408.07 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 689, House Bill 83, section 19 of the 1991 Session Laws. Adopted this day of , 1991 at by: (signature) SEAL Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Witness (signature) ,.XT i o as 3 Aii TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 100 Park Drive, P.O. Box 12276 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 October 71 1991 ?919) S49-0SS1 919)549 -9390 Fax Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners 344 Warren Way Apex on Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Broadway Caffboro Dear Chairman Carey: Chapel Hill Clayton Durham The Triangle J Council of Governments has received official Four Oaks notification that funds are again available to assist the Fuquay- Varina Garner economic development programs of this and the other Goldston seventeen regions. Attached is a copy of the Hillsborough Holly Springs accomplishments for the past two years with the work plan Kenly for this coming year. The 1991 General Assembly approved Knightdale Micro $48,015 for each Council of Governments for each year of the Morrisville biennium. Your government is asked to release its share Pine Level PiHsboro (based on population) to the Council of Governments. A copy Princeton of the relevant State budget information is attached as is a Raleigh Rolesville copy of House Bill 83, Chapter 689, Section 19. Sanford Selma Slier City To this end you are asked to place on your next board agenda Smithfield a resolution to release your share of the economic Wake Forest Wendell development monies from the State Budget Office to the zebulon Triangle J Council of Governments. You are reminded that just as with past years' economic development funds, money not released reverts to the general fund. It is not made available directly to local governments. A sample resolution to release funds is enclosed. When approved, please return the original, signed (by the mayor and a witness), sealed (if possible) and fully executed document to the Council of Governments at the earliest possible date. Retain a copy for your files. If not approved, please send a letter stating this fact. Should you wish a representative of the Council of Governments to attend the board meeting to provide additional information or respond to questions, please contact Pamela.Davison. Your cooperation and continued support are gratefully acknowledged and appreciated. Sincerely, 4�,� S;W� Herb Stout, Chairman Triangle J Council of Governments Enclosures cc: Alice M. Gordon John Link A WORLD CLASS REGION Chatham Durham Johnston Lee Orange Wake 4 ANNUAL wORx PLAN FOR 1991 /92 $4$,015 ALLOCATED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY A. Heighten awareness of Regional entity and of Triangle J COG's leadership role. 1. Update and upgrade economic strategy and evaluate infrastructure capacity impacting on the growth potential of the Region and influencing how the Region is marketed. 2. Improve regional cooperation among groups, both professional and volunteer; including the Raleigh - Durham Regional Association, individual chambers and economic development commissions. 3. Promote information exchange among town and county managers and with the COG Board, improve communication and understanding among diverse and often competing interests. 4. Convene quarterly (or semi - annually) the chief elected officials of the Region's counties and municiplaities with our state and Congressional delegation; The purpose is to create a regional voice. 5. Serve a Legislature liaison function, as needed. 8. Undertake and continue projects and programs that improve the Region's economic well- being. 1. Upgrade DQE programs to help local governments keep vital or revitalize downtowns. 2. Expand Metro Map marketing efforts and increase sales. 3. Serve as staff to Study Group on Economic Impact of I- 40. 4. Explore legislative and other remedies for the telecommunication problems for Extended Area Service in the Region; assist local units with requests to the NCUC. 5. Staff the Regional Telephone Task Force if needed. 6. Enhance access of local developers and manufacturers to RTP corporate purchasing officers to promote local manufacturing opportunities for suppliers. C. Enhance the International image of the Triangle J Region. 1. Support The Research Triangle World Trade Center as corporate secretary. 2. Maintain world trade contacts via the NCWTA, serves on board of directors. 3. Support and promote FTZ #93 including subzone applications, contact with U.S. Government and COG's Rates, Tariff and Legal Review Board. Activate the zone if toward is sufficient. 4. Promote the continued development of RDU International Airport. 5 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1990/91 $46,379 (RELEAS$D) ZCONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FROM THE NORTS CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY ]►. Goal: Heighten awareness of Regional entity, Triangle J's leadership. Accomplishments: 1. Strategic Plan - Several meetings were held in this regard and work is in progress on identifying economic indicators.. 2. Improve Regional Cooperation - Directly and indirectly responsible for the creation of several groups espousing regional approaches to various tasks. Participated, monitored, etc. 3. Upgrade Economic Strategies Committee - Set and present informative sessions that result in decisive actions to improve Regional economy. 4. Organized and began infrastructure survey. 8. Goal: Tie Region together by toll -free telephone service.. Accomplishments: 1. Arranged negotiating sessions among county managers and LECs, provided info to Board & legislators. Submitted critique of the various experimental plans to NCUC. 2. Evaluated NCUC ruling and published results of the five -year effort to obtain toll -free telephone service in the Triangle: We now have an order for a 50% toll reduction for many metro residents. C. Goal: Assist local officials and organizations in improving the Region's economy. Accomplishments: 1. DQE program upgrade efforts have met with good attendance and responses. Scheduled session in Selma for Spring quarter. Deferred the Summer meeting in Garner (per their request) until October 3rd. 2. METRO MAP - prepared final corrections & negotiated copyright issue with Champion. Began distribution and publicity in June. 3. Served as staff to the I -40 Economic Impact Study Group & produced the draft recommendations. D. Goal: Enhance international image of Region. Accomplishments: 1. The Research Triangle World Trade Center is progressing well and has moved to larger facilities at the Meridian Center off I40 at NC 55. 2. FTZ #93 operator terminated contract, all management and promotion work being done by COG, two subzone applications in process. 3. New operator for the general purpose zone being "recruited ". Responding to numerous inquiries. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ALLOCATION THE CHARLOTTE (417,663) RALEIGH (213,017) GREENSBORO (183,910) NINSTON -SALEM (150,612) DURHAM (137,241) FAYETTEVILLE (75,933) JACKSONVILLE (78,092) HIGH POINT (69,676) ASHEVILLE (62,936) WILMINGTON (55,712) GASTONIA (54,982). 6 ' FOLLOWING LARGE CITIES ARE IGNORED- A COUNCIL OF GOVT SW NC PBED C NPARTS COGPOP TOWNPOP DENOM B LAND -OF -SKY RCOG 24 18 143229 224316 25282 33961 168511 258277 C D ISOTHERMAL PSD C REGION D COG 33 30 191914 $8423 250337 E WESTERN PIEDMONT 31 173027 292954 31871 110018 204898 402972 F G CENTRALINA COG PIEDMONT TRIAD 66 38 707086 543826 275724 172380 982810 H 1 PEE DEE COG NW PIEDMONT COG 33 26 150493 56005 716206 206498 J TRIANGLE J COG 37 27339p 514785 57713 191540 331103 706325 K L KERR -TAR R COG REGION L COG 21 53 161632 41482 203114 M REGION 11 COG 25 275993 316133 147144 47393 423137 363526 N 0 LUMBER RIVER. COG CAPE FEAR COG 32 39 190543 58732 249275 P NEUSE RIVER COG 68 194915 445439 39053 171491 233968 616930 Q R MID -EAST COMM ALBEMARLE RPBDC 45 25 218643 130597 99634 318277 LEE LEE TOTALS ------- - - - - -- 644 5148915 39408 1657254 170005 TOTAL 1990 POPULATION OF IGNORED LARGE CITIES = 1499774 *** ** ASHEVILLE IGNORED ***** CHARLOTTE AND GASTONIA IGNOR ** * ** GREENSBORO AND HIGH POINT IG * * * ** WINSTON -SALEM IGNORED * * * ** RALEIGH AND DURHAM IGNORED * **** FAYETTEVILLE IGNORED *** ** WILMINGTON IGNORED ** *** JACKSONVILLE IGNORED REGION NAME IS TRIANGLE J COG GOLDSTON AMOUNT PERCENT POP 90 PITTSBORO CHATHAM CHATHAM $ $ 20.39 97.96 0.04 0.20 300 1441 SILER CITY RURAL + SMALL TOWNS CHATHAM CHATHAM $ $ 327.93 2643.89 .0.68 4824 CHAPEL HILL(PART) DURHAM $ 76.14 5.51 0.16 38893 1120 MORRISVILLE(PART) DURHAM 0.00 0.00 0 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS BENSON DURHAM $ 3083.58 6.42 45361 CLAYTON JOHNSTON JOHNSTON $ $ 191.43 324.05 0.40 0.67 2816 4767 FOUR OAKS KENLY(PART) JOHNSTON JOHNSTON • • 94.63 95.10 0.20 0.20 1392 MICRO PINE LEVEL JOHNSTON JOH14STON $ 28.42 0.06 1399 418 PRINCETON JOHNSTON $ 82.93 80.49 0.17 0.17 1220 1184 SELMA SMITHFIELD JOHNSTON JOHNSTON $ 4 313.45 513.71 0.65 1.07 4611 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS BROADIIAY(PART) JOHNSTON $ 5545.70 11.55 7557 81580 SANFORD LEE LEE $ $ 66.28 1193.16 0.14 2.48 975 17552 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS CARRBOP.O LEE � $ 2820.43 -, 5.87 41490 -- . CHAfi►Fttr. b1I ' 7R 39r 1.64 11411 HILLSBO&A,M�.- MEBANE( PART I OQ1i _.. ` 5.34 0.61 37752 4284 RURIIt�:.+• �IjW . pRA �,:...... .. 0.07 13.35 512 94266 APEX CAP.Y WAKE 4 342.8E 0.71 5044 FUQUAY- VARINA' WAKE WAKE $ t 3037.01 312.36 6.33 0.65 44676 4595 GARNER HOLLY SPRINGS WAKE WAKE $ $ 1024.98 2.13 15078 KNIGHTDALE WAKE 4 6.2.20 129.36 0.13 0.27 915 1903 MORP.ISVILLE(PART) ROLESVILLE WAKE $ 75.80 0.16 1115 WAKE FOREST MAKE WAKE $ $ 39.16 395.02 0.08 0.82 576 5811 WENDELL ZEDULON WAKE WAKE $ $ 196.87 0.41 2896 RURAL + SMALL TOWNS WAKE 217.26 $14492.70 0.45 30.18 3196 213195 TOTALS --------------------- $48015.00 99.97 706325 ***** RALEIGH AND DURHAM IGNORED 7 GENERAL ASSEN M-y OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 1.991 1 departments with more than 500 permanent full -time employees, subject to criteria 2 and standards set by the Stale Personne.I Conlmisslon. The Commission shall have 3 the authority to suspcnel deCtiltralll:ition.. when agencies violate State Persnnne! 4 Commission criteria and ct,lnclards. 5 The Offi�t� of St :itc Personnel shall report annually to the Jc,ir.i 6 Legislative Commission on Govc_rnmental operations and to the Fiscal kFsci <<_ , 7 Di-vision by December i of each year, beginning on December 1, 1991, on Its protress S towards this decentralization. 9 (b) The Office of State Personnel shall present its pian for 10 decentralization of the classification and salary administration functions to the State 11 Personnel Study Commission or its successor. The State Personnel Stud., 12 Commission shall consider those statutory changes as may facilitate decentralizatiotl l3 and report its recommendations to the General Assembly by April 1, 1992, 14 15 Requested by: Representatives Bowman, N.J. Crawford, Senator Martin of Gu;lford 16 - - - -- COUNCIL Oi- GOVI RNMENT FUNDS 17 Sec. 19. (a) Of the funds appropriated in this Title to the Departrnent of 18 Administration, $864,270 for 1991 -92 fiscal year and $864,270 for. 1992 -93 fiscal `e 19 shall only be used as provided by this section. Each regional council of government 20 or lead regional organization is allocated up to S48,015 each fiscal year, with the 21 actual amount calculated as provided in subsection (b) of this section. 22 (b) The funds shall be allocated as follows: A share of the nlaximum 23 548,015 each fiscal year shall be allocated to each county and smaller city based Or. 24 the most recent annual estimate of the Office of State Budget and Management of the 25 population of that. county (less the population of any larger city within that cour�tyj 26 or smaller city, divided by the sum of the total population of the region (less the 27 population of larger cities within that region) and the total population of the rebiorn 28 living in smaller cities. Those funds shall be paid to the regional council ol 29 'government for the region in which that city or county is located upon receipt by the 30 Department of Administration of a resolution of the governing board of the count_. o 31 city requesting release of the funds. If any city or county does not so reouest 32 payment of funds by June 30 of a State fiscal year, that share, of the allocation for tlhai 33 fiscal year shall revert to the General Fund. 34 (c) A regional council of government may use funds appropriated by this 35 section only to assist local governments In grant apphc.4�ions, econornrc development, 36 community development. support of local industrial development actrv►t►es, L nM6 OikX' 37 activities as deemed appropriate by the member governments. 38 (d) Funds appropriated ated by this section may not be used fo pa; nitni C: 39 dues or assessments by the member governments, and may not supplant fur,Z`, 40 appropriated by the member governments." 41 (e) As used in this section "Larger City" mean: an incorporated • :its \krth 42 a population of 50.000 or over. "Smaller City" means any other incorporatcd cite. 43 44 Requested by: Representatives Bowman, N.J. Crawford, Senators ivlartln of Guil[ol". 45 Marvin 46 - - - -- ALLOCATION OF RAPE CRISIS CENTER FUNDS =17 Sec. 220. All funds for the Rape Crisis Centers appropriated to illy 48 Department of Administration, the North Carolina Council for Women, for the !9�;'- 49 92 fiscal vear and the 1992 -93 fiscal vear in this Title shall be available to Rape 50 Centers providing direct services to victims of sexual assault and rape pre\e:'::ro., 51 services. Funds shall be awarded according to criteria cstablrshed by the Dep,�rtn c 52 of Administration. Gr;tnts shall be a��nrded by September i eacil fecal vei- any' ti;c 53 funds disbursed on a quarterly basis. House Bill 83 Pa •r _ OR AN G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: OCTOBER 22, 1991 SUBJECT: JAIL INSPECTION REPORT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER ATTACHMENT(S): JAIL INSPECTION REPORT Action Agenda Item # 'V-J3 PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X —No INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, EXTENSION 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To receive the jail inspection report for September 5, 1991, from the North Carolina Department of Human Resources. BACKGROUND: The General Statutes require the Board of County Commissioners to receive and take necessary corrective action to the semi - annual jail inspection reports submitted by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources. The statute further states that the governing body shall promptly initiate any action necessary to bring jail facilities into conformity to standards. The report for September 5, 1991, is enclosed for review, and indicates our compliance with standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board of Commissioners receive the report. No corrective action is required. I y ri+ w f North Carolina Department of Human Resources Division of Facility Services 701 Barbour Drive 0 P. O. Box 29530 + Raleigh, N. C. 27626 -0530 Courier Number 56 -20 -05 James G. Martin, Governor David T. Flaherty, Secretary October 1, 1991 Mr. Lindy Pendergrass, Sheriff Orange County Sheriff's Department 125 Court Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Sheriff Pendergrass: John M. Syria, Director Telephone (919)733 -4560 On September 5, 1991, I, Robert G. Lewis, Branch Head from the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, inspected the Orange County Jail. A copy of the inspection is attached for your attention. If we can be of assistance to you in this matter, please contact us. at (919)733 -4560. sincerely, t L� JeRortVG. Lewis, Head Jail and Detention Branch RGL:ss Attachment cc: File Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman, Orange County Board of commissioners ,II r._ John Link, Orange County Manager r r� o o m 9 • a 'c c 3 3K x. o ►�f UJ ? y 9 ro 0 ►a• D rl n, w M tq rµ+, % C) O Ph 3 O rn C7 14 m m w Pt 4 Ln c C g K � rat w M fA �i yd ., ►�) -4 �r, F+ w N m H � GwD rr m G K K � K n 0 S r'h ro �-• A W m rr+� IV m C6 re R►► rt m a 0 rt o ? 0 O r+ n w n r LA �4 1-+ 0 4 IQ ro o � 0 O rr to w C. tp f+ n h m m n ' n cn Lp g m x co •• 1%2 rt O O m A ftv M tw O _ m A rt m m o h n � � O O c 9 g � •d C) m 0 0 rn fD f�D 0 n m fC0 m K) tv CA n po m n h rr 0 PI to b rr �1+ r �- m � 3 • V O tD N � W �O O v d ? ng n xro9b z w d o y z �tv 0 mro�i cn �o ad H a ro r- Z C m n x nr' `° z r H �+ N Cl O H z Q W V M Z rC Ia0<w Cnrrr, ro a"+W cc H m r+7 cn W o c o 4 A pr m f0 fp � F+ 1+ C. tp f+ r-r m m n cn Lp g m co 1%2 rt O O m A ftv M 0 O _ m A rt m m o h n � � O O ht1 M I � O � a c 9 g � •d C) m 0 0 rn fD f�D 0 n m fC0 m K) tv CA n po m n h rr 0 PI to b rr �1+ r �- m � 3 • V O tD N � W �O O v d ? ng n xro9b z w d o y z �tv 0 mro�i cn �o ad H a ro r- Z C m n x nr' `° z r H �+ N Cl O H z Q W V M Z rC Ia0<w Cnrrr, ro a"+W cc H m r+7 cn W ca - v � Y � S l I Y z vIRLIMI Ar--mc.fl H N N 0 0 n a M1 N N N N 0 W ~ 0 N Ff1 F'• RI � o Mh x jig 5• (ND N w0 E U)�� It I-f1 �T En � s N 8W r 5• 0 Lno: rh0� 0 W N nl En 4 rN rn ol 9 R ?m N p Q p N ;g2l Y aj► `J .b ,b H 5 Om En 3 y Y 4 a 6� .A w 7 52 r ± r ? r 52 u 52 � w `� u o • • !L 52 i : • St •• Y r u ! ! u • Y Y _ c •� yq i4 ?4 ?4 �''' JA 1� ' V F w- F • s, e t F W � � N tp tp H(� � ►p �,11 p �. w Ul � a 1 M F i y a% m SHOO ►o � x rs � 0 � aH mad ;0 2r, Hoc .g ocbn cAynGc to r Hv� xord oww H�cr��`'a y� �vb"' o. t--- a dc,"'�H °o aa�'b . ��� cnCy ' -'�aya �ocn ���i+C13 ro rt ►�EHo 1,4 -]�ry4 Zey+�l v t- n►syw csw_ y A Na t7 m w �y tea" av E3 a m `� �•���?�4 �C tstrtt��ft oNr�7x � � tv �r�i c�i� dy �x Ow x�x H CA cn °x a 5e . Im 0 Tj c Tj a 0 z 5 "ONO. tvr CDP r A e K 3 y I t L ~f~D c� CD r cn � a rfi rt 11 y y a .a n k � 4 ■ � m , § P , , � ] , � � , � � M !2 p lid I-d Pd m n ■ w o o ■ wt:j ■■ ¥ o s ■ te a e¥ k � . § § § § § o c § ¥ a ,¥ R ■ ■ ■ rt w 2 § 2 J / § 2 2� M o o ¥ 2 ¥ ¥ 4 - ¥ * ■ 2 $ § § 2 � m m � m ■ ` " 7«" a■ ®. .•� 7 2 � ¥e 0 1-610 n =* e ■ � n o¥¥ e A ■ . . ■ . o ■ ■ rp ■ w _ ■ _ M w lb ■ ■ § ■ ft f ¥ . 2 as ■ ¥ ■ = ■ m �. w� � K 4- � w � K \. ƒ �� C6 Im �a 4 . c . 7c %q � , § ■ g o ¥ lb N m ¥ m § . . e m • - g n k � 4 ■ � m , § P , , � ] , � � , � � M !2 cn � . » ƒ R q cn . �K m c . . � • - ! . ( n k � 4 ■ � m , § P , , � ] , � � , � � M !2 i i 7 7 0 0 7 7 r a 13 cn yq..v�m w p. ,a a� w Cl °n d A m n m to m W m M n r+ m r+ �e re 0 n o n n rt M rn► ce w w m ~ C n w m M o m K w m n 0° o ~ rtm amo w �H nao ~' > r e n apc:3m ex� gA v' n o. N mr F+ A. m w warm+ -1°4ro pt 0 CA F+ 04 GA p v M A C . co m r r m z pr m m w a•d w w R ao rt K H i i i 7 7 0 0 7 7 r a 0 A yq x >e x �e re >C x yr > r a� z ar a� zac a � r i i I I i i 7 7 0 0 7 7 r a a � a c n O a � n r L+ r t W. ■ t N 14 � II an n r L+ r t W. ■ t N 14 � II ' a ra a cna ya cn a a a •-a a 15 m m �m m m OQm wm 5a 74 ?a m wm m A W.0 ,O rt am G rt C C 1-� C m C rt G C C C C W t+ 01 03 O ib H W 03 0) 03 W y rt o rt rt p rt m rt H rt rt rt H K ct m 00 m m W m am m m m o m m z 9 Lc x a a n zc cn ry r 0 x n W H W r lb =r H w O m O rt rr `C m rt 0 1-6 C N O O c I-b H a+ m o w a rt m w o H„ w o. I. •c o � H A d W O H m 04 W 00 w OD w W rt w w b w m o oq w m r p n rt N rt m m W H n a r z e') C=7 n a z n x y Z r4 Cam'' 5a 5a 74 ?a m d H a x z 9 O m a cn z •c a a �a 09 t n a r z e') C=7 n a z n x y Z ro w 0 a ao ►y M ro ov �t ro av w rt w a w cr n ro m mob n a. tzj "rt 4 n m n'e r c m K •mod rt w w 0 a.0 awo ro M g, M w r� rt a ro n h M O rt o; " w O rt ro to K r ro y a o ;J.' P" 3 V z w o Os H �^t 9 M � CM7 w b4 er r � rya r w rt w ro m c a rt ro '=7 ro a ro PI w w n w e w r� av rt W a rt a m ro o� W re m d rr o rn 0 I'd. ob �; ro H ro � ao � n w � rt ro M rt rt Ilt � a 7 � Il y � av H rt y ro r ra r � � m r ro A rt ro0�o�a�° mob "rt 4 n m n'e r c m w p m rt w w 0 a.0 awo M g, M rt rt a w h M O rt o; " w rt ro r a DC ?4 tin � t' . aim c-a 0 rh c7 H H C [+7 H r-1 O z Z, Lb LW Oft PIC 0 O O -4 1� ilk. 17 tzp Od. L-4 ci 0) o =1 n O ry QQ O O to J 0 rl 0 ti 1� ilk. 17 ' = 1 i -t ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. XT_ C. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed Closing of the Animal Control Satellite Office in Southern Orange DEPARTMENT: HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): Two -page Justification INFORMATION CONTACT: HEALTH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE X2411 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To seek the Commissioners' endorsement to discontinue the 30 -day annual service of licensing animals at a satellite office in Southern Orange during January of each year. BACKGROUND: With the adoption of the Animal Control Ordinance in 1989, animal licensing became mandatory for all Orange County pet owners. . Because animals had previously been listed on tax documents and a Southern Orange tag listing service was available, an animal licensing service was opened at Carr Mill Mall. Unlike the tax listing process, animal licensing requires a terminal to the County computer in order to process fees collected at the time of the license. Space and computer port constraints have caused the office to move twice creating confusion for citizens. In addition, 75 -80% of all licensing is accomplished by mail and the number of persons using the Southern Orange satellite office declined from 621 in 1990 to 292 in 1991. Other staffing and logistic problems make the continued operation of a Southern Orange office even for 30 days an inefficient use of resources. No site has been located to date and the Data Processing Department wishes to use the port for a higher priority purpose. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Southern Orange Animal Control satellite office not be open for January, 1992, and subsequent years. Pa PG 1 OF 2 PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE THE SATELLITE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICE INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND In 1988, with the adoption of the current Animal Control Ordinance, animal licensing became mandatory for all Orange County pet owners. With the implementation of the Animal Licensing Program, a satellite office was opened to encourage and make more readily available to the pet owners, an office where they could easily license their pets. This satellite office was located in the Town of Carrboro. PROPOSAL Eliminate the satellite Animal Control office. JUSTIFICATION The Animal Licensing program is now well established and the use of the satellite office has decreased significantly. 1-Decreased use of satellite office 1990 1991 Tags issued 621 292 In 1990, the Satellite office issued 12% of the total tags issued for that month. In 1991, the Satellite office issued 5% of the total tags issued for that month.(January) 2. Limited office space Over the past years, County office space has become limited. Animal Control has had to "borrow" office space in which to receive the public. Each year available space has been increasingly hard to find and generally occupied. Personnel who occupy the office space must move to temporary quarters during the licensing period. 3. Inefficiency The animal license process requires a computer in which to perform revenue transactions. The Data Processing Department must hook -up and program a computer terminal at each new office, each year. The computer itself is taken from the main Animal Control office leaving that office without adequate equipment for an efficient service. .L' 01 ANIMAL CONTROL SATELLITE OFFICE CONT. PG 2 OF 2 Animal Control must oftentimes "borrow" time on other department's computer equipment to print the necessary documents relating to animal licensing revenue. As the location of the satellite office is not an established one, citizens many times visit the previous location only to find that they cannot license their pets. The Revenue Department must account for two An nk deposits made daily by Animal Control. Generally, the control office will make one deposit daily. The transaction documents from the satellite office must be mailed to the Revenue Department in Hillsborough, being received days later. When performing bank deposits the employee stationed at the satellite office must leave the office. This leaves tags, computer equipment and other supplies vulnerable. en Revenue coe�h�dfundaharensecuredeuntilmthe nextabankhome to ensure that deposit. SUMMARY Citizen use and costs associated with the Animal Control satellite office does not justify the expenditures made in keeping this office open. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.� ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR SERVING ON THE PLANNING BOARD DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): YES - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X INFORMATION CONTACT: MARVIN COLLINS X 25 q z TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -5401 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- PURPOSE: TO RECOGNIZE A FORMER PLANNING BOARD MEMBER. BACKGROUND: DAN EDDLEMAN SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR ALMOST FIVE (5) YEARS. HE RESIGNED THAT POSITION THIS WEEK. THIS RESOLUTION IS BEING PRESENTED TO SHOW APPRECIATION FOR HIS COMMITMENT AND WILLINGNESS TO SERVE ORANGE COUNTY AS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN AND PRESENT SAID RESOLUTION TO DAN C. EDDLEMAN ON BEHALF OF THE - BOARD. 2 1 iFSOL UIIONU.FAPPR. .EGL4 no,V for 10ANC EVOLEMAN WHEREAS, Dan C. Eddleman actively served on the Orange County Planning Board from December 1, 1986 to October 8, 1991; and WHEREAS, Dan actively served on the Orange County Board of Adjustment as Planning Board representative from January 19, 1988 to February 5, 1991. WHEREAS, Dan improved the quality of decisions through his service as a Planning Board representative on the Ordinance Review Committee; and WHEREAS, Dan gave of his skill and talent to benefit all the citizens of Orange County in judging the merits of potential land development; and WHEREAS, Dan, through his hard work and dedication, earned the respect and appreciation of government officials, his peers, and the citizens of Orange County: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude for Dan's many years of service and contributions to Orange County. ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 1991. Moses Carey, Chair Orange County Board of County Commissioners 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Recognition of Animal Protection Society for Standards of Excellent Award ------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: County Manager Ext. 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732--8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PURPOSE: To recognize the Animal Protection Society's receipt of the American Humane Association's Standards of Excellence award. BACKGROUND: In early summer, the Animal Protection Society of Orange County received the American Humane Association's Standards of Excellence Award. The APS received recognition in the categories of Facilities and Staff, Euthanasia, Operational Programs, Community Relations and Education, and Planning. The APS is one of only sixty -three agencies participating in the Standards of Excellence Program, and the first in North Carolina. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: OCTOBER 22, 1991 SUBJECT: OWASA QUARTERLY REPORT - - DEPARTMENT : COUNTY COMMISSIONERS _____-r------------ ATTACHXENT(S): -YES - REPORT Action Agenda Item No. PUBLIC rHEARING ---rYES: -----NO: _-X-- INFORMATION CONTACT: MOSES CAREY,JR. TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -5401 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 - - -POSE: To the Board a report from the OWASA Board -of- PUR Directors for July through September, 1991. BACKGROUND: During the Goal setting the OWASARetreat Board DofeDirectorspbetaskedato of Commissioners requested that ort will submit a quarterly report tot�aentifty Commissioners. issueslthatpmay have help the County Commissioner s Y any policy implications for the County. The report has been included as an attachment. A representative from So e OWASA Board of Directors will be present to answer any questions may have. RECOMMENDATION(S): Accept the report as information. Orange Water and Sewer Authority _ Z 400 Jones Ferry Road 10WASA P.O. Box 365 Car D rboro, NC 27510 (919),968-4421 gt;7- 5 QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 Summer Water Use As you might expect, the summer Of highest water demand. This quarter is usually OWASA's period year was no exception, with demand averaging close to 8 million gallons per day. Our alltime daily peak demand of record occurred on Saturday, September 14, a day when more than 50,000 people attended the first UNC home football game of the season, and temperatures reached 96 degrees. On that day OWASA delivered 11.6 million gallons of water to the system, approaching our present treatment capacity of 12.5 million gallons. As I've reported to you previousl y, this program will expand the capacity to 15 MGD. The project sshould al be underway within the next few months. Sales to Hillsborough From July through September, OWASA Of water, to Hillsborough - and the brings our total transfer to Hillsl gallons during the past two years. to a six —year total of 302 million from Hillsborough between 1979 and sold about 30 million gallons meter's still running. This aorough to more than 50 million For the record, this compares gallons which OWASA purchased 1986. As you are also well aware, the Town offered to purchase or lease a portion of OWASA's 16 —inch transmission main which connects the two systems. We've appreciated the County's involvement and consideration in evaluating this proposal. Our Board expects to respond to Hillsborough in the near future. Bolin Creek Sewer OWASA's sewers received an unusual amount of public attention during the past month, with several citizens alleging that manholes along our Bolin Creek interceptor routinely overflow An Equal Opportunity Employer 3 Quarterly Report to Orange County Commissioners September 30, 1991 page 2 during wet weather. . Our own records ancentWfield e evaluations have failed to support these claims, however. one upstream collector sewer with infiltration problems,"and area taking steps to correct it; but, the Bolin Creek interceptor whole appears to be performing well within normal operating standards. Because we can't observe our entire system ofall at once, we encourage anyone to call OWASA - at any hour day - to report a manhole problem. We want to know at once so our workers can check for blockage and clean up the area. Watershed Preservation Activities Several of you have requested an update on our efforts to purchase critical parcels of land in the. University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. To date, OWASA has accumulated approximately $200,000 in capital funds designated for watershed preservation and land acquistion. Staff has had direct contact with the private owners of several land parcels to discuss options ranging from fee - simple purchase to the acquisition of limited purchase conservation easements or development rights. Only one has been finalized so far. We estimate that almost 2400 acres of land lie within 1000 feet of University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir. About 1500 acres, or 65 percent of this land, is in private ownership. Fee simple acquisition at $5,000 an acre would cost $7.5 million dollars. We still have a long way to go. But in the meantime, remember that the consummation of our stone quarry expansion agreement would give OWASA the option to purchase 100 critical acres of additional buffer land in the University Lake watershed. Collaboration with Oran a Count Several activities during the past quarter have reinforced of OWASA's appreciation for County support - both by the Commissioners and by your staff. We especially welcomed your endorsement of our petition to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission to designate the University Lake watershed �{ 1 Quarterly Report to.Orange County Commissioners September 30, 1991 Page 3 as a "Critical Watershed" under the statewide watershed protection rules. We are similarly grateful for the vigilance of your Planning and Environmental Review staff who have identified, investigated, and apprehended numerous violators of the County's Zoning Ordinance in both University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. In every case, their notification and collaboration with OWASA staff has been exemplary. In a similar vein, the County Engineer is to be congratulated for his day to day flow monitoring and coordination of the Eno River Capacity Use Agreement. His excellent data keeping and communication among the various parties - including OWASA, as supplemental water supplier to Hillsborough - has also been exemplary. To all of you, OWASA extends a grateful "Thanks." Please let me or our staff know if we can provide any further information. I 0R-AN.aE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meetinq Date: October 22 1991 Aqenda 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 Agreement, then forward it to him for his signature. RECOMMENDATION: For information purposes only. y� . �, ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF-COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Extended Area Telephone Service DEPARTMENT County Manager ATTACHMENTS) None Fi Action Agenda Item No(j= PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X INFORMATION CONTACT County Manager, TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough Chapel Hill Mebane Durham ext 2300 732 -8181 968 -4501 227 -2031 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To receive a report on the options available to Orange County in the wake of the North Carolina Utility Commission's denial of the County's petition for Extended Area Telephone Service (EAS) in most parts of Orange County. BACKGROUND: On September 27, 1991, the North Carolina Utility Commission issued an order denying the Orange County EAS proposal that would have provided flat rate EAS between Southern Bell (Chapel Hill - Carrboro), CENTEL (Hillsborough), and Mebane Home Telephone (Orange County portion of Mebane) exchanges. It rejected the proposal that the Public Staff conduct a poll of CENTEL and Mebane Home customers to determine their level of support for EAS. Polling of Southern Bell customers had not been proposed, as rate increases associated with EAS were negligible for the Chapel Hill- Carrboro exchanges. The Utility Commission cited three factors in its decision. First, the EAS proposal "would have a significant financial impact upon Mebane Home ". Second,.there would be "substantial disadvantages to splitting the Mebane exchange ". Third, and according to the Commission order, "most important, Orange County EAS would severely compromise the effectiveness of the experimental plan process ", referring to the already approved plan for 50% reduction in toll calling Triangle -wide. Orange County now has basically three options should it elect to pursue EAS further at this time. These options are not mutually exclusive. The County can request the Utility Commission to reconsider and alter its decision, appeal the Commission decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, and /or seek legislative changes. The County has 30 days from the date of the Utility Commission order within which to request Commission reconsideration, and the same period within which to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The reconsideration would likely include the following major points: K • ask the Commission to reconsider its decision and permit polling Of CENTEL and Mebane Home Customers - more than 2,000 customers have signed petitions supporting Orange County EAS • ask the Commission to re- evaluate Mebane Home's claim of "severe financial distress" • the Commission directed splitting of the Mebane exchange during the 1988 Triangle J rate study - it is inappropriate to criticize the orange County EAS proposal for following this direction * Orange County continues to support the 50% toll discount plan between orange and wake Counties * the Orange County EAS proposal could reasonably proceed simultaneously with the intercounty experimental plan The County can also appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, seeking reversal of the Utility Commission decision. The County Attorney has been researching the County's requirements in the appeal process and will report further on them at this Board meeting. The County's third option lies in seeking legislative reform. This could be pursued either through statewide legislation or a local act in the General Assembly. A principal objective would be creation of a guaranteed process to permit telephone customers the right to be polled on EAS. The Public Staff may also choose to pursue the first two options on behalf of the using and consuming public. If it does so, the County may choose to join the Public Staff in this effort. The Board of Commissioners may also want to consider holding a public hearing within the next month or two to demonstrate to the Utility Commission the broad -based support for Orange County EAS. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends: that the Board authorize the Chair to file a request for reconsideration, to give notice of appeal, and to join with the Utility Commission Public Staff, should it elect to pursue reconsideration or appeal of the Utility Commission decision; and that the request for reconsideration or appeal incorporate the points listed above, subject to final review by the County Attorney. 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No VM -B ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Triangle Transit Authority Funding Request DEPARTMENT County Manager ATTACHMENTS) 8/22/91 TTA Letter 8/8/91 TTA Budget Memo Revised TTA FY92 Budget TTA Budget and Cash Flow Analysis PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X INFORMATION CONTACT Rod Visser, ext 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider'providing grant funding to the Triangle Transit Authority to support their 1991 -92 budget. BACKGROUND: At the September 3, 1991 regular meeting, the Board of Commissioners gave their approval to the levying of a Triangle -wide tax of $5 on registered motor vehicles to provide funding for the Triangle Transit Authority. In the attached letter requesting the $5 tax levy, TTA also identified the need for an additional $100,000 in funding from member jurisdictions for 1991 -92. Commissioner Carey has discussed this request with board chairs from other jurisdictions. He will share several funding alternatives with the Board at this meeting. TTA has expressed its hope that the $100,000 funding request will be for one year only. However, it has indicated the possibility that it might need to seek the same level of additional funding in 1992 -93 if efforts to remove a 2% cap on TTA administrative expenses that can be funded by the tax levy are not successful in the next session of the General Assembly. RECOMMENDATION(B.)' z The Manager recommends that the Board approve funding for the Triangle Transit Authority in an amount to be decided by the Board, with this appropriation to be funded from contingency. t `t2 TRIANGLE- TRANSIT AUTHORITY August 22, 1991 The .Honorahle Moses Carey Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough,'North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: Following a public hearing on August 15,. the Triangle Transit Authority Board of Trustees decided to recommend a S 5 tax rate for the vehicle registration tax. As required by the legislation passed earlier this year by the General Assembly, the regional transit authority cannot levy a tax until that tax has been approved by the 'Special Tax Board and by each of the Boards of County Commissioners. Enclosed for your review are the proposed joint resolution by the County Commissioners adopting the tax; a copy of the tax legislation; a schedule of implementation of the tax; the General Manager's tax rate recommendation; and the minutes of the August 15 public hearing. The Board of Trustees requests your consideration of the joint resolution during September. At the August 15 meeting, the board of Trustees also approved an amended FY 1991 -1992 budget. The budget plan (copy enclosed) requires a total of $ 416,700 in public funds. These funds will come from $ 171,750 in carry over NCDOT grant funds not used in FY 1990 -1991; $ 144,950 in additional NCDOT funds; and S 100,000 in funds from local governments. This request is necessary because of the legiplative restrictions as well as the timing of receipt of vehicle-registration tax funds. The Authority proposed that the $ 1001000 in local funds be requested from each of the three counties in proportion to 1990 Population estimates.. The Orange County share is $13,500. The Board of Trustees envisioned that the County and the Town of Chapel Hill would share the contribution by mutual agreement. The Board of Trustees requests -a decision by November 1. Suite 206, 50 Park Offices P.O. Box 137$7. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (919)5-19-9999 The Board- of:.Trustees and I.would be glad to discuss our tax rate recommenj"' on and funding request with the County.Commissioners. If you h °any .questions, please call Jim Ritchey at (919) 549- 9999. Thank you for your continued support. Sincerely, Wilbur l� Wilbur P. Gulley Chair Enclosures cc: The Honorable Jonathan Howes Mr. Calvin Horton Mr. John Link- 3 TRIANGLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY 4 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Trustees FROM: Jim Ritchey ti �' General Man er DATE: August 8, 1991 SUBJECT: FY 1992 Budget.Rdvisited and Local Contributions When you approved the 1992 Budget, we required a total of $ 390,000 in additional state and local funds to balance the budget. The attached budget analysis compares the approved 1992 budget with a revised budget. During the past-,-,few days, I have worked with the Public - Transportation and-Rail Division staff and closely reviewed our planned expenditures. State staff has indicated a desire to reduce our proposed expenses by $ 72,000. I have accomplished this reduction by reducing travel expenditures for the General Manager, the Ridesharing Program, and the Board of Trustees; by reducing the proposed salary of the Transportation Planner from $ 55,000 to $40,000; by reducing, the amount for computer equipment from $12,500 to $ 5,000; and by delaying the hiring of the Transportation Planner and Administrative Assistant. This plan requires $ 186,337 in NCDOT funds and $ 100,000 in city/county-funds----.- For the city and county funds, I propose that we request funds from each of the three counties based upon 1990 population estimates. The cities and the counties would then share the payment of these funds by mutual agreement. The breakout of the $100,000 would be as follows :.,. Wake: County $ 60,700 Durham County $ 25,800 Orange County $ 13,500 I request Board approval of this plan. Suite 206, 50 Park Offices P.O. Box 13787, Research Triangle Park. NC 27709 (919).549-9999 W" TRIANGLE TRANSIT AU'T'HORITY REVISED FY 1992 BUDGET EXPENDITURES B. PROGRAM AND FUND Budget Actual Budget Revised - 0 - FY 1991 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1992 General Fund« - 0 -- 245,794 97,299 342,351 Governin Ord 25,400 15,567 21,600 15,600 General A &:nistration 159,894 81,732 230,211 212,593 Planning 60,500 - 0 - 90,540 44,099 General Fund Total: 245,794 97,299 342,351 272,292 Ridesharing Fund - 0 -- - 0 - 39,000 39,000 Marketing 57,9.69 52,886 146,420 144,417 Vanpool Operations 33,046 17,845 109,390 109,390 Vanpool Maintenance 10,450 5,806 18,320 18,320 Ridesharing Fund Total: 101,465 76,537 274,130 272,127 Regional Bus' -Service - Fund Operations Regional Bus Service Fund Total: Capital Projects Fund Vanpool Vehicles Capital Projects Fund Total: TOTAL =ENDITURES: REVENUES BY PROGRAM AND FUND General Fund NCDOT City /County Other General Fund Total: Ridesharing Fund NCDOT Vanpool Fares Fund Balance Ridesharing Fund Total: Regional Bus Service Fund Rider Farem N.C. DOA Town of Cary NCDOT UMTA Regional Bus Service Fund Total: Capital Projects Fund Ridesharing Fund Balance NCDOT Capital Projects Fund Total: TOTAL REVENUES-. - 0 - - 0 - 123,160 123, 160 - 0 - - 0 - 123,160 123,160 161,228 139,766 58,500 58,500 161,228 139,766 58,500 58,500 508,487 313,602 798,141 726,079 245,794 97,299 141,450 172,292 -- 0 -- - 0 - - 0 - 100,000 - 0 - - 0 - 200,901 - 0 -- 245,794 97,299 342,351 272,292 57,969 52,886 146,420 144,417 77,709 79,499 186,580 186,580 (34,213) (55,848) (58,870) (58,870) 101,465 76,537 274,130 272,127 - 0 - - o - 23,000 23,000 - 0 -- - 0 - 39,000 39,000 - 0 - - 0 - 6,000 0,000 - 0 - - 0 - 43,040 43,040 - 0.- - 0 - 12,120 12,120 - 0 - - 0 - 123,160 123,160 - 0 - - 0 - 58,500 58,500 161,228 139,766 - 0 - - 0 - 161,228 139,766 58,500 58,500 508,487 313,602 798,141 726,079 UHD R?SP O&MCT CD BCCOONT DESCR' TION 11 4110. l GOVERWG BODY. PERSOMM. SERVICES Board Compensation Board Travel t%etiao Expenses TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES, TOTAL GOVER)MM BODY 91 BCTUAL 92 BUDGET 93 BUDGET 94 BUDGET $6,350 $6,600 $6,600 $6,600 $6,323 $6,000 $12,000 $12,000 $2,894 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $15,567 $15,600 $21,600 $� 21,600 $15,5667 $15,600 $21,600 $21,600 6 ' On; E " aCCOLfi": DES�e4' ON 3�: ,Z 93 BUDGi. 93 BUDGI BLDGr: 7 �:h� .ti-Z7 °- a ,1 4_`0 $35,000 $94,670 $117,710 $128,330 $2,600 $3,900 $6,900 $6,900 $2,678 $7,242 $9,005. $9,817 $3,850 $10,414 $12,948 $14,116 $935 $6,050 $9,075 $9,900 $1,050 $2,840 $3,531 $3,850 $140 $379 $471 $513 $257 $5,348 $433 $472 $2,700 $10,000 : $15,000 $20,000 $2,941 $5,000 $5,000 $7,500 $876 • $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $0 $0' • $0 $53,030 $153,343 ,5187,573 $208,899 _ $1,516 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $1,291 $500 $750 $1,000 $345 $500 $750 $1,000 53,151 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $3,987 $5,000 $6,000 $8,000 $1,996 $7,100 $7,500 38,000 $1,797 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $1,000 $1,250 $11500 $0 $100 $100 • $100 $375 $720 $1,200 $1,500 5230 $700 $700 $700 $6,549 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $100 $500 $500 $500 $16,182 $20,120 $20,750 $24,300 GENErM AD!'.I.STRATION 1OO PERSONNEL SERVICES 120 ' -. Salaries and gages 1Z1� Salaries and wages 130 Special Payments(Car allowanc 180 Fringe benefits 181 FICA 182 Pension. 183 Medical insurance I85 Dnemploymeat 186 worker's compensation 189 Other fringe benefits 190 Professional ServirTs 191 Accounting 112 Legal 195 - Consultants 199 Otber Professional Services TOTAL PERSONNEL 20() SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 210 flousehh d and cleaning suppli 220 Food and provisions 260 Office supplies and materials 265 Office Egnipment(nan -cap) 290 Other supplies and materials TOTAL SUPPLIES AND )ATERIAIS 300 CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND SERVICS 3'_0 Travel 320 Communications 321 Telephone service 325 Postage 340 Printing and binding 350 Repairs and maintenance 355 Office equipment repair .59 other repairs 360; ; Freight 3811 Data processing services 390:. Other services 391 Legal advertising 393 Temporary help 395 Employee training 399 other services - TOTAL CURRENT OSLIGBTIONS AND 400 F= CHARGES AND OTHER SEIRVIC'S $35,000 $94,670 $117,710 $128,330 $2,600 $3,900 $6,900 $6,900 $2,678 $7,242 $9,005. $9,817 $3,850 $10,414 $12,948 $14,116 $935 $6,050 $9,075 $9,900 $1,050 $2,840 $3,531 $3,850 $140 $379 $471 $513 $257 $5,348 $433 $472 $2,700 $10,000 : $15,000 $20,000 $2,941 $5,000 $5,000 $7,500 $876 • $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $0 $0' • $0 $53,030 $153,343 ,5187,573 $208,899 _ $1,516 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $1,291 $500 $750 $1,000 $345 $500 $750 $1,000 53,151 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $3,987 $5,000 $6,000 $8,000 $1,996 $7,100 $7,500 38,000 $1,797 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $1,000 $1,250 $11500 $0 $100 $100 • $100 $375 $720 $1,200 $1,500 5230 $700 $700 $700 $6,549 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $100 $500 $500 $500 $16,182 $20,120 $20,750 $24,300 $1,516 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $1,291 $500 $750 $1,000 $345 $500 $750 $1,000 53,151 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $3,987 $5,000 $6,000 $8,000 $1,996 $7,100 $7,500 38,000 $1,797 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $1,000 $1,250 $11500 $0 $100 $100 • $100 $375 $720 $1,200 $1,500 5230 $700 $700 $700 $6,549 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $100 $500 $500 $500 $16,182 $20,120 $20,750 $24,300 $3,987 $5,000 $6,000 $8,000 $1,996 $7,100 $7,500 38,000 $1,797 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $1,000 $1,250 $11500 $0 $100 $100 • $100 $375 $720 $1,200 $1,500 5230 $700 $700 $700 $6,549 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $100 $500 $500 $500 $16,182 $20,120 $20,750 $24,300 410 430 Rectal of real property $5,146 $15,820 $16,890 517,560 $ Rental of other egtdp=t 440 service and maintenance contr $50 $750 $800 $850 450 Insurance and bonding 451,. Propert y and gen liability $538 $3,300 $3,500 $3,700 Vehicles. $0 $300 $300 $300 ..Public Officials $0 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 453"1:'`' Fidelity bonds $0 $1,210 $1,300 $1,400 460 ..:. Depreciation 461 Depreciation office equipmen 462 Depreciation EDP equipment 465 Depreciation other equipment 490 Other fixed charges 491 Dues and subscriptions $270 $750 $750 $750 492 Bad debt 499 Miscellaneous TOTAL FIXED CHWES'AND OTHER $6,004 04 $25,130 $27,040 $28,560 500 CAPITAL OUTLAY 510 Office furniture and equipmen $3,365 $5,000 520 Data processing equipment $5,000 $75,000 550 Other equipment 570 Land 580 Buij*p _ 590 Other structures and izprovements TOTAL C8P1TAi. OUTLAY $3,365 $10,000 $75,000 $0 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $8� 1,732 $212,593 $315,363 $267,759 JN7i n'r�? � 11 4190 $73,330 $47,250 $1,785 $3,615 $2,566 P'..a.'0MG 100 PERSONNEL SERVICES $700 1204' -Salaries and wages $189 Salaries and wages 180 ._'' .; ?; ;;Triage benefits 181`^.` FICA M. Pension 183 Medical insurance 185 Unemployment 186 worker's csesation 189 other fringe benefits $73,330 $47,250 $1,785 $3,615 $2,566 $5,198 $1,925 $3,300 $700 $1,418 $93 $189 $260 $49,613 $3,795 $5,457 $3,300 $1,488 $198 $260 $64,112 $1,000 $1,000 $3,500 $5,000 $1,500 $1,500 $500 $1,500 513,500 $350 $350 $78,962 t� TOTAL PERSONNEL $0 $30,399 $61,229 200 SUPPLIES AND MERIALS 260 Cffice supplies and materials 290 Other supplies and materials $1,000 $1,000 TOTAL SUPPLIES AND MATERMILS $0 $1,000 $1,000 300 CURREAT'O$LIGATIONS AND SERVICES 310 Travel $2,500 $31500 340 Printing and binding $5,000 $5,000 370 Advertising and marketing 380 Data processing services $1,500 $1,500 390 Other services s93 Temporary help $1,500 $1,500 395 Employee training $500 $500 399 Other services (graphics) $1,500 $1,500 TOTAL CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND $0 $12,500 $13,500 400 F=) CHARGES AND OTHER SERVICES 490 Other fixed charges 491 Dues and subscriptions $200 $350 4"*- Miscellaneous F= CHARGES AND OTHER $0 $200 $350 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $0 $44,099 $76,079 $49,613 $3,795 $5,457 $3,300 $1,488 $198 $260 $64,112 $1,000 $1,000 $3,500 $5,000 $1,500 $1,500 $500 $1,500 513,500 $350 $350 $78,962 t� ujh R.ESP 66 4521 OBJECT CD ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION _ 91 ACITAL 92 BODGET 93 BUDGET �� � nu-]i GcT RIDESHARING ADMrISTR&;ZON 100 PERSONHEi SERVICES Salaries and wages 121''- 181 Salaries and wages FICA $41,756 $87,675 $92,059 $96,662 182 Pension $3,239 $6,707 $7,042 $7,395 183 Medical ;,,�,�.��� $4,410 $2,151 $9,644 $5,400 $10,126 $10,633 185 0 �Aloyment $898 $2,630 $5,400 $2,762 $5,400 186 Worker's compensation $154 $351 $368 $2,900 189 Other fringe benefits $�8 $260 $260 $M7 $260 TOTAL PEsmuzz $5� 2.86fi $112.667 $118,018 $123,636 200 SUPPLIES AND ?aTER7AI$ 750 Office supplies and materials ' 290 Other supplies and materials TOTAL SUPPLIES AND mjTERI3iS $0 $0 $0 $0 300 cURRW OBLIGATIONS AMID SERVICES 310 325 Travel Postage $6,000 $6,500 $7,000 340 Printing and binding $4,150 $4,150 $4,150 370 Advertising and marketing $10,000 $ $10,000 380 Data processing services x •000 3,000 $ $3,000 $3,000 390 rtther services $500 $500 $500 393 39S Temporary help Employee training $4,750 $4,750 140 399 Other services (graphics) $500 $2,500 $500 $2,500 $50 $500 $2,500 TOTAL CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AMID $p $31,400 $32,400 400 FIXED CHARGES AND OTHER SERVICES 490 Other fixed charges 491 _ Dues and subscription $350 499 Miscellaneous $350 $350 TOTAL FIXED CHARGES AND OTHER $0 $350 �3S0 $350 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $52,866 $144,417 $150,268 $156,386 m 30 i. .0 RES? ;6 4523 -a:EC: C0 ,cccuhl C�.S�n"�':'!ON 91 ?C71 92 91:XET." 53 —CET a4 3^_tGr -VA ME L OPERATIONS 200 SWLIiS ANA MATERIALS •,! V., p.supplies and materials and lubricants $15,583 $42,950 $47,245 $51,970 �.r and tubes $969 $2,500 $2,750 $3,025 2w,�- -7, Licenses,: tags, and fees $712 $6,050 $6,655 $7,321 255 Vehicle cleaning supplies $90 $250 $275 $303 259 Other vehicle supplies (MVR) $178 $500 $550 $605 290 Other supplies and materials $164 TOTAL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $17,695 $52,250 $57,475 $63,223 400 F= CHARGES BUD O= SERVICES 450 • = Insurance and bonding 452 Vehicles $150 $57,140 $57,140 $57,140 460 Depreciation 464 Depreciation motor vehicles 490 Otber fixed charges 492 Bad debt 499 Miscellaneous TOTAL F=-CHARGES AND OTHER $150 $57,140 $57,140 $57,140 500 CAPITAL OUTLAY 540 !tutor vehicles $58,500 $93,750 $93,750 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $58,500 $93,750 $93,750 TOTAL OPERATIWG EXPENSES $208,365 $214,113 $167,890 $17,845 F 'N3 R SP 73=1 CD ACCOUNT DESCRnn- oN 91 1C"OAI 92 BUDGET 93 BUDGET 94 nODG'e: 66 4524 VANPOOL VEHICLE WADMMNCE 200- SUPPLIES AM MATERIALS 250 Vehicle supplies acd materials Parts $2,853 $6,000 $6,600 $7,260 255:.. Vehicle cleaning supplies 259 Other vehicle• supplies , $892 $2,000 $2,200 $2,420 29O Other supplies and materials -0TAL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $3,745 $8,000 �$8 800 300 CURRENT OBLIGATIONS ,AM SERVICES 350 Repairs and maintenance 353 Vehicles - outside repairs $2,061 $6,000 $6,600 $7,260 360 Freight TOTAL CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND $2,061 $6700 $6,600 $7,260 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $5,806 $14,000 $15,400 $16,940 $173,817 $554,500 $710,996 $676,797 xi It ETi`iD RESP t 66 4573 OBJECT CO ACCOUNT DESCR—rDTION REGIONAL BUS SERVICE 300' ,TM, --w OBLIGATIONS AND SERVICES SexvIces (Carp Express) °r,.'OTAL CURRENT OBLIGATIONS AND TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 91 ACTUAL 92 BUDGET 93 BUDGET 94 BUDGET $123,160 $1,033,300 $1,782,442 — $0 $123,160 $1,033,300 $1,782,442 $0 $123,160 $1,033,300 $1,782,442 in 13 Triangle Transit ority Budget and Cash Fiorj,, Analysis $5 Tax Rate .. FY 91 Service Costs Regional Bus Service $0 Planning $0 Ridesharing $52,886 Vanpool Operations $79,499 Total service Costs Administration Governing Board General Admin Total Administration Capital Transit Coaches Vanpool Vans Operating Facility Equipment Total Capital TOTAL EXPENSES Operating Revenue Bus Passengers Vanpool Passengers Total Operating Revenue Grant and Tax Revenue NCDOT Demonstration NCDOT Ridesharing NCDOT Capital UMTA Planning City /County Vehicle Registration Vanpool Fund Balance Total Grants and Taxes TOTAL REVENUES Change in Fund Balance Year End Fund Balance Required Fund Balance Excess Fund Balance $132,385 $15,567 $81,732 $97,299 ! IPA $0 $47,663 $144,417 $186,580 $378,660 $15,600 $220,093 $235,693 FY 93 $1,033,300 $576,079 $150,268 $205,240 FY 94 $1,782,442 $578,962 $156,386 $225,760 i.4 r FY 95 $2,049,809 $82,872 $164,205 $237,048 $1,964,887 $2,743,551 $2,533,9341 $21,600 $240,363 $261,963 $22,680 $267,759 $290,439 $23,814 $281,147 $304,961 $0 $0 $427,133 $707,616 $777,381 $139,766 $58,500 $185,000 $194,250 $203,963 $0 $0 $164,692 $164,692 $164,692 $0 $0 $250,000 $125,000 $50,OOC $139,766 $58,500 $1,026,824 $1,191,558 $1,196,03E $369,450 $672,853 $3,253,674+ $4,225,548 $4,034,93, $0 $79,499 $79,499 $0 $186,580 $186,580 $135,621 $205,240 $340,861 $356,489 $225,760 $582,249 $5_?,45" 5237,04] S749,50CI $97,299 $183,356 $0 $0 $C $52,886 $144,417 $75,134 $78,193 58,103 $139,766 $0 $227,682 $244,156 Sa-9,604 $0 $0 $375,000 $375,000 $C $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 5l'0,00C $0 $0 $2,773,575 52,829,047 52,33 ,027 $58,500 $92,500 $97,125 $289,951 $486,273 $3,643,891 $3,723,520 $369,450 w $672,853$3,984,752 - - $4,305,769 34, �,81� $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $731,078 $0 $731,078 $0 $325,367 $0 $405,710 $80,221 $811,299 $422,555 $388,744 5--,384■ 5 + _ 49= ■ 5 :: 6 90 ■ ORANGE -C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING 1 Action Agenda item # ks�r- PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x—No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell Ext. 2589 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Cha4pel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider County participation in Regional Bicycle Plan. BACKGROUND: At the September 17, 1991 County Commissioner meeting, a report on efforts to prepare a regional bicycle plan covering Durham and Orange Counties was presented. While supportive of bicycle planning, Orange County Commissioners elected not to participate in funding the project because of the heavy emphasis on training and enforcement to the exclusion of bicycle facilities planning. The Durham- Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC) Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) met on October 2 and received a report on the status of the regional bicycle plan. Except for Orange County, all other participating jurisdictions (Chapel Hill, Durham City, and Durham County) have allocated funds for the project. To address Orange County concerns, the TAC unanimously adopted the following resolution: The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) affirms that one of the products of this regional bicycle study will be a bikeway plan for all of Durham and Orange Counties outside the municipalities, provided that if additional funding is necessary the matter will have to be reviewed by the TAC. Because of the TAC action, the Board of Commissioners K may wish to reconsider its September 17 decision. The Orange County share of the Regional Bikeway Plan would be $6,025. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. DK9:10- 22BIK.DOC I4 IA 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. = ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: OCTOBER 22, 1991 SUBJECT: COURTHOUSE SQUARE PROJECT; PHASE III BID AWARD /CONTRACT APPROVAL DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVS. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:XX ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES EXT 2650 BID TABULATION CONTRACT FORM Telephone Number - Hillsborough -732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 967 --9251 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To award a bid and approve a contract with Custom Stone Masonry, Inc. for construction of Phase III of the Courthouse Square Project. BACKGROUND: In 1990, the County awarded bids and constructed Phases I and II of the Courthouse Square Project. AS you may recall, Phases I and II included construction of perimeter sidewalks along Churton and King Streets, interior sidewalks on the north side of the building, as well as corrected site drainage problems. Phase III will complete all perimeter and interior sidewalks on the grounds. The funds are available within the 1991 -92 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). It is anticipated that the last phase of the project, which includes completion of the landscaping, will be completed in the Spring, 1992. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends award of bid and approval of a contract with Custom Stone Masonry, Inc, to construct Phase III of the Courthouse Square Project, for a sum of $44,000; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. 2 BID TABULATION DESCRIPTION: PHASE THREE COURTHOUSE SQUARE PROJECT BID DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1991 OPENING TIME: 3 :00 P.M. ADVERTISED XX INFORMAL: Slated for BOCC approval: OCTOBER 22, 1991 NAME OF BIDDER ���NET` BID _ BID DEPOSIT - -- ------------- - - - - -- -------------- --» - -- --------- - - - - -- - I Holt Construction Co. $53,000 bond - - - _ CC Woods Construction �CoY� $71,310 bond Patriot Building $66, - ^_ -- -�- --------- '"�--- ------------ - - ---I 500 bond ------------------ - ------ ------- ---- - - - --- _ __ Custom Stone Masonry $44,000 -I _ �- ,.______�____..__________ __ --------------- __ -- -- ^- cert`- check_w - -I -------------- ----------- ------------- - - - - -- ------------------- -------------- --------------------- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -� - ------------------------ j---- --------------- j-------------- - - - -�I ------------------------- j------------------- j-------------- - - - - -I PURCHASING IS RECOMMENDING AWARD TO: CUSTOM STONE MASONRY, INC. AT AN AMOUNT OF: $44,000 IF YOU CONCUR, PLEASE INITIAL AND RETURN THIS FORM TO PURCHASING. IF FOR ANY REASON YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE AWARD RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR POSITION AND SEND IT, ALONG WITH.THIS FORM TO PURCHASING DIRECTOR. (SHORT JUSTIFICATIONS ARE IN ORDER.) APPROVE AWARD: DATE: DEPARTMENT HEAD NOT APPROVE (JUSTIFICATION ATTACHED): DATE: NORTH CARAWN—A. COUNTY OF ORANGE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 3 THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this 22ND day of October, 1991, pursuant to approval of the Orange County, North Carolina Board of Commissioners, by and between Custom Stone Masonry, Inc, a corporation with its principal office and place of business in Durham, North Carolina, hereinafter called the Contractor, and the County of Orange, hereinafter called the County. 1:p41.4za1 - -)Dy 4IT 1 WHEREAS, the County of Orange duly advertised for bids for construction of Phase Three of the Courthouse Square Project, consisting of the construction of flagstone sidewalks along Court Street and Margaret Lane, and bids were received and duly opened as required by law, and WHEREAS, after a careful consideration of the bid submitted by the Contractor, the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange have authorized the acceptance of such bid, and the execution, in the name of the County of Orange of a contract with the said Contractor covering construction of Phase Three of the Courthouse Square Project, consisting of the construction of flagstone sidewalks along Court Street and Margaret Lane. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and in further consideration of the mutual agreement contained herein, as well as the financial consideration hereinafter referred to, the parties hereto have contracted and agreed as follows: 1. In accordance with the County's specifications and drawings and the Contractor's proposal, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, the Contractor will construct Phase Three of the Courthouse Square Project, consisting of the construction of flagstone sidewalks along Court Street and Margaret Lane, described in the proposal submitted by the Contractor or in the specifications and drawings attached hereto. 2.. The total purchase price for this project in the sum of forty four thousand dollars ($44,000) to be paid to the Contractor by the County in cash according to the terms set forth in the specifications. 4 t l 3. The specifications and drawings, the proposal thereon by the Contractor, the.advertisement by the County, tile per n 'he part 4e- GentraG*Aw Proof of insurance coverage as specified in the s ecifications, copiese of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall constitute the contract between the parties as though fully written herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor and the County have caused this contract to be legally executed, as of the day and year first written. CUSTOM STONE MASONRY, INC.: BY: ATTEST: TITLE: secretary COUNTY OF ORANGE: ATTEST: MOSES CAREY, JR., CHAIR Beverly A. Blythe Clerk to the Board This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government and Fiscal Control Act. Kenneth Chavious, Finance Director ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CONMXSSI011ER8 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 1 Action Agenda Item # idw-G SUBJECT: State Watershed Classifications and Standards. DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES -X-NO ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: • Proposed BOCC Resolution Dave Stancil, Extension 2590 • Proposed County Position Statement TELEPHONE NUMBERS: (Please refer to October 7 agenda Hillsborough - 732 -8181 for background information and Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 Planning Board minutes.) Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To adopt Orange County comment and position paper on 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. 2 01 Citizen comment on the proposal 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. A report on this subject was presented to the Board on October 7. Any comment orange County wishes to have considered by the EMC in their decision - making process must be received by the EMC prior to October 31, 1991. RECOXNENDAT=ON:The Administration recommends approval of the attached resolution and position statement. The resolution and position statement will be hand - delivered to the Environmental Management Commission on Tuesday, October 23. 3 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. 4 4 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 "new0l 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 22nd day of October, 1991. Moses Carey, Jr. Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Beverly A. Blythe Clerk to the Board of Commissioners ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 Moses Carey, Jr. Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. Halkiotis Verla I. Insko Don willhoit Charles L. Baker, N.C. Environmental PO Box 29535 732 -8181 968 -4501 688 -7331 227 -2031 October 22, 19 91 644.3004 (Fax) Chairman Management Commission 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. YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY! [9 In this vein, Orange County offers its requests and comments on the adopted State rules and preliminary watershed classifications as follows: Recommended Water suDlD2y—w4lershaiLglassificwtions 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 Creep 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. 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 1. 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 yarn to tae usecx as a vvaerault-- NNW ::.�:<: <., :: f .;.w> : >:. ter:;::; ,:.,::.. s a ewfVg minimum. O^angei Cour►ty further applauds the provisions in the rules that allows local governments to expand the critical area, where warranted. 2. IMPERVIOUS SU'RF'ACE LIMITATIONS 3. 4. F 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 „^ ru es that such a • } }��� sliding scale based on.. lot size, would be STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES contro��s�..:t.o .: : >z; : , :.. ;n; r„ ; >;.....:;: wing s ormwater e used on y'`as "acec1 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. NON - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT :..:;M;k:s.C<� ; —,;y.: ..r .....yai.. Fs:. >•;3F: =:crter s ari wi cori..: �,M^ .:.:;,: >:: >:: >:.w: ::.,::<:: en `roue to Ee � rai sed`' Orange County 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. S. 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 link these two concepts and ut; i ; 7= County, as one. DEFINITION OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT S 4 7. DEFI=TION OF NEW DEVELOPKENT subdivide" window ''or developers wi of 12 -18 months. 10. CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW) DESIGNATION permitting mgna, m < -rne university ratedk"special conditions pted by Orange County vide for no further this watershed. The and beyond the state Watershed designation that warranted protection measures ado and Carrboro in that year that pro degradation of the water quality in current protection measures go above minimum standards for WS -2, and Critical 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. 10 r� 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. 1_.1 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 1 ORANGE - COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: DURHAM NORTHWEST & NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING Action A da Item PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x —No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell - 9 -24 -91 Memo from Marvin Collins Ext. 2589 with attachments - Map of existing land uses and environmental constraints for Orange County part of corridor - Draft 10 -8 -91 PB Minutes - Draft letter to NCDOT recommending that Northwest Loop be confined to Durham County TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To formulate a recommendation to the N.C. Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) on the location of the proposed Northwest Loop lying in Orange county. BACKGROUND: The Northwest /Northeast Loop (also known as Eno Drive) was first delineated in the 1964 Durham Thoroughfare Plan and has been retained in subsequent thoroughfare plans. It would consist of a multi -lane roadway on new and existing alignments. The western terminus would interchange with I -85 approximately 1,000 feet west of the Durham /Orange.County line and connect with NC 751 at its intersection with US 70. It circles a portion of the Durham urban area on the north and east and ends along US 70 between Miami Boulevard and the Durham /Wake County line. The proposed project is needed to reduce existing traffic congestion in and around the urban areas of north and east Durham and increase the overall system capacity of the existing traffic network based on projected travel demand. The project is included in the 1991 -97 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for right -of -way acquisition and construction after 1997. NCDOT is in the first phase of a six -phase study. The study will identify potential routes for the proposed loop, including alternative corridor evaluations, preliminary engineering, traffic analysis, and environmental evaluations. Once these studies are 2 complete, a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be produced and a Corridor Location Public - Hearing will be held. Following the hearing, a final selection of a preferred alternative will be made, and a final EIS will be prepared. The Planning Board discussed this project at their quarterly long -range meeting on October 8, 1991 and voted unanimously to recommend that the roadway be located in Durham County where it would be better aligned with US 15 -501 and the East /West Expressway. RECOMM MATTOE: The Administration recommends adoption of the Planning Board recommendation. The Administration further recommends the Chair be authorized to sign the draft letter to NCDOT regarding the County's position on the proposed Northwest Loop. DR9 : NW --LOOP . DOC 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Gene Bell, Planner III- FROM: Marvin Collins, Planning Director SUBJECT: Durham Northwest & Northeast Loop Corridor Study DATE: September 27, 1991 COPIES: John L }nk, County Manager Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Assistant II At agenda review meeting today, the County Manager suggested that we follow through with a recommendation made in my September 24, 1991 memorandum to him on the Durham Northwest & Northeast Loop Corridor Study. Specifically, we should have the Planning Board prepare a recommendation regarding the roadway location at its October 8, 1991 meeting. The recommendation can then be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 22. The Board's comments /position can then be forwarded to NCDOT before the October 31 deadline for receipt of comments. Please handle the preparation of agenda abstracts and supporting documentation for the meetings referenced above. To give the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners a better perspective on the land use and environmental constraints, you should prepare a map of the corridor area in Orange County which shows land. uses [particularly Eno River State Park and residentials areas], steep slopes, floodplair}s, natural areas, historic sites [structures and cemeteries], etc. I think the results of that reconnaissance survey will 2rovide sufficient justification for recommending that he roadway be located in Durham County._ If you have questions, let me know. By copy of this memorandum to Joanna Bradshaw, I am requesting that she include this item on the October 8, 1991 Planning Board agenda. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: John Link, County Ma age FROM: Marvin Collins, Planning Director SUBJECT: Durham Northwest & Northeast Loop Corridor Study DATE: September 24, 1991 COPIES: Gene Bell, Planner III This memorandum is provided in response to your inquiry of September 19, 1991 [copy attached]. Attached is a citizens informational brochure regarding the above mentioned project. Gene Bell obtained a copy at a workshop conducted on September 18. The project will provide an expressway type facility through the northern and western portions of the Durham urbanized area, linking 1--85 west of the city with US 70 on the southeast. According to the FY 1990 -96 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program, the primary purpose of the loop road is to relieve urban traffic congestion [TIP information attached]. Note that NCDOT is in the first phase of a six -phase study. The project will identify potential routes for the proposed loop road, including alternative corridor evaluations, preliminary engineering, traffic analysis, and environmental evaluations. Once these studies are complete, a draft Environmental Impact Statement will be produced, and a Corridor Location Public Hearing will be held. Following the hearing, final selection of a preferred alternative will be made, and a final Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. This will complete the planning process, and, if a "build" alternative is selected for implementation, the design process will commence. In terms of schedule, the following dates were identified in the informational brochure: Fall, 1991 Development of preliminary corridors /public workshops Winter, 1991 Engineering designs /environmental determinations completed Spring, 1992 Public workshops Summer, 1992 Technical reports completed Spring, 1993 Draft EIS completed /Corridor Location Public Hearing conducted 5 Insofar as allaying or confirming your fears, it is difficult to say what route the proposed roadway might ultimately take. I have indicated the location of portions of Eno River State Park on the Corridor Study Window Map. It would seem that the Park as well as residences in the area would keep the roadway east of the Eno River at the county line. However,.there is no guarantee of this, and it would be best for area residents as well as Orange County to participate in the workshops /hearings. The Board of Commissioners may wish to take a position with regard to the proposed roadway location. I hope this helps. If you have additional questions, feel free to contact Gene Bell or me. 7'6. ORANGE COUNTY R acs w�c� q • 2 � -4 � HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA ./1,.� Cs�rra ��'taGf�u�T7ur2 MEMOR=UM TO: Marvin Collins,, Planning Director FROM: John Link, County Manager DATE: September 19, 1991 RE: Attached Letter Regarding the Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop Corridor Study I an concerned about what I read in this memo and need to either have my fears allayed or confirmed as to the Possible outcome of this corridor study. Please let me know if you get a chance by Friday the 20th, or when I get back, which is Friday the 27th. Thank you. JML /asr Attachment CC: Gene Bell FN: DSK8COLLINS4.DOC AREA CODE (919) 732.8181 • 968.4501 • 688.7331 • 227 -2031 • FAX (919) 644 -3004 Fxt 2300 DISTRIBUTED boc G 1. G�•►k. JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY e" 9ATZ �C54 I� STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH 27611 -5201 September 10, 1991 Mr. Moses Carey, Jr. Chairman Orange County Commissioner 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: pR@ IEoe��.� ..6.99. I'U �J DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM G. MARLEY. JR.. P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop Corridor Study, State Project No. 6.358001T, TIP No. R -2630 and R -2631, Durham and Orange Counties The Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), has retained the private engineering firm of H. W. Lochner, Inc. to prepare a combined State Environmental Impact Statement /Corridor Location Report on the proposed Durham Northwest Loop (R -2630) and Northeast Loop (R -2631) which extends from 1--85 approximately 1000 feet west of the Orange /Durham county line, circles a portion of the Durham urban area on the north and east, and ends along US 70 between Miami Boulevard and the Durham /Wake county line. The proposed improvements are included in the 1991 -1997 Transportation Improvement Program for right of way acquisition and construction post year 1997 for R -2630 and right of way acquisition in fiscal year 1997 and construction post year 1997 for R -2631. The purpose of this letter is to solicit comments and initiate coordination for the project. The alternatives under consideration include the "No- Build" or "Do- Nothing" Alternative, the Improve Existing Facilities Alternative, the Transportation Systems Management Alternative, the Mass Transit Alternative, and the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative will consist of various multi -lane alternates on new location. The attached map identifies the location of the study area. Scope of Study The scope of this study will include an investigation and evaluation of existing and future demographic, social, economic, environmental, and land use information as outlined in the latest State EIS procedures. An FnuAI OnnnrtimifvfAffirmativo Artinn Fmnlnver W September 10, 1991 Page 2 Potential project impacts to be addressed include the following: social and economic; relocation; air quality; traffic noise; water resources, stream modification or impoundment; wetlands; flood hazards; natural resources including protected species, natural land forms, wildlife habitat, groundwater, and prime and unique farmlands; land use planning; historic and cultural resources; construction; and visual impacts. Need for the Project .The proposed project is needed to reduce existing traffic congestion in and around the urban areas of north and east Durham and increase the overall system capacity of the existing traffic network based on future projected travel demand. The proposed Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop would provide a more direct route for commuter traffic originating in northwest and northeast Durham and destined for Research Triangle Park and the Raleigh Durham International Airport. The proposed roadway would provide an additional east /west facility in northern Durham and a north /south facility in eastern Durham for through traffic to bypass portions of the City of Durham. General Description Proposed Improvements The preliminary build alternative would consist of constructing a multi —lane roadway on new and existing alignments. The western terminus would interchange with I -85 approximately 1000 feet west of the Orange /Durham county line. The proposed roadway would circle portions of northwest and northeast Durham utilize the Glen School Road /I -85 Interchange and terminate along US 70 between Miami Boulevard and the Du -rham /Wake county line. Description_of General Area Durham County is located in the piedmont physiographic province of north central North Carolina. The topography of the area -is slightly rolling with creek and river valleys incising the landscape. These valleys generally confine the associated flood plain and wetlands to the stream channels. Major water bodies in the project area include the Eno River and its associated tributaries, Ellerbee Creek, Little Lick Creek, Panther Creek, and Chunky Pipe Creek. Each of these water bodies flows into Falls Lake, an impoundment of the Neuse River constructed to provide drinking water to neighboring Wake County and the City of Raleigh. Falls Lake is located northeast of the project study area. The project area is located along the northwest and northeast portions of the Durham urban area that includes portions of the City of Durham and Durham County. There are four north /south oriented roadways from the City of Durham that traverse the Eno River. Along these roadway corridors exist a mix of residential and commercial land uses. Between the developed roadway corridors, open space and agricultural land uses occur. Along the Eno River, a system of State and local parks have been established. Also located within the study corridor are small pockets of light industrial land uses and a gravel quarry. North of the Eno River, residential development is the dominant land use. ----5reptember 10, 1991 Page 3 East of the project area, agricultural and low density residential land uses occur. Southeast of the project area, and in close proximity to the east project termini, is Research Triangle Park. Also close to the project study area, southeast of the east project termini, is the Raleigh Durham International Airport. West and northwest of the project area is open space associated with the Eno River State Park system, low density residential housing, and agricultural land uses. Summary Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this project.. This letter, therefore constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to this project. In order to investigate all social, economic, and environmental factors which may be involved with this project, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is distributing this letter to obtain comments you may have relative to your area of expertise and concern. All input received will be considered in conducting the study with particular reference to effects on the natural and human environment. The North Carolina Department of Transportation would appreciate any comments you may wish to make on this project within 30 days of receipt of t If further information is needed, you may contact Ms. Gail Grimes, P. E., NCDOT Project Planning Engineer at (919) 733 -7842. Sincerely, 9.94ard, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch GG /plr 1 -- 3 laoz V� 15� 2 G a+ d 611 i 603 `602. lF - 1510 h PD' 159° ^ 5 \ j .` 17/0 �710 I Ted �1�6 it 17Tg 1716 L5 �J ,z0 N gyp:. rY ►'\ � O 90 �•� Rp. App W o state Pork r �'• 0 GORTON P /493 .4� >_•- `'�' h ` 14 42 �`• �, 166b _• � 0 G 0'Pq ,. pt•C,RBC� %402 ST. Cry .�•� •, G ,�� BYP. \ 501 BUS' !b 501 �.� c w • r c °.�a MURRA 44 sr ickleberry Cp 1411 Spring s I 1718 9� 0 % I 2 L• APproximale SCALE OF MILES DURHAM NORTHWEST LOOP AND NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY 'ATE PROJECT NUMBER 6.358001T T.I.P. IA. NO. iR -2630 L R -2631 DURHAM aMERON ,.. 0 OR N� PH �4 a J Q 1 � J ~ ti RD y� i C . 0 RI ii P r BLVD 9 � FS 4 C 57. DOR STUDYi JkREA 0 �1Z NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DURHAM NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY (ENO DRIVE) State Project No. 6.358001T (R -2630 & R -2631) CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS September 18 -19, 1991 INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) is initiating an engineering and environmental study of a new circumferential highway facility through portions of northern and eastern Durham. The study will include alternative corridor evaluations, preliminary engineering, traffic analysis, environmental evaluations, and the production of a State Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of this workshop is to initiate the project's public involvement program, to provide information concerning the environmental study process, to receive input from the public and interested agencies concerning the project, and to introduce the members of the study team. Representatives of NCDOT and the engineering firm of H. W. Lochner, Inc. are present to answer questions and discuss the project. 13 This is the first of three citizens informational workshops that will be held during the study process. You are encouraged to view the slide presentation, examine the project maps and displays, discuss the project with members of the study team, and complete the enclosed project questionnaire and comment sheet. The map in the center of this brochure identifies the general location of the study area for this project. The new highway would extend from I -85 near the Orange /Durham county line to U.S. Route 70 between Mineral Springs Road and the Durham/Wake county line. The study area includes northwest, north, northeast, and east sections of the Durham urban area. The approximate length of this study window is twenty miles. PROJECT OVERVIEW The NCDOT study will identify and evaluate several alternate corridors for the proposed roadway. Evaluation factors will include engineering, environmental, social, and economic impacts of the proposed action. The engineering portion of the study will focus on developing a series of safe and efficient build alternates based on the past, current, and future travel demands in the study window. Other alternatives to be evaluated in the study include the "No- Build" or "Do-Nothing" Alternative, the Improve Existing Facilities Alternative, the Mass Transit Alternative, and the Transportation Systems Management Alternative. The major environmental impacts to be investigated in this study include Air Quality, .Floodplains, Noise, Protected Plant and Animal Species, Water Resources, and Wetlands. The environmental. study will produce Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Detailed environmental evaluations of the alternates will be presented in these reports along with comments and correspondence received from local, state, and federal agencies as well as the public throughout the study process. Social issues that will be analyzed include potential alterations to existing neighborhoods, community facilities, and recreational areas. An estimate of relocated residences, businesses, and non - profit organizations will be determined for each alternate. The effects of the project on the elderiN, handicapped, transit -dependent, and minorities µill also be addressed. The study will identify and assess impacts on architecturally and archaeologically important cultural and historic resources. The economic impacts on the local or regional economy such as the. effects of the project on development and employment opportunities will be examined. Impacts of the proposed action, on established business districts and highway- re;a::d businesses are also included in the study. PLANNING PROCESS The planning process utilized by this study involves an interdisciplinary team to research and coordinate the environmental analyses and corridor location studies for the project. The intent of this process is to investigate all reasonable transportation alternatives. and evaluate the merits of each while maximizing citizen involvement. The planning process has been divided into six phases as indicated in the chart on the right. The current phase of the study includes an introduction of the study to the public, compiling an inventory of planning issues and community concerns, gathering necessary project related information, and determining the transportation needs in the study area. Between now and the end of October, project activities in this phase of the process will be conducted. Later this fall, preliminary corridors will be developed based on the data collected, issues identified, and the expressed community concerns. Initial field investigations will aid in refining and evaluating the preliminary corridors. The results of this study will be presented at the next citizens informational workshop. Based on the evaluation of corridors and public input, the final corridors for detailed study will be selected. Beginning late this year, engineering functional design, detailed field studies, and environmental determinations will be completed for each of the final corridors. The results of this evaluation will be presented at the third citizens informational workshop during the late spring of next year. Technical reports will be prepared during the summer in many of the areas of environmental evaluation. Once all studies are completed, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be produced. This report will summarize and compare the results of the engineering and environmental evaluations. The statement is scheduled for publication in early 1993. After a complete review of the report, a. Pre- Hearing Open House will be held to discuss the results, and soon afterward, a Corridor Location Public Hearing will be held. °a4 After the Corridor Public Hearing, final selection of a Preferred Alternative will be made by the Department with input from local, state, and federal agencies, local officials, and the public. All comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Public Hearing transcript will be reviewed during the decision process. During the final phase of the project, the Final Environmental Impact Statement will be written for the Preferred Alternative. Final comments on the project will be solicited and a Record of Decision will be completed. This would complete the planning process for the project. Should a build alternate be selected for implementation, the design process would follow the planning process. During design, additional opportunities for public involvement would occur. L 1TY.........:': ................. N 1P, FREE N R 0. col cr- - - - - -.- fin_ vii 1_'7 DURHAM NORTHEAST LOOP & NORTHWEST LOOP. CORRIDOR STUDY STATE PROJECT NO. 6.358001T T.I.P. ID. NO. R -2630 be R -2631 0 0 .5 1 Mile CORRIDOR STUDY WINDOW PUBLIC IN VOL VEMENT PROGRAM The early and continued involvement of the citizens who may be affected by the study's outcome is a vital part of the planning process for the proposed project. ID Public involvement provides the opportunity to participate in the planning process and to convey comments to the Department. • Public involvement provides the opportunity to understand the overall study process and schedule. A project questionnaire and comment sheet is provided with this brochure. Please answer the questions on the form, identify possible locations for the road, and provide any other pertinent project comments. The sheet can be returned to the comment box at the registration table or can be. mailed to the address on the back of the form. Persons indicating their name and address on the comment sheet and checking the appropriate space will be added to the project mailing list to receive newsletters and upcoming meeting announcements. In addition to this workshop, there will be two other public workshops for this study. The second citizens informational workshop will focus on preliminary corridors identified for the study. The third workshop will be held during the period of detailed environmental analysis and prior to the publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Throughout the project, small group meetings will be held with interested citizens organizations, neighborhood associations, business groups, and civic groups. These meetings for informal presentations and question and answer sessions can be arranged by contacting NCDOT. A toll free project hotline is available for public comments, suggestions, or inquiries concerning the corridor study. The hotline service is available Monday through Friday during regular business hours now through the third informational workshop. If it is inconvenient to call during office hours, a message will be recorded and delivered to the appropriate study team member, who will respond to the inquiry as quickly as possible. Project newsletters will be published and mailed to all persons on ' the mailing list periodically throughout the study. The newsletters are designed to keep citizens informed of the study progress between public informational workshops. NCDOT will be establishing a Citizens Advisory Committee to participate in the planning process and advise the study team on this project. The committee will have representation from interested local agencies, business groups, neighborhood associations, and civic groups. This committee will meet periodically throughout the study process. Interested groups should contact NCDOT about having a representative serve on the Citizens Advisory Committee. Finally, the public will be invited to comment formally on the project during the Corridor Public Hearing. Prior to the hearing, an informal Pre - Hearing Open House will be held to present and discuss the results of the engineering and environmental evaluations. Each of the above elements of the public involvement program are important aspects of this corridor study and the overall highway planning process. The public involvement program is an integral part of this study and citizens are encouraged to participate fully. N NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS Data Collection: Obtain information concerning archeological surveys, biological investigations, floodplain boundaries, historical surveys, study area photographs, water resources data, wetlands locations, land use, community facilities, etc. Inventory of Planning Issues: Identify previous project issues, current local planning issues for. the study area, and anticipated future issues based on growth projections. Document Community Concerns: Identify community concerns within the study area through public workshops, project comment sheets, questionnaires, and small group meetings. 1� Transportation Needs Study: Identify existing and future transportation needs in the study area based on existing and projected development and travel demand. Alternatives Identification: Develop and evaluate preliminary alignments for the proposed project. Prepare alignments for public review and input during the second citizens informational workshop. Second Citizens Informational Workshop: Hold second citizens informational workshop to present the preliminary alignments and receive public input for the selection of the alternatives for detailed study. FOR MORE INFORMA TION Write: North Carolina Department of Transportation Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop Corridor Study P.O. Box 30923 Raleigh, NC 27622 Call: Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop Corridor Study Hotline (Toll Free) 1 -800 -554 -7849 - North Caro -. 2-0. Carolina Department of Transportation DURHAM NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY State Project No. 6.358001T (R -2630 & R -2631) PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE AND COMMENT SHEET Citizens Informational Workshops - September 18 & 19, 1991 1. Is there a need for the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop (Eno Drive) and why? 2. What are the important issues that need to be addressed in the environmental impact study? 3. What factors are most important in selecting the location of a new roadway? 4. If the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop (Eno Drive) is built, what kind of road would you desire (please specify speed limit, number of lanes, overpasses, interchanges, traffic signals, sidewalks, median type, bicycle lanes, etc.)? S. There is a study area map in the center of this form. Please draw your suggestion fo- ,7e location of the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop (Eno Drive) on this map. Also, please indicate any areas which should be avoided and why. `? 1. 6. Should driveway entrances be permitted along this road (entrance types, how frequently, etc.)? 7. Additional Comments and Information: Please leave this questionnaire and comment sheet at the registration table or mail form to: NCDOT Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop Corridor Study P.O. Box 30923 Raleigh, NC 27622 Name _ Address City /State/Zip Group or Organization Please add my name to the project mailing list. vp Q L N m Yjti 22 I ' ,00 3HC'M I �r-NVHVM H Q ' i. Q ' � pURp{A�NTY �ANGE w x= OZO as vp Q L N m Yjti 22 I ' ,00 3HC'M I �r-NVHVM H Q ' i. Q ' � pURp{A�NTY �ANGE w 45 23 i H i H O t A '`�� Z U I a m p E C p O a y t 0 p LW CDC '''O c m m e m C ti 4-1 ?2 Q 7'� m Cn L�_ a 3 a °^o ' c a s v d ° U o ff} a� a. m 3 �n .p � O ai C (sa m o � m a e x U ii it I z m L r a U o O =r �$g$$o =°oro o 4 w Q U LL m a QD Q D a y c b `- O ��� U v0 m co m V o a c: .� � x g' dam 0 C� a+ m N s/7 O Cc _d a t Naw > s CL Z ec C" ca y N N _� � d Y = M 3D`0 � Z /� Q W I a) E m m Z4 W ca K .0 Q o 2 L a n M. m © Z' M. .� 10 CL FL- 3 i°n C m D 0 45 Co Ln (n a 0 a Q LU L1�L- = %doL) 0 = z �-: = 0 cf) :5. `r Lu CC n= CL LU w 0 W Z 0 U U) LU Z C z O C U 0 J r LL D Q c ° d CL C` Q � r °f Cc U. m H fx LL J 0 c 33 O p` O o �i � Li a U a A a% $ c� � °a> � � � y ❑ Cn U = ti � as r� O 2 r O a U J¢rn c �o ' Obi � ro is LU M c o c_o' T U • u ro 0 a CL � � � ❑ ro o LU a) LL d W?' d � � LL 0 � r- C •� C O Q L E vii i ; 3 8 e� d. g aocL:cj w Z n a- a @ a 0 a Q LU L1�L- = %doL) 0 = z �-: = 0 cf) :5. `r Lu CC n= CL LU w 0 W Z 0 U U) LU Z C z O C U 0 J r LL D Q c ° d CL C` a pp pp iv M Cc U. m H fx � .P �' cnn ° obi 0 c 33 O p` O o �i � Li a U a A a% $ c� � °a> � � � y 8 Z d) E p w ro 4 3 � LY C v� = � C� t0 ti � as r� O 2 r O a a to �o ' Obi � ro is tm M c o c_o' T U • u ro 0 a CL � � � ❑ ro o E a) LL d W?' d � � 0 L a L'N N.4 0 � r- C •� C O az�e L E vii i ; 3 8 e� d. g aocL:cj w Z n a- a @ IL 0 = U $�o� Ef) a pp pp W U) U w •� O CL .. ,. ZL 0 o. a a CL �o LL tm T U • u ro 0 S"l 4 0 0 �Lxz E o 0 L a L'N N.4 N Cn o w(nC%) 0 az�e ti rn w Z n a- a @ ers 1 E x o IL QUO w ,_ U7 Z0w� CD `5 cc a �?GZ V = rJ d O ;z 0 w — .[] v C -9�! d .0 2 R�mbaaa�LLU)LT $�o� Ef) E W U) U c 3 0 ZL a a CL U -pa c EE U oV� a n 8 a S"l m�co CL:Z s z z 4�`mCa8507 aLLLLL.L -74 E L- 0 d a a c ers 1 E SU�� U7 croo ro CD `5 cc a V = rJ d — .[] v C -9�! d .0 2 R�mbaaa�LLU)LT M 0 co U Zmz0CL iL Cr�cUr�i- O Z U- E O 5 H u � LU Y CZ c Q C.) u! O � tp G 79 C s `a C L o O � T tr •� •- ❑ E Q °' (J1 kLL cz Cr izf r� m m S2 � E psj T e� C77 U Qo 'w U U O ❑ C] tl 87 4�`mCa8507 aLLLLL.L -74 r r 0 U n qri cri a� u7 o M U ❑ of W x J U cn [[ N W 0% w LL. W � O O Y O U czjr� 0 W W 0. } Q x O W U z a a U to LU O z d z Q t- d U O J m p O p e ID O o •I'Y as O p O Q CD LO O Q z H N .-1 f1 RIC N M x z Hy r_h ~ 0 y X ul y H U M u - O U I I aU i IA 1 N %D x 00 O F b U N O la x t+ 0 IA ..x uU acc zz 00 U H A OG x RG •T a OF yak .G S (a1 O aa++ U ya * wa a aU fn N N r r v x w e xz fA .. Dy W .a oz6yu E v T ►4iWn FzW 0 u 1C 14 ac �a5 k I, )-Z nWN z w 0° N N 1 M a I M p 0 CD z O N h U 0 a F t!1 x O u W� F y Q a O 00 4 '+ N O O v N lD r H H N M Aa UU M m O ti N Ln z ?+ W y� a�a w OU y F G y FW any Fg .dz C y ra •w �.a z +• z O "F W O f1 I 1 N O O p O p e ID O o •I'Y as O p O Q CD LO Q NQ H N .-1 f1 N N M x z Hy 0 y 0 00 OG y F- E-4 U U u - •U U I I aU O IA O N %D IA N z CA to m ?+ z W ►pi N ID OI N O 4 Q O w u %D O v 7 � [u t U 00 Q w N N r1 W ul W 5 ((A p z • y u A "0 O O p O p e ID O o •I'Y as O p O Q CD LO Q NQ H N .-1 f1 N N M y y y v OG y F- E-4 U U AIL U •U U aU O IA O N %D IA N 117 to fp N ID OI N O V1 N Q N %D O v 7 � to b r Q w N N r1 IA ul z • y P7y y }}.. F F b CL' Q H z .a o F a x �, Lnu zu cc pa F+u 1�- fOL�., ti pa�., 0alnwcy X64.. ., ~ (n -' UDDLp., a OW U OF p0 Y�UOaQ F 1 _C4 rzy.zH Cl) z A . a O.r Q co as m OQ i Fir m2d�taq r..► O .pl &n F l a n°f Z,4 .-f •: W • W E•'0 en W %az a:co=Q0. yCh O� = 3=0 zvi CG ay4 F a?4u —4 x of .4�.1� ma 0 o y�E+ yM 0:xm Lnn0u ?+9 I W ►aiM Wye IN a O G 4oz u 0. = [A. x ra p 7 to a• Ed 0 ~ .T y W z�z waAC C! F oW rf D RY�o a aw Qz "o" X Z y n W u1 in E yOm 1-4 0 co Z .ti p0 A N oc°�oya xC4aG R:E`•' MM lz ' COa In � Q O r N N N 4 fr fD m .� N O .a N W e N a a ci a cc a 4 p N U'I N OIJ I M I& f71 P. Q x y p y A z 1 14 N x i 25 M U W cot CL. W Q f/f a ac W a U ❑ z o, P7 rn m 7+ a fa N A O Fr u 0 a N fn z O u A z O a N N b W 0 O W) n v aca .r D �A M D r w a� Q of F� oza z O LM tr Wl A U ~zba opw Qt .7 rN O Fla 4G z v+ AWw ■ N 1 a W F O O a w 2 z O H u Q a H Lei z O U a w 0 4 4 N 1fl 0� W) N to ! E E u aoa u O O N N O O O .r �p 4 P .-1 m Z H z w O vaFifnW 2 M (� t.7 F U H L) fr ►y .r .+0 z uFiwF •a3 U Aq �AN � OF00.' F�F mix acnc`'a a �avi FN ~7x fl fa-IA L�-4-1 -1 . 0z xw. NVm MN w1 -1 O a40 U0 P4 N N D p N N N O O 'y rl N O O N O O N w r ca U u1 Ln CA m r4 14 0 h O ui _,w0 in V) " 8 -ax x' ^U 'NF WU WTF F f!} zing yy r. in HR (a (n " �D 4 N N 0 A ay. U n N r w N N N O .rw N W N Cy 0 ca to NC W h N», wa C1 N n W 0 m f► N N N 0 r6 L] 5.6 z O u U Q a F H O U 0 D O 4 0 O 0000 O M r ptO m W N W fn f7 ctxaz y aoa90u (au O O O O O fh N N N F Ln z w a 2 M (� t.7 F U H L) z F U � F a u0 a FN -tA CD 0z xw. N r O P yn N N D p a I I 26 O F W O a a z a° e: O W [D[� r� Q A U A O N W 4 r CC O P w ^- a cw U . N ; Q J h u1 u� z W y � �Ar] Uh4 � a °W H�w04 W LaiAG r 0 Q L] N w ti yO 1-. J m `a O 1- u W N N W 4 w z u N W r Q s f W O LK 4 W a H ce N w E c U tw tw tD CTS Qi r7 rn N Rs rn 0 rn H z O U W z i 0 g � cu a O s! I 0 YW+ s+ Z 00 F a 11 }+ co I 1 2 >+ Z 40 O F H � 0 CG U N HFa z V * 04 «v v 0o v v N V H z go D m .4 � 4 O m In r V1 N �D a o� z o� aZo z N 0 N v u1 yW O HFr 0Ja a N . Fz cz.I�Util 0 - a`'4 Oz u HW O .0 =%3: atm e»00� S••W caMMM ►Oi z tW+1�C7?+ .p ym H.4 yera H Ha »~ aaw sww t Q N m v �e O N N a D W H O a O z F U Mp M as Uv w as o L°r F z M L+1 xU a� C4 H U0 Olean '.moo aa--u1 rl 11n %c Q%%uu 0 m O� .n �T r•1 y •• a �o FOL•. O n ._ 0 y E0-I a M �5z O 0WC-1 H�W �NW1Uz 3t..� O 4.T.O uyH� a zxrZ+F tnma NDI+M amxu U'►�41� .�•1 u0'1 tzil w cz moms m 0 O N D a N xa a0 W�a 4aJ U r w I m N 1 z O w F U 7 a H N 2 O U H 0 O a 0 O r aca O m O m 2 OF �a �w N W 23 Ln a4 •I a 4 0 a� HO H H � r � yz mN zW N 0 m N 1 A a a M a W QA 7 -1 v o 0 0 a 1n N O q m N U to a U 0 v N O O 4 rn N �e •� 4l H N tAto(1 «aW Lozz n I .7 to Ln F FCF N 14 >d u a as W U�4xa o •-•aM1.. N Do'toa oz -W w Nzw� `o� D zt7 m Q0 U zFOy.t a O v to N N tp b b z x' a a w W a v 5 27 h N m n o rna as am as e >- >4 >4 G. H ?+ IL GH. WLr W� y G i. h. O � U- L4t L..W �• O 1 1 I I I I ! 1 ! tJ y O F- dc0 -00 OcO 40 OF zF H F F H: 013 O� Oa O� Oa ,U Q Hy Hy FN FN CL G l7a C7= IF =o Q uz ML) z aU cGU CO.!� 0 W) U) 00 wo m '- . rn NO NN •p .ti U N to m m N W V) .�� .rw ........ ....... to C C d N rn t,. (a. N Y J CLU aU aU aU U O W x O V O co b H .-1 W O to O %0 e� O� N n %0 Cr. N 1n m to C7 z w x 0 w � N« vl m of u O ~ t37 G O z y4 W O W 0 U ?4 W + a Imo M m CO 0 .� W N W v ao a U Ca � 0 OD LIJ ti c, 9. z H O a LCLI � W 14 Wm u1 Cl. 0m LU d C> �4W~ cQ 0n < 0 (a Uzi W > 7 N X41 E G' LS 41% [a��=to 4toU Oat (7 O U to - 0Z0z W �U W 4 m o a ct U_ C, P C LIN N N w N ! N I N N r m ! I — N m n o � ull z N .� y L4 . . . . .... .... kL ------------ OZ. zz ai S- ME N, F wo- M 7 z� *2 8 Durham Northwest & Northeast Loop Corridor Study Legend F" M LAI 1� I C�� Study boundary for area inside Orange County Residential Steep slopes ()15%) 100 year floodplain Eno River State Park SCALE I MKE taw o rood low *MW •0W beau 6W lone . ......... Mr D W T 10R$-91 Planning Board Minutes CRAFT 29 (1) CP -3 -91 American Stone Company (2) CP -4 -91 New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan AGENDA ITEM #7: PLANNING HOARD ITEMS a. Impact Fees For Public School Facilities 10 b. Durham NW /NE Loop Corridor Study Presentation by Marvin Collins. This item is to formulate a recommendation to the County Commissioners on the location of the proposed Northwest Loop lying in Orange County. The Northwest /Northeast Loop (also known as Eno Drive) was first delineated in the 1964 Durham Thoroughfare Plan and has been retained in subsequent thoroughfare plans. It would consist of a multi -lane roadway on new and existing alignments. The western terminus would interchange with I -85 approximately 1,000 feet west of the Durham /Orange County line and connect with NC 751 at its intersection with US 70. It circles a portion of the Durham urban area on the north and east and ends along US 70 between Miami Boulevard and the Durham /Wake County line. The proposed project is needed to reduce existing traffic congestion in and around the urban areas of north and east Durham and increase the overall system capacity of the existing traffic network based on projected travel demand. The project is included in the 1991 -97 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for right -of -way acquisition and construction after 1997. NCDOT is in the first phase of a six -phase study. The study will identify potential routes for the proposed loop, including alternative corridor evaluations, preliminary engineering, traffic analysis, and environmental evaluations. Once these studies are complete, a draft Environmental Impact Statement will be produced and a Corridor Location Public Hearing will be held. Following the hearing, a final selection of a preferred alternative will be made, and a final EIS will be prepared. Collins indicated the location of the corridor on a map (a copy of this map was included in the DRAFT agenda materials and is an attachment to these minutes on page ). He also indicated the intersections and interchanges with US 15 -501, I -85, US 70 and NC 751 on the maps and explained the proposed alignment of roads. The Planning.Staff recommended the selection of a corridor that does not adversely impact environmentally sensitive areas, existing residential uses, or historic sites in Orange County. Eidenier expressed concern that NC 751 would be widened. Collins responded that it would not be four -laned but better aligned. The Board continued expressing the concern that there would be considerable increase in traffic. MOTION: Eidenier moved that Eno Drive intersect with the East /West Expressway in Durham County. Seconded by Hoecke. Jobsis asked if the Planning Staff agreed that the corridor should not come into Orange County. Collins responded that would be preferred, but, if it must come into Orange County that it stay east of the Eno River. Reid asked how close the corridor was.already to the East /West Expressway. Collins directed the Board to a map (an attachment to these minutes on page ) that indicated alignment could be accomplished. Eidenier made an addition to the motion as follows: "rather than intersect with NC 751 and, also, that the road be east of the Eno River as it runs through Orange County." Burklin noted that he would also like to recommend better alignment with the East /West Freeway and US 15 -501 in Durham County rather than US 70. AMENDED MOTION: The Planning Board recommends that the roadway be located such that it is better aligned with US 15 -501 and the East /West Expressway rather than NC 751 and that it be in Durham County rather than Orange County. VOTE: Unanimous. 30 ORANGE COUNTY- COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HTT-I SBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY. JR. STEPHEN H. HALKIOTIS JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E ' MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT October 22, 1991 Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch N.C. Department of Transportation P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 -5201 31 L AIM V SUBJECT: DURHAM NORTHWEST /NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY Dear Mr. Ward: The Orange County Planning Board met on October 8, 1991 to consider a recommendation on the Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop Corridor Study. In their deliberations, the Planning Board expressed concern about potential adverse impacts on the Eno River State Park, extensive areas of steep slope, and existing residential development in the corridor study area. They recommended to the Board of Commissioners that the terminus of the proposed Northwest Loop be located in Durham County where it would be better aligned with US 15 -501 and the,ggst /West Expressway. The Orang4 County.Board of.Commiss- ioners met in regular session on the abovo- referenced date to consider the study and to receive the;Planning:Board recommendation. The Board of Commissionera:.concurs with the Planning Board recommendation and requests that the corridor study area be moved eastward consistent with the Planning Board recommendation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this subject. Sincerely,. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners DK9:LOOP- LTR.DOC h.4 r O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 224 1991 Action Agenda Item #, & SUBJECT: Zoning Enforcement Cases - Recommendations on Civil Penalties for Zoning Cases DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND PUBLIC HEARING: INSPECTIONS ATTACHMENTS: Synopses of Four Zoning Cases Photographs will be available at the meeting Yes xx No INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Hinkley Extension 2584 TELEPHONES NUMBERS: Hillsborough Durham Chapel Hill Mebane 732 -8181 688 -7331 968 -4501 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To request the Board of County Commissioners to make demand for payment of civil penalties for continuing zoning violations. BACKGROUND: Four zoning cases have not been resolved after due procedure. These cases are presented for the Board's consideration to make demands for payments of civil penalties. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Administration recommends that the Board of County Commissioners take the following ac- tions. Make demand for payment of civil penalties in the following zoning violation cases. #86 Herman Ivan and Juanita C. Brown #110 Jack L. Hurley #116 Benjamin Pratt #119 John Clayton 1 2 SYNOPSIS OF FOUR ZONING CASES CASES RECOMMENDED FOR DEMANDING PAYMENT'OF CIVIL PENALTIES Brown Case ( 186) Summary Location: Northwest corner of Erwin and Dry Creek Roads Zoning: Rural Buffer (RB) Violation: Storage of goods, outdoors and in semi.- trail- ers, including materials collected on a regu- lar basis from greenboxes in Chatham, Durham, and Orange Counties. Background: Through visions and dreams, the Browns state that they have been 'called by the Lord to go through the contents of greenboxes to recover whatever can be recycled.' They bring their findings back to their property at Erwin and Dry Creek Roads. Much is stored in their home, outside, and in surrounding accessory buildings, and even more is stored in an in- creasing number of old semi -- trailers -- -ten at last count. The materials continue to mount as regular trips are made to greenboxes to garner recyclables. The Browns do not sell them. They claim they have been told to keep them. Recently, they stated that they have been told to move to their land in Warren County and take the collected materials with them. An anonymous complaint about the violation was received on August 1, 1990. At that time the Browns said they were planning to sell their property through Mr. Nick Bagshawe, agent for Dan Wiegers Realty of Durham. The Zoning Officer agreed not to set a date for bringing the property into compliance and to allow time for selling the property. This was agreed to, with the promise that the Browns would pack -up and remove all of their accumulated trash and junk from the premises when they sold the property. They said it would be moved to Warren County. The Browns were unable, however, to come to an agreement with a prospective buyer, and in early November 1990, the Wiegers firm decided to no longer handle the property for them. The first zoning violation letter was then sent to the Browns on November 29, 1990. In response, Ms. Brown called on December 3, 1990, to ask if it would be acceptable to q have -the trash and junk removed by April 8, 1991. Assurances were given by the Browns that the move would be completed by that date. The date was acceptable to the Zoning Officer. The clean -up, however, was not accomplished by April S. Therefore, on April 10, 1991, a second letter was sent with a new deadline for clean -up set for May 27, 1991. However, on April 20, 1991, Mr. Brown visited the Planning and Inspections Offices to request that another 30 days be given to complete the work. It was granted. And once again in late May, Ms. Brown asked for another exten- sion until July 31, 1991. On August 5, 1991, field inspection revealed that no outwardly detectable progress had been made to bring the property into compli- ance. On that date, Ms. Brown stated that they now had ten semi - trailers located on the premises all loaded with recycled material collected from greenboxes located in Orange, western Durham, and northern Chatham Coun- ties. At that time, in anger she said that the County was harassing her and standing in the way of the Lord's work. She said that they could not afford to rent a tractor to pull the trailers to Warren County. Status: As of September 26, 1991, the land had yet to be sold, and there are now questions as to whether the property is still on the market and whether the Browns are serious about sel- ling it. Further, there is doubt about the Brown's interest in bringing the use of the property into compliance. Filing Date: August 1, 1990 Date Civil Penalties Began: May 28, 1991 Accumulated Civil Penalties as of September 26, 1991: $12,200 4 Huriez Case 110 Summary Location: Off West Ten with access via Squires Road Violation: Storage of junked motor vehicles outdoors Background: Neighbors complained of accumulating junked motor vehicles in pasture land on the Hurley property. Mr. Hurley was contacted on April 10, 1991, about the violation. He was requested to have the vehicles removed on or before May 13, 1991. Progress to remove the junked motor vehicles began and continued for a per- iod of time, but full compliance was not achieved. Field inspection on July 22, 1991, revealed that ten junked motor vehicles remained on the property. On August 1, 1991, Mr. Hurley was contacted again because work to remove the vehicles had ceased. He was given a new date to complete the removal - -on or before September 2, 1991. No evidence of attempts to comply have seen. Status: Although some progress to correct the viola- tion took place at a slow but consistent pace after the first letter, there has been no ap- parent progress in recent months. The pro- perty remains in violation. Filing Date: April 1, 1991 Date Civil Penalties Began: September 3, 1991 Accumulated Civil Penalties as of September 26, 1991: $2,300 1 t. Lj Pratt Case 116 summary Location: Just east of Calvander at 431 Dairyland Road violation: An automobile restoration (primarily for VW Beetles) and repair business being operated in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district, and Storage of junked motor vehicles and automo- tive parts and wreck remnants outdoors. Background: Two neighbors - -one anonymous - -have complained of vermin and snakes, noise, and storage of junked motor vehicles and parts, including: engines, fenders, hoods, trunk lids, front- ends, chassis, axles, tires, oil and other fluids, paints, machine tools, scrap metal, and general trash on the property. Mr. Pratt was sent a certified letter about the violations on April 26, 1991. He was asked to correct the violation by June 17, 1991. The Postal Service tried to deliver the letter over a period of three weeks, but was unable to do so. On August 1, 1991, Pratt was sent another letter, of which he acknowledged receipt. In it he was directed to correct the violations on or before September 2, 1991. Status: To this date (September 26, 1991), there has been no perceivable evidence of activities toward correcting the violations. Filing Date: April.22, 1991 Date Civil Penalties Began: September 3, 1991 Accumulated Civil Penalties as of September 26, 1991: $2,300 R Clayton Case (9116 ) Summary Location: Clayton's Body Shop, 1404 Buckhorn Road violation: Commercial use (a body shop and junked motor vehicle storage) of property zoned Rural Residential (R -1), beyond a commercial zoning lot. The outside storage of junked motor vehicles is not permitted in the R -1 dis- trict. Background: Claytons Body Shop is located on a 200' X 200' commercial zoning lot (Existing Commer- cial EC -5), which is situated on a 5.12 -acre parcel. A number of anonymous neighbors have complained about junked motor vehicles being moved and stored beyond the zoning lot lim- its. It is estimated that the area used ille- gally in the R -1 portion of the parcel is 3- 4 times larger than the EC -5 zoning lot. A number of conversations about the zoning violations going back to November 1990 have been held with Mr. Clayton. He made promises to rectify the violation, but there has been little or no action on his part. with no action forthcoming, a letter was sent on May 28, 1991, stating that the property was to have been brought into compliance on or be- fore July 1, 1991. At the end of June 1991, Mr. Clayton's father came to the Planning and Inspections Depart- ment to report that his son was burned in an accident. Clayton was hospitalized at Duke Medical Center for over a month. The dead- line to remove the junked motor vehicles on the R -1 land was temporarily lifted by the Zoning officer. On August 5, 1991, Mr. Clayton was back on the job. He promised on that day that he would begin moving vehicles to correct the violation. For the second time he was given the names of a number of contractors who would buy the vehicles for him. Status: To this date (September 26, 1991), there has been no perceivable evidence of activities toward correcting the violation. Filing Date: November 19, 1990 Date civil Penalties Began: September 3, 1991 Accumulated Civil.Penalties as of September 26, 1991: $2,300 Z O R AN G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22 1991 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 6.27 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment Chapter 246 - 1991 Session Law 8/26/91 Public Hearing Minutes 9/16/91 Planning Board Minutes (draft) 1 Action Agenda Item # V30- H PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo extension 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment which would allow application of density bonus provisions for affordable housing to all residential development projects. BACKGROUND 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. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on August 26, 1991. One citizen spoke in favor of the proposal. There were no other comments. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on September 16, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. v PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2 ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 6.27 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle _X —Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC BEARING DATE: August 26, 1991 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To allow approval of a density increase for all residential development projects subject to the Zoning Ordinance which will provide affordable housing through contractual agreements or land donation. IMPACTS /ISSUES: 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. The Orange County portion of Chapter 246 of the 1991 Session Laws 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. The proposed amendment below is shown in crass - out /underline form. No substantive changes are proposed. The affordable housing provisions would: 1) be moved from Article 7 (Planned Developments) to Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements), and 2) references to their applicability to Planned Developments would be expanded to include Site Plans, Special Use Permits, and Preliminary Plats. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Article 6 - ApRlication of Dimensional Requirements Article 7.14 -wed Develoyin rtt Meus"9L f ei ff) 6.27 Affordable- Housing 6!27.1 Density Increase Permitted 3 An increase in density may be permitted for 3*arrned Bevelopments developments which provide on -site or off -site housing opportunities for low- or moderate- income households. A contract shall be approved by the County Attorney and the Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as a condition of permit Site Plan, Special Use Permit, or Subdivision approval guaranteeing that the reserved units will be purchased by or rented to qualifying households, and shall be binding for a period of not less than 15 years from the date on which the unit is first occupied. The reserved lots or rental units shall be indicated on the site plan or Preliminary Plan. 6.27.2- Applicability a) A density bonus may not be approved for a F3tr*ed project located within any Water Supply Watershed designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. b) A 25% density bonus for duplex or multi- family units may be approved if: i. A minimum of 40% of the units are to be rented to families earning less than 60% of Orange County median income, adjusted for family size, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Hereinafter, "median income "). CO-0 ii. A minimum of 20% of the units are to be rented to families earning less than 50% of median income; or c) A 25% density bonus for single - family residential development may be approved if the greater of two (2) units or all of the bonus - units are to be sold to families earning less than 80% of median income; or d) A 25% density bonus for single - family residential development may be approved if land with suitable soils or access to public water-and sewer is donated to Orange County for the purpose of the development.of affordable housing. The donated land shall contain at a minimum the land area needed to develop the greater of two (2) units or the total number of the bonus units, in accordance with the zoning requirements of the district in which the donated land is located, or with minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet in unzoned areas; or e) A 50% density bonus may be approved if at least 20% of the units are to be occupied by families earning less than 50% of median income and the remaining 80% of units are occupied by families earning less than 80% of median income. This bonus shall not apply to lands which have been donated to Orange County in exchange for a density bonus pursuant to d) above. 6.27.3 Contract for Sale %L—Single-fAmily Residences Approval of the Special Use Permit, site Rlan, or Preliminary plat shall not occur until there is a contract between the property owner and Orange County, which shall also be binding on future owners of the reserved lots. The contract shall be administered by (HCD), and shall include the following provisions: a) All sales and resales shall be approved by HCD to assure ownership by qualifying buyers in accordance with the following eligibility criteria. i) Family income, as defined in Article 22 of this Ordinance, at the time of purchase shall not exceed the limits set forth in Article 6.27.2. Qualifying buyers may also own up to $10,000 in net assets, as defined in Article 22 of this Ordinance, at the time of purchase. At least one member of a qualifying household must have lived or worked in Orange County for the past 12 months. b. The contract shall apply to each of the reserved lots, and shall continue to affect a particular lot for a minimum period of 15 years after the initial sale of that lot. C. There shall be no occupancy of the unit prior to its sale.to a qualifying buyer. 4 r d. The contract shall include a timeline by.which construction and sale of the reserved units will be accomplished. e. The resale price of any reserved housing unit shall not, at any time during the life of the contract, exceed the maximum amount affordable to the purchasing household. f. The maximum sale or resale price shall be determined by HCD, calculated by using HUD modeling for housing affordability. HUD modeling takes into consideration assumptions such as interest rates, percentage of annual income allowed for housing, and amount of down ,payment. g. in the event that the financial status of the buyer significantly improves prior to the expiration of the contract period, the buyer may lease the unit, provided that the lessee and the lease are approved by HCD. HCD shall use the standards set forth in Article 6.27.4 to determine whether or not to approve the lease. in addition, the term of the lease shall be for a minimum period of two years. h. Violation of any of the terms of the contract required by this ordinance may constitute grounds for revocation of the Special Use Permit and rezoning of the land, as provided in Article 7.9 of this Ordinance Certificate of Occupancy. 6.27.4,_ _Contract for Rental of Duplex or Multi - family Units Approval of the Special Use Permit, site plan, or Preliminary Plat shall not occur until there is a contract between the property owner or developer and Orange County, which shall also be binding on future owners of the development. The contract shall be administered by HCD, and shall include the following provisions: a) All rentals shall be assure occupancy by accordance with the criteria. approved by (HCD) to qualifying households in following eligibility i) Family income, as defined in Article 22 of this Ordinance, at the time of purchase shall not exceed the limits set forth in Article 7 74 4 6.27.2. Qualifying renters may also own up to $5,000 in net assets, as defined in Article 22 of this Ordinance, at the time of initial rental. 5 6.27.5 6 At least one member of a qualifying , household must have lived or worked in Orange County for the past 12 months. iii) Families whose income increases above the eligibility requirements may continue to occupy the rental unit, unless otherwise required through terms of the rental agreement between the lessor and lessee. b. Every change in occupancy during the 15 -year term of the contract shall be approved by HCD to assure continued compliance with eligibility criteria. C. The maximum rent allowed shall be computed by 'multiplying the applicable percentage of median income by the value of median income at the time of the transaction, then multiplying the resulting value by the maximum percentage of income spent for housing, as recommended by the mortgage banking industry.- The value for median income used in calculating maximum allowable rent shall be adjusted to reflect the maximum family size appropriate for the number of bedrooms, as determined by HCD. Disclosure of_Contract Terms to Potential Home - B_ uyers a) Staff from the Planning Department and the Department of Housing and Community Development shall meet with the prospective buyer prior to the purchase to assure that all terms of the contract are fully understood. Explanation.of the terms of the contract shall include the following implication: i. Building permits for the improvements to the structure may be obtained if the owner wishes to remodel or construct an addition, or construct accessory structures. However, there is no assurance that the investment will be regained if the unit is sold prior to the expiration of the contract due to the requirement that it.be purchased by a moderate income household. b) Home - ownership counseling shall be made available to first -time buyers to provide information on such topics as insurance and maintenance. The counseling shall be provided by the Department of Housing and Community Development. 6_27.6 Conveyance of Property`to Orange County_ Land donated to orange County pursuant to Article 6.27.2.d to enable a developer to obtain a•density bonus shall be donated in trust for the purpose of the development of'affordable housing. An agreement between the developer and Orange County and the instruments of conveyance shall insure this trust as determined by the County Attorney. *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: R Ccll'�� J U N 2 fl t°3t GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA 1991 SESSION RATIFIED BILL CHAPTER 246 SENATE BILL 623 AN ACT TO MAKE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO LAWS APPLICABLE IN ORANGE AND CHATHAM COUNTIES. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: TITLE I. ORANGE COUNTY. Part 1. Orange County Land Use and Development. Section 1. The First paragraph of G.S. 153A- 331(a), as applicable to Orange County because of Sections 17 and 17.1 of Chapter 460 of the 1957 Session Laws, reads as rewritten: "A subdivision control ordinance may provide for the orderly growth and development of the county; for. the coordination of streets and highways within proposed subdivisions with existing or planned streetS and highways and with other public facilities; for the dedication or reservation of recreation areas serving residents of the C subdivision and residents of the immediate area within which the subdivision is located and of rights -of -way or easements for street and utility purposes including the dedication of rights -of -way pursuant to G.S. 136 -66.10 or G.S. 136- 66.11; and for the distribution of population and traffic in a manner that will avoid congestion and overcrowding and will create conditions essential to public health, safety, and the general welfare. The ordinance may include requirements that the final plat show sufficient data to determine readily and reproduce accurately on the ground the location, bearing, and length of ever% street and alley line, lot line, easement boundary line, and other property boundar ies. including the radius and other data for curved property lines, to an appropriate accuracy and in conformity with good surveying practice. A subdivision control ordinance may provide that a developer may be re aired to provide Funds to the county whereby the county may acquire and develop recreational land or areas to serve the development or subdivision, including the purchase of land which may be used to serve more than one subdivision or development within the immediate area. A subdivision control ordinance may define immediate area by reference to a com rehensive system of arks and recreation areas within the count%." Sec. I G.S. 153A -340, as applicable to .Orange County because of Sections 18 and 18.1 of Chapter 460 of the 1987 Session Laws, is amended by adding a new subsection (al) to read: " al Density bonus. For the ur ose� of increasin the availability of housing fa- er ons of low and m derate income. and thereby promoting the oublic health. sare!V and welfare. a count% may rant a density bonus or provide other incentives of eguivalent financial value ' to a developer of housin within the county if tht developer a rees: LU To construct at least 40 percent 40°b of the total duplex or multifamily units of a housing develol2ment for rent to oersons and l 9 families earning less than sixrv: percent (60°1c) of Oranze County mer.ian income. adjusted for fami!v size. as determined by the U.S. De,3artment of Housing nd Urban Development (hereinafter 'median income'): To construct at least twenty percent_ (300,0 of the total duplex or multifamily units of a housinz development for rent to families earning !ess than fift�,nercent (50`c) of median income: To construct the greirer of two or all of the bonus of the total single family residential units of a housing development for sale to arsons and families earnin • less than eighty percent (80'0 ) of the median income: or (� To donate land to Orange County to be used for the rLU. ose of the development of affordable housing, ..provided that the land donated must have suitable soils or acce s to Qublic water and sewer and he �ufficien.t in size for the greater of two or all the bgnUs Units. For the purposes of this subsection. 'density bonus' means a density increase of at least twenty -fie percent (? 4H over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the n . nlicnhle zoning classification- The density bonus shall not be includes', when determinim; the nurriher of _-loosing units that constitutes the _minimum required to be made avciilable to low and moderate Income housin_ts." Sec. 3. G.S. 153A -342 reads as rewritten: "§ 1-53A -342. Districts, zoning less than entire jurisdiction. A county may divide its territorial iurisdiction into districts of any number, shape, and area that it may consider best suited to carry out the purposes of this Part. Within these districts a county may regulate and restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, or use of buildings, structures, or land. Such districts may include, but shall not be limited to, general use districts, in which a variety of uses are permissible in accordance with general standards, overlay districts. in which additional requirements are imposed on certain properties within one or more underlving general or special use districts. and special use districts or conditional use districts. in. which uses are permitted only upon the issuance of a special use permit or a conditional use permit- Property may be placed in a special use district or conditional use district onl%- in response to a petition by the owners of ail the property to be included. Except as authorized by the foregoing, and by G.S. .153A-1-10. all regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building throughout each district. ►)tat the recuiations in one district may differ from those in other districts. A county may determine that the pubic interest does not require that the entire territorial jurisdiction of [iIt county be zoned and may designate one or more portions of that jurisdiction as a zoning area or areas. A zoning area must originally contain at least 6.10 acres and at least 10 sepparatc tracts of land in separate ownership and may thereafter be expanded b� the addition of any amount of territorv. A zoning area may be rezulated in the same mariner as if the entire county «ere zoned, and the remainder of the county need not be regulated." Sec. 4. G.S. 1 b0A -4U % ready as -rexk ritien: 1 160A -407. Definitions. (a) For the purpose of this Part an 'open space' or 'open area' is any space or area ,- (1) characterized by great natur 1 scenic beauty err (ii) whose existing openness, natural condition. or present state of use, if retained, would enhance the present or potential value of abutting or surroundinL, urban development, or would maintain or enhance the conservation of natural or scenic !,ect;- resources. (iii) that would assure. preserve. and protect watershed areas as a basic asset and natural_ resource so Senate Bill 623 10 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 Rights (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), to receive citizen comment. See 4 (a) for the presentation and motion. 11 a caretaker position in the efficiency apartment. Discussion followed regarding what is an addition 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 O R A N G E -C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 1 Action Agenda Item # Mg SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS (Efficiency Apartments) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment 8/26/91 Public Hearing Minutes 9/16/91 Planning Board Minutes (draft) INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Kelly Extension 2593 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider an amendment to the definition of an efficiency apartment in Article 22 to be consistent with the definition of a dwelling unit in Article 22. BACKGROUND: On August 6, 1990, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance definition amendment which allows greater flexibility in the location of an efficiency apartment. An efficiency apartment, a dwelling unit, may be attached or detached provided certain requirements are met. It is stipulated that the unit must comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code. However, it was not the intent of the original amendment to allow only "stick- built" dwelling units but, rather, all types of dwelling units. By definition, this includes mobile homes and modular units. (Mobile homes and modular units must comply with the State of North Carolina Regulations for Manufactures /Mobile homes.) Staff has interpreted the definition of an efficiency apartment to include mobile homes and modular units. The proposal was presented for public hearing on August 26, 1991. There were no citizen comments. There were several comments by Commissioner Gordon pertaining to consistency with other ordinance provisions which address having more than one mobile home on a single lot. Aside from the efficiency apartment provisions, there 2 have been two circumstances (other than use by farm workers) under which a second mobile home could be permitted on a single lot. First, temporary use of a mobile home for custodial care of a family member may be approved as a C1ass'B special Use. Second was an administrative practice to allow a mobile home as a second unit in unzoned townships, provided that the mobile home was occupied by a family member. This practice was initiated to provide the unzoned townships with a provision equivalent to the Class B Temporary Use Permit. Problems with attempted abuses, and difficulty in monitoring who actually lived in.the structure were encountered repeatedly. The practice was discontinued in 1990. The existing provisions relating to efficiency apartments were proposed at about the same time that the latter practice was discontinued. The efficiency apartment definition is administratively applied to the unzoned townships as well, and provides a means of addressing some situations which could have been allowed under the prior administrative practice. Efficiency apartments are limited to a size of 800 square feet. This size is smaller than most single - family residences, yet is large enough to comfortably accommodate a handicapped individual. There is an underlying assumption that this size limit will effectively limit the number of occupants to 1 or 2. Traffic generation is expected to be about half of that generated by residences of a more average size. The impacts are expected to be the same for all types of efficiency apartments, whether attached or detached, or mobile or stick - built. Although there are several provisions which may allow placement of a second mobile home on a lot, the provisions serve different purposes and circumstances are not found by staff to be in conflict. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on September 16, 1991. After some discussion for clarification, the Board recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. V PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS (Efficiency Apartments) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x_ Staff BOCC Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Comment: Planning Board Public EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 26, 1991 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: Middle Low To amend the definition of an efficiency apartment in Article 22 to be consistent with the definition of a dwelling unit in Article 22. IMPACTS /ISSUES: on August 6, 1990, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance definition amendment which allows greater flexibility in the location of an efficiency apartment. An efficiency apartment, a dwelling unit, may be attached or detached provided certain requirements are met. It is stipulated that the unit must comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code. However, it was not the intent of the original amendment to allow only "stick - built" dwelling units but, rather, all types of dwelling units. By definition, this includes mobile homes and modular units. (Mobile homes and modular units must comply with the State of North Carolina Regulations for Manufactures /Mobile homes.) Staff has interpreted the definition of an efficiency apartment to include mobile homes and modular units. EXISTING /PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Efficiency Apartment - An additional dwelling unit accessory to a single - family residence that meets the following criteria: 1. The efficiency unit contains no more than 800 square feet of gross floor area. 3 1 2. The lot meets the minimum lot size requirements of the � zoning district in which it is located. 3. The efficiency unit complies with the N.C. Residential Building Code including minimum light /ventilation and room sizes or State_gj North Carolina Reggig1tions for Mobile�M� ,fac_ured Homes. 4. The efficiency unit is accessory to the principal dwelling unit and may be attached or detached. 5. The efficiency unit is provided with an approved water supply and sanitary facilities. 6. The efficiency unit remains in the same ownership as the primary residence. There shall be no more than one (1) efficiency apartment, whether detached or attached on any lot. ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: July 9, 1991 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: t 204 9? located within an industrial district to be operated as a car sales business. Car sales are currently not permitted in any industrial district. The Orange County Economic Development Commission has been contacted and are not opposed to the request. The proposed amendment would allow car sales within all industrial districts (EI, I1,I2,I3). QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon asked why the Ordinance was not originally drawn up as it is currently worded. Betty Eidiener indicated the EDC stated that industrial areas usually have a higher use. The current proposed use is a lower one. However, this particular use falls around the boarder between the two and a case could be made for either use. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Insko, 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 0 b. Efficiency Apartments - Article 22 Definitions This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the definition of an efficiency apartment to clarify that a mobile home may be considered an efficiency apartment. On August 6, 1990, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance definition amendment which allows greater flexibility in the location of an efficiency apartment. An efficiency apartment may be attached or detached provided that the requirements found in the definition of "Efficiency Apartment" are met. The definition states that the unit must comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code. However, it was not the intent of the original amendment to allow only "stick - built" dwelling units but,' rather, all types of dwelling units. By definition, this includes mobile homes and modular units. (Mobile homes and modular units must comply with the State of North Carolina Regulations for Manufactures /Mobile homes.) The Proposed amendment adds the proper technical reference needed to accomplish the original intent of the Ordinance.. QUESTIONS AND OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon requested the language be clarified. She indicated that "efficiency apartment" has a certain meaning which confuses the reader in this context. She also suggested that staff review the entire Zoning Ordinance to assure that it is not contradictory as a result of changes which have been made. M A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board far 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 Ri hts (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), to receive citizen comment. See 4 (a) for the presentation and motion. c. Zoning ordinance Text Amendments (1) Vesting of Property Rights a. Article 22 - Definitions (Site Specific Development Plan, Vested Right) b. Article 14.3.2 - Site Plan Review c. Article 8.4.11 - Time Limits on Special Uses d. Article 8.8 - Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses e. Article 8.8.27 - Site Specific Development Plans (No further presentation was required on Items 19b(2) and 19c(1).) MOTION: Jobsis moved approval of the Planning Staff recommendation for Items #9b(2) and #9c(1). Seconded by Cantrell. VOTE: Unanimous. (2) Article 22 - Definitions (Efficiency Apartment) (No presentation was required.) Eidenier asked about Commissioner Gordon's concerns pertaining to consistency with other ordinance provisions which address having more than one mobile home on a single lot. Cameron responded that there are several provisions which may allow placement of a second mobile home on a lot, the provisions serve different purposes, and circumstances are not found by staff to be in conflict. This is not regulated by the zoning ordinance. Eidenier noted that, if this amendment is approved, property in a zoned township could contain two mobile homes and property in an unzoned township could only have one. Cameron agreed this was the case unless policy was changed. Waddell asked if the owner of the efficiency apartment must be the owner of the primary dwelling. Cameron responded yes. Eidenier noted that when the Ordinance Review Committee studied this issue, the intent was to assure that better maintenance care would be given to the efficiency apartment if it is owned by the owner of the primary residence. It could be in the nature of 8 a caretaker position in the efficiency apartment. Discussion followed regarding what is an addition 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 Surklin. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10 PLANNING BOARD ITEMS a. Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement O R A N G E C O U N T Y PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22 1991 1 Action Agenda Item #-)69L--M SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE (SECTION S25 - MOTOR VEHICLE SALES RENTAL (NEW & USED) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes —x—No ATTACHKENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Garrett Extension 2581 Proposed Ordinance Amendment Table of Permitted Uses for Section S25 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 8/26/91 Draft Public Hearing Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Minutes Durham - 688 -7331 9/16/91 Planning Board Minutes Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment in the Table of Permitted Uses to allow car sales in industrial districts. BACXGROUND: A citizen request was made to allow a specific parcel of land located within an industrial district to be operated as a car sales business. Car sales are currently not permitted in any industrial district. A poll was taken of four adjacent counties to determine if this use was allowed within their industrial districts. Of the counties contacted 2 allowed auto sales in all industrial districts, 1 in the Light (I -1) and Medium (I -2) Industrial Districts only and 1 does not allow the use in their industrial districts. Also, the Orange County Economic Development Commission has been contacted, and is not opposed to the request. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on September 16, 1991 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment, per the Planning Board recommendation. 2 t PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: SECTION S25, PERMITTED USE TABLE (MOTOR VEHICLE SALES RENTAL - NEW & USED) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC x Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 26, 1991 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To change the Permitted Use Table to allow auto sales in industrial districts. IMPACTS /ISSUES: A citizen made a request to allow a specific parcel of land located within an industrial district to be operated as a car sales business. The change would result in permitting a use of lesser intensity than is now associated with the district. A poll was taken of surrounding counties to determine if they allowed this use within their industrial districts. of the counties contacted 3 allowed auto sales in most or all industrial districts, while only 1 did not allow the use in any industrial district. The orange County Economic Development Commission was also contacted and are not opposed to the request. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: (See attached table) ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: June 6, 1991 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: September 16, 1991 BOCC REVIEW: 5 A imillillimmilm! PROLIC MEAPWM1 MIA(UM -6 Ss 4 P 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 around the stream and pumping the water to the caws. 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 would 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 Halkiotis, 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 69, 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 0�3q 5, � located within an industrial district to be operated as a car sales business. Car sales are currently not permitted in any industrial district. The Orange County Economic Development Commission has been contacted and are not opposed to the request. The proposed amendment would allow car sales within all industrial districts (El, I1,I2,I3). QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon asked why the Ordinance was not originally drawn up as it is currently worded. Betty Eidiener indicated the EDC stated that industrial areas usually have a higher use.- The current proposed use is a lower one. However, this particular use falls around the boarder between the two and a case could be made for either use. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by- Commissioner Insko, 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. Efficiency Apartments_- Article 22 Definitions This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the definition of an efficiency apartment to clarify that a mobile home may be considered an efficiency apartment. On August 6, 1990, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance definition amendment which allows greater flexibility in the location of an efficiency apartment. An efficiency apartment may be attached or detached provided that the requirements found in the definition of "Efficiency Apartment" are met. The definition states that the unit must comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code. However, it was not the intent of the original amendment to allow only "stick - built" dwelling units but, rather, all types of dwelling units. By definition, this includes mobile homes and modular units. (Mobile homes and modular units must comply with the State of North Carolina Regulations for Manufactures /Mobile homes.) The Proposed amendment adds the proper technical reference needed to accomplish the original intent of the Ordinance. QUESTIONS AND OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon requested the language be clarified. She indicated that "efficiency apartment" has a certain meaning which confuses the reader in this context. She also suggested that staff review the entire Zoning Ordinance to assure that it is not contradictory as a result of changes which have been made. PLANAJIAJ� 00A2D MIAJ E5 a caretaker position in the efficiency apartment. Discussion followed regarding what is an addition 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. anon=� (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 R z r r w 1 O RANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 22 1991 Action Agenda item # `Jill - h SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT SECTION IV- B- 7--b -6 - PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF DEDICATION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment 8/26/91 Public Hearing Minutes 9/16/91 Draft Planning Board Minutes Map of Recreation Service Areas 10/8/91 Draft Planning Board Minutes PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X_No INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Extension 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill- 967- 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations regarding the use of funds received from payments made in lieu of recreation dedication. BACKGROUND: 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 amendment to the General Statutes was requested to allow the County to use payment -in --lieu money in the same way that municipalities use that money in their jurisdictions. The state enabling legislation previously empowered cities and towns to acquire and develop recreation areas with payments made in lieu of land dedications, but equal power was not extended to counties in the General Statutes. As of June 10, 1991, Orange County obtained the same rights as municipali- ties with regard to the use of payment -in -lieu funds. _. K ____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 dedica- tion. During preliminary review of the proposed amendment, the question was raised by the Planning Board as to whether money generated from the sale of land dedicated for recreation purposes could also be used for development of recreation areas (refer to the last sentence of Section IV- B- 7 -b -6). The Subdivision Regulations state, "The Board of Commissioners shall also have the authority to sell land dedicated pursuant to these provisions with the proceeds of any such sale used solely for the acquisition of other recreation, park or open space sites within the immediate neighborhood within which the development is located." The change in the General Statutes does not affect this provision since the legislation refers specifically to the use of payments made in lieu of dedication, not to the use of money gained from the sale of County -owned lands. The proposed amendment was presented at public hearing on August 26, 1991. No citizen comments were received. During discussion of the proposed amendment on September 16, the Planning Board requested the following information on the amount of payments received to date per recreation service area. The table includes all major subdivisions approved since August 4, 1986, and all minor subdivisions approved since May 16, 1989. The totals are current as of September 5, 1991. Refer to the attached map for locations of service area boundaries. SERVICE AREA SUBDIVISIONS TOTAL FUNDS Cedar Grove Community Park 7 $ 577.00 Little River District Park 41 5631.20 Caldwell Community Park 7 557.66 University Station Community Park 9 2673.35 Rural Buffer District Park 36 17,817.80 White Cross Community Park 7 1944.00 Cane Creek District Park 15 2256.61 Efland Community Park 6 822.79 Seven Mile Creek District Park 32 5560.98 Hillsborgugh Community Park 0� 0 TOTAL. 160 $37,841.39 3 At the Planning Board meeting on October 8, 1991, MaryAnne Moore, Recreation and Parks Director, made a presentation describing how recreational facilities are currently funded by Orange County, and how payment -in -lieu funds could be used if the Subdivision Regulations are amended. She stated that money collected from subdividers in lieu of land dedication could only be used to acquire land or to develop a recreational facility, not for operation or maintenance of such a park or facility (see 10/8/91 draft minutes) . The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section IV -B -7- b-6 of the Subdivision Regulations. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Section IV- B -7 -b -6 of the Subdivision Regulations. 4 PROPOSED.ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Section IV- B -7 -b -6 - Payments in Lieu of Dedication ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: Expected Public Hearing Date: August 26, 1991 Purpose of Amendment: To make the Subdivision Regulations consistent with the General Statutes regarding the use of funds received from payments made in lieu of recreation dedication. Impacts /Issues: 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 it with money from the same source. The proposed amendment to Section IV- B -7 -b -6 will include development of recreation areas as a use for monies received from payments made in lieu of dedication. Existing and Proposed Ordinance Provisions: IV- B -7 -b -6 PayMents in Lieu of Dedication Upon approval of the Board of Commissioners, payment in lieu of dedication shall be made at the time of final subdivision plan approval or within one (1) year of approval of the prelimi- nary subdivision plan, whichever occurs first. All monies received by Orange County pursuant to these requirements shall be used only for the acquisition and development of recreation, park and open space sites to serve the residents of the development and the residents of the immedi- ate neighborhood within which the development is located.'The Board of Commissioners shall also have the authority to sell land dedicated pursuant to these provisions with the proceeds of any such sale used solely for the acquisition of other recreation, park or open space sites within the immediate neighborhood within which the development is located. 4. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Vested Rights (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. Pa ments 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 fund's received from payments made in lieu of recreation dedication. The North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 153A- 331(x) 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 Commissioner Carey, a recommendation to sooner than October VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. SCWEI \(a) (b) made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by to refer this item to the Planning Board for be returned to the Board of Commissioners no 7th. )ULE OF PLANNING FEES Re- Approval of Expired Subdivision Plats Site Plan Approval - Non - Residential Projects i MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: %I Jobsis moved to delete the phrase "except through cost -share program from the proposed agricultural buffers. Seconded by Hoecke. Unanimous. 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 0 ( 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 lard 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 wi::1 include development of recreation areas as a use for funds received from payments made in lieu o_` 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. MOTION: 1 +1814:6 �03 Waddell stated that he felt the funds should be retained for land acquisition. Burklin expressed concern that no equipment had been purchased for parks already in existence. He felt that development, as well as the purchase of equipment should be options for the use of the funds. Cantrell noted that the funds -to -date were probably not sufficient to purchase land so she felt the development of parks was a need for which the funds should be used. Waddell expressed the concern that if the funds were to be used for park development, future funding by the Commissioners would not be available. Eidenier indicated she was of the opinion that the funds should be retained for land acquisition. Cantrell asked about the total collected thus far in the Payment -In -Lieu account. Cameron responded approximately $40,000.00. She continued that the funds are divided by service districts. Cantrell continued, asking if a breakdown of the.funds by district could be provided. Cameron indicated she could provide such information at the next meeting. The motion to approve was withdrawn by the first and the second. Reid moved to table this item until a breakdown Of funds by districts can be provided. Seconded by Hoecke. (Ramsey left the meeting prior to this vote.) 7 in favor. 1 opposed (Waddell - wanted the funds retained for land acquisition). (2) Vesting of Property Rights a. Section II -- Definitions (Minor Subdivision, Site Specific Development Plan, Vested Right) b. Section III -D -2- Preliminary Plat Approval I i J Amended 5- 16 -89 ?PENDIX E EATION SERVICE AREA )UNDARIES ,L- PA`! M f tit TS - ►Al - J A'S OF 5-6-91 ►R 46 5-7-7.0c �ROVr_ F_ NEtZ 5631 -;L! 1NF-LL 5 37 •( STAT1603 a(p73.& hL. BUFFER 1 7,$17 • B c C►LOSS 1 944 .0 t - CeECK 17, 56 • CC %.A►�► 0 S172 .'7 M I. CREk. 65760.5 6OROUCII4 �0 � TOTAL munity Park trict Park munity Park Service Area Boundary EWE-District Par]- Service Area Boundary 10 Eidenier informed the Board that Paul. Thames, County - - "Engineer, has requested a Planning Board representative on the Groundwater Steering Committee. The committee will be compiling data about the location and availability of groundwater resources in Orange County, identifying potential impacts on the quantity and quality of groundwater resources and recommending actions to take to eliminate or mitigate groundwater impacts. She continued noting that the meetings would be scheduled during working hours, approximately every six weeks. The appointment for the Groundwater Steering Committee will be made at the October 21, 1991 regular Planning Board meeting. The concern regarding groundwater and the formation of such a committee was instigated by Commissioner Gordon. AGENDA ITEM #5: MATTERS HEARD AT 8/26/91 PUBLIC HEARING A. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Section IV- B -7 -b -6 Payments in Lieu.of Dedication During discussion of the proposed amendment on September 16, the Planning Board requested information on the amount of payments received to date per recreation service area. The table including all major subdivisions approved since August 4, 1986, and all minor subdivisions approved since May 16, 1989 is an attachment to these minutes on page The totals are current as of September 5, 1991. A map, indicating locations of service area boundaries is also an attachment on page The item was tabled at the September 16 meeting and the Board asked that the Director of Recreation and Parks be present to answer questions. MaryAnne B. Moore, Director of Recreation and Parks, presented information regarding funding for the Recreation and Parks Department. Moore presented a map that indicated locations of community parks and district parks. The County is depending on municipalities for the smaller mini parks or neighborhood parks. The County is planning for the larger parks which have passive recreation such as picnicking. 11 The amendment to the General Statutes was requested to allow the County to use payment -in- lieu money in the same way that municipalities use that money in their jurisdiction.. The state enabling legislation has always empowered cities and towns to acquire and develop recreation areas with payments made in lieu of land dedications, but equal pwer was not extended to counties in the General Statutes. As of June 10, 1991, Orange County obtained the same rights as municipalities with regard to the use of payment - in -lieu funds. The proposed amendment to SectionIV- B -7 -b -6 will include development of recreation areas as a use for funds received from payments made in lieu of dedication. Moore continued explaining funding as appropriated by the County Commissioners for the Recreation and Parks Department. Funding is appropriated for Operations, the recurring, day -to -day operations of the department; and, funding is appropriated for capital projects. Capital Projects funding is restricted to the building, purchase, expansion, or construction of a park or recreation facility; the major repair /replacement of a park, recreation facility or utility system; or, the acquisition of land and the development of that land for a park or recreation facility. Such projects are identified annually in the Capital Improvements Plan and can be funded with monies from bonds, pay -as- you -go (1/2 cent sales tax, property taxes), user fees, grants, and payment - in -lieu of land dedication for recreation and open space purposes (restricted use by law). These funds are regulated by the North Carolina Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Section IV- B -7 -b -6 of the Subdivision Regulations. Hamilton asked how operational funds are obtained. Moore responded that once the Board of County Commissioners commit to funding and opening a facility, they also commit operational /maintenance funds. Eidenier asked if the funds must be used in the area in which they are collected. Moore responded yes, funds must be used to serve the 12 citizens in the district in which they are collected. Waddell asked if funds were used for development of parks would funds also be used for maintenance and support. Moore responded that when Capital Projects are requested through the budget process, operational and maintenance requests are included in the request. Hoecke asked where the line is drawn between development and operational costs. Moore responded that when it becomes a recurring cost, it becomes maintenance rather than development. Waddell asked the percentage that would be used for improvement /development and that of acquisition. Moore responded that development of a County -wide park system will require a large commitment from the County Commissioners which would include acquisition of open space. Moore noted that the funds currently available would not purchase large tracts of land but there are cases where a small adjoining strip of land may be available and could be purchased to increase the size of a park and /or create better access. Burklin asked.the cost of the propsed Caldwell Community Park. Moore responded the area is twenty -five to thirty acres with a total cost of 1.9 million dollars and would include an indoor community center with a gymnasium. MOTION: Waddell moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Burklin. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #6: MATTERS. TO BE HEARD AT JOINT PLANNING AREA PUBLIC HEARING 10/10/91 A. Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan (1) JPA 71 -91 American Stone Company Applications have been received to amend the JPA Land Use Plan and the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. They are submitted on behalf of American Stone Company, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), and Philip and Alice Durham. They are referenced as JPA -1 -91 and CP -3 -91. The i _ y 13 r SERVICE AREA # SUBDIVISIONS TOTAL FUNDS Cedar Grove Community Park 7 $ 577.00 Little River District Park 41 5631.20 Caldwell Community Park 7 557.66 University Station Community Park 9 2673.35 Rural Buffer District Park , 36 17,817.80 White Cross Community Park 7 1944.00 Cane Creek District Park 15 2256.61 Efland Community Park 6 822.79 Seven Mile Creek District Park 32 5560.98 Hillsborou h Community Park 0 0 TOTAL 160 $37,841.39 1 i� ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. xr ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: OCTOBER 22, 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 ABSTRACT Meeting Date: OCTOBER 22, 1991 SUBJECT: MINUTES DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER SEPARATE COVER Action Agenda Item No. X 1 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: October 7, 1991 - Regular Meeting October 8, 1991 - Special 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. RESOLUTION 91/92 f� ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional Organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the state: and WHEREAS, many counties and cities continue to need assistance in pursuing economic and community development opportunities, but federal assistance in the form of intergovernmental revenues has been severely curtailed in recent years; and WHEREAS, the 1991 General Assembly recognized this need through the appropriation of $864,270 to help the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, and to support local industrialdevelopment activities and other activities as deemed appropriate by their local governments; and WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of members' dues or assessments to Lead Regional Organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the State's General Funds; and WHEREAS, in Region J funds in the amount of $48,015 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to and consequently benefits of the Research Triangle Park. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ORANGE COUNTY requests the release of its $6,408.07 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 689, House Bill 83, section 19 of the 1991 Session Laws. Adopted this �� day of , by 9A 10� 1991 at (signature) .S (signature) S.FAI: �OLr ON OPA,RPRECIA77ON for D14NC EUDLEMAN WHEREAS, Dan C, Eddleman actively served on the Orange County Planning Board from December 1, 1986 to October 8. 1991; and WHEREAS, Dan actively served on the Orange County Board of Adjustment as Planning Board representative from January 19, 1988 to February 5, 1991. WHEREAS, Dan improved the quality of decisions through his service as a Planning Board representative on the Ordinance Review Committee; and WHEREAS, Dan gave of his skill and talent to benefit all the citizens of Orange County in judging the merits of potential land development; and WHEREAS, Dan, through his hard work and dedication, earned the respect and appreciation of government Officials, his peers, and the citizens of Orange County: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude for Dan's many years of service and contributions to Orange County. ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 1991. os s Carey, Chair Orange County Board of Co Commissioners i ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 Moses Carey, Jr. Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. Halkiotis Verla I. Insko Don Willhoit Charles L. Baker, N.C. Environmental PO Box 29535 October 22, 1991 Chairman Management Commission Raleigh, NC 27626--0535 732 -8181 968 -4501 688 -7331 227 -2U31 644 -3004 (Fax) 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. YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY ! In this vein, Orange County offers its requests and comments on the adopted State rules and preliminary watershed classifications as follows: Recommended Water Supply 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. 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 AS -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 with a modified WS -3 classification. The county finds the WS -3 classification to be most appropriate for this watershed. However, since the water source to be protected is a river intake, Orange County proposes that the WS -3 standards be applied to a 10 -mile protected area (as in WS -4 classes) only, and that the upstream areas within the Town of Hillsborough (but below the Upper and Middle Eno as described above) not be classified. Summary: Upper Eno: WS -2 Middle Eno: WS -3 Lower Eno: WS -3 (10 -mile area only) 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 1. 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, ::: �a !`::::::�J ::::.::: : :,:::�•.�::::.:.<;�« >. }:•:.:;k. v:�N.... }1: };.}}}:+ a};,! piHA +CP}Yfn�C•:::,;...n:;vnr::ti:' :i; }:::::•i' :.::::::.:::. }•.. :.:. >' >3::ar:. { "::.o tov'be used as a "default staewice mYn�mum. Orange County 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 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 ermitted. 3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES : -sra :;< ? :::::: >:va olt? .... , allowing stormwater controls "'to b'e 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 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 was one. ............... ....... DEFINITION OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 7. DEFINITION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT 10. subdivide"F window _-or developers wi of 12 -18 months. CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW) DESIGNATION permitting <e_3��:�t: >:::::::La�� >�:;'tar ��'�: *:: The University d X4.1 :: :. •. ., VI,; :':'••. ::;`:•,.`:i'i!'J:J: :... -- :. ::::. >:.:::. } }•<:::'.r:.: ••. :ri•:Sth:: :<.:: {n } }•:.:i•}: fake wla'erslied study "bf 198` "demonstrated 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. 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. 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 consideration of the comments provided herein. If we may provide further information or clarification, please contact our staff. sincerely, Moses Carey, Jr. Chairman, Orange ioners . • 'r 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 Counter. 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. 3. Exempt existing farms from the provisions of agricultural buffers, endorsing instead the Agricultural Cost -Share Program as an alternate protection measure. _e 4. Keep the one -mile definition of the critical area as adopted. 5. Allow flexibility is using a "sliding - scale" approach to limiting impervious surfaces. 6. Allow inter - jurisdictional transfers of non - residential development "allotments" to address equity issues between upstream and downstream jurisdictions. 7. Expressly permit in the rules the allowance of "average - lot sizes" as an alternative to minimum lot sizes for low - density options. 8. 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. 9. Make the effective date of compliance for all "new" development the same date as that of classification of watersheds; July 1, 1992. lo. Consider other comments on certain issues within the rules as spelled out in the Position Statement. 11. Pursue, in the future, linking water quality protection measures to water quality goals. 12. Continue to provide flexibility for local governments that choose to protect their watersheds above and beyond the minimum state rules. This, the 22nd day of October, 1991. Moses Carey, Jr. Chairman, Orange County B9//r/of Commissioners ATTEST: zg everly Blythe Clerk to the Board of Commissioners l� ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE ENO R ULLEt 1991 INCORPORATED 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: The Eno River Association thanks the Orange County Commissioners for the measures taken in Orange County to secure the health 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 B 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 Nello Teer Quarry after the turn of the century. We applaud this long -range thinking, with its regional implications for Durham and 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. Yo sinter 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 promote 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. DISTRIBUTED ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE ENO INCORPORATED 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: CC�CE0Vi JN LLEY The Eno River Association thanks the Orange County Commissioners for the measures taken in Orange County to secure the health 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 B 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 Nello Teer Quarry after the turn of the century. We applaud this long -range thinking, with its regional implications for Durham and 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. You sincere+y 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 Diver Valley, to promote 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. THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of I, 199 _L, 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 OvTown" ) . 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 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 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 !! 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 5 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 2.1B. 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; [.1 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 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 9 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 Fri] be reduced to not less than ten (1.0) 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 (S) 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 1 day of Ll- , 199/ . ATTEST: ATTEST: j64aA(A-- ()'W� To Clerk Commissioners 14 � pp O m W N r fJD ft m m m o x m N• ri r r0+ 7d fr m 00 G m C O fD Ami %4 -x m G �i �4 M a N o m m rt o to s w m Crr av p �e m r rt rp m m m w � K9 m n m o M o -; t-h rn I a o w m CD 14 yy b ti _j ., En cn 1 Ln PO t4 0 H H N r N H r tzj lmj x x cn G° 6 n re m to x .. ty a' µ r� r ro ro °h m o m o ft m m m o x m N• ri r r0+ 7d fr m 00 G m C O fD Ami %4 -x m G �i �4 a N o m m rt o to s w m av p �e m r rt rp m m m w � m n m o rn o -; t-h rn I a m of w w w Fi m r �• rt w i-n O N• w rh W rt rt � ro ►� w o rt O w o m n n m t� rt r• r-= iJ 9i Hwy c; Cv r r4 as: w � rt rt m m 0 0 1^h rh u O Mrt n rt o w d 0 w a rt w 0 t� l� jJ W Ln 0 P rs m m rt O bd W %4 rh m m a o rh F4 m rt r m C 0 C) O O rt i .A, aa. w rn w m � z . 5 m t; s� Lr' a' tr< rf i� 0 w to rt 0 m f) rt O r•I try A rn ro l� n H H z C+7 ro Q ^.d H V wQ .w C .. z a H M a H n rl t+7 r l F-1 cl tY7 G'1 l� � hi �a to H a -- zoric�x �D n Pd �INW0 Hz w rn pp•i 21 1-e � I 4 C to cn C+7 v,w� 0 o n lC-t ";d t?i n cn CA 'co wo i O+'JC=] H �O FFJ I ro� H H H Q I� N Ln 0 0 n [I1 n� sv O Ul N N N M N Ln 0 I C ro w f6 n N Fh N- �WCDOr�� Ou• �• �p N,% 5 • A� rh m (D ((D �� � �r rh o• n . �c 0 � °, w N Pig ° 8 m rn �-h1�In N o ~- En m a rt nE F'• H F-h Ln rD (D m �.! M fD 8w H wo i� N• N (D W ice'- Ci ,.n rh 0 N. a 0 0 rt Q rt 4 N„ o� C H k? H Q I� N Ln 0 0 n [I1 n� sv O Ul N N N M N Ln 0 I C ro w f6 n N Fh N- �WCDOr�� Ou• �• �p N,% 5 • A� rh m (D ((D �� � �r rh o• n . �c 0 � °, w N Pig ° 8 m rn �-h1�In N o ~- En m a rt nE F'• H F-h Ln rD (D m �.! M fD 8w H wo i� N• N (D W ice'- Ci ,.n rh 0 N. a 0 0 rt Q rt 4 N„ C4 z Colg� CA 01 !Nol§ �O a H� to FC � rC fi �r N t" i Y a H W rt Lz�7 III i N III N U1 1 N N N r In 2 N. N ON O O r N N C1 i 4 Ln i Y a H W H K8S 0 1 �� N 0w � m M t-N9�- 6 n N W G] • V] C11 C�: LTJ C+] h] �co W z ro y CD b � ►d H � - I C QN C-1 • y � �C Cn N � �3 ° 2 M duo rQ aj f11 r � r lei H V,- N V lei H V,- 2� $ �2k•e / �g2� k�� dd� q�2\ � 2q E f� % kP En CD w $ . 7 Ln - / k w (D � A� .& Q k 2 k K m m a p o'- 'K°Ad9 CAt'Jrrrl �0rZ3 ��'o H °a b� z ��� m 0ae°ti H err HL�i[�x1H0 y�ro ycnH trm t -I0 yd U3 - U3 ;HdHt- 0 H�Cr+7d �AdL~r7 Vi t7 H H H n Z — C+7 t'' " n 9 a � f? H t H w 9 ty+i oil A t/� + • " to I'd m rt K H O Cri H t-C t7 Ha -3 Z tr7 a Cn t+7 r C 0 H O 0 H m z 0 H H h H 7d w w N ',>� rl ro F" O 9 H d o- 1-4 H> w trl b CJ Cr1 Z7d�"iDC t:0 �CH+7xHZ H C7 � t+7 L=1 C=i H9 Cn,ro Cr7 C mm t7 trJ tsi HZ O N H N'sr N Z a'►dC+7HA O � CZt" h MH Mtr1H is Ow 7triZxH Cr7'rd r-j 9 fn lD tri r M hy t+J C z G' r-• N C t=J t�n0 C�+7 I Qo H 9 GC � C CZ+1 `L-' 7�ad w I� r w h a r M c7 r� n A C=i C7 H M C t�J h H H O -u G � _ a N (D a N to to RON ol N I �R H c •����Ln E- • r DLO N N Alb 0 4�" CD W CD Ab U) ww _ a N (D a N to to RON ol N I �R H c •����Ln E- • r DLO ro -° r� rt m N rt A Irn m. a t�D ma 'b C'n °, rt �h f ~� m �• m �' w • w M W n (D �a ^G N N ►c a o rrtn w o tD CLI n o p o ¢ rt W rt o o �, � w CD cn o rt 0 m , m in N b !'Y 11 t+ H w Z n -W It 0 N wt:l m w to 12 ro n w O ro w w r r o im d as w o a Gpr� o 4� �9�e w o G w �t G a N• ri 8 w w rs w p rt w C rt m w oo w o E w N M N 7 rt rt M rt w ri rt O rt O w N• w ri rt ►-+ r N N ro Ul r; C ro ro rt N O ro ro N ro ry b to ro N C G •d ro ro ro ro , N• O N ro r ro N rt w O o S w 'ti rt n N r+ •o n Q o E N r• r n O m rr N rt rt rt m m C m rt rt I ro ro Dq ro b M 00 ro C 6 w N ro ro N ro ti7 N w d G p ' rr M n 0 0 n 5 M rt rt � ro �. fx •C cn d co t H H Z CD > m cn �•C Z C7 Er �w z �Z z tj n o;t*t-4 CA c� 0 Pd rzj n H , H L=7 r•P C') H r-i 0 o rom m h n zrm m W d r d u �, m C H n nprtn" wp�n r+ Om mK m `C n K wCwn mm0 cn ° ca � wrt -rtm � Q � y n r w0° rt e apc0w e H. "' 0 � �a P) C6 d m 0.+ r w on w� w n n � rt w a 4 m ti m r r a rt ,a n n p m m N n H K7 m w m a O rt H. H rt O rt 4 rt m U7 m n r H n m n r H .x . n t+7 7 D :r7 V a r 13 0 m C _ cn H a �a H O 4 U7 n r H n m n r H .x . n t+7 7 D :r7 V a r 13 En W i m 9 0 >� o o (o rn sv m Pi �' x c > o a w a �fD oa c� I En N I HI i O�I I i i i i 14 V i R i a w Xs m .c ao m =..o m 4 m m rr � p m b :j H. m 4 m d3 m M � � C rr r. c w .0 m G R G I~ .0 a C w w °P' a w rt w w w w w m a4 m m m o. m m m ro O m rr (rt D H v D o r w w m o C p, o d n rn o d ° n m x a 0 o P. r+ r w n ro w n n o� �: f.,, (� oo Q w ao w r m m n w rw-+ � w ao m ° n m m w n n a r z n ni n 0 Id w a z n a a d d 7 a i h a 5 3 o En H a o� �: cn H z�0 rn I I t h I r n a r z n ni n 0 Id w a z n a a d d 7 a i h a 5 3 K m av w n a� m 00 n m 00 w O d C `C rt w n m m rt w rt m CL rt w rt m W rA w w ri m O' rn O' W N �i m N 0 N W. H W rt W m w i gal rt m {'rl m P, m n w n W c W r x W 09 w rt w a n rt z 0 r� FC zH C7 H n a H M Gn H H z Q yH b r M n a o� r r� I z m W Ul 0 rr, b m rt v, O n N v n O .d rt P) n rt m a d c n W 00 rt m w d m 'd m n rt W O d ►CI n m�o . cn r H z� 16 �Enxaa w,a1-db': 0 b CL N 94 rob � ,mod nwwn� 0 ro0wft H rt m rt m w rt W C+7 0Q:1mm ma0w n rt w a. v N. H C7 C �. H m 0 rt n O � rt z rwr fop v' m a• ►CI n m�o . cn r H z� n 0 n H C+7 n H H O z c R r r c 0 0 G rt W p rt ti Ln . 17 tv r�. N - fT h N• " tr - C rt w 0 r s C; y c R r r c 0 0 G rt W p rt ti Ln . 17 I-N m 0 w a 3 m cn ct cp 0 0) c CD 0 0 r 0 �0 I m M 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.�r' � ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed Closing of the Animal Control Satellite Office in Southern Orange DEPARTMENT: HEALTH ATTACHMENT(S): Two -page Justification PUBLIC HEARING: Yes K No INFORMATION CONTACT: HEALTH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE X2411 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To seek the Commissioners' endorsement to discontinue the 30 -day annual service of licensing animals at a satellite office in Southern Orange during January of each year. BACKGROUND: With the adoption of the Animal Control Ordinance in 1989, animal licensing became mandatory for all Orange County pet owners. Because animals had previously been listed on tax documents and a Southern Orange tag listing service was available, an animal licensing service was opened at Carr Mill Mall. Unlike the tax listing process, animal licensing requires a terminal to the County computer in order to process fees collected at the time of the license. Space and computer port constraints have caused the office to move twice creating confusion for citizens. In addition, 75 -80% of all licensing is accomplished by mail and the number of persons using the Southern Orange satellite office declined from 621 in 1990 to 292 in 1991. Other staffing and logistic problems make the continued operation of a Southern Orange office even for 30 days an inefficient use of resources. No site has been located to date and the Data Processing Department wishes to use the port for a higher priority purpose. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Southern Orange Animal Control satellite office not be open for January, 1992, and subsequent years. P � 1' ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 Moses Carey, Jr. Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. Halkiotis Verla I. Insko Don Willhoit October 23, 1991 Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch N.C. Department of Transportation P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 -5201 SUBJECT: DURHAM NORTHWEST /NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY Dear Mr. Ward: 732 -8181 968.4501 688 -7331 227 -2031 644- 3004(Fax) The Orange County Planning Board met on October 8, 1991 to consider a recommendation... on the Durham Northwest Loop and Northeast Loop Corridor. Study. In their deliberations, the Planning Board expressed. concern about potential adverse impacts on the Eno River State Park, extensive areas of steep slope, and existing residential development in the corridor study area. They recommended to the Board of Commissioners that the terminus of the proposed Northwest Loop be located in Durham County where it would be better aligned with US 15 -501 and the East /West Expressway. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on October 22 to consider. the study and to receive the Planning Board recommendation. The Board of Commissioners concurs with the Planning Board recommendation and requests that the corridor study area be moved:eastward consistent with the Planning Board recommendation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this subject. Sincerely, Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Board of Commissioners YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY !