Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-04-1992 (2)APPROVED 6 -1 -92 AGENDA DETAIL ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MAY 4, 1992 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, May 4, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Don Willhoit. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Verla C. Insko COUNTY ATTORNEY: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod Visser, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes, Budget Analyst Donna Hamlet, Planner Emily Cameron, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Budget Director Sally Kost, Recreation and Parks Director MaryAnne Moore, Health Director Dan Reimer, EMS Assistant Director Jeanette Smith, and County Engineer Paul Thames NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. I. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA - NONE 11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Chair Carey announced that those citizens in the audience who want to speak to an item on the Printed Agenda will be recognized at the appropriate time. B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Susan Sexton asked that the APS be held accountable for their actions in handling animals. She feels she has not received any answers from the members of the Board of Commissioners or County Administration. Mark Marcoplos spoke about waste being accepted from outside the county. He asked that the Commissioners not accept waste from outside Orange County. He does not support incineration. Commissioner Willhoit asked that a resolution addressing this issue be placed on the next agenda for the Board's consideration. He wants the resolution to also support recycling. Commissioner Gordon asked for an update on the landfill site selection at the next meeting. Horace Johnson asked that the County develop a comprehensive approach to recycling before looking at specific sites for a landfill. He asked that the Commissioners work out a sensible solution to include recycling and educating the young. He wants a decision that is fair to everyone. Leigh Peek read a prepared statement. She feels that the process has gone awry and asked that the Board assist in the landfill search. She stated that a 6 -5 vote approved drilling all four potential landfill sites. She asked that the Commissioners look at the process and as a Board request M 2 a recall of that vote. She feels that if a vote is taken that maybe only three sites will be approved for a full geotechnical investigation which would mean a savings of $20,000 to $30,000. She asked that the Commissioners get involved now in the landfill search process to ensure that the unblemished integrity of the citizen search process is maintained. John Hartwell asked that the County Commissioners get back into the drivers seat and take charge of the Site Search Committee which has been badly derailed. He feels the Board of County Commissioners should be setting the policies and giving direction to the LOG. There is a hugh cross - section of the population in attendance tonight and they understand that times have changed and people cannot continue to dispose of their trash the old way. He asked that the Board take leadership in this process. Robert Ferguson read a prepared statement which was addressed to "All Media and all concerned Orange County Citizens." In summary he feels that the LOG misinformed members of the LSC in regards to the proxy vote of Bryant Walker. He stated that the citizens of Orange County are calling for a revote of the LSC's decision to drill all four sites. He also does not support lowering the tipping fee for the UNC ash. David Laul read a press release, dated May 4, 1992 with a caption which read "Citizens Against Site Eleven ". In summary the press release demanded a revote on the decision to drill all four landfill sites. The press release also demanded that the County Commissioners pass a resolution that would prohibit the use of Orange County's Landfill for waste from outside the County. He stated that the citizens of rural Orange County have insufficient representation in County government and feel that solid waste policy is being set by the Chapel Hill Public Works Department behind closed doors. Commissioner Halkiotis reiterated that he voted against lowering the fee for the disposal of ash. He feels the most important thing now is recycling. He feels Orange County can recycle 51% and must continue working toward this goal. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. III. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Consent Agenda as stated below: A. TAX REFUND REQUESTS NAME ACCOUNTS AMOUNT Herman C. Davis 115496 $ 1,469.41 William James Mullen 27269 108.04 Wesley Bonds 170406 8.24 Bryce A. Neighbours 132839 44.36 Pratt, Donald C. & Ethel 76829 351.25 Helen K. Baucom 90492 56.57 Whitted, Wiley & Kattie 53962 75.73 3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS IV. RESOLUTIONSIPROCLAMATIONS A. PROCLAMATION OF THE WEEK OF MAY 3 -9, 1992, AS ORANGE COUNTY CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEEK Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adopt the proclamation designating May 3 through May 9 as Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners' Week: P R O C L A M A T I O N CLERKS TO THE BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' WEEK IN ORANGE COUNTY MAY 3 THROUGH MAY 9, 1992 WHEREAS, It is imperative to the democratic process that a well informed citizenry participate in the operation of their local government; and WHEREAS, the office of the Clerk to the Board provides the communication link between the citizens, the local government legislative body and administrative departments and agencies of government at other levels; and WHEREAS, the County Clerks serve as the information center on the functions of their local government by making available the records of local government, distribution of published materials and reports and answering questions on the government activities and programs; and WHEREAS, the Clerks to the Boards have upon their own initiative participated in education programs, seminars, workshops and the annual meetings of their state and national organizations which not only improve the operation of their office but through their achievements and awards have brought favorable publicity to the county that they serve. NOW, THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do recognize the week of May 3 through May 9, 1992, as Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners' Week, and extend our appreciation to our Clerk to the Board and her staff and to all County Clerks for the vital services they perform and their exemplary dedication to the county they represent. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. EMS WEEK PROCLAMATION Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adopt the proclamation as stated below designating May 10 through May 16, 1992 as EMS Week in Orange County: A PROCLAMATION EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK 4 MAY 10 THROUGH MAY 16, 1992 WHEREAS, Governor James G. Martin has proclaimed the week of May 10 through May 16, 1992, as Emergency Medical Services Week in North Carolina, and WHEREAS, The Emergency Medical Service in Orange County is a complex system involving Telecommunicators, First Responders, Law Enforcement Officers, Nurses, Doctors, County Staff and Volunteers from Orange County and South Orange Rescue Squads, and WHEREAS, These people must attend many hours of training in addition to hours of service, and WHEREAS, They place themselves in peril to provide emergency assistance to the sick and injured in Orange County, and WHEREAS, The citizens of the County have supported the E.M.S. service through both taxes and donations, and WHEREAS, The Orange County Board of Commissioners publicly acknowledge their support and appreciation to all the members of the Orange County Emergency Medical Services System, NOW THEREFORE, The Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby proclaim the week of May 10 through 16, 1992, as EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and encourages all citizens of Orange County to continue to support their E.M.S. system. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adopt the proclamation designating May 10 - 16, 1992, as National Historic Preservation Week as stated below: PROCLAMATION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK WHEREAS, historic preservation allows Americans to experience their diverse heritage and culture; and WHEREAS, historic preservation enhances the quality of life in cities, towns, and rural areas across America; and WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to preserving its historic cultural resources for its citizens and future generations; and WHEREAS, "Preservation Brings History to Life" is the theme for National Historic Preservation Week 1992, co- sponsored by the Orange County Historic Preservation Commission and the National Trust for Historic Preservation; NOW, THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby proclaim May 10 -16, 1992 as National Historic preservation Week in celebration of the cultural heritage of Orange County and hereby urges all citizens to support historic preservation efforts. VOTE: UNANIMOUS V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS -NONE 5 VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. PROPOSED 1992 -93 SECONDARY ROADS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM This public hearing was held to receive citizen comments on the proposed North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 1992 -93 Secondary Road Improvement Program. John Watkins, DOT Division Engineer, stated that the same priority list has been used for four years. Next year there will be a new Transportation Board and they will probably develop a new priority list. In answer to a question Mr. Watkins stated that the County does not have the authority to change the priority list. In Orange County there are still 171 rural roads and 45 residential roads to be paved. DOT still hopes to pave all roads by 2002. This depends on the economy. The Public Hearing was open for public comment. JOHN ARCHER who lives on Martin Road in Efland stated that there are 14 property owners who signed a petition to have the road paved. They are now at priority 37 and would like to be moved up on the list. Mr. Watkins explained that he did not know when they would pave Martin Road. They have not received all the right -of -way authorizations for the proposed list of roads for this year. MELVIN WALTERS lives on Ebenezer Church Road. He stated that citizens have tried for several years to get the road paved. He asked that they remain a priority road and be paved this year. Mr. Watkins stated that DOT works with the citizens and uses as much flexibility as possible in getting the required right -of -way. MR. WRENN stated that on Tuscarora Drive there is one property owner who refuses to give the required right -of -way so the road has not been paved. Mr. Watkins indicated that there are four property owners who will not sign. They will continue trying to get the right -of -way. Mr. Watkins introduced Joey Hopkins, the County Maintenance Engineer. In answer to a question Mr. Watkins indicated that it is against the law to place political signs on any road right -of -way. They remove these signs first from the interstates, second they remove the signs for safety reasons and third they remove these signs from other roads. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the proposed North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 1992 -93 Secondary Road Improvement Program as presented. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. 1992 -97 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN John Link stated that on April 21st the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 1992 -97 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The Board held the public hearing open for additional comments. The staff is available to answer questions. C7 Stella Mauncell stated that as a professional she has been involved with swimming for 45 years. There are tremendous needs in this county. She is surprised by the number of people who cannot swim. There are also other segments of the society that can benefit from the pool. Elvira Mebane stated that the people in the Efland Cheeks community are in favor of this proposal. They either have to go to Alamance County or Chapel Hill for swimming facilities. She asked the Board to please consider this pool for all the people in Orange County. Bobby Nichols does not support the swimming pool. He feels there is better use for four million dollars. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN COMMENTS C. PROPOSED SCHOOL IMPACT FEES Planning Director Marvin Collins stated that this is the first of two public hearings on impact fees which would assist in financing construction of new school facilities necessitated by growth in Orange County. He stated that impact fees will be paid by those moving into the County because they create the need for additional services. The purpose of these fees and the fee schedule is to finance school capital needs which have been identified over the next six years. He presented two options. Option #1 showed the impact fee that would be necessary to raise $2 million and Option 2 showed the impact fee that would be necessary to raise $3 million. The fees will apply to new construction only, not existing housing. There are several alternatives for when the fee may be collected. He said that one concern is that this fee adds to the cost of low and.moderate income housing and the major concern is the regressive nature of the fee. The Public Hearing was open for citizens comments. VIC KNIGHT stated that he knows it is a difficult task to fund the needs of the schools. He does not feel this is the way to pay for school needs. This will impact on the sale of real estate. People will view this as a tax. The Board of County Commissioners has indicated that affordable housing is a key concern. This impact fee is not a benefit to the majority of people in this county. He is against the implementation of these fees. JIM GRAY made reference to the News of Orange and the article about impact fees. He stated that usually fees are due at the time the plat is submitted. Few waivers are given. When Habitat for Humanity was issued alternate funds they had to find the money to pay these fees up front. Fee payment is set up in a county Ordinance. He made reference to the way fees are levied in an urban County adjacent to Washington, DC. The fee for a single family dwelling is $2,096 - flat across the board. They allow no waivers even for Habitat. Only the areas where development is occurring were included in this program and the money was used in this specific area. The fee is added to the mortgage which means that interest is paid on this fee. The price for existing homes automatically goes up and buyers must pay more. It also reduces the opportunity for first -time home buyers. It does raise 7 the County tax base because it raises the property evaluation. He feels that there must be a better way to raise money and that a lot more time is required to set up this program. JOHNNY KENNEDY spoke in opposition of this fee. CONNIE SHUPING spoke as a member of the Chapel Hill Board of Realtors. She stated that no one is against more or better schools but that they should be paid for by all the people because it benefits all the people. She opposes the fee. She referred to a city where these fees were implemented and stated that housing starts fell drastically. This fee will have an impact on affordable housing. Both existing and new home owners pay property taxes. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners think about this issue and provide enough time to study it thoroughly. R. ALEXANDER ZAFFRE asked that the Board of Commissioners take a stand for fair and equitable housing. He asked how many will not be able to own a home because of this fee. This systematically takes away the opportunities for the middle class -- working class of people. VERN MILLER stated that his parents worked and paid taxes to live in the County to pay for the schools. He questioned taxing a person who has lived here all their lives as well as one who is moving into the County. Also, he feels that the County should fund the schools first and then everything else. He feels that the implementation of impact fees is complex. He asked how they justify placing the entire cost of a school on the first 500 students in that school. In terms of social programs, he has a problem with what is his fair share. The table must take into account some of the general revenue that the County receives. LARRY CARROLL spoke on behalf of the Homebuilders Association of Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. He stated that impact fees will increase the cost of housing. Construction workers do add to the tax base. Parents have been paying taxes and if they decide to build a new home must then pay additional taxes. HENRY WHITFIELD stated his support to raise taxes. He is upset about impact fees. He made reference to OWASA and the high cost of availability fees they charge. He asked the Board to forget impact fees stating that they are not fair and do not spread out the costs across the population. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners look at the expenditures for the schools and raise taxes instead of implementing impact fees. MAX KENNEDY spoke against the impact fees. He understand that there is about an $800,000 shortfall in the County budget this year. The impact tax is regressive. The building industry is just coming out of a depression. The fee is presented to raise money for the schools. This discussion is another nail in the coffin for the school bond issue. Nothing has happened with the one million dollar bond passed by the County in 1988 for water. The economic impact of many of the fees and requirements on the docket have caused housing costs to increase. There are less and less opportunity for people to build houses. He urged the County Commissioners to find another way to finance the schools. JOE HERZENBERG read a prepared statement from Chapel Hill Mayor Kenneth S. Broun regarding the Town Council's concern about the County's proposed system of school impact fees. A copy of this statement is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office. Chair Carey announced that a second public hearing on school impact fees will be held on May 26th as part of the Regular Quarterly Public Hearing. D. ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD CLOSING AND A DECISION A statement in support of giving title of the right -of --way of the former Eno Mountain Road by Orange County to adjacent landowners was received from Hervey McIver and is hereby entered into the record by reference. The Board determined that the closing of this portion of Eno Mountain Road is not contrary to the public interest and that no individual will be denied access by the closing of this road. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to adopt the order as presented which closes a portion of Eno Mountain Road, formerly part of S.R. 1148. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. EFLAND CDBG APPLICATION AND A DECISION No public comments were made and the public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to authorize the submission of the Efland CDBG Application by May 15, 1992 and to authorize the Chair to sign the application document on behalf of the Board upon approval by the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS VII. REPORTS A. JAIL INSPECTION REPORT Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to accept the jail inspection report for March 24, 1992 as submitted. UNANIMOUS B. TRIANGLE FI %ED GUIDEWAY STUDY Triangle Transit Authority Director Jim Ritchie and County Commissioner representative Shirley Marshall extended to the Board of County Commissioners an invitation to a meeting of elected officials from the area on June 22, 1992. C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT - MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ASSURANCE PROGRAM 0 dw Health Director Dan Reimer provided information regarding optional wastewater treatment systems in Orange County as well as related requirements of the N.C. Division of Environmental Health for system reviews in management entities. Commissioner Willhoit questioned the design function and the monitoring function being performed by the same person. Commissioner Halkiotis expressed a need to educate the people about their low pressure systems. John Link noted that the program being recommended will be paid for by the users. The County would provide the service for a fee. Commissioner Gordon asked for additional discussion on Type IV systems (low pressure pipe systems with a single pump) as to whether to support the Board of Health's designation of the Health Department as the management entity for Type IV systems. Also, it was decided that additional discussion is needed on the fee schedule. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to direct the staff to develop projected costs and a fee schedule necessary to fully fund the monitoring and maintenance assurance program in the context of the FY 92 -93 budget ordinance and to direct the staff to develop a draft agreement with DEM for the review of systems approved by DEM, which will be considered in conjunction with the county engineer's report. VOTE: UNANIMOUS VIII. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA A. 1992 -97 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN DISCUSSION This item was postponed to the next meeting. B. ADVERTISEMENT FOR MAY 26 1992 PUBLIC HEARING Section 2.2.14.3 of Article 2 requires that principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan only be considered once each year at the quarterly public hearing in February. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to add to the public hearing for May 26 an amendment to the above mentioned section in the Zoning Ordinance. VOTE: AYES, 3; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to rescind the above motion. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the Notice of Public Hearing for May 26, 1992 to include the consideration of amendments to Section 2.2.14.3 of Article 2 and to delete CP -1--92 from the public hearing schedule. VOTE: AYES, 3; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) Motion was made by Chair Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to hold the public hearing on University Station on June 29, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS VI, 10 C. PETITION FOR RIGHT -OF -WAY ABANDONMENT - WOLF'S POND SUBDIVISION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adopt the resolution stated below which sets a public hearing on the abandonment of a right -of -way located between Boulder Bluff (SR 2020) and Wolf's Court (SR 2019) in Wolf's Pond Subdivision. RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTENT TO CLOSE A RIGHT -OF -WAY IN WOLF'S POND SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, petitioners Frances L. Greenstein, Robert B. Cairns, Beverly D. Cairns, Anthony J. Rignola, Francine A. Rignoia, Furman E. Coggins and Phyllis J. Coggins have filed a petition before the Board of County Commissioners to close a right -of -way identified on the map which is part of Exhibit A to this Resolution (hereinafter "the abandoned right -of- way "); and WHEREAS, it appears from the petition that the road in the abandoned right -of -way has never been constructed; and WHEREAS, it appears that no individual, firm or corporation owns property in the vicinity of said right -of --way without a reasonable means of ingress and egress to his, her or its property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County that it intends to close the abandoned right -of -way. That prior to a decision on the closing of the abandoned right -of -way, a public hearing shall be held in the superior courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse, on the 1st day of June, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is directed to publish this Resolution in the Chapel Hill Herald and the News of Orange County once a week for four (4) successive weeks before said hearing and that the Clerk shall send by certified mail to each owner of property adjoining the abandoned right -of -way and shall prominently post a copy of this Resolution in at least two (2) places along the abandoned road as required by N.C. General Statutes 153A--241. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. RED WOLF AT PINEY MOUNTAIN - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Preliminary Plan for Red Wolf at Piney Mountain with a public road built to State standards and subject to the conditions contained in the resolution of Approval. VOTE: UNANIMOUS IN. BOARD COMMENTS John Link reported that an additional 30 day extension has been granted to those people who live at the Hilltop Mobile Home Park. Tara Fikes will provide assistance to those who need help to relocate. S. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT John Link reported that the "In Touch with Orange County" module is in full operation at University Mall in Chapel Hill. He also announced that the Efland Cheeks Community Center is completed and ready for occupancy. 11 XI. APPOINTMENTS TRIANGLE J EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COUNCIL Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to reappoint Jeanette Smith and Dr. Alfred Hansen to this Council. Their terms will expire on June 30, 1994. VOTE: UNANIMOUS WATER RESOURCES STUDY COMMITTEE Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis.to appoint Don Cox as Chair of this Committee. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ORANGE COUNTY HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE BLOCK GRANT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair Carey to appoint Rutha Brooks, Timothy J. Ives, Norm Gustaveson, and Jean Wagner to this committee. VOTE: UNANIMOUS AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to appoint Elizabeth Walters and Pearson Stewart to terms ending June 30, 1993, to appoint Chris Hogan and Robert Strayhorn to terms ending June 30, 1994 and to appoint Dolly Hunter and Robert Nutter to terms ending June 30, 1995 VOTE: UNANIMOUS HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair Carey to appoint Laura Wenzel and Michelle Anne Cotton for terms ending December 30, 1994. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ORANGE COUNTY ARTS COMMISSION Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Chair Carey to reappoint Edna Hall Gambling to a term ending March 30, 1995. VOTE: UNANIMOUS DUARMICHAPEL HILL WORK GROUP This item was postponed until next meeting. TASK FORCE ON REDUCING VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG USE This item was postponed until next meeting. XII. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of March 24, 1992 as presented. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair Carey to approve the minutes for the April 1, 1992 Assembly of Governments Meeting :b .. 12 as amended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the April 6, 1992 Regular Meeting as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS %III. EXECUTIVE SESSION -NONE XIV. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for the Board to consider, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Tuesday, May 19, 1992 in the OWASA Meeting Room on Jones Ferry Road in Carrboro, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair B everly A. Blythe, Clerk APPROVED 6 -29 -92 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY MAY 4, 1992 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met as the Orange County Housing Authority on May 4, 1992 at 7:25 p.m. in Superior Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Don Willhoit. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Verla C. Insko COUNTY ATTORNEY: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod Visser, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director - Marvin Collins, Housing and Community Development Director Tara - Fikes, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Budget Director Sally Kost, Health Director Dan Reimer, and EMS Director Nick Waters. PROPERTY TRANSFER FROM ORANGE COUNTY TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adopt the resolution as stated below which conveys the property in the Knolls community to the Orange County Housing Authority and authorizes the Chair to sign the resolution on behalf of the Board: RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY ACCEPTING PROPERTY CONVEYED BY ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, on the 4th day of May, 1992, the Chairman of the Orange County Board of commissioners tendered non - warranty deeds to the Orange County Housing Authority for the following parcels of property (hereinafter referred to as "the parcels of property "): Parcel I: Tax Parcel 7.100.C.10 Parcel II: Tax Parcel 7.100.C.10A Parcel III: Tax Parcel 7.91.H.7 WHEREAS, the Orange County Housing Authority has determined that the parcels of property can be developed to provide dwelling accommodations for persons of low income; WHEREAS, it is expected that Habitat for Humanity of Orange County will present to the Orange County Housing Authority a development plan for the development of the parcels of property in order to provide dwelling accommodations for persons of low income; and WHEREAS, it is expected that Habitat for Humanity of Orange County and the Orange County Housing Authority will enter into a cooperation agreement which will provide for the development and construction of housing for persons of low income to be located on the parcels-of property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 157.1 et seq.. the Orange County Housing Authority accepts the tender of deeds from Orange County for the parcels of property by accepting the non - warranty deeds tendered by Orange County which in form and substance are the same as the copies of those deeds which are Exhibits A, B and C to this Resolution. This the 4th day of May, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS NOTE: FOR THE RECORD, THESE DEEDS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY EXECUTED AND RECORDED AND ARE PRESENTLY IN THE VAULT LOCATED IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT ALONG WITH ALL OTHER DEEDS FOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for consideration, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk I � 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.� ACTION AGENDA ITEX ABSTRACT Meeting Date: 5-4 -92 SUBJECT: Tax Refund. Requests' DEPARTMENT:Assessor's Office PUBLIC HEARING:- Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Individual Request TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 _ Chapel Hill -- 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 --2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider 7 request for property tax refunds. ti BACXGROUND: General Statutes 105 -381 (b) --* Action of Governing Body - Upon receiving a taxpayers written statement of defense and request for release or refund, the governing body of the Taxing Unit shall within 90 days after receipt of such a request determine whether the taxpayer has a valid defense to the tax imposed or any part - thereof and shall either release or refund that portion of the amount that is determined to be in excess of the current liability or notify the taxpayer in writing that no release or* refund will be made. RECOMMENDATION (S) : The manager's recommendation for each tax refund is stated on the individual request. N MAP # 7.1..40 GO 425.39 TRACT # 734667 24.73 ACCOUNT # 115496 BILL # 10167 RATE CODE 00 [ I Herman C. Davis 501 Davis Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 COMMENT: Property was taxed at market value but should have been taxed at land use value. REFERENCE: G.S. 105- 381(a)(1)a. A tax imposed through clerical error. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund property tax overpayment for 1988, 1989 and 1990 in amount of $1,469.41. Valuation $65,953 1988 1989 GO 425.39 468.26 FA 21.76 24.73 447.15 492.99 RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: 1990 Total 504.54 1398.19 24.73 71.22 529.27 1469.41 total refund 2 1 1 �1 MAP # TRACT # ACCOUNT # 27269 8811645 8929006 BILL # 9029301 9130202 RATE CODE 22 Mullen, William James 218 McCauley St. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 COMMENT: Listed 1979 Ford TK on Acct #27269 and on Business acct #113127 Groundworkers, Inc., for 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. REFERENCE: G.S. 105- 381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Grant refund for 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 in amount of $108.04. 1988 1989 1990 1991 Value 12,675 2,090 $1,340 $1,270 Total GO 17.25 14.84 10.25 10.22 52.56 G2 14.45 11.91 8.19 7.89 42.44 CH 4.75 3.71 2.38 2.20 13.04 36.45 30.46 20.82 20.31 108.04 total due RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: 3 4, 1 MAP # i TRACT # ACCOUNT # 170406 BILL # 9157977 RATE CODE 22 [ l Bonds, Wesley P.O. Box 7425 New Haven, CT 06519 COMMENT: Request for refund for year of 1991 for assessed mobile home value. at $468.00. Mobile home owned by Joe Costa since August of 1990. Late lasted on 3- -19 -92 on account 172491, bill 9165358. REFERENCE: G.S. 105- 381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Request refund for tax overpayment of $8.24. 1991 value $468.00 GO - 3.77 LL - .46 G2 - 2.91 LL - .29 CH - ..81 $8.24 Total Due RECOMMENDATION: Approve •;b ; DATE: i i MAP # TRACT # ACCOUNT # 132839 BILL # 9130574 RATE CODE 16 Neighbours, Bryce A. 2701 McDade Store Rd. Cedar Grove, NC 27231 COMMENT: Requesting refund due to being charged for '86 Ford truck which was turned over to County Ford 12- 27 -90. was not the owner 1 -1 -91 County Ford was. REFERENCE: G.S. "105- 381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Request payment for tax overpayment of $44.36. 1991 Value 5,070 GO 40.81 FI 3.55 44.36 Refund Due RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: J MAP # 7.14C.A.5 TRACT # 714815 ACCOUNT # 76829 8744690 8932677 BILL # 887647 9033061 RATE CODE 08 Pratt, Donald C & Ethel 5420 Hideaway Dr. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 COMMENT: Motor home priced as 30' in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990. Should have been priced at 19' per owner. REFERENCE: G.S. 105- 381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Grant refund on difference in value. 1987 1988 1989 1990 value 5S ,720 6S ,160 $19,380 15,167 Total GO 34.66 39.73 137.60 116.03 328.02 FD 2.06 3.20 10.08 7.89 23.23 36.72 42.93 147.68 123.92 351.25 total due RECOMMENDATION: Approve WTIMIT DATE: 6 1 I I� I It MAP # TRACT # ACCOUNT # 90492 BILL # 912335 RATE CODE 17 Baucom, Helen K. 616 Bayberry Dr. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 COMMENT: Request for refund for 85 Jeep 4S value $5,500 for 1991 that she didn't own 1 -1 -91. Owned an 88 Jeep SW value $10,980 that was late listed on acct. 167983 to her husband Bill J. Baucom for 1991. REFERENCE: G.S. 105- 381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Request refund for tax overpayment $56.57. 1991 value $5,500 GO - 44.28 FJ - 2.75 CH - 9.54 $56.57 total refund RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: rA A 8 r MAP # 3.34..22 TRACT # 301851 ACCOUNT # 53962 BILL # 9146073 RATE CODE 03 C � Whitted, Wiley & Kattie P.O. Box 997 Haw River, NC 27258 C I COMMENT: Ms. Whitted had a mobile home listed on her land which should not have been. It's actually titled in the name of Walter W. McDade. The value of the mobile home was $9,070. Mr. McDade came in 3/9/92 and listed the mobile home for 1991 and has already listed it for 1992. REFERENCE: G.S. 105- 381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Request refund for tax overpayment $75.73. 1991 value $9, 070 GO - 73.01 FB - 2.72 $75.73 total refund RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda I tem No. -Z _/a ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1992 SUBJECT: PROCLAMATION.- County Clerk's Week DEPARTMENT: Board Of Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S): Yes - Proclamation INFORMATION CONTACT: Moses Carey, Jr. TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill -- 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To recognize the week of May 3 through May 9, 1992, as Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners' Week. BACKGROUND: The North Carolina Association of County Clerks feels it is very important to identify the role of "Clerk to the Board" to the citizens of the county. Recognition of the Clerk by adopting this Proclamation would facilitate that goal. RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt the Proclamation and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. P R O C L A M A T 1 O N CLERKS TO THE BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' WEEK IN ORANGE COUNTY May 3 through May 9, 1992 WHEREAS: it is imperative to the democratic process that a well informed citizenry participate in the operation of their local government; and WHEREAS: the office of the Clerk to the Board provides the communication link between the citizens, the local government legislative body and administrative departments and agencies of government at other levels; and WHEREAS: the County Clerks serve as the information center on the functions of their local government by making available the records of local government, distribution of published materials and reports and answering questions on the government activities and programs; and WHEREAS: the Clerks to the Boards have upon their own initiative participated in education programs, seminars,-workshops and the annual meetings of their state and national organizations which not only improve the operation of their office but through their achievements and awards have brought favorable publicity to the county that they serve. NOW, THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do recognize the week of May 3 through May 9, 1992, as Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners' Week, and extend our appreciation to our Clerk to the Board and her staff and to all County Clerks for the vital services they perform and their exemplary dedication to the county they represent. Dated this Attest: day of 1992. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Dates May 04, 1992 _ Action Agenda Item # =4-,g SUBJECTs EMS Week Proclamation DEPARTMENT: Emerg Mgmt PUBLIC HEARING: Yes XXXX No ATTACHMENT (S)s INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Waters -- 968 -2050 or 644 -3030 1. Proclamation TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To recognize all the individuals, county staff and volunteers, involved in providing emergency medical services to the citizens in Orange County. The EMS System in the County is a tiered response system. Citizens access the system through the 9 -1 -1 center and can receive pre - arrival instructions from the telecommunicator, trained in Emergency Medical Dispatch. First Responders (specialized trained firefighters) and law enforcement officers usually arrive at the scene first to provide basic life support while the ambulances are en- route. Ambulances staffed with EMT's and EMT- Paramedics provide treatment and transportation to the Hospital Emergency Department. Many doctors, nurses, and other professionals donate many hours to the EMS System; attending planning and review meetings and providing guidance and training. BACKGROUND: Governor James G. Martin has proclaimed May 10 through May 16, 1992 as Emergency Medical Services week in North Carolina. The State Office of Emergency Medical Services encourages all counties to recognize their services by proclamation. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends the Board of Commissioners to adopt the proclamation designating May 10 through May 16, 1992 as EMS Week in Orange County. ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. Moses Carey, Jr. 27278 Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. Halldotis A PROCLAMATION Verla C. Insko Don Willhoit EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK MAY.10 THROUGH MAY 16, 1992 WHEREAS, Governor James G. Martin has proclaimed the week of May 10 through May 16, 1992, as Emergency Medical Services Week in North Carolina, and WHEREAS, The Emergency Medical Service in Orange County is a complex system involving Telecommunicators, First Responders, Law Enforcement Officers, Nurses, Doctors, County Staff and Volunteers from Orange County and South Orange Rescue Squads, and WHEREAS, These people must attend many hours of training in addition to hours of service, and WHEREAS, They place themselves in peril to provide emergency assistance to the sick and injured in Orange County, and WHEREAS, The citizens of the County have supported the E.M.S. service through both taxes and donations, and WHEREAS, The Orange County Board of Commissioners publicly acknowledge their support and appreciation to all the members of the Orange County Emergency Medical Services System, NOW THEREFORE, The Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby proclaim the week of May 10 through 16, 1992, as EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and encourages all citizens of Orange County to continue to support their E.M.S. system. Adopted this 4th day of Mav, 1992. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY ! VA 732 -8181 968 -4501 688 -7331 227 -2031 644 -3004 (Fax) 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 4. 1992 SUBJECT: NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Proclamation Action Agenda Item # -L21_.C__ 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 proclaim May 10 -- 16, 1992," as National Historic Preservation Week in conjunction with the National Trust for Historic Preservation. BACKGROUND: The National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Orange County Historic Preservation Commission will recognize May 10 - 16, 1992, as National Historic Preservation Week. This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the national week -long celebration, with a theme of "Preservation Brings History to Life." The Historic Preservation Commission will also issue a press release to announce Preservation Week, accompanied by a news article featuring the inventory of historic properties currently underway in Chapel Hill Township. Posters illustrating this year's theme for Preservation Week will be displayed at prominent locations in the County. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends adoption of the proclamation designating May 10 - 16, 1992, as National Historic Preservation Week and that the Chair be authorized to sign the proclamation on behalf of the Board. FOR + _ T..i OF TliE ORANGE CO 'YBOARD OF COAMNSIOHERS NA 7YONAL HISTORIC PRESERVA 770N WEEK WHEREAS, histvr&preserpa&orr aZb4w Anzerkans to e2perience their diverse }erg and cutm; and WHEREAS,. hrstw* presemdon enhances &e quaft of hft in ci es, Awms.p and r uvl areas across America; and WHEREAS, Ord Coon& is comnu&pd to prescrift ft hrsinric cu&wvj resomves for & ca=ns and fzkm genemaians; and WHEREAS, '"Freser don BP*W H&Awy To L& - rs the theme for Nahim& Historic P�eservvbbm Week 1992, co- sponsored by the OraMe Cow& Historic lmser i n Commission and #lie Na&bnal Trust-for Historic P�'eseron; ]VOW, THEREFORE, &c Oyw.W Gov Bo4wd of Camm&sioners does herePy procZdm May ZO- Z6, 2992 as Ha bnal Hrsiark Pmermdon Week in celebration of the cu iNjund her&w of Ommv Com& and hereby urges aB citzens to swam historic preseruadon efforts Adgp&d this 4dr day a, f May, 1992 Moses Gamey, Jr., Muir OmMe Goan& Awrd r�, f Camn ssioners I I O R A N G E C O U N T Y I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4. 1992 Action Agenda Item # V�- SUBJECT: PROPOSED NCDOT 1992 -93 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING x Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): 4/15/92 Letter from Division Engineer 1992 -93 Proposed Secondary Road Improvement Program 1991 -92 Secondary Road Improvement Program INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell - Extension 2589 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on the proposed North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) 1992 -93 Secondary Road Improvement Program. BACKGROUND: NCDOT is required by law to post the County map in the Orange County Courthouse showing proposed annual secondary road improvement projects and to hold a public hearing jointly with the Board of Commissioners on the proposed program. The anticipated 1992 --93 allocation for secondary roads totals $1,108,865. The allocation includes the following: Rural Unpaved Roads (2 Road Segments - 4.40 miles) $584,541 Subdivision /Residential Unpaved Roads (17 Road Segments - 3.46 miles) $464,075 Contingency $ 60,249 The anticipated 1992 -93 allocation represents a 22% decrease from 1991 -92. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. I .,+. STA7Z o- STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR P. O. BOX 14996 Greensboro, NC 27415 -4996 THOMAS J. HARRELSON April 15, 1992 SECRETARY Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Commissioners 344 Warren Way Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Dear Mr. Carey: 2 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Attached is the proposed 1992- 93'Secondary Road Construction Program for orange County. Please make this information available to the other Commissioners. We are looking forward to meeting with the County Commissioners on May 4, 1992. Sincerely, W. Watkins KVISION ENGINEER JWW:dj Atta. cc: Mr. Charles G. Lowdermilk Mr. Dave Phillips Y� John M. Link, Jr. Ms. Beverly Blythe Mr. E. M. Cowan ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1992 -93 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1992 -93 SECONDARY ALLOCATION $1,108,865 (Anticipated) MAP PRIORITY SR ESTIMATED NO. NO. NO. NAME AND DESCRIPTION LENGTH COST Paving Rural Unpaved Roads 1 20A 1544 Pearson Road 3.30 $411,804 from SR 1001 to NC 57 2 21 1572 Ebenezer Church Road 1.10 $172,737 from SR 1567 to Durham County Line .Total Rural Road Paving 4.40 $584,541 Paving Subdivision /Residential Unpaved Roads 3 13 1896 Purefoy Drive from 0.35 $55,269 SR 1729 to Dead End 4 15 1385M Fox Trail 0.35 $48,209 1386 Ponderosa Trail 1401 Mildred Court 5 16 1147 Rex Drive from 0.10 $17,653 SR 1144 to Dead End 6 18 1823M Wilkins Drive 0.45 $53,368 1824 Wilkins Drive 7 19 1564 Gibbs Lane from 0.40 $54,431 SR 1562 to Dead End 8 20 1204 Rex Drive from 0.16 $30,294 SR 1144 to Dead End 9 21 1206 King Edwards Road from 0.25 $32,972 Dead End off 1162 to Dead End 10 22 1325 N. Oak Street from 0.20 $27,681 US 70 to Dead End 11 24 2002M Wave Road 0.35 $46,366 2003 No Name 1 OF 2 A t MAP NO. PRIORITY NO. SR NO. NAME AND DESCRIPTION 12 25 1586M Carolina Loop Road 1587 Carolina Loop Road 1559 First Street 13 27 1613 Quail Hollow from SR 1593 to Dead End ESTIMATED LENGTH COST 0.75 $85,388 0.10 , $12,444 Total Subdivision /Residential Paving 3.46 $464,075 Contingency to be used for Cost Overruns, $60,249 Minor Safety Improvements, Additions to System, Paving and Maintenance of Rural Fire Department Drives and Property Owner Participation. Note: If Right of Way is not available on the above unpaved roads the funds will be programed on other roads in the order of priority or applied on Property Owner Participation Paving. Page 2 of 2 C050SRP4 \92 \acr r I ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1991 -92 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1991- 92-SECONDARY ALLOCATION $1,423,213 (Anticipated) MAP PRIORITY SR ESTIMATED NO. NO. NO. NAME AND DESCRIPTION LENGTH COST Paving Rural Unpaved Roads 1 1A 1791 Mt. Moriah Road from SR 1734 to-Durham Co. 2 19 1341B-.Harmony Church Road from SR 1339 to SR 1343 3 19A 1540 Hunt Road from SR 1548 to SR 1541 4 20 1340B High Rock Road from SR 1341 to SR 1343 1 of 3 Total. Rural Road Paving 0.75 $85,008 2.30 $260,691 2.00 $226,688 2.10 $238,022 7.15 $810,409 5 6 MAP PRIORITY SR ESTIMATED s NO. NO. NO. NAME AND DESCRIPTION LENGTH COST 67 R h �113 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 E11? 2 of 3 Paving Subdivision /Residential Unpaved Roads 13 1896 Purefoy Drive from 0.35 $35,703 SR 1729 to Dead End 14 1395M Harper Road 1.25 $127,512 $35,703 $10,201 $25,502 $45,904 $40,804 $16,322 $25,502 $20,402 $74,467 $35,703 $76,507 $10,201 Total Subdivision /Residential Paving 5.69 $580,433 1396 Locust Street 1397 Tulip Tree Road 1409 Cleo Court 15 1385M Fox Trail 0.35 1386 Ponderosa Trail 1401 Mildred Court 16 1147 Rex Drive from 0.10 SR 1144 to Dead End 17 1390 Holiday Park 0.25 from US 70 to Dead End 18 1823M Wilkins Drive 0.45 1824 Wilkins Drive 19 1564 Gibbs Lane from 0.40 SR 1562 to Dead End 20 1204 Rex Drive from 0.16 SR 1144 to Dead End 21 1206 King Edwards Road from 0.25 Dead End off 1162 to Dead End 22 1325 N. Oak Street from 0.20 US 70 to Dead End 23 1309 Shambley Service Sta. Road 0,.73 from US 70 to SR 1394 24 2002M Wave Road 0.35 2003 No Name 25 1586M Carolina Loop Road 0.75 1587 Carolina Loop Road 1559 First Street 27 1613 Quail Hollow 0.10 from SR 1593 to Dead End $35,703 $10,201 $25,502 $45,904 $40,804 $16,322 $25,502 $20,402 $74,467 $35,703 $76,507 $10,201 Total Subdivision /Residential Paving 5.69 $580,433 rA Contingency to be used for Cost overruns, $32,371 Minor Safety Improvements, Addition to System, Paving and - Maintenance of Rural Fire Department Drives and Property Owner Participation Note: If Right of Way is not available on the above unpaved roads the funds will be programed on other roads in the order of priority or applied on Property Owner Participation Paving. 3 of 3 C050SRP1 /04-02 -91 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda j�d ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No , Meeting Date: May 4, 1992 SUBJECT: 1992 -97 Capital Improvement Plan ----------------------------- DEPARTMENT Budget PUBLIC HEARING YES X NO ------------------------------- ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT None Sally Kost, ext 2152 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To continue a public hearing on the recommended 1992 -97 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). BACKGROUND: At the April 6 meeting, the Board of Commissioners received a presentation from the County Manager about his recommended 1992 -97 CIP. The Board conducted a public hearing on April 21 to receive citizen comments about the projects included in the recommended CIP. The Board decided to leave the public hearing open to receive additional citizen comment at the May 4 meeting. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board continue the public hearing and close it when all public comments have been received. 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda - ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No yz- Meeting Date: May 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Proposed School Impact Fees DEPARTMENT County Manager /Planning PUBLIC HEARING YES X NO ------------------------------- ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT None Rod Visser, ext 2300 Marvin Collins, ext 2585 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To conduct a public hearing on implementation of a set of school impact fees that will become effective July 1, 1992. BACKGROUND: One of the Commissioners' adopted goals for 1992 -93 is the implementation of a set of school impact fees to assist in financing construction of new school facilities necessitated by growth in Orange County. An ordinance and fee schedule are planned for adoption and implementation effective July 1, 1992. Staff have been working toward this goal throughout 1991 -92, with the Planning Director having presented a draft technical report to the Board of Commissioners in January 1992, and an interim implementation report at the April 21, 1992 meeting. At that meeting, the Board established May 4 as the date for an initial public hearing to receive comments from citizens and organizations directly interested in school impact fees. As required under the enabling legislation, a second public hearing on school impact fees is planned for inclusion in the regular quarterly public hearing to be held on May 26. Staff will provide a brief presentation on school impact fees for Public information prior to the opening of the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board conduct the public hearing. 0R1 rrcE COU irTY BOARD OF CO'"'IISSI ONE RS Act -on Agenda rte? 'ro .D ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1992 3�ECT: ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD CLOSING ------------------------------- Manager and PUBLIC HEARING YES: X 110: LNT: County Attorney ___--__-,.------------------------- - �, T 111FORMATIC "r CONTACT: Geoffrey Gledhill, (S) Petition County Attorney 11/1/87 and 11/15/87 Resolutions TFLEPHONE `fUMSER- 732 -2196 3/9/92 Resolution H- llsbcrough - 732 -3181 Agenda abstract of 3/9/92 BOCC meeting Cr:apel Hi11 - 968 - -501 NCGS Section 153A -241 Mebane - 227 -2031 Order Closing a Portion of Eno Durham - 688 -7331 ----------- PURPOSE: To conduct a public hearing on and to consider an order closing a portion of Eno Mountain Road. BACKGROUND: The attachments to this action agenda item abstract detail the history of a North Carolina Department of Transportation project which straightened and improved Eno Mountain Road. A petition has been received by the County requesting that the portion of the old right -of --way not now a part of Eno Mountain Road be closed. On March 9, 1992, the Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution declaring its intent to close the portion of the Eno Mountain Road right -of --way no longer.a part of Eno Mountain Road. The resolution declaring the Board's intent to close the portion of Eno Mountain Road abandoned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation has been published as required by law, copies have been sent by certified mail to each owner as shown on the County tax records of property adjoining the portion of the road abandoned and proposed to be closed as required by law and a notice of the closing and public hearing was prominently posted in seven places along the portion of the Eno Mountain Road that is proposed to be closed. During the public hearing of this matter, the Board must satisfy itself that closing this abandoned public road (the portion abandoned by N.C. DOT) is not contrary to. the public interest and that no individual owning property in the vicinity of the abandoned road or in a subdivision in which it is located would thereby be deprived of a reasonable- means of ingress and egress to his or her property. An order for the Board's consideration following the public hearing is an attachment to this action agenda item abstract. RECOMMENDATION: If the requirements of the proposed order are satisfied, adopt the order. +. L NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY TREDMONT, INC. and RESCO PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioners, !i BEFORE THE BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PETITION TO CLOSE A SEGMENT OF ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE ROAD 1148 TO THE HONORABLES, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY: Your petitioners respectfully show to the County Commissioners of Orange County: 1. That your petitioners, Tredmont, Inc. and Resco Products, Inc. are owners of property abutting and adjoining a portion of Eno Mountain Road (formerly part of S.R. 1148) that has been abandoned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation all as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as "the abandoned road. "] 2. That upon information and belief, the abandoned road does not provide to any individual owning property in its vicinity and to any subdivision in which it is located, reasonable means of ingress and egress. 3. That the abandoned road is a public road formerly under the control and supervision of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and identified as part of North Carolina State Road 1148. 4. That as a part of improvements to and the straightening of Eno Mountain Road (S.R. 1148) the abandoned road is no longer necessary to and used as part of Eno Mountain Road. 1 3 5. That the North Carolina Department of Transportation, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 5136 -63, has "abandoned" the abandoned road, as evidenced by the notification of abandonment which is part of Exhibit A to this petition. 6. That this petition is brought pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat . 5153A -241; that upon information and belief, John Watkins, District Engineer, North Carolina Department of Transportation will be provided with a copy of this petition together with notification of the time and place at which the closing of the abandoned road is to be the subject of a public hearing and action thereafter by the Board of County Commissioners; and that upon information and belief, upon adoption of a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of its intent to close the abandoned road, the resolution will be published once a week for four (4) weeks prior to the time set for a public hearing on the question of closing the abandoned road. 6. That upon information and belief, closing the abandoned road is not contrary to the public interest and no individual owning property in the vicinity of the abandoned road will be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his or her property. 7. That the abandoned road should be closed and the title thereto vested in the petitioners and other property owners whose property abuts the abandoned road as provided by N.C. Gen. Stat. §153A -241. F t 4 ,. WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County that the portion of Eno Mountain Road abandoned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as illustrated on Exhibit A be permanently closed by Order of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County following the adoption by the Board of County Commissioners of a resolution expressing its intent and a public hearing following public notice as provided by law. ATTE ; cretary ATTE T�� Secretary PENNSYLVANIA R�l��il�1 TREDMONT, INC. President RESCO PRODUCTS, INC. President William T. Tredennick being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is President of Tredmont, Inc., petitioner in this matter; that he has read the foregoing petition and that the same is true of his own knowledge except those matters and 3 things alleged therein on information and belief and as to those matters he believes them to be true. Sworn to and subscX.ibed before me this day of 19,�/'�� /f2 Notary Public My commission expires : p"'n' �✓�G�? PENNSYLVANIA MONTGOMERY COUNTY William T. Tredennick being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is President of Resco Products, Inc., petitioner in this matter; that he has read the foregoing petition and that the same is true of his own knowledge except those matters and things alleged therein on information and belief and as to those matters he believes them to be true. Sworn to and subscribed be.I ore iva this 6�day of 19 `I Notary Public My commission expires: 4 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY Orange County STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. Box 766 Graham, North Carolina 27253 -0766 December 20, 1990 Mr. John Link, Jr., Manager Orange County P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: SR 1148 - Eno Mountain Road Dear Mr. Link: EXHIBIT A 6 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P,E_ STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR I was recently contacted by Mr. Gary L. Hester of RESCO Products Inc. (Piedmont Minerals /Crescent Brick), concerning the abandonment of the right of way on the portion of the road abandoned during the realignment of SR 1148. Apparently the attorney representing RESCO Products Inc., and the attorney representing Orange County are trying to determine if the right of way on the abandoned road is in fact abandoned based upon the resolution you provided to me in your letter dated November 7, 1988. The following actions pertaining to the resolution have been completed. 1. SR 1148, Eno Mountain Road, has been constructed in accordance with the Hillsborough Thoroughfare plan dated October 1987. See attachment 1, color coded plan. 2. The North Carolina Board of Transportation approved a resolution to add 0.32 miles of the realigned road to the state system on September 6, 1989. See attachment 2. An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer Mr. John Link, Jr. December 20, 1990 Page Two 3. 0.58 miles of the old roadway was abandoned, based upon the resolution received from the county dated November 7, 1988, by the North Carolina Board of Transportation on September 6, 1989. See attachment 3 and 4. Please talk with the attorney representing the county and determine what assistance, if any, I may provide in resolving this matter. If you have questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me. Yours very truly, E. M. Cowan, P.E. District Engineer cc: -*Mr. Gary L. Hester w /attachments lq� ago Jb • 'I Q • in r rk 0 L4 cx 00 r) y _ y � u \` vf•a�u 7u\ "fe 61 roe C j 11 II 100 a t" i COUNTY Div. 5 Franklin Wake Wake BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION ROAD ADDITIONS PET. NO. LENGTH DESCRIPTION 34784 34785 34786 Wake 34787 Div. 6 Bladen 34818 Cumberland 34788 Cumberland 34789 Cumberland 34790 Harnett 34791 Harnett 34792 Div. 7 Orange Div. 10 1825.50 ft. 0.24 mi. 0.•17 mi . 0.04 mi. 0.17 mi. Nottingham Court Jicarilla Lane Sedgefield Park Subd Sedgefield Drive Helena Court Sedona Place 663 ft. Extension of SR 1559 250 ft. Dartmund Place 2500 ft. Beaver Run Drive Stratford Court Devonwood North 1370 ft. Tollhouse Drive 195 ft. Rainham Court 195 ft. Penshore Place 1819 ft. Wellington Lane Sierra Villa Subd. duo ft. Extensior. of SR 1181 .. Hermitage at Winchester 5/11/89 Sierra Trail 375 ft. Arizona Court 375 ft. Wyoming Court 985 ft. Highland Drive 0.27 mi'. PoFti-on : of SR 1335 Ken -ion Road H 9 DATE OF REPORT 10/17/89 11/16/89 10/16/89 10/18/89 10/11/89 6/30/89 5/26/89 5/26/89 7,/10/89 10/23/89 10/23/89 /- Cabarrus 34795 Huntwick Subdivision 7/25/89 2120 ft. Buckingham Lane 675 ft. Stratford Court 848 ft. Bedfordshire Avenue 919 ft. Manchester Avenue 1653 ft. Piccadily Lane 1819 ft. Wellington Lane 687 ft. Dorchester Avenue Mecklenburg 34796 .. Hermitage at Winchester 5/11/89 pAY' 350,f Liberty Bell Court ,. _ 300 .ft':: Apple: -Va] 1 ey Court • ATTACHMENT 2 ;2/1/89 i H -6 ' 10 BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION ABANDONMENTS DATE OF COUNTY PET. NO. LENGTH DESCRIPTION REPORT Div. 7 Orange.,' 34816 � 0.35 mi . Portion of SR 1 10/23,189 CORRECTION: (Meeting of 11/3/89) Cleveland County, Pet. No. 34716, Portion of SR 1807 SHOULD BE: Change Pet. No. to 34761 %X i'�� �1•� 1: tk •1'19 - $:l:: '�iv - ..i'`i P 'Pik "�' '� r,• .r.: i - .scar ,6 ATrACc 4 12/-1/89 ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA November 7, 1988 Mr. E.I.M. Cowan, District Engineer Department of Transportation P.O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 Dear Mike: C i EaCiifwl 1752 Please find enclosed a resolution adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners which indicates that pursuant to N. C. General Statute Section 136 -63, Orange County will request the N.C.D.O.T. to abandon that portion of the existing right -of -way of Eno Mountain Road that would no longer be a part of the road upon its realignment. Please note that this intent expressed by the Board is contingent on the Eno Mountain Road project being built according to the plans identified in the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan adopted in October, 1987. Should you have any questions about this resolution or its intent, please call me. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincere Y, it • G G G'.~ J04rr�~Link Orange County Manager JML /asd Attachment FILE: COWAN2.DOC A9TACENEW 3 NORTH CAROLINA RESOLUTION ORANGE COUNTY 12 WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation con- templates realigning the right of way of and paving End Mountain Road, which road is located south of the Town of Hillsborough, and WHEREAS, Orange County supports this project provided the new right of way'of Eno Mountain Road follows the richt c` way of that road from the point southwest of the Eno River 'to. its intersection with Orange Grove Road depicted on the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan ado3ted by the Town of Hillsborough on September 21, 1937 and by the North Carolina Department of Transportation on nc*ober 9. 1987 (the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan, copy of which is attached to this Resolution and made a part of it), and- WHEREAS, 0_ange County has been asked by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to express its intention to request the North Carolina Department of Transporta- tion to abandon whatever portions of the existing right of way of Eno Mountain Road that will no longer be a part of the new right of way of that road. NOW., THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Orange County that it will, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Section 136 -63, request the North Carolina Department of Transportation to aban- don so much of the existing right of way of Eno Mountain Road as ..:`2.S :;-no .longer or . with . no` ;longer be part of that road upon its ATTACF14ENT 3 13 realignment by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. PROVIDED HOWEVER, this request by Orange County will only be made if the right of way of the Eno Mountain Road project now con- templated by the North Carolina Department of fransportaticn fol- lows the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan from the point southwest of the Eno River to its intersection with Orange Grove Road. Unanimously adopted by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County this 1st day of November, 1988. ATTACF 3 14 0 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTENT TO CLOSE A PORTION OF ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD WHEREAS, petitioners Tredmont, Inc. and Resco Products, Inc. have filed a petition before the Board of County Commissioners to close the portion of Eno Mountain Road (S.R. 1148) identified in blue on the map which is part of Exhibit A to this Resolution (hereinafter "the abandoned road "); and WHEREAS, it appears from the petition that the abandoned road, formerly under the control and supervision of the Department of Transportation, has now been abandoned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as evidenced by the notification of abandonment which is part of Exhibit A to this Resolution; and', WHEREAS, it appears that no individual, firm or corporation owns property in the vicinity of said road without a reasonable means of ingress and egress to his, her or its property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County that it intends to close the abandoned road. That prior to a decision on the closing of the abandoned road, a public hearing shall be held in the courtroom of the old Orange County Courthouse, the regular place of meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, on the 4th day of May, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. The Clerk to. the Board of County Commissioners is directed to publish this Resolution in the Chapel Hill Herald and the News of Orange County once a week for four (4) successive weeks before said hearing and that the Clerk shall send by certified mail to each owner of property adjoining the abandoned 1 J 15 road and shall prominently post a copy of this Resolution in at least two (2) places along the abandoned road as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 5153A -241. This the 9th day of March , 19922 . Commissioner Halkiotis moved the passage of the foregoing resolution and Commissioner Insko seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes:_ Chai r Moses Carey. Jr. and Commi ssinners Al i.Gin M Gdrd0n, Stephen H. Halkiotis, Verla C. Insko and _Don Willhoit Noes NONE _ NORTH CAROLINA 161 [elAPL4i1R. I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of so much of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners for said County at a meeting held March 9, 1992 , as relates in any way to the Resolution for closing a portion of Eno Mountain Road as illustrated on Exhibit A to the Resolution hereinabove set forth, and that the said proceedings are recorded in the Minute Book containing the minutes of said Board for said date. WITNESS my hand and the common seal of said County, this the 16th day of March 19 92 . [SEAL] Beverly B1 e, Clerk t the Orange County Bo rd of Commissioners 2 16 s OR�_NGE COUNTY 3O; -.RD OF =,21ISSIONERS r,ct_on A e ^tea it 110. ACTION AGE: +DA ITEM nBST?ACT Meetinq Sate: March.9, 1992 3.7ECT: ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD CLOSING -? ,R i1ENTrTCOUNTY MANAGER /r^ _.._ - -- ___COUNTY ---- -- j�____ :tEidT (S) . Petition 11/1/87 and 11/15/87 Resolutions Resolution N.C.G.S. 5153A -241 PUBLIC- HEARING - -- YES: _ NO: X -------------------------- - -- INFORMATION CONTACT: Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, TELEPHOPTE 1lUMBER- 732 --2196 Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel HI-11 - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider a resolution declaring the intent of the Board of Commissioners to close a portion of Eno Mountain Road: BACKGROUND: In November 1987 the Board of Commissioners adopted two resolutions (the first on November 1, 1987; the second on November 15, 1987) expressing its support of the straightening and paving of Eno Mountain Road, generally from the Eno River south to its intersection with Orange Grove Road. Those resolutions requested the North. Carolina Department of Transportation to abandon the Eno'Mountain Road right of •way that existed then and that would no longer be used after the road straightening and paving project was complete. Finally, the Board resolved that it would do its part in.the process of abandoning Eno Mountain Road by declaring its intent to close the abandoned portion of the road and to hold a public hearing on the closing. This latter step was an important feature in the agreement to straighten and improve Eno Mountain Road because the owners of the property abutting the new road gave the Department of Transportation the right of way for the-road improvements with the expectation that the right of way for the abandoned portion of the road would revert to them as provided by law in the case of a closed public road. The road project is now complete and the North Carolina Department of Transportation has abandoned, for maintenance purposes, the old road. With a letter dated February 24, 1992, the County Attorney received a petition from Tredmont, Inc. and Resco Products, Inc., owners of a substantial portion of the abandoned segment of Eno Mountain Road, formally requesting that the abandoned section of the road be closed. The next step in this process is for the Board of Commissioners to adopt the attached resolution declaring its intent to close the public road and to set the public hearing for the road closing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Board can formally close the road provided it can make the findings of fact which are required by the statute authorizing road closings which statute is also attached to this agenda abstract. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager and the County Attorney recommend the adoption of the resolution declaring the Board's intent to.close designated portions of Eno Mountain Road. V1 I :i i :C *Z tkv -, 4. w o, U� 17 §153A -241 CH. 153A. COUNTIES in at least one newspaper of general circulation published `it county, After naming or renaming a public road, or assi reassigning street numbers on a public road, a county sha 11 notice of its action to be given to the local postmaster with juR tion over the road, to the Board of Transportation, and to within five miles of the road. (1957, c. 1068; 1973, c. 507, S. any s. 1; 1981, cc. 112, 518; 1987, c, 28, S. 2_) 5 >`c' Local Modification. - Alamance: 1987 (Reg. Sea$., 1988), c. 900; 1989, c. 335, s. 1; Avery: 1983, c- 98; Brunswick: 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; 1983, c. 98; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, amending 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; 1983, c. 98; Cleve. land: 1987 (Reg. Sess -, 1988), c. 906; 1989, c. 156, s. 1; Forsyth: 1981, c. 558; Guilford: 1979, c. 283; McDowell: 1989" c. 335, s. 1; New Hanover: 1983, c. 98; Stokes: 1983, c. 299; 1989, c. 335, S. 1; Surry: 1983, c. 299; Wake (Incorporated municipalities therein, only): 1989, c. 511, s. 1. Cross References. - As to naming roads and assigning street numbers in certain unincorporated areas of ei excepted from the application oft} tion, see § 153A•239.L Editor's Note, - Session Laws c. 1319, s. 1, as amended from ti time, excepts the following co, from the application of this se Alamance, Avery, Brunswick, E Cabarrus, Cleveland, Henderson, Dowell, New Hanover, Pender; dolph, Sampson, Stokes and Surry ( ties. See Cross Reference above :i The catchline of this section has modified at the direction of the Re of Statutes. § 153A -241. Closing public roads or e A county may permanently close any public road or any', ment within the county and not within a city, except public roai easements for public roads under the control and supervision o; Department of Transportation. The board of commissioners i first adopt a resolution declaring its intent to close the public: or easement and calling a public hearing on the question. The bi shall cause the resolution to be published once a week for• successive weeks before the hearing, a copy of the resolution 't sent by registered or certified mail to each owner as shown on county tax records of property adjoining the public road or e, ment who did not join in the request to have the road or easerr, closed, and a notice of the closing and public hearing to be pro nently posted in at least two places along the road or easement; the hearing the board shall hear all interested persons who app with respect to whether the closing would be detrimental to'� public interest or to any individual property rights. If, after' hearing, the board of commissioners is satisfied that closing public road or easement is not contrary to the public interests (in the case of a road) that no individual owning property in i vicinity of the road or in the subdivision in which it is located wol thereby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress, his property, the board may adopt an order closing the road, easement. A certified copy of the order (or judgment of the cou shall be filed in the office of the register of deeds of the coun, Any person aggrieved by the ' losing of a public road or an ea., meat may appeal the board of commissioners' order to the approp . ate division of the General Court of Justice within 30 days after t; day the order is adopted. The court shall hear the matter de no and has jurisdiction to try the issues arising and to order the roi or easement closed upon proper findings of fact by the trier of fa'( 116 -�-241 §153A -241 ART. 12. ROADS AND BRIDGES §153A -241 n the No cause of action founded upon the invalidity of a proceeding ng or en in closing a public road or an easement may be asserted cause 'isdic- cept in an action or proceeding begun within 30 days after the the order is adopted. V city y 'Upon the closing of a public road or an easement . 822 pursuant to this section, all right, title, and interest in the right -of- -way is vested in ose persons owning lots or parcels of land adjacent to the road or easement, and the title of each adjoining landowner, for the width untie$ of his abutting land, extends to the center line of the public road or us sec. easement. However, the right, title or interest vested in an adjoin- landowner by this paragraph remains subject to any public 1971, utility use or facility located on, over, or under the road or ease - ,me to Ypent immediately before its closing, until the landowner or any unties successor thereto pays to the utility involved the reasonable cost of action: removing and relocating the facility. (1949, c. 1208, ss. 1.3; 1957, c. Burke, 65; s. 11; 1965, cc. 665, 801; 1971, c. 595; 1973 ' c. 507 s. 5; c. 822, s. ' I. Mc- °1977, c. 464, s. 34.) Ran - Coun- local Modification. — Guilford: within the boundaries of a dedicated 3 been 'evisor 9791 C. 282; 1981, c. 59. street when use of the street is diseon- Legal Periodicals. — For note dis- tinued, see 45 N.C.L. Rev. 564 (1967). .;''ag the disposition of property :S. tds or )f the shall road -)card to be n the ease- ment ,�omi- t. At )pear the the the and the ould ,s to d or )urt) n ty. ,ase- ipri- the invo road i'act. M CASE NOTES ?Editor's Note. — Some of the cases fled below were decided under corre- oonding sections of former latir, �.Qwners of property on a street Phich is to be partially closed have a interest in the hearing on the re- aest to close the street. In re City of ►ashington, 15 N.C. App, 505, 190 AN 309, cert. denied, 282 N.C. 151, )l S.E.2d 601 (1972). Legislative Intent as to Giving No. ee. — The true legislative intent is at if a municipality wishes to close a rest, or a part thereof, the notices re• tired must be given. Such an intent if it and just, because it affords all inter. ,Led parties an opportunity to be heard. re City of Washington, 15 N.C. App, 5, 190 S.E.2d 309, cert. denied. 282 C. 151, 191 S.E.2d 601 (1972). Notice to Adjoining Property wners Not to Be Limited to Those th Special Interest. — The statute Iuires notice by registered mail to the 'hers of property adjoining the street be closed who did not join in the re- sat for closing the street. The words of 1.: statute are clear and unequivocal, ere is nothing to indicate that only lee i it a "special interest" must be by regitered mail. In re City of gton, 15 N.C. App. 505, 190 S.E.2d 309, cert. denied. 282 N.C. 151. 191 S.E.2d 601 (1972r. Restrictions on County's Power to Close a Way of Passage. — From this section and § 153A -239, it is clear that a county does not have the power to close a way of passage which has not been dedicated to the public or in which the public has not acquired rights by pre. scription. In re Easement of Right of Way. 90 N.C. App, 303, 368 S.E.2d 639 (19881. The closing of a street must not de. prive a property owner of reason. able ingress or egress. Wofford v. North Carolina State Hwy, Comm'n, 263 N.C. 677, 140 S.E.2d 376, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 822, 86 S. Ct. 50, 15 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1965). An individual may restrain the wrongful obstruction of a public way, of whatever origin. if he will suffer injury thereby as distinct from the in- convenience to the public generally, and he may recover such special damages as he has sustained by reason of the ob- struction, Wofford v. North Carolina State Hwy, Comm'n, 263 N.C. 677, 140 S.E.2d 376, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 822. 86 S. Ct. 50, 15 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1965). Applied in Whitehead Community Club v. Hoppers. 43 N.C. App, 671, 260 S.E.2d 94 (1979). 117 W cn n c o °' ti x� cn eD z i i . r 1 a I4 19 NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORDER CLOSING A PORTION OF ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD (FORMERLY PART OF S.R. 1148) WHEREAS, upon the petition of Tredmont, Inc. and RESCO Products, Inc., which petition is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, the Board of County Commissioners, on March 9, 1992, adopted a resolution declaring its intent to close the portion of Eno Mountain Road (S.R. 1148) identified in blue on the map which is part of Exhibit A (hereinafter "the abandoned road "); and WHEREAS, it appears from the petition that the abandoned road, formerly under the.control and supervision of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, has now been abandoned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as evidenced by the notification of abandonment which is part of Exhibit A to this resolution; and WHEREAS, as provided by law, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County have conducted a public hearing following notice as required by law, in order to determine that the closing of the abandoned road is not contrary to the public interest and in order to determine that no individual owning property in the vicinity of abandoned the road or in a subdivision in which the abandoned road is located would thereby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his or her property; and WHEREAS, the Board finds as a fact from the evidence presented at the public hearing that (1) it is not contrary to the public interest for the abandoned road to be closed, and (2) no individual ?� owning property in the vicinity of the abandoned road or in a subdivision in which the abandoned road is located would thereby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his or her property. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the portion of Eno Mountain Road (S.R. 1148) identified in blue on the map which is part of Exhibit A to this order is hereby closed. The Chair of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County is hereby authorized to sign this order on behalf of Orange County and the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is authorized to attest this order and to affix to it the County seal. This the day of ATTEST: 1992. (SEAL] Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners for Orange County, North Carolina, do HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the ORDER CLOSING A PORTION OF ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD (FORMERLY PART OF S.R. 1148) adopted by the Board of Commissioners for Orange County at a meeting of said Board held The original of this Order is filed in the permanent agenda file for said meeting maintained by the Clerk's office of said Board. WITNESS my hand and seal of said County this the day of 1992. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the S E A L Orange. County Board of Commissioners I ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. y;L-, ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Efland CDBG Application DEPARTMENT: Housing /Comm. Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: x NO: ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes Application Summary TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: - - -To receive citizen comments regarding the proposed FY92 Community Development Block Grant Application for the Efland Community and authorize submission of the formal application document by May 15, 1992. BACKGROUND: The North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development Department (ECD) has announced the availability of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for Community Revitalization projects. A public hearing was held on March 9, 1992 to receive citizen comments prior to developing a grant application. Based on comments received at this public hearing from Efland residents, County staff has conducted a door -to -door survey in the Efland area to determine the severity of needs and to allow residents an opportunity to express their housing needs and concerns. Based on this information, a proposed application design has been developed. Specifically, the proposed activities are Acquisition, Sewer Improvements, Housing Rehabilitation, Water Improvements and Clearance. The attached summary details each activity and also provides cost estimates for these activities. The project boundary is also defined in this summary. Total project cost is estimated at $1,130,000. ECD requires applicants to conduct a second public hearing after the grant application has been prepared in order to receive additional comments prior to submission. The application document is due May 15, 1992. 0N(S): The Manager recommends the following: 1. Receive citizen comments as additional information. 2. Authorize the submission of the Efland CDBG Application by May 15, 1992 and authorize the Chair to sign the application document on behalf of the Board upon approval by the County Attorney. FA ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM EFLAND SEWER IMPROVEMENT AREA APPLICATION SUMMARY The proposed Efland Sewer CDBG Area is located in the Cheeks Township of the County in an area bounded on the south by Highway 85, on the west by Watson Road, east by Gaines Chapel Road and on the north by the north side of Tinnen Road. A map delineating the area is attached. This area is plagued by malfunctioning septic systems, deteriorated housing and the lack of water service. In order to eliminate the above blighting conditions, the following project activities are proposed: ACTIVITY COST ACQUISITION -- Acquire 80,000 square feet of right -of -way and easements for sewer and water improvements -- Acquire 6 dilapidated dwellings $ 72,000 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS -- Construction of 4,500 if of 8" Sanitary Sewer line; 2450 if 2" Force Main including installation of a Pump Station -and 37 service connections $ 409,986 SOUSING REHABILITATION -- Repair 37 deteriorated houses $ WATER IMPROVEMENTS -- Provide public water service to two dwellings $ CLEARANCE -- Remove six deteriorated dwellings from the area $ LOCAL OPTION PROGRAM -- Repair nine deteriorated dwellings -- Acquire one deteriorated dwellings - -Clear one deteriorated dwelling -- Provide water service to one dwelling PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Ongoing Administration TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 360,674 5,000 18,000 $ 84,340 $ 180,000 $ 1,130,000 .k- i -w r r x c� zz z a 1 n n a r z Y a n lu Iz` m A ^•1 Im CD II II II o n r* m n 0 0 U d W � N ro Q IG m 17 I B- �p 1 I 4 I ❑� Nop I � 0,0 1 1 =0 I ❑w� 6 p o• � •aa -i d Ba°5p Itl N m u co we � N D ®c En m - W v.❑ cm Q� x 0 > ❑ ❑ Q v 101 ❑ lihi cl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ El 0 00❑ 0 p m 1 ❑ 00- '13 tm0 C] is 73dtlHD d 1 STOVE (A , e ❑I , LO Is , w °I Ir in I Irrn D ,I I II II II ❑ c ❑ 1 ❑ Cl ❑ ° ❑ ❑ ❑Op❑❑ n O RICHMOND RD. ❑ ODu� d n � 0 0 0 r HO�RD� GIG] 19000 <mW u m_ m ^ m 19 F- 0 11, '• - �m rr1 m � W � NFL r I I i ib°p i P B • � P I O� 1 BP IUTA .1 7� p� vo a I i I m (7) m _ z m n-n x 0 T a N r. n Z p a m 0 M O M i 0 1 ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 4, 1992 Action Agenda Item # V$ A.- SUBJECT: JAIL INSPECTION REPORT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _x _N* ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, EXTENSION 2300 JAIL INSPECTION REPORT 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 March 24, 1992, from the North Carolina Department of Human Resources. 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 March 24, 1992, is enclosed for review, and indicates our compliance with standards. TION: The Manager recommends that the Board of Commissioners receive the report. No corrective action is required. �•� rn� v North Carolina Department of Human Resources Division of Facility Services 701 Barbour Drive • P. O. Box 29530 • Raleigh, N. C. 27626 -0530 Courier Number 56 -20 -05 James G. Martin, Governor David T. Flaherty, Secretary April 20, 1992 Mr. Lindy Pendergrass, Sheriff Orange County Sheriff's Department 125 Court Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 -2510 Dear Sheriff Pendergrass: r. APR 21 1992 2 John M. Syria, Director Telephone (919) 733 -4560 On March 24, 1992, Ernest T. Dixon, Area Jail Consultant from the North Carolina Department of Human Resources inspected the Orange County Jail, A copy of the inspection is attached for your attention. Please submit your plan of corrective action on each deficiency cited in this report to this office by May 20, 1992. If you have any questions, please call me at (919)733 -4560. Sincerely, Ernest T. Dixon Area Jail Consultant ETD:ss Attachment cc: File Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners ✓Mr. John Link, Orange County Manager W W L) Q -4 U . 0 cQi�wawrn 3 aG °a c N .AO ri W W 1-4 1 -4 E 41 N xL) = U 0% 0z— d w oWa�x`� .4 o WQ a y, u U ❑ H H pp . A z CA 0 ON M� N ON Q I► V7 � q v z Q I--1 H U a v71 ;; - w s N G M A H m a a w C� I w O u d a. +� m A �Gi OI N LM a a a . z M � u ^w W d s O a m rl z C^1 to wi d a a n � � G d G • m V 7+ b W O 0 a 1 a a .-a U an m rl 44 N G O rl W o q O -H O O 7 u u a q CC a+ w - ca cc 44 4-4 W O O O A to U A A u p A ill U� ►7 ,ui o a o w 41 a u m w m ,4 O v-1 G C rl � � Q v.+ w v CO w rl id N w ,mi 3 c m W W 0 41 w .4 a y, u pp CA l4t C" � W U G y�++ �) En z Ri w E W a 4.. W H O ►+ C y O d O x •_ rl ,w7 x M H W H 9 � ;wan L C m � C/] CAC H U2 Sr z a r•i 7 m a ;sn W a+ c w 44 x o 9 w O U W �r m c0 a �. Cp J : � G O �+ 0► � O Y O m b r- a w G y v a N N V O G u to m x co 40 ON u p A ill U� ►7 ,ui o a o w 41 a u m w m ,4 O v-1 G C rl � � Q v.+ w v CO w rl id N w ,mi a oa O ,H u; w w f=+ 00 O O w x to O m W W 41 w � A pp CA l4t C" W y�++ En z Ri w E W a W H N y O d O x ,w7 x M H W H 9 ;wan C/] H U2 z r•i m Fz, ;sn W a+ w 44 x 9 w Cp a oa O ,H u; w w f=+ 00 O O w x to O 9 4.1 O le V +044 o A4 M ° � •S - `"83"9 rNl � N 3•I •� 14 •N rl LO $ v N 44 • N �J N N N N V-1 + Ui o vii U .. � o 3 06 w U .,q 4 o un � N •• i 44 N U W •� +� r-4 a n 2S - 25 - - - - M GI n 2S - 25 - - - - M GI mo 67 8 • • cry 04 W a I c.i� ' 1 lu� �� Hb O� Off+ 16 N mm NO 6 1 �d in 02 E-4 7 ?C M Ff H b4 14 M in 02 E-4 7 CA pO I cv E • m 3 N O C � • ?1 fn • `"• o Ln N �; N y ' "? ri 1� 8 � ■ e q UWw H=■ a ■ 20 w _ ■ E §�0 § a r. 0 09 U2 H Ul r en q w, o � m 2 2 5 �� v� @ 2 �■ K � Aa o w o� � 0E� Q e� m �H - wE- &u ■4« u� w -0 z ¥ « 4 ■■ ■, o FA uQ - - -o Aar■ pw pw -HH Pw ■ �U;u 2�2 Egq maw u $SdK §� � k�■ cn sH 2a2 �BQ a §2� q k� 0 k�\ ■ a §§ B2�wq � w Q ■ � §A�2 W E- wE7 /b 2B§ -2 O I W . n • • w n 9'1 LM H 5 N V N • n r _ + • y � . • J 1 • -1 •rl i,J I �i �H P 1� a c O � N ri) C4 qw rl N r' m .-- > I � I �i O +� m � � 4 m -� rl a m �� . ul U) 10 N Q m O O v • n 44 fl 0 O i 74 O+ U t•1 U fs+ rl 1� +J •.•1 4-1 A CC O 41 H v r0d� •� a 11o4 i ii 3 v zl w Ti O U m �CC O � N n rte► Ua �M N yQ m Q � m .-- > I � I �i O +� m � � 4 m -� rl a m �� . ul U) 10 N Q m O O v • n 44 fl 0 O i 74 O+ U t•1 U fs+ rl 1� +J •.•1 4-1 A CC O 41 H v r0d� •� a 11o4 i ii 3 Q G 44 cc as Q R y a a u w Z R m 0) C 00 "4 o P-1 cc ce b a -W " a.+ I (D cvn M �"q 3 0 o M"4 d o R w u .-+ 0) q ? G Q a.�a°'0 "441w 0`0 >�e010 04 bo N m ra Ri cd P4 R O .0 0 .R O R r 4 1J w R 0) w Q Q m u U O ri o u a u a r1 0 a «4 O M a 3 0 x 0 +1 3 0 41 u w a a m w w w u a) N a) P4 "0 6 w d o ami a a4) 01 w 4+ w -M - q H O w o Aj w �g 4j M. 4j 0� m A a. 6 A 0" A +-� m A ,a w C7 Q G 44 cc as Q R y a a u w a 0) C 3 o P-1 •0 •Oi a ,4 cvn a 0 0 u a I R a m � G a to d -M u W U w � c7 Q o 0 m u -C o u ►'i. �. d � o a° a° a v, a 0 0 u a I 0 41 -C w u ►'i. a . w 0 � o 0 w a w m u ub' .mar I z r•o 0 Q co 00g p -H +w+ • +w+ m t I 0 Q m T+u u0 "4 "q a"wQo ►+a a0 umao 44 uAJ0u w a a a— 3 aura W T 'C7 1+ to to �-+ S Q a 0 0 u a i • I� a r t o 4J u � Id 4-1 A3 N U 0 N a' x 14, S O a a b r"' q O � U - U o 0 a o u N ao "4 w U .0 O $0 ++ P4 O O to v b V4 +r4 m �+ M � u a u a 0 m a� w wx a Ph N� V-1 - w be 4.0 ca v, m ° a a .saim u �+ a+ u 41 of CJ P�4 , C� �, Ptl M M b� ad ►4 p4 P4 74 7C o 4J u � Id 4-1 A3 N U 0 N a' x 15 a N Q M H U W C4 G4 O U A�p W C4 Q U 6 � H-1 � E t x cf� U q Z d A W � r.7 y a pa Ua>4 a c. Qj u cc x 00 0 41 to W �0 ++ fA rl GG .r.� O o a 3 d ca o p 0 0) O � W � Aj x U .� A c/1 U A Q z 3 a, d 0 m d of d w a JJ iJ r 4 cc 44 L M " R L co 41 p to -H +.Id tv a c :5 c w a a a a cr A. ,� ti 0 o� a J rl tr ,+ Z :J w A a s 0 m d d 00 a d � ii 4 w W w 41 rl O O A ti O y w w C G Ly CH ,7 � � a te 0► a . 41 m + 4 tv 41 4j o 410 0 a Y,dp�o 0 + L4 03 L7 L H'7 u w c y a v P, a w a w N a 0 w 0 Irl m m �c a a a w WA +4 w a G a u a a m G H a 1.1 G rl 4+ r A V a ti a a.► G 0 U G 4 m w a Pw w O I b a U d m .a V w m 4 �rl O ru w a ca a P4 H 0 z H w cn w E d U w w Liz e"� r aW u d m A ou a w a U w a w d b a rk d x w a �a a a m a -A w ,-1 ,o w a m a m w A w 0 a w a 3 O to w d L m 1.1 a �J it to A L.� z u cd w C 0 O CO a CO a m dD C w�1 V w to 00 a w 16 T I O O , - 1" tl O rl O O �m CCCpppiii O 4 z i a Aj . . ­ •4116 7 I GL. 17 pp- whr O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 4, 1992 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: TRIANGLE FIXED GUIDEWAY STUDY DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X —No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, EXTENSION 2300 NONE TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To invite the Orange County Board of Commissioners to a meeting of elected officials from the area on June 22, 1992, at the North Carolina Biotechnology Center in the Research Triangle Park. BACKGROUND: The Triangle Transit Authority will be starting a study of several types of guideway transit systems. The Authority is initiating the study with a meeting of all elected officials from the area. A brief out- line of the Fixed Guideway Study and the management structure will be handed out at that time. Confirmed speakers include Authority Chair Bill Burkhardt; Jon Howes, Transit Authority Planning Chair; U. S. Repre- sentative David Price and State Representative Howard Lee. Also invited are Governor Jim Martin and State Representatives Peggy Stamey and Dan Blue. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board of Commissioners accept the invitation to participate in the Triangle Transit Authority Meeting on June 22, 1992. a 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. y �- ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment Systems Management: Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance Program DEPARTMENT: HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: HEALTH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE X2411 1) Memorandum from Daniel B. Reimer, Health Director TELEPHONE NUMBER: 2) Report of Data Regarding Wastewater Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Treatment Systems in Orange County chapel Hill - 968 -4501 Mebane - 227 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To provide information regarding optional wastewater treatment systems in orange county, as well as related requirements of the N. C. Division of Environmental Health for system reviews in management entities. This report will require a decision by the county commissioners. BACKGROUND: The N. c.. commission for Health services has adopted new rules regarding optional wastewater treatment system approval, monitoring and maintenance. The orange County Health Department has proposed a Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance Program (MAMA) which would meet or exceed the DER requirements. The attached report describes the DEH requirements for review and management, the health department's proposed review frequency, and the rationale for them. At the Board of Health meeting of April 2, 1992, the attached data was reviewed. The Board revisited and reaffirmed its earlier position that the health department be the management entity for all Type IV systems. However, the Health Department does not propose to be a management entity for Type II, conventional systems, or Type III, conventional systems with a pump, sized greater than 480 gallons per day (GPD) or in a multiple family dwelling. The health department does not propose system review frequencies more stringent than those required by DEH. The health department cannot be a management entity for Type V or Type VI systems, because the DEH rules require either a public management entity (PME) or a private certified operator (PCO). The county engineer is preparing a report to discuss optional methods for creating a public management entity in orange County for Type V and v2 systems and for systems currently regulated by the N. C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) and the utilities commission. subsequent meeting. This report will be presented at a 2 Regarding systems governed by DEM, the health departments MAMA program does propose a review frequency to improve the surveillance of these systems in Orange county. Authorization to do so would be granted through an agreement with DEM which has been accomplished in other counties. The health department MAMA program proposes that all program costs be recovered on the basis of a fee structure. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Commissioners review the enclosed data and decide: 1) whether to support the Board of Health's designation of the health department as management entity for Type IV systems. 2) To direct the staff to develop projected costs and a fee schedule necessary to fully fund the monitoring and . maintenance assurance program in the context of the FY 92 -93 budget ordinance. 3) To direct the staff to develop a draft agreement with DEM for the review of systems approved by DEM, which will be considered in conjunction with the county engineers report. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Box 8181, 3060 Revere Road ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION P.O. Box 8181, 304 Revere Road Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 HILLSBOROUGH (919) 73248181 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: C9nahge County 94edth lTepoomeint CHAPEL HILL (919) 967 -9251 Daniel B. Reimer, MPH, Director ,d. �4 MEMORANDUM John Link, County Manager Daniel B. Reimer, Health Director April 7, 1992 MEBANE (919) 227.2032 3 PERSONAL HEALTH DIVISION DENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Box 8181, 300 W, Tryon St. Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Commissioners' Goal: wastewater Treatment systems Management; Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance Program DURHAM (919) 688 -7333 Enclosed please find the reformatted information data regarding wastewater treatment systems relative to the Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance Program. Per our plan, the educational program for conventional systems was developed prior to presenting this information about optional wastewater systems. The first three pages reorganize, simplify, and summarize data that was discussed with the Commissioners at the October 7, 1991, working session. The first two pages display data regarding systems controlled by the Division of Environmental Health (DER). The third page summarizes systems controlled by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The following pages provide detailed information on each type of system as the Commissioners requested. Returning to the summary charts, the first column lists the kinds of systems according to the DEH system classification. The second column specifies the minimum review frequency required of every health department by DEH. The third column describes the review frequency that DEH requires of a management entity, where applicable. The fourth column outlines the review frequency the orange county Health Department proposes as a part of its Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance (MAMA) Program. The final column gives the number of systems in orange County. As it can be seen from the attached chart, DEH requires no review or management of Type I and Type II systems. The health department had proposed a more stringent requirement, that the Type II, conventional systems, be included under the proposed MAMA program. However, this proposal has been removed from our current plan. Type III systems, which also do not require a management entity will be reviewed by the health department with the same frequency as minimally required by DEH. For the Type IV systems, low pressure pipe and multiple pump systems, the health department proposes to be the management entity. Therefore, the SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE: Carr MITI Mall, Suite 225, 100 N. Greensboro SL, Carrboro, N.C. 27510, (919) 968 -2022 3a MEMORANDUM Page 2 April 7, 1992 review frequency in the proposed MAMA, program would be the same as the management entity. The DEH required frequency would be replaced with a more stringent requirement. The rationale for this is outlined in the individual pages titled, "TYPE IV, LOW PRESSURE, AND TYPE IV, PUMP CONVENTIONAL WITH MULTIPLE PUMP." There are alternatives to the health department being the management entity. Private companies could have an employee trained as a private, certified operator and contract with system owners for this function. Similarly, public management entities such as utility companies could do the same. It is the position of the health department staff and the Board of Health that the Environmental Health staff are the ones most skilled in designing and monitoring these systems. Furthermore, low pressure pipe systems constituted approximately 33% of all systems approved by the health department last year, whereas the state -wide average was approximately 8%. This significant dependence upon low pressure pipe systems motivates the Board of Health to seek a more frequent review of these systems than every three years. The health department does not propose being a management entity for Type v and Type VI systems. In fact, the DEH rules require a public management entity. However, the health department does propose a review frequency more stringent than the DEH requirements. it is the opinion of the Environmental Health staff and the professional engineer on the Board of Health that the minimum requirements of DEH are not adequate to orange County conditions. The DEH rules to be implemented July, 1992, do not apply to the DEM systems. Therefore, there is no management entity requirements for the DEM systems. operator maintenance frequencies are required by DEM for sand filters of non- single family dwelling units, package plants, and sludge application sites. While the health department can not be a management entity for these systems, it does propose a review frequency in its Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance Program to assure that the ground and service waters of orange County are protected. At the Board of Health meeting on April 2, 1992, the attached data was reviewed. The Board revisited and reaffirmed its earlier position that the health department be the management entity for all Type IV systems. DER /src 4 DEH (GROUND ABSORPTION) SYSTEMS DEH SYSTEM JULY '92 JULY '92 PROPOSED NUMBER CLASSIFICATION DEH REQUIRED DEH REQUIRED OCHD SYSTEM OF (SECTION .1961) REVIEW FREQ. REVIEW FREQ. REVIEW FREQ. SYSTEMS FOR OCHD FOR ME's TYPE I PRIVY, GREASE TRAP, COMPOSTING, N/A N/A N/A UNKNOWN CHEMICAL, AND INCINERATING TOILET TYPE II CONVENTIONAL, SINGLE FAMILY N/A N/A N/A 12,000 DWELLING OR LESS THAN 481 GPD TYPE III CONVENTIONAL, NON — SINGLE FAMILY 5 YRS. N/A 5 YRS. 2050' DWELLING, OR GREATER THAN 480 GP TYPE III PUMP CONVENTIONAL WITH 5 YRS. N/A 5 YRS. 950` A SINGLE PUMP TYPE IV LOW PRESSURE PIPE SYSTEMS 3 YRS. 2/YR. 2/YR,# 550 WITH A SINGLE PUMP TYPE IV SYSTEMS WITH MORE.THAN ONE PUMP 3 YRS. 21YR. 2/YR.# 10 LESS THAN 3001 GPD N/A — NOT APPLICABLE ME — MANAGEMENT ENTITY (CAN BE OCHD, PCO, OR PME) OCHD — ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. PCO — PRIVATE CERTIFIED OPERATOR PME — PUBLIC MANAGEMENT ENTITY GPD — GALLONS PER DAY OF WASTE FLOW (480 GPD = 4 BEDROOMS) DEH — DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH — DEHNR — WILL NOT BE INCLUDED AT IMPLEMENTATION — ONLY IF OCHD IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED AND FUNDED AS THE PME DEH (GROUND ABSORPTION) SYSTEMS `ff` (cont.) DEH SYSTEM JULY '92 JULY '92 PROPOSED NUMBER CLASSIFICATION DEH REQUIRED DEH REQUIRED OCHD SYSTEM OF (SECTION .1961) REVIEW FREQ. REVIEW FREQ. REVIEW FREQ. SYSTEMS FOR OCHD FOR PME's TYPE V (a &b) 2 -52NR. GREATER THAN 3000 GPD OR SAND 1 YR. PME OR 2/YR. 6 FILTER PRE - TREATMENT SYSTEMS PCO TYPE V (c &d) 4 -12NR. LESS THAN 3001 GPD WITH 1 YR. PME 2 -4/YR. 0 MECHANICAL, BIOLOGICAL, OR REQUIRED CHEMICAL. PRE — TREATMENT TYPE VI 52- 2601YR. GREATER THAN 3000 GPD WITH 6 MOS. PME 121YR. 0 MECHANICAL, BIOLOGICAL, OR REQUIRED CHEMICAL PRE — TREATMENT OCHD — ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. " PCO — PRIVATE CERTIFIED OPERATOR PME — PUBLIC MANAGEMENT ENTITY GPD — GALLONS PER DAY OF WASTE FLOW DEH — DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - DEHNR DEM (NON GROUND ABSORPTION AND NPDES) SYSTEMS DEM SYSTEM INSPECTION OPERATOR PROPOSED NUMBER CLASSIFICATION BY DEM MAINTEN. REVIEW OF (NOT IN SECTION .1961) (ROUTINE) FREQUENCY FREQUENCY SYSTEMS SPRAY IRRIGATION SFD NONE 2/YR. 10 (OCHD CLASS III) SPRAY IRRIGATION . NON SFD 1/WK. 4NR. 5 (OCHD CLASS III) SAND FILTER SFD NONE 2/YR. 16 (OCHD CLASS III) SAND FILTER NON SFD 1 /WK. 4/YR. 6 (OCHD CLASS III) PACKAGE PLANT (OCHD CLASS VI) 2/YR. DAILY 4/YR. 9 (EXCLUDING OWASA AND HILLS.) SLUDGE DURING APPLICATION SITES NONE APPLICA- 1/YR. 23 (OCHD CLASS VII) I TION NPDES - NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM DEM - DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT - DEHNR SFD - SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING - COMPLAINT RESPONSE ONLY 7 .f. TYPE I PRIVY, GREASE TRAP, COMPOSTING, CHEMICAL, AND INCINERATING TOILETS STATISTICS: - NUMBERS OF THESE "SYSTEMS" ARE UNKNOWN - FAILURE ESTIMATES ARE UNKNOWN CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY OCHD - PERMITTED BY OCHD - INSTALLATION INSPECTED BY OCHD CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: NONE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OCHD WOULD INSPECT MOST OF THESE SYSTEMS EVERY FIVE YEARS - A GREASE TRAP WOULD BE INSPECTED ACCORDING TO THE FREQUENCY OF ITS MASTER SYSTEM - SOME OF THESE SYSTEMS MAY REQUIRE MORE FREQUENT INSPECTIONS DEPENDING ON THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SYSTEM RATIONALE: - MAINTENANCE OF THESE SYSTEMS ARE CRITICAL TO THEIR PROPER OPERATION AND SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED. SOME OF THEM HAVE ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL COMPONENTS WHICH SHOULD BE . CHECKED BY A KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON AT THE PROPER INTERVALS STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: NONE STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: NONE OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS I STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: TYPE I 8 TYPE 11 CONVENTIONAL LESS THAN 481 GPD STATISTICS: - APPROXIMATELY 12,000 IN ORANGE COUNTY - 11% LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OLD (1,320) - 13/0 5 -10 YEARS OLD (1,560) - 76% OLDER THAN TEN YEARS (9,120) - 11% FAILING (1,320) - BASED ON OCHD FILE INFORMATION AND 1981 SEPTAGE STUDY CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY OCHD - PERMITTED BY OCHD - INSTALLATION INSPECTED BY OCHD CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: NONE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: NONE RATIONALE: -- NO MANAGEMENT REQUIRED BY THE STATE STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: NONE STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: NONE OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS I STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: TYPE II 9 TYPE III CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS GREATER THAN 480 GPD AND LESS THAN 3001 GPD STATISTICS: - APPROXIMATELY 2050 IN ORANGE COUNTY - EXACT AGE BREAKDOWN IS NOT KNOWN - EXACT FAILURE RATES ARE UNKNOWN CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY OCHD - PERMITTED BY OCHD - INSTALLATION INSPECTED BY OCHD CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: NONE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OCHD WOULD INSPECT SYSTEMS EVERY FIVE YEARS RATIONALE: - SYSTEMS WOULD BE RE- INSPECTED BASED ON RECOMMENDED PUMPING FREQUENCY AND STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: NONE STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: - ONCE PER FIVE YEARS OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASSES I AND IV STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: TYPE III 10 TYPE III PUMP CONVENTIONAL WITH A SINGLE PUMP STATISTICS: - APPROXIMATELY 950 IN ORANGE COUNTY - 65% LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OLD (617) - 35% 5 -10 YEARS OLD (333) - NO FAILURE ESTIMATES ARE AVAILABLE DUE TO LACK OF RE-- INSPECTIONS CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY OCHD - PERMITTED BY OCHD - INSTALLATION INSPECTED BY OCHD CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: NONE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OCHD WOULD INSPECT SYSTEMS ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS RATIONALE: - FIVE YEAR FREQUENCY REQUIRED BY STATE STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: NONE STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: - ONCE PER FIVE YEARS OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS II STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: TYPE III 11 TYPE IV PUMP CONVENTIONAL WITH MULTIPLE PUMP STATISTICS: - APPROXIMATELY 10 IN ORANGE COUNTY - ALL LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OLD - NONE ARE CURRENTLY KNOWN TO BE FAILING CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY OCHD OR PRIVATE ENGINEER - DESIGN MAY REQUIRE REVIEW BY STATE DEH - PERMITTED BY OCHD - INSTALLATION INSPECTED BY OCHD CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - ENGINEERED SYSTEMS MUST BE RE- INSPECTED ONCE EACH YEAR PRPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OCHD WOULD INSPECT SYSTEMS TWO TIMES PER YEAR - OCHD WOULD SERVE AS MANAGEMENT ENTITY FOR THESE SYSTEMS RATIONALE: - ANY SYSTEMS WITH MULTIPLE PUMPS SHOULD BE CHECKED TWICE YEARLY TO INSURE PROPER AND SAFE OPERATION -.THESE SYSTEMS REQUIRE COMPLEX ELECTRICAL PANELS WHICH ALSO MUST BE CHECKED AND MONITORED STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: - SYSTEMS MUST BE INSPECTED BY PME OR PRIVATE CERTIFIED STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: - ONCE PER THREE YEARS FOR NON - ENGINEERED SYSTEMS - ONCE PER YEAR FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASSES II AND IV STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: TYPE IV 12 TYPE IV LOW PRESSURE STATISTICS: - APPROXIMATELY 550 IN ORANGE COUNTY - 80% LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OLD (440) - 20% 5 -10 YEARS OLD (110) - 24% FAILING (132) - 75% IN MECHANICAL NON- COMPLIANCE (413) BASED ON 1989 OCHD FILE INFORMATION CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY OCHD - PERMITTED BY OCHD - INSTALLATION INSPECTED BY OCHD CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: NONE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OCHD WOULD INSPECT SYSTEMS TWO TIMES PER YEAR - OCHD WOULD SERVE AS MANAGEMENT ENTITY FOR THESE SYSTEMS RATIONALE: - SYSTEMS WOULD BE RE- INSPECTED BASED ON STATE REQUIREMENT FOR MANAGEMENT ENTITIES - RE- INSPECTIONS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS HAVE SHOWN NEED FOR FREQUENT INSPECTIONS STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: - SYSTEMS MUST BE INSPECTED BY ME TWO TIMES PER YEAR - DEH RULES WILL ALLOW OCHD TO BE THE ME FOR THESE SYSTEMS STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: - ONCE PER THREE YEARS OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS II STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: TYPE IV 13 TYPE V (a & b) GROUND ABSORPTION GREATER THAN 3,000 GPD OR WITH SAND FILTER PRETREATMENT STATISTICS: -- SIX CURRENTLY IN ORANGE COUNTY CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER - REVIEWED BY STATE DEH AND OCHD - PERMITTED BY OCHD - INSTALLATION INSPECTED BY OCHD CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - SYSTEM MUST BE RE- INSPECTED YEARLY BY OCHD PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OCHD WOULD INSPECT SYSTEM TWO TIMES PER YEAR - OCHD WOULD REVIEW THE OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE REPORTS OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY FOR THESE SYSTEMS RATIONALE: - TO ASSURE SURFACE MAINTENANCE OF SAND AND PREVENT CLOGGING AND CHANNELING WITHIN THE FILTER - THIS TYPE SYSTEM WOULD BE INDICATED FOR SEWAGE WITH HIGH SOIL CLOGGING POTENTIAL AND SHOULD BE ROUTINELY INSPECTED STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: - SYSTEMS MUST BE INSPECTED BY PME OR A PRIVATE CERTIFIED OPERATOR 2 -52 TIMES PER YEAR DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE SYSTEM STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: - ONCE PER YEAR OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS I, II, AND IV STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: TYPE V(a) 14 TYPE V (d) GROUND ABSORPTION LESS THAN -3,001 GPD WITH MECHANICAL, BIOLOGICAL, OR CHEMICAL PRETREATMENT STATISTICS: NONE IN ORANGE COUNTY CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER -- REVIEWED BY STATE DEH AND OCHD - PERMITTED BY OCHD - INSTALLATION INSPECTED BY OCHD CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - SYSTEMS MUST BE RE- INSPECTED YEARLY BY OCHD :j 0010014 e3 4 To t 9 ► - ; -1•I914 &1 - OCHD WOULD INSPECT SYSTEMS 2 -4 TIMES PER YEAR DEPENDING ON SIZE OF SYSTEM - OCHD WOULD REVIEW THE OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE REPORTS OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY FOR THESE SYSTEMS RATIONALE: - THESE SYSTEMS WOULD BE INDICATED FOR LARGE SYSTEMS OR SYSTEMS WHICH REQUIRE CLEANER EFFLUENT FOR PROPER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND THEREFORE THESE SYSTEMS SHOULD BE ROUTINELY INSPECTED TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCE OF A FAILURE OF THE SYSTEM OR ITS COMPLEX ELECTRO- MECHANICAL COMPONENTS STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: - SYSTEMS MUST BE INSPECTED BY A PME OPERATOR 2 -52 TIMES PER YEAR DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE SYSTEMS STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: - ONCE PER YEAR OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS II AND IV STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: TYPE V(d) f TYPE VI GROUND ABSORPTION GREATER THAN 3,000 GPD WITH MECHANICAL, BIOLOGICAL, OR CHEMICAL PRETREATMENT STATISTICS: NONE IN ORANGE COUNTY CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER - REVIEWED BY STATE DEH AND OCHD - PERMITTED BY OCHD - INSTALLATION INSPECTED BY OCHD CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - SYSTEMS MUST BE RE- INSPECTED YEARLY BY OCHD PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OCHD WOULD INSPECT SYSTEMS 12 TIMES PER YEAR - OCHD WOULD REVIEW THE OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE REPORTS OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY FOR THESE SYSTEMS RATIONALE: - THESE SYSTEMS WOULD BE INDICATED FOR LARGE SYSTEMS OR SYSTEMS WHICH REQUIRE CLEANER EFFLUENT FOR PROPER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND THEREFORE THESE SYSTEMS SHOULD BE ROUTINELY INSPECTED TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCE OF A FAILURE OF THE SYSTEM OR ITS COMPLEX ELECTRO-MECHANICAL COMPONENTS STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: - SYSTEMS MUST BE INSPECTED BY A PME OPERATOR 52 -260 TIMES PER YEAR DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE SYSTEMS STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: TWICE PER YEAR COHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS II AND IV STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: TYPE VI(a) 16 OCHD CLASS I I I SPRAY IRRIGATION SINGLE FAMILY AND NON SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING STATISTICS: - 15 IN ORANGE COUNTY ALL 15 ARE LESS THAN TEN YEARS OLD -- THE PERCENTAGE OF FAILURES IS UNKNOWN BECAUSE OF LACK OF INSPECTIONS BY DEM; THE SYSTEMS ARE RE- PERMITTED EVERY FIVE YEARS AND ARE GENERALLY INSPECTED WHEN A COMPLAINT IS RECEIVED CONCERNING THEIR OPERATION CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER = PERMITTED BY DEM - NO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY DOES INSTALLATION INSPECTIONS CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: NONE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OCHD WOULD REVIEW ENGINEERED PLANS - OCHD WOULD CONDUCT INSTALLATION INSPECTIONS - OCHD WOULD RE- INSPECT SYSTEMS TWO TO FOUR TIMES PER YEAR, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE AND TYPE OF THE SYSTEM RATIONALE: - THESE SYSTEMS HAVE SEVERAL COMPONENTS (e.g. PUMPS, SAND FILTERS, CHLORINATORS, SPRAY HEADS) THAT NEED REGULAR ATTENTION TO ASSURE PROPER OPERATION - DEM DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH STAFF TO ADEQUATELY INSPECT THESE SYSTEMS STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: N/A STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: N/A OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS III STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: N/A 17 OCHD CLASS III SAND FILTER - SINGLE FAMILY AND NON SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING STATISTICS: - 22 IN ORANGE COUNTY - MOST ARE OLDER THAN TEN YEARS OLD - PERCENTAGE OF FAILURES IS NOT KNOWN BECAUSE OF LACK OF INSPECTIONS BY DEM - NO DISCHARGE LIMITS ARE ESTABLISHED FOR EXISTING INDIVIDUAL SAND FILTERS CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER - PERMITTED BY DEM - NO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY DOES INSTALLATION INSPECTIONS CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: NONE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OCHD WOULD REVIEW ENGINEERED PLANS - OCHD WOULD CONDUCT INSTALLATION INSPECTIONS - OCHD WOULD RE- INSPECT SYSTEM TWO TO FOUR TIMES PER YEAR DEPENDING ON THE SIZE AND TYPE OF SYSTEM - OCHD WOULD SAMPLE DISCHARGE ONE TIME PER YEAR RATIONALE: - SINCE THESE SYSTEMS DISCHARGE DIRECTLY TO THE SURFACE WATERS, THEY NEED REGULAR MONITORING TO ASSURE THE EFFLUENT IS OF PROPER QUALITY STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: NIA STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: N/A OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS III STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: N/A 18 OCHD CLASS VI DISCHARGING PACKAGE-PLANTS STATISTICS: - 11 IN ORANGE COUNTY - RELATIVE AGES OF THE FACILITIES ARE NOT KNOWN; MOST ARE OLDER THAN FIVE YEARS - ALL CURRENTLY HAVE A VALID PERMIT. COMPLIANCE REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED MONTHLY BY THE FACILITY OPERATORS. THE DEGREE OF COMPLIANCE VARIES GREATLY FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY AND FROM MONTH TO MONTH. CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - DESIGNED BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER - PERMITTED BY DEM - INSTALLATION NOT INSPECTED BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OWNER /OPERATOR MUST SUBMIT DAILY MONITORING REPORTS TO DEM ON A MONTHLY BASIS - ENFORCEMENT CAN BE INITIATED IF THE MONITORING REPORTS SHOW CONTINUED NON- COMPLIANCE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OCHD WOULD REVIEW ENGINEERED PLANS - OCHD WOULD CONDUCT INSTALLATION INSPECTIONS - OCHD WOULD RE- INSPECT PLANTS 4 -12 TIMES PER YEAR DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE PLANT (ALL CURRENT PLANTS WOULD HAVE FOUR INSPECTIONS PER YEAR) - OCHD WOULD SAMPLE THE PLANT EFFLUENT DURING INSPECTIONS TO DETERMINE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE PLANT RATIONALE: - THESE PLANTS GENERALLY HAVE RELATIVELY HIGH USAGE FLOWS AND THE THREAT OF FAILURE IS SIGNIFICANT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENT. IF THEY ARE NOT PROPERLY OPERATED AND MAINTAINED, LARGE AMOUNTS OF UNTREATED O R POORLY TREATED WASTES CAN BE RELEASED INTO THE SURFACE WATERS. STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENT: N/A 19 DISCHARGING PACKAGE PLANTS (cont.) STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: N/A OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS VI STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: N/A S OCHD CLASS VII SLUDGE APPLICATION S -ITES STATISTICS: - 23 IN ORANGE COUNTY; ACTUAL NUMBER OF FIELDS WITHIN THESE SITES IS GREATER - TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH - 686 ACRES - OWASA -- 552 ACRES - CITY OF BURLINGTON - 121 ACRES - NO COMPLIANCE REPORTS AVAILABLE CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESS: - PROPOSED SITES ARE EVALUATED BY SOIL SCIENTIST, HYDROGEOLOGIST, etc. - SITES ARE PERMITTED BY DEM - SITES ARE RE- PERMITTED EVERY FIVE YEARS - SITES ARE NOT ROUTINELY INSPECTED BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY CURRENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: NONE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROCESS: - OCHD WOULD REVIEW SITE PROPOSALS AND MAKE COMMENTS TO THE DEM STAFF AS APPROPRIATE - OCHD WOULD ROUTINELY INSPECT SITES (ONE TO TWO TIMES PER YEAR IF ACTIVE) DURING APPLICATIONS TO ASSURE THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEM PERMIT ARE MET AND AND THAT THE PROCEDURES OF PROPER APPLICATION ARE BEING FOLLOWED RATIONALE: - DEM DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH STAFF TO ADEQUATELY INSPECT THESE SITES - THE POTENTIAL FOR RUNOFF FROM THE SITES IS INCREASED WHEN THE SITES AND THE APPLICATION PROCESS ARE POORLY MANAGED - RUNOFF FROM THESE SITES CAN BE DETRIMENTAL TO GROUND AND SURFACE WATERS STATE MANAGEMENT ENTITY REQUIREMENTS: N/A STATE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OCHD: N/A 20 SLUDGE APPLICATION SITES (cont.) 21 OCHD PROPOSAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS VII STATE REGULATION CLASSIFICATION: N/A ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1992 SUBJECT: 1992 -97 Capital Improvement Plan (Discussion) DEPARTMENT Budget ATTACHMENTS) None 1 Action Agenda item No SLR - -A PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X INFORMATION CONTACT Sally Kost, ext 2152 TELEPHONE NUMBER Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To discuss the Manager's recommended 1992 -97 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). BACKGROUND: At the April 6 meeting, the Board of Commissioners received a presentation from the County Manager about his recommended 1992 -97 CIP. The Board conducted a public hearing on April 21, to be completed on May 4, to receive citizen comments about the projects included in the recommended CIP. At the May 4 meeting, the Board is scheduled to discuss the funding recommendations for projects included in the CIP, and to provide guidance to the Manager and staff on amendments to be made to the plan. The Board may approve alloca- tions for all projects so that final CIP funding is included in the Manager's recommended 1992 -93 budget. Alternatively, the Board may indicate approval of funding for selected projects with final funding decisions for remaining projects coming during the June budget review process. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board direct any necessary revisions to the 1992 -97 CIP, and approve all or portions of it, subject to formal adoption in June during 1992 -93 budget delibera- tions. l I O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4. 1992 Agenda Abstract Item #—V =- - 'B SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT - MAY 26, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Legal Notice Planning Director X2592 Proposed Public Hearing Items Draft 4 -20 -92 Planning Board PHONE NUMBERS: Minutes Hillsborough 732 -8181 Excerpt from Article 2.2.14 Mebane 227 -2031 of the Zoning Ordinance Durham 688 -7331 CP -1 -92 Applicant Letters Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider the legal notice and items for discussion at the quarterly public hearing scheduled for May 26, 1992. BACKGROUND: The next regular quarterly public hearing is scheduled for May 26, 1992. The Board of Commissioners reviews proposals to be considered at public hearing for consistency with general County policy and presentation format. Items to be considered at the May 26, 1992 public hearing include the following: 1. School Impact Fees 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments a. CP -1 -92 University Station 3. Zoning Atlas Amendments a. Z -2 -92 P &S Sporting Goods b. PD -1 -92 Carolina Friends School 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Home Occupations (1) Article 22 - Definitions (2) Article 6.16.6 - Home Occupation Regulations 5. Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments a. Section V -D -6 -b -- Certificates of Dedication & Maintenance Approval of the notice will permit advertisement on May 13 and 20, 1992 as required the N.C. General Statutes. The proposed Comprehensive Plan and _i -'4- i►� r Zoning Atlas amendments will require notification of individual property owners. The notice must be mailed on or before May 8, 1992. A public hearing on a proposed system of school impact fees is required, because Orange County's enabling legislation was incorporated into the N.C. General Statutes as part of Article 18 of Chapter 153A. An ordinance establishing such impact fees must be adopted, and the ordinance must be advertised for public hearing in the same manner as the other planning items. The Planning Board considered the proposed ordinance text amendments at its April 20, 1992 meeting and recommended that they be presented at the May 26, 1992 public hearing for citizen comment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment does not comply with the provisions of Article 2.2.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is considered a principal amendment, since it involves an addition to an existing Plan area of more than 100 acres. Principal amendments are to be considered once a year at the quarterly public hearing-in February. Because of time constraints associated with assembling multiple properties to form a unified project, the applicant is requesting that a special public hearing be set in conjunction with the May 26, 1992 meeting. While such requests are not common, they are not without precedent. Similar provisions exist for Zoning Ordinance text and Atlas amendments, including planned development applications and Special Use Permits. In 1990 and 1991, special rezoning hearings were conducted citizen's request. In 1989, a Special Use Permit application and Zoning ordinance text amendment were considered at special hearings. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Notice of Public Hearing for May 26, 1992. The Administration also recommends that application CP -1 -92 be included for consideration on the May 26, 1992 public hearing agenda. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 M NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED SYSTEM OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEES AND PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Article 18, Sections 323, 331, 332, 340, and 343; Title VI, Chapter 460, of the 1987 Session Laws; Chapter 460 of the 1991 Session Laws; Article 20, Sections 20.5 and 20.6, and Article 2, Sections 2.2.12, 2.2.13, and 2.2.14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New), 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Tuesday, May 26, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: SCHOOL IMPACT FEES To help fund school capital needs created by growth in the county, Orange County is considering the establishment of a system of impact fees. If adopted, an impact fee would be collected for each new housing unit constructed in the county, including single -- family homes, townhouses, two to four - family dwellings, apartments, and mobile homes. Impact fees would not be collected from existing housing units. Under the proposed system, impact fees would vary between the Chapel Hill- Carrboro and Orange County school districts. The amount of variation would depend on the projected number of students per household and the number, type, and cost of school facilities to be constructed in each school district. Funds raised through impact fees would pay only a portion of the total school capital costs, and the level at which impact fees are set will be dependent upon the amount of total capital costs financed from such fees. The range of impact fees being considered is as follows: Housing Type Single - Family Townhouse Duplex, Triplex, and Quadplex Apartment Mobile Home Range of Possible Im act Fees Chapel Hill- Carrboro Sch of District COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS $0 $3,384 $0 - $1,703 $0 - $1,346 $0 - $ 924 $0 - $2,315 4 Orange County School District $0 4 $3,210 $0 - $1,372 $0 - $1,297 $0 -- $ 810 $0 - $2,130 The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan are as follows: I. CP -1 -92 University Station The property in question is located south of the Southern Railroad on both sides of Old N.C. 10 (SR 1710). The property contains approximately 577 acres and is specifically described as lots 20 and 20A of Tax Map 27 in Eno Township, lots 47 and 48 of Tax Map 26 in Eno Township, and lots 13, 13A, and 13B of Tax Map 3 in Chapel Hill Township. The property fronts on New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) for a distance of 2,900 feet and on Old N.C. 10 for a distance of 4,920 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is R -1 Residential. The property is being considered for re- designation in the Eno and Chapel Hill Township components of the Comprehensive Plan from Rural Residential, Agricultural Use, and Resource Conservation to Ten -Year Transition. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the Orange County zoning Atlas are as follows: 1. Z -2 -92 P &S Sporting Goods The property in question is located on the south side of N.C. Highway 54 between Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958) and Orange Grove Road (SR 1006). The property contains 3.98 acres and is specifically described as part of Lot 28 of Tax Map 26 in Bingham Township. The property fronts on N.C. Highway 54 for a distance of 264 feet and has a depth of 483 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is AR - Agricultural Residential. Two zoning designations are proposed - LC -1 Local Commercial -1 (2.06 acres) and NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial -2 (1.92 acres). 2. PD -1 -92 Carolina Friends School The expansion of an existing planned development is proposed on property located on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) and west of Carolina Friends School Road (SR 1719). The property contains 32.94 acres and is specifically described as lot numbers 20A, 20B, and 26A of Tax Map 7 in Chapel Hill Township. The property is currently zoned PD -RB - Planned Development -Rural Buffer. The proposed zoning of the property is the same. The planned development is not a new facility but represents the expansion of an existing private school. Approval of a planned development application and a Class A Special Use Permit is required, because the school expansion is considered a major modification to an existing planned development, and wastewater disposal is provided by a ground absorption system with a capacity of more than 3,000 gallons per day. The proposed school expansion involves a five -year plan to add a 9,500 square foot resource center, storage sheds, a 200 square foot office, handicapped accessible bathrooms, road widening, and additional parking. ZONING ORDINANCE TEST AMENDMENTS The proposed amendment to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance is as follows: 1. Home occupations Under the proposal, Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance would be amended to change the definition of "home occupation ". Article 6.16.6, Home Occupation Regulations, would be amended to add a sliding scale of setbacks for accessory buildings used for home occupation purposes, and to add a sliding scale of floor area requirements for accessory buildings and exterior storage areas. The proposed standards would apply only to lots five (5) acres or larger in size. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEST AMENDMENTS The proposed amendment to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations is as follows: 1. Certificates of Dedication and Maintenance Under the proposal, Section V- D- 6- b.-would be amended to change the wording on the Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance to clarify that the property being subdivided was owned by the person signing the Final Plat and require that the signature be acknowledged by a notary public. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence 11 received in writing by'the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning & Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. You may also call 732 -8181 (Hillsborough), 688 -7331 (Durham) or 967 -9251 (Chapel Hill- Carrboro). Please ask for Extension 2585 or 2575. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: May 13, 1992 May 20, 1992 f s € i s ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3"F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 7 All persons requesting an amendment to the Land Use Plan of Orange County are required to complete the following application as completely as possible: OFFICE USE ONLY Cr REQUEST "LUP- 1 - q2 DATE ECEIVED:f STAFF PERSON(S)- RESPONSIBLE: GE'h'ER- L' DATA: Property Owner(s) Name: KENAN AMERIVEST COGSWELL GROUP agent for: (see attachment A - list of owners) Mailing Address: 4601 Six Forks Road,- Suite 502, Raleigh, NC 2760.1 Phone: Agent (s) Name: Mailing'Address: Phone: (Home) Same (919)782-6583 (Work) (919)787 -7400 SPECIFIC DATA: (SEE ATTACHMENT A) Tax Reference: Township ENO Tax Map Block Lot Public / Private Road Name: New Hope Church Rd., NC 10, University Station Lot Size:' Acreage AnDrox. 600 Square Footage Lot Frontage (see plan) _ Lot Depth Current Plan Category Designation(s): General Rural 26,000,000 sf Activity Node Joint Planning Area Watershed SPECIFIC DATA (continued): Describe Land Uses in the General Area: REQUEST: 8 RrOUEST L P- -_-1_Z Farming, residential Qn Adjacent Parcels of Land: Same Land Use Plan Category Designation(s) Requested: Type of Amendment: Primary X Secondary Transitional This application should be submitted with the following materials: V/ Fully dimensioned tax map on which is highlighted the parcel, or portion thereof, in question. .1 Legal description of the parcel, or portion thereof.- Letter of request to include: q� the tax reference, general location and owner of the parcel the current and requested land use plan category designation(s) a narrative stating the manner in which the proposed amendment will carry -out the intent and purpose of the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof �V/a statement of any other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment v statement of the changed or changing conditions in the area, or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary. I (We), the undersigned, certify that all statements furnished in this application are true and to the best of my (our) knowledge and that the apt icat'on as submitted is complete N;LME OF APPLICAIINT V SIi ATIIRT IQ-T APPLIWT(S ) DAT? 9 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION The amendment proposed will permit the development of a "Rural Village" on the University Station site. This will be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and is in line with work cu'rr'ently underway by the Rural Character Study Committee. Development will be focused on the village center, reserving permanent open space for use as a public golf course and a 25 -acre public park. Development of this community will be similar to neo- traditional villages at Seaside in Florida, Kentlands in Maryland, _Black Oak in Virginia and Lake Park Village here in North Carolina: They are examples of recent developments in rural land planning and of a line of thinking gaining increased acceptance from planning boards and in the marketplace, as well. ,This plan will produce a community with a complete mix of housing types and costs, together with associated commercial and civic facilities. The character of the village will draw heavily from 19th century architectural precedents from Orange County, with a grid of streets, a village square at the center surrounded by shops. A site will be reserved for a church and another for a community center. Housing of various types, ranging from small apartments over the shops and in buildings to attached houses, houses on small in -town lots, and larger houses on lots facing the golf course. It is proposed to develop University Station with approximately 1200 dwelling units, an associated mix of small scale commercial uses and a championship signature golf course of 18 -27 holes. The 600 plus acres will be developed with clustered density near the village center and decreasing density away from the center toward the golf course which wraps around the village. The project is b being planned with an overall density of 2 units per acre: necessary because of land costs and because that density is required if the small commercial core of the village is to prosper. The project will be phased, with a first phase of approximately 500 acres south of NC 10, with 18 holes of golf. The second phase of 160 acres would add another 9 holes north of NC 10, and additional housing units. j0 The planning will be characterized by: • Siting of the village center on high ground, as in 19th century precedents. • A regular street grid in the village center to facilitate internal transportation. • Provision, in the village center, of necessary commercial and common facilities to minimize off -site trips. • A village square, with traditional uses. • Short blocks and narrow streets with two traffic lanes and diagonal parking. • Mixed uses and building types, not separated by zoning. Mixed cost range for housing types. • Housing over shops and other commercial spaces. • Narrow lots. • Lots dedicated to churches, daycare and community center and other common uses. • Minimum setbacks. • Street lighting for pedestrians. • Golf clubhouse within walking distance of village square and ` shops. • All facilities clustered for maximum walking distance of 1,350 feet. • Site reserved for light rail station on Southern RR line within walking distance of village square. • Retention, where possible, of existing historical buildings and other features, roads, etc., to preserve historic context. • Occasional irregularity within regular grid., pattern. 11 • Maximum variety, minimum repetition within design guidelines, provision of unexpected features. • Low speed limits in village. • Low hazard sprinkler systems in wood frame construction to minimize fire hazard, lower insurance costs. The appearance of the village will be characterized by: A small, human scale, consistent throughout. • A mix of white clapboard, stucco and brick construction. • Steep roof slopes,8 /12 or higher, of selected colors. • White trim, very "carpentry" • Many benches, flower beds, flowering trees. Many shade trees along streets. Frequent street lights for pedestrians. • Variety in material, detailing and dimension within a selected palette. • Many gables, porches, bay windows, dormers, turrets, picket fences, gates and trellises. OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES This development will contribute to the prosperity of Orange County by: 1) Creating jobs, both during construction and after completion. 2) Providing housing which will complement and stimulate other compatible industrial and business projects. 3) Stimulating local business by providing many new customers for goods and services. .1 • CHANGING CONDITIONS As we near the end of the 20th Century, an increasing number of families everywhere are dissatisfied with the current living conditions they find in urban areas. Street crime, traffic congestion and the decay in the urban infrastructure cause them to look elsewhere for an environment more suited to the needs of families of all sizes and ages. More and more, people are turning back with a sense of of nostalgia to the values suggested by images of the 19th Century village, and to the advantages of living in a small town environment. University Station is planned to satisfy this desire for a simpler life in a smaller place: a place where traffic is quiet, where families can walk the streets or sit in the park, where children can play, where most o the necessities can be found within a short walk. In short,, University Station is planned for people, not for automobiles, and for the enhancement of the quality of family life and the convenience and gratification of a broad and diverse mix of families and individual residents. 12 Legend .. • w we rw . ...w r+. - C e er..r+w H.H. rr...ir *—I t t tw ..•.r r Co.--v ­. a I IJ^�..r. M l la•� p � 1 t taw tr qr J r r.rw w �rrw. 4 A AWp— r t ti.w w.rwrr w ..� t � �wr 0 ow,u- �6 ►.t 23 � Dis> IMr. „z nwslof 4--W I M C�nMr M „t WI HD p, Acreage Analysis am Cr 2" a VS.N.w. M &A" MF. I.wr NIMI W Y rrrt •N MO 376 4r ruu say ,H =6 Mf T� Nt �r �w H•.w.r wr na.w rw .rr Typical Village Block UNIVERSFY STATION „4.wpk C.-V C--T. r C-- D ,OD tap tD0 rae PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 1 .,... a C.r..,.1.� �..� I�.wr PTUAL ONLY 1.3 v JA 11(I • y ti �� �i r . a r� . i . �1 11 O � Ln 1 n === =a•I�J �J- - /4W w. frL/ f r Al .t • -wry � . y ; � ��� � •• / ARTHUR R. COGSWELL 15 Architect Architecture April 22, 1992 Land Planning Urban Design Mr. Marvin E. Collins Planning Director Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: CP -1 -92 University Station Rural Village Dear Mr. Collins: This is to request that the Land Use Plan Amendment Application, which has been submitted relative to University Station be heard at the May 26th Public Hearing rather than in February. We understand that we are proposing a Primary amendment to the Plan, usually only heard in February, but we believe that there are extenuating circumstances here that justify such a request at this time. Specifically, we have an opportunity with this site to demonstrate the benefits of the new Rural Village approach to rural land planning, but we have a problem of timing: the land options are going to expire shortly, and we will lose our investor if we cannot move ahead soon with the approval process. This request is made in the following context: We believe that there is a general consensus that the Rural Village approach to rural land use, as currently studied by the Rural Character Study Committee and as proposed for this project, has significant advantages over the traditional way of doing planning in rural areas, with one or two acre lots using septic tanks, and that this new concept would bring benefits to Orange County. These will include: A. The retention of large amounts of visual open space, with development concentrated in smaller areas of higher density, connected to water and sewer extensions. B. The consequent avoidance of suburban sprawl and the conservation of the rural flavor of current land use. C. Provision of areas for public recreation, such as the 25 -acre public park site being donated to the county by University Station, and the 27 -hole public -use golf course being provided. P.O. Box 61 D. The provision of jobs in the county, h West Franklin St. both during construction and after completion. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 g p 919- 942 -5196 E. The stimulation of economic activity in the county. F. A reduction in the number of off -site auto trips by residents. 16 Mr. Marvin E. Collins April 2#;21992 Page Two Conditions exist, just now, which will permit the development of the site as a rural village and secure the above benefits. These conditions include (a) options on the land (the last large site in this part of the county which can be assembled for such a project), (b) an investor willing to commit $15 million to the project, (c) a professional team committed to the rural village approach, and (d) a climate of opinion recognizing the validity of the approach. If there is a delay in considering the land use amendment until February, the options will expire and some critical ones will not be able to be regained; for the same reason the investor will no longer be interested, and the opportunity will be lost. Six years ago a group of investors assembled the site, consisting of approximately 600 acres of land. We thought it was the finest site available for a planned development designed with housing and recreation in mind. It was outside the sensitive rural buffer and watershed areas. Two parcels consisting of 300 acres are owned by one family. A second family owns an additional 159 acres and Mr. Don Lacefield owns the former Craig parcel. When the land was originally purchased, Mr. Lacefield had three partners planning to combine theirs with the 159 -acre parcel and develop it with wells and septic systems, but soil studies indicated this was not the best approach for that particular site. This became a serious problem for Mr. Lacefield. He has held onto his land although his partners had to dissolve their relationship and left him with the full financial obligation. He has talked with others about developing the land, but so long as there was the slightest chance of University Station becoming a reality, he has delayed doing anything else. Recently he has been under great pressure from the bank to resolve his situation with them. Mr. Lacefield prefers to include his parcel for development with ours, and indeed, his land is critical to the development of the rural village proposed here. He is a long time Hillsborough businessman and is concerned about the future of his part of the county. He understands the benefits which will accrue from University Station, but very soon will be forced to commit to another use for his property to avoid losing it altogether, despite the fact that this will also destroy the conceptual plan for University Station by taking away the only land topographically suitable for a portion of the village center. But the fact is, that by February, he will will have done something else with his land. Similar problems face all of the landowners who are under pressure from one circumstance or another to do something else with their land, and the tenure of their options will also become questionable after May. Mr. Marvin E. Collins April 2e,2.1992 Page Three Apart from the land, as has been suggested above, the most serious consequence of a delay would be the loss of the principal investor. We feel most fortunate that at this juncture moment, we have an investor enthusiastic about the rural village concept. Due to his optimism that the economy is rising from its slump, he is currently willing to commit the development funds necessary. We will lose him if we delay the project until next year. He has assured us that he will not even be interested in further discussions unless we are successful in keeping the application on a fast track. Everyone recognizes the current problems with our economy. The S&L's, insurance companies and banks have made so many bad loans in recent years that it is now impossible to obtain financing for development in North Carolina. Private investors are not interested in "risk" projects when they can simply invest in Cary and have a "slam dunk." There are builders standing in line to build and buyers waiting to purchase homes in areas like Greensboro, Cary and Charlotte. To secure development financing for a new concept in a rural area is difficult in the best of times. Recently a nationally prominent planner was quoted: "The real problem with implementing many of these ideas (neo- traditional plans) is the lenders, most of whom do not fully understand the development business and insist that the same mistakes be made time and time again." We will be submitting facts and figures on development impact analysis. These estimates will hold firm for 1993 and 1994 as well. There is no reason to see much change over that period, nor will the development ratio change, nor will the cost of developing this tract of land. In addition, the revenue numbers will be relatively constant. In sum, both the plan and associated analyses will be the same, whether submitted now or if delayed until February. If the County wishes to see land developed in a new and very desirable way, the development of University Station is an opportunity to do that, but because of circumstances over which we have no control, the window of opportunity is small. The application must be heard at the May 26th hearing, or the options will expire, the investor will go elsewhere and the opportunity will pass. We very much hope that the Commissioners will favorably consider this request to hear this application on May 26th. Very sinc y, Arthur . Co swell and ARQjb ].7 is 7A 7,F l le AA �AJ l/ r Sri i / "M a i i r • 4 At r .RANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLI..? �0 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT Data: March 27 1992 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas c Orange County as hereinafter requested. 1. The property is located an the South side of EXR11—N. C. (_ Hicrhwav 54 Street /Road) between S.R.# 1958 S.R.# 1006 It is known as Lot(s) 28 Block an Orange County Tax Map 26 -- B_inaham_ Township. It has a o frontag of 1665 feet and a depth of ±480 feet, and c a n t a i n 295,772 square feet or 6.79 acres. 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezone from AR to NC -2 and LC -1 3. The - following information has been attached .in_ support of th application for changing the Zoning Atlas (• - required on al applications). Van. A fully dimensioned map as a scats of not lass then Dime (1) inch aqusls one— hundred (100) feet nor snore then one (1) inch *quota twenty' C 20 feet • ahowiirg•• •the land which is Proposed* to be rezoned. 1/0b . A Legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned. •c. A statement of Justification addressing on■ or more of the following: • (1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. '(2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. ✓0(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan at part tharsef. A) All other circumstances, factors and. reeeons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed aaandmsnt including, but not Limited to, documentation from service agencies [e.g. fire, police, rescue and utilities agencies) assuring services provision capability to the development. mod. A List of all individuate, firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred (500) feet of the property sought for rezoning is attaened. The list is current as of 3-24-97 ((sate) I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicent(s): Philip D. Harvey Address: P&S Sporting Goods Inc. Post Office Box 1500 Phone: Chapel Hill NC 27514 29 - 14 AGENT: G.1Greaory Shepard Shepard Design Associates 424 Waterside Drive Carrboro, NC 27510 9 -6069 21 shepard design associates 424 waterside drive_ . corrboro, north carolina 27510 . (919) 929 -6069 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN ZONING P & S SPORTING GOODS, INC. ORANGE COUNTY - BINGHAM TOWNSHIP TAX REFERENCE 6.26..28 Prepared: March 27, 1992 STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION The orange County Land Use Plan indicates that commercial activities are appropriate within certain identified activity nodes and generally inappropriate outside these nodes. The subject property is located within an activity node identified as the BH -1 Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. This node is centered at the intersection of NC Highway 54 and SR 1958 (Morrow Mill Road) and it's quarter -mile radius extends beyond the subject property, thereby encompassing it within the node. P & S Sporting Goods, Inc., is the owner of two (2) lots identified as 6.26..28 and 28A. Lot 28A is currently zoned General Commercial -4 (GC -4). Lot 28 is currently zoned a combination of General Commercial -4 (GC -4) and Agricultural Residential (AR). The AR portion of the lot comprises 5.14 acres. The zoning of this 5.14 acres is proposed to be changed as follows: 1.92 Acres Neighborhood Commercial -2 (NC -2) 2.06 Acres Local Commercial -1 (LC -1) 1.16 Acres Agricultural. Residential (AR) 5.14 Acres 2.0 CHANGED OR CHANGING CONDITIONS When the first commercial zoning was applied to the subject property, the existing subsurface sewage disposal systems were in the residentially zoned portion of the property, which was consistant with the interpretation of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance at that time. Current policy and interpretation will allow sewage disposal systems only in the commercially zoned portions of property which are commercial developments. This change in policy and interpretation has made the existing systems non - conforming with regard to this land planners . landscape designers . local government planners 22 issue. The commercial zoning classifications sought for the subject property will bring these systems back into conformity witriz this policy. This current policy also creates a need to have larger commercial tracts which are able to accomodate the principal building, principal use, and accessory or associated uses on the property. Further evidence of- changing conditions is found by existing commercial uses in the general area which are beginning to establish a development trend for other commercial uses. Commercial development in this Activity Node is consistent with the vision of the orange County Comprehensive Plan 3.0 CHANGE WITH INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE PLAN The purpose of the NC -2 and LC -1 zoning districts, as stated in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, is to provide appropriately located sites for limited commercial uses. The property sought to be zoned NC -2 and LC -1 will comply with the criteria for establishment of these zoning districts as set forth in Section 4.2.8 and Section 4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance: 1. The subject. property is located within an area designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan'as the BH -1 Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. 2. The list of permitted uses from the Zoning ordinance's Table of Permitted Uses are limited commercial uses which would be consistent with the purpose of both the NC -2 and LC -1 zoning districts. These permitted uses, in addition to the performance and design standards of the Ordinance, will insure that no adverse impacts will occur either beyond the immediate space occupied by a building for certain uses or beyond the property boundaries for some other uses. 3. The lot size and configuration is appropriate for the method of water supply and sewage disposal systems necessary for future development of the property. 4. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance will allow a maximum of five (5.0) acres of land zoned NC--2 and a maximum of five (5.0) acres of land zoned LC -1 in an Activity Node where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition Area. The 1.92 acres sought to be zoned NC -2 and the 2.06 acres sought to be zoned LC -1 will limit the amount of land zoned NC -2 and LC -1 in this Node to five (5.0) acres each. 5. The subject property has approximately 665 feet of frontage on the south side of NC Highway 54 which is designated as an arterial on the adopted Land Use Plan. 23 This amount. of frontage, in addition to the existing horizontal and vertical alignment of NC Highway 54 at this location, will provide safe and direct access from the subject'property to this arterial. 4.0 OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTORS Water supply and sewage disposal systems shall be provided on -site by means of an individual well(s) and individual subsurface sewage disposal system(s). The Orange County Health Department completed a re- evaluation of soils for the subject property on March 5, 1992 and found them to be suitable for installation of a modified conventional subsurface sewage disposal system. The Neighborhood Commercial --2 (NC -2) and Local Commercial -1 (LC -1) zoning districts generally allow uses which are low to medium traffic generators. The volume of traffic generated by development of this property will have no significant impact upon the existing traffic load an NC Highway 54; and existing levels of service on NC 54 will be maintained. The Orange County Sheriff's Department, in a letter dated March 25, 1992, had indicated that they will provide law enforcement services to the subject property without any additional personnel or equipment cost for the department. The Orange Grove Fire Department, in a letter dated March 28, 1992, has confirmed that the property is within the orange Grove Fire District and indicated their ability to provide fire protection for the property. A letter form Orange County Emergency Management, Division of Emergency Medical services, is anticipated which will indicate their ability to provide emergency medical services to the subject property. PROPERTIES WITHIN 500 FEET / TAX REFERENCE: 6.26..28 ' / SCALE: Is = 400' 24 *,NORTH I Win/ -�Jl1 � cn G) cli co •.J IT I 1` \. \ I 000, n U r Q N �^ N � Q �a . to 0 \ U Q I W .y � d L D � i N NC D Q to q Q I ::::.::.... N �• N (Ln a I O f `� . ... .... co G) �< ry mm oa� W / cn i p N p 47 -,0/ 000'M, CNJ � I � i • CC V� • I P'ato I r• Ir a coo IN ;Y rT' 25 (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY) b;gS APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE: 4/ 7 / 92 APPLICATION NUMBER: PD. I - ° Z I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for in Article of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance for the addition of a 9 5 Q s.f _ building and new storage sheds . to complete the Lon Range Master plan the Carolina Friends School. The following information is provided in support of this request: A. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Street Address or Location: 4809 Friends School Road, Durham, NC Orange County Tax Map 7 Bloc): LoL(s) 2 A, 2QB To%vnship r`h"IPP) H;11 Zoning District(s): eUCAL SUFFP_r_ 2 Lot /Parcel Size:_ 32,9 acres or sauare fee: Number of Existing Buildings: 12 Gross Floor Area: 45,120 square feet Number of Proposed Buildings: 4 Gross Floor Area: 9.860 _ sauare fee: «'ater Supply: Public (Specify) Community Individual 'Wastewater Disposal: Public (Specify) Community Ind,'vidua' School District: Fire District: Eno Riypj: General Land Uses in Area: Residential Critical Areas: ✓ Stream,`Drainagewav Flood Prone Area Watershed (Specify) ri isto:ic Site Other (explain) E. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: Twenty -six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the following information: >• _ ALL- i.,iT=6r_ -t4'noAJ EEQUI pep a r Ac�r CL.� 14_ CsE>r Cia ec�Ltsr dtit siTt Pc�a�1 ✓ North uGiaZL, scale, azd date. aPPi, tCAz10� Fo��) �— Extent of area to be developed_ Locations and widths of all easements and rights -of -way within or adjacent to the site. Location of all exisLing and proposed structures on the site. Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on flood maps or soils maps. _ Location of all water courses on the site, inciuding direction of flow. xisting topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum. ` —Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage areas. Access to site. including sight distances on all roads used for access. (PLEASE COMPL —.-F RENTER SE SIDE) C 26 OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: — Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. Two. (2) full -size copies of the applicable 'Orange County Tax Map, one (1) coPy with the property in question clearly marked. The names and addresses of the property owner(s) and /or applicant(s), and the names and addresses'-arc all persons owning property within five hundred (500) feet of the property in question. Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating: 1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the suitability of the existing and /or proposed wastewater treatment system for the property. 2. Method, and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection. 3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our) responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the Class A Special Use Permit. APPLICANT SI DATE NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant(s), Please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request. ■ sr... rr*. r** r.. rr** r* r* r.... rr.•** r.. w. rr. r.... * ........... rr *.....rr....r * *rr FEES: Amount $ A89•S6 Date Paid: 4 � IS / 9:2 Receipt T 035"119 27 i c ti, DAIL DIXON & ASSOCIATES. Architects November 14, 1991 Ms. Emily Cameron, ASLA Orange County Planning Department P.O.sox 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Carolina Friends School, Special Use Permit Dear Ms. Cameron: As we discussed earlier this week, the Carolina Friends School anticipates increasing their total enrollment by 20 students. The increase in enrollment will be as follows: The current sewage outflow consumption is 2,000 - 2,400 gallons each day. To improve their current facilities and provide for the additional students, we will be designing a 7,000 - square foot Resource Center. This building will include science labs, classrooms, a small library and art studios. The additional plumbing fixtures required for this new facility are as follows: • 1 sink in art room • 10 small science table sinks • 4lavatories • 5 water closets (1 - 1 -1/2 gallon) • 2 water fountains We would like to begin a submittal for the Special Use Permit required by the County and appreciate your interest in reviewing the current situation with the sewage treatment plant and its capacity. If there are further questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, D-4IL DIXON & ASSOCIATES Ellen Weinstein, AIA EW /nn cc: John McGovern, Assistant Principal Carolina Friends School 12 The Courtyard. 431 West Franklin Street, Chanel Hill, NC 27516. 919'968 - 8333 Members o: the .American institute of Architects xistine, PrO120sed Campus Early School 18 18 Lower School 120 120 Middle School 125 125 Upper School 105 125 Faculty /Staff 45 45 413 433 The current sewage outflow consumption is 2,000 - 2,400 gallons each day. To improve their current facilities and provide for the additional students, we will be designing a 7,000 - square foot Resource Center. This building will include science labs, classrooms, a small library and art studios. The additional plumbing fixtures required for this new facility are as follows: • 1 sink in art room • 10 small science table sinks • 4lavatories • 5 water closets (1 - 1 -1/2 gallon) • 2 water fountains We would like to begin a submittal for the Special Use Permit required by the County and appreciate your interest in reviewing the current situation with the sewage treatment plant and its capacity. If there are further questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, D-4IL DIXON & ASSOCIATES Ellen Weinstein, AIA EW /nn cc: John McGovern, Assistant Principal Carolina Friends School 12 The Courtyard. 431 West Franklin Street, Chanel Hill, NC 27516. 919'968 - 8333 Members o: the .American institute of Architects i f 1 l 1 Long -Range Plan for Carolina Friends School Durham, North Carolina Presented to the Board May 21, 1991 by the Committee: Jean p'Barr, Chair Matt Drake Greg Garneau Peter Klopfer Mark Kuhn John Baird, ex officio Martha Klopfer, ex officio 28 � Y 4 7f� i 11 Recommendation X09: School size. 29 Issue: How large should each unit become? k'hat is the optimum student /teacher ratio? Background: The original size of each unit was predicated on a somewhat ar- bitrary number that was believed to represent the maximum number of students that could interact effectively together as a unit. The number was based fur- ther on the School's economic ability to compensate staff, acquire supplies, and maintain buildings in a rural setting without municipal services. Considerations: School experience suggests that social factors differ between units. For example, older students need a'larger pool of potential friends, and diversity among students may require larger numbers. Parental and staff opinion concur that any expansion should not alter significantly the present ratios of staff to students (1:8) or of teachers to students (1:12). Of course, these ratios vary across activities and subjects, and between units. Recommendations: We recommend that the Early Schools remain at their current sizes. The Lower School, and Middle School enrollments should not change sub - stantially. from their present budgeted levels of 120 and 126 respectively. The enrollment of the Upper School should grow gradually by about 25 students, to reach approximately 130. We recommend that with these increases, addi- tional hiring take place as necessary order to maintain current student /staff ratios. Responsibility: School administration. Time Frame: As soon as the physical plant and school facilities allow. Solutions Originated From: Thursday Meeting, Parents Survey, Staff, Long-Range Planning Committee. Recommendation #10: Revenue sources. Issue: Uhat are alternatives to raising tuition in order to meet the school's ever- growing financial needs? Background: CFS' budget relies primarily on tuition. In 1990 -91, 94Z came from tuition and fees, 4Z from the annual fund, lZ from endowment and grants and lZ from interest income. Our primary expenditures are staff compensation at 76Z, 6Z to tuition aid, 57 to maintenance, and the remaining 137 allotted to supplies, utilities and other occupancy expenses. The Board's top prior4 *_y is raising staff salaries. In addition, unforeseen expenses, such as deferred maintenance projects or capital acquisitions, necessitate tuition increases which exceed annual inflation rates. -Rl _ i 30 ti L� n� 4 -8 _aZ 71 L L~J DAIL DIXON & ASSOCIATES, Architects AROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL" APR1L 7 1992 APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1. IgnQ - R.anae Plan for Carolina Ft; en s.- School: Recommendation #9 regarding school size is enclosed and highlighted. The enrollment status will be held to +/- 376 students on the main campus. The enclosed letter from the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources permits this increase in enrollment over the next five years. 2. Long - Range Master Plan: The mater plan has been revised and updated to include additions to the campus completed over the past several years as well as proposed buildings for the next five years. 3. Public Water: Contact has been made with Charvis Adams and Bill Barlow of Public Water Supply. Mr. Barlow has indicated their involvement with the project will begin when construction documents are underway. The civil engineer for this project, Phil Post and Associates, will evaluate the current water supply at the Upper School and verify construction details with Mr. Barlow of Public Water. 4. Traffic Impact: Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Traffic Impact Study for developments which generate over 800 daily tips. This project generates less than 800 daily trips. However, the widening of roads as indicated on the Master Plan will improve site circulation and the ability of police, fire, and rescue squads to gain access to the campus. The proposed widening of the road was verified with Orange County Erosion Control per enclosed letter from Phil Post & Associates. S. ewaQ is sal: Included with this submittal is a letter from the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources permitting the addition of flow resulting from the addition of 20 students to the campus sewage treatment facility. 6. Solid Dispg Carolina Friends School contract with BFI Waste Systems to collect garbage from the campus twice a week. 1 12 The Courtyard. 431 West Franklin Street. Chapel Hill. NC 2ia16. 9191968 -8333 Members of the American Institute of Architects A I rvl A I i I It 72- Ps 4u _-- -_4_ t� '$.fey 3 �; il. v'-_ - - if 1 1: i 4 7 SUM t4r; * j I rvl A I i I It 72- Ps 4u _-- -_4_ t� '$.fey 3 �; il. v'-_ - - if 1 1: i 4 7 SUM 31 t4r; 31 32 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 6.16.6 REGULATIONS CONCERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS, AS AN ACCESSORY USE ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS (HOME OCCUPATION) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 26, 1992 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: The purpose of this amendment is to create standards which are more performance - oriented. Also, the text itself is being revised into a simpler format. The substantive changes proposed in this amendment pertain to setbacks and square footage limits for accessary structures used for home occupation purposes, on lots larger than 200,000 square feet (Article 6.3).. Staff will be proposing changes to requirements for smaller lots, specific standards related to traffic impacts, and additional standards for home occupations which could potentially create nuisance impacts, in a subsequent amendment. Existing Provisions The existing home occupation regulations are contained in Articles 6.16.6.1 through 6.16.6.4. 6.16.6.1 provides standards for zoning districts with a minimum lot size of about 1/2 acre or less. 6.16.6.2 provides standards for lots smaller than 200,000 square feet (4.6 acres) in the AR, R1 and RB zoning districts. 6.16.6.3 provides standards for lots larger than 200,000 square feet in the AR, R1 and RB zoning districts. 6.16.6.4 contains application and approval procedures. The underlying goal of home occupation standards is to minimize any impacts of the home occupation and maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. '` 33 Existing setback and square footage requirements are shown in the following table: HOME OCCUPATIONS EXISTING SETBACK AND - SQUARE FOOTAGE STANDARDS Requirement Lot Size X200,000 sf x700,000 sf (4.6 acres) Structure 1000 sf 2000 sf Square Footage i, Outdoor 500 sf 1000 sf Storage Front 40' 30' behind Setbacks residence Side and Rear 20' 40' Application of Standards to Large Lots Setback standards for accessory structures on large lots are more stringent than those for small lots. It is presumed that since more land is available, the accessory structure could be located even farther from adjoining properties. Also, there is potential for the accessory building to be larger. In many cases, however, the accessory building is less than 1000 square feet. The home - occupation building envelope may be significantly smaller for a 4.7 -acre lot than for a 4.5 -acre lot, even if all other factors are equal. This is illustrated in the following example. An applicant wishes to operate an accounting service in a 400 square foot accessory building. The residence is in the center of a lot which is heavily wooded on the south and west sides. The septic tank and drainfield are located to the rear of the house. In Figure a), the lot contains 4.5 acres. Figure b) assumes a lot size of 4.7 acres. The shaded area shows the area within which the home occupation may -be located in each case. 443' d43 1Z 452' T- 452' D a) 4.5 acres b) 4.7 acres 34 In Figure b), the accessary building is restricted to the rear of• the property, most of which is open and highly visible from the rear adjoining property. The setbacks, low square footage, and screening requirements would serve to minimize impacts of the activity. There are other portions of the property, however, such as the southwest corner, within which the home occupation activity could be nestled within a wooded area, to be even less intrusive. Use of this area is not an option, however, because the home occupation must be located at least 30 feet behind the residence. It may be appropriate for larger accessory structures; i.e., those close to the 2,000 square foot limit, to be located to the rear of the residence or a substantial distance from the road to avoid a sense of crowding or business --like atmosphere along residential roads. However, structures smaller than 1,000 square feet, which would also be allowed on smaller lots, must meet the same setbacks as the structures larger than 1,000 square feet. Also site features such as dense screening by existing vegetation are not taken into account. Size of structure The existing regulations limit the square footage of the structure within which a home occupation is located, regardless of how much of the building is used for the home occupation. (Example - A large barn within which a small area is to be converted to a workshop.) This may eliminate the possibility of using existing structures for home occupation purposes, even if the area used for the home occupation and building setbacks meet applicable standards. Proposed Changes The following.changes to standards for Home Occupations in the AR, RB and R1 zoning districts are proposed: - Rounding of the break point between large and small lots from 200,000 square feet (4.6 acres) to an even 5 acres; Applying the same setback requirement to all home occupation accessory structures smaller than 1000 square feet, Requiring a minimum setback of 30 feet'for home occupation accessory buildings between 1000 and 1099 square feet, and increasing that setback by 10 feet for each 100 square feet thereafter to the maximum size of 2000 square feet. (Accessory buildings larger than 1000 square feet would still require.a lot size of at least 5 acres.) Requiring a minimum setback of 30\feet for a 500 to 549 square -foot outdoor storage area and increasing that setback by 10 feet for each 50 square feet thereafter 35 to the maximum size of 1000 square feet. (Outdoor storage areas larger than 1000 square feet would still required require a lot size of at least 5 acres.) Reducing the minimum setback to 40 feet, or up to one - half of the applicable sliding scale value, whichever is greater, along heavily wooded areas where existing vegetation effectively screens the,use from view of the road or adjoining properties. Requiring the lesser setback of 300 feet from the right -of -way, or 30 feet behind residence (current requirement) when the front portion of the property is highly visible from the road. (A home occupation on a 5 -acre lot with the standard dimension of length equals twice the width, placed roughly in the center of the property, would meet the 300 -foot setback.) - The proposed amendment would allow larger accessory buildings to contain a home occupation, provided that: a) The area of the home occupation does not exceed square footage limits; b) The area used for the home occupation meets setbacks required for its area; and C) The structural design or other feature provides adequate assurance that only the designated portion of the building will be used for the home occupation. Examples of the application of the requirements are attached. These envelope within which an accessory given various combinations of lot location of treeline. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: proposed dimensional examples show the building structure should be located, shape, size of structure, and Article 6.16.6 Home Occupations Regglations Home Occupation - Incidental and subordinate use of residential property for business, production of goods, and provision of services. Article 6.16.6.1 General Provisions a) On -site sale or delivery of goods which are, not produced on -site is not permitted, except where such delivery or sale is incidental to the provision of a service. b) Traffic generated by the home occupation shall not be significantly greater than that which would normally be expected in a residential 36 neighborhood. C) Off - street parking shall be provided. Parking area shall be located outside of building setbacks. d) No equipment or process shall be employed that will cause noise, glare, odor or electrical interference at the lot line*(in the_case of detached dwelling units), or outside or in the abutting dwelling unit (in the case of attached dwelling units). Article 6.16.6.2 Additional Provisions for All Residential Districts Except RB, AR and R -1. a) No external evidence of a home occupation shall be visible except for a single sign up to two (2) square feet in area. b) No more than thirty -five percent (35 %) of the total floor area or five hundred (500) square feet whichever is less, may be used for a home occupation. C) All activities associated with the home occupation must be conducted within the residence. d) No more than one (1) individual not living in the residence may work in the home occupation. Article 6.16.6.3 Additional Requirements for Home occupations in RB, AR and R -1 Districts Article 6.16.6.3.1 For All Lots a) No more than two (2) individuals not living in the residence may work in the home occupation. b) Accessory buildings, outdoor storage areas and parking areas shall be adequately screened from view of the roads and adjacent properties by a densely planted evergreen hedge, shrubs or trees, or ae six ( 6 ) foot stockade fence and deciduous plant materials. C) Accessory buildings - Where a home occupation is located in an accessory structure. The floor area of an accessory structure used, in whole or part, for a home occupation shall generally not exceed the square footage limitation of the home occupation itself. A portion of a larger structure may be used to conduct a home occupation provided that all of the following are met: 1) The area of the home occupation does not 37 exceed square footage limits; 2), The area used for the home occupation meets setbacks required for its area; and 3) The structural design or other feature provides adequate assurance that only the designated portion of the building will be used for the home occupation. Article 6.16.6.3.2 For Lots Smaller Than Five (5) Acres a) A maximum of 1000 square feet of floor area may be used for a home occupation. This floor area may be located within the residence and /or in a detached accessory building; and b) A maximum of 500 square feet of floor area may be used for outdoor storage; and C) Minimum setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. Article 6.16.6.3.3 For Lots Which Are Five (5) Acres or Larger a) A maximum of 2000 square feet of floor area may be used for a home occupation. This floor area may be located within the residence or in a detached accessory building; and b) A maximum of 1000 square feet of floor area may be used for outdoor storage; and C) Side and rear setbacks for accessory buildings smaller than 1000 square feet and outdoor storage areas smaller than 500 square feet shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. For each additional 100 square feet (accessory building) or 50 square feet (outdoor storage) thereafter, the setback shall increase by 10 feet. An existing mature Type A or higher Land Use buffer, or topographic features which result in an equally effective buffering, may substitute for up to one -half of the required setback. In no such case however, shall such setback be less than 40 feet. 1 d) Front setbacks for accessory buildings smaller than 1000 square feet shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. Buildings larger than 1000 square feet and /or storage areas larger than 500 square feet shall be located the lesser of: 38 1) Thirty feet farther from the right -of -way than the residence; ` 2) 300 feet from the right -of -way, EXCEPT where an existing mature Type A or higher Land Use buffer; or 3) Topographic features effectively screen the structure from view. In,no such case, however, shall such setback be less than 40 feet. HOME OCCUPATION ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (Lots 5 acres or larger) SQUARE FOOTAGE MINIMUM SETBACKS Accessary Outdoor side and Front Building storage Rear* C 1000 [ 500 20' 401 1000 -1099 500 -549 30 lesser of: 30 feet farther from the right -of -way than 1100 -1199 550 -599 40' 1200 -1299 600 -649 50' the residence 1300 -1399 650 -699 60' or 1400 -1499 700--749 70' at least 300 feet from 1500 -1599 750 -799 80' the right -of --way 1600 -1699 800 -849 90' or 1700 -1799 850 -899 100' (effectively buffered) 1800 -1899 900 -949 110' 1/2 of the side /rear setback (but not less 1900 -2000 1 950-1 R22-J, 120' than 40') * May be reduced by up to 112 (but may not be less than 40') if existing vegetation provides an equally effective buffer. e) One (1) on -site sign advertising the home occupation is permitted. The size of the sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet in the R -1 and AR zoning districts, and two (2) square feet in the RB zoning district. - f) No more than two (2) individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. ci Article 22 - Definitions e t-he mo ire -ides idea : _ , - of the cu anon > =::::: > > <:I...,.,:�;........: Home Oc " ,` .p . , ; :, nc der taY` ; and; au orc mate ".use of res.zdentfa� ,::Product PP ...... ::..: ::::: : :::::::::.::::::::.. ad � d;rovs on;af <servaces: ....,. . P: an.................. *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: HOME OCCUPATION BUILDING ENVELOPE 5 -acre lot -- 4501 x 450� ,L= Road Frontage 1200 sf SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1500 sf — r-7 Lf _ ❑ 177 i � I s t 2400 sf W TREEL INE --1 BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR i ACCESSORY STRUCTURE D RESID, ul. ,. HOME OCCUPATION BUILDING ENVELOPE 5-acre lot — 640' x 320' .L= Road Frontage 1200 sf FAI E- .v, T R E77- 1-1 N E SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1500 s 0 C3 EWI 7. BUILDING ENVELOP4 FOR AUV 7' V V ',^,n I "!'--Rv STRUCTURE 41 2000 s CD "A R 'E'S 10 :-7 N C; HOME OCCUPATION BUILDING ENVELOPE 5 -acre lot --- 3201 x 640' ,L= Road Frontage S I ZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1200 s f 0 REEL 1N= 1500 s f 2000 s f N. I—. �w 42 BUILDING 'NVE! OP. � i � � -- ACC,:s50RY STRU C I UR= J *xended 2 -_ -ES subject to the rollow4 �g c.,..d�_ia: s: 1 43 a) nll. Struct::res, build_: _S Cz enclosed areas, used for housing of Poultry, hots, cattle or other livestock shall be a mini F ' �um o_ one hundred feet `_ram all p= operty lines. b) No structures, buildings or enclosed areas, hous4nc ?oultwy, hots, cattle cr other livestock shah -7e less than one hundred twenty -fee; rr m. any residence. C) Care shall be exercised that odor is kept to a ...__.i -u:i level through frequent cleaning of the.area. d) ?ricr to Maring this except ion, the epa'_icant shall receive drem the Oran :e County Health DeDart:ne_ t a letter scat'_:: .,:.at ,.he aa�licart has nevi ewes -he ealth Department's recuirements for ooerGt- c= a �eeder -type facility and understands the health recuireme::ts t. at ='_Ist be :het. r.-;y l- v-4 clat -4 cn c= G -ealth Departrme: - recuat � on shell be cc sidere` a violation of _ -.is ordinance. Rem-, l a 4i on.s Conce- _fig L=j Occ::Dat_ons , Is i:7 Accesscrti• .'se ^me 0ccu )Et_icn9 _^ Dist __S v ^o_ � end K_ - _ - — ,rmended i0 -5 -E7 The 'f'ollowing restrictions shall be applied to all _ c:r.e occuz�atiozs in all resident:�al c- stricts, exce l :-Z, a) No external evidence od =ts existence shall ')e visible except a sicz as pe=z tted by r,._cle 9. b) No more than t_.i°v -d.,ve perce. _ (35 %) cc t::e =_oc_ area ct -=we dwell_; g Cr twve _.'Increc ( 500) sr;:c_ e feet, W_icoever is =ess, can ,De used =cr _rle GCCL'tat:_O C) No equ=pment cr _roCess S : ^_^_1 �+ - -- cause noLse, VLD7a =_ct, C_' ?_re' GCCr ~Cr elect_ _ca_ — ter= eremce Cetectazle tc t.h.e na_:ual Senses at t ^e 1--t ! = ''eS =- h-e case Of deter: ed cWel__ ;, __ts cr Gut =rd e the dwelling «_t, __ tae case Of attacred dwell: �) = ,e c: - re:wse5 sole end del_very of roods w-.. -_ : are ....t Cz tze ze-__ses -s case or tae delivery and sale �roV ision cd a serv_ce. W e) :�� l cCr_V_t�eS No 1Cr e t --e= one ( ) =•• —V _z no= r es 4 4A . parking generated by the conduct of the home occupa-*=at", shall be ret of! the street and other than in a recur ec Yard area. *6.16.6.3 ,u,gm 2 c c" e' + a s 1b.1 B. and .- D i s_ c t s 00 000 scua_; a _'c(]� lots) *Amended 2 -1 -88 The fallowi:zg restrictions shall be applied to home occupations in the RB, AR and R -1 districts on 'lots in excess of 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 2,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation. This floor area can be in a detached accessory structure. b) 2f an accessory structure is to be used fcr the home occupation the following criteria must be me-: The accessory building shall be set back at _east thirty ( 30 ) feet farther from the road than t::e residence. 2. The accessory building shall not be closer than forty (40) feet to the side and rear lot lines. 3. The accessory building and any required off- street parking shall be adequately screened from view Of the road and adjacent property by a densely platsd evercreen hedge of shrubs or gees . wn lieu of an evergreen hedge, a six (6) foot stockade fence and deciduous plant materials may be used for screen:— pur -poses. 4. Any outside storage of materials for use home occupation shall be totally screened crom the road and from adjacent property in the same r,�a nner as the accessory structures. The storace area shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. The setback -rom the side and rear cro�erty lines shall be the s e-za. e as for an accessory bildinc for use as a home oCC vation. c) 5ic:.s shall be as provided in Article 9. d) The on- t,emises sale and de livery Of cools which are not produced on the pr e:- -rises ;:s prohib =zed, except __ t e case of the delivery and sale of cools _nc- dental to the :.rovision of a service. e) No ec_uipment or process shall be e=-I ov_ ed taac wi_-1 generate noise, vibration, Clare, odor Or electrical _cterf erence detectable at the lo;. lines of the lct cn W".-,Ch the home occ• -.tatloa =s located. _ ) No were than two ( 2 ) individuals not rest__. dwel__.:e un__ :-,,av work in the home 45 g) No =raffic shall be generated by such hone occ_mation _n sicn'_;ica::ly greater vo_umes than would ne=-:arly he expected.. in a residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the conduct of the home occ Dat_en shall be met off the street and other than in a recUired yard area. 6.16.6.2 core 0 ^c;:2at_o -,s jz •hp F: R z-+d R -I Districts ended The _o_loM-ing restrictions shall be applied on home l0 -5 -67 occupations in the RB, nR and R -1 dist__cts on lots less t:an 200,000 square feet. a) A max'_:aum of 1,000 square feet For the home occuoation. This detached accessory structure - structure ' s used For the :home floor area cf t .-,e accessory s= 1,000 square feet- of floor area Tza`- be ::set floor area can be a When a cetacheb zccesscrti_• occutat_ or., the rota:: ructure cannot exceez b) l_ an accessory structure is to be used for the occupation, the following standard -rust be met: The accessery bu;ldinc and any 7equ-4red cc_- street �a.k.nc sha_1 be Eaecua=e'Iv screened Gres view 0= the�road and adjacent property by a densely _1an=ed ever green hedge of s -=*u =s or :tees. _= _ieu, . o- a- evergreen hedge, z s =x (6) foot stockade Fence an_ deciduous plant materials -gay be used for screen -n, aurOoses. C) 5I.gas shall be as prov -Qec 14M. r =t:.Cie 9. d) The oa- prereises sale and delivery of goods w-hich are nc-z produced on the preruises is proaiwited, except _z tae case or the delve= -v and Sale cf goods _gcidenYz: roviSioz C' a service. e) No eT' _pmen t c _ = rocess shall be e- gloved =. at u - - -- cenerGte noise, vi..ratio= , alp-re, o,dc_ cr e1eC__�..wl _ .ter=ew eace de =ect^le zt _he lot 1_ ^es cc .ae w _ca the home ocC::oatiah is located. f) No mere than two (2) net resiMing dwelllag u =it :uev wors in tae horse occ;:pat___. S) �._,v outs4 de s =c4 age c. mater_al s -cr use _n the ncme oCC::ta=_cn shall be totally screenec =rcm tae road �-..- __ c� adj ace=- .rcper =v- it the se-me mztner as t_e zccesso�y st_- �t_res.+ 'The s=rzce area saa11 ...... exceec 000 sc -la_e feet. The se_maC __zm the s_..e a- -.. •-e r0 °_r =J 1 -wes sZF_.r be the same as --c= an a=cEsSCr_ .�:.__c. L,sed as c :cme oC. .___C_. ..) No -____a srG_1 be aeme_r �: _e= _-v sc__ . o .. -- s� _eater .=oi..mes than w•=u_.- . -� - = -� be e��ected _-- a res�ce :_._w:: n e• c cr_oot, a=c a= _ .^.eeY _..= nj *6.16.6.4 Horne QC ;2 +4 C , p. ?- 46 *Auended No home occupation mey be operated in aL residence 2 -1 -88 permitted under this Ordinance and only a!e Tior.,eeOc��pa25o Permit has been issued by the Zorwng Ox!icer. ` An application fo :ra Home Occupation Pec:ait shall be with the Zoning 0_w_cer and shall be subm4 tted on !O—s provided by the Zoning Officer. Such forms shall be so that when completed a full and accurate descriptio;;�oathe Proposed use, including its location, attearance, and operational characteristics are disclosed. In addition to the t applic a ion, the applicant is r ecu �r e to submit a site plan of the property on which the home occupation is to be located. The site plan shall show the location of the residence or accessory building in w:,_c;, t:,e home occupation Rs to be located in relation to existing property {fines and adjacent homes; the location, au.:.ber, and cleans of access to required off- street narking areas; and �he location and type of required landscaping and /or screening. The applicant is also required to subrc.t a floor plan of the residence or accessory building ;n which the home occupation is to be located. The plan shall show the location, size, and use of each room 0:' area within the residence or access -cry building. L'pan a determination than the application is COMMIete, t "e Zoning Officer shall cause a review of the appl-. vatic n to be Made • The review shall dete =fine :.= the proposed 'name occupation a rev; eS with all requirements cf t:.is Or_:4 nacce. Based an the review, the application will be a_ proved, approved with conditions, or denied. If conditions are attached to the approval of a pe,z, they may address deficiencies in meeting specific Ordinance requiremen =s or they may address speci =ic irupacts ca _ re5ut '-from the aperztion of the home occupation. .n -:n o - latter case, the conditions may include, but nct be ta, - i•itations on the hours Od operatio=, the nu -"rber cf� - vehicles to be parked an the premises, and -he locz-ion c= a_ accesscy b�_ilding, storage area Or par on the prates.v. In addi =won, the Zoning Of =ice, may require greater setbac s anal /Or additional landscaping o: screening to adecuateiv screen the home occ *upatioa !--cm adjo_ ring prcper_ies. the aptl:.cztion is approved, either with c= w_-shout cen di =4 C =s, the Zoning Office, shall senz the aw =_ica =t a letter ring of the approval and of the rec`u; =ere=zs of the Ordinance ' that apply to the home OCCUMat4cn. The permit letter must be signed by the applicant to lmd .caze his /her k_1 1 nczess wo operate the home Occupation in co =f ozmance with tae re =ir emen is and corc;tior-s se- forth in the per-_.. letter. Hach per —: le -ter shill be ke_ t on file by tae Zoning Cf _firer and cons=_,. to the .=.OMe Occ::patica Pe—_= for the t =r.._cular use in c,:estio:.. The home o- - upaticu .Hay be operated by =ae 47 applicant as long as i : is operated :.n' confo ^ante with the recuire"1ents and cond1t;ons set forth in the pe-r -it letter. if the application _s denied, the Zoning Officer s:all n __f. the applicant o: the denial and shall state the reasons far denial in`.writing. The applicant may appeal the decision of the Zoning Off -Cer to the Board of Adjustment as se;. fcrth Article 21 of t:Zis Ordinance. 6.16.7 Stc -ace C' JU'z �ed C_Z Wrecked tc;;cr V im$ Amended The storage of junked or wrecked :,rotor vehicles rs 2 -5 -86 specifically prohibited in all residential districts. '_'his section does not apply to any motor vehicle in an enclosed building whit:: building conforms to applicable cote and toning requiations or which building 'Lawfully exists as a non -co .for. ing use under applicable bu -lding code and :,.-._. - reculat -ohs . 6.16.8 7er-.Dora7v Yard Sa 1 e Temporary yard sales are pe - ::itted -n all residential_ districts crovided that these sales do nct exceed two days per mo;: th . 6.16.9 ^p- pera`-v -und Ac v; tv Te.;,acrary fund raisin= activities are pe_:.._�ted _n all residential districts provided that =hese' act -v -ties do not exceed two devs per mort'. 6. i6. 10 Recreational Facilities (P` -o_` t Non- '7rc__ 1 The followirc res tri =p; or_s shah be applied to row-4t cr zan -p_o it recreational facilities such as a cold ccurse or couuccy club with col!.- course: r a) The =Ln -L-n m lot area shai'_ be 50 acres. b) No building shLall be closer than 1 - ^_e or the recu.:.r eme »tS whichever is Cr. eater . C) No more _bGn 2 idea =_ - _=epic:: s scua_ a Beet each and nct located Mze -way. 20 feet to a rCpert'' cr the cistr__t ^^.5 nct to excee 15 closer _ =an 1 -oat to C) No P_- e e 'rp�CtS S:1C.". as nose cr ^1 are shall extend bevy «d t o _ot boundaries. 6._6.11 Recreational ^a.. l es The following_ restrict =ans shall be a =plied to fir reCr ea: _ona.. fcC___t_e5 S 11Ch as to =__.S x:lUbS , S * : ra=aet S=uas]n Clubs, -C.. E=. �Ztt areas, �DOWLL a &I ;=Sr skat_tc __:.:s, �il' art a== pCOI .'all-'s, w__�ocr am :� et_G S" _&r uses; A^ V PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SubdivisioniRegulations REFERENCE: Section V -D -6 -b Certificates of Dedication and Maintenance ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public X Other: County Attorney Expected Public Hearing Date: May 26, 1992 Purpose of Amendment: To make a technical correction to the certificate required on a final subdivision plat to be signed by the owner of the property being subdivided. Impacts /Issues: The Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance is a statement required to be placed on the Final Plat and on the Declaration of Development Restrictions and Requirements which is signed by the owner(s) of the property being subdivided. By signing the certificate, the owner certifies that he or she is the owner, that all easements, rights -of -way, and common areas are duly granted for the purposes stated on the plat, and that all improvements /common areas will be maintained until taken over by a public agency or homeowners association, etc. The current language in Section V -D -6 -b of the Subdivision Regulations for the certificate only implies that the person signing is in fact the owner of the property.. The proposed amendment will expressly state the certification of ownership. Existing and Proposed Ordinance Text: V- D -6-b. Certificates of Dedication and Maintenance (1) The following certification shall be printed on the Final Plat and shall be followed by the signature of the owner(s) of the property being subdivided as well as the - pEepe=- n"ta=- a ef the :eL ' s signaturre - acknowledged by a notary ublic: "The undersigned swag hereby certifies that the land shown hereon is owned by the undersigned and is located within the subdivision regulation jurisdiction of Orange County and hereby freely dedicates 'all' rights -of-way, easements, streets, recreation area, open space, common area, utilities and other improvements. to public or private common use as noted on this plat, and further assumes full responsibility for the maintenance and control of said improvements until they are accepted for maintenance and control by an appropriate public body or by an incorporated neighborhood or homeowners association or similar legal entity." Owner: Ordinance Review Committee: Planning Board: BOCC: Date: n. g more than one hundred (100) acres; C) A correction of an error or omission; or d) Revisions to any factual or descriptive material. 2.2.14.3 Consideration of Amendments Except as noted herein, the submission and consideration of applications for proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or portion- thereof shall be governed by the procedures contained in Article 20 of this Ordinance. Principal amendments shall only be considered once each year at the quarterly joint public hearing in February. Secondary amendments may be considered four (4) times each year at the quarterly joint public hearings in February, May, August, and November. No proposed amendment is to be considered in conjunction with a rezoning, planned development or special use permit request for the same property. Requests for a rezoning, planned development and /or special use permit may only be considered at subsequent hearings.or meetings following approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 2.2.15 Planning Department To Act As Staff To Planning Board The Director of Planning, under the direction of the County Manager, shall provide staff service of the Planning Department to assist the Planning Board in carrying out its duties. 2.3 Board of Adjustment 2.3.1 Board of Adjustment, Establishment Of 2.3.1.1 A Board of Adjustment is hereby established. It shall consist of five members, and two alternates, all of who shall be residents of Orange County's Planning Jurisdiction. One of the regular members shall be a member .,..of .. th.e_ Orange County . Planning Board,. ex .officio, who shall have.. full: rights,. privileges ..and..responsibilities. 2.3.1.2 ..The-members shall be appointed by the Board of Commissioners for terms of three years, and until their respective successors have been appointed and qualified; provided that the terms of the original members may be staggered so that all terms may not expire simultaneously. Each appointment to fill a vacancy shall be for the unexpired term. 2.3.1.3 A member may be appointed for a second successive term, but after two consecutive terms a member shall be ineligible for reappointment until one calendar year has elapsed from the date of completion of the second term. 2 -9 50 E ¢2.2.14 Amendment of Adopted Com rehensivg P an 51 *Amended For the purpose of. establishing and maintaining sound, 4 -4 -88 stable, and desirable development within Orange County, the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof shall not be-amended except as follows: a) Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; b) To correct an error or omission; or C) In response to a change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County. 2.2.14.1 Initiation of Amendments An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof may be initiated by: a) The Board of Commissioners on its own motion; b) The Planning Board; or C) Application, by any person or agency, which accurately and completely sets forth the reason(s) for the proposed amendment as prescribed in Article 2.2.14 above. 2.2.14.2 Classification of Amendments Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof are classified as "principal" or "secondary" amendments. Principal amendments include: a) Additions to or modifications of policies, objectives, principles or standards; b) The creation of new activity nodes or additions to existing activity nodes which exceed ten (10) acres in land area; or c). Proposals for new freestanding plan areas or additions to existing areas that exceed one hundred (100) acres in land area. secondary amendments include:. a) The expansion of an activity node where the additio._al area is contiguous to an existing node and does not increase its land area by more than ten (10) acres; b) The expansion of a designated plan area where the additional area is contiguous to the existing plan designation and does not increase its land area by 2 -8 Mountain was part Cameron responded Hamilton asked if Cameron responded the subdivision. Mountain was 14 ai Orange County. MMM � V 52 - of the nitrification field and no. the open space was public and it is only for the residents of She noted that lot 92 of Piney :;res of open space dedicated to Scott asked if the State had commented on the septic easement for lot 6 being across the road. Cameron responded that the comment on the Concept Plan was that DOT would not allow a septic or water line to run parallel to a road in the right -of -way, but would allow a perpendicular crossing. MOTION: Burklin moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jobsis. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #9: ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC BEARING (5/26/92) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Articles 2 and 6 - Home Occupations Presentation by Mary Scearbo. This agenda item is to consider a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment, the purpose of which is to create more performance - oriented standards for home occupations. The substantive changes proposed in the amendment pertain to setbacks and square footage limits for accessory structures on lots larger than 200,000 square feet. The proposed standards would allow greater flexibility in the location of home occupation accessory buildings if the site contained wooded areas or topographic features which provided effective screening. In contrast, the location of structures in open areas would be more restricted in some instancres. Other proposed changes involve the use of large existing structures for home occupations activities. The amendment was originated by Planning Staff to address problem situations which have been encountered in administering home occupation regulations. A recent example involved a deep lot about 11 acres in size, with the residence located almost 1000 feet from the road. Current regulations MOTION: D required the home occupation structure to be locates in an unsuitable location to the rear of the residence. The desired location was in a wooded area, several hundred feet from the road. The home occupation could not be approved, even though the use would have been heavily screened, and would not be visible from the roadway. The proposed amendments are the first step in a more comprehensive overhaul of home occupation standards. The.issues addressed at this time will revolve situations which are more commonly encountered. Staff will be proposing changes to requirements for smaller lots, specific standards related to traffic impacts, and additional standards for home occupations which could potentially create nuisance impacts, in a subsequent amendment. The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed amendments be presented for comment at the May 26, 1992 public hearing. The proposed amendments and building setbacks are attachments to these minutes on pages Hamilton asked if a residence could have an outdoor storage building and an accessory building. Scearbo responded yes. Reid asked what kinds of home occupations would require a 2000 square foot building. Scearbo responded that one large home occupation she was aware of was a recording studio. She noted that in some instances, the entire building was not used for the home occupation. She also noted that there are other requirements for home occupations regarding impacts and the number of employees allowed. Burklin moved approval of the Planning Staff recommendation. Seconded by Reid. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Proposed Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment Presentation by Mary Scearbo. This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which would change the certificate required on a final subdivision plat by the owner of the property being subdivided. The Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance is a 53 n nff4 statement required to be placed on the Final Plat and\on the Declaration of Restrictions and Requirements which is signed by the owner(s) of the property being subdivided. By signing the certificate, the owner certifies that he or she is the owner, that all easements, rights -of -way, and common aces are duly granted for the purposes stated on the plat, and that all improvements /common areas will be maintained until taken over by a public agency or homeowners association, etc. The current language in Section V -D -6 -b of the Subdivision Regulations for the certificate only implies that the person signing is the owner of the property. The proposed amendment will expressly state the certification of ownership. The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed amendment to Section V -D -6 -b of the Subdivision Regulations be presented at the May 26 public hearing for citizen comment. MOTION: Jobsis moved approval of the Planning Staff recommendation. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS a. Status Report - Planning Board /EDC Work Group Presentation by Marvin Collins. Collins reviewed the Status Report included in the agenda materials. A copy of the abstract and updated material are attachments to these minutes on pages . Collins noted.that, initially, 18 sites were selected for evaluation by the PB /EDC Work Group. An additional site, a bank, has since been added to the last of "service" establishments. Each evaluation includes the preparation of a site plan rendering showing the location of buildings and landscaping, parking and loading areas, and streets and access drives. Related to the site analysis work, a spreadsheet template was developed to calculate land use intensity ratios for each site. The template was designed to enable calculations for single or multiple uses and is being expanded to permit calculation of other impacts, including traffic, solid waste, water consumption, sewage disposal, 54 O R A N G E C O U N T Y 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4. 1992 Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: PETITION FOR ABANDONMENT - RIGHT -OF -WAY IN WOLF'S POND SUBDIVISION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes —X —No ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution Petition by Property Owners Vicinity Map G.S. 153A -241 INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk - Extension 2582 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732--8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider adoption of a resolution setting a public hearing on the abandonment of a right -of -way located between Boulder Bluff (SR 2020) and Wolf's Court (SR 2019) in Wolf's Pond Subdivision. BACKGROUND: Property owners in Wolf's Pond Subdivision have submitted a petition to close a right -of -way located between Boulder Bluff (SR 2020) and Wolf's Court (SR 2019) in Wolf's Pond Subdivision. There are several reasons for abandoning this section of right -of -way. First, all four lot owners adjoining the right -of -way have petitioned for it to be abandoned. Second, the road in the right -of -way has never been constructed. Finally, the right -of -way does not provide ingress or egress to any of the lots in the subdivision. Following adoption of the resolution, State statutes require that it be advertised for four successive weeks prior to the public hearing. The Planning Staff recommends adoption of the resolution to abandon the right -of -way and the scheduling of a public hearing to receive citizen comment on the proposal. The public hearing can be conducted at the Board of Commissioners June 1, 1992 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval per the Planning Staff recommendation. z NOTICE OF THE ADOPTION BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE INTENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY TO CLOSE A RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED BETWEEN BOULDER BLUFF (SR 2020) AND WOLF'S COURT (SR 2019) - IN WOLF'S POND SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTENT TO CLOSE A RIGHT-OF-WAY IN WOLF'S POND SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, petitioners Frances L. Greenstein, Robert B. Cairns, Beverly D. Cairns, Anthony J. Rignola, Francine A. Rignola, Furman E. Coggins and Phyllis J. Coggins have filed a petition before the Board of County Commissioners to close a right -of -way identified on the map which is part of Exhibit A to this Resolution (hereinafter "the abandoned right -of- way "); and WHEREAS, it appears from the petition that the road in the abandoned right -of -way has never been constructed; and w WHEREAS, it appears that no individual, firm or corporation owns property in the vicinity of said right -of -way without a reasonable means of ingress and egress to his, her or its property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County that it intends to close the abandoned right -of -way. That prior to a decision on the closing of the abandoned right -of -way, a public hearing shall be held in the superior courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse, on the 1st day of June, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is directed to publish this Resolution in the Chapel Hill Herald and the News of Orange County once a week for four (4) 1 successive weeks before said hearing and that the Clerk shall send by certified mail to each owner of property adjoining the abandoned right -of -way and shall prominently post a copy of this Resolution in at least two (2) places along the abandoned road as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. §153A-241. This the day of , 1992. Commissioner moved the passage of the foregoing resolution and Commissioner seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes: =2 NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of so much of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners for said County at a meeting held , as relates in any way to the Resolution for closing a right - of-way located between Boulder Bluff (SR 2020) and Wolfs Court (SR 2019) in Wolf's Pond Subdivision as illustrated on Exhibit A to the Resolution hereinabove set forth, and that the said proceedings are recorded in the Minute Book containing the minutes of said Board for said date. WITNESS my hand and the common seal of said County, this the day of , 1992. [SEAL] 0a Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners 3 April 3, 1992 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Kirk: The undersigned property owners are requesting the closing of an existing easement in the Wolf's Pond Subdivision. This undeveloped easement was approved in the final plat of section three and section five to connect Wolf's Court and Boulder Bluff Trail. Sincerely, Frances L. Greenstein 204 Boulder Bluff Trail Chapel Hill, NC 27516 kmunony J. Zclgnola Francine A. Rignola 131 Wolf's Court Chapel Hill, NC 27516 y S" Robert B. Cairns Beverly D. Cairns 129 Wo f's Court Chap Hill, NC 27516 e � Furman E. Cog s Phyllis J. Coggins 206 Boulder Bluff Trail Chapel Hill, NC 27516 A 0 o $ n\_ W Exhibit A ' - 9 �A 69l3 0o a 2.24 AC. 29x6 � A1210-930 2.39 AC. a4` 118 67a2 29 2.11 AC. 'O a my 2.33 AC. 1 31 N R 7880 �/ 4555 2.74 AC. CAL. 2.02 AC. 915 A ' 204 `�\j p r y 3664 2.01 AC. 2.2 AC rz • 4289 2.7 AC. 6W�K 3 / " a 1264 5191 m q 4406 20 , 131 O 2.81 AC. / I o 22 7 20 25 Si 8235 2.24 AC . s 2 .I 1 A.C. �q CO ry 94.74 2 AC, o r 23 �° �2� 3206 N p 2.2 AC- 43 3697 // 1 x 9 9961 i r+aaL 2.2 3 AC. b LAW) 99 423 s7 6939 � 4 � 336. a6 2017 rt ry a 2.17 AC. d I I 19 2 O y / 2, AC. _ 519 - Q 2.11 AC. 345.67 ` 3.32 AC. CAL. a ~ SEC.5 m 17 6229 2es5e 4 I I � 37G.7a SEC5 I I .SEC is n 2 AC. SEC. 2 _ ry 104.25 SEC 3 _ 2 AC. T667O N Ire I 1826 22 ° I py.eY zr9•zr B �l 2.08 AC. O 5609 s N 2.08 AC. ��i 62 C `o� m 2.62 AC. G 3 +� ro` � /a� 2.35 AC. v \\ 0338 ,4y� 107.e1 TIM ° 0673 7�\ yo / n3.49 / O 21 \ / ha I s 16 2.1 AC. 2.02 AC yea 5379�� 2-37 AC. y 4151 A c \ 2.04 AC. 6 -5 �S vti, 15 1196 , 4 y N\ 15 ` be \1 0369 20 `, .657e s \T 6116 4 J5 X24 0 � �►� 2.69 AC. 2 AC. o ea I �o9.zY m s a / id , 4746 .Is.e7 _ 412.29 m +' "� I r 2.08 AC 13 1841 'C C AC. 0124 19 \ 7990 2. 1 AC, r _.09 As 18 2 AC.4995 N Ol v OD n m � a X tea' `✓ m M 0 N p 10 N _) h l• V Z / N O O � m N F- ~ Lo Q // \ Lo- N Cl N I Z . U \ N a N OC O i N Z a 0 cr N E3 0 N O N / } N rO :` N �y h Ocn Q yaQ w O In OD N Q / NV ,C' N In I j N as � 1 1 l � N N I In v w O tD a Lr) jr LO Ow \ 0 I = 1 ly U 71 pal o U' w � \ � 11J�� ? I o a ` % a a -j 4/7 Lrr to '�✓ _ , > ,\ z i w 1 ow J a � � C fi wJ o J-jV W. U'm $ DAMASCUS w I W 1 \ 1 W _J ~' I 1 1 I o =: E ��n j C a r` m kq m OU N a � a b • (,J t V In IT DI in a•� � / �ieo N N s OSQQ M � � f; ti U • a Q • / �1 1 11 1 N _) h l• V Z / N O O � m N F- ~ Lo Q // \ Lo- N Cl N I Z . U \ N a N OC O i N Z a 0 cr N E3 0 N O N / } N rO :` N �y h Ocn Q yaQ w O In OD N Q / NV ,C' N In I j N as � 1 1 l � N N I In v w O tD a Lr) jr LO Ow \ 0 I = 1 ly U 71 pal o U' w � \ � 11J�� ? I o a ` % a a -j 4/7 Lrr to '�✓ _ , > ,\ z i w 1 ow J a � � C fi wJ o J-jV W. U'm $ DAMASCUS w I W 1 \ 1 W _J ~' I 1 1 I o =: E ��n j VA § 153A -241: Closing public roads or easements. A county may permanently close any public road or any ease- ment within the county and not within a city, except public roads or easements for public roads under the control and supervision of the Department of Transportation. The board of commissioners shall first adopt a resolution declaring its intent to close the public road or easement and calling a public hearing on the question. The board shall cause the resolution to be published once a week for four successive weeks before the hearing, a copy of the resolution to be sent by registered or certified mail to each owner as shown on the county tax records of property adjoining the public road or ease- ment who did not join in the request to have the road or easement closed, and a notice of the closing and public hearing to be promi- nently posted in at least two places along the road or easement. At the hearing the board shall hear all interested persons who appear with respect to whether the closing would be detrimental to the public interest or to any individual property rights. If, after the hearing, the board of commissioners is satisfied that closing the public road or easement is not contrary to the public interest and (in the case of a road) that no individual owning property in the vicinity of the road or in the subdivision in which it is located would thereby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his property, the board may adopt an order closing the road or easement. A certified copy of the order (or judgment of the court) shall be filed in the office of the register of deeds of the county. Any person aggrieved by the closing of a public road or an ease- ment may appeal the board of commissioners' order to the appropri- ate division of the General Court of Justice within 30 days after the day the order is adopted. The court shall hear the matter de novo and has jurisdiction to try the issues arising and to order the road or easement closed upon proper findings of fact by the trier of fact. No cause of action founded upon the invalidity of a proceeding taken in closing a public road or an easement may be asserted except in an action or proceeding begun within 30 days after the day the order is adopted. Upon the closing of a public road or an easement pursuant to this section, all right, title, and interest in the right -of -way is vested in those persons owning lots or parcels of land adjacent to the road or easement, and the title of each adjoining landowner, for the width of his abutting land, extends to the center line of the public road or easement. However, the right, title or interest vested in an adjoin- ing landowner by this paragraph remains subject to any public utility use or facility located on, over, or under the road or ease- ment immediately before its closing, until the landowner or any successor thereto pays to the utility involved the reasonable cost of removing and relocating the facility. (1949, c. 1208, ss. 1 -3; 1957, c. 65, s. 11; 1965, cc. 665, 801; 1971, c. 595; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; c. 822, s. 1; 1977, c. 464, s. 34.) Local Modification. — Guilford: within the boundaries of a dedicated 1979, c. 282; 1981, c. 59. street when use of the street is discon- Legal Periodicals. — For note dis- tinued, see 45 N.C.L. Rev. 564 (1967). cussing the disposition of property O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 4 1992 Action Agenda Item # VIII -D SUBJECT: RED WOLF AT PINEY MOUNTAIN - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: June 18, 1992 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution of Approval Application vicinity Map Preliminary Plan 4/20/92 Draft Planning Board Minutes 1 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 the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Red Wolf at Piney Mountain. BACKGROUND: The property is located on the northeast side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) approximately one -half mile west of the Orange /Durham County line. The tract is zoned Rural Buffer and designated as Rural Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. It is bordered on the east and south sides by Phase Two of Piney Mountain, a cluster subdivision, and on the north by Duke Forest. Other adjacent land is either residential or undeveloped. An intermittent stream flows along the northern boundary toward Piney Mountain Creek. The total acreage of the tract is 34.03 acres. Six new residential lots are proposed which average 5.3 acres in size. The lots will be served by individual wells and septic tanks. Lots 6 and 4 will have easements on lots 1 and 5 respectively for sewage disposal. The easement on lot 5 could be made part of lot 4; however, the applicant wanted the potential owner of lot 5 to have control over that area since, it is close to the home site on lot 5. Access will be provided by an extension of Pine Cone Lane, a public road in Piney Mountain. Staff has not recommended a connection with Thomasina Road to the west because of potential impact to previously 2 developed residential property between Red Wolf and Mt. Sinai Road. Thomasina Road exists as a private drive serving two or three residences which are located in close proximity to the right -of -way, with some accessory structures partially in the right -of- way. Another stub out at Twin Pines Lane to the south was previously dedicated to Orange County with the approval of Piney Mountain. The stub out will provide an additional outlet when adjacent property develops. The open space on the south side of Pine Cone Lane will be divided between the Piney Mountain Homeowners Association and North State Utilities to: (1) provide a connection to the open space system in Piney Mountain for the residents of Red Wolf; and (2) add more usable area to the nitrification field used in Piney Mountain Phase 2. Agency review comments were solicited and received as follows: Agency Comment Received Town of Chapel Hill 2/27/92 Town of Ca=rboro 3/11/92 Soil & Water Conservation 3/11/92 Erosion Control 3/16/92 and 3/24/92 The Planning Board reviewed the Preliminary Plan for Red Wolf on April 20 and recommended approval with a public road according to the Resolution of Approval. RECOMlENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Red Wolf at Piney Mountain with a public road built to State standards and subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval. 1 3 RESOLUTION ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY CONnMSSIONERS Date a 4 1992 Name of Subdivision Red o1 a Mountain Owner /Applicant The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Red Wolf at Piney Mountain subdivision preliminary plat, dated February 1992 and containing 6 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. All roads shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be oconitrutostandazds of the North Carolina Department of Transportation• The app authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept th exteOio County n of pine Cone Lane. behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication Prange County of the dedication to the general public of the extension of This acceptance by These roads shall be Pine Cone Lane shall be without maintenance responsibility• accepted for maintenance by maintained by the owner /applicant until suctime o some other governmental body- fare the North Carolina Department of Transportation the Final Plat of any phase of Red Wolf at Piney Mountain can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal 1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for of tic disposal, and repair area, approved by the Orange County Division Health, with the exception of lots 4 and 6 (see condition A.3). 2. Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict estr a locum andescribing of improvements. This disclosure shall be included development restrictions to be, recorded concurrently regarding the tentativepocation of document shall also disclose that information County Health Department, septic systems is available from the Orange tY Division of Environmental Health. 3. Septic easements shall be provided for lots 4 and 6 (by lots S and 1) as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. The easements and their conditions shall be contained in the development restrictive covenants or other documents. A reference to the restrictive covenants shall be included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. N B. Roads and Access 1 • The extension of Pine Cone Lane shall be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, within a 50 foot right -of -way, and the construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT. •• A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure construction of the extension of Pine Cone Lane to the standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a certified /licensed engineer or grading tractor and con submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued b financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina y an accredited . The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT. 2. Submit an erosion control plan for construction of the road. 3 • All lots shall access onto the new subdivision road. This :stri stated ction shall be in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1 • Landscaping shall be preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. 2. ' Provisions for protection of existing Plan shall be included in a document deesscribing developments re sections an pe requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. D. Drainage L Increase the 30 -foot drainage easement to 50 feet from the point between L 17 and L 18 on lot 3, across lot 2 to the subdivision boundary. Locate additional drainage easements as required following review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan. C E. Parkland 1. Cash in the amount of $418.00 [($1567 /acre x 5/35 acre) + ($6819 /acre x 1/35 acre)] shall be paid to Orange County as payment in lieu of parkland dedication. 2. The 1.19 acres of the open space to be shown on the Final Plat ,shall be irrevocably dedicated to the homeowners association for recreation/open space use by residents of the subdivision. 0.94 acre shall be combined with North State Utilities' property to the south. F. Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V -D -2 and V -D -3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2. The following natural and man-made site features shall be shown on the plat: (Include streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, swamps, marshes, sites in "Inventory" houses, barns, sheds, railroads, overhead utility lines, cemeteries) a. Drainage way along the northern ends of lots .2 through 5. 3. The following easements shall be shown on the plat: a. 30 -50 foot drainage easement referenced in D.1; b. 50 -foot buffer and community greenway on North State Utilities' property; C. 15 -foot sewer easement adjacent to Pine Cone Lane right-of-way and septic field easement on lot 1 to serve lot 6; and d. 4A septic easement on lot 5 to serve lot 4. 4. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right -of -way of Pine Cone Lane. Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. G. Certifications 1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 6 4 2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V -D -6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that lots 1 and 5 contain easements for each of the lots 4 and 6 of sufficient area for septic disposal and repair and that all other residential lots contain sufficient area for septic tank disposal and repair. 4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that the extension of Pine Cone Lane has been constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been approved. 5. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Board I, , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and acknowledge that each.. must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION 2/90 ORRNSE COUNTY DD DATE: PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) SUBDIVISION NAME: oc-d &4 / /,;t LOCATION: /N 1.0Nde,_ 2/7NA5 /Au / INS 1776kN7A96' D 4 ZW7. //✓/¢/ -'�`„ OWNER /DEVELOPER: 0/ ODES �/` O / rE�L ADDRESS: let 3 2 TELEPHONE NO.: 7 - L ;-7?— J / Q Q 1 // -7 AGENT /CONTACT: © / r /q L TELEPHONE NO.: /�1 `7 / 7—. ��� our /�✓ v /EI A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: orange County Tax Map Block Lots) 2. b . 33 Township C k Zoning District(s): Total Number of Acres: Phases: ONE Total Number of Lots: —�z - Average Lot Size: Minimum Lot Size: Number /Type of Structures: (existing) &0 E' (proposed) s Lineal Feet in Streets: Acres in Open Space: Water Supply: Public (specify) Community /.J s Individual Wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) Community CON✓ Individual School District: E Co . Fire District: Ew E IF General Land Uses in Area: l */ g' Critical Areas: stream /drainageways flood prone areas watershed (specify) historic sites other (explain) Is the property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation "? Yes_ NOX If "yes ", please contact the orange County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under "farm use value taxation ". M C O v Q) O 4 m C, N E H O ro TJ � 41 V � V � B All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaLLer than one inch equals two - hundred feet (1" =200') and no larger than one inch equals twenty feet 0"=20') and must contain the following information: subdivision name name & address of owner(s) name & address of subdivider (if other than owner) name of surveyor, engineer, Landscape architect or architect, address, registration p and seal (title) Preliminary Plan scale, north arrrow date (including revision dates) township, tax map- block -lot references Parent Parcel Identification k deed book and page k of property to be subdivided v - zoning of tract and adjacent properties building setback lines by notation or typical lot Layout Location and width of existing and proposed easements (drainage, utilities, roads, etc.) existing, proposed and adjoining rights -of -way including dimensions and street names and state road numbers. Lineal feet of road centerlines and approximate acreage of new street rights -of -way existing and proposed utilities, including type, sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes existing and proposed curbs, gutters and culverts, including sizes and grades Location and width of alleys, sidewalks, bike lanes, transit systems, and bus stops (please complete revers6 side) c- t; b to 11 Q) C O +a 4, L� 11 0 my U b / Q) :: boundary described with bearings (/ and distances 'total acreage of the tract and acreage,of lots, including and L� excluding area within rights -of -way control corner (� proposed lot lines with dimensions lot & block numbers phasing lines topography at ten foot (10) intervals water bodies, streams, floodway and floodplains stream buffers Location and size of parcels dedicated for public use, recreational use or reserved in common, with purpose noted impervious surface data (if located in / water supply watershed) vicinity map showing general location Of subdivision with streets and roads identified by State road number and name C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 8 typical street cross-section and intersection details including design and width of travelway and shoulders horizontal alignment and general curve data (public roads) centerline radius on all proposed streets permanent features such as buildings, cemeteries, historic landmarks adjoining lot layout names of adjoining property owners. If subdivided, subdivision plat name, plat book & page number, and perimeter lot numbers. J landscaping and buffer requirements /}11 &)p p 0/, township, corporate and extra territorial planning jurisdiction lines which cross the property location and size of lots of restricted development potential and notation on plat regarding same stormwater detention and /or retention sites and undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes (if Located in water supply watershed) 1. Twenty -five (25) copies of the preliminary plat. 2. One full size copy•of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked in pencil). 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Preliminary plat indicating Health Department soils analysis approval /denial for each Lot shown thereon. 4. Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his /her authorized representative which sets forth the justification fora private road (see Section 1V- 8-3 -d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations). 5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance'—with section VI of this Ordinance which assure completion and /or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, and articles of'incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowners association. These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements are being met. 6. Fee - $350.00 plus s5.00 per lot (1 fee for preliminary and final plat). 1, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE OWNERS SIGNATURE DATE DATE FEES: Amount 3 Q G� G�i Date Paid 2 " (9_5;2 Receipt R _ B 3cg5- ^ 9 N y1 N N m d O h o A' vr \%.C'' C O . f GDS 0, *4, .�Lb 1 L �' $� r� in v , - e a Q • � a � `'fi cn i0 n C� 0. - � rF P a J CA L5 (PIP V L i u in . o 66 A� m `a.9 q O i0� O w OD A co j r S J M � 'n �% W J f� 5+i�� 5299 FS' O f�s / SCs / O to e r N d V a �u o • Q. W � :n Q � JQQv� Q� = H w o ao LO w ��0,b •NHns \� O C'1 /, �.. r a IL cr LO 'lJ r `1,uo V C Q� / h5, T co V �nQ r Q r - `' dv a: _ N / �C�a, l I i 10 a Hill Township has been completed. The Commission is also making.preparations for Preservation Week, May 10 - 16. d. Ordinance Review Committee Cameron reported that the Ordinance Review Committee had met and amendments have been prepared for public hearing May 26. e. Rural Character Study Committee Burklin reported that the committee has completed its recommendations and David Stancil is in the process of preparing a revised package for the next meeting on May 7, 1992 to be presented to the Board of Commissioners by the end of May. Burklin also reported that the Bicycle Task Force will hold a public hearing on April 29, 1992 at Chapel Hill Town Hall. The consultants, Greenways will be presenting information and asking for public input and discussion. f. Planning Board /EDC Work Group Collins to report later in this meeting. g. Hillsborough Cooperative Plan Work Group Burklin reported that a meeting schedule has been set and, that, Gene Bell is working with an Intern on land use maps to assist the cooperative planning effort. h. Transportation Advisory Committee Hoecke reported that the committee will meet again on May 20, 1992. AGENDA ITEM #8: SUBDIVISION APPROVALS a. Preliminary Plans (6 Lots) (1) Red Wolf at Piney Mountain (6 Lots - Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Emily Cameron. The property is located on the northeast side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) approximately one -half mile west of the Orange /Durham County line. The tract is zoned Rural Buffer and designated as Rural 11 Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. It is bordered on the east and south side by Phase Two of Piney Mountain, a cluster subdivision, and on the north by Duke Forest. Other adjacent land is either residential or undeveloped. An intermittent stream flows along the northern boundary toward Piney Mountain Creek. The total acreage of the tract is 34.03 acres. Six new residential lots are proposed which average 5.3 acres in size. The lots will be served by individual wells and septic tanks. Lots 6 and 4 will have easements on lots 1 and 5 respectively for sewage disposal. The easement on lot 5 could be made part of lot 4; however, the applicant wanted the potential owner of lot 5 to have control over that area since it is close to the home site on lot 5. Access will be provided by an extension of Pine Cone Lane, a public road in Piney Mountain. Staff has not recommended a connection with Thomasina Road to the west because of potential impact to previously developed residential property between Red Wolf and Mt. Sinai Road. Thomasina Road exists as a private drive serving two or three residences which are located in close proximity to the right -of -way, with some accessory structures partially in the right -of- way. Another stub -out at Twin Pines Lane to the south was previously dedicated to Orange Count with the approval of Piney Mountain to provide an additional outlet when adjacent property develops. The open space on the south side of Pine Cone Lane will be divided between the Piney Mountain Homeowners Association and North State Utilities to 1) provide a connection to the open space system in Piney Mountain for the residents of Red Wolf, and 2) add more usable area to the nitrification field used in Piney Mountain Phase 2. The Concept Plan for Red Wolf was approved with a Public road on December 16, 1991. The only change has been the septic easement for lot 4 which is on lot 5. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Red Wolf at Piney Mountain with a public road built to State standards and subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval. (A copy of the resolution is an attachment to these minutes on pages .) Scott asked a if the 1.9 acres open space in Piney 12 t Mountain was part of the nitrification field and Cameron responded no. Hamilton asked if the open space was public and Cameron responded it is only for the residents of the subdivision. She noted that lot 92 of Piney Mountain was 14 acres of open space dedicated to Orange County. Scott asked if the State had commented on the septic easement for lot 6 being across the road. Cameron responded that the comment on the Concept Plan was that DOT would not allow a septic or water line to run parallel to a road in the right -of -way, but would allow a perpendicular crossing. MOTION: Surklin moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Jobsis. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #9: ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (5/26/92) a. Zoning Ordinance Tezt Amendments (1) Articles 2 and 6 - Home Occupations Presentation by Mary Scearbo. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. X1- ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 4, 1992 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS -------------------- - - - - -- - - ----- DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: - BEVERLY BLYTHE EXT. 2125 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: TRIANGLE J EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COUNCIL: WATER RESOURCES STUDY COMMITTEE- (APPOINT CHAIR): ORANGE COUNTY HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE BLOCK GRANT ADVISORY COMMITTEE: AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD: HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION: ORANGE COUNTY ARTS COMMISSION: DURHAM /CHAPEL HILL WORK GROUP — (APPOINT COUNTY COMMISSIONER): TASK FORCE ON REDUCING VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG USE - (APPOINT COUNTY COMMISSIONER) RECOMMENDATION(S): AS THE BOARD DECIDES. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Al SUBJECT: MINUTES Meeting Date: MAY 4, 1992 - - - -- ---------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER SEPARATE INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE COVER 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. March 24, 1992 - Regular Meeting April 1, 1992 - Assembly of Governments Meeting April 6, 1992 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A -42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. REFERENCE: Article 2 - Administration Section 2.2.14.3 - Consideration of Amendments - ...ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X Staff Planning Board BOCC Citizen .._.STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: % High Middle Low PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 26, 1992 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide greater flexibility to the Board of Commissioners in conducting public hearings which involve principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or portions thereof. IMPACTS /ISSUES: In April of 1988, Article 2, Administration, of the Zoning Ordinance was amended to define the Comprehensive Plan and add procedures for its amendment. Prior to that time, procedures for amending the Land Use Plan (as referred to then) were contained in a policy statement approved by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. when the Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1988, the procedures were incorporated into Article 2 with little or no change. Section 2.2.14.3 of Article 2 requires that principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan only be considered once each year at the quarterly public hearing in February. Since the adoption of the amendment, few applications for principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan have been processed under the procedures. while applications for principal amendments have generally been held in February, there have been some exceptions. For example, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan involving four township components were considered at a May, 1988 public hearing. More recently, 1992 amendments to the Eno and Chapel Hill township components incorporated the New Hope Open Space Corridor into the Comprehensive Plan. Insofar as other types of amendments are concerned, flexibility is available to the Board of Commissioners in calling special public hearings. while secondary amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, rezoning requests, special use permits, and planned development applications are generally heard at the quarterly public hearings, the language contained in the Zoning Ordinance allows lattitude in setting public hearing dates. Recently, an application was received for the University Station project, a proposed rural village to be located southeast of Hillsborough. The application involves a principal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and strict interpretation of Section 2.2.14.3 suggests that the application be considered at the February, 1993 public hearing. Because of difficulties associated with holding multiple property owners together and retaining a major investor, t the applicants have requested that a special public hearing be set in conjunction with the May 26, 1992 hearing. Rather than considering the University Station application at the May 26 hearing, an amendment to Section 2.2.14.3 is proposed to build in the flexibility needed by both private citizens and the County to consider principal amendments out of sequence. A schedule for considering the ordinance amendment as well as the University Station application could be as follows: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Ordinance Review Committee Second week in May Planning Board review May 18 Public hearing May 26 'Planning Board recommendation First week in June BOCC action June 23 UNIVERSITY 1STATION APPLICATION Planning Board review June 18 Public hearing June 23 Planning Board recommendation July 14 BOCC action August 3 This schedule is possible, since the Planning Board would need to have a special meeting in June (first week) to prepare a recommendation on the impact fee proposal. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: See attached provisions. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: The proposed amendment to Section 2.2.14.3 affects only the first sentence of the second paragraph. That sentence would be reworded to read as follows: Principal amendments shall _generally_ only be considered once each year at the quarterly public hearing in February. The addition of the word "generally" would be sufficient to allow the Board of Commissioners discretion in calling special public hearings on principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REVIEW: it more than one hundred 100 ( ) acres; 4 c) A correction of an error.or omission; or - j d) Revisions to any factual or descriptive material. 2.2.14.3 Consideration Af Amendments Except as noted herein, the submission and consideration of applications for proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof shall be governed by the procedures contained in Article 20 of this Ordinance. Principal amendments shall only be considered once each year at the quarterly joint public hearing in February. Secondary amendments may be considered four (4) times each year at the quarterly joint public hearings in February, May, August, and November. No proposed amendment is to be considered in conjunction with a rezoning, planned development or special use permit request for the same property. Requests for a rezoning, planned development and /or special use permit may only be .considered at subsequent hearings or meetings following approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 2.2.15 Pla3 De artment To Act As Staff To Pla-�g Board The Director of Planning, under the direction of the County Manager, shall provide staff service of the Planning Department to assist the Planning Board in carrying out its duties. 2.3 Hoard Af Adiu`stment 2.3.1 Board of Ad ustment Establishment Of 2.3.1.1 A Board of Adjustment is hereby established. It shall consist of five members, and two alternates, all of who shall be residents of Orange County's Planning Jurisdiction. One of the regular members shall be a member _..of..the_ Orange-County-Planning Board, ex..officio, who shall .have : full.-rights, : privileges ..and •.responsibilities . 2.3.1.2 -..The members-shall be appointed .by. the Board of, Commissioners for terms of three years, and until their respective successors have been appointed and qualified; provided that the terms of the orAginal members may be staggered so that all terms may not expire simultaneously. Each appointment to fill a vacancy shall be for the unexpired term. 2.3.1.3 A member may be appointed for a second successive term, but after two consecutive terms a'member shall be ineligible for reappointment until one calendar year has elapsed from the date of completion of the second term. 2 -9 , 4,�' - , 5 -- � /- � � Statement in Support of Giving Title of the Right-of-way of the Former Eno Mountain Road by Orange County to Adjacent Landowners The Occoneechee Park Committee, appointed by the Town of Hillsborough to develop town property on Occoneechee Mountain into a park, fully supports the proposed action by the Orange County Commissioners to relinquish title of the right-of-way of the former Eno Mountain Road. This action will resolve the long- standing problem of suitable access to Occoneechee Mountain Park Tredmont, Inc., one recipient of the right -of way in question, has agreed to donate an easement through their property to the Town of Hillsborough for park access. Currently the right -of -way of the former Eno Mountain Road stands as a physical barrier to such an easement. Upon resolution of the right -of -way issue, Tredmont and Hillsborough will begin negotiations over this easement. The Occoneechee Park Committee urges the Orange County Commissioners to take this action in order to allow the proper development of the park Hervey McIver Chair, Occoneechee Park Committee sk ,,f, -5y9A ?EL h,� h M1 I •s C NON r�Aµ�`�ti TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET CHAPEL DILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27$16 OFFICE. OF THE MAYOR (919) 968 -271.1 May 4, 1992 FAX 919 -%7 -8406 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Chairman Carey: The Town Council and I have several concerns about the County's proposed system of school impact fees. I am writing to convey the main comments and issues which were raised in our discussion at the Council Meeting on April 27, 1992. First, thank you for having your Planning Director, Marvin Collins, come to our Council meeting to brief us. His presentation and answers to our questions were helpful. We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposal. There are several areas of concern that were raised: IT act on Affordability of Housing: All of us are concerned about the extra cost that this fee system would add to the price of a home, and the problems this could create for low and moderate - income families who are trying to purchase a home. We understand that the fee could be set as high as $3,300 for a single - family house; a fee at this level could tip the balance making an otherwise affordable home un- affordable for some families. Several Council members indicated considerable concern about a fee that high. If the school impact fee is adopted, we would strongly encourage the simultaneous adoption of a policy exempting housing developments that involve public assistance. Regressive Nature of a Fee: Several members pointed out that a fee system is a regressive way to raise revenue for school construction -- the Same fee is paid on a $600,000 house and a $60,000 house. There was interest. in pursuing a financing mechanism that would vary with the cost of a dwelling. Process for Setting, Revising Fee Schedule: We understand that this would be a countywide system, with fees being set by the County Board of Commissioners. Several members pointed out a fee system of this nature would have indirect effects in a number of areas related to new development in Chapel Hill, and that it would be desirable for the Town Council to have a role in the setting or revising of a fee schedule applicable in the Town and our surrounding area of planning jurisdiction. The County may wish to discuss this with all of the municipal governing boards. Mr. Moses Carey May 4, 1992 Conclusion Impact Fee vs. Im ct Tax: We understand that an effort was made several years ago to obtain enabling legislation for a countywide impact tax. The effort was not successful, and this impact fee system was developed as an alternative. It was noted during our discussion that an impact tax would be a more flexible financing mechanism than an impact fee, and a suggestion was made that the General Assembly be approached again with this idea. Small Window of OpR2rtunity for Comment Discussion: Related to these last three points, there was discussion of the need for a longer period of time to consider this idea. The current schedule allows limited time for exploration of alternatives to what has been proposed, and limited time for community -wide discussion and reaction. Several Council members asked that the County decide not. to attempt to have a fee system in place by July 1, 1992, and that more time be allotted to discussion of the proposal and other alternatives. Planning Facilities in a Manner that can Accommodate Future Merger of School Systems: One Council Member expressed concern that no thought was being given in the proposal to the possibility of merger of the two school systems. It was suggested that the financing package be designed with flexibility to accommodate sharing of facilities and possible merger of the two systems in the future. We appreciate your consideration of these comments and concerns as you hold your Public Hearings on the proposal. We have asked our staff to prepare some additional information for us, and expect to consider a formal resolution at our May 26 Council meeting. It is our intent to forward this to your Board for consideration immediately thereafter. Again, thank you for the briefing, and for considering our comments. Establishing an impact fee would be a significant step, and therefore we believe the proposal deserves an especially deliberate process of consideration. Sincerely, enneth S. Braun Mayor KSB 1 cyc J-- y yA rI p,o• Box B1B1, - rough - - ---- -- read, ^----land- mail - Today:- --- ---- - - - - -- APR Mt. Bright Baptist Church 211 West Union Street Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Chairman Carey and County Commissioners, 1 to voice my strong support for the Olympic indoor am writing County. There is an pool facility in Central Orange overnelming need tor a public pool in Central and Northern orange County, and the pools in Southern Orange are overcrowded. The lease purchase arrangement with the Triangle Youth Hockey Association makes it affordable and possible. I Believe that to make this pool /hockey rink facility a reality by helping ways including: you will benefit orange County in many Y safe 1. more children will learn to swim and be water 2. teenagers will have a wholesome activity 3. orange High could have a swim team Pools 4. alleviate overcrowding in Chapel Hill p 5. therapeutic, rehabilitative, and preventative health for all ages, especially the elderly 6. Attract economic development - both as an added recreational benefit and for specific businesses that might be loo4:ing to locate near a community center as this one. This is a unique opportunity to greatly benefit the citizens price tag. Please of orange County without having a huge include the approximately $200,000 a year lease payment in your capital improvements budget. Sincerely, i 4 Richard Ward 1111 Ben Johnston Rd. Efland, NC 27243 5/4/92 Orange County Board of Commissioners c/o Moses Carey - Chair PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Commissioners: I am writing to plead the case for a swimming pool in northern Orange County. The proposal which is currently before you for consideration in the CIP has great merit. As a parent of a 4 --year old whose only swimming opportunities are now in Durham, I can tell you that my family needs are great. As someone who, each summer, watches dozens of neighborhood children dive and jump unsupervised into a dangerous and potentially unhealthy swimming hole in the backwaters of Lake Ben Johnston, I can tell you that the community need is pressing. And finally as a taxpayer, I can tell you that the public- private partnership of the current proposal has a great appeal. In difficult financial times, such as we are now facing, parks and recreation budgets are an easy and, to some extent, justifiable target. However, the costs of delaying this long needed project may be greater than biting the immediate bullet. Construction costs are spiraling and the benefit to the public of even one life saved or serious injury spared are immeasurable. I urge you-to give Careful consideration to the long -term implications of this proposal. I hope that you will reach the same conclusion as I have. Sincerely, 1 Ric and Ward ff �flF.s� 9a �Iill�bornu� Arica (94ambier of Tommierric 150 East. King Street • Phone 732 -8156 • Hillsborough, NC 27278 May 1, 1992 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Commission P. 0. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Commissioner Carey: The board of directors of the Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce wishes to ask the Orange County Commission to give its complete support to plans for a "community center /ice rink /swimming pool" Complex. The chance to develop a rec- reation facility that is so important to this area will not come again for a long time. Advantages of the center are two-fold- 1. This project would provide a much needed recreation facility for county residents. Opportunities for recreation are just as impor- tant to citizens as other services they all enjoy. In addition, this project, built and operated as a joint public /private facility, could be primarily self - supporting. 2. This type of recreation facility is capable of handling events that will contribute to the economic base of the county through direct increases in sales taxes and indirect increases in sales and income taxes. The center would be Capable of hosting skating camps and tournaments, swim meets and programs, and a variety of activities, such as banquets,. meetings and special events. All of -our lodging facilities, restaurants, retail and service estab- lishments would benefit by the opening of the new complex. Our Chamber is willing to commit time, talent and leadership to the devel- opment of the community center because we firmly believe it is a win --win situa- tion for all of us. Would you please read this letter into the public minutes. Sincerely, Bob Ward CC: John Link Ted Abernathy Maryanne B. Moore Susan Waldrop Visit Historic Hillsborough . Chartered Seventeen Hundred Fifty-Nine 101 Bonaparte Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 May 1, 1992 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Commission P. 0. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Commissioner Carey: I am the sole proprietor of a small restaurant in Hillsborough who is trying to stay in business during these difficult times when larger estab- lishments are sprouting up all around me. One of the bright spots over the winter months was the re- opening of the Daniel Boone Ice Rink by the Triangle Youth Hockey Association, for we ex- perienced a definate increase in business due to ice rink events and activities. Therefore, I am asking the Orange County Commission to support the develop- ment of the ice rink /swimming pool facility because it will be an economic boost for the community. If I can be of any help in this project, please call on me. Would you be so kind as to make this letter a matter of public record. Sincerely, //to Marie Matthews, owner Maria's Italian Restaurant d. � lei M 0y Dear Chairman Carey and County Commissioners, I am writing to voice my strong support for the pool facility in Central Orange County. overhelming need for a public pool in Central Orange County, and the -- -pools in Southern overcrowded. U Olympic indoor There is an and Northern Orange .arm The lease purchase arrangement with the Triangle Youth Hockey Association makes it affordable and possible. I Believe that by helping to make this pool /hockey rink facility a reality you will benefit Orange County in many ways including: 1. more children will learn to swim and be water safe 2. teenagers will have a wholesome activity available 3. Orange High could have a swim team 4. alleviate overcrowding in Chapel Hill pools 5. therapeutic, rehabilitative, and preventative health for all ages, especially the elderly b. Attract economic development - bath as an added recreational benefit and for specific businesses that might be looking to locate near a community center as this one. This is a unique opportunity to greatly benefit the citizens of Orange County without having a huge price tag. Please include the approximately $200,000 a year lease payment in your capital improvements budget. Sincerely, ,.,., . �- .__..._._._. ,�.. _ _,._;��.,�.�,�..r�.,,:,., 0 �A N +� C a h Mazy Anne Black, Director MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Orange County Recreation and Parks Department Post Office Box 8181 0 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Board of County Commissioners John M. Link, County Manager MaryAnne B. Moore `7Y14'Yr� May 4, 1992 Swimming Pool Proposal; revisions to information Upon further review of the swimming pool financial information with Dan Kidd yesterday, it has become apparent that the annual financing information provided to you on Friday needs revision. Specifically, Options 1 and 3 reference "50% Center Profits "; these figures have been revised on the enclosed spreadsheets. Figures used in Options 2 and 4 were correct as presented and were not revised. It now appears to staff that if the County should choose to lease / purchase a pool built by this non - profit entity (Triangle Youth Hockey Association), that their Option 2 or 4 would be the most financially advantageous option for the County. fn:dskswimpool / BOCCexpl.doc Offices located at 300 W. Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC Telephones: 919 732 -8181 • 919 967 -9251 • 919 688 -7331 • 919 227 -2031 f ra 1 � a o a I a laa i V � w � o z w i N r t w Ln a N C m -.1 m m V P+ C C O m Y •.I 1 10 C N a m -.qi U m q O V mC N U a m Id m q O ro o C7 .0 ..I u ++ a m m m 0 WqW ri C F7 �i a m N A P O 7 Y p 11 b 0 u m a u m m N q W Y q m t p m u Ln ? In iI 7 C Vr O V '•I m q C p O O p O � N O O Ifl yr n o 0 u1 u1 N b v1 Uf b H M ro o sir N 0 a0• 0 m � m a q D m V a W a W W a O 0 a� z 0 E O O O W ++ m 0 f•1 O V % m a m N C W x a N � N N a Y a m t •a In r u0 Ln A. n Aj v: N yqy � 0 v Id 7 Cq FC In o ry O N O w W P In N Vt II O O p m O O Y 4�1 o o �• H m o a 5 m +1 q O V A. z m a a m H N m V I N M C C U M •'I M I A a N 0 O 'd m Y U I 0 I a° 0 lz O Y q m t p m u Ln ? In iI 7 C Vr O V '•I m q C p O O p O � N O O Ifl yr n o 0 u1 u1 N b v1 Uf b H M ro o sir N 0 a0• 0 m � m a q D m V a W a W W a O 0 a� z 0 E O O O W ++ m 0 f•1 O V % m a m N C W x a N � N N a Y a m t •a In r u0 Ln A. n Aj v: N yqy � 0 v Id 7 Cq FC In o ry O N O w W P In N Vt II O O p m O O Y 4�1 o o �• H m o a 5 m +1 q O V A. z m a a V H {i D •N Y O H m W N q m q D V A V D V .i m b� A a O do N Q O O O Go C N N .i o °� ° ri o N 7 p M Of Ln n In H N r! H CD O O O ul Ln d h O O 1 C U o m N O O tn N n N Ifl ` ^ N O . . O N M m V h H M M H v a m 04 N n n Cl) ° E o a 1 o li e M N o O '^ N �p + + N C 14 N O + O N v + N to O M 0) r Sa O N O ry w ry r H YI M a N Imay m in W a N 8 O In M N O In o p m O M N ., x N O O Ln N v I N m ^ O N O O N a N a a\ b Ln 'y M N v ti '' a m N ppa44 W7r. u1 Q "'1 y a N 0 O tl� 1 1 C O � �'1 N � O N Ln N A O . . ry m v N O C N 01 Ln M N in r -1 .>4 N v N m m 01 U1 o z E 101 W H o w 0 m m yV [y V •.i m H O ?. 9 O ?. m bN O V1 14 F H m y b "� H L4 D o L I S, H W 8 p w V V O U 1 1 0 1..1 p77l apV D 0 o {L❑p❑qG� -? a s O O (�y a D O O D a a a a7 LC 0 a .i m b� A a W z O F 0 H N w oa a 1 0 z z m F a IA z 0 u 2 �QN9 CUp'� a O a 0 a a°0 m m Id H c 0 0 in V z 0 H H d O ,3 q m H m H A� b m H m m u O 6660 4J M N }1 t V m Y. x H PG Ln v x n 5'1 q O a u m m o b *' (D .+ m g, 0 m+ U D m z H m y�yi1 O EI r O An Y m c m a o u1 o r vl �o N w L fh m m a 4J w q 0 a m C V U O C V O m in a O b LA m � o O N W CL '� w a m -H H m O O O O O O o O O o Ifl 0 n O m a q .I a o ggpa 00 V u�1 N m r OD Ln H Y� 4J e FJ J V q 0 O U m x O N w 0 pq H H w a w z °z m P m x 0 V z H A VQ� N O a 8 O q a �zX m H a uY z 0 H F W O q m H -.i Y W H m N m a� q m U 0 O ry O +3 M N {! * V to ft x H A C4 4 v 1 x N H m yy�11 O EI 0 0 o 43 0 a m a a O O 4 vl o r 0 m 0 r a N N m y q m �m 0.� 44 v 0 q H �a H m 4,G' U U +N+ 0 C 0 � V b ui � m d m � a b o b o O O O O O O N ry q H m a o .d ao P O N N .a N Ln H 1 4� V q O V iJ z N w M W a i oLn 0 o r N n m m o 0 0 H M r c r ry b � in m V Co m N m n N K � m v I q W a � m a w N u in m 11 0 1 4 N 0 13 U m V E N q @ R 0 ow y b V U W ^ 4 V a u u C p +y' 0 er � � U yy V Oa V C$ ap D q V 40, � 0 U 4 V q W 43 m V m p y W a I I a C a o m 0 U of m a a4o D � o ul I ++ N M w '1 v W p M 1 N ar U 0 y m w� � oe F W H I N N W S �+ O F N W P c r O O _ O N M Q O 0 N N W O N V 0 0 o W q m O y o 0 q w 7 42 L4 W C. ' 4 q 0 m N m O � 0 0 0 0 +i .7gr epOO 0 0 O m N a. U uQi QW� O }, 0 Oz" N I H O O M W a Fmk m 0 a+ 0 N m a w C N -) u q y O V M O N E a O W E o�o 0.� w z °z a H D W x �i H N pa �QN1 N 8 .�1 a o° � a Q m 2$ m H N m a 0 V N c 0 Y'1 V z 0 H a O o b O e Ln C .n m N m n ry in n H b m H i um b D m b M N N O N N p o o p ° o Ln n r Ln C 0 o w N m P o o yr mm ° 0 o i um b D m b M N N O N m n O O O p O N 4 O O p O O o cc H M O 1n O p o O q ^ a ^ N M N ,Ni In O o O p Q N O O 0 N W N y V1 O b O 01 W W m Ln N O O In W O1 O r a O N c4 O N N N C O O Ln O O O O O Vf O u1 O a t t1 N b O f�l O Mf O ry N C1 m Yl M1 b -n W N N N C4 n Ln O O ° v O � m O NI O W In o In r o N b N N O N v'1 N H h m Q x ra O H -H m 0 w g ° N m m H H m m m d w m -A d 0 b 0 W m m m 0 a A N p 0 a m m 0 v 0 i rA O H V to u m m 4J I m 0 m m o V a u U 0 v°i U N z O H E a 0 P zF� W H W a° a A 0 as P+ cq H N H 0 m X 0 O V x N 0 O a 0 2 H a 00 a 2 m m N � H pHq O � sC H x O H H O o °Q ° ° Q C 0 o a" ° O in N r ri 0 o D m b .i m O N m N O p p C 0 n in N O N O N m N N N O o O o o O o Ln O Ln a 0 N 0 N 'n in n H N O O O O O O O C O O O O O O Q N O ry V m b b N O O ° O O o b O n O o ^ O N O N M a m H ry Q Q O O H O 0 ° N ° N m m H H m m m 6 4 F p b W a 1 ++ o P�] +�i 4J n s H u u a° in 9ffi N m bl m a Q O Q O O O O O q Q q Q Q O q O q m MI m M � 1 1 0 ,n N ry O O N m O N Op n y y N N d O O O o Q O Q N Yl 0 of O W 0 O N O rn O ul O N N W O M O In V d O O H 0 � 0 ♦ O O O q 4 O Q H o d N o ° N v M 'y In 0 �. ° q O 0 O 7 V o N 0 N O .i a N H W o o 0 0 0 ° 0 o 0 a ° 0 N O O N m 0 .a �� M a W q +' o Q o 0 0 Ln ,n a o 0 Q 0 in r N 0 O m Q + p m 0) V 1A H U •�I A � O O 4 v1 pNpqq 77�.• vi M I.• 7C P4 p V 0 V 0 p, � ,°n U Y C. O 0 O 0 0 p p V O N O a O r m a M O O N u1 O -n O m 0% N N Ln o Ln m N M V o .a y N m o m O 0 O N O O N ti LA O O It Q pi W m m m E 0 N o o 1, 4 0 O N N N N p V1 a° E W o 0 0 o rn tn m N m of M O H O A Ln m 'n m o� N N W N N m v N O � V 7. O O 0 O O a ULn i Q in Ln N N N N in O .0 E a x .H o w U 0 W G y b W 0 O 19 A y ~ 44 H 0 i) 0 rn W v m m 0 M w o o a w J b 0 � 1 M �V71 •:7 q V eH 1 W 14 Q O Q O O O O O q Q q Q Q O q O q m MI m M � 1 1 0 ,n N ry M 9 ro P4 o ° O Q m O o 0 in n 0 ,n N O O N m O N Op n y y N N d O O O o Q O Q N Yl 0 of O 0 O N o ° N ui v v N v O H 0 � 0 ♦ O O O q 4 O Q H o d N o ° N v M 'y m N N 0 �. ° q O 0 O 7 pxp'� m rl 4� LI o N 0 N O .i a N 0 0 C7 O U o o 0 0 0 ° 0 o 0 H H ° 0 N O O N m 0 .a �� M xi 6 E a 0 1A H U •�I A � in 0 m 0 � pNpqq 77�.• H N a •� W 4J Q M N m H 7C P4 p V 0 V 0 p, � ,°n U M 9 ro P4 �� L. ~ s 7 Af :4" ; TU"'N OF CHAPEL HILL 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27$16 OFFICE. OF THF: MAYOR May 4, 1992 (919) 968 -2714 FAX 919- 967 -8406 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Chairman Carey: The Town Council and I have several concerns about the County's proposed system of school impact fees. I.am writing to convey the main comments and issues which were raised in our discussion at the Council Meeting on April 27, 1992. First, thank you for having your Planning Director, Marvin Collins, come to our Council meeting to brief us. His presentation and answers to our questions were helpful. We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposal. There are several areas of concern that were raised: Impact on Affordability of Housing: All of us are concerned about the extra cost that this fee system would add to the price of a home, and the problems this could create for low and moderate - income families who are trying to purchase a home. We understand that the fee could be set as high as $3,300 for a single - family house; a fee at this level could tip the balance making an otherwise affordable home un- affordable for some families. Several Council members indicated considerable concern about a fee that high. If the school impact fee is adopted, we would strongly encourage the simultaneous adoption of a policy exempting housing developments that involve public assistance. Regressive Nature of a Fee: Several members pointed out that a fee system is a regressive way to raise revenue for school construction -- the game fee is paid on a $600,000 house and a $60,000 house. There was interest in pursuing a financing mechanism that would vary with the cost of a dwelling. Process for SettlnK. Revising Fee Schedule: We understand that this would be a countywide system, with fees being set by the County Board of Commissioners. Several members pointed out a fee system of this nature would have indirect effects in a number of areas related to new development in Chapel Hill, and that it would be desirable for the Town Council to have a role in 'the setting or revising of a fee schedule applicable in the Town and our surrounding area of planning jurisdiction. The County may wish to discuss this with all of the municipal governing boards. wW-j Mr. Moses Carey May 4, 1992 Conclusion Impact Fee vs. Impact Tax: We understand that an effort was made several years ago to obtain enabling legislation for a countywide impact tax. The effort was not successful, and this impact fee system was developed as an alternative. It was noted during our discussion that an impact tax would be a more flexible financing mechanism than an impact fee, and a suggestion was made that the General Assembly be approached again with this idea. Small Window of Opportunity for Comment, Discussion: Related to these last three points, there was discussion of the need for a longer period of time to consider this idea. The current schedule allows limited time for exploration of alternatives to what has been proposed, and limited time for community -wide discussion and reaction. Several Council members asked that the County decide not to attempt to have a fee system in place by July 1, 1992, and that more time be allotted to discussion of the proposal and other alternatives. Planning Facilities Systems: One Coui in the proposal to suggested that the sharing of facilities in a Manner that can Accommodate Future MP of School icil Member expressed concern that no thought was being given the possibility of merger of the two school systems. It was financing package be designed with flexibility to accommodate and possible merger of the two systems in the future. We appreciate your consideration of these comments and concerns as you hold your Public Hearings on the proposal. We have asked our staff to prepare some additional information for us, and expect to consider a formal resolution at our May 26 Council meeting. It is our intent to forward this to your Board for consideration immediately thereafter. Again, thank you for the briefing, and for considering our comments. Establishing an impact fee would be a significant step, and therefore we believe the proposal deserves an especially deliberate process of consideration. Sincerely, Zfd -� enneth S. Broun Mayor KSB /cyc PRESS RELEASE, May 4, 1992 Citizens Against Site Eleven Orange County citizens who live near site I I have assembled at the Orange County Commissioners meeting to demand attention to the following points: 1. We are calling for a REVOTE on the decision to drill all four land fill sites, as the failure to notify Bryant Walker that his proxy vote would not be accepted at the March 25 LSC meeting resulted in a manipulated and thus unacceptable 6-5 vote. 2.Site 11 has been voted off the list two times by the LSC, and both times pushed back on by a revote heavily influenced by the LOG. In none of the four votes, however, did a majority of the 12- member LSC vote to keep Site 11 on the list. 3. We do not feel that the members of the LOG are making sufficient effort to minimize solid waste production in the county, but rather are focusing on operating the landfill for profit. 4. We are unhappy with the midnight revote by the County Commissioners on the reduction of the tipping fees for UNC's ash, and are suspicious of the influence of County Commissioner Don Wilhoit in this decision, as he is both an LOG member and an employee of UNC. 5. We demand that the County Commissioners pass a resolution that would prohibit the use of Orange County's Landfill for waste from outside the county. We remain unconvinced that solid waste officials have excluded the possibility of a regional landfill in the future, and will not be convinced until we see it in writing. The site selection process for a new Orange County landfill has been flawed from the start. The goal appears to be the identification of the largest tract of land that can accommodate unnecessary amounts of waste, through a process that is not based on a sound solid waste management program. The citizens of rural Orange county have insufficient representation in county government and feel that solid waste policy is being set by the Chapel Hill Public Works Department behind closed doors. The latter's policy reflects the interests of the landfill business rather than those of the public, and does not work toward a reduction of the volume of garbage. The Landfill Owners Group (LOG) intends to drill four sites based on a vote of the Landfill Search Committee (LSC). This vote was, by any reasonable measure, manipulated. The LSC had previously voted to exclude three of the four sites, but that was not the conclusion that the LOG had originally intended. Another meeting was therefore called to reconsider the issue. An LSC member who was publicly known to oppose the LOG's plan was misled into believing that he could vote by proxy, and then the proxy was disallowed after it was too late for him to attend. The remaining LSC members met under thinly veiled threats that they would be disbanded if they did not change their recommendation, and they were then redirected by Wilhoit as to what vote outcome would be acceptable. The resulting 6 to 5 vote adopted the LOG's directive. This decision to drill four sites was not approved by a majority of the 12 member LSC. In at least four separate votes a majority of the LSC have never recommended site 11 for a final list. In essence, two years of LSC work was ignored because their decision was not liked. The Chapel Hill Public Works staff saw that by reducing the tipping fees for UNC's ash, they could keep a major customer from going elsewhere. Neighboring counties had in fact welcomed the ash. Public Works was clearly guided by immediate costs rather than a sound waste management plan. The county commissioners initially voted down this proposal. At the next commissioners meeting, however, they waited until 11:30 p.m. when most of the concerned audience had left, and then voted to accept the reduced price to keep the ash. This action disregards the fact that landfill volume must be kept to a minimum, and favors only the interests of the landfill business. Commissioner Wilhoit asks us to believe his reassurances that the landfill will not accept garbage from out of the county. The Orange County Citizens' Landfill Council, however, presented him with a petition several weeks ago requesting a resolution to ban out -of- county trash. The commissioners still have not acted on that petition. The commissioners refuse to ban out -of- county solid waste, and voted to underbid other landfills to keep UNC ash. At the same time the LOG seeks huge tracts of Northern Orange County land which are suspiciously convenient to both Durham and Chapel Hill. This apparent coincidence ected officials in serious questions range Counryt solid waste policies and about the integrity of some The process of public input has been severely compromised by manipulated votes, faulty reasoning and midnight decisions. The Orange County commissioners must hold the LOG accountable for a fair and open site-selection ocess, n ddirect them s which have reconvene the LSC before spending $�O000 If taxpayers' commissioners can revote on UNC's been selected by a faulty and tainted process. ash, surely they can permit a revote of the.LSC. TO: All Media All Concerned Orange County Citizens We the citizens of site nine and Orange County want to put the LOG and county commissioners on notice that we will not allow nor will we accept "political trickery" and "late night votes ". The fact that the LOG (primarily Don Wilhoit) misinformed members of the LSC in regards to the proxy vote of Bryant Walker is shameful. This "political trickery" is unacceptable and the citizens of Orange County are calling for a revote of the LSC's decision to drill all four sites. We also find it unacceptable that after public hearing, debate and voting to maintain the current tipping fee rate for UNC's ash, the county commissioners lead by Moses Carey and supported by Don Wilhoit at 11:45 pm on the last commission meeting revised their previous vote and lowered the tipping fees for UNC's ash. In our opinion, there is a serious conflict of interest between Don Wilhoit Orange County Commissioner and Don Wilhoit employed by UNC and charged with certain types of waste management for the University. Isn't part of Don Wilhoit's job to save the University money in its waste disposal program? How can Don Wilhoit vote on this issue when it appears to be a blatant conflict of interest? Shouldn't he have excused himself from voting and not participated at all in this decision? Who is he serving - UNC or the citizens of Orange County? We want the LOG and the Orange County Commissioner to be put on notice. The citizens of this county are watching them and if they continue to use "political trickery" and "late night votes" to run this county then we will stand up and solve the problem ourselves by voting them OUT in November. Statement to the Orange County Commissioners May 4, 1992 As of May, 1992, the landfill search committee has worked for two years as a public committee charged with the siting of the next Orange County landfill. This public process has been both deliberative and objective, based upon the information provided to us by Joyce Engineering, a consulting firm hired by the Landfill Owners Group. As the Hillsborough Township Representative to the LSC and an Orange County resident, I am here tonight to appeal for your assistance this process. I recognize that in the normal course of events, your participation in the process is slated for a later juncture, however, the process has gone awry. I am sure that you are aware that Bryant Walker's written proxy was not accepted at the last LSC meeting, and I'm sure you are aware that because of the irregular manner communications regarding the proxy were handled, a 6 -5 vote to drill all four potential landfill sites rather than trim the list now stands. As one of the five dissenter's, my voice alone to recall the vote, due to an irregularity which threatens the integrity of the entire two year process, is insufficient. I ask for your. attention to this process, and for your voice, as a commission, calling for a recall of that vote. I am most concerned that by doing nothing when we know that an irregularity has occurred, we will have forfeited our integrity. For the record, if the vote is recalled, that does not mean that sites will automatically be trimmed from the list. That will have to be debated by the full LSC. However, if we are given that chance, perhaps only 3 sites will recieve a full geotechnical investigation. The LSC was instructed by the LOG to recommend 2 -3 sites for this very expensive procedure. If we are given another opportunity to meet prior to drilling, perhaps we can save the LOG and the county 20 or 30 thousand dollars. Recently, the Commissioners reconsidered a vote regarding the disposal of UNC ash - in large part due to the budget constraints of the LOG. As my elected.representatives, I ask you to boldly involve yourselves in the landfill search process at this point in order to ensure that the unblemished integrity of the citizen search process is maintained, and in the process, perhaps thousands of dollars can saved and used for projects which are currently being funded from the tipping fees associated with the disposal of UNC's ash. Leigh A. Peek J, (Town of 33ifishorou#4 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 R E S O L U T I O N 101 E. Orange Street P.O. Box 429 WHER S: The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Boards of Education from the two school systems have reached an agree- ment on a $55 million dollar proposal for school capital improvements, and WHEREAS: $52 million dollars would be funded through bonds and $3 million would come from school impact fees generated during the next six years through the construction of new housing, and WHEREAS: the Orange County Board of Commissioners must decide at what level impact fees should be set, and therefore have approached the Hillsborough Town Board for its view regarding the proposed fee, and WHEREAS: the impact fees have been discussed at Town Board meetings on three different occasions and the Town Board's position is as follows: 1. The impact fee is regressive in nature, levied with no regard to ability to pay. 2. Orange County has for years suffered from the lack of affordable housing and this fee adds other local legislation cost to the construction of a new house. 3. Mobile home purchasers would be required to pay the second, highest fee after single family dwellings. The fee would make mobile home affordability less appealing. 4. The methodology used in calculating the fees is confusing and too complex for the general public to understand. NOW, THEREFORE, the Hillsborough Town Board voted in official session on Monday, May 11, 1992 to oppose the proposed impact fees as presented to the Hillsborough Town Board. Duly adopted this the 11th day of May, 1992. OFFICE OF THE MAYOR A r �r •t �� TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STRUT CHAPEL FULL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516 May 4, 1992 (919) 968 -2714 FAX 919 - 967 -8406 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Chairman Carey: The Town Council and I have several concerns about the County's proposed system of school impact fees. I am writing to convey the main comments and issues which were raised in our discussion at the Council Meeting on April 27, 1992. First, thank you for having your Planning Director, Marvin Collins, come to our Council meeting to brief us. His presentation and answers to our questions were helpful. We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposal. There are several areas of concern that were raised: Impact on Affordability of Housing: All of us are concerned about the extra cost that this fee system would add to the price of a home, and the problems this could create for low and moderate - income families who are trying to purchase a home. We understand that the fee could be set as high as $3,300 for a single - family house; a fee at this level could tip the balance making an otherwise affordable home un- affordable for some families. Several Council members indicated considerable concern about a fee that high. If the school impact fee is adopted, we would strongly encourage the simultaneous adoption of a policy exempting housing developments that involve public assistance. R_ egressive Nature of a Fee: Several members pointed out that a fee system is a regressive way to raise revenue for school construction -- the Same fee is paid on a $600, 000 house and a $60, 000 house . There was interest in pursuing a financing mechanism that would vary with the cost of a dwelling. Process for Setting, Revising Fee Schedule: We understand that this would be a countywide system, with fees being set by the County Board of Commissioners. Several members pointed out a fee system of this nature would have indirect effects in a number of areas related to new development in Chapel Hill, and that it would be desirable for the Town Council to have a role in the setting or revising of a fee schedule applicable in the Town and our surrounding area of planning jurisdiction. The County may wish to discuss this with all of the municipal governing boards. Mr. Moses Carey May 4, 1992 Conclusion ImiDact Fee vs. Im ct Tax: We understand that an effort was made several years ago to obtain enabling legislation for a countywide impact tax. The effort was not successful, and this impact fee system was developed as an alternative. It was noted during our discussion that an impact tax would be a more flexible financing mechanism than an impact fee, and a suggestion was made that the General Assembly be approached again with this idea. Small Window of OR-Portunity for Comment Discussion: Related to these last three points, there was discussion of the need for a longer period of time to consider this idea. The current schedule allows limited time for exploration of alternatives to what has been proposed, and limited time for community -wide discussion and reaction. Several Council members asked that the County decide not to attempt to have a fee system in place by July 1, 1992, and that more time be allotted to discussion of the proposal and other alternatives. Plannin Facilities in a Manner that reaced concern that no Future being given Systems: s One Council Member exp in the proposal to the possibility of merger of the two school systems. It was suggested that the financing package be designed with flexibility to accommodate sharing of facilities and possible merger of the two systems in the future. We appreciate your consideration of these comments and concerns as you hold your Public Hearings on the proposal. We have asked our staff to prepare some additional information for us, and expect to consider a formal resolution at our May 26 Council meeting. It is our intent to forward this to your Board for consideration immediately thereafter. Again, thank you for the briefing, and for considering our comments. Establishing an impact fee would be a significant step, and therefore we believe the proposal deserves an especially deliberate process of consideration. Sincerely, J ` A4; � enneth S. Broun Mayor KSB / cyc Ln _ C= ci o v o ,r) ,rte o Xr L cq en owl cu 0 C4 "Mm 19 wPIZ w W'' oCd •,••f •••y W W LJ a ole—I R u 94 9z z CID �j z ,-14 it 1� W-A Cos m C14 Lr�[- .•0 ,•4 0�CN 0000 VON v .- r C%] 1-0 40c�- 4bo:). 4AP 400). O O qpmN Wool 0 ;: 10 10 dpi W /w r V �I �I 0 Cq N O C cq ,.., w n en V-.4 n M w ■� y CY lm C6 •_ Y O O qpmN Wool 0 ;: 10 10 dpi W /w r V �I �I I COMPARISON OF FISCAL IMPACTS OF SELECTED ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISIONS Subdivision - -- - - -r -- Item Laurel Springs Mel Wildwood Woodland Heights Oaks Phase I Phase 6 PROJECT DATA , Township Total Lots Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Hillsborough Cheeks Developed Lots 76 59 29 22 26 27 Avg Sales Price Build -Out $169,885 $175,905 25 $47,345 23 $72,498 5 Years 5 Years 6 Years 3 Years SUMMARY OF PROJECTED Housing Units IMPACTS At Pro'ect Build -Out Population 59 160 22 60 25 23 School Children 40 15 68 63 Tax Base County Government $2,178,000 $3,857,000 17 $1,203,000 15 $1,562,000 Revenues Expenditures $87,763 $99,308 $34,153 $18,467 $18,690 Balance School Board ($11,545) $37,030 ($2,877 ) $44,112 ($25,645) $35,228 ($16,538) Revenues Expenditures $183,204 $201,141 $68,700 $75,819 $61,617 Balance ($17,937) ($6,302 $89,346 ($13,527) $71,352 ($9,735) NOTE: Analysis- assumes Carrboro School -all subdivisions District are located i l l in Chapel Hill_ for comparative P purposes. FOOTNOTE: Balance /Per Lot County Government School Board 196) ($ 304) ($ 131) ($ 1,025) ($ 719) ($ 286) ($ 541) ($ 423) I Hsi S� LAND USE PLAN o PI CATEGORIES: MUNICIPAL JURISDICTIO14 '' Y:r; RURAL BUFFER PUBLIC INTEREST AREA 10 YEAR TRANSI7lpN 20 YEAR TRANSITION — WATER SUPPLY CARRBORO TRANSITION CRITICAL WATER pUAL1TY CRIATREAL CHAPEL HILL TRANSITION RURAL RESIDENTIAL cclT)r•.NTIAL 1981 aS amended FISC AL IMPACT ANALYSIS - Subdivision Location Map z U W CD Z Q AC 1V1TY NODES: i` -I RURAL INDUSTRIAL%` COMMUNITY ORURAL RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TRANSITION COMM /IND TRANSITION uae4•�o 1+ aMr� m w.wru+ Lat/r. HS �R RECEIVED ;..A"i 310 1991 ► v �� g� O Rs Home Builders Association AS.50CLarION of Durham and Chapel Hill aDUFham &ChapelHdl 20 W. Colony Place • Suite 180 • Durham, North Carolina 27705 • Phone 919/493 -8899 • FAX 919/490 -5905 May 13, 1991 Mr. Moses Carey Orange County Board of Commissioners 102 Warren Way Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Dear Moses: As Senate Bill 549 moves forward, removing the restriction on school, impact fees that was in the original legislation, we want to renew our offer to help with the development of the impact fee system for Orange County. While we still have reservations about school impact fees, we do not oppose the concept of charging them countywide - if they are charged at all. Other impact fee authority (that the county already had) seems to us the most appropriate starting place to refine the process. We will be ready, in any case, to help provide a "reality check" for the fees and their administration. Thank you for your efforts in letting us comment on the Orange County Legislative Package and for including us in this area of government that so vitally concerns our industry. Sincerely, Dennis Duffy � William A. Zl of President Executive Vice President cc: Senator Howard N. Lee Orange County Commissioners / ,� � ` "�•� ���"� "alc o� !nc aYu: .:nl =ru c_.nti.v,: cj moo.. E. ill Home Builders Associat 20 N! Colony Place + Suire 780 • pu; ham, Nwr Mr. Moses Carey, Jr,, Orange County Board of Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: Chair Commissioners *t r F A A $ r * * *rt * +t *t rr ,r+ ^� TO:_ DEPT, FM it rROM.1, � r� CO: FAX Post•It'r':ind fax [a171114r91- memo 7671 January 28, 1991 ... Thank you very much for your letter of January 11 1991. We concerning are the interesteduinythislmatter initiatives for represented by Mr, Larry arroll, co- chairdofrOurbOrange County Legislative ComM -ttee at the hearing On Thursday. DENSITY BONUSES: y Our reaction to the concept of density great! A Voluntar ra ram that allows a eveloper is apply his own creativity and to receive an appropriate to be very beneficial to efforts to provi aable reward uusing RECREATIONAL FACILITIES: g� undThe redefinition of recreational service areas is erstandethedbenefitptottheaptrivatee. We further of this public service, our support osec this or of the provision conditioned on being allowed to actively proposal is ordinance drafting process that must toilow. Specificall�e We find that part1czpation at the public hearing stage is often too late in the process to allow adequate alternative proposals, analysis of representative of the HsA and we would request be included nthettaskaforce that sets Out to write these rules. AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE LAND: The proposal that the County be authorized to buy land for, amonr� other reasons, protection of the watershed is PO zn the sense that it proposes expending public funds for a public purpose. On the other hand, the funds to be expended will be raised from an entirely different group than the group that receives the benefit. The County should assist in the designation of areas where public ownership of land is beneficial to the quality of the water supply and facilitate the purchase of that land at fair market value by OWASA. A review of the tax roll will reveal that one of the if not the -- major users of OWASA does not Property taxes that would be used to help pay any the fund this proro gram. FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEMS: Any progress in allowing alternative methods of sewage treatment is applauded and the imposition of a requirement to �' M E M o rl NO. PAGES PAGES January 28, 1991 Page 2 provide financial assurance to the County is understandable. This is another area in which the actual writing of the rules and determination of the amount will determine whether this program actually meets the public purpose of making more land available and thereby holds down costs, or merely increases the cost of development, defeating any possible beneficial effect of the density bonuses contemplated above. IMPACT TAXES: Our opposition to impact taxes is absolut e and adamant, The County has in place sufficient authority to institute a proportional share impact fee system for the full range of uses that are typical nationwide. To rsquest authority to throw out that system has the appearance of being a cynical refusal to do the work required to document the needs that will be generated by growth. None of us is so naive as to say that there are not costs associated with an increase in population. This proposal, however, is a thinly disguised statement that we have failed to properly recognize the costs of our increased population and we will now charge future immigrants to subsidize the capital improvements that need to be made. The Home Builders Association of Durham & Chapel Hill has been deeply involved in and fully supports the process of Capital Facilities planning in Durham. Furthermore, we have been deeply involved in the creation of the impact fee system that helps to meet the needs identified through that plan. We offer that experience to Orange County in establishing a reasonable system of proportional share impact fees. We oppose, and urge the state le islature to reject, an attempt to impose any growth tax that does not have a documented rational nexus to thecosts associated with that growth. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to increased involvement in the studies related to these issues and to a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas with all those who must meet the incredibly difficult and complex challenges of local government in the 9o's. Sincerely, Dennis Duffy President cc: Board of County Commissioners John M. Link, Jr. Representative Anne Barnes Representative Joe Hackney Senator Russell Talker senator Howard Lee LD -+0.. William A. Kalkhof Executive Vice Pre ide t ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS f,,*k Y.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. Mosc+s Carey, Jr. 27278 Alice M, Gordan 732 -8181 Stephen 11. 11alklobs 968.4501 Vertu 1. lnsko January 11, 1991 888-7331 Don W111holl 427.2031 644.3004 (Fax) 5a William Kalkoff, president Durham /Orange Homebuilders Assoc. 21 West Colony Place Durham, NC 27705 Dear Mr. Kalkoff: I During the last legislative session the Orange County Board of Commissioners s bm �ted several propo$ed local legislative initiatives to the ener`al Assembly for adoption. Due to rule constraints these ini,t3.atives were not ad,opte4 by the legislature. We are planning�,to ,resubmit these and other local initiatives during the 19P1 aeg6s, op. .r We have appiiecia'teia' your or anizationa l views and comments on our initiatives `in t�e past . and hoe YOU . will continue to provide us with your insight; W6 beli. ve .fhe, 1>4_6t public policy results from exchange of vies by. k��l , cgpcern , - Gonsequenty, we al�e pl,gnrki.ng' A public hearkng on January 31, 1991 to obtain `.furtt�er� ,,commebt Mori all items we are considering submitting this Vear. �e would apreci,ata your presence and views at the public hlatrin4. 5� have' ericlased a copy of the items we submitted last year un'l -- syno�Ssis.of the new initiatives. If you have questions, please eontaot to or ao;iin Link, County Manager. We look forward.to,seAing you ch t4e`311st at 7:30 in Superior Courtroom in HillsbdrQugh, '1 ' '` S inoere ly r Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Board of Commissioners cc: Board of County Commissioners John M. Link, J7r. Representative Anne Barnes Representative Joe Hackney Senator Russell Walker Senator Howard Lee (All without attachments) Post -it" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 w of p00e1 to From Dept, Phon6# ax Fax N vnrr (-r)TT \.7 r r r ,O*M - a v x w'. Lo 0 LU Zi CL w z H O c s Cl7 W H a N ro a a ro -o a vh ro a _G •L CL a L 1� 0 44 O C N ro m r W \ yr Sk ro 0 O �+ L. 4 y Y a 0 •c Im G •- w ~ 0 4- `(Y 0 � 0 4- - 4+ ++ a a E O u •• w x Q x Vl N w w C A ¢ ,,- E 14. LIQ -1 a 4 3 C i w x O x Z4 a w m x x w x 4 Z a W J W H 0 a a L) W C w W w ca a a x w ca a 0 W F- x CL uj x _' 0 F- 0 a LA x W H r Is a in ro a a ro e a as ro V a +4 c CL a G O ++ O c N ro e a 4J c ro c O lid O a 0. IA O a �v a O r G O �E O 4- �c c 0 y-. a a ++ a a u JI a C 3 0 C- C w C V1 2 w cj CL x x .. z w v► 0 w x w ct u_ u.i w ua w z 4 H go a ° z W Lo a ° W W z a a w x N z a c z z W H v m 4) a. m G v o� m a� c CL a� c 0 O G A m r 4-+ E W c m c 0 lid m m CL N O m .p 7 O 0 C 0 ro E 0 c cn C 0 4- rL 41 0 V I N V) w w cc w in Q 0 z a C z �1 w z 0 S Ln z w o_ W Cp P: z V W {n z W a L. W W r Z: h m Z < 0 ■ w a p w x a a w � e 2 0 a 2 T- w e , ■ IA ■ 2 Q. m -0 r_ . . ■ � ■ � m � _ ■ _ � 0 � » W ■ 2 � � § . o � � 2 � ■ o ® I - � S a 0 © 0 LLI k e � . ■ w g . tn k Cm U- a a z W C7 4 C uj x CL.. w Y r x O 0 z N x kJ t v ro a a ca b c a cn m b a +1 c M a s c O 0 O C 0 09 O 3 4J m +1 a p � c m C O G W d O a Lfl cm C O 'd LU .- o '} 2 a z cc 4J LU N M a �� O 0 x CL LL. C ' w w U4 W r go u x a,ry •M "� ';fir ` -`- �,� ^�.- y;,r:�: ''i i. � � - ,� �i, • � ! jai %;, � t =r� All 5V d:: tj - 'l:' �.� ';ri�_ � i. rte'- yfid�'.r +l • '{ �'i 1. •YIeII^ - - ., ' i a,ry •M "� ';fir ` -`- �,� ^�.- y;,r:�: ''i i. � � - ,� �i, • � ! jai %;, � t =r� All 5V d:: tj i a,ry •M "� ';fir ` -`- �,� ^�.- y;,r:�: ''i i. � � - ,� �i, • � ! jai %;, � t =r� All 5V d:: tj 1. ji lyj irk 9� , ,� � ,.I IIl ';� Sr �Pi "IJ III 3 1 is i. dji I. J1 In !j q All 9 !j 1. fr pp 64 77 Ap ilk: 1 iq III II II„ ,.1,.��I �,, I 1 111 L 'III JI �i. IP ip 5 II it 1 Ii I'I i1 H II I. 11 JI i. II it rr II Fj, II',,, . I III;i {„ �I'ul I,�la!arind�lll �I�!,11 !II III {! ",I L., I .I III III, Iii ''��i�,11. 1� „i�� j �. I;'��: ;; •� :li•�' :�. �•i.6,;, II :��ll'li �� II�•p ! I'�I I'�il! ��,I j; '' r' 'I;1, ��.!��,,ll,::.r•rll;I` Ia,G ,III 'n:�r'll I�k�l,',�,��NJ'lk''':' II ,. 'f;lr I!'I,.'li ISkI, ;pl ;I•,: °'',�II,P1�' 'll���g��1N�P'y�,�;f'�.11,,I��, {III I' di I„ III Idd f! : lil'''' �' ' 1, : II. jl j „'�! V:h' m :♦1 '1 „�, i , I �d I III I. { m I 'f I I � I I 1 it il� I I' �!� j�l' ?I'�I,, .,.•�II''�,•' � '��7 �ij�� lil= II,..: I :, I•'�I'l if i,l�' � i .il I I D1,14 �Il , i I I ui. II I i I'�I •f, I , I k I I. I . I: I I I1U 1 k, c ,' II I tI : f I .; �I ' ;•�:�,;I.I �'�,! L'��•,':A II I, I v III : 1 i 1; ,•,14�7;�t � .Il;l el r, oI '1. I,. „I I I' I' I IG f I : I 911 I I' 1 I I I 3ii F' lr; I, ;,;.�, { ,'ll'?�] I ' I;lyj • { li,r r kt °.iL IM f1,7,1 .,.:I; : f,” �.I� I' I•' i�'i .I 1 �t1'tl: i!•�_��:�il;..�. 1. '`� I i �ik'�j, Id i�I�• , 9 Ali'• '11 I' I I •�I ''.l'� y'��Il Ili +;�� ;.I. Ir; ,{�I ib 11,.,:�!I:� ji�g�!'i ��� "�'��I I Vii' ll l� ull Ili'I , I II ;I I �1J II „I tit' I;•I�•,, ;,I „ " ", � ,���1 �;,;•a':�, 1 l �lj 1;1 j• CIS, 'i; . II" EI 1 ii .'I% ..f' �i�,{ 1, I: i,','1• ill "ii;' r d q ,� i,q. Hl I I I 'A �i 61 N'° 111 I . I d ci' II %; drill'idA;i! it 1, i 4,..laau , I I I I I �1 11. I t' 1 I Il• �f I ,. l.,l, llla {I Y I I• I { M LI 'I ru` I 9 h i l l I I� I �1 f 'i I. LI r !I'tl,il � II •,� , L;,': l.I;,l.n, Ij % j,i;.jl' d i'� _.I. +'' }I' ' dlil' {r I'll , lay jI i I ww IL. Willi Hdh-4�1I � jai I� i I I i 11 is i f ^!i• aIL' I d u. I 'I. Alta , I ar A I I 1: I. I I� I I I ;, II I I I 4 I i.l I I I. Q C x W i.7 Q A W 2 a CL uj s H z Q Ln X w 9 v a ro w CL ro c d ah ro �o m CL a� 44 C O O C ro •_ o O 0 '19 C CL N m C 4 G1 "- _ p 4- b t 3 d O CL A `~ u � 1 LJ ^ a a L L � rr x od a a x od L) w N Ln O O LA wi LL uJ A -j z a� N m O Q c m M N� � 'W r M a p x W c O _ C7 +1 a w 3 r x 41 m `VAS v` 0. W x W f0 40- W O 0. IA 6 Y O�+ X \- 1A O \ 0. 'G 41 O � Z U 333 y N W t! 1 O p O 7- a LA W w a W u r p W a s ¢ F- cc OR 9' 3' N o � � Q W 2 C3 �v An z W C 2 CL Z V LLJ Q III IL 1+. W W am m 1 i "S 1 7 y;g p. .p.J; '., ;- ib L - c ;q' lr .. .. ul W 9' 3' N o � � Q W 2 C3 �v An z W C 2 CL Z V LLJ Q III IL 1+. W W am m 1 i "S 1 7 y;g sl 'Ir1 6, ' fll � jll.1 v,lir I a 1iII I I. IIjal� ,,J {sl I'ahj I wl I d: @: II 1^ ,j J I ,, �i�3 ll' I I 1a� i�IfiC'��r' I 449i I I. f : • I �,' �; I,� �IIL � 1. i.l�hii; � p1,�,11,1�� y611�r i�It{jla,il'1 "I •'' i ` I, !:�,i'i' .�B=�:hll f: -h 1.!' ;� a '! , C'� ..I II - ' I ':II J yp i II I { 1 1' d!Il 1 Ii y ��+yl C r laI %Li I;�••, 1'� �:� ���I .I ,,�.:. „n�l ^, 19�.''I��j ',,,,;�. :j'�' ilT,i!IM�,:'�! ,il j', �I:��1 .� ,' ;ii ":� 1'�.X.ja����•I '�I'�L,.!!�rll'i .� I�'rJ X19. {,,. �IPx �; �,II,. ,}1.,;d': ±'ia',I� 1j.•i �:;';.,I' jll, :';t.'!�'III'1il',I �. ..hl 1. X11' it II : a :,111 i';�.,.p€Ij i',If� � ..,j�'�I , li a,l � . �• i' , �tl' 'i ,!'f1a;�a� , d, ��.1, ,. ,�i„ 1i'il1;q :'',•'Ij:' il:�d;] {J }cj ,��'!,a,Po '.!ry!,j:! Li: ?I;II i{ "�, II:I "�: :I,���i!�I: a9eW, •.10,' -�II'; •�' 'k��� �yl iil: I �, .. I r ak:i; 1'i i1.3!igh��•;, ,i�•�j': ! ';x '� �,'d 11�7� � � . I � ' � � �'i� , ��P ' .sa �,. ,I'1 rl': ,Li���t "; "L•..,;'I �I�'- h JIB .II, �, 'I�;I1:: ':,ll <''� 1 "' ::'vl1'r., } }I,!�'!• ,.v 6, i�'li'll, 1 !I':!.1. �;.j „,i'1, ;j:�g'iV!1� i "gla;,i: +'1 , "��• ,1,'11 1 ;!� - 1 I 1� li ' 33 ci i w 1 I 1:'I 1111 1'r f 1 I I I i, !11?'.,.'i :.I 1r1 "1:1�I� ,Irr��1�N11 ..;Iii. jr L; , l' 9; °I''s;ll`; I1Y,ji! I.1� •III 'Sr�a p° �? ,p u :Ir !�'1:1 d I ,I' �1! ,Ip' i:! In,•I .`fir. �!rll, I 1�' .i ii•ra '�{�� � ,'.111 ,. t' II j 4 :,i`. II�' yrjj Il;l {��I'Ip.;q' ,L•G � 1 `I.;f! 1 •_ I!II`I, "i,Nl 11 lj il�� I I j., 11'I<I' I . 11 "d '!1:9� 11'� ; i, w, t!,:,,I::' i'' 'I•I to i, }.1 li �.l' ,`' +:.:i:. I (i M" ��!i l lF I!dla�''�'1 IJ11 "kill" '.:,''. ia';r'�' .,1 ,.h�'�L�,�i:�,l.,� 1j1�� ',.a,; ;.1 �,�i• 1 .. . sl' , ;,'I. u 1. " {]I,,Ir. phl.': {I',:,'' j.'r1:: • I;r9; I+''ii re::'''�,:!l i. , :.I , ? - ,.t,r; f'i;P; .'' +I,;'I', I. i,, , r', i K,. ;Ii{r� 'la�!�i? :.��.,I:inli - 11° Ijnl ; 11 • � I, �;•, rl,'i�aF!'I'•;'� L,i!illl' :a'I, i ' al, !`I . {! L9Ij,' (,I: ,,r r � �'ii�� ,, l,�Illq�4 };�bl +'•�I :Ir�l. i "r'j!: is �! �'I'; iJ!a ''I'' ,'I' '.I• ,1j�' i��l`'' ,�. ,1I „� a��l.�,il .,f..,,,�', i1 'r y, rp,;�: i��,, II,','�:'. •'� ,1 �� , ..I, 1' ''''1' J ''rJj�!!'`.I li�,.:. "I ' h'�' I��I i•Ik ��'I - j 8,.. ,. � , I{ 1111,:1111 I:. 11 I; N 1 ,t i rill. �' I i::,d'''' i 111j.:1 i`•i; �.,!3 { `I,;” 11 I:a ,1' a;ln h! I I ,I I II li' 1I �I ill II , 1. I I' N1 1. .li .II I yll w! III 1 :'I Ir 9 I r 1 '1 11 1 J.' i I i d• li'' � �II,I � �r � � � � I i , Vlil I I 1 : I I 1 f f n :,I , ':.IJ 'i;��l 1 11'�, I Ia,�' ' '� J J � � ✓Lf 1 {:' i ii pai; .i .'�G : :jl, , , ;w' 1 11 ' ';I;; a a `I � �I III, , ,�i1 , ,11 €.. , ,il: • • ',e: III I I II' ,a Ir, ' I ! !j'? l lidl l l:1'' 1 1;3,' �I I I I :1• L� L L r. ,I j jJ • +,1.19 I I ' 'r' L L� ; ;; � � ' '� a all' ° °i1;'I` I I'.; ' I" ' I: {I 1 1 al' I I I I u1 r I. h I I' I cc ' '�'•' 1 r i I � � 1� li ' 33 ci i w 1 I 1:'I 1111 1'r f 1 I I I i, !11?'.,.'i :.I 1r1 "1:1�I� ,Irr��1�N11 ..;Iii. jr L; , l' 9; °I''s;ll`; I1Y,ji! I.1� •III 'Sr�a p° �? ,p u :Ir !�'1:1 d I ,I' �1! ,Ip' i:! In,•I .`fir. �!rll, I 1�' .i ii•ra '�{�� � ,'.111 ,. t' II j 4 :,i`. II�' yrjj Il;l {��I'Ip.;q' ,L•G � 1 `I.;f! 1 •_ I!II`I, "i,Nl 11 lj il�� I I j., 11'I<I' I . 11 "d '!1:9� 11'� ; i, w, t!,:,,I::' i'' 'I•I to i, }.1 li �.l' ,`' +:.:i:. I (i M" ��!i l lF I!dla�''�'1 IJ11 "kill" '.:,''. ia';r'�' .,1 ,.h�'�L�,�i:�,l.,� 1j1�� ',.a,; ;.1 �,�i• 1 .. . sl' , ;,'I. u 1. " {]I,,Ir. phl.': {I',:,'' j.'r1:: • I;r9; I+''ii re::'''�,:!l i. , :.I , ? - ,.t,r; f'i;P; .'' +I,;'I', I. i,, , r', i K,. ;Ii{r� 'la�!�i? :.��.,I:inli - 11° Ijnl ; 11 • � I, �;•, rl,'i�aF!'I'•;'� L,i!illl' :a'I, i ' al, !`I . {! L9Ij,' (,I: ,,r r � �'ii�� ,, l,�Illq�4 };�bl +'•�I :Ir�l. i "r'j!: is �! �'I'; iJ!a ''I'' ,'I' '.I• ,1j�' i��l`'' ,�. ,1I „� a��l.�,il .,f..,,,�', i1 'r y, rp,;�: i��,, II,','�:'. •'� ,1 �� , ..I, 1' ''''1' J ''rJj�!!'`.I li�,.:. "I ' h'�' I��I i•Ik ��'I - j 8,.. ,. � , I{ 1111,:1111 I:. 11 I; N 1 ,t i rill. �' I i::,d'''' i 111j.:1 i`•i; �.,!3 { `I,;” 11 I:a ,1' a;ln h! I I ,I I II li' 1I �I ill II , 1. I I' N1 1. .li .II I yll w! III 1 :'I Ir 9 I r 1 '1 11 1 J.' i - -- - NAME _(PR 1 NT) . SECONDARY I SECONDARY - _� _ ... r.- C 1 P__�..� I MPAC _. FEES 2. 3. 4. 5- 6. 7- S. 27. OTHER N6MF I DD I m-rl CCPnLinnov !-1 0 1 un�rr nTllrn ROADS FEES 1 3- CAJ Ti 4. 5. c- ✓ 6. � �'�' 6 GE70 �^ 7- 4' Z s 9-j 10- _ 12. " '•3• 14. aim 15- ��n� rn �Ll�q, 16. -�J L/ 17. (car.0 V/V 18. 19- zo. zl. Z2. Z3. z4- !5- 26. 27. § 136 -44.8 TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY LAWS § 136 -44.8 program, except as to paving projects and the priority of paving projects for which the board in order to make recommendations for deviations, must vote to consider the matter at a later public meet- ing as provided in subsection (d). (d) The board of county commissioners may recommend devia - - ^') tions in the paving projects and the priority of paving projects in- cluded in the proposed secondary road construction program only at a public meeting after notice to the public that the board will con- sider making recommendations for deviations in paving projects and the priority of paving projects included in the proposed annual secondary road construction program. Notice of the public meeting shall be published by the board of county commissioners in a news- paper published in the county or having a general circulation in the county. After discussion by the members of the board of county commissioners and comments and information presented by other citizens of the county, the board of county commissioners may rec- ommend deviations in the paving projects and in the paving prior- ity of secondary road projects included in the proposed secondary ) road construction program. Any recommendation made by the (l board of county commissioners for a deviation in the paving projects or in the priority for paving projects in the proposed secondary road construction program shall state the specific reason for each suc deviation recommended. (e) The Board of Transportation shall adopt the annual secon- dary construction program for each county after having given the board of county commissioners of each county an opportunity to review the proposed construction program and to make recommen- dations as provided in this section. The Board of Transportation shall consider such recommendations insofar as they are compat- ible with its general plans, standards, criteria and available funds, but having due regard to development plans of the county and to the maintenance and improvement needs of all existing roads in the county. However, no consideration shall be given to any recom- mendation by the board of county commissioners for a deviation in the paving projects or in the priority for paving secondary road projects in the proposed construction program that is not made in accordance with subsection (d). (f) The secondary road construction program adopted by the Board of Transportation shall be followed by the Department of Transportation unless changes are approved by the Board of Trans- portation and notice of any changes is given the board ofIcounty commissioners. The Department of Transportation shall post a copy of the adopted program, including a map showing the secondary road paving projects rated according to the approved priority of each project, at the courthouse, within 10 days of its adoption by the Board of Transportation. The board of county commissioners may petition the Board of Transportation for review of any changes to which it does not consent and the determination of the Board of Transportation shall be final. Upon request, the most recent secon- dary road construction programs adopted shall be submitted to any member of the General Assembly. The Department of Transporta- tion shall make the annual construction program for each county available to the newspapers having a general circulation in the county. (1973, c. 507, s. 3; 1975, c. 716, s. 7; 1977, c. 464, s. 9; 1981, c. 536.) § 136 -44.9 § 136 -44.9. Sep The Departmen calendar year, pre sioners a statemer nated by number, improvement was expended for impr the calendar year Department of Tr. each secondary ro4, pletion and funds for each county commissioners. 0 § 136- 44.10. A The Board of ' regional standard tation shall follov standards and cri able for free distr c. 464, ss. 8, 21. § 136- 44.11. (a) The Depart report projects fi formed more tha way acquisition, more than two y The report shall engineering was right-of-way acgi last acquisition . tion. The report for which the pri of -way. acquired (b) Requests 1 funds for the pu time schedule tc laced to a specifi contracts for th. date is more tha related right -of- Transportation . 507, s. 3; 1975, § 136- 44.12. The Departm, maintain all ro, ROADS AND HIGHWAYS § 136 -44.12 :)ndary roads; annual statements. of Transportation shall, before the end of the are and. file with the board of county commis - setting forth (i) each secondary highway desig- )cated in the county upon which the paving or sade during the calendar year; (ii). the amount rements of each such secondary highway during ind (iii) the nature of such improvements. The ssportation, in its annual report, shall report on construction project including the stage of com- Xpended. The pertinent portion of these reports all be made available to the board of county 73, c. 507, s. 3; 1975, c. 615; c. 716, s. 7.) lditions to secondary road system. ansportation shall adopt uniform statewide or and criteria which the Department of Transpor- )r additions to the secondary road system. These ria shall be promulgated and copies made avail - ution. (1973, c. 507, s. 3; 1975, c. 716, s. 7; 1977, ght -of -way acquisitions; preliminary ;ineering annual report. ant of Transportation shall include in its annual which preliminary engineering has been per - ;wo years but where there has been no right -of- rojects where right -of -way has been acquired rs but construction contracts have not been let. -lode the year or years in which the preliminary arformed and the cost incurred, the number of ;itions for each project, the dates of the first and I the total expenditure for right -of -way acquisi- all include the status of the construction project sninary engineering was performed or the right - ad the reasons for delay, if any. the Board of Transportation for allocation of tease of right -of -way shall include an estimated )mplete all necessary right -of -way purchases re- reject, and a proposed date to award construction project. If the anticipated construction contract wo years beyond the estimated completion of the �y purchases, the approval of both the Board of i the Director of the Budget is required. (1973, c. 716, s. 7; 1981, c. 859, s. 69.) effective until July 1, 1990) Construc- in and maintenance of roads in areas ministered by the Division of State irks. of Transportation is authorized to construct and s leading into and located within the boundaries E:h7 NOTICE OF THE ADOPTION BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMSSIONERS OF A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE INTENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY TO CLOSE A RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED BETWEEN BOULDER BLUFF (SR 2020) AND WOLF'S COURT (SR 2019) IN WOLF'S POND SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTENT TO CLOSE A RIGHT -OF -WAY IN WOLF'S POND SUBDIVISION s- y -72 WHEREAS, petitioners Frances L. Greenstein, Robert B. Cairns, Beverly D. Cairns, Anthony J. Rignola, Francine A. Rignola, Furman E. Coggins and Phyllis J. Coggins have filed a petition before the Board of County Commissioners to close a right -of -way identified on the map which is part of Exhibit A to this Resolution (hereinafter "the abandoned right -of- way"); and WHEREAS, it appears from the petition that the road in the abandoned right -of -way has never been constructed; and ti WHEREAS, it appears that no individual, firm or corporation owns property in the vicinity of said right -of -way without a reasonable means of ingress and egress to his, her or its property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County that it intends to close the abandoned right -of -way. That prior to a decision on the closing of the abandoned right -of -way, a public hearing shall be held in the superior courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse, on the lst day of June, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is directed to publish this Resolution in the Chapel Hill Herald and the News of Orange County once a week for four (4) I successive weeks before said hearing and that the Clerk shall send by certified mail to each owner of property adjoining the abandoned right -of -way and shall prominently post a copy of this Resolution in at least two (2) places along the abandoned road as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. §153A -241. This the 4th day of _ _ May , 1992. Commissioner Don W i 1 1 ho i t moved the passage of the foregoing resolution and Commissioner Stephen Ha 1 k i of i s seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes: Chair Moses Care Jr. and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H.-Hal6iotis and D Willhoit Noes: NONE NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of so much of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners for said County at a meeting held Ma , as relates in any way to the Resolution for closing a right - of -way located between Boulder Bluff (SR 2020) and Wolfs Court (SR 2019) in Wolf s Pond Subdivision as illustrated on Exhibit A to the Resolution hereinabove set forth, and that the said proceedings are recorded in the Minute Book containing the minutes of said Board for said date. WITNESS my hand and the common seal of said County, this the 20th day of May , 1992. [SEAL] ti- Beverly Blyth , Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners 2 �.. .,,1� "� NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY ORDER CLOSING A PORTION OF ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD (FORMERLY PART OF S.R. 1148) WHEREAS, upon the petition of Tredmont, Inc and RESCO Products, Inc., which petition is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, the Board of County Commissioners, on March 9, 1992, adopted a resolution declaring its intent to close the portion of Eno Mountain Road (S.R. 1148) identified in blue on the map which is part of Exhibit A (hereinafter "the abandoned road "); and WHEREAS, it appears from the petition that the abandoned road, formerly under the control and supervision of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, has now been abandoned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as evidenced by the notification of abandonment which is part of Exhibit A to this resolution; and WHEREAS, as provided by law, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County have conducted a public hearing following notice as required by law, in order to determine that the closing of the abandoned road is not contrary to the public interest and in order to determine that no individual owning property in the vicinity of abandoned the road or in a subdivision in which the abandoned road is located would thereby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his or her property; and WHEREAS, the Board finds as a fact from the evidence presented at the public hearing that (1) it is not contrary to the public interest for the abandoned road to be closed, and (2) no individual owning property in the vicinity of the abandoned road or in a subdivision in which the abandoned road is located would thereby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his or her property. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the portion of Eno Mountain Road (S.R. 1148) identified in blue on the map which is part of Exhibit A to this order is hereby closed. The Chair of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County is hereby authorized to sign this order on behalf of Orange County and the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is authorized to attest this order and to affix to it the County seal. This the day of , 1992. (SEAL] ATTE Beverly B ythe, C1 rk to the Board of Commissioners NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY Moses Carey, Jr., Chai Orange County Board of Commissioners I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners for Orange County, North Carolina, do HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the ORDER CLOSING A PORTION OF ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD (FORMERLY PART OF S.R. 1148) adopted by the Board of Com4dssioners for Orange County at a meeting of said Board held The original of this Order is filed in the permdnentagenda file for said meeting maintained by the Clerk's office of said Board. ITNESS my hand and seal of said County this the day of 1992. Beverly A B ythe, C1 to the .,S" E A L Orange. County Board of `. Commissioners .. t - ._ . � _. PROCLAILATYON V ORAIVGE C057VTY BOARD OF COAMMIONER.S NA7YONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATYON WEEK WHEREAS, hrstorkpreservadon a9vu7s Anwricarrs lo e2periertce &eir diverse herikW and cu&ure; and WHEREAS, historic presermAon enhances to qvaft of hft in comes, tress, and rural arms across America; and WHEREAS, Orange Dmno is corrrm ed to prsesem)?g its hisbric cu&w%xl resources for its ci ens and fawiv gerer rrs; and WHEREAS, - Bresemm&o r BHngg History To Life - is the &enw for Nat orral Historic P�-esemwlwn Week 1992, co-sponsored by the Orange G=n4y Mioric Preserm&qn Conwdssion and tie Mater& Tmst for Historic F)- esermz on; NOW, THEREFORE, blie OmVe Gmn& Board of Commissioners woes hereby proclaim May i0 -l6, 1992 as Nafivmd HisWrk ser padvn Week t cele r orr e, (&e cu&m-mI hvr&W of f OmjW Coun& and hereby urges ail cilt�Eens to support hirtork presermdon effort. Adog&d this 4dt day of }may, 1 992. "Im/ f�lz,4 (1,111ZVL� �r Moses Cry, Jr:, .fair Ord Coun4v Board of f a) ' siorers 1 y N r a Moses Carey, Jr. Alice M. Cordon Stephen H. Halldotis Verla C. Insko Don Willhoit ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27`?78 A PROCLAMATION. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEER MAY 10 THROUGH MAY 16, 1992 Governor ,lames G. Martin has proclaimed the week of May 10 through May 16, 1992, as Emergency Medical Services Week in North Carolina, and WHEREAS, The Emergency Medical Service in Orange County is a complex system involving Telecommunicators, First Responders, Law Enforcement Officers, Nurses, Doctors, County Staff and Volunteers from Orange County and South Orange Rescue Squads, and WHEREAS, These people must attend many hours of training in addition to hours of service, and WHEREAS, They place themselves in peril to provide emergency assistance to the sick and injured in Orange County, and WHEREAS, The citizens of the County have supported the E.M.S. service through both taxes and donations, and WHEREAS, The Orange County Board of Commissioners publicly acknowledge their support and appreciation to all the members of the Orange County Emergency Medical Services System, NOW THEREFORE, The Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby proclaim the week of May 10 through 16, 1992, as EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and encourages all citizens of Orange County to continue to support their E.M.S. system. Adopted this 4th day of May, 1992. YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY 732 -8181 968 -4501 688.7331 227.2031 644 -3004 (Fax) P R O C L A M A T I O N CLERKS TO THE BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSO WEER IN ORANGE COUNTY May 3 through May 9, 1992 WHEREAS: it is imperative to the democratic process that a well informed citizenry participate in the operation of their local government; and WHEREAS: the office of the Clerk to the Board provides the communication link between the citizens, the local government legislative body and administrative departments and agencies of government at other levels; and WHEREAS: the County Clerks serve as the information center on the functions of their local government by making available the records of local government, distribution of published materials and reports and answering questions on the government activities and programs; and WHEREAS: the Clerks to the Boards have upon their own initiative participated in education programs, seminars,-workshops and the annual meetings of their state and national organizations which not only improve the operation of their office but through their achievements and awards have brought favorable publicity to the county that they serve. NOW, THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do recognize the week of May 3 through May 9, 1992, as Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners' Week, and extend our appreciation to our Clerk to the Board and her staff and to all County Clerks for the vital services they perform and their exemplary dedication to the county they represent. Dated this day of , , 1992. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Attest: ,4e ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COIQ4IS8IONERS FACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Mareh.9 1992 SiBJECT: ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD CLOSING 1 Action Agenda item D= ?A_�iMENT COUNTY- MANAGER / ^ - ^r PUBLICHEARING - -YES -- - -j--- - - -- COUNTY 013 ATTM _ .. _ _ -------- . - - `T AC:- :MENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT: Geoffrey Gledhill, rte_ .- !County Attorney,. Petition TELEPHONE NUMBER- 732 -2196 11/1/87 and 11/15/87 Resolutions Hillsborough ­732-8181 Resolution Chapel Hill -.968 -4501 N.C.G.S. §153A --241 Mebane - 2.27 -2031 Durham - 688 -7331 PURPOSE: To consider a resolution declaring the intent of the Board of Commissioners to close a portion.of Eno Mountain Road. BACKGROUND: In November 1987.-the Board of Commissioners adopted two resolutions (the first on November 1, 1987; the second on.November 15, 1987) expressing its support of the straightening and paving of.Eno Mountain Road, generally from the Eno River south to -its intersection with Orange Grove Road. Those resolutions - requested- the North. Carolina Department of Transportation to abandon the Eno - Mountain - Road right of -way that existed then and that would -no longer. be 'used after the road straightening and paving project was complete. Finally, the. :Board resolved that it,would do its part in the process of abandoning Eno Mountain Road by declaring' its intent to close the abandoned*poirtion of the- road-and to hold a public hearing on the. closing. This latter step .was .an important feature in the agreement to straighten and improve Eno.Mountain,..Road - because the owners of. the property, abutting the-new road gave the Department -.of Transportation the right of way for.the road improvements with the-expectation that the -right of. way for the abandoned portion of the�road would_ revert.to them as provided by law in the case of'a- closed public road. .The,road project is-now complete and-the' North Carolina-Department of Transportation-has abairidoned, for maintenance purposes, the -old road. With a letter dated February 24, 1992, the County Attorney., received. a petition from..Tredmont, Inc. and Resco- Products, Inc., owners', of'.a: substantial portion of the abandoned segment-of ' :'Eno,Mountain Road, for requesting that the abandoned . sect.ion - of the -oad be closed. * The next. step in -this . process. is -for the Board of Commissioners to adopt -the attached resolution declaring its. intent to close.- -the -public 'road and to set .the- public- hearing for the road closing. At'the conclusion -of -the public liearng - the Board can formally.close..the road provided- it'.can, make the findings.of fact which are required by.,the statute authorizing road .closings. which statute is. also, attached to this agenda-abstract. RECOMMENDATION: The -Manager and -the County Attorney recommend the. adoption.of the resolution declaring-the Board's intent.to.c,lose designated portions of Eno Mountain Road. 2 NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY TREDMONT, INC. and RESCO PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioners, BEFORE THE BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PETITION TO CLOSE A SEGMENT OF ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE ROAD 1148 TO THE HONORABLES, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY: Your petitioners respectfully show to the County Commissioners of Orange County: 1. That your petitioners, Tredmont, Inc. and Resco Products, Inc. are owners of property abutting and adjoining a portion of Eno Mountain Road (formerly part of S.R. 1148) that has been abandoned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation all as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference [hereinafter referred to as "the abandoned road. "] 2. That upon information and belief, the abandoned road does not provide to any individual owning property in its vicinity and to any subdivision in which it is located, reasonable means of ingress and egress. 3. That the abandoned road is a public road formerly under the control and supervision of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and identified as part of North Carolina State Road 1148. 4. That as a part of improvements to and the straightening of Eno Mountain Road (S.R. 1148) the abandoned road is no longer necessary to and used as part of Eno Mountain Road. 1 3 5. That the North Carolina Department of Transportation, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes §136 -63, has "abandoned" the abandoned road, as evidenced by the notification of abandonment which is part of Exhibit A to this petition. 6. That this petition is brought pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. S153A -241; that upon information and belief, John Watkins, District Engineer, North Carolina Department of Transportation will be provided with a copy of this petition together with notification of the time and place at which the closing of the abandoned road is to be the subject of a public hearing and action thereafter by the Board of County Commissioners; and that upon information and belief, upon adoption of a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of its intent to close the abandoned road, the resolution will be published once a week for four (4) weeks prior to the time set for a public hearing on the question of closing the abandoned road. 6. That upon information and belief, closing the abandoned road is not contrary to the public interest and no individual owning property in the vicinity of the abandoned road will be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his or her property. 7. That the abandoned road should be closed and the title thereto vested in the petitioners and other property owners whose property abuts the abandoned road as provided by N.C. Gen. Stat. §153A -241. E 4 WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County that the portion of Eno Mountain Road abandoned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as illustrated on Exhibit A be permanently closed by Order of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County following the adoption by the Board of County Commissioners of a resolution expressing its intent and a public hearing following public notice as provided by law. TREDMONT, INC. i President ATTE : cretary RESCO PRODUCTS, INC. President ATTE TT Secretary PENNSYLVANIA MONTGOMERY COUNTY William T. Tredennick , being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is President of Tredmont, Inc., petitioner in this matter; that he has read the foregoing petition and that the same is true of his own knowledge except those matters and M 5 things alleged therein on information and belief and as to those matters he believes them to be true. j ct Le, Sworn to and subscribed before me this //// day of 2tr zr , I9E_ D _ ' Notary Public My commission expires: QLnt zz4- PENNSYLVANIA MONTGOMERY _ COUNTY William T. Tredennick I being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is President of Resco Products, Inc., petitioner in this matter; that he has read the foregoing petition and that the same is true of his own knowledge except those matters and things alleged therein on information and belief and as to those matters he believes them to be true. Sworn to and subscribed before iue this �day of • , 19 Notary Public My commission expires : � �6y 4 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY Orange County STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. Box 766 Graham, North Carolina 27253 -0766 December 20, 1990 Mr. John Link, Jr., Manager Orange County P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: SR 1148 - Eno Mountain Road Dear Mr. Link: 6 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR I was recently contacted by Mr. Gary L. Hester of RESCO Products Inc. (Piedmont Minerals /Crescent Brick), concerning the abandonment of the right of way on the portion of the road abandoned during the realignment of SR 1148. Apparently the attorney representing RESCo Products Inc., and the attorney representing Orange County are trying to determine if the right of way on the abandoned road is in fact abandoned based upon the resolution you provided to me in your letter dated November 7, 1988. The following actions pertaining to the resolution have been completed. 1. SR 1148, Eno Mountain Road, has been constructed in accordance with the Hillsborough Thoroughfare plan .dated October 1987. See attachment 1, color coded plan. 2. The North Carolina Board of Transportation approved a resolution to add 0.32 miles of the realigned road to the state system on September 6, 1989. See attachment 2. An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative fiction Employer 7 Mr. John Link, Jr. December 20, 1990 Page Two 3. 0.58 miles of the old roadway was abandoned, based upon the resolution received from the county dated November 7, 1988, by the North Carolina Board of Transportation on September 6, 1989. See attachment 3 and 4. Please talk with the attorney representing the county and determine what assistance, if any, I may provide in resolving this matter. If you have questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me. Yours very truly, E, L E. M. Cowan, P.E. District Engineer CC: AMr. Gary L. Hester w /attachments H -1 BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION ROAD ADDITIONS 8 COUNTY PET. NO. LENGTH DESCRIPTION DATE OF REPORT Div. 5 Cabarrus 34795 Franklin 34784 1825.50 ft. Nottingham Court 10/17/89 Wake 34785 0.24 mi. Jicarilla Lane 11/16/89 Wake 34786 Stratford Court Sedgefield Park Subd. 10/16/89 0.17 mi. Sedgefield Drive 0.04 mi. Helena Court Manchester Avenue Wake 34787 0.17 mi. Sedona Place 10/18/89 Div. 6 Bladen 34818 663 ft. Extension of SR 1559 10/11/89 Cumberland 34788 250 ft. Dartmund Place 6/30/89 Cumberland 34789 2500 ft. Beaver Run Drive 5/26/89 Cumberland 34790 Devonwood North 5/26/89 5 m 2. -� 1370 ft. Tollhouse Drive A le: :Val l e - Cou 195 ft. Rainham Court 195 ft. Penshore Place Harnett 34791 Sierra Villa Subd. 7,/10/89 duo ft. Extension. of SR 1181, Sierra Trail 12 1 375 ft. Arizona Court 375 ft. Wyoming Court Harnett 34792 985 ft. Highland Drive 10/23/89 Div. 7 Orange 34:794 0.27 mi. Portion;of.SR 1335;• 10/23/89 KenionyRoad Div. 10 Cabarrus 34795 Huntwick Subdivision 7/25/89 2120 ft. Buckingham Lane 675 ft. Stratford Court ' 848 ft. Bedfordshire Avenue 919 ft. Manchester Avenue 1653 ft. Piccadily Lane 1819 ft.- Wellington Lane 687 ft. Dorchester Avenue _Mecklenburg 347.96. _ Hermitage at Winchester 5/11/89 e. - 350 ::ft Liberty ell Court' 5 m 2. -� - 300 :ft . A le: :Val l e - Cou 12 1 COUNTY PET. NO Div. 7 Orange_' 34816c. 'Orange 34817 tl^nn r^,rT A \1 BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION ABANDONMENTS LENGTH 0.35 mi.. 0.58 mi. DESCRIPTION 9 DATE OF REPORT Portion- of. .SR t335. 10/23/ 89 Portion of SR 9/6/89 16, (Meeting of 11/3/89) Cleveland County, Pet. No. 34716, Portion of SR 1807 SHOULD BE: Change Pet. No. to 34761 \�'f4 T.G. '���.•�:�' =.4- � L: ...•F,Y mwt (1 •".�'� - X NO yy . .. Yv� L•: l . L �.i`: ^ Y• �F' 1 _ - ...r ... i. Vii:.. ]4 - _w-•'� t / T1 /i s...,.wr+rr•.r.rc,.,. w 12/-1/89 7 i yl 2 cs rd I co H) 00 Q. ci a W 4 ui qw > w > Qq ' � � Q Q 0 ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA November 7, 1988 11 E-ItZli' 217.52 JI Mr. E. 41-M. Cowan, District Engineer Department of Transportation P.D. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 Dear Mike: Please find enclosed a resolution adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners which indicates that pursuant to N. C. General Statute Section 136 -63, Orange County will request the N.C.D.O.T. to abandon that portion of the existing right -of -way of Eno Mountain Road that would no longer be a part of the road upon its realignment. please note that this intent expressed by the Board is contingent, on the Eno Mountain (toad project being built according to th` Plans identified in the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan adopted in October, 1987, Should you have any questions about this resolution or its intent, please call me. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sinc e Y, J04 Link orange County Manager V JML /asd Attachment FILE: COWAN2.DOC :y NORTH CAROLINA RESOLUTION ORANGE COUNTY 12 WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation con- templates realigning the right of way of and paving Eno Mountain Road, which road is located south of the Town of Hillsborough, and WHEREAS, Orange County supports this project provided the new right of way'of Eno Mountain Road follows the right of way of that road from the point southwest of the Eno River to. its intersection with Orange Grove Road depicted on the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the Town of Hillsborough on September 21, 1937 and by the North Carolina Department of Transportation on October 4, 1937 (the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution and made a part of it), and WHEREAS, Orange County has been asked by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to express its intention to request the North Carolina Department of Transporta- tion to abandon whatever portions of the existing right of way of Eno Mountain Road that will no longer, be a part of the new right of way of that road. NOW,, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Orange County that it will, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Section 136 -63, request the North Carolina Department of Transportation to aban- don -.so much of the existing right of way of Eno Mountain Road as 1Ss �no'''7,onger or' will ''no_._lon' er ' be` art of tha - -3. g. P. t . road : upon i is 13 realignment by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. PROVIDED HOWEVER, this request by Orange County will only be made if the right of way of the Eno Mountain Road project now con- templated by the North Carolina Department of 1�ransportation fol- lows the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan from the point southwest of the Eno River to its intersection with Orange Grove Roac. Upanimously adopted by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County this 15t day of November, 1988. 0 - ,— �.,`�•" '_.,.._.. 1. §153A -241 CH. 153A. COUNTIES In at least one newspaper of general circulation v~VV county, After naming or renamin a published in reassigning street numbers on a ublic road, road, county notice of its action to be P Y halal tion over the road, to the Board of Transportation andlto within five miles of the road" (1957, c Jur1s s 1; 1981, cc, 112, 518; 1987 c. 1068; 1973, c. 507, s• aiiY`' 28 s. 2.) 5; Local Modification. 0 j 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. goo; 11989,cc. 335, s. 1; Avery; 1983, c. 98; Brunswick: 1979, 2nd Sess„ C. 1319; 1983, c. 98; Cabarrus: 1981, , 568, amending 1979, 2nd Sess., C. 1319; 1983, c. 98; Cleve- land: 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 906; 1989, C. 156, s, 1; Forsyth: 1981, C. 558; Guilford; 1979, c. 283; McDowell: 1989: C. 335, s. 1; New Hanover: 1983, c. 98; Stokes: 1983, C. 299; 1989, c. 335, s, Surry: 1983, c 299. Wake (Incorporated 1: municipalities therein, only): 1989, c 511, s. 1. Cross References. — As to naming roads and assigning street numbers in certain unincorporated areas of excepted from the application of this'i tion, see § 153A- 239.1. 1. Editor's Note. — Session La ' c. 1319, s, 1, as amended from ti 19 time, excepts the following from the application of this adcui Alamance, Avery, Brunswick, Biijj Cabarrus, Cleveland, Henderson Dowell, New Hanover, Fender,, dolph, Sampson, Stokes and Surry N ties. See Cross Reference above: The catchline of this section has modified at the direction of the Revue of Statutes. § 153A -241. Closing public roads or easement A county may permanently close an ' road or ment within the county and not within c tybexcept public roac � easements for Public roads under the control and supervision of Department of Transportation. The board of commissioners • s: *� first adopt a resolution declaring its intent to close the p t or easement and calling a shall cause the resolution tbollcbhe aring on the question. The ba successive weeks before the o be Published once a week for. f sent by registered or certified mail to each owner as shown od; county tax records of property PY of the resolution tai ment who did not join in the request y to have the road or ea closed, and a notice of the closing nd public road or ea g semi nently posted in at least two places along the r hearing asement' the hearing the board shall hear all interested persons who appe with respect to whether the closing would be detrimental to' f public interest or to any individual property rights. If, afte6ic l hearing, the board of commissioners is satisfied that closing tl public road or easement is not contrary to the public interest ai (in the case of a road) that no individual ownin g property in ti vicinity of the road or in the subdivision in which it is located wo-M thereby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress) his property, the may board easement, A certified d 3 adopt an o r rder closing the road;. - of the ordr shall be filed in the office of the registerof deeds of the count] judgment of the court men Any person aggrieved by the closing of a public road or an ease ate division of the General of ourt of Justice s' order to the a ro ri' day the order is adopted. The court shall hear the matter after no i and has jurisdiction to try the issues arising and to order the roia or easement closed upon U P proper findings of fact by the trier of fact. r 116 ?? x-241 n the r1g or pause isdic- city 822, unties 3 is sec. I 1971, ime to unties ection: Burke, MC. Ran. Coun- been {evisor 161. ease- ids or ,)f the shall. road -bard. four., to be; n the ease- ment, .i 'omi• :; :t. At )pear. the.' the and 2' t the 7 ould ,: i to A or ,urt) .ase• )pri- the aovo .I -pad s ftact. .4 §153A -241 ART. 12. ROADS AND BRIDGES §153A -241 a No cause of action founded upon the invalidity of a proceeding taken in closing a public road or an easement may be asserted except in an action or proceeding began within 30 days after the iH ,dayy the order is adopted. U on the closing of public road or an easement pursuant to this p g a p section, all right, title, and interest in the right -of -way- is vested in ILK those persons owning lots or parcels of land adjacent to the road or —_ easement, and the title of each adjoining landowner, for the width Of his abutting land, extends to the center line of the public road or easement. However, the right, title or interest vested in an adjoin - F.. ink landowner by this paragraph remains subject to any public ..ut�llty use or facility located on, over or under the road or ease - inent immediately before its closing, until the landowner or any ��: successor thereto pays to the utility involved the reasonable cost of 3,:. vinoving and relocating the facility. (1949, c. 1208 ss. 1 -3; 1957_ c. 65, S. 11; 1965, cc. 665, 801; 1971, c. 595; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; c. 822, S. :1 1977, c. 464, S. 34.) t" :Local Modification. — Guilford: within the boundaries of a dedicated -1979, c. 282; 1981, c. 59. street when use of the street is discon- W'y .Legal Periodicals. — For note dis- tinned, see 45 N -C.L. Rev, 564 (1967). `. etiastng the disposition of property �;. •. . CASE NOTES - F Editor's Note. — Some of the cases ' dted below were decided under corre- °.x,7jWnding sections of former las•. _ViOwners of property on a street which is to be partially closed have 3•. Rn interest in the hearing on the re- -quest to close the street, In re City of Washington, 15 N.C. App. 505. 190 07 822d 309, cent. denied, 282 N.C. 151. 191 S.E.2d 601 (1972). @W -; Legislative Intent as to Giving No- tice. — The true legislative intent is F,_ that if a municipality wishes to close a - itreet, or a part thereof, the notice: re- p�ired must be given. Such an intent if fair and just, because it affords all inter- parties an opportunity to be heard. = =,b ..n re City of Washington, 15 N.C. App. _`.. 505, 190 S.E.2d 309, cent. denied. 281 N.C. 151, 191 S.E.2d 601 (1972). -t. Notice to Adjoining Property O;vners Not to Be Limited to Those *ifit Special Interest. — The statute requires notice by registered mail to the lMnen of property adjoining the street to be closed who did not join in the re- quest for closing the street. The words of t h the statute are clear and unequivocal. "ems is nothing to indicate that only with a "special interest" must be 64fled by registered mail. In rye City of ashinn 15 N.C. App. 505, 190 117 S.E.2d 309, cert. denied. 282 N.C. 151. 191 S.E.2d 601 (1972 ). Restrictions on County's Power to Close a Way of passage. — From this section and § 153A -239, it is clear that a county does not have the power to close a way of passage which hat not been dedicated to the public or in which the public has not acquired rights by pre. scription. In re Easement of Right of Way. 90 N.C. App. 303. 368 S.E.2d 639 (19S81_ The closing of a street must not de. prive a property o.yner of reason. able ingress or egress. Wofford v. North Carolina State I-Lvv (2omm'n• 263 N•f'- 677. 140 S.E.2d 376, cert. denied, 38- U.S, 821. 86 S. Cl_ 50. 15 L. Ed. 2d 67 � 1965). An individual may restrain the wrongful obstruction of a public way. of whatever origin. if he will suffer injury thereb.i as distinct from the in- convenierrce to the public generatliv and he may recover such special dania' es a� he haF bW rtas,ut of the ob- struction. Woflord v- North Carolina State H.vy. Comm'rr, 263 N.C. 677. 140 S.E.2d 376, cert. denied. 352 U.S. 8221, 86 S. Ct.. 50, 15 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1965). Applied in Whitehead Community Club y. Hoppers. 4:3 N,C. App. 671. 260 S -E.2d 94 119791, 17 cn x� o m i s N G� '-c 4. Moses Carey, Jr. Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. Halkiotis Verla C. Insko Don Willhoit ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. - 27278 May 12, 1992 Mr. J. W. Watkins, Division Engineer Department of Transporation State of North Carolina P.O. Box 9278 Greensboro, NC 27408 Dear Mr. Watkins: 0/� -5-414e' 732.8181 968 -4501 688 -7331 227 -2031 644.3004 (Fax) This is to offically inform you that the orange County Board of Commissioners at their regular meeting held on May 4, 1992 approved the Proposed 1992 -93 Secondary Roads Improvement Program as presented. If you need additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V(- Moses Carey, Jr., Cha r Board of Commissioners YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY ! E) ORANGE COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. Moses Carey. Jr. 27278 Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. Halldotis Verla C. lnsko Don Willhoit May 12, 1992 Mr. J. W. Watkins, Division Engineer Department of Transporation State of North Carolina P.O. Box 9278 Greensboro, NC 27408 Dear Mr. Watkins: 732 -8181 968 -4501 688 -7331 227.2031 644 -3004 (Fax) This is to offically inform you that the Orange County Board of Commissioners at their regular meeting held on May 4, 1992 approved the Proposed 1992 -93 Secondary Roads Improvement Program as presented. If you need additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, �"-/"'7 Moses Carey, Jr., Cha r Board of Commissioners YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY! (D .0 ORANGE COUPTY HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF CONNISIONERS AGENDA MAY 4, 1992 7:25 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Ii. ITEM FOR DECISION - Pr02erty Transfer from Orange Count Purpose: To adopt a resolution accepting the conveyance of property by Orange County to the Orange County Housing Authority. Background: On March 24, 1992, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the transfer of county owned surplus property in the Knolls Community to the Orange County Housing Authority for future conveyance to Habitat for Humanity of Orange County for the development of affordable housing. Specifically, these lots are identified by Tax Map Reference 7.100.C.10, 7.100.C.10a and 7.91.H.7. Adoption of this resolution by the Housing Authority will confirm acceptance of the property transfer from Orange County. Recommendation: III. ADJOURN Adopt the resolution accepting the conveyance of property in the Knolls Community to the Orange County Housing Authority and authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution on behalf of the Board. (ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Warranty Deeds) \ ::. L J 0 11 I RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY ACCEPTING PROPERTY CONVEYED BY ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, on the day of , 1992, the Chairman of the Orange County Board of Commissioners tendered non- warranty deeds to the Orange County Housing Authority for the following parcels of property (hereinafter referred to as "the parcels of property "): Parcel I: Tax Parcel 7.100.C.10 Parcel II: Tax Parcel 7.100.C.10A Parcel III: Tax Parcel 7.91.H.7 WHEREAS, the Orange County Housing Authority has determined that the parcels of property can be developed to provide dwelling accommodations for persons of low income; i WHEREAS, it is expected that Habitat for Humanity of Orange County will present- to the Orange County Housing Authority a development plan for the development of the parcels of property in order to provide dwelling accommodations for persons of low income; and .WHEREAS, it is expected that Habitat for Humanity of Orange County and the Orange County Housing Authority will enter into a cooperation agreement which will provide for the development and construction of housing for persons of low income to be located on the parcels of property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 5157 -1 et seg., the Orange County Housing Authority accepts the tender of deeds from Orange County for the 1 L 0 l J A ri parcels of property by accepting the non - warranty deeds tendered by Orange County which in form and substance are the same as the copies of those deeds which are Exhibits A, B and C to this Resolution. This the day of 19 Commissioner moved the passage of the foregoing resolution and Commissioner seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of so much of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners for said County, acting ex officio as the Board of Commissioners of the Orange County Housing Authority, at a meeting held as relates in any way to the Resolution for accepting property conveyed by Orange County and that the said proceedings are recorded in the Minute Book containing the minutes of said Housing Authority for said date. WITNESS my hand and the common seal of said County, this the day of , 19 [SEAL] Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners 2 0 0 • u :7 Tax Lot No....... .............. ............................... ................ Parcel Identifier No................. ..., 19 ........... Verified by .............................. ............................... .. County on the day of ............. 19 ........... by........................................ ............................... .................... ..................... . Mail after recording to This instrument was prepared by ..Geoffrey „E.... Gledhill. , .,Esquire v P.O.- Drawer 1529 Brief description for the Index Hillsborough. 2 Tax parcel 7.100.C.10 NORTH CAROLINA NON - WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED made this ................ day of ... .... .....I......................... , 19 ......... , by and between GRANTOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA GRANTEE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Enter In appropriate block for each party: name, address, and, if appropriate, character of entity, e.q. corporation or partnership. The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context. WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel of land situated in the City of .... .... -� ...Chapel . Hill ......... Township, Orange County, North Carolina and more p�lrticulat•ly described as follows: All that certain lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being on the West side of Wentworth Street and known and designated as part of Lot 1, Block B, Of COLE HEIGHTS EXTENSION No. 2 as surveyed and plotted by F. M. Carlisle, in May, 1947, and which said lot hereby conveyed is more particularly described as BEGINNING at a stake on the West property line of Wentworth Street, which is established by measuring North 6 deg. 55' East from a point in line with North line of School Street and running thence along the West property line of Wentworth Street North 6 deg. 55' East 100 feet to a stake in the South property line of Johnson Street extended; running thence along the South property line of the said street South 85 deg. 48' West 150 feet to a stake in the Eastern line of the property formerly owned by Pacific Mills; running thence with the line of that property South 40 deg. 16' West 88 feet, more or less, to a stake, the Northwest corner of property of F. M. Carlisle, III; running thence with the line of that property South 82 deg. 51' East 195 feet to the BEGINNING. N.C. ear Aigoc. Form No. 7 T 1977 Printed by Agreement With the N.C. e.r A—iatinn -. 1911 i ) 0 E The property hereinabuve cescribed was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or page .. Grantee in fee simple. parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the The Grantor makes no warranty, express or implied, as to title to the property hereinabuve described. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Granter has hereunto set his hand and seal. or If rurporate• has caused this Instrument to be signed In Its a5�corporate name by Its duly authorized officers and Its sea( to be hereunto affixed b}' 'COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA nil tliarlly of Its nand of bireceors, the day and year prat By=- ---- --- -- --- ---- -- - - - - - -- ------- - - - - --y Moses Care (SEAL) r., hairman � �c - Oran. ge -_ County .- Board_.of ------ O Commissioners x _________ ____"ice z ----------------- _____ _________„__(SEAL) ATTEST: [SEAL] Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board I - xxscasa:x+ss+xlx J a _ a —(SEAL) y on NORTH CAROLINA iA L) DLINA _.._..._.._...- ----------- (S ORANGE COUNTY _F I' that , Notary Public for said County and State, certify Beverly A. Blythe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners, sealed with its official seal, and atteste d by herself as its Clerk. Witness my hand and official seal, this the day of , 1992. My commission expires: Notary Public - The foregoing Certlacate(s) of Is /are certified to be correct This Instrument and this ee--------- ------------------------- - - - - -- ----------------- •------------- - - - - -- - " -- ttiflcate are duly registered at the date and time And In the Book and Page shown on the flfst page hereof. ___________________________ IttGISTER OF DEEDS FOR .................................. By COUNTY - - - -- -------- ----------- - - - - -- beputy/Asslstant. Register of Deeds. N.C. Bar Assoc, Form No. T ��� 1977 Printed by Agreement with the N,C. Bar AoAS.lion POOLE PAINTING Co.. INC o 0. n01! 17379 nALE1131-1. N C 21619 0 • Li l J 0 Excise 'Tax Recording Time, Book and Page Tax Lot No ...... ........ .... ......... ............................... .. Parcel Identifier No. .. ...... . Verified by ................. County on the .. ... .. day of ......... , 19 .......... by............. ............................... .. Mail after recording to ............... ...... .. .......... ... . This instrument was prepared by .Goof boi•ou ...Gledhill,.. Esquire..... Drawer • ... Geoffrt? E ...1529 Brief description for the Index Fax Parcel 7.100 -C -10A NORTH CAROLINA NON - WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED made this day of ....................... 19 ... , by and between GRANTOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA GRANTEE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Enter In appropriate black for each party: name, address, and, If appropriate, character of entity, e.q. corporation or partnership The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context. WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents TooeUrant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel of land situated in the Rids of . Chapel Hill Chapel Hill ....... Township, Orange ... ..... County, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows; TRACT Omit A11 that certain let or parcel of land situate, lying and being in Chapel Bill Township, orange County, B,C -, and on the Neat aide of a street running through the property of Cole Heights Extension Me. Two (2) between Block A on the East and Block B on the Neat and known and designated as the Southern part of Lot No. one (1) in Block B of CDLB BaIGNT3 EITERSIOII MO, TWO (2), as surveyed and plotted by P. M. Carlisle on May 14, 1947, and more particularly described as BEGINNING at a stake in the pest property line of said street in line with the berth line O Scharf street; and running thence along the Neat property line of said street North 6 deg. SS' east 125 feet to a stake; running thence North 82 deg. 51• Nest shout 195 feet to a stake in the line of the property of the pacific Mills Company; running thence with the said Southwset corner of the Raid lot no. one -tine South 40 deg, 16' Meat 148 feat more or less to a Rteke, the o nal 51' Rant 275 feet to the BBGtNNINa, Excepting that Property thence with the original South line of said lot South 62 deg. tbat property conveyed to Dowell Thompson by deed recoed ndBook 190, In Deed Book 190, Page 271 and also Excepting, I esaopted from Dead Rook 180, Page 637 that property described in Deedge 637, Orange County pltblic Regietryr There Book 184, Page 151, end being the same land conveyed to 113M PROPERTIES, INC., in deed dated October 18, 1978, and recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds Of Orange County in Dead Book 296, page 318. N.C. oar Assoc. Form No. 7 1. 1971 Primot 6y Agrwroml with Ihr N.C. Bar And6glmq - JIat F-] L rI L EJ [J Cm The property hereinabove described was .required by Grantor by instrument recorded in A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aft-esaid lot or page • Grantee in fee simple. Parcel of land and all Privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the The Grantor makes no warranty, express or implied, as to title to the properly hereinabove described. IN corporate name by its Eduly iuehorized Grant" and Ia seal set his 6e nereo nto afflxedrhy authority of Its Board of Directors, n1 above written. poste. has used this Instrument to be signed in Its ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA a day and year nrst - - ------------------------------- 7� -- - - - - -- - Moses Carey; Jr � hairman t96AL7 BY! Orange -- County -- ward-- oLf------ --- - -- - -- Commissioners O -'emaw 1 ____________ __ _______(SEAL) - ------ - - - - -- ATTEST: [SEAL] '.!', -- - - -• -- U a Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board w ---- ---- ------ �CXadfoic>NYgBx to + NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY 1, , Notary Public for said County and State, certify that Beverly A. Blythe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners, sealed with its official seal, and attested by herself as its Clerk. Witness my hand and official seal, this the day of 1.1992. My commission expires: Notary Public The foregoing Certnicate(s) of ------------------------------------ ------------------------ ---------- _ -------- ..___._---------------------------------------- Is/are certified to be correct. This nstr- ____ -__ ___- ___- ________ "_______ S dment and first papa hereof. this Certificate are duty registered at the date and time and In the Book and Page shown on the ___________ - -• - -- _REGISTER OF 13EFD5 FOR lay ________________ _______________ - - - -- - COUNTY N•C. Bar Ass or. Farm No. 7 'y' 1977 ----- ' --------- '-- -'-- PR Yi ASSlspne- R Ulster. of Deeds. Printed by Agreement with the N.C. Bur A.wciuion — 19a1 POOLE PRMTING CO. INC P.O. BOX 17375 RALEIGH, N C. 271V19 r, El • J Excise Tax Recording Time, Book and Page Tax Lot No ................... ....... .. ............. ............ Parcel Identifier No...... ............. ........... ............................... Verified by ...... .............. ............................... ........ County on the day of . .... ............. ..... .............. , 19 ..... .... by..................... .. .............. ................. ............................... ............................... Mail after recording to This instrument was prepared by ........ GTPffre.y .E....Gledhill ..Esquire, l?.O. Drawer 1529; Hillsborou h NC 2778 Brief description for the Index Tax, Parcel: 7:.91.H.7 NORTH CAROLINA NON - WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED made this day of .. 19 ......... , by and between GRANTOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA GRANTEE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Enter In appropriate block for each party: name, address, and, if appropriate, character of entity, e.q. corporation or partnership. The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said patties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context. WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel of land situated in the lax of .. Chapel Hill ... .. ......... . ..... Chapel Hill Township, ......Orange ....... County, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows: All that certain tract or parcel of land situated, lying and being on the West side of Edwards Street in the Town of Chapel Hill, N.C. and more particularly described as BEGINNING at a stake in the West property line of Edwards Street, the Southeast corner of property of R. D. Adams; running thence with the line of the Adams property North 68 deg. 50' West 91 feet to a stake and South 38 deg. 30' West 33 feet to a stake, R. G. Windsor's corner; running thence with the said Windsor line South 51 deg. 30' East 108.5 feet to a stake in the West property line of Edwards Street; running thence along the West property line of said street North 18 deg. 35' East 64 feet to the beginning. N.C. Bar Assoc. Porm No- 7 C 1977 Fined by Agreement with the N.C- aae A—i.tion 10111 C� The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in . . .. ... ....... .... . ......... A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book Page ...... - ptI'cej of land and R11 privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot 0, ... Grantee in fee simple. The Grantor makes no warranty, express or implied, as to title to the property hereinabove described. IN WITNESS WifuRlOr. the rurant-r 11as hereunto corporate name by Its duly set his hand and seal. or if —Pbrate. h is authorized officers. and its Seal to be hereunto affixed Y Authority r t� Board Of Directors, the day an year It st 4 ov b Its this Instrument to be slIned In its OhMn. r E COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 'By- ------------- --- ---------------- ------ --------- ------------------------------- ------ ----- (SEAL) Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman z BY: .0rangs - -qGUntry-.- Board- of ------ --------- 0 Commissioners X ---------------- ----------------------------- ------------ ____(SEAL) - xafiauwx z ATTEST: [SEAL] ...... -------- ------------- ---- (SEAL) Beverly Blythe, --Clerk -to- -the 'jjo'- ar-d- --------------- ---- XIM11611111fx0hybMw raw tij --------------- ----------- (5--AL) NORTH CAROtiRK-- ----- - -- -- - - --- ORANGE COUNTY I, — — — - Notary Public for said County and State, certify that Beverly A. �Blyythe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners, sealed with its Official seal, and attested by herself as its Clerk. .Witness my hand and Official seal, this the day of . 1992, My commission expires: Notary Publ[ic�� The foregoing Certlilcat@(,) aI .......... • ---------------------------------------------- -------- — -------------- --------------- --------------- ------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- - - --- — — -- ------ -- Is/are certified to be correct. This instrument and this ccrtife3tO are duly registered at the date and time , an - If . — In - the - B the - - and - Page - shown - on ---- firlt Page hereof, buk ------------ ------------ RECISTFR OF DEEDS FOR ---------------------------- COUNTY Y.C. Bar Assoc. For,, NO, 7 �0 1977 ---------------------- ---------------- Deputy/ Assistant- Register. of Deeds. By Printed by All—ment with 1h. N.C. 0-1 A—cation — text POOLE PRINTING Co., INC P.D. BOX t7170 PIALEIGH, NC 77g19 C� ALONZO B. COLEMAN, JR. GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE KIM K. STEFFAN JANET B. DUTTON JOSEPH I. COLEMAN LAW OFFICES COLEMAN, GLEDHMLL & HARGRAVE March 24, 1992 Ms. Tara L. Fikes Director Orange County Housing & Community Development Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Pine Knolls Properties Dear Tara: D 129 E. TRYON STREET RAWER 1529 C 27278 V=-2 I APR �F 9> L� Enclosed is a Resolution for consideration by the Orange County Housing Authority for acceptance of the conveyance of the properties from Orange County to the Housing Authority which properties are in the Pine Knolls Community. Also enclosed are the originals of the non - warranty deeds for execution by Moses and Beverly Blythe which execution should not take place until ten (10) days after the publication of notice of the adoption by the Board of Commissioners authorizing the property transferred to the Housing Authority. I expect publication of the notice to occur on April 1 which means the deeds could be executed by the Chairman and the Clerk at the Board of Commissioners at the May 4, 1992 County Commissioners meeting and then tendered to the Housing Authority at the same meeting and just prior to the Housing Authority's adoption of the Resolution accepting the transfers. I will take care of publishing the notice of the Resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, and, with a copy of this letter to Beverly Blythe, I am asking her to notice a special meeting of the Orange County Housing Authority for May 4, 1992. This should complete matters related to this transfer until a plan is approved by the Orange County Housing Authority and a development agreement is ready to be presented to the Housing Authority for its approval. Very trimly yours, y E � Gl e—dh4j l GEG /isg Enclosures xc: Moses Carey, Jr.�/ Alice Gordon Stephen Halkiotis Verla Insko Don Willhoit John M. Link, Jr. Beverly Blythe �7 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY ACCEPTING PROPERTY CONVEYED BY ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, on the day of 1992, the Chairman of the Orange County Board of Commissioners tendered non -- warranty deeds to the Orange County Housing Authority for the following parcels of property (hereinafter referred to as ".the parcels of property "): Parcel I: Tax Parcel 7.100.C.10 Parcel II: Tax Parcel 7.100.C.10A Parcel III: Tax Parcel 7.91.H.7 WHEREAS, the Orange County Housing Authority has determined that the parcels of property can be developed to provide dwelling accommodations for persons of low income; WHEREAS, it is expected that Habitat for Humanity of Orange County will present to the Orange County Housing Authority a development plan for the development of the parcels of property in order to provide dwelling accommodations for persons of low income; and WHEREAS, it is expected that Habitat for Humanity of Orange County and the Orange County Housing Authority will enter into a cooperation agreement which will provide for the development and construction of housing for persons of low income to be located on the parcels of property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes X157 -1 et_ sea., the Orange County Housing Authority accepts the tender of deeds from Orange County for the 1 parcels of property by accepting the non - warranty deeds tendered by Orange County which in form and substance are the same as the copies of those deeds which are Exhibits A, B and C to this Resolution. This the day of Commissioner resolution and Commissioner 19 moved the passage of the foregoing seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes Noes: NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I', Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of so much of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners for said County, acting ex officio as the Board of Commissioners of the Orange County Housing Authority, at a meeting held as relates in any way to the Resolution for accepting property conveyed by Orange County and that the said proceedings are recorded in the Minute Book- -containing -the minutes of said Housing Authority for said date. WITNESS my hand and the common seal of said County, this the day of , 19 [SEAL] Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners K RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF SURPLUS PROPERTY TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY WHEREAS, Orange County acquired the following identified properties by tax foreclosure (hereinafter "the parcels of property "): Parcel I: Tax Parcel 7.100.C.10 Parcel II: Tax Parcel 7.100.C.10A Parcel III: Tax Parcel 7.91.H.7 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the parcels of property are surplus property; and WHEREAS, Habitat for Humanity of Orange County and the Knolls Neighborhood Development Association (which Association consists of property owners in the community where the parcels of property are located) has requested that steps be taken to make the parcels of property available for low cost housing; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Housing Authority has the authority to provide dwelling accommodations for persons of low income and has the authority to accept ownership of property to accomplish that purpose; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the use of the parcels of Dronerty to nrnxri A= 14T.7oI 1 ; -- accommodations for persons of low income is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § §157 -42, 160A -267 and 160A -274: 1 1. The following parcels of property are surplus property: Parcel I: Tax Parcel 7.100.C.10 Parcel II: Tax Parcel 7.100.C.10A Parcel III: Tax Parcel 7.91.H.7 2. The Chairman of the Board of Commissioners is authorized, on behalf of Orange County, to convey by non - warranty deed in consideration of the payment to Orange County of $1.00, the parcels of property to the Orange County Housing Authority. 3. That the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to attest the conveyances authorized herein and is further authorized and directed to publish a notice containing this Resolution in the Chapel Hill Herald one time after the adoption of this Resolution. 4. The non - warranty deeds conveying the parcels of property to the Orange County Housing Authority shall not be executed by the Chairman and attested by the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners and the deeds shall not be tendered to the Orange County Housing Authority until at least ten (10) days after the publication of the notice containing this Resolution. This the 2_ 4th day of March , 19 92 Commissioner W i 1 1 ho i t moved the passage of the foregoing resolution and Commissioner Insko seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon. Verla C. Insko and bon Willhoit 2 "AI Noes: NONE NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY 1, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of so much of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners for said County at a meeting held March 24 1992 , as relates in any way to the Resolution for the transfer of surplus property to the Orange County Housing Authority and that the said proceedings are recorded in the Minute Book containing the minutes of said Board for said date. WITNESS my hand and the common seal of said County, this the z;t h day of March , 19_.L2_. [SEAL] zzz Z-/-, Beverly B h , Clerk t he Orange County Bo rd of Commissioners 3 'i , i ., The property hereinabove described was acgtlieed by Grantor by instri'ment recorded in .. ... A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book ................ :.. .. page . - • ................. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple. The Grantor makes no warranty, express or implied, as to title to the property hereinabove described. Or WITNESS wt$E1t ly a the grantor has and its is set his hand and seal, or if corporate, has caused this instrument co be signed in Its IN Corporate name by !ts duly authvrlaCd otffC6rs and ita seal [o be hereunto atfl>;od by authority o[ its Board of Directors, the day and year htsc above written. OUNTY, RT C OL S _ ___ i1?6.�62Ea - --------- z --- - - - - - -- __ __ _______________________________ _ ________(SEAL) Moses Carey, Jr., hairman By- - �1ral�ge- urrty-- $oar�i-- of- ---------- - - - --- O Comma s s i one r s L4 --------------------------------------------------------- (SEAL) - - - -- - - -- -- - --RK" ixaex z Arrs (SEAL] v _ _ a Beverly B lie, C erk to" "the`" "Board" p r� NORTH CAROLINA `_ .__ ____.___.._________ ________ ____ ________(SEAL) ------------------------------------------ --(S %AL) ORANGE COUNTY I' � J , Notary Public for said County and State, certify tnat Bever]14Y_ AIBI� FE�.AAA..• Blythe personally came before me this day and acknowledge that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners, sealed with its official seal, and attested by he as its Cler]c . Witness my hand. and official seal, this the day of 1992. Notary -public . yY jj�amissioi�l `�x�ixes : _ . � .... . 5 the foregoing certificate(s) of _____ __________ _____ ______ _________ Aare Certified to be correct. This instrument and this certificate are duly registered at the date and time and In the Book and Page shown On the rst page hereof. -------------------------------------- REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR Y___ _____ ________ -- ------- ---- _' "- '---- "- "-'- " -- - -__ - -- Deputy lAsslstant- Register. of Deeds. ___________ .C. Bar Assoc. Form NO. 7 •y 1977 anted by ASr cnt "'h the N.C. SW Association •— 1781 ----------- - - - - -- COUNTY POOLE PRINTING CO.. INC. P.O. BOX 17376 RALEIGH• N.C. 27619 d Tax Lot No. .. Parcel Identifier No. ........................... ... ............... Verified by ...... .... .................................................. . County on the .... day of .......................1 19............ by...................................................................................................................... ............................... ..................................... ............................... Mail after recording to........... ........... ............. ........... ........... ........... ................... ..... . .... .......................................................... ............................... This instrument was prepared by .,•••••••Iieaffi.ey, E.... 11•NChi�� ...Ezquire, -_P- O• Drawer•• 1529; • • Brief description for the Index ti'�x; Pi reel:: 7::9."•.1I. 7' NORTH CAROLINA NON - WARRANTY DEED THISDEED made this ................ day of ............... .......... .......................... ...... ... , 19........... , by and between GRANTOR I GRANTEE ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Enter in appropriate block for each party: naxac, address, and, if appropriate, character of entity, e.q, corporation or partnership. The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said pill' ties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context. WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and cunvey unto the Grautcu in fee simpie,.all that jgwn Cha el Hill Townshi certain lot or parcel of land situated in the of .... ..... Chapel ... Hill .. ......•.•. F p' pra_rlg•e ..................... County, North Carolina and more particularly described as fallnws: All that certain tract or parcel of land situated, lying and being on the West • side' of Edwards Street . in the Town of Chapel Hill, N. C _: and more particularly described as BEGINNING at a stake in the West propexty2ine.,of Edwards Street, the Southeast corner of property of R. D.. A'dams;' runn.ing thence with the line of the Adams property North 68 deg. 50, West 91'feet.•'t,o a stake and' South 38 deg. 30, West 33 feet to a stake, I . indsd'k -1 corner; running thence with the said Windsor line South 51 deg. 30'. East 108.5 feet to a stake in the West property line of,Edwards'Street;l,'riinriin thence along the West property line of said street North 18 deg. '35_' •,East _54 feet to the beginning. N.C. $ar ASSOC, Porn No. 7 Q 1977 P....0 I. AM-11 �'Ib the N.C. Bat A— CIA1111n - I9RI The property hereinabuve described was cleq(lired by Grantor b); instrument recurded in ..... _... A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book page ........................ TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the affn-esaid Int or plrcel of land and all privileges and tippurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple. The Grantor makes no warranty, express or implied, as to title to the property hereinabuve described. rve IV ytti ist•d� y ru111, rl ed oOfficers 11111 a is i„ral tt his hand unto affixeor by autlloCity'of its Caused oard of 1)ircctori etthetdaYe arlG year first U abopve written7Moses ° ' ° , ------------ --------------- OA ay -- ........ - - - -- ,y. ------------------------------------- __ _____.(SEAL) Carey, Jr., irman Ity- e.- Oounty_ -Boa _.o f. Commissioners ATTES- �t:, U ____________ _______________________________ ______(SEAL) Beverly A. B ythe, Cl k the Board ------------- ------- --•- -- a3: liF P636Yex Ya$x m NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE CO Y I, otary Public for said County and State, certify t verl.y A. Mythe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners, sealed with its official seal, and attested by herself as its Clerk::. Witness, my hand and official- seal, this the day of , 1992. ? `rs . F � Notary -74blic C'ommissionrexpires: the foregoing Certlfirate(s) or /are certified to be correct. This instrument and this certificate are duly registered at the date and time and in the Book and Page shown an the rst Pare hereof. _------ •----- - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR ----------------- _COUNTY __UeputYinsslstanl- ncglster. of Deeds. .C. Bar Assoc. Form No. , s: 19:; Inted by Allf —ent wish the N.C. &Ir Annodaj;an loIII POOLE PRINTING Co., INC. P.O. !Da 17375 RAIE1GN• N,C. 2[619 Tax Lot No ................... .... ....... . ...... ........ ................: Parcel identifier Nn. ..... .......... ...... ............. . Verified by ...... ............. ....... .............................. I .......... .... County on the ........ ... day of :..... 19............ by........................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... Mailafter recording to ................................................................................................................................................... ............................... ................... ............................... ..... ................I.............. This instrument was prepared by .•• G lfsborou hg1NCh12727E uire.,. ...P...O......Drawer....1.5.2.9 ,................... Brief description for the Index Tax Parcel. 7:.100.C.10A NORTH CAROLINA NON - WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED made this ............... day of ................ ................ .................. ......... ... , 10 ...... , by and between GRANTOR I GRANTEE ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 (inter in appropriate block for each Parly: name, address, and, if appropriate, character of entity, e.q. corporation or partnership, The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns,, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context. WTTNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hag and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that TOW .Chapel...Hil.l......... Township, certain lot or parcel of land situated in the �itXof ....... C�1s?'$�7,,••ki�.11- •••• -•••. . .....,Chapel p, : Q.r.aClgEe ('aunty, North Carolina 411d more prn•tioularly dctirribed ;1% folh,we : TRACT ONE: All that certain lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in Chapel Hill Township4"• rangeiCeunty, N.C., and on the mast side of a street running through the property of Cole Heights Extension No. wwq�'(z) between-.Block, A on the East and Block 8 on the west and known and designated as the Southern part of rat No. Ong' (11�in Block'B of COLE HEIGHTS EXT$NSION No. TWO (2), as surveyed and plotted by F. M.•Carlisle on May 14, 1947, and more par,titmlaily,, described as BEGINNING nt a stake in the west property line of said street in line with the North line p School Streets, . and running thence along the west property line of said street North 6 deg. 55• East 125 feet to •a stake; rureeag' thence North 82 deg. 51• west about 195 feet to a stake in the line of the property of the PaCi�id• Rills Company; - running thence with the said Company's line South 40 deg. 16• West 148 feet more or lace to a etnke�, the origina?.� Southwest corner erE the said lot no. one (1); running thence with the original South line of aaid•lbti•.South 82 deq: 51• East 275 toot to the BXGINN.iNG; Excepting that property described in Deed Book 190, Page 271 and also.$zceptipg,.• that property Conveyed to Donnell Thompson by deed recorded in Book 180, Page 637, Orange County Publld,a.- gictry. Ttiero .•...�1;;;;,_, �. 1B excepted from Deed Book 180, Page 637 that property described in Deed Book 184, Page 151r and being the same land conveyed to =LM PROPERTIBSe INC., in deed dated October l8, 1978, and recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County in Deed Book 296, Page 318. N.C. Bar Assoc. Form No. 7 1977 Pdn1eA F� APrmnrnt wirh the N C. R:v Anene�hiinn . 1�1 The property hereinabuve described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in .._,........... A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book ... page .................... TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple. The Grantor makes no warranty, express or implied, as to title to the property hereinabuve descrihed. IN WITNESS WuI;gEOr', the Granter Las here" ntu set his hand and seai, or if corporate, has caused this instrument to be signed in Its corporate name by its duly authorized Officers and its seal to be hereunto affixed by authority of its Board of Directors, the day and year first aYi U Y RLN ,Yr atpQIX .. <st nl." Moses Carey, r. , Y1 "man "- •---- - " -` -- c - Drange__Caunt_ Board f ----------------- Commissioners .� ------------------------------------------------------ ._(SEAL) 4ve AL JC __________(SEAL) y A Blythe, Cle to the Board -•---------•---- ---- -••- •- _�xxx,�adtnaa(sc�sFC cWn '.: - a •(SEAL) --------------------------------- NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE C Li TY I'}y� Notary Public for said County and State, certify that Bev A. 81 he personally ame before me this day nd acknowledged that. she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, + g y, and that by authorit duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing in was signet: in its name by Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners, ! _'.I..... sealed with its official seal, and attested by herself as its Clerk. Witness my•hand and official seal, this the ,4_� day of , 1992. it'. comtri�ssioii expires: Notary Public • - e foregoing Certificate(s) of /are certified to be correct. This instrument and this certificate are duly registered at the date and time and to the Book and Page shown oh the rst page hereof. -- - " " "•' ---------------- - - - - -- _RSGi5TER OF DEEDS FOR ..................... COUNTY . - - - -- C. Liar Assoc- Form Nu. 7 197, •__ " " " -`•- -- - -.. __ I7el"utyi Asslstant•lteglst.— or needs, . r, 'n "pd by Agreement -kh the %,C. Bar Aooeiallon _ 19A1 POOLE PRINTING Co.. INC. P.O. BOX 17376 RALEIGH. N, _--- -.�-- -• - - -.- G. 27618 Tax Lot No ....................... .................... ... Parcel Identifier No............... ............................ Verified by .. .... ............ .............. County on the ....... day of .:. ..................... , 19 ........... Mailafter recording to ................. ... .... ......... ..... ..... ...... ..... .......................... ..... ..... ... ............ ...... ................................................ ............................... . This instrument was prepared by ..G.1!Po .ffreY...2.•.....Glsdhill. ...ESquir.e.,...,P.0.,... Drawer 1529,.. ........ ........ Hillsborough, C 2 Brief description for the Index Tax Parcel; 7:.100.C.10 NORTH CAROLINA NON - WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED made this ................ day of ......................... ................. .... ... , by and between GRANTOR I GRANTEE ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Enter in appropriate block for each party: name, address, anti, if appropriate, character of entity, e.p. corporation or partnership. The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context. WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Cranlce, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel of land situated in the City of .. ............77...............;. , ......Chapel .Hill . Township, Orange ....................... County, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows; All that certain 'lot or .parcel of land situate, lying and being 'on the West- side of Wentworth Street and known and designated as part of Lot-' y.t.•''Block, -.E,. % of COLE HEIGHTS EXTENSION No. 2 as surveyed and plotted by F.'M;.'Caxli.sle;' in tray, 1947, and which said lot hereby conveyed is more; articularly-' described as BEGINNING at a stake on the West property line c .,Wentworth: Street, which. is established by measuring North 6 deg. 55 East'•• -prom a point',: in line with North line of School Street and running thence along -.the West' property line of Wentworth Street North 6 deg. 55' East 100 feet to alstake in the'South property line of Johnson Street extended; running thence along the South property line of the said street South 85 deg. 48' West 150 feet to a stake . in the Eastern line of the property formerly owned by Pacific Mills; running thence with the line of that property South 40 deg. 16' West 88 feet, more or less, to a stake, the Northwest corner of property of F. M. Carlisle, III; running thence with the line of that property South 82 deg. 51' East 195 feet to the BEGINNING. N.C. tsar Assuc. Farm No. 7 V, 1977 P.inrad he Aermlrnr wllh Ihr N C. Aar A—Cinlhln -- IAFI 1 11 .. - � — 1 D RESOLUTION 1992 OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date May 4, 1992 Name of Subdivision Red Wolf at Piney Mountain Owner /Applicant Mark 'Neal f r Piney Mountain N. General Partnership- The Board 6f`-Co u--nty Commissioners hereby approves Red Wolf at Piney Mountain subdivision preliminary plat, dated February 1992 and containing 6 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. All roads shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of the extension of Pine Cone Lane. 4 This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of the extension of Pine Cone Lane shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be maintained by the owner /applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of any phase of Red Wolf at Piney Mountain can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal 1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for septic disposal, and repair area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health, with the exception of lots 4 and 6 (see condition A.3). 2. Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements. This disclosure shall be included in a document describing development restrictions to be, recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is available from the Orange �ounty Health Department, Division of Environmental Health. 3. Septic easements shall be provided for lots 4 and 6 (by lots 5 and 1) as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. The easements and their conditions shall be contained in the development restrictive covenants or other documents. A reference to the restrictive covenants shall be included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. i W B. Roads and Access 1. The extension of Pine Cone Lane shall be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, within a 50 foot right -of -way, and the construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT. •• A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure construction of the extension of Pine Cone Lane to the standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a certified /licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial..institution licensed to.do.,bu&ness..,xn..North.. Carolina.. . .. The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT. 2. Submit an erosion control plan for construction of the road. 3. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision road. This restriction shall be stated in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping Landscaping shall be preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. 2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape filar small--be -inchAtmi-in cnb�n p ... requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. D. Drainage 1. Increase the 30 -foot drainage easement to 50 feet from the point between L 17 and L 18 on lot 3, across lot 2 to the subdivision boundary. Locate additional drainage easements as required following review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan. K3 E. Parkland W L Cash in the amount of $418.00 [($1567 /acre x 5/35 acre) + ($6819 /acre x 1/35 acre)] shall be paid to Orange County as payment in lieu of parkland dedication. 2. The L 19 acres of the open space to be shown on the Final Plat shall be irrevocably dedicated to the homeowners association for recreation/open space use by residents of the subdivision. 0.94 acre shall be combined with North State Utilities' property to the south. F. Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V -D -2 and V -D -3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2. The following natural and man-made site features shall be shown on the plat: (Include streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, swamps, marshes, sites in "Inventory", houses, barns, sheds, railroads, overhead utility lines, cemeteries) a. Drainage way along the northern ends of lots 2 through 5. 3. The following easements shall be shown on the plat: a. 30 -50 foot drainage easement referenced in D.1; b. 50 -foot buffer and community greenway on North State Utilities' property; C. 15 -foot sewer easement adjacent to Pine Cone Lane right -of -way and septic field easement on lot 1 to serve lot 6; and d. 4A septic easement on lot 5 to serve lot 4. 4. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right-of-way of-- Pine-Cone Lane- ' - Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet; and rear yards a minimum of 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. _r G. Certifications L A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 4 2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V -D -6 -b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that lots 1 and 5 contain easements for each of the lots 4 and 6 of sufficient area for septic disposal and repair and that all other residential lots contain sufficient area for septic tank disposal and repair. 4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that the extension of Pine Cone Lane has been constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been approved. pP •g y 5. A Certificate of Approval signed b the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Signature of Applicant Cler o the Board I, ���/'{� ©��`�IL ,accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. --m� 1 0 The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in ....I....... A map showing the above described property is recorded in flat Book ........................ page ......................... TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple. The Grantor makes no warranty, express or implied, as to title to the properly hereinabove described. IN WITNESS WFtEnEOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, or if corporate, has caused this instrument to be signed in Its corporate name by its duly authori%ed officers and its aeat to be hereunto affixed try authority or its Board of Directors, the day and year hrsc above written- ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA r (SEAL) Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman o By: _pra�ige- �U�sty- Soard-- ot- ------- ---- -- _(SEAL) Commissioners - X.XXrncMx z ----------------------------- [SEAL] v TT EST: a Beverly Blythe, Clerk to tie Board -- ----- - - - --- -- - - - --- NORTH CAROLINA ___(SEAL) -- --- ------ (S =AL) ORANGE COUNTY I, Notary Public for said County and State, certify that Beverly A. Blythe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners, sealed with its official seal, and attested by herself as its Clerk. 1992 Witness my hand and official seal, this the day of Notary Public My commission expires: The foregoing Certificate(s) of ________________________________________________ _____ __________ ______ ______ ___ -------------------=-------------- -------- ----------------------------------- ----- --- Is /are certified to be correct This instrument and this certifleate are duty registered at the date and time and in the Book and Pace shown on the first pace hereof- By_______________________________________ N.C. Bar Assoc. Form No. 7 V7 1977 Printed by Agreement with the N.C. Bar Anocia-ion — 1981 _____ ________ __REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR ---------- Deputy /Assistant - Register. of Deeds. COUNTY POOLE PRINTING CO., INC- P.O. BO% 17376 RMLIZIGN, N.C. 27519 Excise Tax Recording Time, Book and Page Tax Lot No ..................... Parcel Identifier No.................. Verified by County on the ............ .. day of ................. Mail after recording to ................................... ............................... This instrument was prepared by ......... 94. ,� ay..,;~.,...•Gledhill. ,,,Es uire ilsorou h NC 27L78 4 ,....p.,.0.,... Drawer ...1.5.2.g.� ................ Brief description for the Index Tax: NORTH CAROLINA NON-WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED made this ...........:.... day of ..................... 19........... , by and between GRANTOR GRANTEE ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Enter In appropriate block for each party; name, address, and, if appropriate, character of entity, e.g. corporation or partnership. The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said 0111"'es, their 11ei1.8, HueeU9g01's, and aHsigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context. WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, yell Iuid convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that w TToo certain lot or parcel of ]and situated in the RX of - . ....... Chapel ..Hi,11 ........... . . Chapel.... Hill Township, .............. Qrdn,g.e..................... County, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows: All that certain tract or parcel of land situated, lying and being on the West side of Edwards Street. in the Town of Chapel Hill, N.C. and more Particularly described as BEGINNING at a stake in the West property line of Edwards Street, the Southeast corner of property of R. D. Adams; running thence with the line of the Adams property North 68 de a stake and South 38 deg. 30' West 33 feet to a stake 0'R est 91 feet to Corner; running thence with the said Windsor line South �51 deg, Windsor's 30, East 108.5 feet to a stake in the West property line of Edwards Street; running thence along the West property line of said street North 18 deg. 3S' East 64 feet to the beginning. N.C. Bar ASSoc. Form No. 7 cC 1977 .. N iM,d by AV-1 WI1h the N.C. am Aa I.fl- .- 1991 The property hereinabove described Was arryuired by Gritntur by insi,rumellL rucorded in .. _1 ..... A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book ...................... page ......................... TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges anti appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple- The Grantor makes no warranty, express or implied, as to title to the property hereinabove described. IN WITNESS wl16:ItEOF, the irrantor has hereunto set his hand and i, r If corporate. has caused this Instrument to be signed In its corporate n c by ilx duty audh ixcrl officers and ils .Pal to be hcrcuuto affixu I by authurily of Its Board of Directors, the day and year first c am above written. ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (SEAL) BY- `-------------------------- --�-- ----------- ------ --- - -- - -- � Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman ,,..: Isy: .Orange-- County- -Board of_ _ - - - -- Commissioners x (saAL) xurexot .. LSEAL] r ATTEST: V - -- (SEAL) Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board W 7SXf)7k7Sdfd6V X u) NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY Notary Public for said County and State, 1, , certify that Beverly A. Blythe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Oratnrge f rennin ainstrument authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, g Commissioners, lsealed w th tits soff official seal, and attest Orange d byCherself Board its was signed in Clerk. da of 1992. Witness my hand and official seal, this the Y Notary Public My commission expires: The foregoing Certificatr(s) of --"_-"'•------"------ is /are certified to be correct- This Instrument and this certificate are duly registered at the date and time and in the Book and Page shown on the first page hereof. . ... ___________SECISTEIt OF DEEDS FOR ____- __ -------------------------- COUNTY _____UeputylAsslstant- fiegister. of Deeds. Y -C- Bar Assne. Form N.e, 7 a 19. Primed by Acre nt wish the N.C. oar Ar : -mn I•rxi POOLE PHIN oNO CO,. INC. P.O. OOX 17776 FALGC .. N.C. 27619 e x Lot No ........... 1111 Parcel Identifier No. Verified by ......................... ..... ........ .............. ................. County on the day of ............... 1111.. ............. „'.. i. 19 .........:. , :1:11,1. . Mail after recording to ............... .1:... ,. ................. ............111.1............. . This instrument was prepared Inds by. ...... .�GLellsboYou hG :Rdhill, ES Stu,1. r. e., ,...P...O ...... Drawer....1.52.g . ........... ............................... . Brief description far the Index I •a:; . Tax. Parcel 7:.100..C.10A NORTH CAROLINA NON - WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED made this day of 19 1111.. , by and between GRANTOR GRANTEE ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Enter in appropriate black for each party: name, address, and, it appropriate, character of entity, e.q. corporation or partnership. The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said purties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context. WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents TOwrirant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel of land Situated in the , .('aunty, xOf C a e1 Hill Chapel. Hill Township, .... 0�an Q e No and oor It:nI c d<•srrihct v lollow : ..`'. : TRACT ONE: All that certain lot or N.C., and on the West s parcel of land situate, lying and being in Chapel Hill A on the East and Block d8 on Chet west and known and deh Property of Cole Heights Extension No. Two 2 Orange County, COLE ME;Gn25 EXTENSION No. TWO 2 gnated as the southern ( ) be Block described as 6EGINNxNG at stake in the N ®B red and plotted by F. M. Cnrllale onaMay 141947, antire1n Block g of and running thence along the west r Property line of said street in lino with the North line of Scho°liStreaty thence North 82 deg. 51- West about 195rty line of said street North 6 deg. 55' Eaet 125 feet to n stake; running _ Street- running thence with the said Cq an feet to a stake in the line of the _ Southwest corner of the said lot n° y one 1 1 South 40 deg. 16' West 148 feet pmote ror less to Pa cstake,Mitls oriPa -Y, 51' Best 275 feet to the a3GTnHING, 1 1i running thence with the Original South that property coav eyed to Excepting that property described in Deed Book 190,ine of said lot South 82 deg, 1s oxoo•ted y k.120,l Thosg6aon by deed recorded in Hook 180, Pa a 677, 0 9e 271 and also Excepting, from Deed Spok 1a0, page 637 that pro art g range County Public nugintry. There and being the same land conveyed to KGLH PROPERTIES, y described in Deed Hook 184, Fage 151, of the Register of Deeds of orange Count INC•, in deed dated October 18, 1978, and recorded in the office y in Deed Book 296, Page 318. N.C. Bar Assoc. Form No- 7 Q 1977 Primed by Avre ., with ,hL N C War Ax 16i i . PRI . ,.,, :_1___1_11_ _ 1111. ...� ,_.. ...: -..- -1.111 - ..— .:. - -. -....- :?R•.- The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor b instrument recorded in .... 4 Y �. f; A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book ....................... page TO HAVE AND TO BOLA the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and app penances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple. The Grantor maker no warranty, express or implied, as to title to the property hereinabove described. _ IN WITNESS LV 11 k:n6 DF, tqe Grinlor lea% hereunto et I11s hand and seal, or 1f cutpurate, has caused this IM1Strument to ➢e signed ht tts Corporate name 6y its duty autho[lxed ollic a rs and Its semi to be hereunto affixed by Autliorlty of its Board of Directors, the day and year first a8MW- COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA r.. i .... ....;'.: y]r (SEAL) Moses Care(,r -, Chairman o L xtx _pxanr3e _Caunt�l_ Board -_ t4 (SEAL) Commissioners ----------------- ----- - [SEAL] ATTEST: --- - - - - -- Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board W ... ..50:1G59:G'XH3[AS0E'dtaL9C3[PL __ -------- ___-------------------------- (5?AW - NORTH CAROLINA -- •- __T__.��,__.�...�� ORANGE COUNTY I Notary Public for said County and State, certify that Beverly A. Blythe personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners, sealed with its official seal, and attested by herself as its Clerk. Witness my'hand and official seal, this the day of 1992. Notary Public My commission expires: The foregoing Certificate(s) or ---------------------------------------------------------------------------'- is fire certified to be correct. This instrument and this certificate are duly registered at the date and time and in the Book and Page shown on the first page hereof. ______it5G18TftR OF D F .:.... ....... ne),u[ri Atsistant- argister. of Deeds. N,C• par ASSOC. Form No. 7 s 197T Printed by Atircement Wah the N.C. 8a1 As.et1.10. 19RI POOLE PRINTING 00,. ING P.O. BOX 17376 RALEIGH, KC. 27619 Excise Tax Recording Time, Book and Page _ Tax Lot No. .............................. ............................... Parcel Identifier• No. Verified b y ..... ...... .... ... y ............... 19............ . ............................... day of ............. :. Count on tht. Mail after recording to ......................... ..... ................... I ....... ............... .......... ..... .... ........ I., .......... .. nt was prepared by ...G.era fret, -_K ....Gledhill ...Esquire .... Brief description Hxlsborou h N 2 B.•.O.•.. Drawer 1529 This instrument far the Index Tax' Parcel-„ 7�. 1.O0..C. 10 NORTH CAROLINA, NON - WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED made this ............... day of ................................................... , lrj .......... , by and between °. r GRANTOR GRANTEE EE ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Enter in appropriate block for each party: name, address, and, if appropriate, character of emit y, r..q, corporation or partnership. The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by cnutext, a WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Granter the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel of land situated in the City of .............. .- ..Chapel ,Hill......... Township, O_ ran e County, North Carolina and more Particularly ' p arty described as folloivs: All that certain lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being on the West side of Wentworth Street and known and designated as part of Lot 1, Block B, Of COLE HEIGHTS EXTENSION No. 2 as surveyed and plotted by F. M. Carlisle, in May, 1947, and which said lot hereby conveyed is more particularly described as BEGINNING at a stake on the West property Line of Wentworth Street, which is established by measuring North 6 deg, 55' East from a point in line with North line of School Street and running thence along the West property line of Wentworth Street North 6 deg. 55' East 100 feet to a stake in the South property line of Johnson Street extended; running thence along the South property line of the said street South 85 deg. 48• West 150 feet to a stake in the Eastern line of the property formerly owned by pacific Mills; running of with the line of that property South 40 deg. 16' West 88 feet, more or less, to a stake, the Northwest corner of property of F. M. Carlisle, III; running thence with the line Of -that property South 82 deg. 51' East 195 feet to the BEGINNING. N.C. Bar Aguac. Form No. 7 N+ 1977 _ Printed by APreemenl with the N.C. Bar As +ociolinn . 19Pt N LIJ h H I I i 3 O J 0 u_ M a rn c m L l� O m .] 1 t v . C _ .] 1 t p CL .] 1