HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-05-20181
APPROVED 6/19/2018
MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
June 5, 2018
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 5, 2018
at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Commissioner Rich asked if item 8-h could be pulled from the consent agenda, since
many people are here to speak tonight.
Chair Dorosin said to change 8-h to item 4-c. He suggested moving item 11-b up in the
agenda, and making it item 4-d
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner to move
items 11-b and item 8-h up on the agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners’ places:
- PowerPoint for Item 4-a: VAD
- PowerPoint for Item 4-b: Bike Safety Campaign
- PowerPoint for Item 5-a: Public Hearing
- PowerPoint for Item 5-d: Public hearing
- PowerPoint for Item 7-b: Millhouse Road Park Affordable Housing Options Feasibility Update
- Manager Report
- Aqua handout: Net Neutrality- proposed petition from Commissioner Rich for May 19th
consideration
- Light Blue sheet: Chapel Hill’s Proclamation- National Gun Violence Awareness Day-
Commissioner Rich
PUBLIC CHARGE
Katie Murray, Arts Commission Director, introduced the Arts Moment:
Arts M oment - Ashley McIlwain Nissler holds an MFA in Creative Writing from Warren Wilson
and teaches at the Duke Creative Writers’ Workshop. Her work has been in Cricket, Ladybug,
Strange Horizons, Tar River Poetry, Literary Mama, poemeleon, The Black Boot, Vestal
2
Review, The Mom Egg New World Writing , Dogplotz, Nailpolish Stories, and most recently in
the anthology Red Sky. In addition to her story “Lungs once pink and fragile” being nominated
for a Pushcart Prize, she received an Emerging Artist’s Grant from the Durham Arts Council in
2005. She has served on the Orange County Arts Commission Advisory Board since 2013.
Chair Dorosin introduced Todd McGee, Community Relations Director, who recognized
the “graduates” from the first County Government Academy.
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
Susan Walser read the following comments:
Good Evening,
I’m Susan Walser. Thank you for your time this evening. I’d like to thank the County for
coordinating the Keith Arboretum Community Meeting last Wednesday, May 30th.
Ms. Livingston presented information from the County at this meeting, and David Harper
presented information from Unique Place to Save – his presentation lasted about 45
minutes. The community found Ms. Harper’s presentation not relevant to our goals for
the meeting. Instead we were subjected to a lengthy presentation on what Unique
Places to Save is, what projects they have completed throughout the state, possible
future programs on arboretum property, and requests for the audience to join the
arboretum and financially support Unique Places to Save. The community, at several
points, asked for clarification on the corporate structure of the arboretum and why they
were presenting instead of the owner. The explanations were always lengthy,
convoluted, and confusing.
A reference to debt restructuring was made in relation to the corporate restructuring. We
looked into some of this. There are 3 note holders on the 143 acres and the Keith
Arboretum jointly – with Pickoretum, LLC, registered as a real estate and rental business,
as the borrower, with deeds of trust totaling over $845,000. The total purchase price of
all these parcels was $770,000.
During the County’s presentation, we heard that no violations of the Keith easement were
found. However, as you can see in the presentation the community made:
• The deck (with no permitting) was built to support wedding events – see page 6.
• As shown on page 13 of our presentation, in April the County believed that ROMR
was inactive or gone…yet ROMR is still active and is now an approved activity.
• The Easement Amendment submitted to you in April requested permission to
have bees on the property. However, bees had already been on the property for
months, and are a commercial venture, which isn’t allowed under the easement.
See page 15.
• The Keith home is used as an Airbnb, but the easement states that the property
can only be used for recreational, educational, and scientific purposes, under
non-commercial use – this commercial Airbnb use may fit under the Pickoretum
LLC’s business purpose of real estate and rental. See page 5 of our
presentation.
3
Additionally, the property owner listed part of the arboretum for sale for a few months that
included separating out a home site on Tract A – please see your packet of information.
Was the County aware of this?
As you will hear from the speakers following me, there has been community mistrust
building with the property owner over the past several years. Now there is a level of
mistrust building with the County over what is seen as non-enforcement of easement
violations. This is concerning to citizens and easement holders throughout the County,
as a precedent could be set for potential weakening of current easements, non-
enforcement of easements, or lack of incentive for property owners to continue to put
land into conservation easements.
Please listen carefully to the upcoming concerned citizens.
Thank you for your time.
Pamela Bayne read the following comments:
Statement by Charles R. Keith, M.D.
By 2000, the Charles R. Keith Arboretum had become the largest collection of tree and
shrub species in America. Visitors came from all over the U.S. and Europe to visit. Over
many years, I had conserved section after section of the arboretum and surrounding land
through Orange County and Triangle Land Conservancy, in order to preserve a total of
82 acres from future development. I was in total agreement that there be no commercial
activity that was not directly related to the mission of the arboretum.
In 2015, Unique Places purchased the arboretum. In order to assist the transition, I
agreed to manage the arboretum along with my one part-time employee for one more
year. (Aside from occasional other businesses that came in to perform specific fucntions
like maintaining the ponds, my only help over the years was a part-time contract
employee.) At the end of 2016, we left, as per our agreement with Unique Places. I left
a detailed emailed and hard copy care plan to multiple people for care of the arboretum,
including the ponds, fish, plants, etc. Prior to my departure, I urged that the next step
should be to hire a part-time horticulturist to preserve and care for the collection and
provide supervision to employees.
I believed that Unique Places had the financial resources to hire at least minimal staff and
would be responsible stewards of the arboretum. At the time of sale, we had been
excited about the direction they had wanted to take the arboretum as they laid out their
vision in keeping with the written mission statement. In particular, they wanted to expand
the educational mission, and also enlarge the plant collection itself.
I suggested they turn the King-Garrett historical homestead into a visitor’s center and
office space for staff. Repeatedly, I told them not to cut down any arboretum species to
make way for commercial activity, e.g.: parking spaces, even if related to the mission of
the arboretum without first consulting the horticulturalist director.
Sadly, none of these recommendations have been followed:
• There is no horticulturalist
• Weeds, vines, and suckers are covering smaller plants
4
• Lack of systemic watering is resulting in the death of some valuable larger
species
• Labels are falling off plants
• Though there has been some mowing of larger areas between plants, no
mulching not basic plant care has occurred…
• Rare species have been removed to make way for commercial activities, e.g.: a
turnaround in the driveway, the veranda
• The King-Garrett house has become an Airbnb
It appears that available resources have been diverted from the arboretum to these
commercial activities. The arboretum has been badly neglected and it shows. It is no
longer a place where I would be proud to have my horticultural colleagues visit.
Elise Alexander read the following comments:
Hello,
My name is Elise Alexander, and I am an adjoining landowner to the Keith Arboretum. I
am also the HOA representative for the Brights Way Residential community that also
adjoins the arboretum.
Thank you for all of your diligent work.
I would like to make three points.
FIRST:
Residential communities surround the Keith Arboretum. I would like to make it clear that
it was only with the realization that open fires were permitted on any location on the 220
acres of the Keith Arboretum and the Pickfords Forest that the Brights Way HOA
representatives requested to meet with the property owners. I quote from the emails
from February 5, 2017:
Request:
“What would be a good time to meet this week. The Brights Way HOA has some
questions/concerns regarding ROMR camping/camp fires. We would be happy to meet
you on site. Please me via email options. Thanks.”
Reply:
“Please put your concerns in writing. The 220 acres I own is a farm. People burn wood.
And they will camp on the land. That will not change. I do not ask my neighbors when
and how they burn wood or allow campers on their land, and the fact that you would
question camping and burning wood on my land is baffling to me.”
These comments and multiple negative interactions over the years have created
community mistrust. We are not skeptical of policies going forward.
SECOND:
The Keith Arboretum incorporates 2 lots of the Brights Way residential community. The
Brights Way Covenants, Article V, Section 2, states that, “ No lot shall be used except for
residential purposes.” Section 13 of Article V further provides that, “No noxious or
offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon
5
tending to cause embarrassment, discomfort, annoyance or nuisance to the
neighborhood. There shall not be allowed on the aforesaid property any other things of
any sort whose normal activities or existences is in any way noxious, dangerous, unlikely,
odoriferous, noisy, unpleasant, or of a nature as may diminish, destroy the enjoyment of
other property in the neighborhood by the owners thereof.”
The property owners of Keith Arboretum acted without regard to the covenants or the
well-being of the residents of the Brights Way residential community.
THIRD:
The current landowners and their investors purchased the Keith Arboretum with full
knowledge of the conservation easements and covenants.
Thank you very much for your time.
Brian Dobyns said he has worked with many Orange County landowners and
residents, putting easements on their properties, and he has concerns about the
language in the conservation easements. He said easements need to be updated at
times, and there are ways that enforcement can be improved. He suggested that Orange
County and the landowner look at the easements, and monitor them better.
Marilee McTique read the following comments:
Good Evening, my name is Marilee McTigue, and I’ve lived in Bingham Township for over
25 years.
The community surrounding the Keith Arboretum and Pickard Mountain became aware of
proposed amendments to the Keith Arboretum Conservation Easement hours before the
April 17th BOCC meeting. We were shocked that potential amendments were being
considered that would weaken the conservation value of the easement just 12 years after
it had been established. We were also shocked that the proposal was put on the consent
agenda without adequate documentation, discussion, or community engagement. In
response, we mobilized the community and have reported our findings and issues to you
in a series of messages over the last few weeks. Suffice to sat, the issues we have
identified over the last three years are deeply disturbing to the local community and have
led to an environment of mistrust.
I remember when Commissioner Jacobs, Dave Stancil, Dr. Keith and many of our
neighbors gathered at Susan Walser’s home about 20 years ago to begin planning for
how to protect this regionally significant land. Bob Nutter kicked things off by putting
conservation easements on his property, and that was followed by Bill Burlingame, Hazel
and Everett Cheek, Nick and Carolyn Sartor, Tim Toben, and Dr. Keith. We are all
extremely grateful for their individual efforts to preserve this land that is a regionally
significant stand of chestnut oaks, wildlife habitat, and source of drinking water for
Chapel Hill. The County, and other easement holders, promised to protect the land and
enforce the easements “in perpetuity.” These properties are now changing hands as the
original owners move on with their lives, and the properties are being acquired by new
owners and real estate developers. I don’t think anyone anticipated the challenges these
ownership changes would rain down upon us, but the question of the level of
enforcement of these easements can no longer be ignored. It is unclear to us whether
the County is prepared to honor their promises to landowners and strictly enforce the
6
terms of the conservation easements as real estate developers come into this part of the
County looking for development opportunities. We worry that turning a blind eye to
easement violations and lax enforcement will set a precedent that leads to undesired
consequences in the near future. We also believe it will significantly impact the ability of
the County to attract new properties into the Lands Legacy program as landowners see
developers abused existing easements. If we are to protect this land into the future, the
County must now take up the challenge and defend these conservation easements with
strict interpretation and enforcement…even if it means litigation.
We believe the definition of the level of enforcement of the Keith Arboretum Conservation
Easement is a policy decision that falls squarely on the shoulders of the County
Commissioners….not the County Attorney, the County Manager, or the County staff. We
ask that you fully embrace this policy-making role, and direct the County Attorney and
staff to implement a conservative interpretation and strict enforcement of the terms of the
Keith Arboretum conservation easement.
We have been informed by the County Attorney that you are not able to meet id speak
with us, “due to the possibility that this issue may end up in litigation.” We find this
directive to be unacceptable. You are our elected representatives, and we have every
right to discuss topics of interest and concern in our community with each and every one
of you. We have seen meeting notes of at least one meeting between Commissioners
and the property owner, and the community requires the same level of access. We look
forward to this directive being reversed.
I’d like to close by letting you know that we are a very active and committed group of
community members who have frown up around the Keith Arboretum and Pickard
mountain, raised families here, and been the stewards of this land for decades. We are
tenacious and do not shy away from challenges. We will continue to monitor, investigate,
and report issues and advocate for the strict enforcement of all conservation easements
in this area. It is our goal to protect the conservation value of this area…and we will
continue to be good stewards of the land for decades to come.
George Buelher reviewed the following comments:
The Community requests Orange County to:
• Ensure that the conservation values of the original May 19, 2006 Keith Arboretum
Conservation Easement are strictly interpreted and enforced, now and in the
future, with NO changes.
• Proactively inspect the property and investigate all reports of potential
conservation easement violations submitted by the community. If it is determined
that a violation of the conservation easement is found, the County must ensure
that the conservation value of the property is restored and the property is put
back in its original state.
• Improve communication by:
o Engaging the community in a period of public comment when changes are
proposed for conservation easement properties.
o Improving communications between County departments so the
conservation values of the property are always known and of primary
interest….no matter which department is approached by a property
owner/developer.
7
o Creating a public web page listing all conservation easements in the
County. This searchable site should contain a copy of the warranty deed,
inspection reports, violation citation, maps, and all official forms of
communication with the property owner.
Nan Fulcher read a petition requesting the repeal of the resolution designating
section of highway as part of the “Jefferson Davis National Highway” in Orange County.
She asked if the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) would consider this request
prior to its summer break.
Commissioner Jacobs said petitions are referred to agenda review with the Chair,
Vice-Chair, Manager, and Clerk to determine the process for consideration.
Terri Buckner said she is here to speak on behalf of the Orange County branch of
the Friends of the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST). She reviewed a petition that the Friends
of the MST presented to the Board on May 6. She said an email was sent by staff with
some updates, and said tonight she is asking if more action could occur. She said staff
estimates 2-3 years before trail building can begin, and experts say the trails will take
another 2-3 years to complete. She asked if the requests made at the May 6th meeting
could be added as an agenda item to the BOCC meeting on June 19th.
Allan Green was signed up to speak, but declined to do so.
Commissioner McKee referred to the petition about the Jefferson Davis highway,
and asked John Roberts if this resolution would have died on its own due to being over
50 years old.
John Roberts said the memorial highway never came into being, and the
proclamation was an act by the BOCC, and the current Board of County Commissioners
can retract this original proclamation. He said the original proclamation has no legal
effect today, as the project was abandoned.
Commissioner McKee asked if John Roberts was aware of this resolution from
1959.
John Roberts said he was made aware of it about a month ago, but had not heard
of it previously.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
Commissioner Marcoplos said GoTriangle will make free youth passes (13-18 years old)
available as of July 1st, which can be used anywhere in the GoTriangle system. He said
Orange County should publicize this information.
Commissioner Marcoplos spoke to Durham Tech President Bill Ingram about the
paramedic training course, and Durham Tech is planning to institute accredited and non-
accredited courses for paramedics. He read an email to this effect, and said this is underway at
Durham Tech and Orange County will continue to monitor this.
Commissioner Marcoplos said there is proposed legislation on building inspections,
which states if a local inspection cannot happen within two days, the builder can hire an
inspector from a statewide pool. He said the builder would pay for the inspector, but the local
fee for the inspection would be refunded. He said there is some grey area about whether an
engineer or an architect can inspect the foundation and footings, in lieu of local inspectors, if
they did the engineering for said foundation and footings. He said it is a strange bill, and he
would like to know what this bill would mean to the inspections department.
8
Commissioner Marcoplos said he is a member of the Government Affairs Committee for
the Homeowners Association, and attended a meeting last week with Chapel Hill planners
regarding future land use initiative, Chapel Hill Charting. He said the recommendations made
by the joint Homeowners Association and Chamber of Commerce Committee involved a lot of
issues of interest to the County, such as the Greene Tract, rural buffer, etc. He said the County
may wish to reach out to this group.
Commissioner Jacobs said three members of the Board of County Commissioners
attended a Keith Arboretum community meeting recently and there were issues raised about
how the County handles conservation easements. He said this plays into the issue of people
exploiting farm uses to put commercial enterprises into non-commercials areas of the County.
He suggested having the Attorney look into whether the presence of a conservation easement
on a property precludes some of the things that seem to many people to be circumventing rules
and regulations regarding the difference between agricultural and commercial areas.
John Roberts said a conservation easement and a property status as agricultural/farm is
two separate things, and the terms of a conservation easement takes priority over the farm
status, and must be honored and abided by. He said he attended the community meeting
referenced by Commissioner Jacobs. He said this meeting contained what was directed by the
Board of County Commissioners, which was to provide information about the proposed
conservation amendment easement, reiterating that this amendment had been withdrawn.
John Roberts said the property was inspected, and no violations were found, but a week
before this meeting Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
Staff discovered a potential violation with a deck. He said staff contacted the property owner,
as is appropriate when a concern arises, and the property owner indicating a willingness to get
the deck into compliance, and seek the appropriate permits.
John Roberts referred to the assertion that the Board was advised not to meet with the
individual community members regarding this issue, and said he advised the BOCC not to meet
as a board with a community group on this issue. He said he stands by this advice, due to
potential litigation; however, it is appropriate for the BOCC to hear and engage individually with
constituents on multiple issues.
Commissioner Jacobs said perhaps the Manager and the Department of Environment,
Agriculture, and Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) staff could look at the issues raised, and see if
any remedies exist that are necessary to be pursued.
Commissioner Price said students at Cedar Ridge High School (CRHS) had a
photography contest last week, and many students are here tonight in regards to another
project. She said she wanted to commend the students for their work and art show.
Commissioner Price said two students from C.W. Stanford Middle School, who won an
art contest sponsored by Food Lion, are giving their prize money to a local food pantry.
Commissioner Price attended the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
(NCACC) County Assembly Day, where there was a former commissioners’ panel, including
Senator Valerie Foushee. She said the most common issues across the State are education
and broadband.
Commissioner Rich said the bags at the Commissioners places are available at Food
Lion, and she purchased them for a dollar a piece. She said for each bag sold, Food Lion will
provide 6 meals.
Commissioner Rich said the Food Council met this week, and the Council will be
partnering with UNC Hospitals through a program called NowPow, which puts all providers’
information into one app so families can see where to get food during the summer while school
is not in session.
9
Commissioner Rich said the aqua resolution, at the Commissioners’ places, came out of
agenda review and is about Net Neutrality. She said this will be on the agenda for the June 19th
meeting, and asked if any comments could be forwarded to her.
Commissioner Rich said last Friday was National Gun Violence Awareness day, and the
light blue petition at the Commissioners’ places refers to this. She said Chapel Hill, Carrboro,
and Orange County are part of this petition, which the Chair will sign. She petitioned for the
Town of Hillsborough to be asked to join next year.
Commissioner Burroughs had no comments.
Commissioner McKee said given the action of the Legislature on the light rail funding,
he asked if the Chair would request a response from Go Triangle by June 19th on how this
legislative action affects the plan; the purchase of the maintenance facility property; and
whether there is a plan B going forward. He said would also like to request a monthly financial
report from Go Triangle
Commissioner McKee said, about a year ago, there was petition about district elections
and making them more equitable. He said he is issuing this petition that by one of the fall
agendas, that staff bring forward the process by which the County could move to district-
nominate, district-elect.
Chair Dorosin referred to, and read, the statement below:
Statement from Orange County Board of Commissioners concerning the North Carolina
state budget language that could eliminate state and federal funding for the Durham-
Orange Light Rail project.
The Durham-Orange Light Rail Project was endorsed by county voters in 2011 and 2012.
In April of 2017, the County Commissioners of Durham and Orange County, along with Go
Triangle, agreed to a cost-share agreement that allowed the project to move forward to the
design and engineering phase. Along the way, it twice received high scores from the NCDOT
as well as the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Currently about half of the design and
engineering work has been done and the project is on schedule to qualify for and receive a
50% share of project costs from the federal government.
We are disappointed that, after clearing multiple hurdles in an understandable, data-
driven, non-political process, the North Carolina State Legislature has included language in its
current budget that would prevent the project from meeting federal guidelines, effectively
terminating the project. The language provides that state funding would not be released until all
other funding sources, including federal, have been secured. The FTA requires that all other
funding sources be secured before it releases funds.
If the intent of the legislation is to ensure that no state funds are spent before the federal
funds are granted, which is a reasonable requirement on behalf of the taxpayers of our state, a
revision to the wording of the budget in a technical corrections bill can clarify that matter and
allow the project to proceed.
The cost-share agreement provides that if either the state or federal funding is not
forthcoming, the parties to the agreement must meet and confer to modify the agreement.
The Orange County Commissioners pledged at the beginning of this process that we
would not spend more than the $149.5 million that we committed in the cost-share agreement.
As we consider the prospect of having to rework the cost-share agreement, we want to
reassure the residents of Orange County that we remain committed to this spending limitation.
10
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price, to
approve the statement.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Dorosin said the issue of charter schools is very relevant to the BOCC, and the
state budget includes the provision for municipalities to provide municipal tax funds for
education including for charter schools. He said there is also a bill in the works that will allow
municipalities to set up their own charter schools, and it is likely to pass.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Voluntary and Enhanced Agricultural District Designation – Multiple Farms
The Board considered approving applications from eight (8) landowners/farms to certify
qualifying farmland within the Caldwell, Cedar Grove, and White Cross Voluntary Agricultural
Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County Farmland Preservation; Voluntary and
Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District programs.
BACKGROUND:
Orange County’s Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program was started in 1992. To date, there
are 93 farms in both the Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary
Agricultural District (EVAD) program totaling 12,450** acres. If the BOCC approves the
additional eight (8) farms with 893 acres proposed below, there will be 101 farms in both the
Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District
(EVAD) program totaling 13,343** acres, equal to 5.2% of the 256,595 total acres in Orange
County.
The County’s Voluntary Farmland Protection Ordinance (VFPO) outlines a procedure for the
Agricultural Preservation Board to review and approve applications for qualifying farmland, and
to make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners concerning the establishment and
modification of agricultural districts. Section VII of the VFPO contains the requirements for
inclusion in a voluntary agricultural district. To be certified as qualifying farmland, a farm must:
a) Be located in the unincorporated area of Orange County;
b) Be engaged in Agriculture as that word is defined in NC GS 106-581.1
c) Be certified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United
States Department of Agriculture as being a farm on which at least two-thirds of the land
is composed of soils that are best suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber,
forestry products, horticultural crops and oil seed crops;
d) Be managed in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and NC
Soil and Water Conservation Service defined erosion-control practices that are
addressed to said highly-erodible land; and have a current conservation farm plan
and/or forestry management plan associated with the current usages and owner; and
e) Be the subject of a non-binding conservation agreement, as defined in N.C.G.S. §121-
35, between the County and the owner that prohibits non-farm use or development of
such land for a period of at least ten years, except for the creation of not more than
three lots that meet applicable County zoning and subdivision regulations.
The Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board reviewed the findings of the staff
assessments for the attached applications for the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District
program at its March and May 2018 meetings. All farm applications were reviewed and verified
11
to have met or exceeded the minimum criteria for certification into the program. The Agricultural
Preservation Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the certification for eight (8)
farms and their inclusion in the Voluntary and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District
program. The certification documentation is on file in the DEAPR/Soil and Water Conservation
District office.
Gail Hughes, Soil Conservationist, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
Orange County Voluntary
Farmland Preservation Program
Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary
Agricultural District Program
Orange County Board of Commissions Meeting
June 5, 2018
Orange County VAD/EVAD Program Benefits of Agricultural Districts
Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) is a 10 year commitment for farm to be in active
farm production, but the landowner can withdraw from the VAD at any time, for any reason,
with a 30 day notification to the Agri. Preservation Board.
Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) is an irrevocable 10 year commitment
to be in active farm production, therefore the “enhanced” qualifies farm for up to 90% cost
share rates and a priority for state and federal grants funds.
Benefits include: (listing a few)
Makes public more aware of the local agricultural and its vital role in the economics of
the county;
Recorded notice of agricultural district property is recorded at County Land Records
office;
Land search on all properties within a ½ mile radius has notification of the agricultural
status, therefore, the agricultural landowner has increased protection from nuisance
lawsuits.
Agricultural Preservation Board can request public hearings for proposed condemnation
of VAD land and utility assessments may be suspended or waived on EVAD land if not
connected to the utility.
Farm may receive up to 25% of gross sales from the sale of non-farm products and still
maintain its zoning exemption as a bona fide farm. (EVAD only)
VAD District signs are placed on farms, for public to know location of VAD/EVAD farms
Mary Sue Woods Johnson (Agreement Revocable Trust)
• VAD – 90.44 acres – Caldwell Agricultural District – 1 parcel of land
• Corn, grain, soybean, hay crops, and managed woodland
• Currently has additional parcels of land in the VAD program
Vaughn and Marcia Compton – Compton Farms
• VAD – 44.3 acres- Cedar Grove Agricultural District – 2 parcels of land
• Tobacco, grain, hay crops, and managed woodland.
• Currently has additional parcels of land in the VAD program
Diane A. Pope, Baynes Anderson, Cindy Anderson
(Anderson family property)
12
• VAD – 41.0 acres – Cedar Grove Agricultural District - 1 parcel of land
• Tobacco, grain, hay crops and managed woodland
• Property farmed by Compton Farms
Frank and Susan Hollowell --Garrett II Limited Partnership
• VAD – 170.91 acres – Caldwell Agricultural District – 3 parcels of land
• Beef cattle, pastures, hay crops, and managed woodland
Debra W. Thornton and Pamella W. Patterson
• EVAD- 55.6 acres – White Cross Agricultural District -1 parcel of land
• Managed woodland with a Forestry Management plan
• Property borders Morgan Creek, and other Conservation Easement parcels
Phillip Walker
• VAD- 72.1 acres – Caldwell Agricultural District – 2 parcels of land
• Grain, sorghum, pasture and hay crops, beef cattle, and managed woodland.
Vernon Davis
(includes Davis Properties of Chapel Hill, LLC)
• VAD- 158.56 acres – White Cross Agricultural District – 7 parcels of land
• Beef cattle, pasture, hay crops, and managed woodland
• Farm is same family ownership for 100 + years)
Felicity Farms: Michael and Patricia Criscito
• EVAD/VAD - 259.71 acres – Caldwell Agriculture District –4 parcels of land
• EVAD = 245.71 acres ; VAD = 14.0 acres
• Livestock, pasture, hay crops, vegetables, and managed woodland
Orange County Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural Program
The Agricultural Preservation Board has approved the farm as presented.
Requesting approval from Commissioners to accept eight (8) farms into the VAD/EVAD
program.
591 acres* in the Voluntary Agricultural District
302 acres* in the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District
Total of acres in both programs= 893 acres*
* = rounded acres
Overall Map Acres in Programs
June 2018
VAD = 10,777 acres
EVAD = 2,566 acres
Total Acres* = 13,343
*rounded acres
Commissioner Jacobs said the map is indicative of one of the goals of having the VAD:
to accumulate clusters of farms in parts of the County that will be mutually supportive of each
13
other, as well as businesses that serve the agricultural community. He said when one adds the
VAD to the conservation easements; it is impressive work by staff and the agricultural
community.
Commissioner Price agreed, and thanked Gail Hughes.
Commissioner McKee said kudos to his sister, Gail Hughes, for jump-starting this
program.
Commissioner Rich said it would be nice to get an information item in the agenda about
the century farms.
Gail Hughes said staff will work on this.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee for the
Board to certify the eight (8) farm properties noted above totaling 591 acres* (VAD) and 302
acres* (EVAD); designate the properties as a Voluntary or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural
District farm within the Caldwell, Cedar Grove, and White Cross Voluntary Agricultural Districts;
and enroll the lands in the Orange County Farmland Preservation Program; Voluntary and
Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD and EVAD) programs. With approval of these
additional acres, the Orange County Farmland Preservation program will have enrolled 101
farms, totaling 10,777 acres** in the VAD and 2,566** acres in the EVAD for a total of 13,343
acres** (rounded) in the program.
*acres are rounded numbers
**acres have been corrected to reflect accurate acres, adjustments for enrollment changes and ownership
changes
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Bicycle Safety Campaign Presentation
The Board received a presentation from Planning staff regarding initial activities of the
Bicycle Safety Campaign, review several video public service announcements (PSAs)
completed by the Cedar Ridge High School Videography Club; and recognize the Videography
students and their instructor.
Abigaile Pittman, Planner, Land Use and Transportation, reviewed the following
information:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of County Commissioners received a Bicycle Safety Campaign Information Item at
its May 1, 2018 meeting. Tonight’s presentation is an update of the Campaign work.
The Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee (BSIS) of the OUTBoard was formed by the
OUTBoard in June 2017 to begin implementation of the “Drive Safely, Ride Safely” Campaign
developed by the Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) through its work in 2016-2017. The
Campaign is designed to foster mutual respect and shared interest in road safety between
motorists and cyclists.
Initial Campaign Launch Activities
• The following activities have been, or are in the process of being completed in
collaboration with the Community Relations Department:
o The creation of the slogan ‘Ride Safely Drive Safely’ and logo;
o Design and distribution of brochures and posters;
o Social media ads and posts, and radio ads; and
o The design and launch of the orangecountyncbicyclesafety.com website; in
collaboration with the Community Relations Department.
14
• Production of four (4) video PSAs; purchase of branded marketing items, in
collaboration of the Cedar Ridge High School Videography Club and numerous
community volunteers and OUTBoard members. A list recognizing all Video PSA
volunteers is provided in Attachment 1.
• Bike rodeo/helmet initiative in collaboration with the Sheriff’s Department; and
• The design and installation of road signs in collaboration with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Department of Environment,
Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) (for sign installation).
Next Steps
• Staff and the BSIS will continue to work on:
o The design and production of brochures and posters;
o Website design and launch, and
o Circulation of the video PSAs.
• Attendance at local events will begin on July 1 at the Picnic in the Park at the Farmers’
Market Pavilion in Hillsborough.
• The exact date for a Bike Rodeo will be coordinated with the Sheriff’s Department.
• Social media ads and posts, and radio ads will be underway by late summer.
• Road sign installation will occur in late summer or early fall, following completion of
encroachment agreements with NCDOT. The encroachment agreements will come to
the BOCC for approval on June 19.
Abigaile Pittman made the following PowerPoint presentation:
Bicycle Safety Campaign
Launch Activities
June 5, 2018
Item 4-b
Background:
Campaign designed to foster mutual respect and shared interest in road safety between
motorists and cyclists.
Funds in FY 17/18: $10,000 from the General Fund and $5,000 from the Visitors Bureau
Occupancy Tax.
BOCC received an Information Item at its May 1, 2018 meeting.
Bicycle Safety Campaign Logo Versions
Bicycle Safety Campaign Road Signs
Video Public Service Announcements (PSAs)
The Cedar Ridge High School Videography Club and several media professionals from the
community have worked with the Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee to produce four
(4) video PSAs. Left to right: Jim Fink, Media Producer; Dario Muller, Rivers Andrews, Luis
Guiterrez, Zeke Cambey, Cameron Chaney, Madelyn Compton – Cedar Ridge Videography
Club members
Introduction of Videography Club Students and others from Cedar Ridge High School
that are here tonight
Andrea DeGette, Videography Instructor
15
Dario Muller
Cameron Chaney
Rivers Andrews
Madelyn Compton
Tyler Statkevicus
Zeke Cambey
Declan Cambey
William King
Video PSAs- shown
Riding Two Abreast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnKy5PxdVz0
4 Feet! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dff7zPOmZ8k
Emergency Vehicles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOsdgkQAY88
Reluctant Driver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PsSy5CBGAo
Upcoming Campaign Launch Activities
orangecountyncbicyclesafety.com website
Social media ads and posts, print and radio ads
Brochures and posters distributed
Tabling at events with promotional marketing materials – 1st event will be 7-1 Picnic in
the Park in Downtown Hillsborough
Bike Rodeo/Helmet Initiative
Installation of bicycle safety road signs
Many Thanks for the Collaborative Assistance from Orange County Agencies
Community Relations Dept. (Todd McGee & Melissa Blackburn) – Design assistance,
website advice, and lots of patience!
Orange Grove Fire Co. Station 2 – hosted us for a video shoot, and provided traffic
control.
Orange County Sheriff’s Dept. – participated in a video shoot, and provided traffic
control.
DEAPR – agreed to assist with the installation of Campaign road signs.
AMS – Stored road signs in a secure location
Visitor’s Bureau (Laurie Paolicelli) – Funding, event information and distribution
BOCC – Thank you for funding us!
Commissioner Rich asked if links to these PSA videos will be on the Town websites as
well. Abigaile Pittman staff certainly plans to offer.
Chair Dorosin said he will reach out to the local mayors as well.
c. (was 8-h) Joining the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy
The Board considered voting to authorize the Chair to sign a letter indicating Orange
County’s commitment to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy as requested
by the Orange County Commission for the Environment.
Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Services Director, reviewed this item.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Kathy Kaufman said climate change is costly, and change does not happen from federal
government, but starts at the local level. She said the Board of County Commissioners’ actions
are important, and she encouraged all to go fossil-free. She said Duke Energy is not going to
16
do anything, and there is a lot that the County can to do to make buildings more efficient and
there is a lot of committed expertise in the local community. She said the Clean Path 2025 plan
is an alternative plan to Duke Energy’s plan for new gas plants, as a way to achieve renewable
energy.
Kim Piracci said the Board of County Commissioners signed a resolution last September
for Orange County to be fossil-free by 2050, and she said the Commission for the Environment
is very active in this area, and Brennan Bouma, Sustainability Coordinator, said the Covenant of
Mayors lays out how to proceed. She said she hopes the BOCC will approve this.
Bill Black said he supported the other two speakers. He said this Global Covenant of
Mayors brings different solutions to this problem that they are willing to share, and by joining
this, Orange County would join a community seeking to address a common problem. He
encouraged the Board of Commissioners to support this.
Suzy Lawrence said she is in strong support of this letter, and joining this covenant will
make tools available.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
authorize the Chair to sign a letter indicating Orange County’s commitment to the Global
Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy as requested by the Orange County Commission
for the Environment.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
John Roberts said two members of the public here tonight to speak to Item 8-d. He
asked if the Board would consider moving this item up.
The Board agreed by consensus.
8d. Refund Request – Sports Endeavors, Inc.
The Board considered voting to adopt a resolution regarding denial of a refund request
submitted by Sports Endeavors, Inc.
John Roberts said taxpayers are permitted to make refund requests for taxes believed
to have been collected for unlawful purposes, or where clerical error has occurred. He said
Sports Endeavors, Inc. has made such a request, which is before the BOCC now. He said staff
has studied the issue closely, and made a recommendation to deny the request.
John Roberts asked the BOCC to consider the Manager’s recommendation to deny.
Chair Dorosin clarified that the Manager’s recommendation is to deny this refund
request.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
approve the Manger’s recommendation, denying the refund request.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. (was 11-b) Economic Development Advisory Board – Appointments
The Board considered making appointments to the Economic Development Advisory
Board.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
appoint the following to the Economic Development Advisory Board:
17
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #1) “Non-Profit Agency” for Barbara Jessie-
Black expiring 06/30/2021.
• Reappointment to an additional term (Position #2) “Tourism” for Anthony Carey
expiring 06/30/2021.
• Reappointment to an additional term (Position #5) “Agriculture” for James Watts
expiring 06/30/2021.
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #7) “Core Business Community” for John Morris
expiring 06/30/2021.
• Reappointment to an additional term (Position #8) “Core Business Community” for
John Anderson expiring 06/30/2021.
• Extension Reappointment of one year (Position #10) “Core Business Community” for
Mark O’Neal expiring 06/30/2019. (Extension of a term, is at the BOCC discretion
provided for in the “ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS
ADVISORY BOARD POLICY, Section III, Item D6. REFER TO RECOMMENDATION
MEMO).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5. Public Hearings
a. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and Zoning Atlas Amendments –
Modification of Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Requirements
The Board held a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) text amendment updating existing requirements for holding Neighborhood
Information Meetings (NIM) to be held a minimum of 14 days before said meeting and decide
on one of the following options:
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
BACKGROUND:
NIMs are required for several types of projects (i.e. special use permits, conditional use
districts/conditional zoning applications, minor subdivisions proposing more than
5 lots through flexible development, major subdivision concept plan, government land uses,
etc.) and are typically required to occur before formal review commences (i.e. staff, Planning
Board, or BOCC). A synopsis of the current requirements is as follows:
1. Section 2.7.5 Special Use Permits (Class A or B not including telecommunication
facilities): NIM held a minimum of 45 days prior to public hearing.
STAFF COMMENT: Class A permit requests are reviewed by the BOCC during a
previously advertised public hearing, with review/recommendation made by the
Planning Board. The Planning Board typically reviews the item anywhere from 30
to 40 days prior to the anticipated public hearing. Class B permit requests are
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment during a previously advertised public
hearing with no recommendation/review required by the Planning Board.
2. Section 5.10.8 (B) (2) Telecommunication Facilities:
a. For Class A permit applications (i.e. 200 ft. and taller) a balloon test is held a
minimum of 11 weeks (77 days) prior to the public hearing. Staff attends the balloon
test and conducts the NIM on-site.
18
STAFF COMMENT: This request would be reviewed by the BOCC during a
previously advertised public hearing with a recommendation made by the
Planning Board. The Planning Board typically reviews the item anywhere from 30
to 40 days prior to the anticipated public hearing.
b. For Class B permit applications (i.e. 76ft to 199.9 ft.) a balloon test is held a minimum
of 6 weeks (42 days) prior to the public hearing. Staff attends the balloon test and
conducts the NIM on-site.
STAFF COMMENT: This request would be reviewed by the Board of
Adjustment during a previously advertised public hearing with no
recommendation/review required by the Planning Board.
3. Section 2.9.1 (D) Conditional Use District (CUD): NIM held a minimum of 45 days prior
to the public hearing.
4. Section 2.9.2 (D) Conditional Zoning District (CZD): NIM held a minimum of 14 days
prior to the public hearing.
5. 2.14.2 (B) Minor Subdivisions. For a minor subdivision utilizing the flexible development
option with more than 5 lots, a NIM is required once the concept application is accepted
for review (i.e. after determined to be complete) by staff.
STAFF COMMENT: Minor subdivisions utilizing the flexible development option
are acted upon by staff with no review made by either the Planning Board or
BOCC.
The UDO does not establish a specific timeline as to when this meeting is held.
Standard practice has been the NIM is held after the application is accepted but before
staff takes formal action on the application.
6. 2.15.2 (D) Major subdivision: NIM held a minimum of 14 days prior to the review of the
Concept Plan by the Planning Board.
7. Section 2.24.2 (A) Government Uses: Has to occur prior to the formal submittal of the
Zoning Compliance Permit/Site Plan application to the Planning Department for
processing.
Current regulations typically require a NIM to be held 45 days before a public hearing. For those
projects requiring review/recommendation by the Planning Board, this translates to a NIM being
held within a few days/a week before the Planning Board meeting where the project is slated for
review. Staff has heard from some members of the public, Planning Board members, and
elected officials that NIMs are typically occurring too close to the Planning Board meeting to be
of any real benefit.
To address these issues staff is recommending the following:
a. NIMS for:
• Non-telecommunication facility Class A Special Use Permits,
• CUD, and
• CZD applications
shall be required a minimum of 14 days prior to the Planning Board’s scheduled review of
the item. Per the UDO notices of the NIM shall be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the
date of the meeting.
19
STAFF COMMENT: This is consistent with current regulations concerning the
holding of a NIM for a Major Subdivision Concept Plan and will maintain current
practice of ensuring the NIM is a minimum of 45 days before a scheduled public
hearing.
Staff is not recommending any change to the balloon test/NIM timeframe for
a. Class A Special Use Permit proposing a telecommunication facility 200 ft. and
taller, which is currently 77 days.
b. Amend Section 5.10.8 (B) (2) to require balloon test/NIM for Class B special use permits
to occur a minimum of 45 days prior to the public hearing rather than 42 days. Please
note the balloon test/NIM is still required to be held on a Saturday to ensure maximum
attendance.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff is recommending changing the timeframe to ensure
consistency with established practice that a NIM is held a minimum of 45 days
before a public hearing.
Staff believes these amendments will address some of the concerns staff has heard over the
turnaround time between NIMs and Planning Board meetings, establish desired uniformity
within the UDO where possible, and still allow for adequate time for local residents to become
informed of projects and required review processes.
For more information on NIMs please refer to Attachment 1.
Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 3, and the UDO Text Amendment, as
contained within Attachment 4.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its May 2, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the UDO amendment package. An
excerpt of the draft minutes and the signed Statement of Consistency from this meeting are
included in Attachment 2.
Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer/Current Planning Supervisor/Planner III,
made the following PowerPoint presentation:
PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM 5 (A)
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - Modification of Neighborhood
Information Meeting (NIM) Requirements
Orange County Board of Commissioners
June 5, 2018
Background
• A NIM is a public meeting where interested parties can review/discuss a project with
applicant/staff
• Required for several projects:
– Special Use Permits (non-telecommunication): Minimum of 45 days prior to a
public hearing.
– Telecommunication Facilities:
• Class A (i.e. 200 ft. and taller) balloon test/NIM held 11 weeks (77 days)
prior to a public hearing.
20
• Class B (i.e. 76ft to 199.9 ft.) balloon test/NIM held 6 weeks (42 days)
prior to a public hearing.
– Conditional Use District (CUD): 45 days prior to a public hearing.
– Conditional Zoning District (CZD): 14 days prior to a public hearing.
– Minor Subdivisions (flexible development more than 5 lots) before staff action on
request.
– Major subdivision: 14 days prior to Concept Plan review by Planning Board.
– Government Uses: Has to occur prior to the formal submittal of the Zoning
Compliance Permit/Site Plan application.
Issue:
• NIM typically 45 days before a public hearing.
• Projects requiring review/recommendation by Planning Board, NIMs being held within a
few days/a week before meeting.
• Members of the public, Planning Board members, and elected officials have expressed
concerns NIMs are occurring too close to the Planning Board meeting to be of benefit.
Proposal:
To address these issues staff is recommending:
• NIMS for:
– Class A Special Use Permits (Non-telecom facility),
– CUD, and
– CZD applications
be held a minimum of 14 days prior to the Planning Board’s scheduled review of the item.
– STAFF COMMENT: Notices of NIM required to be mailed a minimum of 14 days
prior to the date of the meeting.
• Subdivision stays as is (already 14 days prior to Planning Board)
• Balloon test/NIM for Telecommunication Class B Special Use Permits occur 45 days
prior to the public hearing (rather than the current 42 days).
– STAFF COMMENT: Ensure consistency with established practice that NIM is
held minimum 45 days before a public hearing.
Amendments address concerns about time between NIMs and Planning Board meetings, and
works to establish desired uniformity.
Recommendation:
The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the proposed amendments;
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment;
3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
comments at a later date are permitted); and
4. Decide on one of the following options:
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
(Attachment 3) and Ordinance (Attachment 4).
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date.
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to the purpose statement on page 3, which states, “shall
be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the meeting.” He said this language was
not as clear as it might be, and he wondered to which meeting the language referred.
21
Michael Harvey said the amendment is to move the items before the Planning Board
meeting, so that becomes the effective component of this. He said, currently, it is measured
from the public hearing. He said the purpose statement reflects that the public hearing is the
operative meeting upon which date the meeting time frame has to be measured from. He said
the notices will still be mailed 14 days prior to the meeting, and if the BOCC approves this
ordinance amendment package, the 14 days will be measured from the Planning Board
meeting, as opposed to the public hearing.
Commissioner Jacobs said he understands that, but finds the written language seems to
refer to the public hearing, and it does not refer to the Planning Board meetings at the top, or
within the subject.
Commissioner Jacobs said to change the wording to make the reference to the specific
meeting.
Chair Dorosin said to change the purpose to read, “14 days before the Planning Board
meeting.”
Michael Harvey said he would do so.
Commissioner Price referred to the balloon tests, and asked if they would occur in
January or February.
Michael Harvey said no; the balloon test is typically held calendar days before a public
hearing. He said the ordinance used to require an annual telecommunication meeting, where
local telecommunication providers would meet with the County in January to certify what
problems needed to be reviewed. He said the ordinance also used to limit when Class A
Special Use Permits (SUP) could be reviewed. He said the ordinance was amended to provide
more flexibility, as well as to address the conflict between not being able to hold one class of
SUP and treat it differently than other classes of SUP.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for
the Board to open the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NO PUBLIC COMMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
Board to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
comments at a later date are permitted).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
Board to adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
(Attachment 3) and Ordinance (Attachment 4).
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the change in language, as articulated by the Chair, is
included in the resolution.
Chair Dorosin said the word change is just in the abstract.
Michael Harvey said it is correct in the attachments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
b. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) – Home Park Conditional Zoning District
(HP-CZD) Acreage and Land Use Modifications
The Board held a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) text amendment modifying acreage requirements, specifically increasing the
maximum allowable size of the district from 50 to 100 acres, and including new permitted land
uses (i.e. public parks and government land uses) within the Home Park Conditional Zoning
District (HP-CZD) and decide on one of the following options:
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
Patrick Mallett, Planner II, reviewed the information below:
BACKGROUND:
The County has begun investigating opportunities and constraints associated with the
development of affordable housing. This includes potentially allowing for development of
affordable housing units on County owned property in addition to existing, or proposed,
government facilities (i.e. offices, parks, etc.).
One opportunity being reviewed is the development of Manufactured Homes (i.e. Mobile
Homes) through the Home Park Conditional Zoning District (HP-CZD) rezoning process.
Current regulations limit HP-CZD to a maximum allowable area of 50 acres. Staff is
recommending increasing the maximum allowable land area for said district be increased to
100 acres.
Further, staff has determined that parks and government facilities are not listed as permitted
uses of property within the HP-CZD. If the properties under consideration were rezoned, other
uses such as a public park could not be developed. The proposed amendment will address this
issue by allowing for the development of parks and government facilities within the District.
For more information please refer to Attachment 1.
Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 3, and the UDO Text Amendment, as
contained within Attachment 4.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its May 2, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the UDO amendment package. An
excerpt of the draft minutes and the signed Statement of Consistency from this meeting are
included in Attachment 2.
Commissioner Price asked if any thought has been given to allowing parks in all
districts, such as commercial parks; and if blanket coverage can be done.
Patrick Mallet said this item refers to this particular district.
Chair Dorosin said maybe the Board can have more discussions about Commissioner
Price’s questions at a later date.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for
the Board to open the public hearing.
23
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NO PUBLIC COMMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
for the Board to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision,
additional comments at a later date are permitted).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
Board to adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
(Attachment 3) and Ordinance (Attachment 4).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments – Home Park Conditional
Zoning District (HP-CZD) Corrections
The Board held a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) text amendment correcting references to the Home Park Conditional Zoning
District (HP-CZD) within the UDO and decide on one of the following options:
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
Patrick Mallett, Planner II, reviewed the information below:
BACKGROUND:
In January 2017 the BOCC approved a text amendment changing the name of the Mobile
Home Park Conditional Zoning District (MHP-CZD) to Home Park Conditional Zoning District
(HP-CZD). Unfortunately, there are still references to the MHP-CZD within the UDO thereby
creating conflict(s). The proposed amendments seek to correct these oversights and ensure
uniformity within the UDO.
For more information please refer to Attachment 1.
Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends the approval of the
Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 3, and the UDO Text Amendment
contained in Attachment 4.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its May 2, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the UDO amendment package. An
excerpt of the draft minutes and the signed Statement of Consistency from this meeting are
included in Attachment 2.
Commissioner Rich referred to the wording changes from “mobile home park” to “home
park,” and asked if micro homes on wheels would be allowed to remain in the newly zoned
“home park.”
24
Patrick Mallett said there is just one category, and the micro homes on wheels would
classify as a temporary residential unit under that zoning district.
Commissioner Rich asked if the micro homes on wheels would still have to move every
180 days.
Patrick Mallett said yes, and these homes would be designated as temporary residential
units without permanent plumbing, wiring, etc.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for
the Board to open the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NO PUBLIC COMMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to for the
Board to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
comments at a later date are permitted).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
Board to adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
(Attachment 3) and Ordinance (Attachment 4).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments – Subdivisions
The Board held a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) text amendment revising regulations governing the processing of subdivision
applications to incorporate recent changes in State law and decide on one of the following
options:
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
Michael Harvey reviewed the following information:
• If the Concept Plan is approved, the property owner submits the Final Plat application,
which is completed by a land surveyor.
This Plat is reviewed/signed by Environmental Health (verifying septic areas have been
identified), Planning staff (certifying the project complies with applicable regulations),
and the appropriate School System (per the adequate public facilities ordinance).
There is a $140.00 application fee for this process as well.
The new law means a 3 lot division of property, meeting all criteria as contained herein,
is only obligated to submit a Final Plat containing the information required under NC
General Statute 47-30.
25
Staff cannot require they go through the Concept Plan application process or even apply
for Environmental Health (i.e. septic and well) review.
All staff can do is verify is that they meet the aforementioned applicable criteria.
Staff is proposing to amend the UDO to incorporate these changes in order to ensure local land
use regulations are consistent with applicable State law. Please note if the amendment is not
adopted, the County is still obligated to process requests consistent with applicable State
standards. Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of
the Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 4, and the UDO Text Amendment,
as contained within Attachment 5. Planning Board Recommendation: At its May 2, 2018
meeting, the Board voted unanimously
Michael Harvey made the following PowerPoint presentation:
PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM 5 (D)
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – Modification of Subdivision
Requirements per State Law
Orange County Board of Commissioners
June 5, 2018
Background
• On May 4, 2017 State law was modified (Session Law 2017-10) changing review of
subdivision proposals.
• Specific Changes:
1. Created a new category of Exempt Subdivision.
• STAFF COMMENT: Currently 4 categories of exempt subdivision
(Combination/recombination of existing parcels ; Division of land into 10
acre parcels ; Public acquisition of land for widening/opening streets ; and
Division of land in single ownership, parcel no greater than 2 acres, into
not more than 3 lots with no street dedication involved).
New category allows a division of property in accordance with the terms of a probated
will, or in accordance with intestate succession under Chapter 29 of the General
Statutes.
2. Limit local governments to requiring Final Plat (per State law) for division of land
meeting the following criteria:
– Proposal is not considered an exempt subdivision;
– Property has not been divided within the last 10 years;
– Parcel is greater than 5 acres in area;
– No more than 3 parcels are created; and
– Resultant lots comply with local dimensional/land use requirements and road
access is recorded/established.
Impacts
• Current regulations establish 2 tiered application process (Minor – 5 lots and under):
– Concept Plan:
• Scaled drawing showing proposed development (does not have to be
produced by surveyor).
26
• Allows staff (i.e. Planning, Environmental Health, etc.) to review and
comment on the proposal.
• There is a $140.00 application fee.
– Final Plat:
• Completed by surveyor.
• Approved by Planning, Environmental Health, and signed off by School
Board (CAPS).
• There is a $140.00 application fee.
• New law means a 3 lot division of property, meeting criteria, is only required to submit a
Final Plat containing the information required under NC General Statute 47-30.
• Staff cannot require they go through the Concept Plan application process or even apply
for Environmental Health (i.e. septic and well) review.
• All staff can do is verify is that they meet the aforementioned applicable criteria.
Proposal:
Staff is proposing to amend the UDO to incorporate these changes in order to ensure local land
use regulations are consistent with applicable State law.
Please note if the amendment is not adopted, the County is still obligated to process requests
consistent with applicable State standards.
Recommendation
The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the proposed amendments;
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment;
3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
comments at a later date are permitted); and
4. Decide on one of the following options:
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
(Attachment 4) and Ordinance (Attachment 5).
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date.
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if well and septic systems still go through the process.
Michael Harvey said under the current regulator process, the County can compel people
to go through the process as part of concept plan review. He said applicants seeking an
expedited process are encouraged to voluntarily go through the process before they record, so
if there are any modifications to the plat, it is better to know this prior to paying fees to have the
document recorded. He said Environmental Health has tried its best to accommodate the fact
that State law says the process can be skipped, to a certain degree.
Commissioner Marcoplos said the intent here is to help people go through the process
more quickly.
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
for the Board to open the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NO PUBLIC COMMENT
27
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to for
the Board to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision,
additional comments at a later date are permitted).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs or
the Board to:
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
(Attachment 4) and Ordinance (Attachment 5).
VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Rich)
e. Orange County Consolidated Plan – Revised Annual Action Plan Update and
Proposed Uses of the FY 2018-2019 HOME Funds
Sherrill Hampton, Housing Director, reviewed the information below:
The Board received input from the public regarding the revised proposed Annual Action Plan
and update of the FY 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development
Programs in Orange County, as well as the revised proposed uses of FY 2018-2019 HOME
Funds and vote to close the public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Orange County completed the required notice and public hearing process earlier and the Board
of County Commissioners approved, by resolution, the FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Update
and proposed uses of funds on May 1, 2018. However, HUD allocated a funding increase of
$111,647 from the anticipated HOME budget advertised on March 13, 2018 and discussed at
the Board’s public hearing held on April 3, 2018. Due to the substantial increase in funding, the
County is holding another public hearing on the use of the additional funds, and staff will
present the revised budget and proposed use of funds to the Board of County Commissioners
for final approval at the Board’s June 19, 2018 meeting.
The public hearing provides an opportunity for the public, public agencies and other interested
parties to provide input as it relates to the revised annual update of the Consolidated Plan and
proposed Annual Action Plan. In addition, the public is asked to comment on the revised
proposed use of FY 2018-2019 Program Year funds. The Orange County HOME Consortium,
known as the Orange County Local Government Affordable Housing Collaborative, anticipates
the following Federal financial resources:
FY 2018 HOME Funds $401,340.00
HOME Program Income $ 13,306.00
HOME Match $ 90,302.00
Total $504,948.00
The above amounts are estimates only and may still be adjusted according to the exact
allocation received from HUD.
The HOME Consortium, known as the Orange County Local Government Affordable Housing
28
Collaborative, comprised of one (1) elected official and staff members from Orange County, the
Town of Carrboro, Town of Chapel Hill and Town of Hillsborough reviewed the applications
received and made recommendations regarding funding for consideration by local elected
officials in May 2018 as follows:
Community Home Trust -- Homeowner Assistance $ 60,201.00*
Empowerment, Inc. – Rental Acquisition $145,000.00
Habitat for Humanity – Homeownership $ 60,000.00
Orange County – Housing Rehabilitation $ 49,211.00
Orange County – County-wide TBRA $150,402.00
Administration $ 40,134.00
Total $504,948.00
(*-Denotes Orange County HOME Consortium’s CHDO Set-Aside)
See Attachment 2 for a revised summary description of the aforementioned projects and their
geographic locations. In addition, on May 22, 2018, the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service
(IFC) submitted a written request to withdraw its application for FY2018-2019 HOME funding.
IFC will no longer serve as the contract provider for the Rapid Re-Housing Program. Orange
County will assume responsibility once again for the program. The Housing and Community
Development Department will collaborate with the Orange County Department of Social
Services (DSS) to directly provide these services. DSS was the applicant for the funding
received under the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). The Collaborative voted to accept IFC’s
request to withdraw its application and awarded those funds to Orange County as the County
will assume responsibility for providing the Rapid Re-Housing Program.
The requested amounts above may still be adjusted based on the exact allocation the HOME
Consortium receives from HUD.
The FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan will be submitted to HUD on or before July 2, 2018. This
Public Hearing is one of three (3) public hearings held as a part of Orange County’s
engagement of residents concerning local housing and community developments needs and
the HOME Program. For a proposed revised timeline of the complete process, see Attachment
3.
In order to inform the general public of this opportunity and encourage participation, notice of
the public hearing and locations at which the public can review a draft of the revised proposed
Annual Action Plan have been placed in The Herald-Sun, News of Orange and La Noticia, as
well as sent to public libraries, local non-profit agencies and placed on Orange County’s
website.
Sherrill Hampton said the InterFaith Council (IFC) submitted a letter in May, asking that
its previous application for funds to be withdrawn. She said, since the County was assuming
control of the program again, she asked the Collaborative to allow the $25,000 to roll in to the
funds designated for countywide, tenant based, rental assistance. She said the Collaborative
concurred with that request, and that is the major change seen here.
Sherrill Hampton said a very minor change was also made. She said every year, under
HOME, the consortium is required to set aside 15% of the funds (minus administrative costs)
received to community housing development organizations (CHDO). She said Community
Home Trust is a CHDO, and she said the collaborative voted to accept their recommendation to
increase their award to $60,201, which takes care of the required set aside for the CHDO.
29
NO PUBLIC COMMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner
Marcoplos for the Board to close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Regular Agenda
a. Request for Approval of the HOME Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Award
The Board considered voting to adopt and authorize the Chair to sign a Resolution
approving the HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Award
to Community Home Trust (CHT); and authorize the County Manager to execute the necessary
agreement(s) with Community Home Trust (CHT) after consultation with the County Attorney.
Sherrill Hampton reviewed the information below:
BACKGROUND:
The Orange County HOME Consortium, now known as the Local Government Affordable
Housing Collaborative, consists of Orange County, the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and
Hillsborough. The County serves as the lead member of the Consortium.
The Orange County HOME Program has $63,200.30 in remaining FY 2016 and FY 2013
HOME funds, which are available for eligible activities to be administered by a Community
Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Of the aforementioned total available funds,
$46,529.40 is available for project activities and $16,670.90 is available for CHDO operating
funds.
In an effort to ensure that all remaining funds from the applicable fiscal years are obligated
and/or spent by the August 31, 2018 deadline, a request for proposals (RFP) was released on
April 13, 2018, requesting applications from nonprofit housing providers eligible as CHDOs.
Community Home Trust (CHT) responded to the RFP and submitted an application to provide
assistance for up to five (5) first-home homebuyers whose total household income does not
exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income. In addition, CHT also requested
CHDO operating funds to defray expenses associated with the sale of the units.
The Collaborative met on May 22, 2018 and voted to recommend approval of the award to
CHT.
Sherrill Hampton said Robert Dowling from CHT was unable to attend tonight but he is
appreciative of this opportunity.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for
the Board to:
1) Adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the attached Resolution approving the HOME
Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Award to Community
Home Trust (CHT); and
2) Authorize the County Manager to execute the necessary agreement(s) with Community
Home Trust (CHT) after consultation with the County Attorney.
30
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Bonnie Hammersley asked if the Board would move up item 7-b, upon the conclusion of
items 6-b and c.
The Board agreed by consensus.
b. General Obligation Bond Sale for Chapel Hill High School and Approval of Budget
Amendment #9-A Related to the FY 2017-18 Capital Investment Plan
The Board considered voting to approve Budget Amendment #9-A related to the FY
2017-18 Capital Investment Plan and adopt the attached General Obligation (GO) bond
resolution for Chapel Hill High School for the following purposes:
1) Formally authorize the sale of $64,400,000 in school bonds;
2) Formally pledge the County’s taxing power to provide for payment on the bonds;
3) Approve the proposed form of the bonds;
4) Approve the form of the draft official statement for use in offering bonds to investors;
5) State the County’s agreement to comply with the relevant provisions of federal tax law
and the federal rules for continuing disclosure to the securities markets; and
6) Authorize County staff to complete the process of issuing the bonds and authorizing
the final principal payment schedule.
Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, reviewed the information below:
BACKGROUND:
On November 8, 2016 voters approved $120 million in School Bonds of which the CHCCS GO
bond allocation is $72.1 million based on Average Daily Membership.
The current GO Bond Financing Plan includes the issuance of $64.4 million in School General
Obligation Bonds for a scheduled June 26, 2018 Bond Sale to be administered by the Local
Government Commission. The County issued $5 million in November 2017 for CHCCS of which
$3.6 million was used for the Chapel Hill High School and $1.4 million for the Lincoln Center.
The School GO bond funds earmarked for Chapel Hill High School is $68 million.
The Local Government Commission has approved the Financing Plan based on a Guaranteed
Maximum Price/Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) and satisfaction of key permitting
requirements prior to the issuance of General Obligation Bonds.
The CHCCS CMAR Agreement is similar to the County CMAR for the Sportsplex Fieldhouse.
The County and CHCCS have worked to develop a Financing Plan that meets the CHCCS
Cash flow requirements, County Debt Affordability, and Local Government Commission bond
approval requirements.
In accordance with the County Capital Investment Program and in advisement with the County’s
bond counsel and financial advisor, the County staff recommends that the County proceed with
the General Obligation Bond sale.
The actual interest rates on these bonds will be set when the Local Government Commission
takes competitive bids on June 26, 2018, and the bond closing is scheduled for July 12, 2018.
31
The Budget Amendment will allow the County to proceed with a General Obligation Bond sale
and closing. The original CHCCS School GO bond issuances included three tranches of bonds
every other year for CHCCS in the amount of $24 million with the last issuance in FY 2021-22.
This Budget Amendment allows the County to advance those bond issuances, and there will
only be $2.7 million of remaining CHCCS School Bonds to be issued in FY 2021-22.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
Board to approve the attached GO Bond resolution and related Budget Amendment #9-A for
Chapel Hill High School for the following purposes:
1) Formally authorize the sale of $64,400,000 in school bonds;
2) Formally pledge the County’s taxing power to provide for payment on the bonds;
3) Approve the proposed form of the bonds;
4) Approve the form of the draft official statement for use in offering bonds to investors;
5) State the County’s agreement to comply with the relevant provisions of federal tax law
and the federal rules for continuing disclosure to the securities markets; and
6) Authorize County staff to complete the process of issuing the bonds and authorizing
the final principal payment schedule.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Limited Obligation Series 2018 Bonds
The Board considered voting to adopt a resolution for the issuance of Series 2018
Limited Obligation Bonds (LOBS) with a not to exceed amount of $8.8 million to support the
County’s FY 2017-18 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The financing resolution:
1) gives final approval to allow the financing to proceed;
2) approves the form of the official statement;
3) states the County's commitment to comply with federal tax and securities laws; and
4) authorizes staff to complete the financing.
Gary Donaldson reviewed the information below:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 160A-20, the County seeks to issue approximately
$8.1 million in Series 2018 Limited Obligation Bonds.
The County conducted a public hearing at its May 15, 2018 Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) meeting and received approval from the BOCC to proceed with the financing. The
notice of public hearing was advertised in The Herald Sun and The News of Orange.
If the Board adopts the resolution, the County plans to close on this financing on June 19, 2018.
Key terms of the financing include:
1) Issuing approximately $8.1 million to finance capital investment projects, equipment and
vehicles for the current fiscal year;
2) Estimate of maximum debt service applicable to these CIP projects would require the
highest debt service of $1.2 million in FY 2019-20; and
3) The tax rate equivalent for the estimated highest debt service is approximately .67 cents
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for
the Board to approve the attached financing resolution which gives:
1) final approval to allow the financing to proceed;
2) approves the form of the official statement;
32
3) states the County's commitment to comply with federal tax and securities laws; and
4) authorizes staff to complete the financing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7b. (moved up) Millhouse Road Park Affordable Housing Options Feasibility Update
The Board received a progress report on the 78-acre Millhouse Road Park site feasibility
analysis for a potential affordable housing development; and provide feedback to the Manager
and staff on the analysis and potential next steps.
Michael Fiocco, Civil Consultants, reviewed the information and brief PowerPoint
presentation below:
BACKGROUND:
At its January 23, 2018 meeting, the Board of Orange County Commissioners requested
information regarding the feasibility for the development of affordable housing options on two
County owned parcels totaling approximately 78 acres known as the Millhouse Road Park site
(note Attachment 1-“Aerial Site Illustration & Fact Sheet”). Staff collaboration has been working
on this analysis over the last several weeks, studying the parcels as a potential site for up to a
34 unit manufactured home park, given the growing community challenge with the availability of
safe, affordable housing units due to mobile home park redevelopment. For the purpose of this
analysis, either permanent or temporary housing units may be considered. The same site
feasibility parameters would apply to either temporary or permanent housing units.
The potential use of this site for housing would be in addition to the site’s potential use as a
soccer park in partnership with the Town of Chapel Hill according to the 2014 Orange County
Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The property was acquired in 2004 and 2007 with 2001
Orange County Parks and Open Space bond funds.
Staff and Civil Consultants, the Site-Civil Engineering Firm engaged to assist in the feasibility
analysis, has examined the physical, land record, land-use, operational, and financial
characteristics that would support the dual use. Representatives from Civil Consultants will
present summary findings (note Attachment 2 – “Civil Consultants Feasibility Summary”) of the
feasibility study to the Board. All primary feasibility reports and analysis can be found at:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/Millhouse%20Road%20Park%20Housing%20Options%20Feasi
bility%20Information.pdf
Transportation Infrastructure, Circulation, and Land Records Assessment. Adequate
onsite traffic circulation and off-site transportation infrastructure considerations appear feasible
and reasonable for a potential housing development. Land records assessments yielded no
findings that would inhibit the proposed development.
Environmental Considerations. An extensive set of environmental criteria have been
considered in this initial feasibility analysis, and would also apply to any design and operation of
a potential development. Initial environmental and cultural/archaeological assessments yielded
findings that would not inhibit the proposed development.
Soils, Hydrology, Public Water Supply Well, Wastewater, and Storm Water
Considerations. The most limiting set of factors emerging from this study involve soils, on-site
public well and wastewater capacity and wetlands. The available quantity and quality of on-site
33
soils for sanitary septic compatibility, in addition to the wells and wetlands pose significant
challenges to the development of a manufactured home park on this site. Based on a
preliminary site evaluation by a licensed soil scientist, there is insufficient area of usable soils
for a subsurface wastewater treatment and disposal system of adequate capacity to support the
contemplated development. An on-site septic system, if possible, would include a containment
lagoon for either a surface drip or surface irrigation system.
Delineation of jurisdictional and isolated wetlands onsite introduces considerable site planning
challenges and preliminary site grading analysis requires some soil import for site balancing.
Although constructing (multiple) public water supply wells is theoretically possible on the site,
County environmental health representatives opine that obtaining the flow volume required for
the contemplated development (minimum of 7,000 gallons per day for a 28 lot manufactured
home park alone) is questionable. The only definitive method for measuring water flow volume
is to dig test wells at a cost of approximately $45,000. Moreover, the North Carolina Public
Water Supply Section, as well as the Orange County Environmental Health Services Division,
must permit public water supply wells. The close availability of Orange Water & Sewer Authority
(OWASA) public water (within an estimated 500 feet) may be a negative factor in obtaining the
required state permit(s).
Alternative Wastewater Treatment Options. Because of the lack of adequate subsurface soil
to support a sanitary septic system, pre-treatment surface drip or spray irrigation system with a
containment lagoon or a state-approved innovative package sewer system could be considered
for this site. Stream discharge, which is required for the innovative package sewer type system,
is physically possible, but requires an exhaustive permitting process by the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (“NCDWR”). The proximity of existing sanitary sewer mains (within
an estimated 1,200 feet) at the Town of Chapel Hill Town Operations Center would likely be a
strong contributing factor against NCDWR issuing a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) discharge permit for a free-standing innovative package treatment facility on
this site. Significant ongoing operation, maintenance, and reporting are required for this type of
treatment facility, should such a permit be obtained.
Conceptual Land Planning. Attachment 3, ”Conceptual Land Plans”, illustrates two “bubble
plan” options for the layout of the site. These illustrations depict areas that would support
approximately 28 mobile home park lots, a soccer park area generally contemplated by the
Orange County-Town of Chapel Hill partnership, and required development features supporting
these uses. Note that the delineated wetlands in plan option 3b would reduce the acreage
available for soccer use by approximately 30%.
Availability of OWASA Water and Sewer Service. Adequate water and sewer capacity is
located on the adjacent parcel east of the County parcel assembly; however, current land use
and utility extension policies prohibit the extension of these facilities.
Land Use Considerations; Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (“UDO”);
Joint Planning Area Assessment. The parcels are located within the Rural Buffer as
designated in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and on the County’s Future Land Use Map and
Zoning Atlas.
Site-built residential uses in the Rural Buffer must adhere to a minimum lot size of 2 acres per
unit. Housing units may be clustered while still adhering to a 2-acre per unit density requirement
which would yield up to 34 housing units on the site. Development of a home park will require a
34
rezoning to the Home Park – Conditional Zoning (“HP-CZ”) district and the standards for home
parks in section 5.5.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance (“UDO”) will have to be met.
The Joint Planning Land Use Plan designates the area in which the parcels are located as the
“Joint Courtesy Review Area” which means that the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro must be
provided the opportunity to review and comment upon development proposals. Final approval
authority rests solely with Orange County.
On-site Public Well Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Limiting Factor
Comparison. Note Attachment 4, “Infrastructure Limiting Factor Comparison”. This summary
provides a comparative view of the feasibility of the Millhouse Road Park site across four
constraining factors for the development of a manufactured home park on this site: 1)
community public well water supply; 2) subsurface septic installation; 3) innovative sewer
treatment package installation with discharge; and 4) extending OWASA water and sewer
services. The comparative illustration also provides estimated timelines for entitlement and
construction as well as associated costs.
No issues with cultural resources.
Millhouse Road Park Affordable Housing Options Feasibility Analysis
June 5, 2018
Purpose
• For the Board to receive a progress report on the 78 acre Millhouse Road Park site
feasibility analysis for a potential affordable housing development; and
• Provide feedback to the Manager and staff on the analysis and potential next steps.
Background:
• Property acquired in 2004 and 2007 for a potential soccer park in partnership with the
Town of Chapel Hill
• Acquisition funded with 2001 Orange County Parks and Open Space bond funds
• Board requested feasibility study for affordable housing as an additional use to soccer
park
• Collaborative Feasibility Study process
– Civil Consultants, Site-Civil Engineering and Land Planning
– Orange County Staff:
• County Manager’s Office
• Asset Management Services
• Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
• Environmental Health
• Housing and Community Development
• Orange County Planning
– 3rd party consultants for environmental, cultural/archaeological, land record
research
Aerial Site Illustration and Fact Sheet- map
Breadth of Study, General Findings
• Land Record
• Environmental Site Assessment
35
• Cultural and Archaeological Site Assessment
• General Site Civil Land Planning
• Hydrology and Wetlands Assessment
• Onsite Septic and Water Feasibility
• OWASA Services Capacity; Land Use Ordinance Modification
Concept Site Plan “A”-
Key feature – there could be isolated wetlands in middle of proposed soccer complex – their
consultants are waiting to meet with the state; if wetlands are less than half an acre the Board
of County Commissioners can remove these and develop. This lay out is more appealing to
Millhouse Road buffering and more of a neighborhood block feel.
Concept Site Plan “B”
This is very close to not disturbing the wetlands but may affect the county’s rural buffer. This is
a more linear site and not as neighborly as concept A.
Utility Infrastructure Key Factors comparison (chart)
Housing Unit Development Cost Comparison (chart)
Discussion, Q&A:
• For the Board to receive a progress report on the 78 acre Millhouse Road Park site
feasibility analysis for a potential affordable housing development; and
• Provide feedback to the Manager and staff on the analysis and potential next steps.
Commissioner Jacobs said this is not a thorough report, because this is a park. He said
there is a goal of providing affordable housing, but there in no examination of the property to
show the environmental values embodied on the property. He said there is no map of the
environmental character of this property, and that which the County may wish to preserve. He
said he would like DEAPR to provide a map, information about mature hardwoods, obliterating
wetlands, and the purpose of buying the park in the first place. He said he understands why 6
soccer fields may be desirable, but the Board never discussed this number. He said his main
purpose in looking at this land was to accommodate manufactured housing on a site that is
proximate to services, schools, and could remain part of the community.
Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to first consider the reasons this property was
purchased at all.
Commissioner Jacobs said there is no such thing as a passive park. He said this is a
low impact park, and this is an inexact report.
Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to consider the likely consequences of
providing water and sewer.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if three test wells are necessary to learn what type of
water flow may be present.
Michael Fiocco said yes; staff strongly recommended this.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if possibilities and probabilities could be learned from
one well.
Michael Fiocco said there is the possibility that one well could produce the water for the
property, but the long experience of staff in this area of the County points to that being unlikely.
Commissioner Marcoplos said one well may deliver enough water for the soccer players,
without bringing water from Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA).
Michael Fiocco said there are many architectural decisions to be made.
36
Commissioner McKee referred to the last slides on cost per lot, and asked if the total
cost per lost could be identified, if well and septic were used.
Michael Fiocco said $102,000, and $89,000 per lot with OWASA.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Josh Kirschner said he lives on Millhouse Road. He said the study, as presented today,
still contains many items for discussion: the lack of water on the site, poor soil condition for
water and septic sites, wetlands, rural buffer, repaying the parks fund for the 10 acres being
used, and the $2.2 to $2.8 million cost of the infrastructure. He said the time frame for this
project is for 20 months, and he thought the County was planning this as a rapid response to
residents in need of housing. He said he admired what the County is trying to do, but this site
does not fit any of the criteria that the County is trying to accomplish, without jumping the
significant hurdles. He said the biggest hurdle is water and sewer, and right across the street is
flat piece of property owned by Chapel Hill that has water and sewer, is on a bus route, and
within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District. He asked if there is a reason the County is not
considering this land. He said the property in question was purchased for a park not a
residential area, and Julia Blackwood would have wanted this land kept as a park.
Cecil Griffin said he has lived in Orange County for a long time, and he has been
involved in past disputes for this same land. He said spending money considering a property,
only to find out it is not a viable option, is not wise. He said Commissioner Jacobs mentioned
setting aside parkland, and now the Board wants to make it a residential area, which does not
make much sense. He said due to the fight against putting a landfill on this property, there is a
detailed study of the wells in the area, including his, that was done by a Duke University
graduate student, and found that the water is not very good quality. He said the only way to pull
this project off is to get OWASA’s water and sewer, which may not even be possible. He said
what if he wanted to put a mobile home park on his adjacent land the County would laugh at
him. He said there is a man that lives near Morris Grove School, who lived in a mobile home,
with well and septic, which deteriorated. He said this man came to Orange County to put
another mobile home on the site, and the County told him he could not do it. He urged the
County to stop spending taxpayer money to pay for consultants.
Shane Purner asked if the County has explored other sites that are inside of Chapel Hill
for this mobile home park, since most of these residents are from Chapel Hill. He said Orange
County should explore options that have the infrastructure already in place. He said there is
already a well on the property of Julia Blackwood’s home.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there are any details available regarding the land
across the street that is owned by the Town of Chapel Hill.
Chair Dorosin said only that Orange County does not own it.
Commissioner Marcoplos said it is an interesting thought to pursue.
Commissioner McKee said the more he sees this project, the less he likes it. He said
the County would do better to buy land, with water and sewer, and put a park on it. He said to
do this project on well and septic, when OWASA services are across the street, would be
insane. He said the property across the street makes more sense to him, and the County and
the Town of Chapel Hill have been discussing partnerships for a long time, and this would be a
great opportunity. He said the residents in need currently live in Chapel Hill school district, and
this property is in Orange County. He said school boundaries may need to be amended, which
does not seem like a good idea. He said this property looks worse and worse with each
update.
Chair Dorosin said learning this information is exactly why the County hired the
consultant.
Commissioner McKee said he was supportive at one time, but is not so much now.
37
Commissioner Jacobs said he does not have an opinion yet, but he wants to have an
informed opinion. He said this is a park with environmental features, and he would like to know
what those are.
Commissioner Jacobs said Chapel Hill is not interested in offering their site, since this
conversation has been ongoing for about a year, and the Town has never brought up its site.
He said Orange County may be able to buy the property. He said staff could inquire of the
Town.
Commissioner Rich said some Commissioners were not on this board when this
property was purchased for a park with soccer fields, and she would like to see the information
from that time. She said it would be helpful to see the context of the property itself.
Commissioner Jacobs said the Board did not discuss what it wanted to have on this
property when it was purchased. He said there was one Commissioner and the County
Manager who had ideas for the property.
Commissioner Marcoplos said this information is not wasted, and he thinks it is a good
idea to ask Chapel Hill about the land across the street.
Chair Dorosin said he would bring it up to the Chapel Hill Mayor this week.
Commissioner McKee said if soccer fields are built, Chapel Hill residents will mostly use
them, and they would need to have a reciprocal agreement.
Chair Dorosin said on the question of context, it is good to have this information before
spending more money on wells. He said the Board took this action because many residents
were going to lose their homes. He said he will talk to the Mayor; have staff look at other sites;
this is part of a broader discussion on affordable housing; and this is outside of the water and
sewer boundary, but incremental changes could be made to this boundary. He said the
boundaries and school lines have all been put in place by the Commissioners, and change is
possible. He said it seems the Board would like more information about the context of the
property; to consider other sites, and asking partners about possible options; and more
information on the timeline for the displacement of mobile home residents;
Commissioner Price asked if water and sewer are across the road, why would the
County put well and septic on the other side.
Commissioner McKee asked Mr. Griffin if he would give him the name of the man who
could not replace his mobile home.
Bonnie Hammersley said there is not a master plan, because Chapel Hill has not
participated. She said staff will talk with partners, and do nothing more with this site without
bringing more information back to the Board. She said staff will also look at other sites.
d. Orange County's Proposed 2018 Legislative Agenda
The Board considered:
1) Reviewing and discussing the Legislative Issues Work Group’s (LIWG) proposed
2018 legislative package and any other potential items for inclusion in Orange
County’s legislative agenda package for the 2018 North Carolina General Assembly
Session;
2) Consider approval of one proposed legislative matters resolution on Statewide
Issues;
3) Consider approval of one proposed legislative matters resolution on the North
Carolina Association of County Commissioners 2018 Short Session Priorities and
Goals; and
4) Confirm five specific items from the entire package to highlight as priorities for
Orange County.
38
Greg Wilder, Assistant to County Manager for Legislative Affairs, presented the
following item:
BACKGROUND:
The 2018 North Carolina General Assembly “short session” convened on May 15, 2018. The
Board of Commissioners has historically appointed a Legislative Issues Work Group (LIWG) to
work with staff to develop a proposed legislative package for the County. Based on the work of
the LIWG, the BOCC then reviewed and approved packages of legislative items to present to
Orange County’s legislative delegation.
For 2018, and in contrast to past years, the Board of Commissioners invited the three members
of Orange County’s legislative delegation to the April 17, 2018 regular Board meeting to discuss
issues of concern to the Board of Commissioners and the legislative delegation. Board
members conversed with members of the delegation, and members of the public also had the
opportunity to comment.
Following the discussion, the Board provided direction to staff and Commissioners Mark
Dorosin and Penny Rich, as the 2018 Board appointees to the Legislative Issues Work Group,
to bring a 2018 legislative package back to the Board for approval. The LIWG members have
subsequently consulted with each other and all seven BOCC members and developed the
attached package consisting of the three attached documents.
The first attached document is a draft listing of potential 2018 Orange County Priority
Legislative Issues (Attachment 1). This document was developed based on feedback from
Board members on the items included in second attachment to this abstract.
The second attached document is a proposed legislative matters resolution on Statewide
Issues (Attachment 2). It includes legislative issues the Board has addressed in past years as
well as
two new items – Restoration of School Impact Fee Authority and the 3DaysCount™ initiative.
The third attached document is a proposed resolution expressing general support for the North
Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) 2018 Short Session Priorities and
Goals (Attachment 3). However, the draft resolution also details two qualifications to that
support regarding an item related to the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and a second
item opposing NCACC’s goal to repeal the statutory authority under North Carolina General
Statute 115C-431(c) that allows local school boards to file suit against a county board of
commissioners over county appropriations for education.
The Board will need to discuss and consider both legislative matters resolutions (Attachments 2
& 3) as provided by the LIWG. Following consideration of the resolutions, the Board will likely
want to discuss and consider the draft listing of potential 2018 Orange County Priority
Legislative Issues (Attachment 1).
The work of the Legislative Issues Work Group to this point is based on the current information
available for the 2018 General Assembly Session. The issues addressed by the Group may
evolve and change over the session and require additional attention by the Group and Board of
Commissioners. New issues may also arise necessitating additional review.
2018 ORANGE COUNTY PRIORITY LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
39
Expansion of Medicaid Program
Support legislation to increase access to the Medicaid program to make health insurance
available to approximately 500,000 more North Carolina residents and as additional support for
rural hospitals.
Item #3 in the attached Resolution Regarding Statewide Issues with Exhibits
Priority School Issues
Support legislation to address the following issues related to schools:
a) * Provide local school systems with calendar flexibility;
b) * Provide full funding for State allotments including Average Daily Membership (ADM)
growth, and support legislation to provide for an overall increase in funding based on
average daily memberships outside of the current formula system;
c) Impose class size reductions commensurate with State funding for staffing; and
d) Maintain full funding for Driver Education;
Item #16 in the attached Resolution Regarding Statewide Issues with Exhibits
* Also see the attached Resolution Regarding the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners
2018 Short Session Priorities and Goals with Exhibit – Goals PE-3 and PE-4
Minimum Wage Increase
Support legislation to raise the minimum wage to enhance people’s economic security, improve
access to safe and secure housing, boost the economy with increased spending, decrease
dependence on government assistance programs, and improve the lives of families.
Item #7 in the attached Resolution Regarding Statewide Issues with Exhibits
* Broadband/Digital Infrastructure
Support legislation, funding, and other efforts that provide counties with flexibility and
opportunities to support options for increasing access to high-speed internet connectivity and
expanding digital infrastructure/broadband capability to the un-served and under-served areas
of the state. Access to high speed internet connections will reduce disparities, enhance quality
of life for all the State’s residents, and broaden opportunities in areas such as education, jobs
creation, small business development, health care, civic participation, and growth in farm
enterprises.
Item #19 in the attached Resolution Regarding Statewide Issues with Exhibits
* Also see the attached Resolution Regarding the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners
2018 Short Session Priorities and Goals with Exhibit– Goal GG-3
Restoration of School Impact Fee Authority
Support legislation restoring Orange County’s long-held authority to levy impact fees on new
residential development to help pay for school construction. The North Carolina General
Assembly approved legislation in 1987, amended in 1991 and 1993, authorizing Orange County
to impose impact fees to support public school infrastructure. Orange County utilized these
funds to fund school construction needs. On June 20, 2017 the General Assembly approved
House Bill 406/Session Law 2017-36 stripping Orange County of the authority to levy the impact
fee. Orange County requests restoration of the authority to levy the fee to support school facility
needs.
40
Item #41 in the attached Resolution Regarding Statewide Issues with Exhibits
Commissioner Rich said the way this was done this year left the Board somewhat
uncomfortable. She said the Board may want to discuss this at a later meeting, and possibly
return to the legislative breakfast format.
Chair Dorosin said he is surprised to hear that, and the outcome is the same as it is
every year.
Chair Dorosin said the priorities should include some of the things deemed likely to be
more successful, by legislative delegation, such as broadband and school issues. He said the
impact fee authority could be moved under the priority school issues, thus having 4 priorities
instead of 5.
Chair Dorosin asked if there is specific criticism of the process.
Commissioner Burroughs said the delegation thought it was not much of a dialogue.
Commissioner Jacobs said he thought the Board got answers that were couched for the
public, as opposed to a part of a conversation with the BOCC.
Commissioner Marcoplos said when a meal is shared together, there is more latitude
with the discussion, and it is conducive to a better relationship with the delegation.
Commissioner McKee said he agreed with Commissioner Marcoplos and Commissioner
Jacobs, and that face time with the legislative delegation in an informal setting bears more fruit.
He said it is a much more careful process with the cameras on; and while the outcome may be
the same, the old process is better.
Chair Dorosin said it is disheartening to think a public meeting is less effective than a
private one.
Commissioner Price said she has not discussed this with the delegation, but it felt
strange for the Board of County Commissioners to be on a dais, while the delegation was on
the floor. She said she thought that there was confusion about the process, but the results
were about the same.
Commissioner Marcoplos said it is not a matter of transparency, but in a regular meeting
the Board tries to do things more efficiently out of respect for everyone’s time. He said the
breakfast meeting is more relaxed, and allows for greater conversation.
Commissioner McKee said he is not criticizing the Chair’s leadership, but it seemed to
flow better in their legislative breakfast process.
Chair Dorosin said he appreciated the Board’s feedback. He said any time the Board
talks with the legislature, the Board seems to feel cowed by it, and this is disheartening.
Commissioner Rich agree with the suggestion of putting the school impact fee under
school priority issues.
Commissioner McKee said he will not vote against it, but in his experience in Raleigh
adding impact fees under the schools may taint all of the other school issues.
Commissioner Burroughs said she supports the list of 5 proposed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner
Marcoplos for the Board to:
4) Confirm five specific items from the entire package to highlight as priorities for Orange
County (Attachment 1).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
41
Consider approval of the proposed legislative matters resolution on Statewide Issues
(Attachment 2).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Marcoplos said he thought the issue with the school board authority to
sue had been resolved.
Chair Dorosin said it is pending, and has yet to be passed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to
approve:
The proposed legislative matters resolution on the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners 2018 Short Session Priorities and Goals (Attachment 3).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7. Reports
a. Update on the Manufactured Home Park Initiative
The Board received an update on the activities undertaken to date, as well as those that
are upcoming, as it relates to the County’s Manufactured Home Park Initiative.
Sherrill Hampton said the mobile home park issue is a small part of a bigger picture, and
Orange County has done so much more for affordable housing, and she is glad to be a part of
these efforts.
Sherrill Hampton reviewed the information below:
BACKGROUND:
The last update provided to the Board occurred on March 20, 2018. At that time, there were two
(2) manufactured home parks in threat of closure – Lakeview in Chapel Hill and Homestead
located on NC 86 South. Residents in the Homestead Mobile Home Park were given until
March 31, 2018 to relocate. The County is leading the effort to provide relocation options for
these residents. Since that time, the County staff worked with the park owner to secure an
extension until June 30, 2018 as it relates to the deadline for residents to relocate.
During the March 20th regular BOCC meeting, the Board approved the parameters for a
contract with EmPOWERment to provide relocation coordination services for the Homestead
Mobile Home Park residents. The listing below details the efforts undertaken by staff since mid-
March 2018.
RECENT AND UPCOMING ACTIVITIES:
• On March 17, 2018 - County staff met with the residents of Homestead Mobile Home
Park to discuss and evaluate potential options for relocation. Residents did not select
the option of securing units in a multi-family complex owned by a local nonprofit in
Chapel Hill. All families selected the option of an alternative manufactured home park.
County staff continues efforts to identify housing options based on the families’ selection
preference.
• March 21 – March 23, 2018 – County staff refined required features of the proposed
new manufactured units, especially those that add to the sustainability of the units,
42
including energy efficiency and durability. Several manufactured home dealers were
identified and County and EmPOWERment staff began contacting these dealers to
secure written quotes. Staff from EmPOWERment began identifying other perspective
manufactured home parks in an effort to assist the County given the BOCC’s approval
of the contract parameters and the time-sensitivity of the proposed relocation.
• March 25, 2018 – County staff received an email from the Homestead Mobile Home
Park owner as it relates to agreeing to extend the deadline for relocation to June 30,
2018. County staff, on March 26th, notified the park residents, County Manager,
EmPOWERment and BOCC about the deadline extension. County staff also checked
with the residents to ensure they received the formal extension letter from the park
owner.
• March 30, 2018 – County staff and an EmPOWERment representative visited
manufactured home dealers to view several models.
• March 31, 2018 – County and EmPOWERment staff facilitated a site visit for two (2) of
the three (3) families to be relocated. The site visit was at the Quick Silver Mobile Home
Park on Highway 70 East. This manufactured home park could only accommodate 2-
bedroom units at the time. EmPOWERment staff was having difficulty identifying
alternative parks with available lots for rent.
• April 10, 2018 – Applicable Homestead Mobile Park residents returned their
“Acceptance/Rejection” Forms. The applicable families rejected the Quick Silver
location.
• April 18, 2018 – Affordable Housing Land Banking/Manufactured Home Park Work
Group Meeting. County staff provided an update on activities undertaken to date and
received comment and input. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District staff was in
attendance. Orange County Schools District staff could not attend due to a scheduling
conflict. Staff from the Town of Chapel Hill also provided an update to the group.
• April 18, 2018 -- The County hosted a meeting with manufactured home park owners.
Approximately forty-five (45) owners attended. The conversation was rich and a call was
given to identify park owners who had vacant lots and would agree to participate in the
County’s new draft Displacement Mitigation Assistance Program (D-MAP). Four (4)
interested park owners were identified and follow-up began the next day with these park
owners. In addition, County staff unveiled the new Manufactured Home Park Revolving
Loan Program. Other County departments participating in the meeting included Planning
and Solid Waste, along with the County Manager’s Office, EmPOWERment, as well as
the Rapid Response Team and Affordable Housing Land Banking/Manufactured Home
Park Work Group. In addition, representatives from the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel
Hill were on the agenda.
Based on the April 18th meeting with manufactured home park owners, County staff
learned of two (2) other potential park closings. In regard to one park, Eastbrook Mobile
Home Park, the County’s Planning Department shared the notice of the proposed
redevelopment. County staff has been in contact with the park owner. The other
potential park closure is under a sales contract but the park owner has not finalized the
closing date. The new owner may continue to operate the property as a manufactured
home park.
• Throughout the period when there have been no scheduled meetings, County staff and
EmPOWERment continued to engage with the Homestead Mobile Home Park residents
43
through assistance from the assigned Family Success Alliance Navigator. This was
done in an effort to stay engaged and provide updates, as applicable.
• May 5, 2018 – County staff held a meeting with Homestead Mobile Home Park residents
in order to share information on the newly identified alternative sites, review the draft D-
MAP Guidelines and answer questions, as well as gather their input. EmPOWERment
representatives were in attendance. After the meeting, site visits to the three (3) newly
identified manufactured home parks (Highwoods, Hillsborough Estates and Carolantic)
were conducted.
• May 9, 2018 – Homestead Mobile Home Park residents returned their
“Acceptance/Rejection” Forms. Two (2) families accepted lots in the Highwood Mobile
Home Park on Highway 70A East. One (1) family rejected all three (3) of the sites
shown. The D-MAP Guidelines required that the County show up to 4 alternative
locations, based on availability. Therefore, no additional sites will be shown the family
that rejected all sites. However, the family will be eligible for assistance payable to the
applicable vendors, i.e. utility and landlord, for security and utility deposits, as well as a
small amount of direct assistance.
• May 16, 2018 – County staff and EmPOWERment representatives met with Homestead
Mobile Home Park residents to finalize their specific lot selections and share information
on the features of the new manufactured units, as well as have them begin to complete
the required documents, i.e. rental applications, submittal of household income
documentation, etc.
• May 25, 2018 – As the County Attorney’s Office finalizes the agreement between the
County and EmPOWERment, the Housing and Community Development Department
will work with the Finance & Administrative Services Department to facilitate the
purchase of the two (2) new units currently needed. The total cost of the two (2) new
units is $89,584.46. To date, no funds have been expended. However, the contract
amount to EmPOWERment may be adjusted to reflect the County’s purchase of the
units. In addition, the BOCC would need to take action in order to transfer ownership of
the new units to EmPOWERment, Inc.
Upcoming Activities:
• County staff and EmPOWERment will facilitate a meeting with Goodwill, the Salvation
Army and Habitat Restore, as well as the Furniture Project, in the coming weeks in order
to provide families with a coordinated approach to securing needed household goods.
• County staff and EmPOWERment will hold another meeting with Homestead Mobile
Park residents on or about June 9, 2018.
• County staff is finalizing the due diligence on the Millhouse Road site and will provide a
report to the BOCC on June 5, 2018. As staff identifies additional options and strategies,
the Board will continue to receive updates.
Sherrill Hampton said residents are still anxious even though the mobile home park
owner has decided not to sell the park.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Curtis Bane said she is the owner of a park, which has aging infrastructure that has
been a challenge. She said the park operates on a community water system, and it is difficult
to get items written in Spanish for their residents. She said assistance in this area would be so
helpful. She said it was a relief to be heard at the community meeting with the County.
Commissioner Jacobs said this was an excellent report, and it is clear how much work
went into this report. He said EmPOWERment is a good partner.
44
Commissioner Burroughs said the County is fortunate to have Sherrill Hampton leading
this team, and it is delightful to get this type of public feedback on a new initiative.
Commissioner Rich agreed. She said the school collaboration meeting involved some
discussion about relocating students if the parks are closing, and she said it is so important to
share information between all involved entities.
Commissioner Price agreed, and said the comprehensive way in which Sherrill Hampton
is approaching this issue is wonderful. She thanked Ms. Bane for taking time to share with the
Board.
Chair Dorosin said Sherrill Hampton has been relentlessly optimistic about this issue.
He asked if there is any update about the two families from Homestead that accepted relocation
help.
Sherrill Hampton said there were three families originally, but one dropped out, and she
has not heard back from one. She said she has heard from the last one, and staff has ordered
one new home.
b. Millhouse Road Park Affordable Housing Options Feasibility Update – this item
addressed above
8. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
d and h previously discussed.
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
approve the remaining items on the agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
a. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from May 3, 10 and 15, 2018 as submitted by the Clerk to the
Board.
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
property tax values for four taxpayers with a total of five bills that will result in a reduction of
revenue in accordance with the NCGS.
c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
values for thirteen taxpayers with a total of eighteen bills that will result in a reduction of
revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
d. Refund Request – Sports Endeavors, Inc.
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, regarding denial of a
refund request submitted by Sports Endeavors, Inc.
e. 2018 Amendment to Orange County Records Retention and Disposition Schedule,
Standard 11: Personnel Records, Item 25: Employee Performance Review File
45
The Board approved an amendment to the Personnel Records Retention and Disposition
Schedule dated April 15, 2013, and approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
December 15, 2015, amending the County Management Records Retention and Disposition
Schedule, Item 25, Employee Performance Review File, Agency Policy, to reflect “Agency
Policy: Destroy in office after 3 years.”
f. Adoption of Triangle J Council of Government’s (TJCOG) Revised Charter Resolution
The Board reviewed and adopted TJCOG’s Revised Charter Resolution.
g. ISLA, Inc. Lease – 501 W. Franklin Street, Suite 200
The Board approved a two year Lease Agreement with Immersion for Spanish Language
Acquisition, Inc. (“ISLA”) for approximately 880 square feet of administrative office space within
Suite 200 of the County-owned Bentley Building located at 501 West Franklin Street in Chapel
Hill; and authorize the Chair to execute the Resolution for Lease and the Lease Agreement
upon final County Attorney review.
h. Joining the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy
The Board authorized the Chair to sign a letter indicating Orange County’s commitment to the
Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy as requested by the Orange County
Commission for the Environment.
i. Encroachment Agreement for Sidewalk Construction Associated with Sportsplex
Facility & Field House
The Board approved a Three Party Right of Way Encroachment Agreement regarding a
Primary and Secondary road system between the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), Orange County, and the Town of Hillsborough; and authorized the Manager to sign
the Encroachment Agreement contingent upon County Attorney review and upon Hillsborough’s
execution of the Agreement.
j. Orange County ABC Board Travel Policy
The Board approved the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board’s adoption
and continued use of Orange County’s travel policy.
9. County Manager’s Report
Bonnie Hammersley referred to a memo at the Commissioners’ places about the
Southern Library process, and said this is an update.
10. County Attorney’s Report
NONE
11. *Appointments
a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee – Appointment- The Board will
consider making an appointment to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory
Committee.
A motion was made by seconded by to appoint the following to the Adult Care Home
Community Advisory Committee:
DEFERRED
b. Economic Development Advisory Board – Appointments
The Board will consider making appointments to the Economic Development Advisory
Board.
46
A motion was made by seconded, by to appoint the following to the Economic
Development Advisory Board:
DONE ABOVE
c. Historic Preservation Commission – Appointment
The Board will consider making an appointment to the Historic Preservation
Commission.
DEFERRED
12. Information Items
• May 15, 2018 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Tax Collector’s Report – Numerical Analysis
• Tax Collector’s Report – Measure of Enforced Collections
• Tax Assessor's Report – Releases/Refunds under $100
• Memorandum Regarding NC-54 Corridor Study Update
13. Closed Session
NONE
14. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
adjourn the meeting at 10:46 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Mark Dorosin, Chair
Donna Baker
Clerk to the Board