HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-20-20; 8-a - Minutes1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 20, 2020
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: Minutes
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Greg Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board,
919-245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the draft minutes as submitted by the Interim Clerk to
the Board as listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the
Board’s proceedings.
September 10, 2020 Virtual Work Session
September 15, 2020* Virtual Business Meeting
September 22, 2020* Continued 9/15/2020 Virtual Business Meeting
*The September 15, 2020 Virtual Business Meeting was recessed and reconvened on
September 22, 2020 thus resulting in one set of meeting minutes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated
with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
Attachment 1 1
2
MINUTES 3
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4
VIRTUAL WORK SESSION 5
SEPTEMBER 10, 2020 6
7:00 p.m. 7
8
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Work Session on Thursday, 9
September 10, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. 10
11
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich, Vice Chair Renee Price, and 12
Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Mark Marcoplos, and Earl 13
McKee 14
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE 15
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 16
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 17
Travis Myren, Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt, and Assistant Deputy Clerk II Allen 18
Coleman (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below.) 19
20
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 21
22
Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners is conducting a Virtual Work 23
Session on Thursday, September 10, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners 24
participated in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to 25
view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video 26
at http://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos and on Orange County Gov-TV on 27
channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable). 28
29
1. Additional Discussion on Potential Regulation of the Discharge of Firearms in 30
Areas of the County with High Residential Unit Density 31
32
PURPOSE: To discuss options related to the regulation of firearms discharge in limited 33
urbanized areas of the County. 34
35
BACKGROUND: 36
This topic was briefly discussed by the 2016 Firearms Safety Committee at its meetings, but did 37
not result in any substantive recommendations to the Board of Commissioners in that 38
Committee’s final recommendation. The proposed recommendations from the Committee 39
included a recommendation that the Code of Ordinances be amended to prohibit the discharge 40
of firearms while an individual is impaired, required discharged projectiles remain on the 41
property on which they are discharged, and individuals discharging firearms maintain adequate 42
backstops. These recommendations were adopted as shown in Attachment E. 43
44
The Board of Commissioners revisited this issue in September 2019 and directed the County 45
Attorney to bring back additional information at a 2020 work session including a map showing 46
more roads, a map showing subdivisions, the current Orange County ordinance, maps of the 47
extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) areas including subdivisions, and Geographic Information 48
System enlarged maps of larger subdivisions. North Carolina General Statute 153A-129 49
specifically authorizes counties to regulate the discharge of firearms (Attachment B). Other 50
2
statutes limit the extent to which counties may regulate firearms in general and the discharge of 1
firearms, particularly with respect to the discharge of firearms on “sport shooting ranges.” 2
3
Ordinances of this type are generally prospective only. In response to a question from 4
Commissioner Jamezetta Bedford about retroactive applicability at the September 2019 work 5
session, the County Attorney indicated that an ordinance adopted to promote gun safety in 6
urbanized areas could retroactively apply to shooting ranges. This response was overly broad 7
and did not specify the strict limitations of retroactive enforcement. Retroactive enforcement 8
would only apply to shooting ranges constructed or developed without appropriate approvals 9
since the County’s firearms discharge ordinance was adopted in 2016. 10
11
To show where such regulations could be imposed, Planning staff developed multiple County 12
maps showing areas of the County with various residential housing densities. These maps are 13
for illustrative purposes only and show where an ordinance of this type could be applicable. 14
According to Planning staff, Map 1 in Attachment A shows a suburban equivalent density – that 15
being one or more dwelling units per 1/3 acre. It is clear from the map that there are very few 16
areas with this residential density within Orange County’s jurisdiction. Map 2 shows a density of 17
one or more dwelling units per one acre. Map 3 shows an intermediate rural density of one or 18
more dwelling units per 1.25 acres. Map 4 shows a substantially less dense arrangement of one 19
or more dwelling units per 2 acres. According to the Planning staff, Map 5 shows all 20
subdivisions within the County’s jurisdiction that contain 10 lots or more, including such 21
subdivisions within town ETJ areas. Map 6 is an aerial map showing lots and buildings within 22
the Churton Grove subdivision, a subdivision having lots of approximately ½ acre on average. 23
Map 7 is an aerial map showing lots and buildings within the Hunt’s Preserve subdivision, a 24
subdivision having lots of approximately 2.4 acres on average with a range of 1.2 to 5.8 acres. 25
26
Regulated areas could be established within designated subdivisions with enforcement focused 27
on discharges occurring within the subdivision. As is apparent from the map, focusing only on 28
areas with suburban like density would create small islands of enforcement near municipal 29
boundaries. 30
31
Durham County previously had a similar ordinance in which the ordinance only applied to 32
discharge of firearms within 600 feet of a residence within one of many designated high density 33
areas. Durham also had a permit process for shooting ranges that existed in the regulated areas 34
prior to the adoption of the ordinance (Attachment C). According to the Durham County 35
Attorney, enforcement proved exceptionally difficult and in December 2018 Durham County 36
amended its ordinance to remove the references to high density areas and now restricts 37
firearms discharge throughout the county if it occurs within 900 feet of the property lines of 38
properties containing houses, schools, and churches (Attachment D). This level of restriction 39
may not be appropriate for Orange County, which is substantially more rural than Durham. 40
41
The County Attorney consulted the Orange County Sheriff’s Office on this issue and, as in prior 42
discussions of this topic, and as Durham County experienced with a similar ordinance, the 43
Sheriff’s office indicates enforcement of an ordinance similar to Durham’s prior or current 44
ordinance would be difficult due to the nature of the regulated activities, that being generally 45
short in duration and, unless visually observed by a deputy, difficult to precisely locate. Pursuant 46
to North Carolina law any regulation such as that discussed would apply to all discharges of 47
firearms in Orange County’s jurisdiction including discharges on shooting ranges constructed 48
after any amendment adopted by the Board and on existing ranges as noted above. Any 49
ordinance adopted would not apply to the discharge of firearms for lawful hunting activities, 50
3
discharges occurring in the defense of person or property, or discharges pursuant to the lawful 1
directions of law enforcement officers. 2
3
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board discuss this issue and provide 4
direction to staff. 5
6
John Roberts made the following PowerPoint presentation: 7
8
9 10
11 12
13
14 15
4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
5
1 2
John Roberts referred to attachment A, map 1, and said the Planning Department 3
classifies this housing density as suburban in nature within all of Orange County that is not 4
within an incorporated area. He said the only large area is Churton Grove, northeast of 5
Hillsborough. He said suburban density is one dwelling unit per 1/3 acre. He said the next map 6
is one more housing unit per one acre, using 10-acre grids. He said these are mostly around 7
Hillsborough and Efland/Mebane, with a few in other areas of the County. 8
John Roberts referred to map 3, which has one or more units per 1.25 acres, and a final 9
map shows one or more dwelling units per 2 acres. 10
John Roberts said the next map is every subdivision in the County and extraterritorial 11
jurisdiction (ETJ) areas with at least 10 lots in the subdivision. He said staff also looked at 3-lot 12
subdivisions, which lead to most areas of the County being covered in yellow. 13
John Roberts said map 6 is the Churton Grove area in Hillsborough, which shows the 14
largest suburban type density. He said there are several hundred houses; with the north side of 15
the development surrounded by farms, any of which could potentially host hunting. 16
John Roberts said map 7 is the Hunts Preserve subdivision south of Chapel Hill, which is 17
not considered suburban density. 18
Commissioner Price asked if the information about Durham pertained to Durham City, 19
County, or both. 20
John Roberts said that was Durham County’s ordinance. 21
Commissioner Price asked if the ordinance has any jurisdiction in the City of Durham. 22
John Roberts said no. 23
Chair Rich said one cannot fire a gun in the city of Durham. 24
John Roberts said cities have additional legislative authority that counties do not. 25
Commissioner Dorosin asked if municipalities have the same authority in their ETJs. 26
John Roberts said no. He said the municipalities can enforce land ordinances in the 27
ETJ, but any police power would have to come from the County. 28
Commissioner Dorosin referred to map number 2 and compared it to map number 5, and 29
asked if the difference between the two could be clarified. 30
John Roberts said the subdivision map has lots that are not developed, and many of 31
them will have lots that are larger than the 1/3-1 acre. He said map 2 has more densely packed 32
subdivisions, but also may be roads along a street and not an actual subdivision. 33
Commissioner Dorosin said the yellow subdivisions have 10 or more lots, and the lots 34
per acre are between zero and 1. He asked if this is different than one house per acre. 35
John Roberts said some of the lots will not be developed. 36
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to one of the subdivisions, which is where he lives. 37
He said they are 10.01-acre lots, and a lot of the yellow ones are one house per 10 acres like 38
where he lives. 39
John Roberts said that suggests the key is not accurate. 40
Commissioner Dorosin said the map says if it is yellow, there is zero to one lot per acre. 41
6
Commissioner Marcoplos said zero lots per acre would mean there are no lots at all, and 1
with 10-acre lots, there are 0.1 lots per acre. He said the key is accurate, but a bit obtuse. 2
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the County was able to regulate firearms in public parks. 3
John Roberts said no, that right was taken away about 5 or 6 years ago. He said people 4
can carry firearms onto playgrounds. 5
Commissioner Dorosin asked if cities could regulate firearms in their parks. 6
Commissioner Greene said no county or municipality can regulate firearms. 7
Commissioner Marcoplos said he thinks the Durham ordinance may work well in Orange 8
County. He said even on a 10-acre lot, if people are shooting it is really loud and if one is not 9
aware of who it is, it can be a problem. He asked if there is a reason why the Board is tiptoeing 10
around this distancing. He said 450 feet of no hunting from public buildings is still very close. 11
He said it does not make a lot of sense. He said it just seems there is a lot of room to put some 12
serious distances in, and still not violate people’s rights. 13
Chair Rich asked if the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) takes Commissioner 14
Marcoplos’ recommendation to impose a 900 feet boundary, would shooting ranges built prior to 15
2016 be exempt? 16
John Roberts said anything in existence today would not be subject to this amendment. 17
Commissioner McKee asked if the Commissioners can create something that is not 18
burdensome to the Sheriff’s Office. He said he served on the shooting committee. 19
John Roberts said he does not know. He said the Sheriff would be responsible for 20
enforcing any laws passed by the BOCC. He said the Sherriff advised it would be extremely 21
hard to monitor 900-foot distance, unless a deputy is present at the time of shooting. 22
Commissioner McKee said that almost never happens. 23
John Roberts said yes. He said the Sheriff is not in favor of the distance ordinance, due 24
to the difficulty of enforcement. 25
Commissioner Marcoplos said it may still be helpful. 26
John Roberts said the Board has the authority to make this amendment. He said the 27
State says the County can regulate firearms, and it does come down to whether it is 28
enforceable. 29
John Roberts asked for direction, or if additional exploration is needed. 30
Commissioner Price referred to the noise, and asked if the BOCC can regulate noise if it 31
is not a shooting range. 32
John Roberts said the County currently regulates the negligent and dangerous discharge 33
of firearms. He said putting it into the noise ordinance as well would not apply to proper 34
shooting ranges, but could apply to people shooting off dangerously in their back yard 35
Commissioner Dorosin said he supported Commissioner Marcoplos’ recommendation. 36
He referred to Churton Grove, and asked if there is any restrictions to one shooting in such a 37
densely populated area 38
John Roberts said there is, and the current ordinance says one cannot recklessly or 39
negligently discharge a firearm. He said discharging a firearm in a neighborhood like Churton 40
Grove is inherently dangerous. 41
Commissioner Dorosin said the current ordinance does not apply specifically to that 42
neighborhood, but to everyone. 43
John Roberts said correct. He said the Board cannot regulate professional sporting 44
ranges, but none currently exist in the County. 45
Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is a formal permitting process to establish a 46
shooting range. 47
John Roberts said there are no professional quality ranges in the County, and all are 48
privately owned for private use, so the total number is not known. He said it can be a naturally 49
occurring barrier, but if it is a barrier that was constructed prior to the County’s standards, it 50
probably satisfies the statutory definition. 51
7
Commissioner Dorosin asked if one was constructed after the 2016 regulation change, 1
would the berm be inspected to determine its adequacy. 2
John Roberts said if it was constructed after 2016, it is subject to regulation, and 3
Planning Staff could go out to inspect. He said the resident is supposed to go through staff, but 4
may not always do so. He said the Planning Department operates on a complaint driven 5
system, and investigate concerns if complaints are raised. 6
Commissioner Dorosin said if there was a regulatory system, and one built a range 7
without going through the proper process, the complaint would be not that it was built, but that it 8
did not follow protocol. 9
John Roberts said staff would have to be able to prove that the structure was built after 10
the ordinance was changed. 11
Commissioner McKee said the firearms committee spent a lot of time trying to define 12
noise, but was unable to do so other than by decibel levels. He referred to Churton Grove, and 13
whether regulations apply to Churton Grove, and said it does apply to any and all tight 14
subdivisions because one cannot discharge a firearm and keep the projectile on the property. 15
He said there is not enough room on the lots to build berms. 16
Commissioner Greene said she is more concerned about the land neighboring these 17
types of subdivisions, and she is unsure what she thinks about all of this. She said just because 18
a regulation is difficult to enforce does not mean it should not be on the books. She said she 19
thinks most people want to follow the law, and having laws on the books can be a deterrent. 20
Chair Rich said she is hearing some support for the 900 feet distance requirement. 21
Commissioner McKee said he needed to be convinced that a 900-foot requirement 22
would not eliminate 70 percent of homes in Orange County. He said he does not know how it 23
would work. He said he knows there are difficult situations, and he has a neighbor that shoots 24
excessively, in his opinion. He agrees with Commissioner Greene that most residents are able 25
to cease, when asked, but those are not the residents who are causing problems. He said 26
those who are causing problems are not going to be accommodating to neighbors. 27
Chair Rich said she is having a hard time picturing 900 feet. 28
Commissioner McKee said it is a long distance. 29
Commissioner Greene said 900 feet is three football fields. 30
John Roberts said Planning Staff can map every residence, in the non-incorporated 31
areas, and put a 900 foot circle around each one. He said it would cover a substantial portion of 32
the County. 33
Commissioner McKee said he would like to see that map. 34
John Roberts said staff would work on it. 35
Commissioner Marcoplos said the Board has to decide what is important: saying one 36
must be able to shoot on one’s own property no matter what, or does one go to another friend’s 37
land to shoot. He said he has given people permission to shoot on his land, and this new 38
recommendation does not take away anyone’s rights. He said the noise will still be loud even at 39
900 feet. 40
Commissioner Greene asked if 900 feet blankets the County, would it be wise to 41
consider 600 feet. She said it may be helpful to have both options mapped out. 42
Chair Rich said the BOCC is considering having a regulation, and Commissioner 43
Dorosin indicated a desire to have a process to regulate the building of berms. 44
John Roberts asked if the BOCC would like this back at a regular work session or a 45
business meeting. 46
Chair Rich said the public will need to be able to weigh in. 47
Commissioner McKee agreed, and thinks this item would need to be done when the 48
BOCC is meeting in public, not virtually. 49
8
Commissioner Bedford said she agrees with the aforementioned comments, and said 1
she would like to know how far bullets can travel for certain types of guns, and the potential for 2
bodily harm. 3
Commissioner McKee said a small caliber gun (like a 22 rifle) will travel less than a mile, 4
but a large caliber gun (AR-15, etc.) can travel several miles, unless one is shooting into a stop. 5
Commissioner Bedford said the permitting idea has more value to her. 6
Commissioner Rich said the Sheriff indicated the last time a stray bullet hit a person in 7
Orange County was in 1967. 8
Commissioner Bedford said it has happened more recently in the municipalities. 9
Commissioner Dorosin said a woman was killed in Durham from a stray bullet. 10
Chair Rich said it sounds like this item would need to come before a work session before 11
coming before a public hearing. 12
13
2. Follow-up Discussion on County Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Years 2 through 5 14
15
PURPOSE: To facilitate a discussion on the outstanding amendments to the Capital Investment 16
Plan following the Intent to Adopt work session on June 9, 2020. 17
18
BACKGROUND: During the Intent to Adopt Budget work session on June 9, 2020, the Board 19
approved amendments to the Capital Investment Plan that advanced the expansion of the 20
Durham Technical Community College and amended several projects in Year 1 intended to 21
offset the cost of advancing that project. The approved amendments are in bold in Attachment 22
A – Updated List of CIP Amendments. An excerpt of the draft minutes from the work session is 23
also included as Attachment B – Draft Minutes from June 9, 2020 Work Session. 24
25
The Board chose to postpone making decisions on proposed project deferrals in Years 2 26
through 5 that are intended to more fully offset the cost of advancing the Durham Tech 27
Expansion project into Years 1 – 3. The remaining proposed amendments are also included in 28
Attachment A, and the CIP project pages that would be amended by the proposal are attached 29
in Attachment C – Relevant CIP Project Pages. 30
31
Finally, the impact of the proposed amendments on the County’s debt affordability metrics isalso 32
modeled in Attachment D – Debt Metric Models. 33
The goal of the work session is to provide sufficient direction to staff to finalize the FY2021-2025 34
Capital Investment Plan for final adoption. 35
36
Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint Presentation: 37
38
Review of Outstanding Proposed Amendments to the FY2020-25 Capital Investment Plan 39
September 10, 2020 40
Work Session 41
42
Capital Investment Plan Amendments 43
Amendments Adopted 6/9 – page 2 44
45
46
47
48
49
50
9
1
2
3
Capital Investment Plan Amendments 4
Amendments Adopted 6/9 – page 3 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Purpose of Future Years – page 4 18
• Board approves Year 1 as the Capital Budget for that fiscal year 19
– Future years remain flexible to adapt to changing needs, circumstances, and Board 20
priorities 21
• Why are the future years important? 22
– Long Range Financial Planning 23
• Debt to General Fund Revenue Policy 24
• Implications for Debt Service requirements and the overall expenditure and 25
revenue plan 26
– Project Management 27
• Resolve project contingencies prior to appropriation 28
• Create staffing plan to manage future projects 29
30
Capital Investment Plan Amendments – page 5 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Capital Investment Plan Amendments – page 6 48
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Capital Investment Plan Amendments – page 7 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Capital Investment Plan Amendments – page 8 42
43
44
45
46
47
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Capital Investment Plan Amendments – page 9 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Capital Investment Plan Amendments – page 10 42
43
44
45
46
47
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Commissioner McKee asked if clarification could be provided regarding the wording of 16
“Chapel Hill staff has acknowledged”. 17
Travis Myren said the County chose those words carefully. He said staff does not know 18
what the Town Council may think, but this project is included in year 3 of the Town’s CIP. He 19
said the County has informed the Town that this may be a possibility, but that is all he can say 20
about that. 21
Commissioner Price referred to the Conversation Easements, and asked if this is just in 22
year one. 23
Travis Myren said this would be the year 3 amount. 24
Commissioner Price said it would not be in year 1 or 2, even though the County gets this 25
money every year. 26
Bonnie Hammersley said the County has been putting money in every other year. 27
Travis Myren said, based on that cadence, the next opportunity would be year 5. He 28
resumed the presentation: 29
30
Capital Investment Plan Amendments – page 11 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
13
1
2
3
4
5
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there are implications for delaying the cyber security 6
investment. 7
Travis Myren said that item is a high priority item, and if not funded in the CIP, staff 8
would probably seek to find operating budget funds instead. He resumed the presentation: 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Capital Investment Plan Amendments – page 12 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Travis Myren said Commissioner Marcoplos asked about the impact of improving 43
response times in the northern corridor, and he said the new EMS substation would improve 44
efficiency by 3 minutes. He resumed the presentation: 45
46
Capital Investment Plan Amendments – page 13 47
48
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Capital Investment Plan Amendments – page 14 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board continue its discussion of 38
the FY2020-2025 Capital Investment Plan and provide direction to staff to finalize the Plan. 39
40
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if a channel repair could be defined. 41
Travis Myren said he is not a dam expert, but he would assume it improves flow through 42
the channel. 43
Commissioner Marcoplos said it is his understanding that without the repair there could 44
be flooding and property damage, and he wondered if this is accurate. 45
Travis Myren said he would get that information. 46
Commissioner McKee said it is an undermining of the spillway. 47
15
Commissioner Greene asked if she could have some clarification on the conservation 1
easements. She clarified that in year 2, $250,000 can be financed by the County, but she is 2
unclear about year 3. 3
Travis Myren said the County is currently funding conversation easements every other 4
year, and the next year in the sequence would be year 3. He said the County would fund them 5
this year, not next year, and then again in year 3, etc. 6
Commissioner Greene said there is $250,000 specified in year 2. 7
Bonnie Hammersley said that funding is for Lands Legacy. 8
Commissioner Dorosin said it might be good to zoom out, and be reminded why this 9
came back. He said at the end of the budget season, the Board voted to move up the Durham 10
Tech project. He said there would be offsetting delays in the CIP to make it revenue neutral, 11
and not raise taxes. He said the year one amount was $1 million added, and the Board voted to 12
find the savings for year 1. He said the issue before the Board currently is figuring out savings 13
for years 2 and 3. He said the slideshow indicates proposals from him and Commissioner Price, 14
some of which they agreed on and others they did not. 15
Commissioner Dorosin said the intent of moving forward with Durham Tech is to have no 16
additional costs moving forward. He said the other thing to remember is the Board will have to 17
do this every spring, and all projects will be funded based on actuals revenues and costs. He 18
said he hopes the Board can support this Durham Tech item, which is consistent with the 19
Board’s critical mission focus on education in this County. 20
Commissioner McKee said he would like to hear other comments before he proceeds 21
with making his comments or recommendation to the Board. 22
Commissioner Price echoed Commissioner Dorosin’s comments, and sees this as an 23
investment opportunity. She asked if the impact of delaying the replacement of older vehicles, 24
and if employees will still be safe. She said she is feeling nervous about putting off the 25
technology needs. 26
Commissioner Marcoplos said a lot of these items would spark public interest, and he 27
asked if the BOCC is able to inform/receive input from the public. He said it is important to 28
engage the public. 29
Chair Rich said this would have to come back during a regular meeting, and the public 30
would have a chance to weigh in then. 31
Chair Rich asked if the Board could go back through the slideshow, item by item. 32
Commissioner Dorosin said the goal is to make things balance, and staff has identified 33
projects that were included erroneously, or projects that can be delayed. He asked if there are 34
items that are not on this list that should be considered. 35
Bonnie Hammersley said staff went back through the CIP, and this is everything in the 36
CIP. 37
38
Soccer.com 39
Commissioner McKee asked if the Board votes to delay this, the project will be moved 40
from year 2 to the out years in order to accommodate the Durham Tech project. 41
Bonnie Hammersely said yes. 42
Commissioner Dorosin said soccer.com is already being delayed to year 3. 43
Commissioner McKee said he has no issue with moving this project out. 44
Commissioner Marcoplos said he would like more information. He said this is a wildly 45
popular resource and delaying it could have economic and recreational impact. He said he is 46
60% in favor of delaying soccer.com. 47
Commissioner Bedford said she is still not convinced that Durham Tech should be 48
moved up to years 1, 2 and 3, and she will vote no to delaying soccer.com. She said the 49
County is beginning a facilities study and does not know what resources will come available, 50
and higher education is in flux, due to Covid, and it would be wise to just wait. She said the 51
16
Durham Tech project is not worth putting the County in a financial bind. She said the prior Board 1
set aside $2 million for land banking for mobile home residents, with $300,000 having been 2
used. She said she would be open to identifying some of the remaining $1.7 million to move 3
forward with Durham Tech. 4
Commissioner Price asked if staff has an understanding from soccer.com as to the 5
impact of delaying this project. 6
Bonnie Hammersley said the County will not be able to attract the larger soccer 7
tournaments. She said soccer.com has naming rights to the facility, but the County does all the 8
day-to-day management, and does not go through soccer.com for anything. 9
David Stancil, Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) Director, said 10
the current soccer fields are very active, and maxed out in every way. He said the expansion 11
would allow the facility to go to the next level. He said the delay would move the expansion out 12
to year 6 to 10. 13
Chair Rich asked if a public private partnership would be possible. 14
David Stancil said it is a possible on a limited scale. He said the amount of funding 15
would not be large. 16
17
18
19
20
IT Infrastructure 21
Commissioner McKee said the Board should not delay the infrastructure project. He 22
said this directly affects the petition he made last week about expanding broadband, and the 23
County does not want to get behind on software. 24
Commissioner Price said she was concerned about the replacement schedule being 25
delayed, and good equipment is needed for County employees. She said she is willing to delay 26
the fiber, but would want to keep current with aging equipment. 27
Commissioner Dorosin echoed those comments, and recommending keeping the $1.6 28
million cut, and split the computer replacements between two years. 29
Commissioner Greene said she agreed with Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner 30
Price. 31
32
Lands Legacy 33
Commissioner Marcoplos said he would not be able to support delaying lands legacy. 34
Commissioner Greene asked if $250,000 is restored through County financing. 35
Bonnie Hammersley said everything in the CIP is financed, and the chart is just saying 36
that of the $500,000, the County is responsible for $250,000, which would be financed. 37
Commissioner Greene said she would oppose the delay. 38
Commissioner Dorosin said this item has a $1.8 million balance, and the delay is not 39
tantamount to abandoning the program. He said the County will continue to be committed to 40
this project, and a one-time delay is not significant. 41
Commissioner Price said there is a balance, but it is her understanding that that balance 42
is going to be used this fiscal year. 43
Travis Myren said it all depends on the Board moving forward with the property 44
acquisition. He said if the Board does so, then there would be $300,000 remaining. 45
Commissioner Price asked if there is an update on this project. 46
Travis Myren said the grant has been awarded, and now the County would need to 47
follow through with the land acquisition. 48
Commissioner Price asked if the County has identified properties to acquire. 49
Travis Myren said yes. 50
17
Commissioner Price said she would want to keep this in, as it is directly related to 1
climate change issues. 2
Commissioner McKee said this project is of high value, and should not be delayed. 3
Commissioner Greene said she appreciates Commissioners Dorosin’s point. She said it 4
is only $250,000, and she thinks there has to be a work around. She said the members of the 5
public think the BOCC wants to kill the Lands Legacy, which is not accurate 6
Chair Rich said she would like to find the $250,000 somewhere else. She said Lands 7
Legacy was on a bond way back when, and when residents vote on a bond, she feels the 8
BOCC should spend the money as it said it would. She said perhaps the Board can use some 9
of the $1.7 million referenced by Commissioner Bedford. 10
Commissioner Dorosin said for the record that this is no longer bond money. 11
Bonnie Hammersley said that is correct. 12
Chair Rich apologized, and asked how the County adds money to Lands Legacy. 13
Travis Myren said this would be the first time the County has added money, and would 14
be a multiyear effort to replenish this fund. 15
Bonnie Hammersley said when staff brings this back, it will present 2 options for further 16
discussion, based on objections heard tonight. 17
Commissioner Price clarified that there are not enough BOCC members wanting to take 18
this off. 19
Chair Rich said yes, and staff will bring back options. 20
Commissioner Price said she wants to save Lands Legacy. 21
Bonnie Hammersley said that is what staff is hearing as the majority opinion at this time. 22
23
Lake Orange Dam 24
Travis Myren said this is a painting job and has nothing to do with the structural integrity. 25
Chair Rich said to move on. 26
27
Little River Park – Phase 2 28
Bonnie Hammersley said this park is in Durham and Orange counties, but Orange 29
County manages all operations. She said staff informed Durham County that Orange County 30
would be delaying this project, and Durham County understood. 31
Travis Myren said staff would want to move forward with $50,000 in road repairs. 32
David Stancil said the actual total is $100,000 with the costs being split between to the 33
two counties. 34
35
Twin Creeks 36
Commissioner Marcoplos said Twins Creek has been promised for a long, long time, 37
and he has a hard time telling the public it will be delayed even further. 38
Commissioner Price said she was on the committee for this park way back when, but 39
she does not know where it stands at this point. She expressed she does not have a problem 40
delaying this project, and would suggest staff get an update on this project. 41
David Stancil said there is an adopted master plan, but it is 10-15 years old. He said 42
there has been conversations with Carrboro about the road at the southern end of the property. 43
He said these particular funds are design and engineering funds for year 3 of the project. He 44
said this project has been delayed, but it also has other obstacles to overcome. 45
46
Old Courthouse Square 47
Travis Myren said this is repair funding, and staff would prioritize the roof. 48
There were no comments. 49
50
Vehicle Replacements 51
18
Commissioner Price said she would like to know how old the vehicles that would be 1
replaced. 2
Travis Myren said he would get more information. 3
4
Millhouse Road Park 5
Chair Rich said this land is owned by the County, and is not within the Town of Chapel 6
Hill City limits. 7
There were no Board comments. 8
9
Twin Creeks 10
Travis Myren said this is construction money that was tied to engineering cost in the 11
previous slide. 12
Commissioner Marcoplos said delaying this item would push the start of construction to 13
20 years after the original plan was thought up. He said this item has been pushed too many 14
times. 15
16
Conservation Easements 17
Commissioner Greene said she is clear on this issue now, but does not want to see 18
them go. 19
Commissioner Marcoplos agreed. 20
Commissioner Price asked if there are projects in the queue where this money would be 21
needed. 22
David Stancil said there are about 12 farms that are interested in pursuing easements, 23
and this project has always moved at the speed of funds available, which has been faster at 24
some times than others. He said there is $500,000 approved in the current year, and this would 25
be the next installment in year 3. 26
Commissioner Price said the County gets a match from the state, and has properties 27
interested in the program. She asked if all those interested can be executed this year, or would 28
they have to carry over. 29
David Stancil said there is never enough money to meet the interest, and so they carry 30
over from year to year and move forward as funds are available. 31
Commissioner Greene said the Board has not heard from her recently about her 32
participation in the Upper Neuse River Basin Authority (UNRBA), but she will have an update 33
shortly. She said the County will be faced with a decision on how to go forward with a realistic 34
plan to fulfill the County’s obligation of improving the water quality of Falls Lake. She said 35
hopefully the State authority will buy off on it, and allow the County to count the conservation of 36
land as credit towards debt that is owed. She said that is an additional reason why she was not 37
in favor of losing this money in this fiscal year. 38
Travis Myren said he is hearing a mixed bag of votes. 39
Commissioner Dorosin said the Board funds this program every other year, and will 40
continue to do so moving forward. He said it is a question of balancing priorities, and making 41
tough decisions. 42
Chair Rich said she agrees with Commissioner Dorosin, and feels a great deal has been 43
accomplished. She said she would not mind delaying this item, but is hearing mixed opinions 44
from the Board. 45
Commissioner McKee said this is an example of every $2 spent costs the County $1. 46
He said these conservation easements started off very sketchy and slowly, as there was 47
concern about the entire program, but it has increased in popularity over the years, and has 48
conserved as much, if not more, land than Lands Legacy. 49
Chair Rich echoed Commissioner Dorosin’s comments about being able to bring this 50
back in year 3. 51
19
Commissioner McKee said he cannot argue with that, but feels the County must be 1
careful about delaying items where full blown partners are picking up half the cost, and a 2
program that has become well respected and trusted. 3
Commissioner Price said this is a really important program, and a great deal of effort has 4
been put into it. She said losing the momentum now would be a shame. She said Durham 5
Tech would help people, but the County needs to continue helping the farming community. 6
Commissioner Greene thanked Commissioner McKee for his perspective. 7
8
Blackwood Farm Park 9
David Stancil said the nature center is part of the park master plan, but it is not part of 10
the construction project that has already been approved. He said staff is still working with 11
several organizations to help fund at least 50% of the nature center, but there are no 12
commitments as yet. 13
Chair Rich said it sounds like a good one to delay. 14
15
Old Courthouse 16
Travis Myren said if staff were to prioritize one part, it would be the stone sidewalk 17
repair. 18
Commissioner Greene asked if the Old Courthouse is ADA accessible. 19
Travis Myren said it is compliant, but someone with mobility issues would have a difficult 20
time navigating this portion of the sidewalk. 21
Commissioner Greene said there are other ways to access the building. 22
23
IT – infrastructure 24
Commissioner McKee said he does not support a delay, and wants to avoid a crisis. 25
Commissioner Marcoplos said he liked Commissioner Dorosin’s comments before about 26
delaying a portion of the amendment. He said some of these funds could be available. He said 27
delaying the cyber security could be a problem, and he would like more details. 28
Commissioner Dorosin said the numbers on this slide presumed there are no 29
replacements in the earlier years. He said the numbers would change if the Board replaced the 30
oldest ones in year 2. 31
Commissioner Greene said she is also concerned about the cyber security, and would 32
prefer not to delay that portion. 33
Commissioner Price said she would not want to delay the cyber security either. 34
Travis Myren said these issues walk hand in hand. He said if the Board moves forward 35
with cyber security, then the $254,000 would follow. 36
Commissioner McKee said he is favor of this. 37
Chair Rich said it is $354,000 by keeping the items together. 38
Commissioner Price said if the County is attacked, it will be far more expensive in the 39
long run. She said the previous attack took weeks to mitigate. 40
Travis Myren said the last attack led to a few days of total shut down, but took months to 41
fully clean up. 42
Commissioner McKee said, for better or worse, everyone is wholly dependent on 43
devices, and the County cannot delay. He said it is important to remain on an IT schedule. 44
Commissioner Marcoplos said he is reticent to delay, but he is open to persuasion. He 45
said he is just scratching the surface on his knowledge level, and he reserves the right to hear 46
more information and possibly be persuaded. 47
Chair Rich said this looks divided at this time, and staff will bring back more information. 48
49
Vehicle Replacement 50
Travis Myren said he would bring more information back. 51
20
1
EMS Substation 2
Commissioner McKee said he is fine with delaying this project, and there is a successful 3
colocation movement underfoot, and he is hesitant to build new stand-alone stations. He said 4
the 3-minute savings may not be worth it. 5
Commission Marcoplos said he would like to learn more, and 3 minutes can make a 6
huge difference. He said he would like to see pros and cons. 7
Commissioner Dorosin echoed Commissioner McKee, 8
Chair Rich echoed Commissioner McKee. 9
Commissioner Price said she would like more information before making a decision. 10
Chair Rich said staff can bring back more information. 11
Bonnie Hammersley said this is a very uncertain item, as no site has been identified, and 12
there will be a leadership change. 13
Chair Rich said it seems the Board is leaning towards a delay. 14
15
Chair Rich asked if this entire item needs to come back to another work session, or it is 16
ready for a regular Business Meeting. 17
Travis Myren said staff will look at it and see where it best fits. 18
Commissioner McKee said the BOCC moved Durham Tech to years 1, 2 and 3, and 19
asked if the original years for this item could be identified. 20
Travis Myren said years 6-10. 21
Bonnie Hammersley said her recommendation was years 6-10, because it might have 22
become part of a bond. 23
Commissioner McKee asked for the Board’s indulgence in his comments. He said 24
Durham Tech is an integral part of the education system in Orange County. He said he has 25
supported it for 10 years. He said the County is facing a full-blown crisis, which could affect a 26
generation of students, and despite the very best efforts of the school systems and teachers, 27
the most vulnerable of students are not currently receiving a good education. He said the 28
children with parents who can afford a tutor, or have a parent who can stay home, will be fine; 29
but the students whose parents who are working two jobs, lack the technical ability to help their 30
children, and those children with special needs are going to fall behind drastically. He said the 31
BOCC must address this discrepancy. He recommended returning Durham Tech to years 6-10, 32
and taking the funding associated with it and reallocating it to any necessary infrastructure to 33
ensure that every house has broadband. He said there are students who have to do their work 34
in a car in a school parking lot, which is unforgiveable. 35
Commissioner McKee asked if Durham Tech could be repositioned to its original years 36
of 6-10, and use the funds to ensure broadband availability in Orange County. 37
Commissioner Bedford said she agreed with Commissioner McKee that broadband for 38
all is a greater need, but does not know if the County can be involved in such activity. 39
Commissioner McKee said as he understands the County can build towers, can lay fiber, 40
and then present the infrastructure to a carrier, as the County cannot operate it. He asked if the 41
Attorney could verify this information. 42
John Roberts said he is hearing a recommendation to build infrastructure, at the 43
County’s expense, and then to give it a provider to operate. He said he does not think there is 44
legal authority to do this. He said the Fiber Act did not pass, which would have allowed for 45
counties and cities to build infrastructure and lease it to service providers. He said without the 46
authority to do so, the County can only give grants to service providers and hope they will build. 47
He said grants could be an option. 48
Commissioner Price said Durham Tech was pushed out to year 6, and the Board started 49
looking for another building for the Orange County campus years ago. She said this is not a new 50
project. 51
21
Commissioner Dorosin said he is the current commissioner on Durham Tech (DT) 1
Board. He said the new DT president has made a commitment to focus on Orange County, 2
which makes the project all the more urgent. 3
Commissioner Dorosin referred to Commissioner McKee’s proposal, and the troubles 4
with accessing online learning. He agreed with the assessment about students being hurt by 5
the current situation, but he has a lot of concerns with the County building this infrastructure and 6
then giving it away with the hope that companies would provide services to residents. He said 7
there is renewed focus at the Governor’s office on expansion of broadband. He said the 8
Durham Tech project is critical. He said he would be interested in learning more about 9
Commissioner McKee’s idea, but there is not enough information to push such a project forward 10
without more information. 11
Chair Rich said she has been working with the Legislature and Jim Northrup, Chief 12
Information Officer, and it continues to get harder and harder to make progress. She said the 13
Governor has put money on the table for immediate Internet access, but there is a bigger issue 14
as Commissioner McKee said. She said the red tape is ridiculous, but she feels uncomfortable 15
building infrastructure and then giving it away. She said broadband should be a utility. 16
Chair Rich referenced a study that Katie Loovis did for a study skills center, which is in 17
need of a building space. She said providing the DT space seems important and timely, and 18
she would like to find a way to work out the budget. 19
Commissioner McKee said he is well aware that this is a long-term problem. He said he 20
is old enough to remember separate but equal, and regardless of the issue, he never wants to 21
return to that way of practicing education. He said everyone is essentially held hostage to the 22
screens, and it is wrong to prioritize building a building when students are sitting outside trying 23
to access schoolwork. He said he understands the importance getting Durham Tech up to 24
speed, but students are losing a full year of education because they do not have Internet. 25
Commissioner Marcoplos said Commissioner McKee made a very ambitious proposal, 26
and raised many questions. He said he would like to let the election happen, and see if there is 27
a Democrat majority in the legislature that will allow municipalities to control the internet. He 28
said that is the end goal, and by next spring there should be more information. 29
Chair Rich said Durham Tech still has the Boards’ support of keeping it in years 1-3. 30
Commissioner McKee said he just wants to start the discussion. He said his short-term 31
solution is to fund hotspots for students. He said he would like to find $150,000-$200,000 to 32
purchase additional hotspots. 33
Chair Rich said Commissioner McKee’s numbers are not matching up with what the 34
schools have reported. She said 400 hot spots have been received, and staff can follow up. 35
36
37
3. Discussion Regarding the Membership Composition of the Planned Committee to 38
Examine the Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of 39
Commissioners 40
41
PURPOSE: To discuss the membership composition of the planned committee to be appointed 42
to make recommendations on the election method for members of the Orange County Board of 43
Commissioners. 44
45
BACKGROUND: At the Board of Commissioners’ April 7, 2020 Virtual Business meeting, a 46
petition was voiced that the Board discuss and potentially change a portion of the process under 47
which some or all Board members are elected. 48
49
The Board subsequently discussed the issue at its May 5, 2020 Virtual Business meeting and 50
voted to: 51
22
1) Establish a committee to study alternative methods of election; 1
2) Select members for the committee no later than January 31, 2021; 2
3) Have the committee review options and report back by July 31, 2021; and 3
4) For the Board to review the recommendations, and if necessary conduct public hearings 4
and make a decision in time for the March 2022 primary election. 5
6
CURRENT CONSIDERATION 7
This item is presented for the Board to discuss the membership composition of the proposed 8
committee. During the May 5th meeting, there was discussion that the group should consist of 9
experts, residents, nonprofits, etc., but there was not consensus. There was, however, 10
consensus that the Board of Commissioners, as constituted after December 7, 2020 should 11
decide on the ultimate individual appointees to the committee. 12
13
Staff seeks direction from the Board on: 14
• the total number of members the committee should include; 15
• whether the committee should consist entirely of residents; 16
• whether election or other experts will be considered/appointed; 17
• whether there should be representation from nonprofit entities; 18
• whether there will be a formal application process; and 19
• any other details regarding the establishment of the committee. 20
21
Assuming there is an application process, a formal determination now of the general 22
consistency and number of members of the committee will allow the Clerk’s office to begin 23
soliciting membership applications and should allow for a sizeable pool of candidates for the 24
Board to review by December 7, 2020, with appointments made by the January 31, 2021 25
deadline. 26
27
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board discuss the nature of the 28
committee to be established based on the considerations noted above and provide direction to 29
staff. 30
31
John Roberts said this committee will be appointed by the new Board in December. He 32
said the goal this evening is to determine the number of committee members, the type of 33
qualifications, residency, etc. 34
Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to see a committee of approximately 12-15 35
residents, with an application process that strives for demographic and geographic diversity. He 36
would like the committee members to determine the need for experts. 37
Chair Rich restated the committee dates in the abstract. 38
Commissioner Greene said she likes Commissioner Dorosin’s comments, and likes an 39
application. She said there are a lot of educated people in this community. 40
Commissioner Bedford said the Board may want to have a member of the County 41
Attorney’s Office on the committee. She said a Board of Elections staff member may be a 42
conflict of interest, but it might be wise to suggest resources for appropriate input such as the 43
School of Government. 44
David Hunt asked if these committee members will be at-large positions, with the BOCC 45
seeking to secure diversity. 46
Chair Rich said she would not even say at large, but just seek those interested in being 47
on the committee. She said the Commissioners would review applications and make sure the 48
appropriate balance is present. She said the BOCC does need to determine what is included 49
on the application. 50
23
Commissioner Price asked if there is a timeline for the application being created. 1
Chair Rich said the Clerk’s Office could pull together an application that solicits basic 2
information. 3
Commissioner Bedford asked if the basic advisory board application could be tweaked 4
for this use. 5
Thom Freeman-Stuart, Assistant Deputy Clerk I, asked if the current application could be 6
used. 7
Chair Rich said she expects so. 8
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the BOCC could look back at how prior committees 9
were formed to do this work. 10
Chair Rich said staff will follow up on this process. 11
12
4. Discussion of Travel Policies and Procedures for the Board of County 13
Commissioners 14
15
PURPOSE: To discuss appropriate guidelines for travel and transportation required of elected 16
officials conducting business for Orange County. 17
18
BACKGROUND: The County has established policy and procedures for the purposes of 19
authorizing and providing funds for County employees to travel for County business. These 20
policy and procedures are approved by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), administered by the 21
Finance and Administrative Services department, and reviewed regularly. The policy and 22
procedures apply to all Orange County departments and employees, except departments of 23
elected officials. Elected officials may choose to follow the County’s policy and procedures or 24
develop an alternate policy. 25
26
The School of Government (SOG) at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill encourages 27
local governments to establish a County Commissioner/Elected Official travel policy as a best 28
practice and for accountability. 29
30
Over the years, the Clerk to the Board’s Office has included travel guidelines as part of the new 31
Commissioners’ orientation guide and revised those guidelines as appropriate. 32
33
Each County Commissioner receives a monthly car allowance of $200 for in-state travel. 34
35
Note: The current annual operating budget does not include funding for travel and/or training 36
items outside of the monthly car allowance. 37
38
Chair Rich presented the following County Commissioner Travel Policy: 39
40
Draft County Commissioner Travel Policy 41
(Excerpt from BOCC Orientation Guide) 42
43
Purpose: This policy establishes appropriate guidelines for travel and transportation required of 44
elected officials conducting business for Orange County. 45
46
All travel and training for the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) will be budgeted 47
as part of the Clerk to the Board’s departmental budget. Please contact the Clerk to the Board 48
and/or the Office Manager by phone or email if you have any questions or need assistance. 49
50
24
All county incurred expenses should be paid for by using your assigned County procurement 1
card (p-card). Please remember, all financial transactions are considered Public Record and are 2
subject to be requested and viewed. 3
4
Monthly Car Allowance 5
Covers the following items in relation to business of Orange County: 6
• Use of personal vehicle/gas/miles driven within North Carolina 7
8
Transportation (Outside of Orange County) 9
Detailed receipts must be submitted to the Office Manager. 10
Please indicate on the receipt the date and purpose. 11
• A County vehicle may be available, and can be reserved upon request utilizing the 12
County’s CarShare 13
program: https://intranet.orangecountync.gov/Transportation/CarShare.asp) 14
• Other modes of transportation - travel by airplane, rental vehicle, taxi, etc. will be paid at 15
actual cost using your p-card. 16
• Other travel related costs such as gas, parking fees and tolls will be paid at actual cost 17
using your p-card. 18
19
Meals 20
Detailed receipts must be submitted to the Office Manager. 21
Please indicate on the receipt the date(s), meal selection (Breakfast, Lunch, or Dinner), event 22
name, and purpose. 23
• Outside of Orange County – expenses related to meals and non-alcoholic beverages 24
should be purchased using your County assigned p-card. 25
• Meals within Orange County - only meals related to serving the public at "official 26
functions" are eligible for reimbursement (Examples of “official functions” may include 27
but not limited to: Mayors and Commissioner Meetings, Peer Elected Official/Staff 28
Meetings}. Meals other than those for "official functions" that are purchased within 29
Orange County solely for the convenience of the traveler are not eligible for 30
reimbursement. 31
• Tips related to eligible meals as outlined above should be paid for by using your County 32
assigned p-card. 33
• Tips for hospitality services (maid service, bellhop, etc.} should be paid for by using your 34
County assigned p-card. 35
36
Hotel & Lodging (Outside of Orange County) 37
Detailed receipts must be submitted to the Office Manager. 38
Please indicate on the receipt the date(s), event name, and purpose. 39
• Payment will be made for actual costs (including deposits and taxes} using your County 40
assigned p-card. 41
• Reimbursement will not be made for hotel & lodging within Orange County. 42
43
Other Costs 44
The Clerk’s Office will handle transactions related to travel and/or training such as event 45
registrations, conference materials, educational literature, etc. Please contact the Office 46
Manager to coordinate any anticipated travel or training/registration requests. A detailed receipt 47
must be submitted to the Office Manager if you chose to purchase materials, event registrations, 48
etc. on your own. 49
50
25
Travel Advance 1
• Travel advances and stipends are not permitted. Please use your County assigned p-2
card for travel related purchases. 3
4
Budget 5
• The Clerk’s Office will budget for County Commissioners’ travel and training each fiscal 6
year. 7
• For accountability purposes, a detailed financial report will be provided to the Board of 8
County Commissioners quarterly regarding travel/training expenses incurred by each 9
Commissioner 10
• Please contact the Clerk to the Board and/or the Assistant Deputy Clerk I – Office 11
Manager to confirm the availability of travel and/or training budgets. 12
13
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board review and discuss the 14
proposed County Commissioner Travel Policy and provide direction to staff, as appropriate. 15
16
Chair Rich reminded the Board that Donna Baker worked on this draft over the summer, 17
reaching out to other clerks around the state, and seeking to gather best practices. 18
Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the monthly car allowance, which covers usage in 19
North Carolina, for travel outside of Orange County, and said one of those needs to change. He 20
said it makes sense for the allowance to go to travel within Orange and immediately surrounding 21
counties. 22
Chair Rich said the intent behind the monthly allowance is to cover anything within North 23
Carolina, and if one goes out of State, then one can ask to use a County vehicle, or using your 24
procurement card for gas. 25
Commissioner Marcoplos said it should state outside of North Carolina. He said North 26
Carolina is fairly wide, and not very tall, and a trip to Asheville is quite far. He said $200 can get 27
used up pretty quickly, and suggested the Board look at this again to insure financial 28
consistency. 29
Commissioner Price said the Board should establish a radius from one’s home, or 30
certain counties for travel. She said distances vary depending from where one starts. She said 31
Virginia is much closer than certain parts of North Carolina, and she would favor a mileage 32
radius from one’s home for travel calculations. 33
Commissioner Greene said she felt Commissioner Price’s suggestion might be hard to 34
to administer. She said it could be limited to the seven Triangle J counties, as parts of the State 35
are far away. She said it may be more trouble than it is worth for the Clerk’s Office to track. 36
Commissioner Price said the Commissioners would be responsible for keeping track. 37
Chair Rich said the School of Government did not advise tracking mileage. She said all 38
records are available to the public, and County Commissioners can always use a County car. 39
Commissioner Dorosin said $200 a month is generous, and he doubts anyone uses that 40
much every year, and it likely offsets over the 12-month period. He said he has never had a job 41
with such a monthly allowance, and thinks it will all balance out in the end keeping the policy as 42
it is. 43
Commissioner Bedford said it is a generous policy, and agreed with Commissioner 44
Dorosin. She said it is easy for an auditor to audit, as well as the Finance Department, and the 45
Commissioners themselves. 46
Commissioner Bedford said there needs to be a budget amendment to cover the cost of 47
the new commissioners training at the School of Government. 48
Chair Rich said to change the wording under transportation that states “Outside of North 49
Carolina”. She said all travel should be organized through the Clerk’s Office. 50
26
Chair Rich said meals and other costs are the next section, and all purchases must be 1
made through one’s procurement card, so that there is a record of all purchases. She said she 2
takes photos of her receipts, notes the purpose on the top, and sends it immediately to the 3
Clerk’s Office. 4
Chair Rich referred to a page 5 change, and said there was a wording error, and travel 5
advances or stipends should not be given to any elected official. 6
Chair Rich said the new travel policy will be added to the New Commissioner Orientation 7
Guide. 8
9
Appointments 10
The current appointment process would be to move these agreed upon appointments to 11
the next BOCC Business Meeting and they would be listed under the Consent Agenda. The 12
next BOCC Business Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 6, 2020. 13
14
Advisory Board members who are to be re-appointed may continue to serve in their 15
same capacity. Individuals who are new appointments may attend meetings, but will officially 16
assume their participation on October 7, 2020. 17
18
5. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee – Ap pointment Discussion 19
20
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to 21
appoint the following people: 22
23
Position #9 – Olivia Fisher 24
Position #11 – Marylou Gelblum 25
Position #12 – Karen Green-McElveen 26
27
The Board agreed by consensus. 28
John Roberts said an official roll call can be done at the next business meeting. 29
30
Commissioner Dorosin said no other applicants were selected for the training, and asked 31
if the BOCC is responsible for selecting people for training. 32
Thom Freeman-Stuart said no, it is done in a separate process. 33
34
6. Advisory Board on Aging – Appointment Discussion 35
36
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Price to 37
appoint the following people: 38
39
Position #1 – Rachel Bearman 40
Position #2 – Colin Austin 41
42
The Board agreed by consensus. 43
44
7. Affordable Housing Advisory Board – Appointment Discussion 45
46
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Greene to 47
appoint the following people: 48
49
Position #2 – Andy Hoang 50
Position #5 – Mae McLendon 51
27
Position #8 – Allison Mahaley 1
Position #13 – Holly Meschko 2
Position #14 – Jenn Sykes 3
4
The Board agreed by consensus. 5
6
7
8. Agricultural Preservation Board – Appointment Discussion 8
9
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to 10
appoint the following people: 11
12
Position #3 – Cecilia Redding 13
14
The Board agreed by consensus. 15
16
17
9. Animal Services Advisory Board – Appointment Discussion 18
19
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Price to 20
appoint the following people: 21
22
Position #1 – Dr. Lee Pickett 23
Position #10 – Lori Gershon 24
Position #12 – Allan Polak 25
Position #13 – Susan Spinks 26
27
The Board agreed by consensus. 28
29
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the requirement for the animal welfare position could be 30
identified. He said he would move Meggy Romic for either of the remaining positions. 31
Thom Freeman-Stuart said someone who volunteers, and is in the business of rescue 32
service. 33
Commissioner Price recommended Kim Odom, who is a Cedar Grove applicant 34
interested in the advocacy slot. 35
Commissioner Dorosin said she would also meet the non-municipal slot. 36
Commissioner Marcoplos said Dawn Roberts also meets the animal welfare slot. 37
38
Chair Rich asked to get these votes moved forward and reminded the Board of the 39
pending closed session item. 40
41
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin to recommended Meggy Romic as 42
Animal Advocacy. Position #11. 43
44
The Board agreed by consensus. 45
46
A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Bedford 47
to appoint Dawn Roberts to position #8 48
49
The Board agreed by consensus. 50
51
28
1
10. Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool – Appointment Discussion 2
3
Position #4 – to be determined by the BOCC 4
5
Chair Rich asked for input from Thom Freeman-Stuart. 6
Thom Freeman Stuart said this was a Town of Chapel Hill jurisdictional vacancy but the 7
Town of Chapel Hill does not make any recommendations regarding this appointment. 8
Chair Rich asked if there was a candidate available from the Town of Chapel Hill 9
jurisdiction. 10
Commissioner Price said she would recommend Mark Solomon. 11
Chair Rich said he was from Hillsborough. 12
Thom Freeman Stuart said Stacy Shinkle would be Chapel Hill, but not the Town of 13
Chapel Hill. 14
Commissioner Rich said move this item to the next meeting since they have no 15
applicants. 16
17
18
11. Arts Commission – Appointment Discussion 19
20
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to 21
appoint the following people: 22
23
Position #3 – Matthew Keith 24
Position #7 – Sean T. Bailey 25
26
The Board agreed by consensus. 27
28
12. Board of Health – Appointment Discussion 29
30
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to 31
appoint the following people: 32
33
Position #2 – Dr. Brian Crandell 34
35
The Board agreed by consensus. 36
37
13. Board of Social Services – Appointment Discussion 38
39
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos 40
to appoint the following people: 41
42
Position #4 – Jane Garrett 43
44
The Board agreed by consensus. 45
46
14. Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau – Appointment Discussion 47
48
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 49
appoint the following people: 50
51
29
Position #10 – Beverely Payne 1
Position #14 – Jon Hartman-Brown 2
Position #15 – Matt Gladdek 3
4
The Board agreed by consensus. 5
6
15. Economic Development Advisory Board – Appointment Discussion 7
8
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to 9
appoint the following people: 10
11
12
Position #4 – Sharon Hill 13
Position #6 – Paige Zinn 14
Position #9 – Jonna Hunt 15
Position #10 – Tom Proctor 16
17
Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason why Paige Zinn is being amended for 18
extension. 19
Thom Freeman-Stuart said Economic Development Director Steve Brantley provided an 20
explanation. 21
Commissioner McKee said it is important to have members with experience. 22
Commissioner Price asked if someone could read the addendum. 23
Commissioner Bedford read the request from Steve Brantley. 24
25
The Board agreed by consensus. 26
27
16. Hillsborough Board of Adjustment – Appointment Discussion 28
29
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 30
appoint the following people: 31
32
Position #1 – Rob Bray 33
Position #3 – Raul Herrera 34
35
The Board agreed by consensus. 36
37
17. Hillsborough Planning Board – Appointment Discussion 38
39
A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 40
appoint the following people: 41
42
Position #1 – Chris Johnston 43
44
The Board agreed by consensus. 45
46
18. Historic Preservation Commission – Appointment Discussion 47
48
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to 49
appoint the following people: 50
51
30
Position #2 – Thomas Loter 1
2
The Board agreed by consensus. 3
4
5
19. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee – Appointment Discussion 6
7
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to 8
appoint the following people: 9
10
Position #4 – Stephanie Boswell 11
12
Chair Rich said positions are open but they require training. 13
Thom Freeman-Stuart said these boards are having a really hard time finding folks to 14
serve in this role. 15
Commissioner Dorosin said this board has twelve slots, with 5 vacancies, some of which 16
have been vacant for 2-3 years. 17
Thom Freeman-Stuart said this board cannot do what it was designed to do currently, 18
due to Covid. 19
Chair Rich asked if this is a state statutory board. 20
Thom Freeman-Stuart said yes, and there has not yet been success at combining the 21
two aging boards. 22
Commissioner Dorosin said the Board may want to add this request to its list for the 23
legislature. 24
John Roberts said it is not up to the legislature to combine these two boards, but rather 25
the County Commissioners can do so. 26
Chair Rich asked if staff would make this an agenda item. 27
Commissioner Dorosin said he would be delighted to not go before the legislature. 28
Commissioner Greene said nursing homes are regulated by the state, and she would 29
like to know what authority these committees have to make any difference. She said these 30
boards raise a lot of concerns, but seem to have no authority to fix anything. 31
John Roberts said he would have to look at the statute. 32
Chair Rich said she does not think these boards have much authority. 33
34
The Board agreed by consensus. 35
36
20. Orange County Board of Adjustment – Appointment Discussion 37
38
Position #2 – TBD (BOCC Appointment) 39
Position #3 – Samantha Cabe 40
Position #4 – TBD (BOCC Appointment) 41
Position #6 – TBD (BOCC Appointment) 42
Position #7 – TBD (BOCC Appointment) 43
44
Commissioner Bedford asked if there is a conflict of interest for Judge Cabe. 45
Commissioner Price said she thinks it is more a question of her having enough time. 46
Commissioner Dorosin agreed with Commissioner Bedford, and said having the chief 47
district court judge creates undue influence on other board members. 48
Commissioner Price asked if a resolution was passed stating other elected officials 49
would not be eligible to serve on advisory boards. 50
51
31
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to 1
appoint Nathan Boucher (#2), Kent Candle (#4), Jeff Scott (#6) and Scott Taylor (#7) 2
3
Commissioner Price asked if there are any age limits for these positions. 4
Thom Freeman-Stuart said no. 5
Chair Rich said she does not want to vote to Nathan Boucher because he wants to run 6
for Town Council in Chapel Hill, and she does not want these boards to be used as a spring 7
board. 8
Commissioner McKee said he served on the planning board as a spring board to the 9
BOCC. 10
Commissioner Greene said those boards are good training grounds within the same 11
municipality. 12
13
Position #2 14
Votes: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Price, and Commissioner McKee); 15
Nays, 4 (Chair Rich, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Greene, Commissioner 16
Macroplos) 17
MOTION FAILS 18
19
Positions #4, 6 and 7 20
The Board agreed by consensus 21
22
21. Closed Session 23
24
“Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order 25
to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board” and 26
27
“Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(6) “to consider qualifications, competence, performance, 28
character fitness, condition of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual 29
public officer or employer or prospective public officer or employee.” 30
31
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Greene to 32
go into closed session at 10:44 p.m. 33
34
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 35
36
RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION 37
38
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Greene to 39
return to open session at 11:12 p.m. 40
41
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 42
43
Adjournment 44
45
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Greene to 46
adjourn the meeting at 11:12 p.m. 47
48
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 49
50
51
32
Penny Rich, Chair 1
2
Allen Coleman 3
Assistant Deputy Clerk II 4
5
Submitted for approval by Gregory A. Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board. 6
1
ATTACHMENT 2 1
2
MINUTES 3
ORANGE COUNTY 4
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5
VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING 6
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 7
7:00 p.m. 8
9
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday, 10
September 15, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. 11
12
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich and Commissioners Jamezetta 13
Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, and Renee Price 14
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE 15
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 16
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 17
Travis Myren, Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt, and Assistant Deputy Clerk Allen Coleman 18
(All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 19
20
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 21
22
Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners conducted a Virtual 23
Business Meeting on September 15, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners 24
participated in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to 25
view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video at orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-26
Videos and on Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable). 27
28
In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment. 29
• Written submittals by email 30
• Speaking during the virtual meeting 31
32
Detailed public comment instructions for each method are provided at the bottom of this 33
agenda. (Pre-registration is required.) 34
35
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 36
37
Chair Rich requested that the Consent Agenda, item 8, be moved after item 4 and 38
before item 5. 39
The Board agreed by consensus. 40
Chair Rich read the public charge. 41
Chair Rich acknowledged the 3-minute timer for public comments, and said there are 90 42
people signed up to speak. 43
44
Arts Moment – No Arts Moment will be available for this meeting. 45
46
2. Public Comments 47
48
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 49
NONE 50
51
2
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 1
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda 2
below.) 3
4
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members 5
Commissioner Price expressed congratulations to Julia Drahzal Orange County’s 6
Governor’s Medallion Award winner for volunteer service, as well as all other nominees from 7
Orange County. 8
Commissioner Price referred to the Andrea Harris Social, Economic, Environmental 9
Health and Equity Task Force, which is focusing currently on communities of color and the 10
disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on these communities. She said this group is seeking 11
public input, via 2-minute time slots on 9/22 and 9/29, related to its 5 focus areas. 12
Commissioner Price said that on Sunday, September 27 at 3pm there will be a Zoom 13
event called, “Breaking Barriers: women of color and the right to vote”, with Valerie Johnson of 14
Shaw University. She said the Human Relations Commission is sponsoring this event. 15
Commission Bedford had no comments. 16
Commissioner Greene said she attended the Family Success Alliance (FSA) meeting, 17
and was interested to learn about the scholastic support center at the YMCA. She said this 18
provides K-8 grade socially distanced spaces to complete schoolwork. She said this is a great 19
program for parents of lower income children. 20
Commissioner Marcoplos said he has been thinking about the amount of idling, due to 21
increased use of drive-thrus. He said local students did such wonderful work last year promoting 22
an anti-idling campaign. He said he would like to ask the Commission for the Environment to 23
explore how to work with all local businesses, banks, restaurants, etc. to look into the issue of 24
idling. 25
Commissioner Marcoplos said the Board has discussed the possibility of a new EMS 26
substation. He said he spoke with David Silvan, part time EMS worker, and asked what he 27
thought about response times and if a 3 minute reduction would really have an impact in 28
northern Orange County. He said there was a plan proposed by Nick W aters to have 29
paramedics with “fly cars”, which have response times of 8 minutes, as opposed to 12-15 30
minutes instead of ambulances. He asked to explore this possibility, as paramedics are highly 31
trained and can handle so much in the field. 32
Commissioner Marcoplos said the Orange County Climate Council is having a public 33
outreach event on Thursday, October 22nd, 2020 at 7p.m., to celebrate the first year of work. He 34
said this will be via Zoom, and invited everyone to tune in. 35
36
Commissioner McKee joined the meeting at 7:07 p.m. 37
38
Commissioner Dorosin said 90 people plan to speak this evening, and asked if the plan 39
was to meet until 1:00 a.m. 40
Chair Rich said because it is a Public Hearing the Board of County Commissioners 41
(BOCC) cannot limit the amount of speakers, and it is likely there will be approximately 4 hours 42
of public comment. 43
Commissioner Dorosin asked if other agenda items could be continued, or the public 44
hearing be spread out over two meetings. He said he wants to be conscientious of the 45
speakers, and be most fair and effective. 46
Commissioner McKee said he spoke about broadband last week, and Orange County 47
Schools (OCS) purchased and distributed 900 units, but still has a 400-person waiting list for 48
hotspots. He said he would like to move expeditiously to help address this problem. He 49
petitioned the Board to ask the Manager to contact Orange County Schools Superintendent and 50
Board of Education Chair to determine how and in what manner Orange County could aid in 51
3
procuring the 400 units for hotspots. He said OCS is pursuing grant funding to acquire the 1
hotspots, but that is too slow. He said Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) may need 2
some help too. 3
Chair Rich acknowledged Ralph Karpinos, Town of Chapel Hill Attorney’s Office, who is 4
the longest serving municipal attorney in the State and is retiring. She applauded his service. 5
Chair Rich and Commissioner Price met with the joint school boards in anticipation of 6
the joint meeting next week. She said CHCCS does not need any more hotspots. She said 7
both school districts are opening learning centers with the YMCA and churches to help students 8
and families. She said the schools are also discussing various re-opening plans for January, 9
and it is currently unclear how things will proceed. 10
Chair Rich provided a COVID update: Orange County is under 4% of test positive rate, 11
and needs to stay under 5% for at least 2 weeks to get the gathering limits back up. 12
Chair Rich said flu season starts in October and goes through May. She urged 13
everyone to get flu shots. 14
Chair Rich said the Health Department will be able to swab twice, testing for Flu and 15
COVID tests at the same time. 16
Chair Rich said the peak hurricane season is here, and there are 5 hurricanes in the 17
ocean currently, with hurricane Sally possibly headed for North Carolina. 18
Chair Rich said emergency services said Hurricane Sally will be a mostly rain event. 19
20
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 21
22
a. Resolution Supporting the Decriminalization of Marijuana 23
The Board considered voting to adopt a Resolution Supporting the Decriminalization of 24
Marijuana. 25
26
BACKGROUND: 27
BOCC Chair Penny Rich submitted a petition at the Board’s September 1, 2020 Business 28
meeting proposing that the Board consider a resolution supporting the decriminalization of 29
marijuana. 30
31
Public Comment: 32
Riley Ruske said tobacco is not allowed to be smoked in public places in Orange 33
County, and he wonders if Orange County would add marijuana to this list, thus re-criminalizing 34
its use after decriminalizing it. He said there are other health risks with marijuana, and it is often 35
seen as a gateway drug to other more dangerous drugs. He encouraged the BOCC not to pass 36
this resolution. 37
Chair Rich read the resolution: 38
39
RES-2020-052 40
41
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 42
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARIJUANA 43
44
WHEREAS, The current prohibition of marijuana in North Carolina has caused the needless 45
arrest and incarceration of thousands of individuals, predominantly people of color, for 46
nonviolent crimes, at great social and economic cost despite the fact that people of color and 47
whites use marijuana at the same rates, and 48
49
4
WHEREAS, According to an American Civil Liberties Union study, as a result of disparate 1
enforcement, Black North Carolinians are over three times more likely to be arrested for 2
marijuana possession, and 3
4
WHEREAS, an arrest for possession of marijuana can have an impact on housing, student 5
loans, future employment, child custody determinations and many other circumstances; and 6
7
WHEREAS, Studies also show that criminalization has not protected public health, in terms of 8
adverse effects of marijuana itself or in deterring substance abuse and addiction; and 9
10
WHEREAS, Marijuana legalization is sound public policy, necessary to address the health and 11
societal impacts of marijuana criminalization and the inequitable implementation of 12
incarceration-based policies, and 13
14
WHEREAS, the most recent Public Policy Polling results show North Carolinians support 15
marijuana legalization by a margin of 48% to 42%; 16
17
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners 18
supports the decriminalization of marijuana in North Carolina and state legislation to legalize the 19
distribution, sale, and use of marijuana products pursuant to regulatory and taxation frameworks 20
designed to ensure appropriate use (including through age and other evidence-based 21
restrictions) for recreational and medical purposes while providing treatment for substance 22
abuse; 23
24
BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that the Board believes such legislation should also 25
provide for the expungement of records for individuals previously convicted of crimes of 26
distribution, possession, or use of marijuana products; 27
28
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board believes funds from the taxation of marijuana 29
sales should be used for the benefit of the communities most impacted by the incarceration of 30
people for behavior that society is legalizing, including the investment of marijuana sales tax 31
revenues for job training, reentry services, diversion programs, legal aid, literacy programs, 32
youth mentoring and substance use treatment; 33
34
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners 35
requests that the North Carolina General Assembly advocate for federal legislation to end the 36
prohibition of marijuana at the federal level, with its removal from the Controlled Substance Act, 37
and the expungement of records for those previously convicted of federal crimes for the 38
distribution, possession, or use of marijuana, as well as authorize state legalization policies and 39
enabling the use of marijuana for medical purposes, including in federally funded programs. 40
41
This the 15th day of September, 2020. 42
43
__________________________________ 44
Penny Rich, Chair 45
Orange County Board of Commissioners 46
47
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos 48
to adopt the Resolution, and authorize the Board Chair to sign the Resolution. 49
50
5
Commissioner McKee said he will not vote in favor of this. He said the title of the 1
resolution mentions decriminalization, but the points within the resolution mention legalization of 2
marijuana, taxes to be collected from marijuana, etc., which seems in conflict to the title. 3
4
Roll call ensued 5
6
VOTE: Ayes (6); Nays (1) Commissioner McKee 7
8
Chair Rich asked if staff would send the resolution to Orange County’s local legislators, 9
and all other counties across the State. 10
11
CONSENT AGENDA MOVED UP 12
13
8. Consent Agenda 14
15
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 16
None 17
18
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 19
20
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to 21
approve the consent agenda. 22
23
Roll call ensued 24
25
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 26
27
a. Minutes – None 28
b. Submission of 2021 Reappraisal Schedules of Values 29
The Board received the proposed 2021 Reappraisal Schedules of Values (SOV); review a 30
statutory-compliant timeline of the proposed adoption process; and schedule a public hearing on 31
October 6, 2020 concerning adoption. 32
c. Amendment to and Renewal of Health Services Agreement with Southern Health 33
Partners for Medical Services at the Orange County Detention Center 34
The Board approved an amendment to and renewal of the Health Services Agreement with 35
Southern Health Partners for medical services at the Orange County Detention Center. 36
d. Designation of Orange County Agent for FEMA Public Assistance 37
The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, designating an agent for 38
Orange County’s application f or the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Public 39
Assistance for the recovery related to COVID-19, affecting Orange County’s entire community 40
since March 2020 with expected impacts to continue for years out and authorize the Chair to 41
sign. 42
e. Approval of Driveway Easement Extending from Jacobs Trail 43
The Board granted a driveway easement in an unused, undeveloped dedicated right of way 44
extending from the end of Jacobs Trail and authorize the Chair to execute the documents. 45
f. City of Durham’s Teer Quarry Reservoir – Resolution of Support from Orange County 46
for Reclassifying a Segment of the Eno River for Water Supply in Durham County 47
The Board approve the signature by the Board Chair of a Resolution of Support from Orange 48
County related to the City of Durham’s (City’s) proposed initiative to make the Teer Quarry 49
Reservoir a new public water supply and reclassifying a segment of the Eno River within 50
Durham County as Water Supply, in conformance with the State’s Water Supply Watershed 51
6
Protection Program. The City has formally requested Orange County’s support for this effort 1
which would require the County to take the necessary steps to provide public notice and initiate 2
the associated public hearing(s), Planning Board meeting(s) and Board of County 3
Commissioners (BOCC) meeting(s) to amend land use restrictions imposed by water supply 4
watershed protection rules for the affected areas within Orange County. 5
g. Appointment of Interim Clerk 6
The Board appointed an Interim Clerk to the Board of Commissioners during the search for a 7
permanent Clerk and authorized the Chair to sign. 8
h. Citizen Participation Plan for Federal Housing/Community Development Funds 9
The Board approved the Citizen Participation Plan for use in the implementation of Federal 10
housing programs and funds and authorized the Chair to sign. 11
12
5. Public Hearings 13
Chair Rich asked if John Roberts could help the Board of County Commissioners 14
(BOCC) determine the best course of action for the large public hearing. 15
John Roberts said the Board can establish reasonable rules, and holding the public 16
hearing over multiple evenings is permissible. He said there is a new law in place pertaining to 17
remote meetings, and there is argument on both sides as to whether a vote can be taken on the 18
same night as a meeting. He recommended the Board conduct the public hearing, and vote at 19
a subsequent meeting, as the new law does require a 24-hour written comment period after any 20
remote public hearing. He said he would favor holding the entire public hearing on the same 21
night. 22
Commissioner Dorosin said the Board wants to hear all comments, and his goal is to 23
making the public hearing most effective and efficient as possible. He said a 5 or 6 hour 24
meeting is not effective or efficient. He said not everyone has that much time to wait. He said 25
the most accommodating and most transparent method would be to break the hearing into 2 or 26
3 sessions. He said allowing for written comments is good, and he wants to have the most 27
meaningful opportunity for all. He recommended breaking up the public hearing into 2 or 3 28
nights, and revisit the remaining agenda and vote to delay items to another meeting. 29
Commissioner McKee agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. He said the Board will not be 30
fresh and attentive after 5 hours. 31
Commissioner McKee asked the County Attorney if a 2 week notice would still be 32
required if the Board were to spread the public hearing over 2 evenings. 33
John Roberts said the Board can continue to the public hearing to a date certain, and 34
does not have to give further public notice. 35
Commissioner McKee recommended continuing the public hearing to Thursday or next 36
Tuesday evening, so that it remains fresh on everyone’s minds and allows everyone the chance 37
to speak. 38
Chair Rich said the BOCC does not currently have a meeting scheduled for 9/17 or 9/22, 39
and asked if continuing the public hearing would require a special meeting. 40
John Roberts said it would be a continued public hearing, and the announcement this 41
evening would satisfy the notice requirement. 42
Commissioner Price asked if the second half of the meeting must be held immediately or 43
if it could wait until the next business meeting. 44
Chair Rich said the next business meeting was 3 weeks away. 45
John Roberts said the Board could continue the meeting until the next business meeting 46
on 10/6. 47
Commissioner Price asked if staff could identify easily how to break up the public 48
speakers into two groups now, so that people are not waiting to speak. 49
Chair Rich said yes, the names are on a list, and she can identify the last speaker. 50
7
Commissioner Marcoplos suggested continuing the public hearing to the October 6th 1
business meeting and voting at the October 20th meeting. 2
Commissioner Greene agreed with splitting the meeting up, and said she is not available 3
this Thursday, due to speaking at other forums. 4
Commission McKee said he is worried about dragging out the Public Hearing, and 5
October seems a bit far. He said this item is very important to many people. 6
Commissioner Bedford asked if the October 6th agenda is already full, and, if so, she 7
would support adding another meeting. 8
Bonnie Hammersley said the big item for October 6th is this item, as staff expected the 9
Board to complete the public hearing tonight and need October 6th for discussion and voting. 10
She said if the Board wants to cut items from tonight’s agenda, she would remind the Board that 11
the legislative agenda has a deadline of 9/30 to be sent to North Carolina Association of County 12
Commissioners (NCACC). 13
Chair Rich said she does not want to wait until October 6th, and she recommend 14
continuing the public hearing to September 22, 2020. 15
Commissioner McKee asked if any Board members have a conflict September 22, 2020. 16
There was no apparent conflict. 17
Commissioner Dorosin said staff should identify the halfway mark of those signed up for 18
public comment, so those people will know they will not get to speak tonight. 19
Chair Rich asked if this suggestion was acceptable to staff. 20
Bonnie Hammersley asked if new people will be allowed to speak at the continued 21
hearing, and if people will be allowed to speak a second time, etc. 22
John Roberts said no new or repeat speakers will be allowed. He said anyone can 23
submit written comment within 24 hours after the public hearing closes. 24
25
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford 26
continue the public hearing to date certain September 22nd, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. 27
28
Commissioner Dorosin made a friendly amendment to continue the public hearing to 29
September 29, 2020, as the Board does not have any other meetings that week. 30
Commissioner McKee said he would accept that friendly amendment if the seconder 31
does so as well. 32
Commissioner Bedford said she would accept. 33
Commissioner Price said she cannot attend on September 29th. 34
35
Chair Rich called for a vote on the original motion for the 22nd. 36
37
Roll call ensued 38
39
VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Greene, Bedford, Rich, McKee); Nays, 3 (Dorosin, Marcoplos, Price) 40
41
MOTION PASSES 42
43
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Greene to 44
read off the names of those who will make public comment at this meeting. 45
46
Commissioner Marcoplos requested a follow-up email be sent those who will make 47
public comment on September 22, 2020. 48
The Board agreed by consensus. 49
50
Roll call ensued 51
8
1
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2
3
Chair Rich read the names of those that will make public comment at this meeting (45 4
names). 5
6
a. Zoning Atlas Amendment – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District 7
(MPD-CZ) for the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) 8
9
The Board held a public hearing to receive the Planning Board/staff recommendation 10
and public comment, and scheduled an action for a specific future date on applicant initiated 11
Zoning Atlas Amendments for parcels within the Hillsborough Township of Orange County. 12
Specifically, Terra Equity, Incorporated is seeking to rezone 3 parcels west of Old NC 13
Highway 86/south of Interstate 40 to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) 14
district. 15
A copy of the application is contained in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 contains a vicinity 16
map of the subject parcels. The complete application package, including full size maps, is 17
available on the County website at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-18
Projects. 19
20
21
BACKGROUND: 22
On January 23, 2018 the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) approved a zoning 23
atlas amendment creating a Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district 24
referred to as Settlers Point (materials from that meeting are available at: 25
http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink/0/doc/49647/Page1.aspx). The approved MPD-CZ 26
involved property on both sides of Old NC Highway 86 allowing for the development of a mixed 27
use commercial/industrial park. Since approval, no development activity has occurred. 28
29
Staff has received an application proposing a new MPD-CZ, including 2 parcels from this 30
previously approved project. If this application is approved, the existing MPD-CZ (Settlers Point) 31
will cease to exist. Development of subject parcels would be consistent with this new MPD-CZ 32
district designation. 33
34
STAFF COMMENT: A separate process is underway to rezone the eight parcels of 35
property east of Old NC Highway 86, part of what was referred to as District 2 of the 36
Settlers Point MPD-CZ, to an appropriate County economic development general use 37
zoning designation. This item is also being reviewed at the BOCC’s September 15, 2020 38
public hearing. 39
40
The basic facts concerning this application are as follows: 41
42
Applicant(s): Terra Equity, Incorporated 43
Attn. Frank Csapo 44
3810 Springhurst Blvd 45
Suite 120 46
Louisville, KY 40241 47
48
Agent(s): Michael Birch 49
Longleaf Law Partners 50
4509 Creedmoor Rd. 51
9
Suite 302 1
Raleigh, NC 27612 2
3
Kimley-Horn 4
421 Fayetteville St. 5
Suite 600 6
Raleigh, NC 27601 7
8
Santec Consulting 9
(Traffic Engineers) 10
801 Jones Franklin Rd. 11
Suite 300 12
Raleigh, NC 27606 13
14
Parcel Information: A. Parcels and Current Zoning: Subject parcels, identified 15
utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), are: 16
1. PIN 9863-71-8857: An approximately 90 acre parcel 17
zoned MPD-CZ (Settlers Point) and Major Transportation 18
Corridor (MTC) Overlay District; 19
2. PIN 9863-91-6573: An 80 acre parcel zoned: 20
• Approximately 60 acres (south of Interstate 40) 21
zoned MPD-CZ (Settlers Point); 22
• Approximately 20 acres (north of Interstate 40) 23
zoned Economic Development Hillsborough 24
Limited Officer (EDH-2). 25
Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 26
3. PIN 9862-99-8894: An approximately 12 acre parcel split 27
zoned Rural Residential (R-1) and Rural Buffer (RB). 28
NOTE: The small portion of this parcel zoned RB, 29
approximately 26,000 sq.ft. in area along Davis Road, 30
is not proposed to be rezoned. It will remain zoned 31
RB. 32
None of the subject properties are located within a Watershed 33
Protection Overlay District. 34
B. Size: If approved, the new MPD-CZ district would be 35
approximately 161 acres in area. 36
C. Township: Hillsborough 37
D. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: 38
• PIN(s) 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573 - Economic 39
Development Transition Activity Node 40
• PIN 9862-99-8894 – Rural Residential 41
STAFF COMMENT: A separate process is underway to change the 42
FLUM designation of this property. This proposal will be reviewed at the 43
BOCC’s September 15, 2020 public hearing. 44
For more information please refer to the FLUM map contained in 45
Attachment 3. 46
E. Growth Management System Designation: 47
• PINs 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573 – Urban Designated; 48
• PIN 9862-99-8894 – Residential Designated. 49
STAFF COMMENT: A separate process is underway to change the 50
designation of this property. 51
10
For more information please refer to the Growth Management 1
Systems map contained in Attachment 3. 2
F. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: Varying topography with significant wooded 3
areas and water features (i.e. ponds, streams, and floodplain). 4
G. Roads: Project proposes 2 access points off of Service Road (south of Interstate 40) 5
and Davis Road (south of PIN 9862-99- 8894). Both of these roads are maintained by 6
the NC Department of Transportation. 7
H. Water and Sewer: Utility lines, to be maintained by the Town of Hillsborough, will be 8
extended under Interstate 40 to serve the project. 9
10
Surrounding Land Uses: 11
• NORTH: Interstate 40; agricultural operation and single-family residential property 12
zoned Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) and Rural 13
Residential (R-1) approximately 110 acres in area. 14
• SOUTH: Davis Road; Hillsborough United Methodist Church; Undeveloped property; 15
Single-family residential property zoned Rural Residential (R-1) ranging in size from 2 to 16
12 acres. 17
• EAST: Single-family residential and undeveloped property zoned Economic 18
Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) ranging in size from 1 to 12 acres; Old 19
NC Highway 86. 20
• WEST: Single-family residential and undeveloped property zoned Rural Residential (R-21
1) ranging in size from 1-½ to 50 acres. 22
23
MPD Conditional Zoning (CZ) Process: Involves approval of a rezoning petition and a master 24
development plan allowing for the development of a specific land use categories. Applications 25
are processed in a legislative manner (i.e. does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and 26
decisions are based on the BOCC’s determination that the project is consistent with the purpose 27
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 28
29
As this is a MPD-CZ proposal, a formal site plan is not required to be submitted as part of the 30
rezoning approval. Applicants are required to produce a master concept plan consistent with the 31
provisions of Section 6.7 of the UDO. 32
33
The application package was posted to Planning’s website on or about June 19, 2020 and can 34
be accessed at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-Projects. 35
36
Development Process, Schedule, and Action: The typical cadence for the review of a CZ 37
application is: 38
• First Action – Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). 39
Staff Comment – DONE. This meeting was held in an on-line format on July 15, 40
2020. Notes from this meeting are contained within Attachment 7. 41
• Second Action – The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and 42
makes a recommendation to the BOCC. 43
Staff Comment - DONE. The Planning Board began review of the project at its 44
regular August 5, 2020 meeting, which was adjourned to a special meeting on 45
August 19, 2020 to allow for continued discussion. Excerpts of minutes from both 46
meetings are contained in Attachment 8. 47
• Third Action – The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and makes a 48
decision at an advertised public hearing. 49
Staff Comment – Being held on September 15, 2020. 50
NOTE: As the public hearing is being held remotely, there is a 24-hour waiting 51
11
period required before the BOCC can make a decision, per State legislation. The 1
purpose of the 24-hour waiting period is to allow for submission of written 2
comments. 3
4
Per Section 2.9.2 (F) (3) of the UDO, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part 5
this process only if they address: 6
1. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, 7
2. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian and 8
vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or 9
3. All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose. 10
11
If approved, the Zoning Atlas will be amended and the zoning designation of the property shall 12
be changed to MPD-CZ. Development, including permitted land uses, would be in accordance 13
with the approved development proposal and all conditions imposed as part of the zoning atlas 14
amendment process. 15
16
Development of the various parcel(s) shall only be permitted through the review and approval of 17
site plan application(s) in accordance within Section 2.5 of the UDO. Staff is responsible for 18
verifying all imposed conditions are adhered to and allow for final peer review by members of 19
the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as detailed within Section 1.9 of the UDO. 20
21
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone the 3 identified parcels to a new MPD-CZ district 22
allowing for the development of a new master planned project, referred to as the Research 23
Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) summarized as follows: 24
1. Construction of approximately 2,250,000 sq.ft. of building area supporting 25
nonresidential development; 26
2. Preservation of approximately 41 acres (25%) of land as open space. 27
3. Permitted land uses within the new MPD-CZ district would include: 28
a. Health technology, 29
b. Information sciences and engineering, 30
c. Advanced and light manufacturing, 31
d. Scientific research and laboratories, 32
e. Logistics/supply operations, 33
f. Warehousing and supply chain fulfillment services. 34
The applicant has also provided a list of land uses that would be strictly 35
prohibited within the new district; 36
4. Vehicular access would be through Service Road, running parallel with Interstate 40, 37
and Davis Road; 38
5. Buildings would observe a 6 story height limit consistent with County regulations. 39
Accessory structures (i.e. water tower, telecommunication tower, etc.) may be higher. 40
6. The applicant is proposing imposition of development and design standards (i.e. 41
architectural design, signage, internal and external setback limits, height limits, 42
landscaping/buffer standards, outdoor lighting standards, erosion control/stormwater, 43
etc.) governing overall development of the project if the MPD-CZ district is approved by 44
the County. 45
46
47
48
49
50
51
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Staff has included a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document outlining various aspects of 36
the project in Attachment 12. 37
STAFF COMMENT: As previous indicated herein, 2 of the subject parcels are already 38
located within the Economic Development Transition Activity Node. Staff is proposing to 39
change the designation of the 12 acre parcel off Davis Road from Rural Residential to 40
Economic Development Transition as well. This change is consistent with previous 41
recommendations made by staff concerning the expansion of the County’s economic 42
development area south of Interstate 40. 43
44
Access: As previously indicated herein, access for the project would be off of Service Road 45
(south of Interstate 40) and Davis Road (south of PIN 9862-99-8894). An internal road network 46
system, privately maintained, would provide access to individual land uses. The applicant is 47
proposing pedestrian paths/walkways allowing access between the anticipated land uses. 48
The submitted Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) identifies internal and external roadway 49
improvements that will be required. This includes the signalization of existing and proposed 50
intersections. 51
13
1
STAFF COMMENT: Both Planning and NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) 2
staff have reviewed the proposal. Comments from County staff are contained in 3
Attachment 6. 4
The TIA indicates a secondary access point serving the project shall be necessary 5
giventhe anticipated intensity of the project, which NCDOT staff have determined 6
Service Road is unable to support. At this time the applicant is proposing to use Davis 7
Road to address this need. 8
Staff has expressed concern over anticipated access onto Davis Road. The TIA for the 9
project identified upgrades intended to ameliorate potential impacts to adjacent property 10
owners. This includes installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Davis Road and 11
Old NC Highway 86. 12
13
Staff has recommended the imposition of various condition(s) to address access management 14
issues as contained in Attachment 11. 15
16
Land Uses: As previously indicated herein, the applicant is proposing various land uses 17
focusing on warehousing/supply chain fulfillment services, research/development, and 18
manufacturing activities. The proposal also includes a list of prohibited land uses. As part of the 19
MPD-CZ process, only those approved land use categories can be eveloped within the project 20
consistent with applicable development standards. 21
22
STAFF COMMENT: Proposed uses are consistent with: 23
• The existing MPD-CZ for Settlers Point; 24
• Previous general use zoning district designation(s) for the parcels south of 25
Interstate 40, specifically Economic Development Hillsborough (EDH-5); 26
• Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO; and 27
• Anticipated land uses for the area as reflected within the adopted Orange 28
County Comprehensive Plan and the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County 29
Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan 30
31
Several comment(s) have been made insinuating the applicant is not providing 32
sufficient/specific information on the actual ‘tenants’ for the project. It has been 33
suggested the County should deny the project unless/until specific tenants can be 34
identified for public scrutiny and approval. 35
36
Land use and zoning processes do not allow/require the level of scrutiny sought by the 37
general public (i.e. veto power on specific tenants). The applicant is obligated to identify 38
those land use categories it is seeking approval from the County to develop but are not 39
obligated/required to provide a site specific development plan identifying actual ‘tenants’ 40
for approval. 41
42
Through this process, the County is essentially creating a new zoning district with 43
mandatory development standards/criteria governing actual development activities. The 44
County does have the ability to comment/make conditions on proposed land use 45
categories (i.e. manufacturing land uses, research land uses, professional office land 46
uses, etc.) but does not have the ability to compel the applicant’s identify specific clients 47
or reject same. 48
49
If there is a concern over a particular activity, the BOCC can impose conditions 50
addressing same. 51
14
1
As an example: an applicant may propose to develop land uses falling into the 2
Manufacturing, Assembly, Processing of Food Items land use category. The BOCC has 3
the ability to take the position that these are acceptable land uses for a project, but 4
impose a condition prohibiting certain sub-category food manufacturing land uses such 5
as slaughter operations and/or seafood processing facilities, due to anticipated impacts. 6
7
Utilities: The project is proposed to be served by public water and sewer systems owned by the 8
Town of Hillsborough. Orange County is continuing to work with the Town to install a new sewer 9
line under Interstate 40. This work is consistent with a recently approved inter-local utility 10
agreement between Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough. Consistent with this 11
agreement, the project will be allotted approximately 108,000 gallons of water/wastewater 12
disposal daily. 13
14
Erosion Control/Stormwater Regulations: The applicant has indicated the project will abide by 15
existing stormwater, Section 6.14, and erosion control, Section 6.15, regulations of the UDO. 16
17
Land Use Buffers/External Setbacks: The applicant is proposing: 18
• PIN 9863-71-8857: 19
• 25 ft. buffer along Service Road; 20
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has recommended a 30 ft. Type A buffer along Service Road. 21
• 100 ft. building setback with a 50 ft. perimeter undisturbed buffer along the 22
western/southern property line. Parking/loading area/drive-aisles would observe a 50 ft. 23
setback from the property line; 24
STAFF COMMENT: Section 6.8.12 of the UDO would typically require a 100 ft. 25
perimeter, undisturbed, land use buffer along the western property line. 26
• PIN 9863-91-6573: 27
• 25 ft. buffer along Service Road; 28
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has recommended a 30 ft. Type A buffer along Service Road. 29
• 50 ft. perimeter buffer along the eastern property line. Parking/loading area/drive-isles 30
would be located within this area. 31
32
STAFF COMMENT: Per Section 6.8.12 (C) of the UDO, land use buffers are based on 33
proposed development as well as existing land use(s) on the adjacent parcel. Along the 34
eastern property line the required land use buffer, presuming development on the 35
subject parcel is manufacturing/warehouse space, would range from 20 to 40 ft. in width. 36
37
Further, Section 6.8.7 (D) (1) (a) of the UDO requires parking areas to observe a: 38
landscape area at least ten feet in width, exclusive of drainage and/or utility easements, 39
shall be provided between the vehicular use areas and the right of way or adjacent 40
property line. 41
42
• PIN 9862-99-8894: 43
• 100 ft. perimeter structure buffer. Parking/loading area/drive-aisles would be allowed as 44
shown on the concept plat; 45
• 30 ft. Type A land use buffer along Davis Road. 46
STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommended a 100 ft. perimeter, undisturbed, land use buffer 47
with no development activity permitted. The portion of this property zoned RB would 48
remain as undisturbed open space. 49
50
15
• Floodplain buffers shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.13 of the UDO (i.e. 1
buffer would be measured from the edge of the 1% area of annual inundation (i.e. the historic 2
100-year flood zone) and range from 65 to 80 ft. based on slope; 3
STAFF COMMENT: There has been discussion about reducing the required 4
floodplain buffer to 50 ft. as a means of securing the 100 ft. undisturbed perimeter buffer 5
suggested by staff. 6
7
• MTC Buffer: The applicant is proposing to abide by the standards contained in Section 6.6.4 of 8
the UDO including development of ‘visual breaks’ within the buffer (Section 6.6.4 (A) (5) of the 9
UDO would allow for eliminating 50% of the MTC buffer to create visual breaks). 10
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant’s proposed disturbance would be consistent with 11
existing allowances within the UDO. 12
13
Staff has recommended the imposition of various condition(s) to address land use 14
buffers/external setback issues as contained in Attachment 11. 15
16
Solid Waste: The applicant has indicated development within the project shall abide by the 17
Orange County Solid Waste Management Ordinance. 18
19
Environmental Assessment (EA): The applicant completed the EA for this project as required 20
under Section 6.16 of the UDO. The EA indicates: 21
• Project will not impact any environmentally sensitive areas; 22
• Preservation of existing hardwoods would occur outside of proposed development 23
areas; 24
• No grading activities would occur within the floodplain other than utility/road crossings 25
as permitted within the UDO; 26
• No historically significant or archeologically significant areas have been denoted on the 27
properties. 28
29
Staff has recommended the imposition of various condition(s) to address environmental issues 30
as contained in Attachment 11. 31
32
Other pertinent information concerning the proposed MPD-CZ are as follows: 33
• Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: PIN(s) 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573 34
are located within an Economic Development Transition Activity Node. 35
PIN 9862-99-8894 (Davis Road) is located within the Rural Residential land use 36
category. A separate process is underway to change the FLUM designation of this 37
property to Economic Development Transition Activity Node. 38
39
The FLUM can be accessed utilizing the following link: 40
http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4054/Future-Land-Use-Map-PDF. 41
• Comprehensive Plan: Per Appendix F, “Relationships Between Land Use Categories 42
and Zoning Districts Matrix” of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan, the MPD-CZ 43
district is a permissible zoning designation for property located within an 44
Economic Development Transition Activity Node. 45
46
For more information on the definition of activity node, and to review the allowed zoning 47
designations permitted within same, the Comprehensive Plan can be accessed utilizing 48
the following link: 49
http://www.orangecountync.gov/1242/2030-Comprehensive-Plan. 50
51
16
Growth Management System Map Designation: PIN(s) 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573 are 1
located within an Urban designated area while the parcel on Davis Road is located within a 2
Rural Designated area. If the FLUM amendments (above) are approved, the designation of the 3
12 acre parcel will automatically change to “Urban”. 4
STAFF COMMENT: The Growth Management System Map is a tool utilized by staff to 5
identify permit review thresholds for residential (i.e. subdivision) projects. 6
7
• Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA): The parcels 8
are located within the Hillsborough Primary Service Area meaning public utilities (i.e. water and 9
sewer) could be extended. Public utility service would be provided by the Town of Hillsborough. 10
The document can be accessed utilizing the following 11
link: http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4190/Water-and-Sewer-12
Management-Planning-and-Boundary-Agreement-PDF 13
14
• Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land 15
Use Plan: These parcels are designated as being located within the following COCA land use 16
categories: 17
PINs: 9863-71-8857 and 9863-91-6573: Employment 18
PIN 9862-99-6573 – Recommended to be Suburban Office. 19
20
The recommended zoning designation/proposed land uses would allow development 21
consistent with the intent of COCA. For more information on the COCA land use 22
categories, please refer to Attachment 4. 23
24
Analysis: As required under Section 2.9.2 (E) of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: 25
‘cause an analysis to be made of the application’ and pass that analysis on to the reviewing 26
body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 27
1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.9.2 (C) 28
of the UDO; 29
2. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the 30
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: 31
a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, 32
and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and 33
facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County’s population and 34
economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and 35
objectives. 36
b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental 37
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, 38
and community character. 39
c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program 40
and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, 41
minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced 42
transportation system. 43
d. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density 44
residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of 45
public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate 46
supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access, 47
streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural 48
resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating 49
new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. 50
17
e. Economic Development Objective ED-2.1: Encourage compact and higher 1
density development in areas served by water and sewer. 2
f. Economic Development Objective ED-2.10: Extend public water and sewer into 3
all three Economic Development Districts. 4
5
3. The applicant has provided a basic environmental assessment as part of this 6
submittal. 7
Staff has reviewed and determined there ought to be no significant environmental impact from 8
this project based on existing conditions; 9
4. Staff has determined that the proposed development is consistent with existing and 10
anticipated development within the area and the various land uses associated with the 11
project are compatible. 12
13
Neighborhood Information Meeting: An on-line neighborhood information meeting for the project 14
was held by the applicant on July 15, 2020 in accordance with Section 2.9.2 (D) of the UDO. A 15
synopsis of comments made at the meeting can be found within Attachment 7. 16
17
Public Notifications: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO: 18
• Notices were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject 19
parcels providing the date/time of the public hearing where the proposal is to be 20
reviewed. These notices were mailed on August 28, 2020, 18 days before the meeting. 21
• Staff posted the subject parcels with signs indicating the date/time of the public hearing 22
on September 4, 2020, 11 days before the meeting; 23
• Staff caused a legal ad advertising the date, time, location, and purpose of the BOCC 24
public hearing to run in the News of Orange and the Durham Herald-Sun on September 25
2 and 9, 2020. 26
27
For more information, please refer to Attachment 9. 28
29
Courtesy Review: This request was submitted to the Town of Hillsborough as part of the 30
courtesy review program. To date, no comments have been received other than there are no 31
concerns over the proposed zoning atlas amendment. 32
33
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board began its review of the zoning atlas 34
amendment at its August 5, 2020 regular meeting, which was adjourned to August 19 to 35
continue discussion. At this meeting the Board voted 6 to 4 to recommend approval of the 36
Statement of Consistency (Attachment 10) and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment 37
(Attachment 11) as proposed by staff. Those voting against the project cited the following 38
concerns: 39
40
a. The Board wanted the applicant to provide the specific tenants (i.e. names, 41
operational characteristics, etc.) within the project for ‘review and approval’ prior 42
to action being taken on the zoning atlas amendment request; 43
b. Board members expressed concern over anticipated traffic impacts on Davis 44
Road; 45
c. The project was deemed to be too intensive for the area. 46
47
Excerpts of the minutes from these meetings, as well as the Board’s signed Statement of 48
Consistency, are included in Attachment 8. Agenda materials from the meetings can be viewed 49
at: https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26 50
51
18
1
Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the: 2
1. Statement of Consistency indicating the zoning atlas amendment(s) are reasonable 3
and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 10. 4
STAFF COMMENT: This presumes the land use designation of the 12 acre 5
parcel (PIN 9862-99-8894) is changed from Rural Residential to Economic 6
Development Transition Activity Node as detailed herein. If the aforementioned 7
FLUM is not approved, the staff recommendation will have to be revised. 8
2. Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, as well as imposing development conditions, 9
for the identified parcels as contained in Attachment 11. 10
11
Michael Harvey, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor, gave the following PowerPoint 12
presentation: 13
14
Slide #1 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Slide #2 34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
19
Slide #3 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Slide #4 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Slide #5 34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
20
Slide #6 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Slide #7 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Slide #8 36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51