Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-09-19-2023-Business Meeting 1 APPROVED 1112/23 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BUSINESS MEETING September 19, 2023 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, September 19, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair McKee and Commissioners Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, Jean Hamilton, Phyllis Portie-Ascott, and Commissioner Richards COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present, except Vice-Chair McKee and Commissioner Richards. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair Bedford dispensed with reading the public charge. Commissioner Richards arrived at 7:01 pm. 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Mary Bratsch-Hines said Orange County Solid Waste will soon be seeking the Board's approval to build a large-scale waste and recycling center on land currently owned by OWASA at the corner of Orange Grove Rd. and HWY 54. She provided the Commissioners with a copy of a letter that she and other residents presented to OWASA last week in opposition to the proposed sale. She said the site plan developed by the Solid Waste Department does not represent the number of nearby homes. She said there are 70 residential properties within 2000 feet of the proposed site, including 35 homes that are within 1000 feet. She said this represents 2.5-4x greater residential density than exists within 1,000 feet of any other waste and recycling center in Orange County. She said other centers are sited alongside commercial or industrial properties, which is far more appropriate than in a residential area. She said her biggest concern is increased traffic because of closing the Bradshaw Quarry and Ferguson Rd. waste and recycling centers. She said the plan is for the new waste and recycling center to be open 6 days a week and would make traveling on that part of Orange Grove Rd. treacherous. She said her children and dozens of others ride the bus on this road each day. She said the bus stop is very close to the proposed site entrance, and the entrance is also on a blind curve in a 55 MPH zone. She said the intensified traffic places all at risk. She said rural residents haven't asked for a waste and recycling center, especially not at this price and location. Barry Lawrence said he and his wife live in the Collins Creek community which is adjacent to the proposed waste and recycling center on Orange Grove Rd. He said he is concerned by the smells, the noise, the traffic, and runoff this proposed plan would cause and the impact it may have on his property value, quality of life, and possibly contaminate his well. He said this proposal 2 carries a significant environmental justice concern and cited the Board's Social Justice Goals. He said of the 35 homes within 1,000 feet that the previous speaker mentioned, 80% of them are already within 1000 feet of the biosolid field, and 60%of them make up a mobile home community. Of those living in the mobile home community, he said 60% are Hispanic or Latino. He said those families didn't receive any information in Spanish from anyone, and they do not want this either, but are not comfortable coming forward. He said questions of disproportionate burden should be asked any time one community asked to accommodate multiple waste management activities, especially if the community shares demographic or socioeconomic traits. He asked the Board to direct Solid Waste to come up with a new proposal that doesn't affect a residential area. Joyce McGuire said she and her husband have lived at their home, adjacent to the proposed waste facility and the OWASA biofield, for 35 years. She said she is most concerned with noise, odor, and potential well water contamination because of the waste and recycling center. She said the closest properties to the site are only 100 feet away and there will be extremely loud compactors, shattering glass, backup beepers, and slamming cars 6 days a week all day long. She said complete odor-containment is impossible and foul-smelling odors will greatly depreciate surrounding property values. Regarding wells, she said some residents' wells are within 500 feet of the proposed facility and there can be no guarantee that this won't result in contamination of the wells of surrounding homes. She asked the commissioners to say no to the Solid Waste Department's request to build a waste and recycling center on this site. She also encouraged Board members to walk the property and stated that after doing so they will see that this is not a suitable location. Susan Walser said she lives in Bingham Township. She said she doesn't live near the site, but she is part of this community and is concerned. She said she is a realtor and is concerned that any resident around the facility will have to disclose that there is odor and noise from the commercial facility when attempting to sell their property. She said this facility will certainly have a negative impact on real estate in this area. Ms. Walser also said she was at the Solid Waste Advisory Group meeting last night and there was a presentation by a consultant about a zero- waste proposal. She stated that the survey conducted in relation to this topic was only completed by 1,400 people and the results don't represent the county. She said the numbers in the presentation didn't make sense. She added that the presentation was geared toward the towns and proposed raising the solid waste fees which would have a negative impact on the many financially compromised people in the county. She said this would benefit the towns but not the rural townships. She encouraged the Board to focus on what is wanted vs. what is needed in the county. Marilee McTigue said she has lived in Orange County for over 30 years and resides in Bingham township around 5 miles away from the proposed site for the waste and recycling center. She said the people in this area don't see the need for this and don't understand the justification for the cost. She said she'd rather see this money go toward other rural needs like more investment in high-speed internet. Vice-Chair McKee arrived at 7:15 pm. Joshua Setzer said his home is about 1,700 feet from the proposed waste and recycling center site. He said there are a lot of problems with this proposal. He said closing the Bradshaw and Ferguson sites will mean more driving for residents which is counter to the idea of a convenience center. He said this may also lead to more illegal burning and dumping of garbage. He said there is a path to upgrading the current facilities, which would better benefit residents. He said the bins do need repair and replacement and has heard people would like the existing facilities to be open more days a week. He said he understands this is a staffing issue and suggested paying staff more. He said there are sport shooting ranges near the site that would make residents uncomfortable using the facility. He said building the site would require clear- 3 cutting a significant amount of forest and abandoning two other sites that were already clear cut and contaminated, which doesn't sound like the best environmental decision. He added that the creek flows to eventually to Jordan Lake, which is part of Chapel Hill-Carrboro's long-range water plan. He said there are also a lot of liability issues for the county to consider when building on a site used for biosolids, especially considering pending EPA guidance on PFAS and biosolids. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members Commissioner Fowler said she attended the Ideal Communities Action Team on September 8t", which has created a vision for people with disability and older adults in North Carolina to be informed about and have access to a wide array of inclusive, safe, affordable housing options. She said the team is looking at policy changes and accessing currently available funding. She said there was a SWAG meeting last night and they received a presentation on the Zero-Waste Master Plan, which presented multiple options for implementation ranging from little capital investment and a small cost increase for users up to significant capital investment and price increases. She said the plan will eventually be brought back to SWAG and then ultimately to the BOCC for consideration. She said SWAG also heard updates on the proposed waste and recycling center, including public comment from 10 residents. She indicated that Robert Williams, Solid Waste Director, will be providing additional information on the Solid Waste website later this week. Finally, she shared that she attended the ABC Board meeting this morning and sales are still higher now than this time last year, and the legislature is considering legislation to allow Sunday sales and open stores on July 4t" and January 1st Commissioner Richards said she was at the Burlington-Graham MPO meeting tonight, which resulted in her arriving late. She said the Metro-Transportation Improvement Plan was approved at the meeting, and the SPOT and other priority items were pushed to the October meeting. She said that October 21 st is Great Trails State Day, and every county is encouraged to do something around trails. She said she recently learned there is a Transit to Trails program that will provide transportation to trails across the state. She said today is National Voter Registration Day, and only 1 in 4 eligible voters is registered to vote. Commissioner Richards recognized this month as Hispanic Heritage Month. She also said she also attended the Justice Advisory Council meeting on September 81" and one of the things that has been long-planned and is ready to initiate is medication for opioid-use disorder at the jail. She said this will benefit new detention center residents experiencing withdrawal and create a plan for them to continue treatment at release. Vice-Chair McKee said he and several other commissioners attended the Orange Grove Fire Department 50t" anniversary event. He said it was a very good event, with a lot of reflection and recognition of past firefighters and community members who were involved in these efforts. Chair Bedford said she met with the OWASA delegation this morning and their budget is impacted by inflation. She said the merging of Pittsboro and Sanford water and sewer supply created a wrinkle that OWASA must figure out regarding western intake on Jordan Lake. She said OWASA also has until the end of 2028 to meet new EPA PFAS regulations and will hire a consultant to do short term and long-term work on this. She said the Board of Social Services met yesterday and there are some children in DSS care and having the house for visitation has provided relief for the children after school. Chair Bedford added that the NACO annual meeting is tentatively scheduled in Florida, and the Clerk is drafting a letter asking them to reconsider that decision. Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she attended the reception to meet Jeff McNeil, Veterans Services Officer, and met some other disabled veterans and learned about the services they are offering to other veterans in Orange County. She said she is coordinating a time to meet with Jeff McNeil one on one to understand more about the services they are providing. She said she also 4 talked with the DSS Director and staff at the reception to get a better understanding of traditional Medicaid vs. the Medicaid waiver program. She attended a special presentation on housing from the former Wake County planning director. She said it was interesting to see how they streamlined their permitting process for residents. Commissioner Greene agreed that the presentation Commissioner Portie-Ascott mentioned was very well done. She said her takeaway was the importance of combining land use with transportation planning. Commissioner Greene took a moment to recognize a couple of events that took place over the summer that the Board forgot to mention at their last meeting. She said the UPROAR festival was a tremendous success and hopes the Board and staff will support Katie Murray in planning another event. She said there was also a groundbreaking for the Lumos project, which will bring broadband to over 20,000 households in Orange County. She said because the Board used$10,000,000 directly from the federal government,this process is moving more quickly than some other counties using other funding sources. Commissioner Greene also encouraged everyone to get their vaccines this season. Commissioner Hamilton thanked Commissioner Greene for bringing attention to UPROAR and updates on Lumos. She said she attended the Alliance Health board meeting earlier this month. She said for those who don't know, Alliance Health is the Manage Care Organization for the county, which provides mental health services for residents with Medicaid and uninsured residents. She said Alliance Health is working hard to improve services to residents, get ready for Medicaid expansion, and have a plan to coordinate physical and mental health. Commissioner Hamilton said the Capital Needs Work Group is meeting tomorrow morning and will receive a report from a consultant regarding the capital needs of schools. She said this presentation will likely also take place at the joint meeting with the school boards on September 26`h Chair Bedford said two volunteers from the Board are needed to serve on the Naming Committee for the 203 Project. Commissioner Greene and Commissioner Richards volunteered to serve. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations a. Presentation of the Schools Safety Task Force Final Report The Board received a presentation on the Schools Safety Task Force Final Report. BACKGROUND: The Charge and composition of the Schools Safety Task Force were established at the Board's November 15, 2022 Business Meeting. With a subsequent amendment to the Charge approved at the Board of Commissioners' April 18, 2023 Business meeting, the Task Force was charged to: 1) Discuss ways in which the Orange County government, schools, law enforcement, and community can enhance the safety of the school environment to protect from external threats and promote the education of Orange County K-12 public school students; and 2) Recommend to the Board of County Commissioners new or amended policies, ordinances, and/or practices that will address those external threats and provide a safer school environment for our students, teachers and staff. Task Force members were appointed in December 2022 and January/February 2023. Commissioner Jean Hamilton and Commissioner Earl McKee served as Co-Chairs for the Task Force, and Retired District Court Judge Jay Bryan served as the facilitator. The Task Force met six times between February and June 2023 and explored the primary topic areas of: • Protest/demonstrations • Active Assailants, and • Public Access to School Property During School Hours. 5 Presenters to the Task Force included: • Karen Fairley, Executor Director of the Center for Safer Schools, an agency within the NC Department of Public Instruction • UNC Law School Professor Mary-Rose Papandrea regarding the First Amendment and the Constitution • John Roberts, County Attorney for Orange County Board of Commissioners The agendas and meeting summaries for Task Force meetings are available at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Search/?term=&CIDs=38,&startDate=&endDat e=&dateRange=&dateSelector= Based on the information gathering efforts, presentations and discussion, the Task Force developed the attached Final Report including nine (9) recommendations (see page 7 of the Report). Greg Wilder, Assistant to the County Manager for Legislative Issues, reviewed the background information for this item. He invited retired District Court Judge and task force facilitator, Jay Bryan, to make comments. Jay Bryan thanked the Board for the opportunity to serve as facilitator for this task force and said he enjoyed working with Commissioner Hamilton and Vice-Chair McKee as co-chairs, as well as Greg Wilder. He said the Board's wisely chosen task force members brought a wide array of perspectives and expertise. He shared the topics discussed at each meeting and reviewed the recommendations from the task force: 1. Annual meetings of the Task Force or other group be convened by the BOCC to review policies that address safety in the school districts and provide education on laws addressing school disruptions. 2. Quarterly meetings of school staff involved in school safety issues and law enforcement to continue to be held to discuss coordination and communication regarding safety. 3. The physical boundaries of each school in the school districts be identified and shared with stakeholders, including law enforcement, emergency management, school staff, parents, and others involved in school safety. 4. Assessments of improvements to school buildings regarding safety as well as funding for such improvements be continued. 5. Law enforcement, schools, and emergency management continue to follow Standard Response Protocols and evaluate approaches that are individualized for each school. 6. The roles of SROs, teachers, and staff be clearly communicated among all stakeholders. 7. Annual surveys of teachers and students' perceptions of safety and disruption of schools be promulgated and evaluated for promoting safety. 8. Common definitions and accessible language for terms and first responder codes involved in school safety (i.e.., "disruption", "external threats", "lockdown") be developed for both school districts and the community. 9. Outreach should continue a coordinated basis with the public about how the community can support school safety. Commissioner Hamilton said this was a good task force experience. She said there is amazing expertise in this community, and it was present on this task force. She specifically recognized the student representative that participated and highlighted the importance of their perspective. Commissioner Richards asked why only one student participated. 6 Commissioner Hamilton said her understanding is there was an issue of getting students to and from meetings, so that's why one of the recommendations is to have surveys to get additional students' perspectives. Vice-Chair McKee added that the task force varied the times and locations of meetings to try to accommodate members. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if any meetings were held during the school day. Commissioner Hamilton and Vice-Chair McKee said no. Commissioner Hamilton said Greg Wilder and Jay Bryan were great to work with. She thanked them both for their unique contributions to the task force. She said while this was a good task force experience, it wasn't perfect. She said that one of the downfalls of the task force was not having more student input, and the schools did what they could to get student representatives. Commissioner Hamilton said there was discussion about meeting at the schools, but law enforcement members of the task force were concerned about the safety of students. She said she learned a lot through this experience, and it was great to have the law enforcement and school safety experts. She said for the most part, the county, school districts, and law enforcement are already doing what is considered best practice around school safety, but there is opportunity for more clarity and to share information with the public to the extent possible. She said she supports the task force recommendations, thinks they are doable, and they keep a process going to help them all be better able to respond in the future. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how all stakeholders being aware of the boundaries of school property will keep students safe. Commissioner Hamilton said there are a lot of components to consider when establishing physical boundaries of school properties and it isn't always clear. She asked John Roberts to weigh in. John Roberts said Commissioner Hamilton was correct--there is a question of where school property ends and the public right of way adjacent to the property begins. He said a member of the public may be on the sidewalk, but for a road, it isn't always clear how far into the road the school's right of way extends. Commissioner Hamilton said that is why the recommendation is there to figure out those boundaries so that law enforcement is aware and can limit people crossing over that line. Vice-Chair McKee said some of these recommendations may seem vague, but there were often even more questions after receiving presentations and information from experts. He said this will remain a living document and be open to interpretation, amendment, clarification, and revision so that it can grow and respond with the needs at the time. Vice-Chair McKee highlighted that the well-being of students was a focus throughout all the task force's discussions. Commissioner Fowler said establishing the physical boundaries of schools is a critical action item and asked who it has been assigned to. Vice-Chair McKee said he thinks it will fall to the school district to define where the property limits are. Commissioner Fowler said this information could be incorporated into the schools' annual safety plans. Commissioner Hamilton agreed that this does need to be assigned to someone to complete. To add to her response to Commissioner Portie-Ascott's early question about ensuring safety, she said the laws on books don't protect emotional distress. She said law enforcement can act if actions disrupt the school day or school operations. She said having an expert to explain that an annual meeting is critical so that everyone understands this is a limit, but also knows there is a plan in place in case that does happen. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how this information can be communicated to parents and to students to show that they are doing all they can to keep them safe. Commissioner Hamilton said she believes the annual meeting can result in information that is disseminated to the broader community, including parents and students. She said she believes the whole community is needed in this conversation because it is too big for the schools to take on alone. She said she views the county commissioners as the conveners to bring everyone together. Commissioner Greene asked if this information will be shared with the Capital Needs Work Group. Commissioner Hamilton said the capital needs are beyond safety, but she agrees safety will inform some of the decisions about capital needs. Vice-Chair McKee said the task force's recommendations should serve as a guide. Regarding the connection between safety and capital needs, Vice-Chair McKee said thinking about access points at schools and other safety issues needs to be part of every conversation regarding future schools and renovating existing schools. He said common definitions are also needed to keep stakeholders on the same page when having these conversations. Commissioner Richards said she thinks there are specifics in the recommendations that should be seen through. She said she hopes there is some commitment on the part of the schools to act relative to this. She said many of the recommendations center around clarity, communicating, and educating on an ongoing basis, and now the Board and stakeholders should move toward implementing and working toward the recommendations. Vice-Chair McKee said he thinks this should come up every joint meeting with the school boards and wants follow up from the schools. Chair Bedford said the school systems have long been working on making schools safer and continue to do so. She said the Board should partner with the schools. Commissioner Hamilton said there is a role for the county commissioners to convene stakeholders and communicate beyond the school community to convey what schools are facing. She said School Collaboration Meetings are an opportunity for decisions on how to move forward with implementation. She said she is happy to serve on a committee for the annual meeting and rotate with others. Chair Bedford said she will raise that issue at the November 91h School Collaboration Meeting. Commissioner Hamilton highlighted the importance of making sure meetings work with the school calendar. 5. Public Hearings a. 5311 Rural Area Formula Grant and Combined Capital Program (5311/5339) Grant for FY 2024 The Board held a public hearing on the 5311 Administrative grant application and the Combined Capital grant application for FY 2024 and approved the Local Share Certification (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND: Each year, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Integrated Mobility Division (IMD) accepts requests for capital, operations, and administrative needs for county-operated transit programs. Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) is eligible to make application for both capital and administrative funding and seeks a total of $1,796,947 in transit grant funding. Detailed breakdown is outlined in the table below: 8 Source 5311 Admin Grant Combined Capital Totals Grant Total $ 196,947 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,796,947 Federal $ 157,557 $ 1,280,000 $1,437,557 State $ 9,848 $ 160,000 $ 169,848 Local $ 29,542 $ 160,000 $ 189,542 OCTS provides the opportunity for access to jobs and services to many individuals. Public notices were advertised through News of Orange in English and Spanish. The 5311 Administrative and Combined Capital grants provide financial support for transit services that promote economic self-sufficiency to a wide range of residents and locations. The funds additionally support a system that enhances the access of residents in the non-urbanized areas to health care, shopping, education, employment, public services, and recreation. Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Service Director, reviewed the background information for the item. A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to open the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS There were no comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Vice-Chair McKee, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve and authorize the Chair and staff to sign the Local Share Certification. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. 5311 Rural Area Formula Grant and Combined Capital Program (5311/5339) Grant for FY 2025 The Board conducted a public hearing on the 5311 Administrative grant application and the Combined Capital grant application for FY 2025, approved the 5311 Administrative grant application, and approved the Program Resolution (Attachment 1) and Local Share Certification (Attachment 2). BACKGROUND: Each year, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Integrated Mobility Division (IMD) accepts requests for capital, operations and administrative needs for county-operated transit programs. Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) is eligible to make application for both capital and administrative funding and seeks a total of $206,764 in grant funding. Detailed breakdown is outlined in the table below: 9 Source 5311 Admin Grant Combined Capital Totals Grant Total $ 206,794 $ 0 $ 206,794 Federal $ 165,435 $ 0 $ 165,435 State $ 10,339 $ 0 $ 10,339 Local $ 31,020 $ 0 $ 31,020 OCTS provides the opportunity for access to jobs and services to many individuals. The 5311 Administrative and Combined Capital grants provide financial support for transit services that promote economic self-sufficiency to a wide range of residents and locations. The funds additionally support a system that enhances the access of residents in the non-urbanized areas to health care, shopping, education, employment, public services, and recreation. OCTS staff received new information from NCDOT regarding the discretionary allocation and are required to redo the public hearing and update the Local Share Certificate to receive these additional grant funds. Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Service Director, reviewed the background information for the item. A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to open the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS There were no comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Vice-Chair McKee, to approve the 5311 Administrative grant application for $206,794 including a local match total of $31,020, and to approve and authorize the Chair and staff to sign the Program Resolution (Attachment 1) and Local Share Certificate (Attachment 2) VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Regular Agenda a. Orange County NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study The Board approved the NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study in Orange County. BACKGROUND: In Fall 2018, the consultant (VHB) concluded the NC 54 West Multimodal Corridor Study presenting a thorough existing conditions, environmental and economic analysis of the corridor, two rounds of public engaging workshops in each of the local jurisdictions and presented the full report (link). VHB also followed up with a Phase 2 (Attachment 1) report addressing all the important issues raised throughout the planning process. 10 The City of Graham approved the study prior to the Phase 2 report while the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization in collaboration with Alamance County approved the study in its entirety with phase 2. These entities submitted the western portion of the corridor for the State's Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT) 6.0 and will do so again for 7.0. Orange County received the report, as did the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). Both regional agencies defer to the County respectively. In Fall 2019, the Town of Carrboro Town Council unanimously approved a resolution unconditionally opposing the study. While Orange County continues coordinating and collaborating with all its local and regional partners along the corridor since the study's completion, traffic on NC 54 has returned to pre- covid levels, serious injuries and fatalities continue at increasing rate, and development pressure increase in southern Orange County. Orange County continues to collaborate with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), which updated its Complete Street Policy and Implementation Guide in 2019, revamping State highway projects for a more comprehensive benefit for all users. The State also grants local government the ability to adopt transportations plans and implement them through Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinances. State's New Process— Complete Streets (link) Over the past three years, NCDOT has made significant progress is advancing the policy and improving its implementation through its Project Delivery Network (PDN). All highway projects now go through a comprehensive "complete" use assessment. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is the governing document for the State's new Complete Street Policy and its implementation. Per the new policy, "during the Comprehensive Transportation Planning process, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and other multimodal usage shall be presumed to exist along and across certain corridors." NCDOT recognizes that an individual user is a pedestrian, bicyclist, transit rider, EV/gas vehicle driver, etc., and often times in the same day. Therefore, the policy dictates "Consideration of multimodal elements will begin at the inception of the transportation planning process and the decisions made will be documented." Local Authorization— UDO and Collector Street Plans The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in section 2.5.3.(V), includes the requirement that applications for site plans demonstrate compliance with adopted transportation plans. This may include reserving or dedicating right of way or requiring road construction listed in locally adopted Transportation Plans or on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). Specific mention is also made in North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) § 136 66.2 and § 136 66.10 regarding the reservation or dedication of right of way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and locally adopted transportation plans. Orange County currently has three locally adopted transportation plans: • Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan • Orange Grove Road Access Management Plan • Eno Economic Development District Access Management Plan Approval of NC 54 West Multimodal Corridor Study would be a fourth locally adopted transportation plan and will demonstrate the County's commitment to multi-mobility, transit access, and safety of the transportation as an important local priority, followed by the US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study which is anticipated to be completed Fall 2023. It will also demonstrate to local, regional and state partners that the County, like NCDOT's Complete Streets, sees the road network as equitable for all travelers, not favoring one over the other, and acknowledges that a traveler throughout the course of the day will walk one place, ride another, drive to and from a third, and bike yet another. 11 Transportation Advisory Service (TAS) April 2023 —The TAS unanimously recommended approval of NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study. Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) May 22, 2023 — The OUTBoard voted 4 — 1 in favor of BOCC approving the Study (an excerpt from the meeting minutes with detail discussion is provided at Attachment 2). Chair Bedford said this is coming forward because there are four members of the Board that have not ever seen this. She said this will provide them a chance to discuss the study and ask questions. Nishith Trivedi, Orange County Transportation Services Director, made the following presentation: Slide #1 i ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study September 19, 2023 BOCC Slide #2 Outline o Background • The Multimodal Corridor Recommendations • Complete Street and\Asion Zero • Environmental Justice(in transportation) o All Issues Addressed o Requested Action 12 Slide #3 NC 54 West Corridor oCHC MPO _ 4.6 miles-22%of corridor Byjurisdiction and MPOIRf O T {2.8mile&-60.87/Orange County) (1.8 miles-39.13%Carrboro) -- Graham/ETJ ti-- 1.7 miles 5weapsonvillsIETJ Oungs County 1.2 miles p Fri 7A111 5.83% Wamance County "-4 7.3 miles TARPO _ 35.44% 5.8 M lles-28%of coridor f 100%Orange County BGMPO ° -- 102Miles•50%of corridor _ [83X Alamance County) Orange County (17%Graham[ 8.6miles [ r ee'i 41.75% � Carrborof ETJ 1.8 miles ` a.73% Slide #4 Multimodal Corridor Recommendations 0 ------------------------ ----------- ETJ �————————a———————����� -—————————� I I I F I I I I I I _rxNraFM1Krx.aey 1 CF.- �r 41rn}, rr sl FrfYOr4 I I I i r.rt,.::•r:� I ETJ I I I--------------------------------------------� Soalrce:Carrboro GiIS Zoning Map and Googk, 3 Nishith Trivedi discussed the area that is in the ETJ of Carrboro and said that is Orange County. 13 Slide #5 Multimodal Corridor Recommendations 421., &god no I Source:PoWlc WorksMp VZ Phase 1 2 Report Travel lane=transit,EMS,freight,auto,EV,etc. Nishith Trivedi said that it is already exceeding the capacity of the corridor, and this will address transit and EMS. Slide#6 Multimodal Corridor Recommendations KPQB.W19FIMI*-3 El F- 81 aG M PO UP PART add service Oter made MuNm9dal PnR a Mebane Oaks New the Nest and Retreat Gecter JJ C..b NIA — PTkR Q Vowte rW!53 Former Qoliar General Propwal —Z A Figure IS.Transk Rgum and Park-&-FtWe Lot; wvll� Rspxf 3 14 Nishith Trivedi said that there are multiple park and ride lots proposed for the future. He said there are transit improvements as well. Slide #7 Multimodal Corridor Recommendation BikeOpedestrian MMIM Scqmcnt - , advvay fSUP) M 1 $ 2.800,000 $ 5,100.000 $7,900.000 2 $ 14,600,000 $ 1,800,000 16,400,000 3 S 30,800,000 $4.600.000 ►35.400,000 4 $ 16,400,008 $ 3,100,000 19,600,000 5 S 29.600.000 $ 3.100.000 $32,700.000 6 $2010Q000 $ 3,300,000 $23,400,000 7 $ 37.400.000 $5,800.000 $43,200,000 Project Cask 6 S�tS r �aa Sao �f5 dip 3epmerrt 1 2 3 4 8 B 4 ■HlgwayJRoadway ■BIWped. Source'Probi1c WorkshM#2,Phrase 9 A 2 Report 6 Nishith Trivedi said that all pieces included a shared use of the bike path and 10% was added for the bike/ped piece. He said the green shows the additional cost. 15 Slide #8 FY2024-2033 STIP— US Routes Seeking CS through Highway Improvements Us 1 Js 221-Nc226 Us 117 BuslUs 117(N.Williams Street) Us 23 Business(South Main Street) Us 13(Berkeley Boulevard) Us 258 Us 131Nc 11 Us 25a(Sweeten Creek Road) Us 15!Us 401 Us 276(Russ Avenue) Us 15!Us 501 Us 401 Us 158(Shortcut Road) Us 421 Us 17 Us 4211Us 321 Us 19e Us 601 Us 19e,Nc 194 Us 64 Us 21-Nc 115 Us 641Nc 69 Us 21 (Charlotte Highway) Us 70(South Church Street) Us 220 Business Us 74 Us 221 NC 98(Holloway Street) Nc 279 Ne 105 Nc279(New Hope Road) Nc 112(Sardis Roadl Sandhill Road) Nc 3 Nc 115 Nc 42 Nc 119 Ne 43 Nc 125 Nc 49 Nc 133(Castle Hayne Road) Nc 53 Nc 150 Nc 56 Nc 150(Oak Ridge Farm Highway) Nc 59(South Main Street) Nc 16(Providence Road South) Nc 63(Leicester Highway) Nc 184 Ne 69 Ne 211 Nc 84 Nc241Nc27 Nc87 Nishith Trivedi said slide #8 shows the corridors that are seeking complete street improvements across the state. He said these are funded by state and federal funds. Slide #9 NCQOT Complete Streets 2A Adopted Plans A Comprehenslve Transportation Plan(CTP)is a mutualy adopted transportation planning document t11m1 Identifies the mlitkmodal tranmponation needs of a community or lurlsdlctlon. The CTP may Include snGlor reference kacM adopted plans for public transportation, bicycle facilities,pedeslrlan radIities and greenways The adopted CTP will be considered the controlling plan for the identlflcatlon of non-motorized facHties to be Evmlual'd as part of a roadway project.Other locally adopted plmns will be consideered so long as 1)the planned facility addresses a transportatlon need and 2)the planned faclllly meets the design guldance standards H1­A.2022-01,•„I,rop ORANGE COLWYV BOARD OF l O"MIONERS RESQUTI0`I lRlk TIIPt aUOYrION OFOWuB CuUnTY Lu.MrLETS!CfRUTA PoLL0, WIFIMIRMS,the Ore Oitmly RoesdofCoumx C"YY aiwiussm(FONC hrss fund Ch3I Or+»i 1' ix 3�Isnlilljg dh a eprnlnu—,mgwrmlre,rid ewnlxNe n�iniw+ni auciif4lsi Willi:.I V_rz-0 rW aV JEW 16W.aCG WHEUAS.IhcBCClcxpr—I.I.ngpxl fus tic aLipr8cnsi-:opk—nlleiun uriht Nurlh CSrcfm Dipwtmaot ur pirftft Lliom WCD95 Cbmplsts R4 is DA,,5 in orita wAivablr rcg"irl gilj wlpl,TWIF md!hlgmsnv palace u.a. r nr8lmYn�nn Jd1L'�lan,;r1 WHEREAS,i*oV Omiy mppme lool mcnil,,_liwlktsga'Me AIe and FQA.116rn Planningiir spFPkmlorq and WHIMITA-. Osage Co—ly lgsri­ hw 4y u.rv.si.yl .II --1" ­d sewrnmods rdPlssen,�daplleg i E'90FICIG Sv H4 dsaigrtond rormuclian ofsnFuatreersnd uuces JwtheumspmWuwixryYses¢b mbisalluser aquilonly;and WREREAS.&C mpldn S-13 p3dicy�ielp Gran irarc_:3ki——omit appeaamisies• intuoee phs skid ammly.and crcae s<t6ere¢virorsmenls&alasidrlus and vuiwrs: Y6w THEREFORE.UITRESCCIP'ED.dULC pt:omgail`umsitssuppmtoiC—,p3,W Sits m 16e plmainq.,designmd crosts_yion of highwaX pmlrcls. Cranga County- MCDOT krlOremerital'Yon Guide$Courrdy Cl�t,�Ll.;Im d Poft F 7 16 Nishith Trivedi said that the complete streets program has been amended and is better now than it was. He said that Orange County also adopted a complete street policy so that they can make sure transportation is equitable across all uses and for everyone. Slide #10 Background — Market Analysis W< Cmplfl At— Hill I Elw� hoks at Lloyd Farm r 11 x "E rrb"r a 9r"M -} The Next And Retreat Center GY it�41 'Qiiirlf ; 11�oaralq=mnr9du61utr1 _-- Pluok Farm LR■�aa�4 l PottrUNIV DrvoF7{.7di 9% 101. KIwxf. 7.KQhf. Potential Development Nodes IEoM&f. naming ECO7oRiic H-eriFage/R2-creatiar1 Woody Dr. * q+#nge Fpm„r 8tl. * NC 111 ■ hit.wIllen Rd_ ' Old Fayetteville Rd_ Mebarie Gays Rd. • Bethel-Hkkng4�rovech.Rd. Souro , Phase I Marke5t,4rwysls-RcseyAs&x af&s � Nishith Trivedi said that Rose and Associates completed the market analysis and since the study, there have been development proposals presented. He said that this shows the potential development nodes throughout the county and along NC 54. 17 Slide #11 _ Environmental Justice - Title Vl of Civil nights and Environmental Justice 1964 Civil Rights Act and TiIle VI oftheAct(nondiscrimination) 1994 Executive Order No. 12898-Environmental Justice CommunitiesofConeern Benefits and Burdens litlevi There are Benefits and burdens related to every transportation-related project and both must be considered for each specibc project daring the project i`deatifcation and prioritization phases of long-range planning activities such as M P and the UP (p,a-15) ip Nishith Trivedi said that environmental justice was codified and went into effect in 1994. He said that this identified communities of concern. He said it uses census data and individual block groups. Slide #12 Environmental Justice y COC 3 G4G"i INC 54 GOG � coc 3 - C L.P.nd �.. RueA� �•c..��.cwn Community of Concern • Census Blocks[hat rneel County level EJ thresholds are called Community of Concern (CDC):non-white,minorities,H i spa nicA-atino,elderly,zero car,Limited English proficiency(LEP) • Darker the red, more overlap,meets multiple thresholds • COC 4-Eastern half of NC 54 Multi modal Corridor meets: • Non-white,minority,HispanictLatino,and elderly • COC 3-Wester half of NC 54 Multimodal Corridor meets: • HispaniclLatino,elderly,and Limited English Proficiency(LEP) Orange C-cwi r- OCHC WO 2020 Enwronn+eritar Justice Report It 18 Nishith Trivedi said that the county thresholds show that southern Orange County has two communities of concern that have four overlapping criteria that need investment in transportation improvements. Slide #13 Environmental Justice Northern County 9enelit • Implemented 140 widening • 100% skate and - federal investment • Long distance commuters • Limited access Southern Orange County is • Only vehicle and ove-r bu-rdened and lransil, no bikeiped underserved Southern County Burden • Plernned NC 54 mLdtimodal • 100%state and federal investment (Potential) • Local and regional commuters • Few high level COC InckWas lrarisit. - bikefped and - _ vehicle Tp Nishith Trivedi said that currently the widening of 1-40 is not equitable because it serves Northern Orange County. He said that Southern Orange County is not getting benefits right now. He said the planned NC 54 multimodal would benefit southern Orange County. 19 Slide #14 Environmental Justice p#tEi901p.tuN �•.� ,�, „�3 �... - ,� H.w Staff Update • Traffic Volume returned to Pre-C❑vid levels Chapel Hrl!Man Kltled In Wreck that Clawd NC 54 Friday + Accidents increasing due to variety of reasons including and not limited to, lane departure, rear end and others - 2021 —59 (19 serious injury, 1 fatal) • 2022—63 (28 serious injury,0 fatal) Source,Highway Patrol r f Q ..ram..# P f( + J' Nishith Trivedi said they have been meeting with the NC Highway Patrol and the number of accidents have increased since 2021. He said that includes an increase in serious injuries. Slide #15 Issues Addressed o BikefPed accommodations are provided through shared use path as recommended, study includes transit recommendations. o SUP by itself is independent bikelped project and requires local match 7.2 Complete Street Coat Share The table below illustrates the funding responsibilities for Complete Streets incorporating bicycle and pedestrian and public transportation Facilities. €omplete Street Cost Sfiare F-IUfy Type in Plan and Not h Mari, aetternbew Nev,rdentiflt,A bet Need WMIlified Through Evaluation PrOOM Pedestnan Faell" JYCOCT pays full Cast Share LPCal On Road B"le Facility NCDO'T pays full NCDOT pays full Local Shared-use PatAVSldepath NCOCIT pays full Cost Share Local Sepetabed 136cytle Facility NCDOT paV6 full Cost Share Local Cw"nway Crpssing NCppT pWA full CM 5haft LQCal Transit Facilities' NCDOT pays lull Cast Share Laval o NCDOT Complete Street applies anIy to highway projects, NCDOT pays for non-highway facilities (SUP, Bike Lanes, Transit stops, etc,) only if they are part of CTP/Locally Adopted Plans and included in highway improvements, 14 20 Nishith Trivedi said that if the project is in a locally adopted plan, NCDOT will pay the full cost. He said if it is not in the plan but is an identified need, there will be a cost share. He said that if it is a project that has never been identified then the local government has to pay for those facilities. Vice Chair McKee asked if a shared use path is a sidewalk. Nishith Trivedi said no because a shared use path is 10 feet, minimum, and a sidewalk is 5 feet. He said that NCDOT defines them separately. Slide #16 Issues Addressed o NC 54 east of Chapel Hill; o DCHC MPO — approved 2012—widening (6 lane) with multimodal o CAPO — approved 2016 —widening (4 —6 lane) along rail corridor o Widening increases demand —gradual increase, based on growth rate • Local and regional development increases traffic, not just its demand as documented in TIAs {Dollar General, Shops at Lloyd Farm. etc,} o Only 2.ODO additional traffic is generated by the widening. Current approved TIAs demonstrate that they generate more traffic even without the widening o UNC hospital and university— UNC's annual commuter surrey (rink)- less than Y. of use NC 54, more than Y. people on NC 54 use it for other destinations. UNC hospital - bulk of its traffic is east of Orange County o NCDOT wants 4 lane divided without bikelped or transit — Not true 0 1-40 not included in analysis — Not true o A bus on 54 will take cars off of 54 — Not true rs Nishith Trivedi said the NC 54 widening is part of the Triangle bikeway study now. He said that the TIA's demonstrate that the developments will increase traffic more than the widening itself. He said that UNC used an annual commuter survey and it showed only '/4 came from Orange County. 21 Slide #17 Issues Addressed o NCDOT will do an Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) as required by NEPA after the project is programmed in the STIR SPOT is used to secure funding and possibility of programming (cam mitmentfd evelop ment). o Septic and Wells—NCDOT currently owns 120'ROW and all are already addressed. None are impacted if kept in existing ROW. If any additional ROW is required due to NEPA. • If in the right-of-way, NCDOT will address through encroachment agreements or easements during ROW phase. V If any were installed after the current right-of-way, they are unauthorized and will be addressed during project development, V If any were installed prior to right-of--way acquisition,they were fully encased in a steel encasement within the limits of the R1W. • If outside the right-of-way, they should be a minimum 10' away from the property line and within private property per County regulations. v' If any are less than 10%they will be addressed during project development. x6 Nishith Trivedi said that a more detailed environmental study will be done after the project is programmed into the STIR He said that wells and septic were studied, and they all have been addressed if they are in the right of way. Slide #18 Issues Addressed a Traffa impact of Lloyd Farm Development(e.g.Harris Teeter and other mixed use) • NC-54 and Old Fayetteville(old NC-86)across the street from Carrboro Plaza. • This includes the Traffic lmpactAnalysis approved by Carrboro and NCDOT o County's commitment to coord 1 nate across All partners • Count continues work!ng with PART,BG MPO,other Cau Mies.TARPO,NO DOT Rail and IMD,and uses all resources to support coord 1 nation for multimobility such as Complete Streets,SPOT Safety/MobilitylHSIP,etc. • March 6,2020 joint DCHC MPO,TARPO, NCDOT,Carrboro and Orange County meeting in Carrboro in early 2020 fallowing DCHC MPO action. o Watershed-addressed in 2D1$-recommended improvements are in accordance with Cou nty's Comprehen sive Plan and Watershed regulationsin the UDO. o Downtown Carrboro traffic_Phase 2 showed reduction in downtown Carrboro using Streetlig ht and google tec hnolr gy • NC 64 By-pass is the destination from multiple origins • Phase 2 also showed what happens to other roads in southern orange county if you don't widen. • Shop'sat Lloyd Farm TIA,other developments in Carrboro,Chapel Hill and Chatham County(Vintast,Chatham Park,etc_) 17 22 Nishith Trivedi said that traffic impact analysis done for development does not include widening because it is not existing right now. He said the watershed was addressed and improvements made in accordance with the county's plans. Slide #19 Issues Addressed a Southern Orange County can simply use the widened 1-40. • Southern rural County residentsand businesses,must not be over-burdened and underserved by transportation investments made to benefit just the northern and eastern,urban,or other regional commuters. • 11 40 widening may help but it serves a totally different function then NC 54 • Phase 2 demonstrated destination and origin patterns between Chatham, Orange and Ala mance Counties travel behavior are using INC 54,Not 1-40. a Safety and Operational improvements anticipated along NC-54(R-5321A) • Traffic is back to pre-covid levels and accidents rates are on the rise,especially 1 nju ries and fatalities. • Complete scoping,engineering to start in 2027 for possible,3 left turn lanes • Construction may fund up to 3 of them. • Hatch road—west bound left turn lane(CarrboWETJ) • Southern driveway at NC 54-driveway access(Carrboro/ETJ) • American Stone Company driveway access(grange County) • Should construction be funded,any bikelped will require local match • Currently not a locally adopted plan • Subject to restoring in SPOT 7, if not successful,project is removed from STIP o Designation and Origin-Google and Streetlight technology-travel is predominantly on NC 54 for all of southern Orange County,from Burl ingtonlGraham to areas beyond Chapel Hill and Carrboro,not 144 Nishith Trivedi said that the R5021A is funded for engineering and includes three left turn lanes. He said there is a possibility of funding all three and they are near the Hatch Road area. He said this will not address the safety issues highlighted in Southern Orange County. Slide #20 Action o Manager recommend SOCC approve NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study 23 Chair Bedford asked for clarification on received or approved for the Board action. Nishith Trivedi said that approving the study makes it a locally adopted program that they can use at the state level. He said that a received document means that the contract is closed out and the consultant is paid but not included in the plan. Chair Bedford asked if the process still includes public hearings and officially including the project in SPOT. Nishith Trivedi said that it would require that process and that SPOT would tie money to the project. He said that it will also still require STIP to plan the project. He said that SPOT is the funding and STIP is the programming. He said that multiple iterations would have to be done. He said that adopting the study allows local governments to leverage complete streets so the state can fully fund the project. Commissioner Greene said the study in the agenda packet does not have the word "multimodal" in it. She said that this is a traffic analysis. She said that she recommends accepting the plan rather than adopting it. She said widening roads induces traffic, and Carrboro does not want this. She said Carrboro would bear the brunt of the traffic. She said that she hears that the projects would be paid for under complete streets but that she is not clear on where that is guaranteed. She said that right of way acquisition is expensive, and she does not think the state will pay for all of that. She said that Carrboro and the MPO have questions about this. She said that she is on the MPO, and they will be discussing next week, and she is unsure why they are discussing this tonight before the MPO does. Chair Bedford asked if DOT already owns the right of way. Nish Trivedi said they own 120 feet. He said the closest project is in Clayton and that is 109 feet of right of way with a divided four lane highway. He said that Pender County has another project. He said that there are projects that are done with less right of way. Commissioner Richards asked if this has been around since 2019. Nishith Trivedi said it has been since 2013 when the issues were first identified. He said the study was pursued and completed in 2018. He said that there is a lot more communication until the project is finished. Commissioner Richards asked if the Board voted on this before. Nishith Trivedi said they previously voted to receive the study but did not approve the study. He said if it is approved there is stronger leverage for NCDOT to pay for the project. Commissioner Richards asked if reviewing and accepting are the same thing. Nishith Trivedi said that voting that it is received is simply closing the contract and paying the vendor. Commissioner Richards asked what the options are tonight. Nishith Trivedi said that he is hoping they will approve the study. Commissioner Greene said they can still vote to receive the study rather than approve. Commissioner Richards said that the study has already been voted to be received and that is why she is confused about this tonight. Chair Bedford said that this Board now includes four commissioners that were not on the Board in 2019 when it was voted to be received. She said that it was removed by the technical committee from SPOT 7 after Carrboro raised concern. She said that she thought it would be beneficial for the four commissioners to see the report. She said that in 2019, they had a mayor show up to the meeting and announce that Carrboro was against it. She said they then voted to receive it. She said Carrboro does not want to widen Hwy 54 and they are concerned about the process. She said that the MPO would like additional discussion from the towns although Chapel Hill said they do not want to be part of this right now. She said that Carrboro is concerned about increased demand and enforcing DOT to pay for the multimodal. Commissioner Richards said that the process is involved after local priority is given. She said that without local priority, there is no action taken. She said that there are at least four other gates it needs to go through. 24 Nishith Trivedi said there are multiple phases that it would still have to go through. Chair Bedford said this is for 2045 so there is still a lot to discuss and plan for. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked for more information on the information that Southern Orange County is disproportionately affected by existing transportation and said that it seems this is mostly people of color that are being affected. Nishith Trivedi said that Southern Orange County has seven different census block groups. He said those blocks are analyzed by demographic and socio-economic makeup. He said that this measures against the county's thresholds. He said that some of the census blocks are minorities or elderly with no cars. He said there is a need for improvements and service in that area. He said that there is zero investment in Southern Orange County for transportation. He said that there are projects in urban areas, but rural Orange County has no benefit but has great needs. He said that he has a video that he wanted to show that shows a transit driver onto 54 out of driveways. Commissioner Fowler asked if bike-ped was included in 2019. Nishith Trivedi said yes. Commissioner Fowler said that transportation buses used to take this route but now they take 1-40. Nishith Trivedi said that they would come back if the roads were widened but not until then. He said that is why Alamance is also improving their roadways. Commissioner Hamilton said that she had not seen this before. She said that it is tough to follow the alphabet soup with transportation planning. She asked about the big picture of a study like this. She said that the document has the NC54 Corridor study but does not have the term multimodal in it and asked if it mattered. Nishith Trivedi said no. He said the name is not what determines the study. He said that is determined after being studied. He said that the NC98 study was done and not called a multimodal study. He said that the study recommended multimodal, but the title does not make the difference. Commissioner Hamilton asked if there is a possibility of changing aspects of the findings or do they have to do exactly what the study is recommending. Nishith Trivedi said that the study is simply recommending that they divide the road to address the demand. He said while that is being done, transit improvements can be made. He said that the details of the recommendations can be shaped and modified throughout the process. He said that right now it is about getting the project approved so that it can be funded. He said that NCDOT would continue to have more public meetings and discussions before a project is in final design stages. He said that there is still an environmental impact analysis that would also have to be done. Commissioner Hamilton said that her understanding is that approving the study is saying they agree with the analysis that there needs to be improvements and increased capacity and that they agree that the addition of bike-ped is important. She said that the details of how that happens will be determined in the next steps. Nishith Trivedi said that is accurate. He said that it can even be broken down into additional steps. Commissioner Greene said that while there is mention of park and rides, there is no mention of shared use paths on either side in the report. She said that this is the first step to a four-lane highway, and she is having trouble seeing the environmental justice issue because they are bringing more cars. She said that transportation is the word being used but it seems to mean "highways." She said that she is signed up for a meeting with the MPO next week and that this feels it is the cart before the horse. She said that she is happy to accept the report but not ready to adopt it because she has too many questions and some she cannot even articulate at this point. Commissioner Fowler said the bike-ped and PART buses returning to the route are two aspects that seem inviting to her. She said this would increase the ability to use public transport. 25 She said the SPOT and STIP processes are very slow, and these projects are many years out. She said she would rather the NCDOT fund this than the county. She said that if folks are to consider biking as a true method of transportation, then it needs to be like this and connected. Nishith Trivedi said that the Department of Aging is trying to develop a fixed route for transportation in Southern Orange County. He said this calls for resources to do that and this would assist in providing those resources. He said that park and ride lots cannot be planned without a fixed route service. Commissioner McKee said that for years he was content to study and talk about the southern branch library. However, he came to the position that it is time to make a decision. He said they should decide to approve and move forward. He said this has been discussed for years and he is aware that several members have not, but to receive this means they paid for a study to be placed on the shelf. He said that receiving this signals to everyone that they acknowledge that traffic is bad, but they will not move forward. He said that approving this signals that they can begin. He said there is an entire process that has to run, and it will not start tomorrow. He said that they will be in the mix if they approve it. He said that the right of way that is already owned by NCDOT is adequate already to complete this. He said that traffic is going to continue to get worse. He said that people are going to continue to move here, and Hwy 54 is already a corridor. He said that public transportation will become impossible on the two-lane road and approving the study is the only way he sees forward to expanding public transportation out in the county that connects to feeder routes. He said that the bike lane gives enough room to put bicycles and pedestrians. He said that Carrboro has this from Carrboro High School to the subdivision. He said he would hate to see this Board to make the mistake the previous board made with 1-85 and 1-40. He said that Hwy 54 will be widened in the future, with or without the Board's approval. Commissioner Greene read from an email from Carrboro Mayor Seils. She said that part of this is about process. She said that the UDO Board received the report in 2019 and directed staff to implement items to improve the study and identify future work. She said that last week the MPO removed the widening. She said she thinks there are a lot of assumptions being made here and that is why she cannot vote in favor. Chair Bedford referred to Figure 13 from the agenda packet showing minor roads that feed into this study. She said that her concern previously was around safety. She said that if they take the regional approach, they are responsible for all of Orange County. She said remember that the ETJ votes for the commissioners. She said this shows that the feeder roads are being used because 55 is so congested and the other roads are not built for traffic and that is where the accidents are happening. She said they are planning for three turns near Hatch Road. She said they can adopt this contingent on the multimodal factors being included and that they can work with the other partners. She said that she thinks they should tell NCDOT that they intend to be very involved. She said that multimodal has a lot of opportunities in this. Nishith Trivedi clarified that the SPOT 7 project is with TARPO. He said that this might have to be done again in future SPOT versions until it is funded. Commissioner Greene asked for clarification that TARPO is the one that has submitted this project. Nishith Trivedi said yes that it was approved as part of the county's resolution and submitted through TARPO for the whole plan. He said that when it was removed DCHC, the only portion that was removed was the portion from Orange Grove Road to Old Fayetteville Road. He said that it was submitted twice as two different projects with one in TARPO and one in DCHC. Commissioner Greene asked if she heard him say that the TARPO submission goes all the way from Alamance County to Old Fayetteville Road. Nishith Trivedi said yes, Mebane Oaks Road to Old Fayetteville Road. Commissioner Greene asked if TARPO has already submitted this to SPOT 7. Nishith Trivedi said yes. Chair Bedford said that is just part of the project. 26 Commissioner Greene said that it is a lot of it. Chair Bedford said yes but also at the MPO she would say that they should not put any points on the project because they want to wait and work with their partners. A motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Vice-Chair McKee, to approve the NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study in Orange County. Commissioner Hamilton said she would like to not vote on it tonight, but have it brought back within a reasonable timeframe. She said she wants to read it over with what she is learned today to make sure she understands what the study says. She said she does not understand the process well enough. She said that if it is a safety thing, she would rather the study be approved. Commissioner Portie-Ascott said as they continue to wait, the roads will continue to be overcapacity and overburdened. She said there is still an increased risk of serious injury and the disproportionate impact on minority residents. She said she is ready to move forward. Commissioner Greene said she would have been okay with a condition on the multiuse paths. She said that she is not sure they can condition it on that. Nish Trivedi said they have a complete streets policy, and they can use that for leverage. Commissioner Greene said when they were considering the school site off of Hwy 70, they were told that a complete streets option was not available because there was not enough development in the road. Nishith Trivedi said that was previously in 2019 and it is different now. Commissioner Greene asked if the policy was not available just a few months ago. Nishith Trivedi said that the complete streets policy was adopted by the county in October 2022. Commissioner Greene said they just heard the school program this year and clarified that this was part of the Lawrence Road project. Nishith Trivedi said that they provided comments when the TIA was done for Lawrence Road and used the complete streets policy to provide comments during the TIA review to address bike-ped and other issues along that area. He said that they do not have a corridor study for US 70 yet. Commissioner Greene said that the school was within the site and not on the road. Nishith Trivedi said that they are providing sidewalks on site. Commissioner Greene said that they are providing sidewalks within the site but not on the road. Nishith Trivedi said that is because they do not have a study for Hwy 70 yet that would allow them to push for them to accommodate it. Commissioner Greene said she is concerned this will end up being a widened road without the other modes and that it will ultimately create more traffic. Vice-Chair McKee said the map on slide #2 says a lot. He said that TARPO is a rural area organization. He said the reason for the 4 feet bike shoulder in southern Orange County was because during his tenure on TARPO he negotiated with Moore and Lee County that he would vote for some of their projects if they would help him get the bike shoulder. He said this is not the prettiest way to make it happen but that is what happened. He said that this is likely more than a decade of process. He said he understands Commissioner Greene's concern, but they may end up with the same outcome if they do not approve the study. Commissioner Greene said the plan they have is not called a multimodal plan. She said that the 10 feet bike and ped lanes are not mentioned in the plan. Nish Trivedi said that it is the shared use path (SUP) that is in the recommendations for the study. He said that during the alternatives analysis there was the possibility of a SUP in the median itself but because of the public meetings and workshops they prefer that it be done on the north side. He said that the shared use path is a critical part of the study. 27 VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Commissioner Hamilton, Commissioner Portie-Ascott, Chair Bedford, Vice-Chair McKee, Commissioner Richards, Commissioner Fowler); Nays, 1 (Commissioner Greene) MOTION PASSES 7. Reports a. Discussion on Potential Amendment to Unified Development Ordinance Regarding Planning Director Analysis & Recommendations on Applications The Board received information from staff and discussed the potential removal of the Planning Director's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), as well as possibly the recommendations to the Planning Board and Board of Adjustment, as currently required by the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). BACKGROUND: At its June 20, 2023 Business Meeting, the BOCC received a petition from Commissioner Jean Hamilton to consider amending the Orange County UDO to have the Planning Director perform an analysis on applications without a recommendation to the BOCC. Upon review, staff determined that, in addition to the Planning Director making a recommendation to the BOCC on zoning matters, the Orange County UDO requires that the Planning Director's recommendation be provided to both the Planning Board and the BOCC for all proposals to amend the UDO and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as approving Major Subdivisions. The Planning Director also makes a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment on Appeals to staff interpretations of the UDO. North Carolina's land use laws (North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) 160D) are silent on the role of Planning staff in advising the county on land use decisions. NCGS 160D Article 4 and Article 6 identify the responsibilities of jurisdictions in land use matters presented to the BOCC, including the requirement that the Planning Board provide a recommendation to the BOCC. These articles allow for administrative, public notification, application analysis, and advisory responsibilities to be assigned to staff. It is common practice in North Carolina for jurisdictions that entrust administration and determination of land use matters to a "Planning Director" to receive recommendations from that individual. These recommendations are based upon findings of 1) application completeness; 2) conformance with UDO standards; and 3) consistency with all relevant adopted plans, but namely the"Comprehensive Plan", as defined by NCGS 160D. Those jurisdictions that do not have a staff recommendation for land use matters mostly rely upon a "Zoning Administrator" who reviews an amendment packet for completeness and ensures public notification criteria are met. Per Commissioner Hamilton's petition, this staff analysis would remain detailed in the staff report and abstract to the BOCC but be digested into a findings of conformance and consistency with County standards and plans. The Planning Board's recommendation is required by NCGS 160D and is largely based upon adopted plans consistency and interpretations of UDO conformance, particularly in conditional zoning cases that can allow for some flexibility of standards. The evaluation of the petition and potential directions include: a) Amendment of the UDO to respond to the petition, and remove the Planning Director's recommendation to the BOCC on Zoning Atlas and UDO text amendments only; 28 b) Amendment of the UDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to all land use documents, as well as major subdivision approvals, as required by Sections 2.3.10, 2.8.9, and 2.15.3; c) Amendment of the UDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to both the Planning Board and the BOCC on proposed amendments to land use documents and major subdivision approvals; d) Amendment of the UDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to the Planning Board and the BOCC on proposed amendments to land use documents and major subdivision approvals, as well as to the Board of Adjustment on Appeals; or e) Maintenance of the current UDO text, requiring a Planning Director recommendation to the BOCC and Planning Board on proposed amendments to land use documents and major subdivision approvals. Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director, made the following presentation: Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Potential Amendment to Unified Development Ordinance Regarding Planning Director Analysis & Recommendations on Applications Report September 19, 2023 29 Slide#2 Orange Counter Requirements Orange County UDO Requires Planning Director Recommendation for Multiple BOCC Decisions — Amendments to Zoning Atlas, UDC Text,& Comprehensive Plan — Approval of Major Subdivision Concept Plans and Preliminary Plats ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Slide #3 Orange County Requirements BOCC Motes on Amendments are Legislative Actions — Commissioner Hamilton's June 20 petition concerned having a staff recommendation in a vote by elected officials • BOCC Votes on Major Subdivisions are Administrative Actions ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Cy Stober said there are requirements for subdivisions and his recommendations are simply if it meets the standards or does not. 30 Slide#4 BOCC Actions on Land Use Matters NCGS 160D-402 assigns to the Administrative Staff: Drafting and implementing plans and development regulations...; - Determining whether a pplications for development approvals are complete. - Receiving and processing a ppl ications for development approvals; Providing notices of applica lion s and hearings; - Making decisions and determinations regarding development regulation implementation; Determining whether applications for development approvals meet applicable standard s a s esta blished by law and local ordinance; - Conducting inspections,enforcing development regulations,recommending bringing judicial actions againstactualor threatened violations,keeping adequate records;and any other actions that may be required inorder adequately to enforce the laws and development regulations under their j uri sdiction. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAWLINA Cy Stober said that this does not include making recommendations to the elected officials or the planning board. He said that a comprehensive plan is now mandatory if zoning is going to be in place. Slide #5 BOCC Actions on Land Use Matters • NCGS 160D-301 assigns to the Planning Board- - To develop and recommend policies, ordinances, development regulations, administrative procedures, and other means for carrying out plans in a coordinated and efficient manner; and - To advise the governing board concerning the implementation of plans, including, but not limited to. review and comment on all zoning text and map amendments ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAPOLINA 31 Slide#6 BOCC Actions on Land Use Matters • NCGS 160D Allows for some Planning Board responsibilities to be assigned to staff — Planning Board must provide recommendations to governing board on Zoning Atlas, Ordinance, and Plans amendments — Many jurisdictions assign an advisory role to a "Planning Director' in their ordinances — Jurisdictions with a "Zoning Administrator' rely upon staff for administrative rather than advisory or informative role ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAWLINA Slide #7 Planning Director Advises on Land Use Matters JURISDICTION ADVISORY ROLE Buncombe County N Chatham County Y Durham CitylCounty Y Guilford County Y Iredell County N Johnston County" Y" New Hanover County Y Wake County Y Carrboro" N Chapel Hill YIN (Mgr Recommends) Hillsborough Y Mebane Y "Board ecobn meeting held subsequent to puWhl hearing Planning❑lrecn>rs recommendedon AWOWs pubhlc Irean'ng ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROIANA Cy Stober said that Chapel Hill may change the advisory role in the near future. He said that currently, the Town Manager bases his recommendation on the Planning Director's staff. Commissioner Greene said that Chapel Hill has a public hearing first and then a second public hearing where the recommendation is provided. 32 Slide#8 BOCC Actions on Land Use Matters • NCGS 160D Allows for some Planning Board responsibilities to be assigned to staff — Planning Board must provide recommendations to governing board on Zoning Atlas, Ordinance, and Plans amendments — All Planning Directors and Zoning Administrators must perform an analysis on conformance with adopted ordinances and laws, as well as ensure application completeness and public notification requirements served Some jurisdictions reserve Comprehensive Plan consistency interpretation for Planning Board only ORANGE COUNTY N0RI"H CAWLINA Cy Stober noted that the slide was incorrect where it includes Zoning Administrators in the roll of mandatory analysis. He said that it is just Planning Directors. Slide #9 Orange County Planning Director Advisory Role Orange County UDO also assigns Planning Director an advisory role for — Major Subdivision Concept Plan & Preliminary Plat Approvals — Planning Board votes on land use matters here Inform Planning Hoard recommendations to the E30CC, — Board of Adjustment regarding Appeals to the Planning Director's administrative decisions in enforcing and interpreting the U DO ORANGE COUNTY [PORCH CAROLINA Cy Stober said that the UDO requires the Planning Director to provide recommendations and assigns an advisory role. 33 Slide #10 Commissioner Discussion & Direction to Staff ORANGE COUNT' NORTH C.AROLLhfA Slide #11 Orange County Planning Director Advisory Role Potential 'Next Steps — Amend UDO to Remove Planning Director Recommendation: • Zoning Atlas and UDO TextAmendments (BOCC only) Petition Directive • Zoning Atlas and UDO Text Amendments &Adopted Plans (BOCC only) • Zoning Atlas and UDO Text Amendments, Adapted Plans, and Major Subdivision Approvals (BOCC only) To Planning Board and BOCC on All Legislative Matters To the BOCC, Planning Board, and Board of Adjustment on all matters ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROIANA Commissioner Hamilton said she found it difficult to understand the process of decision making as a county commissioner when it came to planning and land use. She said that it was helpful to her when the planning director and staff provide an analysis of where a project is or is not consistent. She said that staff's expertise is important, but it is up to the commissioners to decide the legislative decision. She said that there are political aspects of tradeoffs and plan 34 interpretation. She said that understanding different aspects is more helpful than providing one recommendation. She said there was a member of the public who lost confidence because the staff was involved, and she thinks changing this will help bring more trust into this process. Vice-Chair McKee asked Cy Stober how many years he and his planning staff have in planning experience. Cy Stober said he has 16 years and that combined, his planning staff has 120-150 years. Vice-Chair McKee said he asked this because he relies on the professional planning staff and their recommendations when making decisions. He said he supports continuing to have this recommendation. He said that he does not always agree with them, but he can use their expertise to inform his decisions. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how long this process has been in place. Cy Stober said this was adopted in 2011, and he's unaware of an amendment. He said the UDO was adopted then, but this policy predates it. John Roberts said it was well before 2011. Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she values those who have expertise in land use and development, so she likes the idea of receiving the analysis. She said she would like something in addition to the analysis as well and she would like to see the recommendation as well. She said she is in favor it this practice continuing. Chair Bedford referred to page 2 and said she did not realize that the Planning Director made recommendations to amend the UDO. She said that she does not want to change B or C. She said that they need to keep that. She said that D is with the major subdivisions approvals and that should be kept. She said that E is required and is important. She said those fall outside of the petition and they should be kept as is. She said the question then becomes about consistency with plans and she agrees that it creates tension, and it puts staff in a bad spot when the Board overrules staff. Chair Bedford read the following passage: The evaluation of the petition and potential directions include: a) Amendment of the UDO to respond to the petition, and remove the Planning Director's recommendation to the BOCC on Zoning Atlas and UDO text amendments only; b) Amendment of the UDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to all land use documents, as well as major subdivision approvals, as required by Sections 2.3.10, 2.8.9, and 2.15.3; c) Amendment of the UDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to both the Planning Board and the BOCC on proposed amendments to land use documents and major subdivision approvals; d) Amendment of the UDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to the Planning Board and the BOCC on proposed amendments to land use documents and major subdivision approvals, as well as to the Board of Adjustment on Appeals; or e) Maintenance of the current UDO text, requiring a Planning Director recommendation to the BOCC and Planning Board on proposed amendments to land use documents and major subdivision approvals. Cy Stober said the zoning atlas has been ruled to be an extension of the text of the UDO. He said that the decisions by the Board have been enlightening for his staff and they are assembling resources to better inform recommendations and to give the resources regarding planning consistency. He said that they will better inform the public, the planning board, and the public on those matters. He said there will be a more thorough analysis in the future and that began the day after the Lawrence Road discussion. He said he certainly heard the Board that night. Commissioner Greene said she agrees with Commissioner Hamilton that the analysis is helpful from staff, but a recommendation and ultimate decision is political and should be done by 35 the Board except for major subdivisions. She said she would like the Planning Director's recommendation on text amendments. She would also like a recommendation for a county- initiated zoning atlas amendment but not a recommendation when it is from the outside. Cy Stober said he does not know if they can legally make the decision just for county initiated. John Roberts said they will need to work through it. Commissioner Fowler said she does not feel strongly either way. She said that the analysis of the last project was helpful. Commissioner Richards said she also appreciated the analysis and seeing both sides. She said she feels there is lack of clarity around what the recommendation means and that is what was an issue for her. Vice-Chair McKee said he does not support a change but would be okay with the addition of an analysis. He said that he is not in favor of any change at this time. Commissioner Greene asked if most text amendments are initiated by staff. Cy Stober said over 90% of the time either in response to state law or because of their professional practices. Commissioner Greene said there is more distrust in the community about the Board's decisions. She said having planning staff analysis is helpful but should stop just short of making a recommendation on approval or denial. John Roberts asked if it would be easier to say, "the Planning Director shall not make a recommendation on special use permits or conditional zoning applications" and leave the rest of it untouched. Cy Stober said that would be striking the recommendation from the text. Chair Bedford asked about the zoning atlas versus a text amendment. Cy Stober said it is seen as an extension of the text, but they can be separated. John Roberts said he is not suggesting anything other than if the Board would like to consider removing the recommendation from the conditional zoning applications. Cy Stober said in regard to the consistency analysis, he needs to do a better job of doing the analysis, so they have both options before them. He said that it is required by him to perform the analysis, but he can do better without an amendment. John Roberts said the Planning Director would still go through the conformity, but he can change what the recommendations looks like. Cy Stober said removing the recommendation would require an ordinance amendment and this could be done by removing the recommendation requirement. Commissioner Fowler said she wants that simple amendment to come back. Commissioner Hamilton said she is pleased with the clarity and carefulness of analysis brought by the Planning Director, but aware that may not always happen depending on who is the director. She said it may be hard for some to be completely neutral. She said that she looks forward to having the amendment brought back. 8. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Vice-Chair McKee, to approve the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 36 a. Minutes — None. b. Amendments to the Orange Unified Transportation (OUT) Board Policies and Procedures The Board approved amendments to the OUTBoard Policies and Procedures. c. Orange County Transportation Priorities —Amended Resolution The Board approved the amended County Transportation Priority Resolution to include Regional Transportation Multimodal Center. d. Central Pines Rural Planning Organization Memorandum of Understanding The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the updated Central Pines Rural Planning Organization Memorandum of Understanding. e. Boards and Commissions —Appointments The Board approved the recommended appointments as reviewed and discussed during the September 12, 2023 Work Session. 9. County Manager's Report Bonnie Hammersley said staff will have FAQs on the convenience center online by the end of the week and will send them out through Community Relations as well. She said staff went through the questions for the neighborhood information meetings and some questions from Chair Bedford to develop the FAQs. She said the Strategic Plan Work Session will begin at 9:00 am on Thursday, September 21It at the Solid Waste Center in Chapel Hill. Bonnie Hammersley said the Board will also have a joint meeting with the school boards on September 26t" and reviewed the agenda for that meeting. 10. County Attorney's Report John Roberts had no report for the Board. 11. *Appointments None. 12. Information Items • September 5, 2023 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 13. Closed Session None. Adjournment A motion was made by Vice-Chair McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board