Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080902 WE APPROVED 10/7/2008 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING September 2, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Deputy Clerk to the Board, David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair Jacobs went through the items at the County Commissioners' places. There was a PowerPoint printout for Alternative Waste Processing Technologies Assessment; the Manager's Memo, including a Draft Long-Range Agenda Summary with future items; traffic impact analysis; documents from Summit Consulting regarding Buckhorn Village; light blue sheets related to Cabe Crossing subdivision; a comment from the Economic Development Commission related to Buckhorn Village; and the water supply reservoir water levels report. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments, a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Elizabeth Reid is Executive Director of the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough. This is a non-profit umbrella organization, which includes Historic Hillsborough Commission and the Historical Foundation of Hillsborough. Many of these organizations' archival collections are inaccessible to the public. She said that, in October 2006, her predecessor, Kathleen Turner asked the Orange County Board of Commissioners to take action upon the recommendations made by the Archival Task Force in 2001. She submitted the letter from 2001, which outlines the recommendations. The conclusion of the task force was that a North Carolina room of the Orange County Library be the centralized repository of a consolidated archival collection. This room could create a dynamic Heritage Center for Orange County. She asked for a status report on the Heritage Center. Chair Jacobs said that there would be a report back from staff on these questions. Tommy Bruton said that he wanted to express his opinion on shutting down the Rescue Squad. He just retired with 25 years of service with the Fire Department. He said that he knows what it takes to make this work-teamwork. He made reference to a conversation he had with a Fire Chief and a Fire Captain from somewhere e|oe, who did not know where he was gs from, but pulled out an article about Orange County in the Raleigh News and Observer entitled, "Squad Stands Down, EMS Gets Booted." He said that this is a black eye to Orange County. He said that he wants everyone to understand that this takes teamwork. He said that if the rescue unit does not go back to xO[k, everyone will wish th�y had. He thinks that the way it was handled to start with was an automatic shutdown. He asked the County Commissioners to please fix this and talk to the people of Orange County. Chair Jacobs said that there have been meetings with the members of the Rescue Squad and there is every intention to come to an amicable and positive conclusion to the differences that led to whatever happened in June. He hopes to get a report back to the Board of conversations oho[�|y. of County Commissioners about the progress o these o�O . -'U Reid said that in the designing of the new library, the Heritage Center was left off. He knows" that this is low on the totem pole, but it is an essential part of the heritage. He asked the County Commissioners to not forget about it. Chair Jacobs said that in October when the Board talks about the Capital Investment P|aO, this will be the time that it will talk about projects like this. He thinks that this project will be part of that discussion. Linda Bonebrake said that she recently moved to Hillsborough from Virginia. While in Virginia, she served as a volunteer EMT on the local and state level. She vvgethrilled to see that there-xvas a volunteer rescue squad. She was in the process of joining when she found out that it had been shut down. She was very disappointed. From what she understands, the local EMS system mn hmsthree fuU-tiDle ambulances and one that comes on at night. These ambulances cover the vvho|e {}oUntyand this ioalot of territory. She knovxothe expense of the equipment paid services and there have been some very unfortunate incidences. It seems to hG ^~-iftheFe is a rescue squad that has equipment and people willing to serve, that whatever~ that goUeo there have been could be resolved and the squad could be put back in service as soon as possible. m Brian Matthews is the Chief of the Orange County Rescue Squad. On June 27th, he received a call from Colonel Montes de Oca saying that the Orange Co unty Rescue Squad wa e to stand down. At that time, he was not given any reason. On July 1st, he had a meeting with Chair Jacobs and Commissioner Foushee and at that 0eeUO0, he was told that it was a temporary safety stand down for safety remeona, and that an additional meeting was to be set Up between-inn'and Colonel KAoOtas 'e (�o8. xVhiohhappeDedtmodays |mter. At this [neet|ng. he was told ' � Lt. Joseph would be reviewing this incidence to ensure the NFPA compliance. All documents- - Lt. of Orange County Rescue Squad have been provided. He has requested requested times for status assessments and he has not been given any response to r�qu� multiple his requests. The- ' has been standing down for 67 days. He wrote a letter to Colonel Montes A � � Oca just squad r the squad was stood down and told him that the rescue squad was de Since rescue squad has been out of in the memo to ataf?, ready lo respond. service, (��| ne| Montes de Oca stated that, if any of the members should respond and get on scene, th~~|axvenforoem0entohou\dbeo8Uedgndhavethe[nren0oved. All DneOnberohave complied with this standard. Orange County Rescue Squad has provided all information and documents ~^~'requested. There has been no response. He asked if Orange County could sit by and allow requ � . the ~~~ ~~ squad' to remain. id\e, with equipment and personnel ready to go. He asked that Orange County Rescue Squad be reinstated immediately. Chair Jacobs said that Chief Matthews was promised timely reports, and he will get an answer by the next meeting, or it will be on the agenda as to where the shortfall is. Commissioner Nelson said that the County Commissioners found out about this through the media and received no information in advance. This is of tremendous concern to him. He asked if the rescue squad received no written advance notice of concerns and steps that they were expected to take to correct the concerns prior to that action. This is also of great concern to him. He said that there are issues which need to be discussed publicly and in closed session. He does not know if staff concerns are valid because he has not received enough information. He said that he is furious that the rescue squad was ordered to stand down without a prior explanation of what the concerns were and was not given adequate time to fix the concerns, and it has been over two months later. He will follow up on this and he expects to have a closed session to discuss this in the context of a personnel matter. Tom Darnell said that he is shocked that there is millions of dollars worth of equipment and it cannot be used. He said that Orange County needs every ounce of help. Commissioner Gordon said that she is also concerned about the County's emergency services in general and how to best meet the public safety obligations. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. NCACC 2007-08 Ralph W. Ketner Employee Productivity Award for Inspect Plus Software—On Site Field Inspections The Board considered recognizing the Planning and Inspections Department and specifically Permit Systems Analyst Dan Bruce as a recipient of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners 2007-08 Ralph W. Ketner Employee Productivity Award. Laura Blackmon introduced Dan Bruce, who has done an outstanding job developing technology for on-site field inspection software. Mr. Bruce was honored at the NCACC conference held a couple of weeks ago. He has been a County employee for 13 years. This software has saved time and money for Orange County. The County Commissioners offered congratulations. Dan Bruce said that there was an element of teamwork involved in this. b. Proclamation for Library Grant Award — Big Read The Board considered approving a proclamation designating October 2008 as Big Read month and promoting a community-wide literacy program featuring The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck and authorizing the Chair to sign. Library Services Director Brenda Stephens presented copies of The Grapes of Wrath to the County Commissioners. She read the proclamation. Orange County received a $20,000 grant for this. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE OCTOBER 2008 AS BIG READ MONTH Whereas, the Orange County Library has joined in partnership with the National Endowment for the Arts and Arts Midwest to conduct the BIG READ, a campaign inviting all Orange County • residents to come together to read and discuss John Steinbeck's classic novel, "The Grapes of Wrath", and Whereas, the BIG READ is an opportunity for the Orange County Library to also enlist Orange County Schools, Durham Technical Community College — Orange County Campus, Piedmont Community College, and other local civic, educational, and cultural institutions to explore the themes and topics portrayed in "The Grapes of Wrath", and Whereas, reading and discussing a good book is an easy and welcome way to bring residents together, break down the barriers that may divide, and ultimately build a stronger, better informed populace, and Whereas, reading and discussing a good book also helps enlighten, educate, inform, and encourage people to strengthen contributions to the economic, cultural, and social fabric of community life; Now Therefore, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim the month of October as BIG READ month in Orange County, and seek to engage and inspire widespread participation in reading "The Grapes of Wrath" from September 13, 2008 through October 30, 2008. This the 2nd day of September 2008. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve a proclamation designating October 2008 as Big Read month and to promote a community-wide literacy program featuring The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Special Transit Advisory Commission Final Report— Regional Transit Vision Plan (RTVP) The Board received a presentation on the Regional Transit Vision Plan: Recommendations for North Carolina's Research Triangle Region. Planning Director Craig Benedict introduced Patrick McDonough from Triangle Transit. Patrick McDonough made the Power Point presentation. The STAC Plan Recommendations Patrick McDonough Triangle Transit Orange County Board of Commissioners September 2, 2008 Special Transit Advisory Commission (STAC) +Created by Capital Area and Durham-Chapel Hill Carrboro MPOs in spring 2007 +29 members + 9 ex-officio, shared leadership +Charge uRegional Transit Vision uGoals and Criteria .0, Woint-MPO Major Regional Transit Investments for the 2035 MPOs' Long Range Transportation Plans oRecommendations, priorities and funding STAC Work +Goals and criteria •18 corridors within MPOs' study area oPopulation, employment and land use oTravel patterns, markets and demand •Transit technologies •Service concepts: circulating in-town, transit friendly neighborhoods and long-haul trips • Interdependence of land use and transit •:.Experience from other systems •Costs and funding Trip Density in 2035 (map) The STAC Plan Expanded Region-Wide Bus Network +Vastly Expanded Bus Network through Core Counties (Wake, Durham, Orange) +Commuter Express Extensions into Collar Counties • New Park/Ride Lots •Direct RDU Bus Service Why Expand Bus Service? • Provides Needed Service Quickly to Taxpayer, Visible ROI •Relief for Increasingly High-Priced Commutes +Connect New Towns and Counties to Transit Network Circulators +Serving Short Trips in High-Activity Centers +High-frequency bus service at first +Could be Streetcar, Bus Rapid Transit in future Why Develop Circulators? •Serve High Trip Volumes in Major Activity Centers +Complete "last mile" of regional trips +Support lower parking needs near key employment centers Rail Investments +Clean Diesel Trains • Light Rail Why Rail? +Provide superior mobility in corridors with highest travel intensity • Encourage private sector to develop denser, mixed-use, walkable communities around rail stops •Compete economically with other regions +Higher-density development enabled by presence of transit can reduce pressure to develop open space, fragment natural habitats Focusing Market Opportunities for Growth STAC Cost& Funding Options • Based on assumed project costs of approximately $2.2 billion (in 2007 dollars) Tin;4, oFederal funding 'New Starts 'formula funds oState capital and operating funds aEquivalent source/level of effort as Charlotte oCar rental tax c:Vehicle registration fee oBorrowing/bond financing oAd valorem Commissioner Gordon said that this is a very important effort and she tries to keep the Board updated. The recommendation is that the 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan has as one of its alternatives incorporation of all of the STAC recommendations. On September 10th, the Transportation Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on the alternatives at 7:00 p.m. at the Durham Committee Meeting Room at City Hall. She said that it is important to note that the rest of the process will be compressed between now and December because the STAC took longer than anticipated. Commissioner Nelson said that this is a great plan. However, he asked why the train does not go to the airport. Patrick McDonough said that this was evaluated earlier, but there is a lot of trouble with internal circulation at the airport. The plan is to run service from the airport to the train. Chair Jacobs asked if the RBC Center was on public transit. Patrick McDonough said that the RBC Center is slightly off of the line, but there will be connections. Chair Jacobs said that he heard another Commissioner expressing concerns about the 2035 projection of land use in the region and that the models are based on the current sprawl model and that housing patterns might change because of the price of gas. He asked how this is figured into a model. Patrick McDonough said that the model is a tool and not a crystal ball. It is based on the land use plans and changes in ridership, and is done every five years. Chair Jacobs said that he appreciates the comments about a cleaner fuel. He said that light rail is electric and he asked why diesel trains were being used for the heavier rail. Patrick McDonough said that it is regulatory. The Federal Railroad Administration is the regulating agency. He said that Triangle Transit is open to the possibility of electric propulsion and light rail. Commissioner Gordon said that, as chair of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO, she is working with the chair of the CAMPO (Wake County and others) to try and make the systems congruent. If both groups follow the STAC recommendations, then they will be congruent. She urged the County Commissioners to give their opinions. She also underscored the relationship between land use and transportation models. Chair Jacobs said that, at some point, someone will come back to the Board and try and identify new revenue streams to help fund. It would be good to inform the public as much as possible. 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes b. Appointments 1) SportsPlex Community Advisory Committee— Reappointments This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. c. Property Tax Release The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property value related to one (1) request for property tax release in accordance with N.C. General Statute 105- 381. d. Application for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, for one (1) untimely application for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for the 2008 tax year. e. Adoption of Schedule of Values for 2009 Revaluation The Board adopted the schedule of values, standards, and rules to be used in appraising real property in Orange County effective January 1, 2009 and directed the Assessor to observe all statutory requirements related to public notice about the schedule of values. f. Housing Rehabilitation Contract Award The Board awarded a housing rehabilitation contract for the Orange County HOME Program Housing Rehabilitation Program to Wheeler Contracting in the amount of $46,683 for 4502 Mill Creek Road, Mebane, NC. a, Housing Rehabilitation Program — N.C. Housing Finance Agency The Board adopted Assistance, Procurement, and Disbursement Policies for the 2008 Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Program funded by the N.C. Housing Finance Agency. h. Contract for Custodial Services at New Emergency Services Center on Meadowlands Drive This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. i. Bid Award: Compact Wheel Loader for Solid Waste The Board awarded a bid to Gregory Poole of Raleigh, NC, for a total cost not to exceed $80,000, for the purchase of a Compact Wheel Loader for the Recycling Division of the Department of Solid Waste Management, and authorized the Purchasing Director to execute the necessary paperwork, subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: b. Appointments n SportsPlex Community Advisory Committee— Reappointments The Board considered making reappointments to the Sportsplex Community Advisory committee. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to appoint Jack Chestnut to position number 14 instead of position number 1, with a term expiring September 30, 2011 and make the following reappointments: Position Number/Name Special Representation Expiration Date 1 —Vacant Aging Board 09/30/2010 2— Mr. Chuck Hobgood RPAC Member 09/30/2011 4- Ms. Vibeke Talley Employee Consortium 09/30/2010 5— Ms. Donna Williams OCS — Student Health — 09/30/2011 Athletics 8— Ms. Regina Nobblitt At-Large 09/30/2011 111:) 10— Mrs. Beverly Blythe At-Large 09/30/2010 11 — Mr. Peter Wehr At-Large 09/30/2011 13— Mrs. Carole Andrews At-Large 09/30/2010 Commissioner Gordon would like to find someone from the Aging Board at a later time. VOTE: UNANIMOUS h. Contract for Custodial Services at New Emergency Services Center on Meadowlands Drive The Board considered approving a contract with OE Enterprises for custodial services at the new Emergency Services Center on Meadowlands Drive, subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney, and authorizing the Manager to sign. Chair Jacobs highlighted that this is a contract with OE Enterprises. This was direction that the Board gave to staff about five years ago. He would like a report on County work provided by OE Enterprises. He thinks that this is a great thing that the County is doing. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the proposed custodial service contract with OE Enterprises from September 8, 2008 through June 30, 2009, subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney, and authorize the Manager to sign the contract document. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a Buckhorn Village PD/SUP (Rezoning/Special Use Permit) Receipt of Zoning Items The Board considered receiving comments and recommendations by the Zoning Officer and the Planning Board concerning the review of the Buckhorn Village Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit application(s) proposing the development of a parcel of property within the Buckhorn Road/I-85 Economic Development District. Craig Benedict said that this is a continuation of two public hearings held on February 25th and April 1st of this year. On June 3rd, the County Commissioners referred this item back to the Planning Board for additional recommendation to be returned tonight. Tonight's item is the receipt of the two items from the Planning Board. He summarized the agenda abstract, as shown below: BACKGROUND: On February 25 and April 1, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board held a Joint Public Hearing to review the BVPD application proposing the development of a mixed use retail, office, and residential project with approximately 1.14 million square feet of floor area on a 130 acre parcel of property located near the southeastern corner of the intersection of 1-85 and Buckhorn Road. With respect to the review of this project, the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `Ordinance') apply: • Section 6.29.3 Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts (i.e. the Economic Development District Design Manual), • Article Seven (7) Planned Developments • Article Eight (8) Special Use Permits, and • Article Twenty (20) Amendments As staff has previously testified, the review and processing of this application includes both a legislative (rezoning) and quasi-judicial (SUP) component. All of the information submitted or generated as part of the review of this application is part of the official record that will be utilized in rendering a formal decision on this application (i.e. the application, submitted evidence, reports, zoning procedural documents, testimony, comments from local citizens, County staff, and advisory board members, staff and Planning Board recommendations, etc.) This information has been organized within a large 3" white binder with a blue cover distributed at the June 3, 2008 Board of County Commissioners meeting. This document was recently revised to include Planning Board, staff, consultant, and applicant activity subsequent to the June 3 meeting. This revision, specifically Section F, includes specific reports requested by the Planning Board during their review of the application(s). The reports are indexed Fl, F2, etc. These reports, as well as all other reports from Sections A, B, C, D are cross-referenced to specific questions and/or requirements of the zoning ordinance. NEXT STEPS - REVIEW PROCESS: The Board of County Commissioners review and deliberation on this application is scheduled to begin on September 16, 2008 and shall include: 1. Review of the rezoning request to rezone the identified properties: From: I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development (ED) District and/or Rural Residential One (R-1) To: Buckhorn Village Planned Development— Economic Development District (BVPD- ED). As previously indicated, action on approving or denying the rezoning application is considered to be a Legislative decision made in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of the Ordinance, and 2. Deliberation - In the event the rezoning application is approved, on the SUP application proposing the development of the property as a master planned mixed-use commercial development would include conditions of approval (COA). Action on approving or denying the SUP application is considered to be a Quasi- judicial decision made in accordance with the provisions of Article Seven (7) and Eight (8) of the Ordinance. ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S): The Zoning Officer's comments and recommendations are detailed within Attachment One (1) of this abstract and detailed within the official record created. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Board recommends that the Board accept their findings and recommendations concerning this project as detailed within Attachment One (1) of this abstract and as detailed within the official record. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The review of this project is handled by existing County planning staff with participation by other departments and agencies through the development of advisory group. In addition, the Sanford Holshouser Business Development Group conducted an Economic Impact Analysis on the Buckhorn Village project. See 3" White Booklet, Section E.3 amended, pages 225-260. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends that the BOCC: ~� 1. Receive the Zoning Officer/Planning Board recommendation as detailed within Attachment One (1). 2. Receive the information contained within the record for this project, 3. Close the PUBLIC HEARING, 4.a. Schedule September 16, 2008 for BOCC review and deliberation, and 4.b. Schedule October 7, 2008 for BOCC action on the rezoning and SUP Chair Jacobs asked if anyone had to be sworn. Geof Gledhill said that if anyone plans on giving testimony, they will need to be sworn. Deputy Clerk David Hunt swore in Anita Badrock and Aaron Nelson. The following was done verbatim, since this is a Class A Special Use Permit. Aaron Nelson: I appreciate the opportunity. My name is Aaron Nelson. I'm coming on behalf of the Chapel Hill-CgrrbonJ Chamber of Commerce. I serve as their President and CEO. On behalf of 920 members and our Board of Directors, I want to rise before you and express our support for the p ject and to let you know that in my judgment, I think you are blessed, fortunate, and projects maybe'be eVen lucky. Many communities in today's eCoUDny, and some even in good economies, have too8cheiO the name of economic deVe|opDeOt. Some of them hav e to xith substantial negative environmental impacts or ones with substantial egative neighbor pod and community impact in the name of additional tax revenue. We need the money, xv� �n�fo[tuD�teb���.G�xVedon'thaVatodnthosethings. VVe have a -[opoe' we've,that is proposed in a location thade'Ve. for more than 20 years, have designated for proposal development. A proposal situated along existing transportation infrastructure; a proposal located in an area where the neighbors have long been aware of its future development; a proposal that gives you both a double positive impact of property tax x revenue Ve nue as well as sales tax revenue; a proposal designed by a team that you hand-picked and convened and asked that they would endeavor to work on this project; a proposal developed by y folks from this community committed to it rather than those that come in from oUtside, do it, and d then go, as most communities have to suffer; and a proposal offered to you by nationally award-winning developers, who's local work we have evidence of, it's commitment to environment, it's commitment to co0mUnity, it's commitment to sustainability as well as good design. We like it because it's one that creates jobs for local citizens in a place along the employment spectrum, which we don't have many jobs in this community, and that's important to us as well. We like that it draws revenue from outside of our County rather than inside our County, which is happening right now where we spend our money in other places and wanted to bring shopping opportunities to local residents. We think that we're very fortunate that we're getting what we've long VmDted, what you all have said out loud that you've hoped for—a major r economic development project in a location that we've said was for that, in a way that is properly balanced and respectful of the interests of our community. Though I want to talk mostly about the positive, there is also, I think some negative implications of denial, other than the lost revenue, the lost opportunities, the lost jobs. That is, that we're all working hard right now to change the reputation of Orange County. For a long time folks have been saying that it's a tough place to do business. We're trying to change that, you guys are trying to change that. You have a new Economic Development Officer, you've hired a new K8anGge[, and the same is happening in Chapel HiU, it's happening in Carrboro. It's a new day where business is welcome, the kind of businesses that we look for and that we want. We're moving people that have been negative towards neutral about doing business in Orange County. Now we need to move them from neutral to positive. Your expression of support for economic development will bring us what we want and set a good tone for the future. Thank you for consideration of this project. Anita Badrock: I'm here tonight as the Chairman of the Orange County Economic Development Commission. You've previously heard from members of the Commission in support of this project. We've submitted information to you in support of this project. We've reiterated that in response to some questions that you-and members of the Planning Board had. I'm just here tonight to say thank you on behalf of the Economic Development Commission for the opportunity to advise you on this project, to tell you what we think. I'm just here to say thank you from the bankers, the farmers, the small business owners, the large business employees, the marketing and business professional people, the economic development experts—all of whom you've appointed to be on this committee who have reviewed this and looked at this and said, "we really think this is a great project," and we really hope that you all will support it. Chair Jacobs: Those are the only two people who have been sworn to speak, was there anyone else who wished to speak? If not, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing and whatever other part of the administration recommendation you care to make. Geof Gledhill: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend you do them in the order in which they're listed to make sure everything gets in the record. Chair Jacobs: Well, we've received the information contained within the record of this project. Commissioner Carey: I'll make that motion. Commissioner Gordon: What if Commissioners have questions or comments that they want to be considered? Wouldn't you have to have that on record? Geof Gledhill: You can ask whatever you want, however, your comments and questions are part of the deliberative process, and that's what's in front of you. Commissioner Gordon: I wanted to ask some questions about what was contained in the record. Commissioner Carey: I'll hold my motion to give Commissioner Gordon an opportunity to ask her questions. Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to know, the way this is organized, there are a couple of things I had a question on. One is, we refer to Article 7, Article 8, and Article 20. It talked about specific places in Article 20, and then you go into Section 7.5.4, which I believe is probably Article 7. But when you get to the special use permit, I don't see specific reference to any part of Article 8, so I don't see how you've gone through and specifically addressed each part. One of the things I don't see is that there's a lot of reference to, "a site-specific development plan," which I believe would be something that would come in under Article 8, yet I don't see the site-specific development plan. So I guess my question is, is this complete? Where are the references to Article 8 and where is the site-specific development plan? Craig Benedict: Article 8 has to do with the special use permits. There are some general criteria within special use permits, which will be part of the findings of fact process. There is part of Article 8 that says when you do a Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned Development please refer back to Article 7 again. So, Article 7 is the guiding specific aspects of what type of information you have to provide for a planned development special use permit application. When this returns back to you, there will be general and specific Article 8 findings of fact, which have to do with health, safety, and welfare. That's not part of the material that you're getting tonight. In quick reference to site-specific development plans, that does not pertain to planned developments in special use permits, it pertains to a specific project single use and that is within the evidence that's provided within the document. We can re-clarify that by the next meeting also. Commissioner Gordon: Where is the site-specific development plan? Craig Benedict: For planned developments, you provide a development concept plan and that • development concept plan is a master plan that explains the utilities, open space, transportation systems, land use compatibility. For planned developments, you do not go down to a site- specific development plan. That is when a site plan is submitted when you actually have a request for a building permit. Commissioner Gordon: But when are the Commissioners going to get the specific findings of fact that have to go with Article 8? •I haven't looked it up, so I can't tell you for sure, but I thought that there were specific provisions of Article 8 that you had to reference and yet it isn't here. So, if we close the public hearing and we don't have that and we find out that we need it or want it, then it won't be in the record. So, I'm not sure what the recourse would be except to open everything else up again, which I don't think is something we'd rather do. So, as I said, there's a planned development part, and there's a special use part. And you said that we're going to get into Article 8 Findings of Fact when it comes back, but we don't have those things documented here now. Geof Gledhill: Let me take a shot. The applicant and those who spoke in favor and against this project have the burden, if you will, of making sure that all of the evidence is in the record that's necessary for you to make the findings of fact that the ordinance requires. If one or the other of those has failed in doing that and you can't make the requisite findings of fact, then you don't make the requisite findings of fact. That's how this process works. It's not an interactive process that goes on until you make a decision. At some point you cut off the public hearing process and cut off the evidence being presented, and that's what's being proposed tonight. The staff is giving you its best opinion, if you will, that all of the evidence is necessary for you to make the decisions you need to make in the record. If you disagree with that, then that's the way you vote. Commissioner Gordon: I know, but that would be unfortunate. It's hard for me to tell, the way it's laid out, because Article 8 is not referenced. I'm not sure how this site-specific plan is going to be handled. Geof Gledhill: The site-specific plan is not something you'll decide about. Each site-specific plan for the project will go through the site-specific process in the zoning ordinance, which is a professional staff review. The staff will review the site-specific plan as it's submitted, or plans, as they're submitted, and approve them based on the technical requirements of the ordinance and the conditions that you've imposed in the approval of the special use permit. Chair Jacobs: Alice, If I can help, to your point. You've just raised two issues that you are raising as flags for the staff and the developer to make sure that they addressed. Essentially what's happening is those are the last two things, unless somebody brings something up, that we're raising as issues. And then we're going to be at the point where we've got the information, it's the burden of the developers to have given us all of the information that we need. And you've highlighted two things that are areas of, at least inquiry if not concern on your part because you don't have adequate information. Commissioner Gordon: I was not aware that the Commissioners would be bypassed when it comes to site-specific review. I always thought that, at the staff level, it would be things like whether the utility is in place or something really technical. But I didn't realize that you'd go from an overall concept plan and then that's it, and then the Commissioners wouldn't have any say-so until the special use permit process about the specific plan, about how it would work out. I didn't realize it worked that way. That would be a concern that the master concept plan, if it wasn't detailed enough, that we wouldn't even be involved. Could we ask to be involved as this process keeps going? Could we set it as a condition if we wished, if we don't feel the concept plan is detailed enough? Geof Gledhill: You can't set a condition that the developer doesn't agree with. That's the first thing I'll say to that. The second thing is that the site-specific development plan review in Orange County zoning ordinance, in this master planning process, is a staff process. That's the way it's set up in the regulations. So if what you're asking for is a two-step special use permit process, one where the special use permit is approved for the master plan and one which requires each site-specific development plan to go through a special use permit process, that's an ordinance change that you'd have to make. Chair Jacobs: But Alice, to your point, the staff recommendation is that we have two meetings. At the first meeting, we can make sure that Mr. Benedict first walks us through the process and the ramifications for the decision points. So at least we're all clear on what the process is and what is within our purview and what would, after we make a decision, be beyond our purview. Commissioner Gordon: The concept plan that I remember was something with three different blocks and it was fairly general. I don't remember anything more specific than that. Was there more? Craig Benedict: I'll elaborate by the next meeting on the section of our zoning ordinance which addresses how planned developments are reviewed and give you excerpts out of our existing zoning code to walk you through the process. Commissioner Gordon: I'm not a stranger to this process, I was on the Planning Board for many years and been a Commissioner for many years. I believe these questions I'm asking are germane, so I hope that when you bring this back that you do what you've mentioned, which is show how the Article 8 provisions are satisfied. Geof Gledhill: The last project with this complexity that you did was 20 some years ago, essentially the.Churton Grove project, and the Planning staff is still involved with reviewing site- specific development plans for parts of that project, so it's an ongoing process that, once you've approved the special use permit for the project that says, "This is going to be single-family 74.) residential, this is going to be multi-family, this is going to be commercial." And when you get to the specifics of what's going to be there it becomes a staff review process. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to Receive the Zoning Officer/Planning Board recommendation as detailed within Attachment One (1). VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to receive the information contained within the record for this project. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to schedule September 16, 2008 for BOCC review and deliberation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to schedule October 7, 2008 for BOCC action on the rezoning and SUP. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Geof Gledhill: Let me make one final comment. If, for whatever reason, the time slips on this, the last two actions you take don't bind you to making the decision on that date. You're predicting, I think is the best way to describe what that is. Although, I know you want to get this done, as everybody else does. 6. Regular Agenda a. Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools' Request to Use Northside Site for Elementary#11 The Board considered allowing the Northside Human Services Center property for use as the site for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools' Elementary#11; and requesting the Board of Education, as well as School and County staff, continue to work with the current occupants in their relocation efforts. Purchasing and Central Services Director Pam Jones introduced this item. This piece of property is owned by Orange County. This is on Caldwell St. Ext. The CHCCS has conducted an assessment of long-term space facility needs. There arose an urgent need to look at another elementary school, #11. The group looked at a number of sites available, and out of that group, the Northside site was preferred. One of the reasons it was preferred was the expediency in bringing it forward through the regulatory process. There is currently no County operation at this site other than the Community School for People under Six, the JOCCA offices, and KidsCope. The community school is exploring other options for locations. Pam Hemminger, Chair of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, said that the school board is very pleased to be locating the elementary school at this site. The plan is to preserve the history of this site and make it a community school. She said that they are working with the preschool to find another location. The building will have to be taken down for asbestos and other reasons, but the history of the site will be preserved. Commissioner Foushee said that she is in support of this for several reasons. She is a former Northside student. It has always been a goal of hers to see Northside and Lincoln ��* �� Center become places where K-12 education occurs. She glad that this is going into a minority community. She stressed that it is important that the community preschool is located somewhere central to this community. Commissioner Carey agreed that this is an excellent site for a school and he supported everything Commissioner Foushee said, especially about the preschool. He also wants to leverage the capital that the preschool has in the site. He asked if there were some community members in the group and Superintendent Pedersen listed the community members that are serving. motion vvasmade by <�om[nisoioner Nelson, seconded by (�onn[nisoionerFoUgheeto aUovvt ' ` y�orthside Human Services (�enteFprope�yfor use go the site for (�hgpe| Hi||-C}Grrbo[V City Schools'o|�' E|�[D�Dt@ry#1 1� and request the Board of Education, as well as School and —'- County staff, continue to work with the current occupants i their relocation efforts . Chair Jacobs said that the Commissioner who is working with the school system attended Northside in 1982 (Commissioner FoUshee), so she will have an intimate knowledge ` of the facility. He said that there was a meeting with representatives m Community School for People under Six, and there was something in the Manager's Memo over the summer that related. The goal is to relocate as close as possible to the current site. He thinks that this is an O example of a on —' —'-. ens it is an existing community and people are comfortable with it as pd a school site. He pointed out that there is also a community garden on this site and he would like to work that in on the site. Aloo, to the greatest extent possible, he would like to deconstruct and recycle. He asked that this be included in the documents so that it is clear. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Fairview Park, Phase 1 —Status and Options The Board received a status report on the Fairview Park Phase 1 project, considered and provided direction oD a potential condition of whether to re-apply PARTF grant, 8n p[�v � approval from the Town of Hillsborough Board of Adjustment. Laura Blackmon said that Fairview Park funds were part of the 2001 referendum, and at that time, $850,000 was included for Fairview. Since that time, there have been increased reaGed costs and the Board approved a contract for phase | in2OO7. but the staff felt that $1.2-1.3 million was needed for the p ject, so it applied for a grant, which the County did not receiv e. The staff has sub itt d an for a Conditional Use Permit to the Town of Hillsborough. There complications xViththis. � Conservation C)irecto[ [JaVeG1mDci| said that one Of the key E�ViPoOr��nt �ndF��o�u[�� �ng�rV �n issues is the fact that there has been a doubling of construction costs since 2001. Regarding the grant, there vVenathree grants of$500,000 approved for other parks vvithiO Orange County in the |a` bmoyearebythigsgnn� o| tity` xvhi�hrngyh�ve had so[nebearing on the situation. last The consultant and staff have been working to prepare the constructi O documents, permit approvals, etc. The permit is before the Hillsborough Board of&duot[neDtmt this time. One xV new —th8'' hgo arisen would require the fUU installation of sidewalks along the full road frontage of the property on Torrain Street and Rainey Avenue. Some of these areas were not even planned for developm nt. The CnuDtv has tried to work out an arrangement to share the costs of installing the smaller aectioD of sidewalk|hoD Torrain Street. The Town Board of Adjustment has continued to state that the ordinances require the additional sidewalks. This 'could be an additional $150-170'000. In recent nonths, staff has discussed funding and the sidewalk situations. Related to the funding, after looking at the possibilities it became obvious g that another round of PARTF grant applications would be available in January, which could ad d $500,000 to the project. The grants require 50% match from the local entity. It is possible to do s without making significant impact on the timetable for the park. Attachment 3 on page .02 9 shows the timetable. Based on the timetable, the construction bid award would come to the Board in June 2009, co ction would follow in the summer, and the park would be open sometime in the spring of 2010. Regarding the sidewalk queotion, staff has crafted a possible solution that changes the nature of the CUP application that should keep from requiring ' construction of all sidewalks. This would create an exempt plat subdivision on the County's property. The County's property is the b oundary of about ten acres that could b e created as a n exempt plat. This would modify the CUP before the Town to focus on the areas that are going to be built aepan� of p hase | ofthep8rh. By carving out these future areas now designated, it ld allow the County to not have to add ess this at this time. There is also a sensitive stream buffer area along Rainey Avenue, and a trail may suffice better than a sidewalk. The Town Board of Ad Vot[neOt has asked for an update at the meeting on September 1/�»� Theinitial reaction received from Town otaff has been positive. - Commissioner Carey asked about the $35,000 that the Town of Hillsborough said might be available. Laura Blackmon said that this has been budgeted for operations, but the park will not be completed this fiscal year. There has been positive feedback that the $35,000 could be used for construction of the sidewalks. Chair Jacobs said that he talked to the Mayor and he expressed willingness to expend at least some of that money. The Town Board has not discussed it. Laura Blackmon said that she also talked to the Town Manager, who was receptive and said that he would take it to the Town Board. Commissioner Gordon asked who would operate the park. Laura Blackmon said that the County Parks and Recreation Department will be doing the programs there. Dave Stancil said that there is a Memorandum of Agreement that allows both entities to plan for a park. Staff is working on the agreement. Commissioner Gordon said that this seems like a good solution given the constraints. She asked about the base bid and the sidewalk item. She thought that it would cost $50,000 if this new plan went through. The base bid is $100.000. Laura Blackmon said that $50.000 is the lower section, which is the section that might be surveyed and withdrawn. Commissioner Foushee asked that, if the County is going to be responsible for the park, would the MOA speak to subsequent contribution for the operation of the park when it opens. Parks and Recreation Director Lori Taft said that the Town did offer funds for operations each year, with the understanding that Orange County would operate and manage the park. There was not talk about changing the scenario in the future. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to authorize staff to proceed with development plans for Fairview Pmrh, reapply for a PARTF grant in JaDUory, and solicit construction bids to allow for the possibility that grant funding may or may not be received; approve the scenario for modifying the Conditional use Permit as identified hen8in, authorize a survey to create a 10-ao[e exempt p|gn, as shown on the attached 0ap, which will reconfigure the property lines within the pa[k, and allow sidewalk construction to be modified to match Phase 1 of the park; and ask staff to draft a Memorandum of Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough regarding joint operations. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs asked that staff go the monthly community meeting at Fairview to explain what was done and how it affects the timeframe, and also explain that it does not in any way signify a diminution of the commitment to bringing this facility online. c. Petition for Funding Assistance from Botanical Garden Foundation The Board considered responding to a petition from the Botanical Garden Foundation Foundation fo[fuOdiOg assistance from the County's Lands Legacy Program toward the purchase of property to expand the Foundation's Stillhouse Bottom Nature Preserve. Land Conservation Manager Rich Shaw introduced this item. In K8ay, a representative from the Botanical Garden Foundation requested that Orange County contribute $100.000 toward the Foundation's purchase of a 5.5-acre addition to the Stillhouse Bottom Nature Preserve. The Foundation owns this pnaGerve, which is a 17-acre site located southeast of Chapel —i|( The Foundation has an option to purchase the 5.5 acres from the Ivey Family. Hill.� ' d is considered a critical part of the Stillhouse Bottom property abuts the nature preserve �n e co NatVrG| /\naG The site is within Chapel Hill's extraterritorial jurisdiction and OWASA's Urban theServices Area, so the appraised value is $500.000. The Ivey Family has agreed to sell he property for$400 OOD. The Foundation's option will expire at the end of October. The Foundation has been working on public awareness. To date, the Foundation has raised $42,000, including a pledge of$34.000 from the Town of Chapel Hill. The Foundation indicates mteo that contributions from the Town and the County would stimulate additional private contributions and would also influence neighboring landowners to donate conservation easements on their lands that abut the nature preserve. Because of the high purchase prica, it is an unlikely purchase for the Lands Legacy program. HoxveVar. ERCD thinks that the site merits consideration of County assistance as a project partner. If the Board wishes to contribute funds, ERCD would suggest matching the _34.000� [n � theTowO of Chapel Hill and increase that amount oVnt to a maximum of$50.000 if that is also matched by Chapel Hill. This is stated in the Manager's Recommendation. Public Comment: || Misty Buchanan distributed some informational handouts to the County Commissioners.e rG . She is a botanist with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. She spoke on behalf of the Botanical Garden Foundation. She urged the Board to help to protect this natural area. The Ivey tract occurs in a stretch of the Morgan Creek Valley that is unique within the County. This area is designated to have State gigDificaOca, meaning it is one of the best examples in the State with natural communities and rare plant species. There are over 100 species of plants � identified She said that this could be@ once in8 |i�tiOeoppo�Vnityto buy this tract. She urged the Board to help purchase this tract by contributing the full $100.000. Pearson Stewart spoke in support of this request. He said that Stillhouse Bottom is a superb natural resource and is not at all suitable for conventional public recreation. He said that this would add substantially to the Countv'e reputation for being an excellent steward of natural resources. He acknowledged that his wife was instrumental concerning the donation of the initial portion of Stillhouse Bottom. He is very grateful for this. Johnny F|ondaU, Assistant Director of the North Carolina Botanical Gordan, oversees management and conservation of natural areas. He said that he could not add anything except that one of the most important things is that the Ivey tract is in the heart of what could be a 65- acre nature preserve. He stressed the importance of this land for the continuance of Morgan Creek Valley and New Hope game lands. Mike Day said that this is one of the most important sites that he has seen in the past 30 years. It is an incredible piece of land. Anne Lindsey is a member of the Botanical Garden Foundation. She does support preserving the Ivey property. She encouraged the Board to do whatever it could to help in this endeavor. Commissioner Nelson made reference to the agenda abstract and the statement about, "other potential acquisition objectives." He asked what else was in the pipeline Ulotthie might be in --m`-- ion with. Rich Shaw said that there are no specific properties in competition, but the County has a master plan, a Lands Legacy Action Plan that is updated every two years. There are a lot of opportunities. Commissioner Nelson asked that, if the C|ouOtvvveFoto �mOtribute the $1OO.00O. xvou|d County Rich Shaw said no there be projects in the pipeline that it would not be able to pursue. Ri no, not in the pipeline. Commissioner Carey asked if anyone has spoken to Chapel Hill about the increase in funding to �5OOOOif the (�ouOtvrnGtohediL Rich Ghmvvsaid no. that there xvaoa piece Of residential property that (�hmpe| HiUhad to purchase ' �|i'h the g[eeDxV8ysyst8nnvxithiD (�hape| HiU. 00it had to spend GUof its open space DloOeyoD^~ i 'single pFopedy. ��hape| Hill xVou|dhave probably contributed [nOrammnney. He thinks that~ -there iathe opportunity to go back to Chapel Hill and ask for more money in the new fiscal year A 'motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to agree to ch the Town of Chapel HiUcoDtributiontothe ]otaOioa| GandanFoUnd@tionnotto exceed �5OODO - substitute te 0odonvv8s made by <�onnDliSsione[ ��ordoO. seconded by Commissioner Nelson' ' contribute $100,000 to the Botanical Garden Foundation to be used toward the purchase of property to expand the Foundation's Stillhouse Bottom Nature Preserve. VOTE: Ayes, 3; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Carey, Chair Jacobs) Com0i �sioOo[Carey said that the <�ountx (�o[n0iesionerexveOtthrough the discussion Cf telling E| Fu--[o �hG�thoyonu|d not suppod $ 'O'OOOtn take care of people xxhoare gehmus|y '- eti forces that He has oprob|omOxviththis ill. H� �oidth�tth�ns �n� c�rnp competing ro�o support. process. ommissioner Gordon said that this is a dedicated sum of money allocated for the County to buy land Commissioner Carey asked about the source of funds. Rich Shaw said that ERCD has the Lands Legacy Oppo un �e Fund iti F daOd2OO1boOd [OoOeyfor |8ndsthathmvepUb|ic8coeoe associated with them. Commissioner Foushee said that she thought she was voting on money that was earmarked for the purchase of land. Laura Blackmon said that the parks and open space is for public access properties. t out comes oU Fund. Since this has limited public access and is conservation pn}perty, it would not be proper for it to come out of the bond funds. Dave Stenci| saidthattho $0OO.00OiOtheC)pportunitiesFundi0000u0u|etedpoy-@s- you-go money that accumulated f m 1998-2003. The Lands Legacy Bond Fund, which has another $1.75 million installment is available access lands. This can be a - � of park Vra nature preserve ao long ae there iSoornecOrnpoOeD t o public accessibility. There is another fund available for conservation easements. Commissioner Foushee said that she thought that this would come from funds that were allocated specifically for those types of purchases. Commissioner Carey said thsd, if that is the caoe, then he supports the motion. Chair Jacobs said that the reason he did not vote in favor was that $8,000 has been raised in private funds that there vveFeassurances fro[npeople xxhoxvenshere about propediea that they do not own that will be added tV this, there has been Oo feedback from any adjoining property owners, and that he thinks that Chapel Hill should be challenged to commit the money in the next fiscal year because it is within Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. He said that he has a problem with being the primary funder in another jurisdiction. He would like to maintain the principle of being equal partners. Commissioner Nelson said that those are valid concerns. He said that he has heard that there are property owners who are waiting to see if there is a commitment from public sources. He said that this is a particularly unique piece of property. He has no problem with challenging Chapel Hill to come back to the table with $100,000 instead of$34,000. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to request that Chapel Hill match the County's contribution of$100,000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Carey wants to be clear that the $100,000 is coming from a source that is dedicated for land acquisition purposes. d. Cabe Crossing (formerly Bramco Partners) Subdivision — Preliminary Plat The Board considered taking action on the Cabe Crossing Subdivision Preliminary Plat. Glen Bowles said that the Planning Board on June 6, 2007 approved this as a 33-lot subdivision. Now it is coming back as a 20-lot subdivision. This is off of Cabe Ford Road just west of Pleasant Green Road. The property is zoned Agricultural Residential and is in the Lower Eno Protected Watershed. The average lot size is 2.2 acres. There is also a wildlife corridor. He showed some pictures of the property. He read the Administration Recommendation. Commissioner Gordon asked about the Planning Board recommendation, which was to delete the stub-outs. The recommendation is to keep them. She asked for the pros and cons on this. Glen Bowles said that the stub-outs allow connectivity into and out of the property. The pros for taking them out are that the neighbors did not see a need for them. Commissioner Gordon asked about the reasons given by the one person of the Planning Board that voted against this development and Glen Bowles said it was because of too many lots. Commissioner Gordon asked several other clarifying questions that were answered by Glen Bowles. • Chair Jacobs asked about the Homeowners Association and Geof Gledhill said that the documents suggest this. Some of the property is dedicated to the Homeowners Association for private recreation. The public recreation area requirement is being satisfied by the County taking title initially and then ultimately it becoming part of the State park of that 4.73-acre parcel. Chair Jacobs said that the Board asked the Attorney to work on the Homeowners Association agreement so that it does not preclude the use of clotheslines or the requirement for water-intensive lawns, or any other restrictions that are not smart growth. Geof Gledhill said that he presumes the developer would agree to this. Mr. Peloquin said yes. Commissioner Gordon asked how the two items that came in afterwards regarding three archeological sites and historic preservation would be handled. Geof Gledhill said that the state Department of Cultural Resources requirements, page 2, says, "if it is subject to Section 106...." He said that this is a regulatory issue that is beyond the County's area of concern. If the National Historic Preservation Act gives this state agency regulatory authority, then that authority will be exercised. The slave cemetery is on the property and the others are not. Craig Benedict said that there is only one property that involves a cemetery within this development. This would be part of lands that are programmed to go back to the State and the State can do whatever it wants. There are not any Army Corps of Engineer permits, which would activate this review process by the Division of Cultural Resources. There is a better level of review than what is within the regulations. Chair Jacobs made reference to a statement from the letter from Ms. Hall from Cultural Resources, and read, "I do not believe that the subdivision property has ever been examined for archaeological sites." Craig Benedict said that if there was a special use permit, there are additional review and activities that occur with that type of subdivision. This was more of a preliminary review of identifying sites. Geof Gledhill recommended some minor changes in the conditions. On page 9, condition B7, the second line should read, "provide funds," instead of"shall be posted to ensure that the applicant will pay." The second change was on condition B8, and the third line should read, "directing that," instead of"to ensure." A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Administration recommendation, which is approval of the Preliminary Plat in accordance with the attached Resolution of Approval and subject to the following: - The $9,100 in-lieu-of parkland dedication fee be waived, and - The "stub out" streets shall be included on the Preliminary Plat. And that the County accept the offer of dedication of the 4.73-acre Tract "A" be accepted as public recreation land, and authorize the Chair to execute such deeds and other documents as deemed necessary by the County Attorney in order to convey Tract "A" to the Eno River Association for ultimate conveyance to the State of North Carolina for inclusion in the Eno River State Park. The motion includes the changes as submitted by the County Attorney and the comments about the homeowners association. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Initial Review of Proposed Chatham/Orange Task Forces The Board was to consider reviewing potential processes, including proposed charge and composition, to establish three new Chatham/Orange Task Forces and, following any revisions, authorize staff to forward the task force proposals to the other jurisdictions for approval and respective appointments. Commissioner Foushee asked that this be moved up on the next agenda, since this is the third time it has been deferred. DEFERRED 7. Reports a. Solid Waste Process Technology Assessment The Board was to consider receiving an assessment of solid waste processing technologies as • alternatives to landfilling as a primary means of waste disposal. DEFERRED 8. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner) DEFERRED 9. County Manager's Report DEFERRED 10. Appointments ALL DEFERRED a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee— New Appointment The Board was to consider making a new appointment to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee. b. Advisory Board on Aging — New Appointments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Advisory Board on Aging. C. Commission for Women — New Appointments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Commission for Women. d. Hyconeechee Regional Library— New Appointment The Board was to consider making a new appointment to the Hyconeechee Regional Library. e. Joint Orange Chatham Community Action (JOCCA)— New Appointment The Board was to consider making one appointment to Joint Orange Chatham Community Action. f. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee— New Appointment The Board was to consider making one new appointment to the Nursing Home community Advisory Committee. 11. Information Items Movable Bleachers for West Ten Follow-up 12. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to go into closed session at 10:38 p.m. for the purpose of: Pursuant to G.S. § 143-31.8.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board, concerning the case of Housing Discrimination Complaint: DHUD Case Name: Campbell, Robert, Minister vs. Orange County, et al.; DHUD Case Number: 05-08-0589-8." VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION: A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to reconvene into regular session at 11:10 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 13. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board