Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080916 APPROVED 11/6/2008 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING September 16, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, 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 Clerk to the Board Donna Baker. 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 pointed out the items at the County Commissioners' places. There was a revised item 6-e. The blue sheet was for item 5-a, Tilley Home Building Progress Documentation. The pink sheet was a resolution to provide comments specifically related to item 6-e. There was also a PowerPoint from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan. There was an additional application for the OWASA Board. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Luke Smith is a resident of Orange County and works as a physician at El Futuro, Inc. He distributed a letter to the County Commissioners. He said that the Human Services Advisory Commission recommended El Futuro for funding last year, but it did not receive funding. El Futuro has continued its work and has 1,500 active patients at this time. The organization has been in existence for three years in Orange County and it provides behavioral health services, which includes mental health and substance abuse services. Many of the people that El Futuro serves face discrimination, poverty, violence, and shame because of mental illness or addiction. He said that people from around the State come to see the work done at El Futuro. He pointed out some clients in the audience that would like to request the County Commissioners to reconsider the funding request for El Futuro. He said that the organization is looking to charitable trusts and foundations to help empower the work even further. One of the things that the trusts and foundations ask is how the community is invested in the work. There are many volunteers, medical clinics ask them to come in, and the schools ask them to come in and treat children. However, he cannot say that any financial backing is being received from the County. The request is for$60,000 in funding for 2008-09. Commissioner Carey said that he saw an article about El Futuro raising money to avoid the risk of closing its doors and Dr. Smith said that services may have to be cut back if the organization cannot meet its operating budget. Chair Jacobs said that Orange County does invest heavily in its citizens, and he understands the burdens that are placed on non-profits that are trying to fill the gap that the State has created in the mental health system. He said that this will be referred to staff, but the County Commissioners are probably going to be asking the departments to cut budgets again. He said that he would be happy to write a letter from the Board of County Commissioners if it would help as a fundraiser. Commissioner Carey said that it would help these people to know within the next 30 days whether the County is going to respond to the request. He is asking staff to come back with a recommendation as to which way to go. The Board agreed. Chair Jacobs said to have it back by the October 21st meeting. Chair Jacobs offered condolences to the family of Mr. Bailey, who was murdered recently. Mr. Bailey apparently had some disabilities. 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. Update on Discussions/Next Steps with Orange County Rescue Squad, Inc. and Preliminary Plan/Timeline for a New Fire and Emergency Medical Services Study The Board received an update on discussions/next steps with Orange County Rescue Squad, Inc. and a preliminary plan/timeline for the County to pursue a new fire and emergency medical services study. Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca said that last week the Board of County Commissioners asked staff to reengage dialogue with the Orange County Rescue Squad. This was done, and there was a very productive meeting. The meeting was yesterday morning at Orange County Emergency Services headquarters. He made reference to the handouts that he distributed to the County Commissioners. The handouts include letters as well as minutes from the meeting. Ground rules for engagement were set at the meeting. He read some of the minutes so that they could be in the record. • Meetings will be held weekly on Monday at 10:00am at ES Headquarters with flexibility allowed as needed. • Chairman Seip and Chief Matthews agree they are able to speak in each other's stead. Colonel Montes de Oca agrees Captain Woodward and Lieutenant Joseph may speak on his behalf. All concerns or problems with decisions made should be brought forward immediately. • An agenda should be established for future meetings. • Copies of OC Franchise Ordinance, Orange County/OCRS contract, EMS Services Franchise and NC Administrative Code provided by Captain Woodward to all attendees. • ES will develop a status sheet to keep everyone on the same page to help determine future goals and ongoing actions. • All changes and updates to meeting times should be sent to Lysa May. • Chief Matthews provided additional training records for 2006, 2007 and 2008. The records are divided into 3 sections: Current Rescue Technicians, Current State Association Roster, and Rescue Technicians as of September 281h. Affiliate status- Rescue Technician Instructors. • OCRS members are authorized to take their Scope of Practice tests presented by OrCES at Durham Tech (DTCC). • Ride-along times needed for squad EMTs. ES is in the process of reviewing and changing the rider policy to improve control and increase efficiency. • Ride times and training requirements from ES including assessment process will be provided by Captain Woodward on September 22 for OCRS. • Hard copies for 2006 are not complete; Chief Mathews will provide what he has to Lieutenant Joseph. Hard copies for 2007 and 2008 will be provided. • Lieutenant Joseph will provide a list of any lapses in training records or other information needed to complete his review. • Department of Insurance (DOI) transcripts not provided in the initial package given to the BOCC. It was agreed the information would be added to a future package after all hard copies of training provided. • If possible, ES to provide a timeframe for both public record requests. Initial request made August 151h, 2008. • Chairman Seip would like to have performance standards/guidelines for extrication services for Orange County. • State Office of EMS is making policy changes. Captain Woodward will keep OCRS apprised of any changes that affect their organization. PUBLIC COMMENT: Assistant Chief of the Orange County Rescue Squad Nathan Huey read a prepared statement. He said that his handout was much longer than three minutes, so he would just touch on a few key items. He said that when the rescue squad provided training records to Emergency Services, it also provided copies of DOI transcript. These copies are in the packet to the County Commissioners also. He said that the rescue squad was informed that the DOI transcript contained misinformation and could not be trusted. He contacted the Department of Insurance this morning to verify this claim, and he received an email back from the Senior Deputy Commissioner of the North Carolina Department of Insurance stating, "Our transcripts are an official representation of the successful completion of the courses given credit for." He continued with his statement: "A couple of years back, in the middle of the night, Orange County 9-1-1 received a call from a 12-year old having a severe asthma attack. Orange County has exhausted its internal resources. The Orange County Rescue Squad was ready to respond that night, but was never called. An out of County ambulance was sent in for the call, and was delayed, trying to find the location. The Orange County Rescue Squad could have been on the scene in no more than 12 minutes had it been contacted. This is what happens when the Orange County Rescue Squad. That night, a mother lost her child. The leadership of OCRS met with Emergency Services Monday at 10:00 a.m., and during this meeting, the only documents provided to OCRS was a copy of the franchise, a copy of the expired County contract, and the State laws governing EMS. None of the documentation we asked for regarding the stand down was provided. As of yet, the rescue squad has not received the letter that Colonel Montes de Oca referred to, or answers to questions regarding the stand down. OCRS has provided documentation of its training showing that it has met the minimum standards set forth by the North Carolina Department of Insurance and the North Carolina Association of Rescue and Emergency Medical Services. The stand down needs to be rescinded immediately and OCRS returned to full active duty. OCRS will continue to work with Orange County Emergency Services to conduct an audit and review of our members and training to lay this issue to final rest. Our members, including myself, feel that the stand down of the rescue squad is putting citizens of Orange County in danger. We feel that taking us out of service was not done properly. Again, no documentation has been provided before and during the stand down. How many incidents have to occur within Orange County to leave people to wonder whether or not OCRS could have made a difference, had they been asked to respond? How many more players have to wait nearly an hour on a football field, or elderly patients who have suffered from a fall lying in a parking lot for nearly an hour waiting on an ambulance? Once again, Chief Matthews expresses his regrets for not being able to attend this meeting. If any of you have any questions, or would like to speak with him directly, please feel free to give him a call." Commissioner Nelson thanked Colonel Montes de Oca for the work Emergency Services has done pursuing this matter since the last meeting. He said that it is a step in the right direction. He thanked the OCRS and said that he does understand the desire to undo the stand down, but everyone needs to go beyond this in a clear and thoughtful way and keep cooperating and sharing information. Chair Jacobs asked Colonel Montes de Oca to address when the information about the stand down would be provided. Colonel Montes de Oca said that this issue was not raised at the meeting that he was aware of. He will get with Chief Matthews and get clarification. If there is information that has not been given, he will certainly get it to them. Colonel Montes de Oca read the memorandum from him to the County Commissioners, which was in the agenda packet: ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES Interoffice Memorandum TO: Board of County Commissioners VIA: Laura Blackmon, County Manager FROM: Colonel F. Rojas Montes de Oca, Jr. - Director DATE: September 16, 2008 SUBJECT: Emergency Services System Study The Orange County Fire/EMS and Rescue system is a loosely woven fabric of career and volunteer emergency responders, telecommunicators and staff members who are dedicated to preserving the life, health, safety, welfare and property of the visitors to and citizens of Orange County. That fabric is stretched and pulled every day as the calls for service continue to grow. Regardless of its current condition, it is still a system that can become more seamless and effective with a comprehensive, accurate study. A study that answers three simple questions: Where are we now? Where do we need to go? How do we get there? It is my hope that we can answer those questions and address the many needs of the system through an accurate, comprehensive study of our emergency services system. I have attached some of the components or factors that the study should encompass. It is not a complete list, but I am certain that with your leadership, the expertise of our counterparts and input from the vast knowledge-base of our partners throughout the system, I believe we can achieve the goal of developing a roadmap for the future of emergency services throughout Orange County. The timeline listed below relates only to the RFP development, issue, award and acceptance. Once the study has been accepted, that is when the real work begins by putting into motion an action plan or plans that will bring the study to life. During the coming weeks I will work with fire and rescue service leaders, County staff and personnel within Orange County Emergency Services to begin developing specific scope of work items, timelines and processes needed to successfully deliver an accurate, complete study. Should you have any questions, concerns or specific ideas that will enhance this effort, please let me know. Thank you. cc: Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager File ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES System Study Components and Timeline Timeline for RFP (90-120 days) • Develop Scope of Work (SOW) Components • Develop RFP Language • Staff Review • Legal Review • BoCC Approval • Issue RFP • Receive and Review RFP • Award RFP • Review Intervals • Accept Study Constituents • Orange County Board of County Commissioners • Orange County Government and Staff • Orange County Fire and Rescue Service • Orange County Emergency Services • University of North Carolina • North Carolina State Fire Marshal's Office • North Carolina Office of EMS • North Carolina Emergency Management • Association of Professional Communication Organizations • National Emergency Numbering Association • North Carolina Sheriff's Association • Orange County Public Schools • Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board Components • Where are we now? o Current station locations o Current community protection level(s) o Current capabilities of all system assets • Facilities • Equipment • Staffing • Training • Surge depth o Current calls for service workload • Fire/Rescue • EMS • Community Outreach and Public Education • Law Enforcement • Emergency Management and Disaster Planning • Telecommunications • Fire Prevention and Investigation • Training o Current funding mechanism(s) • Where do we want to go? o Fully Integrated System o Partially-Integrated System o Hybrid System o Status Quo • How do we get there? o Phased Action Plan o Immediate Needs o Long-Range Plan o Intermediate Plan Geof Gledhill said that at the last meeting, the County Commissioners asked for an opinion about the legal relationship between the rescue squad and Orange County, and this has not been finished yet. He is working on this with Annette Moore and it is complex. Chair Jacobs asked if this would come back to the Board with an RFP or the vendors. The County had a bad experience with the previous process to choose a vendor because staff only came back with one name. Colonel Montes de Oca suggested that all constituents be included. The Board of County Commissioners will approve the RFP. The staff will stay on track with the timeline of 90-120 days. Commissioner Gordon asked where the 90-120 days stop in the list under the timeline. Colonel Montes de Oca said that at the end of 120 days, the study should be in hand. Commissioner Gordon would like to know the dates of approval for the RFP and the study. Colonel Montes de Oca said that he would be talking to Purchasing to work this out. This is a high priority. Commissioner Gordon suggested that the North Chatham Fire Department service for Southern Orange County also be included in the study and Colonel Montes de Oca said that this would be included. Chair Jacobs suggested an agenda item on October 7th with a timeline and an action item for the County Commissioners. Getting this study launched is more important than having a time certain when it would be finished. 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. b. Appointments — None c. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 37 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes. d. Bid Award: Hook Truck for Solid Waste The Board awarded a bid to Triad Freightliner of Greensboro, North Carolina at a delivered cost of $157,975, for a Hook Truck for Orange County Solid Waste; and authorized the Purchasing Director to execute the necessary paperwork. e. Bid Award: Two (2) 40 Cubic Yard, Front Loader Refuse Trucks The Board awarded a bid for the purchase of two (2) 40 Cubic Yard High Compaction Body Front Loader Refuse Truck from Piedmont Peterbilt of Greensboro, North Carolina at a delivered cost of $433,996; authorized the Purchasing Director to execute the necessary paperwork; and authorized the Finance Director to solicit a Request for Proposal to finance one vehicle, with the results of the solicitation to be brought back for Board approval at a later date. f. Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget Amendment #2 The Board approved budget and grant project ordinance amendments for Department of Social Services, Department on Aging, Health Department, Register of Deeds, Miscellaneous, Orange Soil and Water Conservation, and Revenue Department, and amended the County Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2008-09. Authorization to Purchase Office Furniture and Telephone Systems for New County Facilities through NC State Contract This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: a. Minutes The Board considered correcting and/or approving the minutes from May 8, 27, 29, June 3, 5, 12, and July 31, 2008 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. Commissioner Nelson asked about the delay in the approval of minutes and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker told him that, due to summer break and the multitude of minutes, the meetings usually get piled up. The minutes are almost caught up. She said that some meetings are given priority, such as the transfer station siting meetings. She said that the laser fiche system is running, so it will make searching the minutes much easier for the public and staff. Chair Jacobs said that this has been a problem before, and he does not want to wait more than a month or six weeks before minutes come back to the Board for approval. If there is some other impediment to getting them done promptly, then it should be made known to the Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve the minutes from May 8, 27, 29, June 3, 5, 12 and July 31, 2008 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Authorization to Purchase Office Furniture and Telephone Systems for New County Facilities through NC State Contract The Board considered authorizing the Purchasing Director to effect the purchase of furniture and telephone equipment for the new Animal Services Facility, Central Orange Senior Center, Justice Facility and Solid Waste Operations Center. Chair Jacobs asked if there was any overall strategic plan or if this was being done building by building. Purchasing and Central Services Director Pam Jones said that there is an overall strategic plan to replace the County's telephone system. Purchasing is working with IT on this. Animal Services and the Solid Waste Operations Center are on Chapel Hill lines, so they would not be included in that. Chair Jacobs verified that this is all part of the master plan and the expenditure will not have to be repeated. A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve authorizing the Purchasing Director to effect the purchase of furniture and telephone equipment for the new Animal Services Facility, Central Orange Senior Center, Justice Facility and Solid Waste Operations Center through State Contract and/or GSA vendors; and authorize the Purchasing Director to execute the needed paperwork VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Review of Class A Special Use Permit Proposing the Development of a Montessori School The Board considered taking action on a Class A Special Use Permit application proposing the development of a Montessori School at 711 Terry Road (SR 1573) in accordance with the provisions of Article Eight (8) Special Uses and Section 8.8.30 Schools: Elementary, Middle, and Secondary of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, close the Public Hearing and begin deliberation and schedule BOCC action for the October 7, 2008 regular Board meeting. Chair Jacobs asked how this item was to be regarded and if it was like any other item. Geof Gledhill said that this is a special use permit only and the public hearing is still open for this. He recommends that anyone planning to speak at this public hearing to be put under oath. Chair Jacobs asked for those wanting to speak that had not been sworn in at the previous meeting to come and be sworn in. The Clerk swore in the speakers. This item was transcribed verbatim. Zoning Enforcement Officer Michael Harvey said that he had been sworn. Michael Harvey: The purpose of tonight's meeting is to finalize the public hearing and present the abstract that is included in the agenda packet, update you on the various items contained herein as well as their pages and locations, and allow anyone that has questions to ask them. As the Board will recall, we are reviewing a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with Section 8.8.30 for the proposed development of a school on 711 Terry Road. The application specifics are provided in the abstract. The applicant is proposing development of a school on 711 Terry Road, a 14.5-acre parcel of land. It is zoned Agricultural-Residential, Lower Eno and Little River Protected Watershed. It is located in the Agricultural-Residential Land Use Element. I have for you just an aerial view, once again, of the property in question. And I would like to begin my presentation of the abstract focusing on the site plan. As you will recall, the proposal is by a non-profit corporation to develop a school property that would focus on a farm/agricultural and science-oriented curriculum that included farm and crop production; animal care; recycling, composting, and water conservation activities/projects; and study of the natural environment. As the Board will remember during the public hearing, there was opposition to this request. This information is provided in Attachment 3 of the document. The site plan, as you will recall, proposed the development of six classrooms and one administrative building showing an emergency vehicle lane that was intended to go around the building. Here are the elevations that were submitted by the applicant. The student pickup and drop-off area was in a small area adjacent to the emergency vehicles lanes with stacking spaces for people to park to allow for vehicular traffic to pass through. It is proposed to have 37 parking spaces. You will also recall at the public hearing, we informed the County Commissioners that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan showing two access points onto Terry Road and were to comply with the provisions of Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance specific to special use provisions, requiring two means of ingress and egress for a school site. The Planning Board reviewed this application at the August 61h meeting, and after reviewing the application and reviewing the additional comments, it was recommended for approval with the imposition of 15 conditions. I will review those very briefly before I go on with what's included in your packet. He reviewed the conditions that are shown below: 1. That the site plan be revised to denote a thirty (30) foot vegetative buffer along all common property lines and that the SUP contain a condition requiring the applicant to install and maintain a 30-foot buffer to the Type A buffer standard as detailed within Section 12.6.1 of the Ordinance and that further this required buffer be shown on any and all submitted site plans proposing the development of this property in accordance with Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That a condition be placed on the SUP that the Fire Marshall and representatives of the Caldwell Fire Department shall review and approve the revised site plan prior to the issuance of any Building and/or Zoning Compliance Permit(s) approving the location of all proposed improved fire lanes and stacking areas, verifying that they comply with all applicable North Carolina Fire Protection Code standards, and approve the use of the pond as an emergency water source for fire suppression activities prior to the start of land disturbing activities. 3. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to apply for any and all necessary septic and well permits from the Orange County Department of Environmental Health within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of this application and that such permits shall be issued prior to any land disturbing activity. 4. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to apply for a Building and/or a Zoning Compliance Permit within one hundred eighty (180) days from the approval of this application and that such permits shall be issued prior to any land disturbing activity. 5. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring that the applicant secure a Soil Erosion and Grading permit from the Orange County Erosion Control Division within 180 days from the approval of this application and that such permits shall be issued prior to any land disturbing activity. 6. That the applicant, as part of their building permit application submission, shall include documentation from the State of North Carolina indicating that the school has received any and all necessary certifications allowing them to operate as a private school and that their curriculum has been certified as meeting any and all local, State, and Federal requirements. 7. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to adhere to any and all additional conditions that may be imposed by NCDOT in accordance with their driveway permit as part of the permit review for this project. 8. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant submit to the Director of Planning and to the Public Health authorities of the County, representatives of Cooperative Extension, and other County officials as directed by the Planning Director, a yearly certification that a veterinarian in good standing has reviewed the status, health and welfare of the animals on site as of January 1 of each year and certifies that the animals are in good health. 9. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to arrange for an annual review by the County Extension agent regarding utilization of the site as a demonstration farm to ensure there are adequate facilities for the care, health, and safety of the animals and the applicant conforms to the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Care and Use requirements and Animal Welfare. 10. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant adhere to the bungalow style of construction as detailed within the renderings submitted as part of the SUP application. 11. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant to install the 30-foot required buffer along Terry Road beginning at the furthest edge of the right-of-way and from the point there is sufficient site distance to enter and exit the property. 12. That the applicant shall be encouraged to promote carpooling programs for parents utilizing the school facility. 13. That if any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be void in its entirety and of no effect. 14. The Special Use Permit will automatically expire within 12 months from the date of approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for extension of this time limit is approved by the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 15. That a condition be placed on the SUP requiring the applicant make arrangements to provide adequate parking arrangements on their property during special events and any and all necessary measures to keep their guests from parking on neighboring roads or on neighbors' property. These are the conditions of approval as recommended to you for consideration. As I've indicated, there has been local opposition to this project, both at the public hearing and the Planning Board meeting. If I could call your attention to page 5 of your abstract, I'd like to go over the Table of Contents with you, so that I can outline what was provided for your review. He read the Table of Contents, which is incorporated by reference. What the Board is being essentially asked to do in the recommendation, which you will find in your packet, is that you receive the recommendations detailed within this abstract, you receive any and all additional information concerning this application, you'll close the public hearing and begin deliberation, and you will schedule action upon the special use permit at the October 7, 2008 regular Board meeting. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Commissioner Gordon: I had a couple of questions. The first had to do with utilizing the bungalow style of construction. Is that to keep the development in concert and harmony with surrounding properties? Why is that? Michael Harvey: I'm going to try to answer your question in two different ways. The first way is that the applicant has obviously proposed that style of construction. It is part of their application, and they're being asked to be held to their application. Secondly, the bungalow style of development offers potential for rebuilding to utilize as part of the construction of these buildings and essentially afford the greater opportunity for some flexibility from the standpoint of implementing green building standards. Commissioner Gordon: Another question I had was related to fire protection. I noticed there's a condition that the Caldwell Fire Department be asked that they approve the revised site plan. And of course they have to meet code and then there's the pond. I just wondered, and I looked at the letter from Mike Tapp, and did they ever provide any comments? It talks about the water source being approved and so forth. I don't see that they necessarily say that the Caldwell Fire Department can provide adequate service for this. For example, the Sheriff certified that they can provide law enforcement services without additional personnel. Michael Harvey: Let me answer that question in two ways. If you refer to page 38 of the application, it indicates that Caldwell Fire Department shall be a provider for fire and first responder services. Essentially, they identified the need for a water source. The pond is potentially one of the water sources. One of the rationales for requiring Caldwell Fire Department to be involved in that process is that they can certify with provision of an additional water source, they can adequately provide fire protection services. But, the direct answer to your question is that we have received no additional information from Mr. Tapp. We only have this information. Commissioner Gordon: I think it would be a good idea as we approve these developments, which requires more than just single-family homes, that we ask that they certify that they can provide the services. I'm not trying to single out Caldwell, I was just thinking that down the road we're going to get other applications where there is no public water and sewer and a volunteer fire department. It's going to be critical that the services be provided, so it would be good to have a comment that they be asked to state, "we can provide adequate services for this if..." Chair Jacobs: I have a question, but first I wanted to thank the members of the Planning Board for being here. When we have Planning Board items sometimes we say, "well, why did the Planning Board do this?" and staff is put in the odd position, especially when the Planning Board recommends something that the staff did not, of trying to explain the Planning Board's thinking. Is there an officer of the Planning Board here? Can I ask a Planning Board member to be sworn in so that if there is an issue, then I can ask a Planning Board member to explain it? Geof Gledhill: Unless the Planning Board member is going to testify as the facts.... Chair Jacobs: So I can just ask them a question? OK. Let me ask my question first of Mr. Harvey. The same page, 38, you had mentioned at the public hearing that this fire lane would meet the provisions of the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code. Does that require that it be paved? Michael Harvey: In the condition it says "improved." Chair Jacobs: Having spoken with the Emergency Services Director who doesn't agree with that, I would like to get his comment in the record. So I would like to ask that that be included. I'm just characterizing his statement. He may not still hold that opinion. But, before we make that a condition, I'd like to get some clarification. Michael Harvey: No problem. Chair Jacobs: At this point, that was actually my only question. I assume that the applicant has some comments. Steve Yuhasz: I am the attorney for the Montessori Farm School and represent the applicant here. I have been sworn. We're very pleased that the Planning Board recommended approval of this Special Use Permit, and we believe that this school will be an asset to the community. It's already an asset to the community in its current location, but needs to be in a rural area in order to complete its mission to be the Montessori Farm School. We think that this location is an ideal location for this particular use. We agree with all of the conditions that have been put on this recommendation. The conditions are all there to try to meet some of the concerns that the community has expressed. I think that it's not unusual for a community to be concerned that there are changes occurring. This kind of community school is one of the changes that is anticipated for this kind of neighborhood within the Orange County Zoning Regulations, and that's why it is allowed as a special use permit when certain conditions are met. We believe that we have met all of those conditions, and I think the Planning Board, with its recommendation, agrees that we have met those conditions. So I don't have a whole lot more to say. I would like to try to answer Commissioner Gordon's question as far as the Caldwell Fire Department, and that is that....and it should be reflected in the Planning Board minutes that I did have a conversation with Fire Chief Andy Gates specifically about the capacity of the pond and he and I agree that we would work together to ensure that the pond had sufficient capacity to serve the fire protection needs of the school. The other question had to do with the scale and the type of buildings, and I think that green building is one aspect of it. I think it is the desire of the school to maintain a country atmosphere, a farm-like atmosphere, and we think that these kinds of buildings will help to maintain that. And also the scale of them is fairly low, so that we expect that the buildings, other than potentially a little bit of the barn and the top of the administration building, but we expect that all classroom buildings will be invisible from Terry Road. We expect that the buffer that will be planted or that will be allowed to continue to grow on each of the sides of the property will essentially mask those buildings from even the adjoining properties. So, we expect that there will be very little visual disturbance of the adjoining property by this school. I'd be happy to answer any questions that anyone has. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Boyarsky: I'm sure I'm going to say things that you all have heard before, but I really feel compelled to say them. I've lived on Terry Road for more than 30 years, and I've watched our community grow over that time. I've watched new homes be built, I've watched all those homes be built on large acreage, not just half-acre plots, but two, and three, and five, to 70 acres a plot. I've seen the homes be built, not just 30 feet off the road, but 50 and 100 feet off the road. With 30 feet of buffer, you can still see through the trees, you can still see what's happening, you can still hear the noise. The traffic has increased on our road significantly since I've been up there. That's all expected, we don't expect progress to stop. I never moved out there thinking that no more houses would be built. But I have to admit, I never expected to see an SUP, a special use permit, overturn an Agricultural-Residential zoning; not in my lifetime. We live in a very rural community. I cannot consider that an ideal place to put a school, though I am a retired educator with more than 34 years of experience and have always been involved with innovative education. I do agree with Montessori schooling principles. I do not agree that it needs to be in an agricultural area where our homes are set in private, quiet tranquility. Somehow, to me, it does not maintain the integrity of my neighborhood. I'm not really opposed to a school, I'm opposed to a special use permit that allows a business, a corporation, to be built in that neighborhood, because that's what this is. It is a non-profit, but it is a business. It's a business that is being built in a neighborhood. I've read the SUP, I agree that the applicant has addressed all of the cut and dry details that are required by the SUP. I do believe that in the SUP they are following the letter of the law, but the intent of the SUP, to me, is to ask permission to change the zoning, and our zoning is being changed without any input from the community. Yes we've been up here talking, but I guess I don't feel like I have been heard. The SUP does not address some of the logistical problems presented by a school. The major one, in my mind, is traffic. In part because I just came by an elementary school yesterday, just drove by an elementary school yesterday, and stood in line watching the parents wait. If there are cars parked on Terry Road, there is no way that anybody can drive by them because there is no turn lane. And it's a dangerous area. I would hope that you would not approve this SUP, because it will change the entire character of our neighborhood. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly in opposition to a business being built amongst our homes. Thank you. Keith Tilley: I have previously been sworn. Thank you for the opportunity to come back and speak again tonight. I don't have a whole lot to add since the last presentation and the last public hearing. I would just like to point out some of the documentation that I submitted since that timeline. I feel like I've put a lot of time and energy into following the process that was directed to me by the Planning Department to put everything in writing and submit that to them and to you guys. I wanted to make sure and just request that you please read all the documentation that I've submitted, both the presentation, the written letter, which I think the letter probably was an attempt to realign my previous presentation comments directly to the three SUP legal requirements for approval. Due to the fact that we felt like, for example, the impact analysis provided by the applicant didn't really provide any security to me that the school is going to maintain or improve my property value, I went out and got in touch with several realtors in the area as well as another appraisal, and actually asked that Everett Knight's findings be reviewed, because there were a lot of discrepancies that we found in the report as well as the comments that were made in that report that basically said that no appraisal value has been stated and no real value of this report. It was just basically a high- level opinion. I spoke directly with Mr. Knight, and he basically concluded and admitted that he was not aware of our homebuilding property documentation and he looked at it as a snapshot in time, basically, and that both sides of that property at that point are vacant land and rural agricultural land. So obviously, with that view, there would not be a significant impact to the surrounding properties from an aesthetic perspective. Everyone I've talked to, both realtors, private citizens, as well as the appraiser obviously had a very different view. I think that any reasonable and prudent person would attest that if you have a nice house and then suddenly there are seven commercial buildings built within visual sight of that house, and that it's going to have a negative impact to your property value, along with the 300 cars per day up and down the property line beside your house. A 30-foot vegetative buffer that was brought up by the Planning Board, I guess does help to some extent, but what time period does that require to grow. That's not going to be an immediate protection of visibility from the property. One of the things that I brought to the table were letters from three realtors, which I've documented into the information — Co!dwell Banker Agent Michael Irwin; Keller Williams Agent John Tatreau; and Re/Max Agent Kathryn White. So I'd ask that you please read those, because they have expressed their professional opinion with many years of experience in the real estate market and how that would have a personal impact on our market value. And I have with me tonight Geoffrey Odell, who is here in the audience. He is not planning to speak, but I think his document speaks for itself, if you would please read it. I would ask that if you have any questions tonight that you please address those directly to him, and if you have any questions about his methodology or process that he went through to determine his findings. He's also made himself available for questions anytime. Commissioner Gordon: To have this be evidence, does the person who provided the evidence have to speak, or can someone provide written evidence? Geof Gledhill: I think in its present form, without the testimony of the person saying who he is or saying that it's theirs, it's hearsay evidence and does not have particularly strong value. Commissioner Gordon: I kind of lost track of Mr. Tilley and whether this is the man that you wanted to testify as to your value, but if it is the person, he should come forward and be sworn. Geoffrey Odell was sworn in. Chair Jacobs: I think the purpose of your being up there is to address the written comment that we were provided from Mr. Tilley that reported to represent your professional judgment. Geoffrey Odell: What I did was considered to be a consulting assignment to analyze the impact, if any, to his property. One of the big issues; this property has been timbered, this is timbered probably 90% right in here (he was pointing to the map). What you see are not really trees, it's the undergrowth. This property up here is clear. This has been timbered up in that area, and it's wooded in the back. Where the proposed school is, is somewhere right in here. Where Mr. Tilley's home is proposed, is right in this area. The only buffer remaining between the two property lines is just leftover trees that weren't timbered years ago and some saplings, some underbrush. It's not any kind of buffer whatsoever. When I walked over the property, he's got his house laid out, and where his house is going to be is overlooking the school buildings there. In my 26 years of appraising real estate, I've appraised a lot of homes from modest bungalows on 2, 3, 4, 5 acres to large estate quality homes on 15, 20, 40, 50 acres. The common denominator through all of that- through all of the buyers, sellers, owners that are financing —the common denominator is the typical buyer lives in these properties based on the seclusion and the privacy and the serenity given that comes with a large acreage site with a home. In my opinion, due to the traffic issues created by the school and the location of the improvements in relation to his proposed house, he's going to have both an inferior view characteristic at least for a good number of years, until whatever buffer everybody is talking about has a chance to grow, but he'll continue to have problems with the traffic. One of the entries, based on the information I had, it's going to be right in here along his property line. His driveway is probably right down in this area. It's a little bit north of the center. That's the existing driveway of the property. With that many cars, it's reasonable to assume that you're going to have traffic issues on Terry Road, in the immediate vicinity of the property, which is more than likely where his driveway is. In addition to that, I gleaned data from the market as it relates to external influences on properties, and external influence is defined as something that is tangent to or nearby a property that exerts influence on it; for instance, if you're in the vicinity of a gas station, or an airport, or any number of things like that. There are all types of external influences, both positive and negative. In my opinion, this is going to be a negative external influence on the property. Commissioner Gordon: In condition 15, the condition we placed on the SUP required the applicant to make arrangements to provide adequate parking on their property during special events and any and all necessary measures to keep their guests from parking on neighboring roads or on neighbors' property. One of the speakers brought up the issue of parking on the road. I wondered how this condition was going to be measured. What's going to constitute adequate parking arrangements? Michael Harvey: The concern, as the Planning Board began deliberation on that particular item, was that there might be open houses, where the school is open to all of the parents, that the school be required to guarantee that all parking be on their property, there would be no impact on Terry Road. The direct answer to your question is how we are going to enforce that, quite frankly, is anytime there is a special event, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, meaning me, goes out there. If there is parking up and down Terry Road, that is a violation of the specific condition of the special use permit and quite honestly, the way special use permits are written in Orange County, could end up voiding the permit in its entirety. That's how it is enforced by staff, working with the school on special events and verifying that they have complied with provisions. Steve Yuhasz: The front part of this property is pasture, and that pasture will be available for overflow parking on those odd occasions when there might be more vehicles than the parking lot would handle. So I think there is a built in overflow parking facility that will essentially guarantee that there will not be a problem with parking on Terry Road. Commissioner Gordon: My understanding of what we're supposed to do is not make a decision tonight, but rather at the October 71h meeting, is that correct? Chair Jacobs: That's the recommendation. I did have one question. On condition #8, why are we not mentioning the Animal Services Director? Public Health authorities of the County are probably not even as appropriate as the Animal Services Director. For stipulating places to go for supervision, I would think that that would be one that ought to be included. Michael Harvey: I agree. Geof Gledhill: One thing that may not be clear is that although the charts that are in here include an Administration Recommendation, there has not been an Administration Recommendation and there won't be until the public hearing is closed and we take into consideration all of the Board comments. That will be folded into the Administration Recommendation. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to receive the recommendation of the Zoning Officer and the Planning Board; receive any additional information concerning this application; close the public hearing; and schedule the BOCC action on the SUP for the October 7, 2008 regular Board meeting. Geof Gledhill: I thought I understood that you wanted additional evidence in the record, Mr. Chairman. Chair Jacobs: I did. Geof Gledhill: Well then hold the public hearing open solely for the purpose of receiving that information. Commissioner Gordon modified her motion to keep the public hearing open for the submittal of information from the Emergency Services Director of Orange County regarding the condition regarding the lane for fire protection. Commissioner Gordon: I would like to get the letter from the Caldwell Fire Department certifying that they could provide adequate provision of services. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs: I would hope that the Planning Board and the Planning staff would revisit the traffic impact analysis. Instead of using just a numerical threshold, I think that we see that an increase in traffic in a percentile manner has a big impact in a rural area. It may not meet the criteria that we have established for the traffic impact analysis to kick in, but obviously it has a transformative effect on the quality of life in a neighborhood. I would hope that you could have a conversation about how we might capture that in an objective way, so that there's at least some more data that we can have about the way in which developments in rural areas change rural character. 6. Regular Agenda a. Initial Review of Proposed Chatham/Orange Task Forces The Board considered reviewing potential processes, including proposed charge and composition, to establish three new Chatham/Orange Task Forces and, following any revisions, authorizing staff to forward the task force proposals to the other jurisdictions for approval and respective appointments. Chair Jacobs said that this item has been bumped three times, so that is why it has been put first in the regular agenda items. Laura Blackmon said that last spring there were several meetings with Orange County, OWASA, Chatham County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro officials regarding some mutual issues. The task force was charged with discussing items that were being discussed by the larger group. There are three task forces on the table for discussion —joint planning, regional transportation planning and public transportation, and water supply/watershed protection issues. There is a proposed charge for each task force and a proposed membership. This will be sent to each entity for review. There is an Assembly of Governments meeting this Thursday night, and this issue is included in the agenda packet. There are two changes. One of them is to take the Water Supply/Watershed Protection and move Watershed into the Joint Planning Task Force. The other one has to do with water supply and on page 35 there is a memorandum from Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil that outlines this issue. The goal is to look at a more regional type of organization to discuss water supply. The City of Durham has been discussing water supply with OWASA. The discussion has expanded into looking at a regional committee to do some water supply planning, particularly dealing with Jordan Lake and looking at a western intake facility. This information is included as part of the packet. Commissioner Gordon said that planning between Orange County and Chatham County is important and she said that she was struck that transportation planning was being separated from land use planning in these task forces. She thinks that it would be a mistake to separate these two because they are so intimately linked. She would like staff to look at a model of the Durham/Chapel Hill/Orange Work Group. This is a recently successful model. There are two representatives from each elected board and one Planning Board member. She said that she could not imagine a fruitful discussion of transportation planning and land use planning if they were separated. She suggested asking staff to look at the resources needed for the task forces and look at a possible work group model. Commissioner Foushee agreed with Commissioner Gordon but would suggest that when the Board meets at the AOG that the entities could talk about convincing the task forces into one work group and allow the work group to determine the subset, depending on the issues. Commissioner Nelson said that the Board has so much going on and it is too much to do task forces right now. He would like to find a different way to reach the same goal. Chair Jacobs said that staff was probably responding to what was said at the Assembly of Governments meeting, where people said that they wanted to separate out transportation. He said that, because the water group is moving at an expedited pace, he is concerned that the Durham/Orange/Chapel Hill model will not work because it only meets quarterly and it is a relatively unstructured process. He thinks that land use planning needs to get up to speed to be parallel with some of the concerns that were raised very strongly at the AOG meeting regarding land use and the application of increased water resources. He does not think that the current group has constituted to do this in any kind of expedited, regimented manner. He would like to consider bringing Planning Board members from each jurisdiction to the planning group, which would then break into subcommittees. He wants to look at how to move forward without over-stressing anybody on the land use issues a little faster than if the group just met four times a year. Commissioner Gordon said that it seems that the urgent part is the water, and she does not have any objection to target a task force to look at the water issues. She suggested trying to do something about the western intake and issues that are urgent. She would like to figure out a way to construct the work group to have land use, transportation, and the overall watershed protection issues in one group. Chair Jacobs said that it sounds like the Board would like to marry the transportation and land use plan, but the water plan is moving ahead faster than the others. The Board would like the staff to come back with some proposed structure for addressing the planning/transportation in a manner that does not overtax the County's resources or the County Commissioners, but does not lag far behind the water issue. The staff will summarize this discussion at the AOG meeting. b. WC Breeze Family Farm Agricultural Extension & Research Center Memorandum of Agreement The Board considered a Memorandum of Agreement between Orange County and N. C. State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences for program development and associated activities at the WC Breeze Family Farm Extension and Research Center in Hurdle Mills, Orange County and if approved, authorizing the Chair to sign. Cooperative Extension Director Fletcher Barber said that there is a timeline in the packet regarding the events so far. One event in particular is the PLANT, which is the farm enterprise incubator, and stands for People Learning Agriculture Now for Tomorrow. This is a very successful program so far. The Breeze property is 270 acres and was donated by the WC Breeze Family and is a unique partnership in that this is the first time that a county has come to N. C. State to ask about utilizing property. There are a number of research farms owned by N. C. State, but this is the first time that Orange County wanted to get engaged with the university. He asked the Board to sign the Memorandum of Agreement. He already has the appropriate signatures from the university. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve a Memorandum of Agreement between Orange County and N. C. State University College of Agriculture and Live Sciences for program development and associated activities at the WC Breeze Family Farm Extension and Research Center in Hurdle Mills, Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the concept plan that was approved in 2006 and asked if the County Commissioners approved this. Fletcher Barber said that this concept plan was presented to the university. It has not been approved in any major way whatsoever. The approval is for the resolution to proceed and not the details of the plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Buckhorn Village PD/SUP (Rezoning/Special Use Permit) Review The Board considered reviewing the application(s) for a rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for the Buckhorn Village Planned Development submitted by Buckhorn Road Associates LLC on December 22, 2007 and scheduling action for October 7, 2008. Planning Director Craig Benedict introduced Michael Harvey, who has been the Zoning Administrator reviewing this proposal and who will give the outline of the process and the next steps. Michael Harvey summarized the information in the abstract. The proposal is to rezone approximately 130 acres of property in the Buckhorn/I-85/I-40 interchange Economic Development District to a Planned Development designation. The ordinance requires a special use permit application. The public hearing was first held on February 25th and staff has continued to review the application. Last month the County Commissioners closed the public hearing and deliberations are set to begin. He went through the various attachments. Under Attachment 3, there is a Resolution of Rezoning Approval; Conditions of Approval; an update on where the staff, administration, and the County Attorney are working with the applicant regarding the conditions; and Special Use Permit Findings of Fact. Attachment 4 is a Statement of Inconsistency. He explained the other documents. Staff is asking for any comment or direction as the staff, administration, and the Attorney's Office begin to finalize the list of conditions recommended. The general statute in the ordinance now requires that the conditions imposed on a planned development have to be mutual. Staff is working with the applicant in order to obtain full adherence to conditions or to try and make any modifications to address concerns. The goal is to incorporate any and all recommended conditions and direction from the County Commissioners as this process is continued. The recommendation is to continue deliberation and schedule a future meeting to make a decision. The application proposes three individual development districts. District 1 is 42 acres and is intended to be a large destination retail development. District 2 is approximately 40 acres and is intended to be mixed use, and more a village promenade themed district with small shops, ground-floor retail, second-story offices, and potential condominiums or single- family residential. This district also proposes a potential location for hotel sites. District 3 is a 48-acre tract with frontage along Buckhorn and West Ten Road that has large-scale retail development proposed. He showed the three districts on a map. The concept plan delineates an area to be left in a vegetative state, consistent with the Economic Development District Design Manual of a 150-foot buffer around the Clearview subdivision. Commissioner Carey said that a number of the recommendations included items that were uniquely within the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners to perform or carry out and they were listed as conditions. This means that if the conditions are not met, then the special use permit becomes null and void. He asked for an explanation of the conditions and if they were messages that the Planning Board wanted to send to the Board of County Commissioners. Michael Harvey said that a lot of things would have to happen before the SUP would be revoked. There are conditions designed to ensure that the specificity of the application is carried out. There are also conditions that have been imposed to address concern for the potential for this project to be annexed. There are conditions that are designed to ensure that, for any development within the districts, off-site transportation improvements will have to be completed in order to guarantee that the work is done. It is ultimately up to the Board to determine, with the applicant's participation, what will be imposed. Craig Benedict explained the chart regarding the conditions. Commissioner Foushee made reference to condition 27 that relates to the Board of County Commissioners engaging the process to develop a more formal interlocal agreement with the City of Mebane. This is a situation where the Board of County Commissioners has to initiate and the developer cannot meet this condition. There are other examples similar to this. Craig Benedict said that there will be some administration comments on these conditions. Chair Jacobs asked the developer if there were any comments. Jim Parker said that they were in attendance to answer any questions. Chair Jacobs asked if there would be any fences and Michael Harvey said that there are none proposed but there will be retaining walls. Chair Jacobs said that the common design for shopping centers is to fence off the rear of a center to residential, and the people that live right next to it have to get in their cars and drive all the way around to get to what is right next to them. If this is not addressed, then it is not happening, presumably. Chair Jacobs asked if there were any more access roads onto N.C. 10 and Michael Harvey said that there is only one access now, which will be signalized. Michael Harvey reminded the Board that as each site plan is submitted, revised transportation improvement documents have to be submitted for review and approval by NCDOT. Additional external and internal traffic improvements may be required by NCDOT above and beyond what has been proposed in the conditions. Chair Jacobs said that he is more concerned about the impact on rural character on the neighborhood across, south of West Ten Road. Michael Harvey said that the deletion of the truck access will alleviate some of the traffic congestion. Chair Jacobs asked about the possibility of some of the residential units being affordable. Michael Harvey said that this is a condition that is still being reviewed. Chair Jacobs wants to make sure that this is not forgotten. Chair Jacobs said that if there is going to be a 200-unit multi-family structure then there should be a room for exercise and Michael Harvey said that is still being reviewed. Chair Jacobs said that another issue raised at the public hearing was a contribution to public transportation, and that the County is working on an east-west route for public transportation. Michael Harvey said that this has been discussed, and it will be more beneficial for the applicant to answer this. Chair Jacobs asked about the one acre that is being offered at the southeastern corner, and if this is being given to the County. Michael Harvey said that staff has not come up with a final recommendation yet. Chair Jacobs referred staff to Waterstone, which gave three acres, and the development is three times the size as Buckhorn Village. Chair Jacobs made reference to buffers and asked to see some illustrations when this comes back. Craig Benedict distributed some sketches of the buffer. Chair Jacobs thanked the staff for all of the work that has been done. Jim Parker made reference to the government area designated on the plan and said that this land was to be given to the County for any intended use. Regarding the public transportation plan, there has been a lot of discussion about this, and the developers are willing to work with the County in some kind of contribution for this. However, the developers have already indicated in the plan that there are four bus stops there. The pedestrian and bike plans are also part of the plan. He made reference to the letter submitted to the County by the developers on several of the design solutions that are important. He made reference to page 2 of the letter, which had information regarding drive-thrus. He said that he would like to be limited to a specific number of drive-thrus rather than them being not allowed at all, because it is important for some of the tenants to have drive-thrus. Planning staff also recommended some type of drive-in, which would allow the car to park and not be idle. He said that the developers would promote this concept, if possible. Regarding Design Solution 13, buffers, he said that visibility is key to this type of development and the retailers. The project is located somewhat lower than Buckhorn Road and visibility will be a major selling point. Regarding Design Solution 14, there are some issues with buffers. He read the bulleted items on page 5 of 6 regarding this design solution: - All buffers shall, at a maximum, consist of 50% natural/re-vegetated and 50% disturbed/re-vegetated - Public utilities are allowed to penetrate buffers to the extent of the required easement width of the specific utility. - There shall be a one hundred fifty (150) foot buffer along the perimeter of the Buckhorn Village Planned Development property directly adjacent to the Clearview single-family residential subdivision that is located along West Ten Road - There shall be a 25-foot buffer along the eastern property line - There shall be a 100-foot buffer along the northern property line running parallel with Interstate 85. The requirements for this buffer are as specified in Design Solution 13 - There shall be a 25-foot buffer area along the western property line - The developer shall install earthen berms, three to four feet in height, and add additional landscaping around six existing single-family residential properties along Buckhorn Road for additional Open Space protection and maintain a 50-foot buffer, and - There shall be a 75-foot buffer along the southern property line. Additionally, a 100-foot building setback shall be required along this southern property line. Chair Jacobs made reference to drive-in as opposed to drive-thru and asked how anyone would regulate that. Jim Parker said that there are some users that may be able to facilitate a drive-in scenario rather than a drive-thru scenario. Chair Jacobs made reference to 60% penetration and if this was removed from north- south or east-west. It was answered that it was east-west. Commissioner Carey made reference to condition 4 and said that he read that the developer has no issues with the condition as written, but in the letter, it states differently. Jim Parker said that, as a compromise, the developer was proposing a specific maximum number of drive-thrus rather than disallowing them. Commissioner Gordon asked for an explanation of the concept of visibility and how many different ways it needs to be accomplished. She asked if the goal was to capture people off the interstate or if there was something else. Jim Parker said that for those that may be interested in coming to the site, most large retailers and hotel chains are going to require and demand some visibility from the interstate. Laura Blackmon said that there are certain standards that must be met before retailers will consider coming to this development. Commissioner Gordon thanked everyone for all of the work that has been done on this. She said that the site plan is not fully developed since it is a concept plan, and she asked the County Attorney to explain more of what is in the ordinance and what is not. She said that some of the uncertainty is that everyone is trying to figure out what is exactly being approved. She would like more detail from the developer, with consent. She asked if this was allowable in the ordinance. Geof Gledhill said that the direct answer is yes, more detail can be requested. He said that he tried to explain in his letter that any economic development district that has been created in the zoning ordinance, the staff looks at all of the detail in the approval process. The applicant could walk in with the same tract of land and develop it through a site plan review process, which is only a staff review process. Each of the individual uses would be a site plan review process under this possibility. This is different because the developer wants to change some things in the design manual and is proposing alternative design ideas to the Board. He is suggesting that the way this is being offered to the Board is that the Board will approve the master plan of this project and then the details are still left up to the staff as the staff goes through the process of issuing permits for this project. He said that the reason why there is not more detail is that the people who are putting this project together do not know what this is going to look like at the detailed site plan level. The developer has to sell this to the people that are going to fill up these spaces. The zoning ordinance allows the Board to ask for more specificity. Commissioner Carey said that if the Board approves the concept plan, then it is up to staff to require the performance standards if they exceed the ordinance requirements. Geof Gledhill said yes and it would have to meet the uses of each district. There cannot be a proposal that is not part of the concept plan. Commissioner Nelson made reference to visibility and the buffer along 1-40, and said that there are plenty of large developments where communities really care about how it looks when you drive down the interstate, and they are very careful about the buffers. He understands that all of the retail chains say that they need visibility, but if the community insisted it be done a different way, then the retailers will still come. He thinks that it is a fallacy that it has to be done this way. Regarding drive-thrus, he said that not having drive-thrus will help with green emissions. Carrboro banned drive-thru windows in 1995 or 1996 for air pollution and greenhouse gas reasons. He said that fast food restaurants will still come. This is being built as a green development, and if everyone is serious about it, then there should not be any drive-thrus. Chair Jacobs asked if there was any relation between the height of the sign and addressing the visibility issue. He asked if there was a design solution, since 60 feet is within the ordinance, that would allow the sign to go up and be a signature feature, but there would not be a penetration of the buffer. He understands the concerns with visibility, but he would like a compromise. John Fugo is the general contractor for the retail portion and he said that he deals with retailers every day. He said that the County Commissioners' comments are well taken, and sometimes the retailers come anyway without visibility, but in other situations, they simply say no. It depends on where the development sits in the population base. Southpoint is right in the middle of a dense population base, but you cannot see it from the interstate. He does not think that this would work for Buckhorn Village because there is not a population base there. He said that the reason the developers came up with the 60% penetration of the buffer is that he understood that the project could not be developed through negotiation. He said that a sign above the trees does not look good. He said that there is a better way, and it is somewhere in between what the County wants to maintain and what the developers need to lease this site where the population is lacking immediately around it. Chair Jacobs said that there is some negotiation and the SUP can be modified. He asked Geof Gledhill about this. Geof Gledhill said that the whole project would have to go back on the table. He said that he is not sure where the no negotiation idea came from. In 2005, the General Assembly did land use plan modernization legislation, which imposed a requirement that the conditions of the permit had to be agreed to by the developer. He thinks that there can be an agreement where both parties can find something acceptable. Commissioner Carey said that he is not sure that there is a lot of difference with drive- ups and drive-thrus and it is reasonable to have some of both in a development like this. He thinks that they should be limited, but commit some. He also would like to remove those things from the conditions that are uniquely within the responsibility of this Board or any other board because the developer does not have the authority to do these things. He asked that these conditions be put on a list of goals for the County Commissioners to pursue over a period of time. Chair Jacobs said that the developers have heard the County Commissioners' primary areas of concern, and they can decide whether to adjust or not adjust, and the Board can decide on the conditions that it wants, and if there is no change then the developers know where the Board stands. Commissioner Gordon said that if this comes back on October 7th and there are still questions, then they should be addressed. Rosemary Waldorf made reference to the point earlier about affordable housing and said that there has been some back and forth discussion with the staff that if the developers knew what Orange County's affordable housing program was, they would work to comply with that. She would like to propose that they will write a stipulation that complies with the 15% standard that Chapel Hill and Carrboro does. Regarding the buffer and the visibility, she would like to follow up on the notion that there should be better illustrations. She asked that they be allowed to bring these illustrations to show the Board what is needed. Also, it is her understanding that the EDD design standards were really written not for a retail mixed-use contemporary kind of project, but were written for light industrial, etc., something that people would want to be buffered by vegetation. She said that the visibility for this kind of project is critically important, especially for the anchor tenant. George Horton said that this is not like Southpoint, but a mixed-use development and a village. There is one anchor tenant that is critical to the project. Without the anchor tenant, there will be no project. There are only two or three tenants that can allow this, and the requirements are visibility along the corridor. This will not fly with only 25%. Chair Jacobs suggested that the illustrations include something other than 60%. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to schedule action on the rezoning and SUP applications for October 7, 2008 consistent with the Board's discussion and all of the issues that were raised. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Education Facilities Impact Fee Reports — Receipt The Board was to consider receiving the Draft Education Facilities Impact Fee reports prepared by TischlerBise and direct staff on how/when to proceed. DEFERRED e. Resolution Submitting Comments Regarding Alternatives for the Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan The Board was to consider a resolution submitting comments to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee regarding analyses of alternative transportation systems proposed for the Long Range Transportation Plan. DEFERRED f. Legal Representation for Employee Disciplinary Process The Board was to consider follow-up information regarding the current County policy related to legal representation for employees during the employee disciplinary process. DEFERRED 7. Reports-NONE 8. Board Comments DEFERRED 9. County Manager's Report DEFERRED 10. Appointments DEFERRED a. Orange Water& Sewer Authority Board of Directors (OWASA) — New Appointment The Board was to consider making a new appointment to the Orange Water& Sewer Authority Board of Directors. 11. Information Items • Shelter Co-location of Pets in Emergencies • Park Bond Issuance Information Abstract • Status of the Comprehensive Plan Update 12. Closed Session-NONE 13. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 10:53 pm until Monday, September 22nd at 7:30pm at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board Orange County Water Supply Reservoir Water Levels Available information as of 10:00 AM, Thursday, September 11, 2008 Lake Orange • Water level is full and spilling slightly and has been doing so since early on September 6th. The water level has risen over 17" as a result of the rainfall associated with tropical storm Hanna. Releases from Lake Orange have been generally curtailed for the most part (some release to the east fork of the Eno is nearly always necessary) since the morning of Wednesday, August 27 (with one exception). The release from Lake Orange was increased in the late afternoon of Friday, September 5th (we could not predict what the effect of Hanna would be and instream flows were dropping quickly) and then decreased again as much as possible on Monday, September 8th Stage II Eno Capacity Use restrictions have been rescinded since 12:01 PM, August 28th. In all probability, Capacity Use Restrictions will end, at least temporarily, at midnight on September 12th • Water storage capacity is at 100% (475 million gallons) • Approximately 141 days of water supply remaining (at Capacity Use specified release rate). • The Hillsborough gage indicates that the latest Eno River flows are at approximately 28 cfs (18.1 mgd). This flow represents a level that is 3.5 times the historical median flow level (8.0 cfs) for this day of the year. • Orange Alamance has begun operating its water plant five days a week (Monday- Friday) with average withdrawals of 300,000 gallons per day. West Fork Reservoir (as of 9/5/2008 [last available update') • Water level is 2" below spilling • Water storage capacity remaining is 99.6% • Approximately 328 days of water supply remaining (assuming Town's current release rate (3.5 cfs, 2.26 mgd). • The Town has been releasing 3.5 cfs or 1.61 mgd above its minimum required instream flow release of 1.0 cfs (0.65 mgd) for September and is thus releasing all the water it withdraws plus additional water to supplement instream flow that is normally released from Lake Orange. • The Town of Hillsborough Town Board currently has no water use restrictions on its customers in effect. OWASA Reservoirs • Water level at Cane Creek Reservoir is 11" below full • Water level at University Lake is full • Total remaining water storage capacity is approximately 96 % • Approximately 372 days of water supply remain with no additional rainfall (at the current 30-day average daily demand [9.2 million gallons per day]) • OWASA's year-round water conservation requirements are in effect National Weather Service/NOAA Regional Precipitation data (through 9/1/2008) (inches above [+] or below [-] normal) RDU Piedmont-Triad 4.97" since September 1, 2008 +0.10" since September 1, 2008 +8.32" since January 1, 2008 -2.97" since January 1, 2008 Miscellaneous notes The NC Drought Management Advisory Council drought map, last updated September 9, 2008, indicates that all of Orange County lies within the area characterized as experiencing "abnormally dry" conditions (the least severe level of their five point rating system).