Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20081007 7 APPROVED 12/1/2008 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 7, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 7, 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, and Alice M. Gordon COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson 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 S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Jacobs said that there was a special meeting notice for a meeting before the regularly scheduled meeting. He asked for a motion: To go into closed session pursuant to G. S. 143-318.11(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 cases of: (1) Galleria of North Carolina, LLC v. County of Orange, Orange County Superior Court File No. 08 CVS 000192 and (2) Orange County v. Huerta, Orange County Superior Court File NO. 08 CVS 343. And to go into closed session pursuant to G. S. 143-318.11(a)(5) to discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract or contracts to purchase real property, PIN 9854-70-2643, owned by the Effie Draper-Savage-Nellie Draper Dick Memorial Foundation, to be used for conservation purposes. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to go into closed session for the above purposes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 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 were several documents provided by citizens. The lavender sheet was a revised Planning Board appointment sheet. There was a draft agenda for the October 14th work session. Chair Jacobs encouraged the County Commissioners to make any comments to the Manager or the Clerk because there was a little bit of a change to what was originally planned. 7 He read the press release that went out today regarding the transfer station public comment process: "The Orange County Board of Commissioners held a scheduled work session on September 16, 2008 on the topic of siting a Solid Waste Transfer Station. Included in the materials for that meeting were documents related to soliciting public comment as part of the ongoing siting process. Neither the future steps in the process nor the `Community-Specific Criteria-Public Input Form' suggested by the consultant, Olver, Inc., were approved by the Board. No deadline for submitting public comment was established by the Board either. Olver, In. was instead directed by the Board to suspend the proposed public meetings and to report its independent professional findings under the Comununity-Specific criteria at the next Transfer Station siting meeting. County management and Olver, Inc. will provide a recommended strategy to the Board at the next Transfer Station siting meeting on how best to incorporate public comment into the overall siting process. The next Transfer Station siting meeting will be held at the Southern Human Services Center on Homestead Road in Chapel Hill on Tuesday, October 21 starting at 5:30 p.m. Each Transfer Station siting meeting agenda includes a period reserved for public comment. The Board of Commissioners values public comment, has built opportunities for residents to speak into every step of the process, and will continue to do this in keeping with Orange County traditions of openness and participatory government." Chair Jacobs said that the addition to the agenda was a presentation by the Emergency Services Director. Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca made this presentation. Chair Jacobs distributed the Certificates of Recognition. Re: Certificate of Recognition Presented by: Commissioner Barry Jacobs, Chair Presented to: Hillsborough Police Department Orange Rural Fire Department Orange County 9-1-1 Communications Orange County Emergency Medical Services Accepting for each department: Hillsborough Police Department— Lieutenant Brad Whitted on behalf of Officer Scott Foster and Officer Mike Foushee Orange Rural Fire Department— Captain John Moore on behalf of Deputy Chief Mac Cabe, Lieutenant Adam Guttman and Firefighter Billy Smith Orange County 9-1-1 Communications — Corporal Josh Robinson and Telecommunicator Tommy Holmes Orange County Emergency Medical Services — Lt. Al Hunt and Captain Kim Woodward 7 On August 26, 2008 Cpl. Josh Robinson received a call from an Orange Rural First Responder over the radio reporting a crane accident behind the Orange Rural Fire Department in which a construction worker was reported to be in cardiac arrest. Two other workers were injured while removing the subject from the live wires and began CPR. Orange County 9-1-1, Orange County EMS, Hillsborough Police Department, and Orange Rural Fire Department worked together as a team while responding and rendering care to the victims. This event represents the teamwork that occurs daily throughout Orange County and illustrates the dedication and hard work of our emergency response partners. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Cliff Leath read a prepared statement: "I am addressing the Commissioners this evening on behalf of Preserve Rural Orange (PRO) to ask for your help and support on an issue that is very important to rural communities throughout Orange County. In April of 2002, UNC-Chapel Hill announced the closure of Horace Williams Airport so that their plans to build Carolina North could be realized. Under pressure from UNC's Medical School AHEC program and a national aircraft owners and pilots' association, the N. C. General Assembly passed legislation in September 2002 requiring the University to keep the airport open until January 2005. Further legislation passed in July 2004, mandated that the University keep Horace Williams open until a replacement facility for AHEC's MedicalAir Operations was found. In 2002, UNC commissioned a feasibility study from Talbert and Bright, a prominent aviation consulting firm, to find an alternative site for Horace Williams Airport. In May 2005, the study identified RDU as the top ranked site to relocate UNC's AHEC MedAir Operations. The Talbert & Bright study identified other lower ranked sites in the county. The second ranked site, scoring 60 of a possible 68 points, is "Site H" located off Orange Chapel Clover Garden Church Road in rural southwest Orange County. The third site, "Site 9", is located west of Orange Grove Road and scored 53 points. On May 26, 2005, Talbert & Bright presented the results of their study at a UNC Board of Trustees meeting. In the same meeting, the Trustees unanimously endorsed and accepted the study's conclusion that RDU met the University's criteria for AHEC MedAir flights. MedAir flights represent less than 25% of the flights to and from Horace Williams. The Trustees' decisions regarding the relocation of Horace Williams to RDU are included in the official record of the Trustees' resolution in support of Carolina North. http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/may05/bot carolinanorth052605.html Preserve Rural Orange deeply appreciates Chairman Jacobs' June 11, 2008 letter to Speaker Hackney, Senator Kinnaird, and Representatives Faison and lnsko in which he questioned the bypassing of local authority regarding the use of eminent domain in House Bill 2725 and the bill's attempt to undermine Orange County's Land Use Plan. Commissioner Jacobs' request to table HB 2725 pending a thorough discussion of the airport issue was 7 ignored by our elected officials. Senate Bill 1925, an appropriations bill for the University of North Carolina System, was passed in the legislative short session. Buried in SB1925 is Section 4. Section 4 granted the UNC Board of Governors the power to effectively create a municipality out of thin air in the name of an "Airport Authority." The UNC Airport Authority is a political subdivision of the State has the power of eminent domain, and can bypass county regulations. UNC and UNC Healthcare are granted majority membership in the Authority, seating eight out of fifteen members. SB1925 was passed without consulting Orange County Commissioners or citizens who would be affected by the creation of an Airport Authority. The University recently released a Talbert & Bright economic impact study based on a regional airport located in Orange County. Their study projects 40-50 million dollars annual revenue from an "unrestricted" general aviation airport in Orange County. If we accept the Talbert & Bright economic report, are we to assume that the University is now the un-elected planning board for the county? We do not believe the 2008 Talbert & Bright study is an accurate assessment of the economic benefits. We ask the county to assess the accuracy of Talbert & Bright's May 2008 "working paper." We believe the University is using this unverified paper, written by an aviation consulting firm, as economic justification for the airport. This heavy handed and opaque progression of events that purposely bypassed the County Commissioners and county voters is very troubling. We cannot wait for the Airport Authority to issue letters of eminent domain which would, as you know, make it impossible for landowners to remain on their property. Given the University's proximity to RDU, a county airport is not needed to fulfill the AHEC's mission. The Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport recently received $5 million in FAA funds to lengthen their runway in order to accommodate larger jets. The Burlington Airport Authority made a proposal to UNC in 2005 offering to accommodate AHEC MedAir Operations. Duke Medical currently flies out of Burlington-Alamance. WE ask the commissioners to include Burlington's proposal in discussions you hold with UNC. If land is taken by eminent domain for an airport in southwest Orange County, the county will lose active farmland that has been passed down from family to family for generations. We ask the commissioners for a resolution condemning the use of eminent domain for commercial purposes. We believe the proposed airport is an environmental disaster. An airport would put our well water at risk and endanger the Haw River watershed without regard for the people downstream that rely on the watershed for drinking water. Diabase sill dikes run beneath Site H properties and prevented a landfill from being built many years ago. We believe that creative solutions to concerns raised by AHEC staff and the University regarding commute times to RDU have not been explored. UNC is a research facility. Surely, for much less than $50 million, the University can devise and implement an environmentally and economically sound plan to transport UNC and AHEC staff to and from RDU. We enlist the help of the commissioners to be certain that solutions other than a new airport are considered by the Airport Authority. We believe that both federal and state taxpayer's money, spent on an airport built mostly to serve special interest groups, could be spent much more effectively elsewhere in Orange County and the state of North Carolina. We respectfully request the Commissioners take a public stand on the airport issue and censure the legislature for bypassing Orange County voters with SB 1925. We request a referendum to allow the people of Orange County to weigh in on the airport issue with their votes. If the airport site selection process proceeds, we ask that the commissioners commit to making certain that county land use, zoning and permits are strictly enforced. 7 We request the commissioners to exert loud and clear objections to any special interest groups, such as a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, being appointed to serve on the UNC Airport Authority. The AOPA has demonstrated their dedication to lobbying for a regional airport in Orange County many times since 2002. Preserve Rural Orange has a significant grassroots effort underway to persuade the University that building a new county airport would be an unnecessary, expensive, and wasteful use of taxpayer dollars with additional untold costs of infrastructure and maintenance. We have collected 1,800 citizens' signatures in a matter of weeks. Preserve Rural Orange feels we have significant community support and request that the commissioners take action on this matter." Chair Jacobs said that this matter would be referred to the staff. The County Commissioners have not discussed the airport issue yet. The process will be as open as possible. Will Raymond is a citizen of Chapel Hill. He spoke about the transfer station siting process. He said that now is the time to start deciding what the County's obligation is in terms of managing solid waste. He said that the County has an obligation to take care of the trash in-County. He said that the County has a finite ability to take care of trash in the community and there should be a decision to live within the means. If the community is going to generate waste, then the community needs to manage it. He said that there have been some missteps with Olver. He said that the answers coming back to the Board of County Commissioners from Olver are not suitable to the Board. He said that the specific criteria weighting was unclear to the community. There was also some confusion about the community input process. He said that he is encouraged by the airport group and by the Hillsborough and Rogers Road community, in that they have not made the "us vs. them" issue yet. He thinks that the community can work against the natural tendency of us vs. them and make this a collaborative process. He said that tonight should be the night that the County Commissioners should start thinking about siting the next landfill. He suggested siting either an incineration site or a new landfill. He thinks that it should be a new landfill. Sara Shields read a prepared statement: "This is a request to reconsider acceptable standards of land use in rural farm areas of the county for all organizations, including civic and churches, in keeping with the rural character. ISSUE: 1) The development and use of these types of lights is not appropriate for rural areas of the County where farm operations could be disrupted or where individuals could be prevented from making reasonable use of their property. I live in the County to avoid this type of intrusion. These types of lights are more suited for an urban environment. 2) With the special events and recreational activities at the church there has been an increase in the amount of noise generated by the church, affecting our ability in making reasonable use of our property. REQUEST: We have lived in Orange County almost 30 years, since 1979. We have lived at 1600 Jimmy Ed Road in Northern Orange County for 11 years. We have 15 acres of pasture land with our residence, barn for our horses, and a riding ring. 7 Recently erected athletic field lights shine into our residence creating a disturbance. There have been occasions when the lights were on after 9 p.m. and we were told that they are entitled to be on until 11 p.m. or later, if a game is in progress. Recent activities at the church are extremely noisy and negatively impact our ability to make reasonable use of our property. We requested action by county staff in the early part of September to investigate the situation and determine how to address our concerns. We talked with the zoning enforcement office and received information that steps were being taken to address identified violations. We appreciate the action taken to address our specific situation but request that the County Board of Commissioners consider the appropriate use of rural areas and the impact of urban scale building, regardless of use, on the neighbors at large. Through this presentation, I request that the Board of County Commissioners begin to investigate the following to address my concerns: 1) I would like the Board of County Commissioners to direct the appropriate County staff person to begin the process of reevaluating the viability of the existing lighting regulations, as detailed within Section 6.31 of the Zoning Ordinance focusing on the following: a. The appropriateness of allowing for athletic field lights to be erected in rural areas of the County, b. The appropriateness of allowing for these types of lights to be on until 11:00 p.m. in rural portions of the County where they could impact farming operations and diminish the quiet enjoyment of homeowners' property. c. The appropriateness of the existing standards. While I understand that these regulations were recently amended, I do not believe that sufficient attention was paid when drafting these regulations to address the total amount of acceptable outdoor lighting for properties within the County nor do I believe that there was sufficient attention paid to the need to distinguish acceptable level of lighting between the urban and rural areas of the County. It is my hope that there could be some report on this matter by the end of the year. 2) I would like the Board of County Commissioners to direct appropriate County staff person to begin the process of evaluating the acceptable levels of development for churches within the County to determine what are truly acceptable accessory uses. In my opinion, ball fields with lights and bleachers or other similar recreational amenities are not appropriate, especially in a rural setting. 3) I would like this review to include acceptable time frames, both hours and days, for lights and noise generated by use of the ball field given that it is located in a rural farm setting." Chair Jacobs said that this matter would be referred to staff. He said that he also received her letter and will let her know of any action steps taken. Amy Jeroloman was representing Orange County Voice, which is a group of concerned County residents who are united against the University's regional airport project. She said that Orange County Voice would like to acknowledge and support the Preserve Rural Orange efforts to oppose Site H in the southwest Orange County area. Additionally, Orange County Voice is mounting a countywide opposition to the airport and any of the sites mentioned in the Talbert & Bright report. As it is currently defined, the Airport Authority's membership is stacked against Orange County representation. Orange County Voice sent letters to Chancellor Thorp 7 and Dr. Roper expressing that this be looked at further so that the County would have appropriate representation. Orange County Voice is also concerned with several statements that Brad Broadwell, Orange County Economic Development Director, has recently made to the media. Mr. Broadwell seems to be supporting the University's airport project and has claimed that this will result in positive economic impact for Orange County. She said that if Mr. Broadwell is referring to the May 2008 Talbert & Bright report for the University, this report is a working document and any specific facts on positive economic impacts are lacking. She said that the report is essentially a marketing tool to sell a product by the aviation industry. Lastly, Orange County Voice is concerned that the Airport Authority will attempt to bypass Orange County's regulatory authority. Marilee McTigue was also representing Orange County Voice. She said that, in anticipation of the airport siting request, Orange County Voice asks that the Board of County Commissioners initiate a study of Orange County zoning and land use ordinances to determine whether they sufficiently protect our watersheds and other protected natural resources and whether they are suitable, given our population growth. She said that the County's zoning related to airport siting is over 20 years old and preceded Cane Creek Reservoir and other watershed protection obligations. The population is growing quickly, and there is a fear that the natural resources are not sufficiently protected. Orange County Voice asks that the Board of County Commissioners consider requiring full rezoning rather than special use permits in order to site an airport anywhere in the County. This designation would offer more protection of natural resources. She asked the County Commissioners to act quickly. Tara Nichols said that she is an attorney representing Lattisville Grove Missionary Baptist Church on Jimmy Ed Road in Hurdle Mills. She spoke about the issue with the ball field lighting. She said that Mrs. Shields indicated that when she bought her property she intended to live in a rural environment. She said that this area is still rural. The ball field lights are part of the church's ball field that was built according to and in compliance with the rules and the regulations of the County's zoning department. There were some minor adjustments that needed to be made, and as soon as the church was made aware of those, it has been working with the staff to take care of those problems. Regarding the issue about the lights being on past 9 p.m., she said that the lights have not been on past 9:30 p.m. and nowhere near 11:00, which is the official time that they are not supposed to be on. She said that the ball field, the church, and everything that the church is doing is being done to create an opportunity for that area and that rural community to have things that are not in this area already such as the ball field. The original building of the church was across the street and the church bought property and moved across the street in the same vicinity. She said that any problem that Mrs. Shields has with the church, the church is willing to work with her. She said that the lighting was installed according to the rules and regulations of the County. There are some minor adjustments to be made to be in total compliance. Commissioner Carey asked how long the church has been there and it was answered that it has been there over 125 years. Pastor George Crews said that he is willing to work with Mrs. Shields or anyone else in the community. He said that the lights have not been on past 9:30 p.m. and there has not been a game at the church yet because the field is not finished. His opinion is that this is just an opposition to the ball field. Jay Bryan is Chair of the Orange County Planning Board. He said that at the last Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board discussed, upon the request of a citizen, the issue of the airport and its location. It was not on the agenda, but it was allowed. As a result of the discussion, there was a motion made by the Planning Board. He read the statement: 7 "The Planning Board resolves that the prospect of an airport in Orange County has significant implications for the citizenry and for the quality of our drinking water and the quality of our environment, and that we advise the Board of Commissioners that we believe it's important to have the Planning Board and staff look at what the regulatory regime is as to airports in the County and to offer recommendations to you within the next 12 months." 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. Orange County Arts Grant Recipients The Board presented checks to local artists and arts organizations receiving the 2008 Spring cycle of Orange County Arts Grants. Chair Jacobs announced the recipients. Spring Cycle, 2008 OCAC Arts Grant Recipients Grant Recipient Attendee ArtsCenter- Phaedra Kelly (Special Needs Dance Classes for Teenagers &Adults) *Tracey Broome (Community Gas Kiln Construction) Tracey Broome Burwell School Historic Site/Historic Hillsborough Commission - Betty Eidenier (Photography Exhibit by Lucian Read) Cameron Park Elementary School - Laura Casey (African American Dance Ensemble Performance) Carolina Culture Zone - Not Available Tonight (OCAC Arts Incubation Program —2nd Year) Carrboro, Town of/Carrboro Film Festival Gerry Williams (2008 Carrboro Film Festival) Carrboro, Town of/Carrboro Music Festival - Gerry Williams (2008 Carrboro Music Festival) Central/Efland-Cheeks & Grady Brown Elementary Schools Coalition - Janice Wereszczak (Phillip Shabazz Poetry Residencies for 3rd 4th & 5th Grades) Chapel Hill-Carrboro Public School Foundation - Not Available Tonight (Student/School Enrichment Grants in the Arts) Efland-Cheeks Elementary School PTA - Victoria Frisch (Artist in Residency Program —various artists) Estes Hills Elementary School PTA - Beverly Tyndall & Caroline Sherman (Artist Fees for School Performances —various artists) 7 Gravelly Middle School - Clark Norman (Sankofa Residency) Hillsborough Arts Council - Tinka Jordy (Performing Artist &Artist Demonstrators at Last Fridays) McDougle Elementary School PTA - Lisa Bobst (Kevin Locke & Hobey Ford Performances) McDougle Middle School PTA - Lisa Bobst (Phillip Shabazz Poetry Residency) North Carolina Arts in Action - Lisa Van Deman (Residencies for 41h & 51h Graders at Rashkis & Frank Porter Graham) North Carolina Symphony - Not Available Tonight (Educational Concerts for Orange County Students) Orange County Artists Guild Not Available Tonight (Video Clips to Publicize Annual Studio Tour) Partnership Academy Alternative School - Susan Marshall & Paige Marsh (Teaching Artist Residency) PlayMakers Repertory Company - Stacy Payne (General Operating Support for Entire Season) Residential Services, Inc. - JoCasta Britt (Summer Art Class) b. Recognition of Visitors Bureau Awards The Board considered recognizing the Orange County Visitors Bureau for being awarded six travel and tourism awards by industry colleagues across the region at the annual North Carolina tourism conference held this summer. Economic Development Director Brad Broadwell said that he was representing Laurie Paolicelli for the Orange County Visitor's Bureau. He recognized the OCVB staff including Linda Ekeland, Patty Griffin, Dale Chodorow, Tina Fuller, and Susan Rice. The Chapel Hill-Orange County Visitor's Bureau received the top award at the Destination Marketing Association of North Carolina Annual Meeting. In the summer, OCVB received six awards — one platinum, four gold, and one of the Innovation Destination Marketing awards. There were 150 entries, and 44 Destination Marketing organizations that comprise the association. The Visitor's Guide won a platinum award, the annual report won a gold award, the eNewsletter was honored, the leisure travel ad won a gold award, the sales department's 60,000 Fans meeting planners promotion won a gold award, and the bureau received one of the three Innovation Awards given in the "Best Local Stakeholder Relations" category for the 1,000 Postcards promotion. Chair Jacobs congratulated them on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. c. Alamance County/ Orange County Boundary Line Update 7 The Board received historical information on the issue of the Alamance/Orange County Boundary Line and a status report on boundary issues and strategies and discussed the timeframe for a possible public hearing. Assistant County Manager Willie Best said that this issue started in 1996 where prior attempts were made to find the original line and were unsuccessful. The reason that Orange County is trying to locate the original line is to prevent development that is now occurring on the Orange County/Alamance County line and people do not know which county they live in. This has created a lot of issues with large developments. There have been a couple of meetings on this issue in Alamance County on September 3rd and 41h. One was at the Herndon Baptist Church and the other was at the Arts Center. Prior to the meetings, staff sent out 422 letters to potential homeowners that would be affected by the relocation of the original line. The concerns expressed at the meetings included taxes, schools, emergency services, etc. He said that Orange County is not trying to draw a new line, but only trying to find the original line from 1849. If the County decides to support the line done by the surveyor, the County may lose some property tax revenue. This line would provide a certified way to determine exactly where the line is. The money for the survey was provided by the State. He said that the staff has proposed that Orange County would use mutual aid agreements to do emergency services and fire protection. There is also discussion about grandfathering the children into the schools where they attend at this time. The issue with that is that the school board would have to agree to this. He made reference to Attachment 1 b, which was a table of the numbers of households that would go from Alamance to Orange and from Orange to Alamance. Orange County would receive the most number of students from the switch. He said that both counties would hopefully hold public hearings on this matter in December. Chair Jacobs reiterated that this is only a report and the County Commissioners are in the process of establishing the next steps and are not wedded to any particular idea. Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about the maps and Willie Best answered. Willie Best pointed out that nothing can happen with the line unless both boards agree. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ann Robbins said that she has lived at 312 N. Ninth Street in Mebane for 43 years. She said that in 1978, she was allowed to start paying her taxes to Alamance County without the boundary line being moved. She spoke on behalf of the North Ninth Street Mebane Area Boundary Line Dispute. She realizes that all information is received from the GIS mapping department, Tax department, and other departments. She said that they are more than numbers or parcels, but they are residents that have lived in their homes and raised their children their whole lives. She said that the residents are at the County Commissioners' mercy. She said that the residents did not know anything about the boundary line coming up again. When she took the petition in May, no one knew anything about it. She said that no one knew that in 1978 the residents in this area were allowed to pay taxes in Alamance County without the boundary line being moved. She asked the County Commissioners to use the original for tax purposes only line, which would put their property in Alamance County once and for all. She quoted one of the Commissioners, "Economic times are not good and the timing is not right during a recession, even if it's not officially a recession." She asked that the County Commissioners have compassion for them. Everett Green is a Mebane City Councilman and said that he has had more comments and concerns from people that live along Ninth Street. He said that the demographics on 7 Ninth Street include retired people, people on fixed incomes, people with health issues, and they would be greatly affected by this. He asked the County Commissioners to look at this from the perspective of who it will affect. Laura Blackmon said that this was a report to update the Board of County Commissioners and the staff is looking for direction from the Board. There is a concern that this be resolved before the new Board composition. Chair Jacobs said that he would like to know what Alamance County is saying about this. Commissioner Foushee would like to hold a public hearing and coordinate it with Alamance County. Commissioner Carey suggested that the new Board be a part of this public hearing process. Commissioner Gordon agreed that the new Board needs to deal with this. Chair Jacobs said that he would like to see some of the mapping alternatives that would address the residents' concerns. He would also like for there to be a report on the experience in working with the Chatham County line. He does not recall any negative responses once the line was resolved. Commissioner Carey said that this Board did not have a joint public hearing with Chatham to resolve that issue and Commissioner Gordon said that there are a lot more people now than there was with Chatham County. Chair Jacobs assured the residents that they would be informed of the process as it moves forward. 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from June 17, 24, August 19, 25 and September 2, 2008 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Appointments 1) Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee — Reappointments The Board reappointed Sharon Karnash to a full term ending June 30, 2011; Susan Taylor to a full term ending September 30, 2011; and Sue Waters to a second full term ending September 30, 2011. c. Property Tax Releases The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values related to six (6) requests for property tax release in accordance with N.C. General Statute 105-381. d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to twenty (20) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from add valorem taxation for the 2008 tax year. e. Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation The Board approved a proclamation, which is incorporated by reference, recognizing the month of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and authorized the Chair to sign. f. Resolution Authorizing Public Hearings on Extension of Bond Authorizations 7 The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, authorizing the scheduling and advertising of public hearings at the Board's October 21, 2008 regular meeting for the extensions of the two 2001 bond authorizations. Contract Approval: Inmate Medical Services The Board approved a contract, contingent upon final review by staff and the County Attorney, with Dr. James Strickland for inmate medical services for the period October 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 in the amount of $6,000 per month and authorized the Chair to sign subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney. h. Animal Services Community Spay/ Neuter Agreement with AnimalKind The Board approved an agreement between Orange County and AnimalKind in the amount of $15,000 that would be expended in the current fiscal year for the spay and neuter of pets belonging to low income Orange County residents, both those who are clients of the Department of Social Services and those who are not and authorized the Chair to sign, subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney. i. Contract for Architectural Feasibility and Design Services, Jail Expansion The Board approved a contract, contingent upon final review by staff and the County Attorney, with Ware Bonsall Architects to conduct a feasibility student covering options for adding cell space to the County's Jail at a not-to-exceed cost of $17,500; and exempt this project from the qualifications based selection process for architects and engineers as provided in G. S. 143- 64-32; and authorized the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. L Animal Services Facility Site Lighting Utilities Right of Way Agreement with Duke Energy The Board approved a Right-of-Way Agreement for the installation and maintenance of electrical site lighting utilities built to service the Orange County Animal Services Facility; and approved the Service Agreement between Duke Energy and Orange County for Leased Site Lighting for the Orange County Animal Services Facility; and authorized the Chair to sign, subject to final review by the County Attorney. k. Resolution Providing Approval for Spin-Off of Time Warner Cable, Inc. The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, providing approval for the spin-off of Time Warner Cable, Inc. from its parent company, Time Warner, Inc. I. Bid Award: Twenty (20) Eight Cubic Yard Corrugated Cardboard Containers The Board awarded a bid to Bakers Waste Equipment from Morganton, NC at a cost of $22,500, for the purchase of twenty (20) metal, eight cubic yard containers (dumpsters) to be used for the collection of corrugated cardboard; and authorized the Purchasing Director to execute the necessary paperwork. m. Authorization to Purchase Cardio Equipment for Sportsplex The Board authorized the Purchasing Director to purchase cardio exercise equipment for the Sportsplex in an amount not to exceed $70,349; and authorized the Purchasing Director to execute paperwork necessary to effect the purchase. n. Education Facilities Impact Fee Reports — Receipt 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: n. Education Facilities Impact Fee Reports — Receipt 7 The Board considered receiving the Draft Education Facilities Impact Fee reports prepared by TischlerBise and directing staff to set a public hearing for the October 21, 2008 BOCC meeting. Commissioner Gordon recommended that the Board receive the draft reports and defer decisions about the timeline until the Board has more time to discuss how it fits into the timeline. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to receive the Draft Education Facilities Impact Fee reports prepared by TischlerBise. Commissioner Foushee asked if Commissioner Gordon was saying that the public hearing should not be set until the student generation rates are decided. Commissioner Gordon said that she did not know, but the only thing that has a fixed deadline is the student generation rate. Chair Jacobs said that a public hearing could be held in November. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Review of Class A Special Use Permit Proposing the Development of a Montessori School The Board considered receiving final requested information and taking action on a Class A Special Use Permit application proposing the development of a private school at 711 Terry Road (SR 1573). Michael Harvey: This item originally began when you reviewed the application September 16, 2008 at a County Commissioners' meeting where staff was asked to provide two additional pieces of information. Specifically, we were asked to get the final definitive statement from the Fire Marshal indicating whether the proposed fire access roads around the school buildings had to be paved and two, if the Caldwell Fire Department could provide fire protection services to the facility. We have gotten those answers for you, they are in attachments 3 and 4 respectively. You will note from the abstract that the Fire Marshal has indicated that State fire codes do not require a paved fire lane, but the fire lane must be approved to, and I quote, "Support the imposed loads of fire apparatus, and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities." Secondly, we have a letter from the Caldwell Fire Department indicating that they can provide fire service with a stipulation that the applicant provide an alternative water source, specifically a 30,000 gallon water source somewhere on the property in order to provide fire suppression services. As we informed the Board at the last meeting, we have a condition specifically, I believe it's number 2 (page 35), that indicates that if the SUP is approved that a condition be placed on the SUP that the Fire Marshal and representatives of the Caldwell Fire Department shall review and approve the revised site plan prior to the approval of any building and zoning compliance permit, 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 development, size, and use of the pond as an emergency water source for fire suppression activities prior to the start of land- disturbing activities on the property. I believe that this condition addresses and incorporates the suggestions and comments of both the Fire Marshal and the Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department, in terms of ensuring that fire suppression services be received on the property. With that, you have before you a recommendation from the Administration that you receive these memorandums and impose any additional questions that you would like, that the 7 public hearing then be closed and that the deliberations begin on the application as presented to you this evening. Geof Gledhill: After you close the public hearing, you should expressly make findings either positively or negatively. If the Board is comfortable with all of the findings, you can do it all at once or single out. This is beginning on page 5 through page 34. Just a note about that, the resolution approval captures what actually is the case with respect to the finding on Article 8.2.1, which is on page 34 about formal evidence. What this document says is, "No formal evidence was presented to the Planning Board refuting Mr. Knight's findings." There was in fact evidence submitted as part of the public hearing refuting Mr. Knight's findings, so I'd cross that off before making the finding. The Administration recommendation is that you find that Mr. Knight's findings controlled the issue. If you should agree with his findings rather than the other findings, but there was evidence submitted refuting his findings. The only other thing that I would add would be recommended condition #10, neighboring roads, if the Planning staff would make that more specific, then I think I would feel more comfortable and perhaps they could make that more specific right now. Commissioner Carey asked Geof Gledhill to repeat this. Geof Gledhill: On page 35, condition #10, on the last line, it says, "keep their guests from parking on neighboring roads or on neighbors' property." I would want you to ask the staff to name those neighboring roads. Chair Jacobs: We'll get to the specifics of the recommendation. Commissioner Gordon: In terms of the action to #3 in the Manager's recommendation, the first part, "Take action to approve the application, and impose 15 recommended conditions.....and the Resolution of Approval." But it isn't laid out exactly that way in any one document. I would have accepted a Resolution of Approval that you have listed with the conditions somehow in. I would need to understand that if it is a Resolution of Approval that you are moving the Resolution near the end, plus the recommended conditions. Chair Jacobs: Commissioner Gordon is essentially questioning the way in which it was presented, I had the same reaction. Commissioner Gordon: I would have thought that there would have been a resolution that listed all of the conditions. Geof Gledhill: I would recommend two things about the Resolution of Approval when you get to it. One of them is that you incorporate the conditions into the Resolution of Approval, and the second is that the Now, Therefore Be it Resolved language in the first resolution be changed from "is denied" to "is approved." A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to close the public hearing according to the worksheet provided in Attachment 2. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Geof Gledhill: I think the Now, Therefore Be it Resolved would be, and I'm looking at the Resolution of Approval, the resolution should say, "The special use permit is approved subject to the recommended conditions of approval. You can refer to the page in the abstract for that. Chair Jacobs: Do we want to talk about the recommendation for the items on 35 and 36? The Attorney suggests specificity regarding neighboring roads, which I assume are Terry Road, New Sharon Church Road, and St. Mary's Road. Geof Gledhill: My preference would be not to include any future roads yet to be built or named. 7 Commissioner Gordon: I guess the other thing is, I don't know exactly how the 15 conditions relate to the findings. Geof Gledhill: How many of the conditions are necessary in order to make positive findings, I think the staff can answer that. Chair Jacobs: It would seem that we probably should approve or address the findings of fact because the conditions relate to the findings of fact. If someone wants to address a specific finding of fact, we could do that, or if you want to address the findings of fact in total, we could do that. There was a question about which of the conditions address necessary findings. Michael Harvey went through each condition on page 35: 1. There is a condition addressing a requirement for all special use permits that will be mitigated as best they can. Specifically, under#1, we're requiring a 30-foot buffer to try to eliminate the off-site impacts, the visual obstructions, we've recommended that condition be adopted in terms of adhering to one of the findings as part of the special use permit. 2. There is a required finding that the applicant show proof that the proposed development can be serviced through the existing services (i.e., police, fire, rescue services). Condition 2 specifically relates to that finding in that you have memorandum from the Fire Marshall and the Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department indicating they can provide service, however, there needs to be some specific addition made to the provision in this case of an alternative water source. This condition, #2, specifically speaks to that requirement. 3. Condition #3 is the same burden on the applicant that they have to prove that they can provide service. In this case, if there's adequate waste water and well facilities for the property to support the proposed use. There are required Health Department permits within 180 days in order to justify or prove that the facility can be supported. There is a memorandum from the Environmental Health division indicating that they believe service can be provided, however, the proposed septic system on the original site plan was of insufficient size and they recommended they go through the formal application process. So we have placed a condition to ensure that they comply with the required finding within this document. 4. This is simply that they obtain a zoning and/or building permit within 180 days. That's not an essential finding that has to be done for the SUP process, it's just so that the SUP does not linger and that goes to the normal two conditions which we impose — conditions 14 and 15 deal with invalidation of the special use permit for failure to comply with the standards detailed herein or failure to get a permit. 5. Soil erosion and grading, there is a requirement under the findings that they take all measures to preserve to the greatest extent possible the natural topography of the property. This condition essentially requires that they obtain the necessary grading and erosion control permit and that they adhere to all accepted State requirements in addressing soil erosion and grading of the property. 6. The applicant, as part of their building permit application, submission shall include documentation from the State indicating that the schools received any and all necessary certifications allowing them to operate as a private school and that the curriculum has been certified as meeting any and all local, State, and Federal requirements. This is not necessarily a condition as detailed within Section 8.8.30. However, if they are going to be operating as a private school, both the staff and the Planning Board recommended that a condition be imposed indicating that they will operate as a private school with an approved curriculum as part of this special use permit process. 7 7. He read this condition. As this Board is already aware, under the existing special use permit, they are required to have two driveway entrances. This provision and condition was imposed by both the staff and it has been recommended by the Planning Board in an effort to ensure that any additional improvements required by DOT that would be necessary to allow for development of this project are to be incorporated into the final approved site plan. 8. He read this condition. This is not a requirement of the ordinance. This was recommended by the staff and also recommended by the Planning Board in an effort to ensure that the animals that are going to be kept on this site as part of the farm school program are in good health to ensure the safety of the animals and the children that are going to be making use of this site. 9. He read this condition. This is an extension of condition #8. 10. He read this condition. Planning Board, in terms of reviewing of some comments submitted by individuals, they were concerned about parking along major roadways, and specifically Terry Road. This is not necessarily a requirement of the ordinance, but Planning Board recommended this condition be placed to ensure that there would not be any parking on the roadways. Of course, staff concurs. 11. He read this condition. Again, this is not necessarily a requirement. However, the Planning Board felt and staff supports that, since they went to great lengths to show the renderings, to show exactly how it was going to be built, that ought to dictate how the site is constructed because that was part of their presentation during the public hearing. 12. He read this condition. This is a condition specifically suggested by the Planning Board during their deliberations in addition to the normal buffering condition you saw on #1. The reason being was to address concerns that there be adequate buffering along Terry Road to hide the facility from passersby. There wouldn't be any visual impact along the roadway. 13. He read this condition. Again, that was a Planning Board recommended condition. Staff strongly supports it, we believe that carpooling ought to be encouraged for this site. 14. and 15. These are standard conditions that we impose in all special use permits related to the applicant having the necessary permits to develop the facility and that the facility and approved site plan does not stay in limbo for a number of years to avoid changes in the ordinance that would change the site. Commissioner Gordon: I thought of a way to handle this. We could just say we approve the findings, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Michael Harvey: Staff endeavored in the worksheet, which is on pages 5-36, to place references to those specific conditions that a condition be placed on the approval of this project. That is a reasonable recommendation. Geof Gledhill: I think I want to concur with that suggestion by Commissioner Gordon. Chair Jacobs: On item #2, I would like to go ahead and be specific. We have the letter from the Fire Marshall. I'd like to say, "verifying that they comply with all applicable North Carolina Fire Protection Code standards, without the necessity of a required paving." And also on #8, where it lists who needs to be involved in the certification process every year, that we include Animal Services. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve the application; impose the 15 recommended conditions in accordance with the applicable Findings of Fact as amended, subject to the recommended conditions of approval and detailed within Attachment Two; and approve the Resolution of Approval detailed within Attachment Five. 7 Chair Jacobs said that he sympathized with the residents in the neighborhood. He heard the concerns about how this would impact the community. He believes that the County should look at the way in which traffic impact is calibrated in rural areas. He said that schools used to be a part of the rural community, and schools can provide a good, supportive part of a rural community. He hopes that people will come to look at this school and what it is trying to do in the same way. Commissioner Gordon agreed and said that she read through the Planning Board minutes and there was some discomfort with this, but the applicant did meet all the standards. She said that the Planning Board's recommendations were unanimous on everything. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Regular Agenda a. Buckhorn Village PD/SUP (Rezoning/Special Use Permit) Action The Board considered taking action on 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. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that this item is a little different than the previous item because it also requires a rezoning as a prerequisite to the special use permit. The public hearing has already been closed for verbal testimony. There were questions from the meeting of September 16th from the County Commissioners. The abstract on page two includes the highlighted questions. The questions were related to the conditions of approval. Condition `L' - The applicant has agreed to set a maximum height to the signage structure at 50 feet with the top of the sign being at 40 feet. Condition `R' - The applicant has agreed to a 15% affordable housing provision. The staff has worked with the Attorney's office to make sure that there is at least a 99-year affordability provision. Condition `T' —This has to do with the `free' fee simple dedication of one acre of land for purposes that the County can determine on-site within District 3. The applicant has agreed to that. Condition `U' —There were questions concerning the LEED standards (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). In condition `U' it is specified what aspects of the LEED standards that the applicant could adhere to at a minimum. Two other discussion points have to do with condition `P' — Open Space Perimeter Buffers and condition `S' — Drive-thrus. In condition `P', originally the applicant had asked for 60% visibility breaks along 1-85/I- 40. The applicant has modified the original request to 50% openings, which will include low- level vegetation. In the case of retention areas, the low-level vegetation will be some aquatic species to help with water quality. The other 50% would be natural vegetation that includes Neuse River Buffer and Orange County standards to maintain the mature trees in that area. Staff believes that this is a reasonable solution to the buffers along 1-85/1-40. Regarding condition `S', the applicant had asked for (pp. 108-110) five drive-thrus on the 128 acres and unrestricted lane uses to be connected with that such as five banks, or five restaurants, or five drug stores, etc. In speaking with the Attorney, staff thought that having a maximum to the type of drive-thrus would be more appropriate. Staff recommends that restaurant drive-thrus be limited to two, and then the other three uses would be non-restaurant. In addition, as some sort of compensation, additional tree plantings and shrubs will be put in 7 proximity to the drive-thrus to absorb some of the carbon emissions that come from the idling that occurs with drive-thrus. Craig Benedict said that in the packet there is a combination of approvals or denials. On page 1, there is a Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan if the Board finds that this project is consistent for rezoning purposes. If this is approved, the Board would move on to decisions on 3-a, b, c, and d. If the proposal is inconsistent, then the Board would vote to proceed with the Statement of Inconsistency and proceed to Attachment 5, which is a Resolution of Rezoning Denial. The applicant is in agreement with all conditions, A-U, with the exception of condition `S', which has to do with drive-thrus. APPLICANT: Roger Perry said that the applicants are in agreement with all conditions except `S'. He said that the conditions specified for drive-thrus are problematic and a serious impediment to the viability and success of the project. He said that the applicants do not care if there are any drive-thrus, but it is an issue of fairness and equity in the rest of the County. If this project is going to be competitive, there cannot be a set of restrictions and guidelines placed on it that are different than what might be imposed throughout the County. Rather than specify the conditions of a drive-thru, the applicant would propose that the language in `S' be amended to say that, "Drive-thrus at Buckhorn Village will be regulated in accordance with drive-thru regulations that are in place or to be put in place for all of Orange County." He said that the applicants are willing to live with whatever regulations that the Board of County Commissioners might impose for drive-thrus in the County. The stipulation that is the most problematic, which was never discussed with the staff, is number 2, which says that, "No drive-thru facilities shall be located within 100 feet of an exterior property line, including building, drive lane for the drive-thru, or parking facilities. He said that this renders any of the pad sites in the site plan unusable and unviable for a use that would require a drive-thru. He said that there was a discussion with staff about five drive-thrus and he thought that there was a compromise that no more than three of those would be for restaurants. This has been reduced to two. In addition, item #4 refers to the type of planting and he said that this would require that the area be at least 10-15 feet, which would dramatically impact the ability of the facility to fit on that site. He asked the Board to consider adopting the language under `S' that the applicants proposed and then establish Countywide guidelines for drive-thrus. Commissioner Carey asked for staff response to the proposed condition `S' by the applicant. Craig Benedict said that the majority of the setbacks in the EDD zones are 100 feet. The goal with the vegetative strip would be to absorb some of the emissions. Regarding alternate language, staff has noticed the consternation about drive-thrus in the Hillsborough EDD where drive-thrus have been prohibited. There are other sections of the County where drive-thrus are allowed. At the appropriate time, staff will take the direction from the Board to reexamine the drive-thru ordinance. Geof Gledhill said that, with respect to Mr. Perry's proposal, so long as it is written in a way that makes it apply to this permit, it is a good solution. Chair Jacobs said that the Board could refer this to the Planning Board and advertise it for the November 24th public hearing. He said that Commissioner Nelson is supportive of no drive-thrus and the Planning Board recommended one drive-thru for the entire development. He is sympathetic to Mr. Perry's argument that it is not fair to impose restrictions on this project. Chair Jacobs acknowledged the Planning Board members in attendance. He asked the Manager or Craig Benedict whether the $400,000 in Economic Development money has been 7 secured and Laura Blackmon said that it has not been secured. She suggested that something be put in writing requesting information about this to DOT. Chair Jacobs suggested putting a resolution on the agenda for October 21st and then forwarding it to DOT. Chair Jacobs pointed out typos and grammatical mistakes on the following pages —69, 71, 73, 82, 83, 85, 91, 92, 94, and 96. He gave the corrections to staff. Commissioner Gordon said to also look at page 65, number 12-a. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 69, item #5, about not having smoking within structures. He would like to delete smoking from all structures instead of designated structures. Michael Harvey said, with respect to #5, the applicant has no concern with prohibiting smoking within structures, but they requested language be added to that same section indicating that residential development shall be excluded, so that residents are allowed to smoke in their own homes. Chair Jacobs said that he was confused about transit stops. On pages 85 and 86, #19 —talks about use of parking lots to support car pooling activities. He suggested preferential parking with carpooling so that it is rewarded. On page 86, item 27-d, he asked why there was only 20% compact car parking. Craig Benedict said that there are parking standards. If there is interest to have higher than 20%, then the Board could ask the applicant. Chair Jacobs suggested wording it, "no less than 20%." On page 87, #2, he said that Orange County has a landscape architect on staff and he suggested having them included in these discussions about landscaping. On page 91, item P-1, he would like to stipulate that existing vegetation be avoided to the greatest extent possible. On page 93, item d-2-a, Chair Jacobs recommended adding the word "vegetative" pertaining to the buffer. On page 97, there is an item #7 that is blank. He suggested adding to this item that the applicant work with the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust to be able to convert units that do not sell to equity to maintain the condominium units. Commissioner Gordon made reference to pages 60-62 and the language, "other uses." She asked what these other uses were. Michael Harvey referred to page 60, condition `C', which has the exact uses that would fit into this category. Geof Gledhill said that he did not know how to write #7 on page 97. If the Board can approve this in principle, then he can bring something back on October 14th. Also, he said that the Board could approve in principle the rezoning of the property, the special use permit with all conditions, the necessary findings, and the Statement of Consistency, and then there could be a consent item at the next meeting with the corrected language. He read the language regarding drive-thrus: Drive-thrus at Buckhorn Village will be regulated in accordance with drive-thru regulations applicable in Orange County's planning jurisdiction that are in place at the time each application for site plan approval is submitted. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve the Statement of Consistency in principle. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve the Resolution of Rezoning in principle, consistent with Attachment 3-a. 7 Commissioner Gordon said that she read through this, and on page 12, there are a number of concerns that are raised by the Planning Board about the rezoning. Given those concerns, she does not feel comfortable with the rezoning. Craig Benedict said that, of the 14 design solutions, the Planning Board voted favorably for 12 of those. The two outstanding issues were the major ID sign, which was discussed, and the buffer, which was also discussed tonight. VOTE: Ayes, 3; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve Attachment 3-d in principle, the findings of fact. VOTE: Ayes, 3; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve Attachment 3-c in principle, conditions of approval, including additional language that will be crafted by the County Attorney. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to vote separately on the one about the buffer on page 91. She said that she does not want so much of the natural vegetation to be removed. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to not approve the 50% vegetation buffer. There was no second. Chair Jacobs said that he thought about this a lot and he drove the interstate. He said that the parcel on the north side of the interstate has been raked. He said that the developers are at least trying to be responsive to the Orange County aesthetic if not the total ethic of trying to maintain as continuous a vegetative buffer along the interstate as they can, understanding that they have a different view of what will succeed. He had a hard time with this. Commissioner Gordon said that she thought that the Planning Board had made a lot of good points. At this time, however, she said that she is willing to go along with granting the permit with the hopes that, because these are local developers, that they have the best interest of the county at heart. She feels that the developers have tried to comply with the ordinance. She is prepared to approve the permit if the language can be perfected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Special Use Permit, subject to final County Attorney review prior to recordation, in principle. Chair Jacobs said that the Board did listen to a lot of people and this has taken almost two years. He thinks that the developers, the Planning Board, and the County Commissioners have done a good job trying to address issues about buffers, environmental protection, and traffic that were raised by citizens. He thinks that citizens who live in the area should be assured that the County will stick by its land use plan and that Mebane has no interest in extending water and sewer south of the economic development district, so there is no threat to the rural character of the neighborhoods. He thinks that some good issues were raised related to the type of jobs that are wanted in Orange County, but given the current economic situation, 7 retail jobs are going to be an important part of people's lives. He thinks that the County Commissioners have learned some things about carbon footprints and the economic impact analysis and that they could do better in the future. He also thinks that ultimately, the work has been done to provide water and sewer for the economic development district, and there can now be some economic development in a meaningful way that will send a message that Orange County is interested and willing to work with reasonable, high-quality people who want to do good development in Orange County. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. 2009 Benefits Recommendation The Board considered approving the County Manager's 2009 employee dental insurance plan, flexible compensation program, employee assistance program, and health insurance plan recommendations. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 15, Total Monthly Premium Costs Per Employee, and asked about the figures on this. She did not think this table was right. Diane Shepherd said that the staff reviewed some figures from the September 22nd presentation, and the figures were updated. The figures on Attachment 5-a are the most recent and correct. Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Board approve this in principle and have the staff make sure the numbers are correct. Commissioner Foushee agreed that there was conflicting information. Michael McGinnis said that open enrollment is about a month long and it will go into November. The numbers are going to be within the budgeted 8% increase for health care. The staff will come back with exact numbers on this. Laura Blackmon said that approval was needed tonight in order for the employees to sign up starting on October 151h Chair Jacobs said that this could be brought back on October 141h A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve in principle the enhancements to the dental insurance, flexible compensation plan, and employee assistance plans effective January 1, 2009. This also includes the approval in principle of the renewal of the current plan for health insurance with no changes in plan design for the plan year beginning January 1, 2009. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Contract with NC Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund for the Regional Value-Added Shared-Use Food &Agricultural Processing Center The Board considered approving a contract with the NC Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund fora $132,000 grant for the Regional Value-Added-Shared- Use Food and Agricultural Processing Center and authorizing the Chair to sign, subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney. Noah Rannells said that this is a contract for$132,000 for the value-added center. Commissioner Gordon said that she is glad the County got the grant but Orange County is more financially committed than the other counties primarily due to the building contribution . She said that there is no indication how Orange County is going to be repaid in this document. She made reference to page 14 where it shows that every jurisdiction is paying much less than Orange County. She said that she is more concerned about page 25 where there is no indication in the funding plan where Orange County is going to get any recognition of having contributed the building. She suggested instructing the Manager to come back with a 7 recommended budget, 3-5 years, by November 61h. She wants a recommended agreement on the shared monetary compensation. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, to approve the contract for a $132,000 grant for the Regional Value-Added-Shared-Use Food and Agricultural Processing Center, subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney, and authorize the Chair to sign the contract agreement; and instruct the Manager to come back to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommended budget by November 6th with a recommended 3-5 year budget that takes into account all of the revenues, capital and operating, all of the expenditures, capital and operating, and who pays. Commissioner Carey said that there are at least two more grants that are outstanding and he does not think the Manager has enough information to come up with a budget plan. He said that the issues raised by Commissioner Gordon need to be addressed before the County spends this money. Laura Blackmon said that the County Commissioner group has not talked about how much each county is going to contribute to the bottom line, but coming back in a month will not give her enough time. There are still additional funds to be raised. If the other jurisdictions do not come to the table with more money, then Orange County has to make a decision about whether or not to continue to move forward. Chair Jacobs said that the County has used the building as leverage for seeking grants. He said that all of the jurisdictions have adopted resolutions acknowledging that Orange County has to be compensated. He thinks that it would be a good thing to investigate what the building is worth and share the information with the partners. Commissioner Gordon said that she is willing to change the timeline but she wants the information. She suggested that the information come back in two months (all expenses, all revenues, etc.). Chair Jacobs suggested getting the information that is within the County's control. He said that one of the things that was agreed upon was to spin off a 501(c)3 that would take ownership of all of this. The next step would be to constitute a board for the 501(c)3, which would include elected officials. Noah Rannells said that there is a suggestion by the consultant in the feasibility report for a management entity. Commissioner Gordon changed her motion to approve the Manager's recommendation as stated above, and add that the Manager come back with a report by the end of November that outlines revenues, expenditures, and the alternatives for determining the value of the building and to proceed. Commissioner Foushee seconded. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Consideration of Proposed County Attorney Position Profile The Board considered a proposed County Attorney Position Profile as developed by The Mercer Group, Inc. for their Executive Search for the County Attorney position. Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Gordon, and Geof Gledhill submitted suggested changes. Chair Jacobs quickly reviewed these changes. Geof Gledhill suggested the following language for the qualifications of the position: Licensed to practice law in North Carolina on date of appointment, be a member of the N. C. State Bar, and within six months of appointment, be a member of the Judicial District 15B Bar. Chair Jacobs asked if this would be a good place to mention the issues related to the Sheriff's duties and the civil matters related. This was raised by the consultant as a question, 7 so it might be a question for an attorney. He suggested the following language, and Geof Gledhill concurred: Be conversant with the role the Sheriff has in County government. The Clerk said that she would go through the documents and make the corrections and send it back to the consultant as soon as possible. She will then send copies to the County Commissioners and Geof Gledhill. e. Resolutions Approving the Orange County Transportation Priority Lists for the 2011-2017 Transportation Improvement Program The Board considered resolutions endorsing priority transportation projects for the 2011-2017 Transportation Improvement Program. Transportation Planner Karen Lincoln said that every two years Orange County endorses its transportation priority projects. There are two lists — one for the Metropolitan Planning Organization and one for the Rural Planning Organization. The two lists were in the agenda packet. She said that when the County Commissioners endorsed the previous priority lists, staff was asked to look at three things for the next update. One of them was to consider including an access for eastbound US 70 to the I-85/US 70 connector instead of realignment of Efland-Cedar Grove Road to perform a more direct connection of 1-85. This was the recommendation of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. The OUT Board agreed that this would be a more feasible access than realignment of Efland-Cedar Grove Road. This is reflected in the recommendation. The second project was to stop the NC 86 North improvements at NC 57. The OUT Board indicated that the traffic was bad enough so that the improvements should not be stopped at NC 57. This was not recommended. The third project were the Homestead Road improvements, because part of the improvements had been completed in a Moving Ahead project, and also include the Carrboro portion of Homestead Road. The OUT Board also agreed that the project should extend from old NC 86 to new NC 86. The OUT Board added three projects — Hillsborough train stop and two bicycle lane projects (Eubanks Road and Mt. Carmel Church Road). For the rural projects, the OUT Board added bicycle lanes on Old Greensboro Road. Commissioner Gordon said that the Homestead Road project was #2 last year on page 15 and it is now#7. She suggested making it#4. Chair Jacobs said that he has never liked Orange County's bicycle plan and it is not a logical plan. He suggested that the bicycle projects should not be in this document. Also, he would like to move up Mayo Street/Eno Mountain Road realignment before the NC 86 north of Hillsborough improvements. He suggested acknowledging that there is no longer a bicycle plan and direct the OUT Board to adopt a bicycle plan that is consistent with their own recommendations. A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to direct the OUT Board to make a bicycle plan that reflects what is being recommended and pursue funding. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Karen Lincoln verified that Chair Jacobs wanted the Mayo Street/Eno Mountain Road improvements to be moved to #6. Chair Jacobs clarified that#5 would be Orange Grove Road refinishing, #6 would be alignment of Mayo Street/Eno Mountain Road, #7 would be Homestead Road improvements, #8 would be Eubanks Road bicycle. 7 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the priority lists to submit to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization as amended, and endorse the resolutions to submit priority projects to the DCHC MPO TAC and the TARPO RTAC. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ORANGE COUNTY'S PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS FOR THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION REGIONAL PRIORITY LIST FOR THE 2011 —2017 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation, every two years, prepares a Transportation Improvement Program that identifies transportation projects scheduled for State and Federal funding over the next seven years; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation solicits input for identifying transportation projects of local and regional importance to be included in the FY 2011-2017 Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, Orange County gives priority to identified safety needs on existing roads and bridges, to other transportation projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel, to projects that minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and to those projects that foster economic development in the designated Economic Development Districts; and WHEREAS, Orange County strongly encourages the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to design all highway projects, where appropriate, to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic to provide alternative means of transportation that may result in reduced automobile traffic and related air and water impacts; and WHEREAS, Orange County encourages the NCDOT to design all new or replacement bridges with sufficient clearance to allow wildlife to cross safely under them, and to allow pedestrian passage along any existing or planned trail-system connectors; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that: The Board of County Commissioners endorses the attached list of priority transportation projects to be considered for inclusion in the FY 2011-2017 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ORANGE COUNTY'S PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS FOR THE TRIANGLE AREA RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION (TARPO) 7 REGIONAL PRIORITY LIST FOR THE 2011 —2017 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation, every two years, prepares a Transportation Improvement Program that identifies transportation projects scheduled for State and Federal funding over the next seven years; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation solicits input for identifying transportation projects of local and regional importance to be included in the FY 2011-2017 Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, North Carolina has established Rural Planning Organizations (RPO) to coordinate regional transportation planning in rural areas in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, Orange County is a member of the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization charged with developing and prioritizing proposed transportation projects that the RPO believes should be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, Orange County gives priority to identified safety needs on existing roads and bridges, to other transportation projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel, to projects that minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and to those projects that foster economic development in the designated Economic Development Districts; and WHEREAS, Orange County strongly encourages the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to design all highway projects, where appropriate, to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic to provide alternative means of transportation that may result in reduced automobile traffic and related air and water impacts; and WHEREAS, Orange County encourages the NCDOT to design all new or replacement bridges with sufficient clearance to allow wildlife to cross safely under them, and to allow pedestrian passage along any existing or planned trail- system connectors; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that: The Board of County Commissioners endorses the attached project priority list of transportation projects to be considered for inclusion in the FY 2011-2017 Transportation Improvement Program. 7. Reports DEFERRED a. Solid Waste Process Technology Assessment The Board was to consider receiving an assessment report of solid waste processing technologies as possible alternative to landfilling as a primary means of waste disposal. 7 b. Comprehensive Plan Update Phase II The Board was to consider receiving the Planning Board's recommendation on the draft Comprehensive Plan, determine if the Board wants to schedule a work session for further review of the draft plan, and direct staff to place the Plan on the November 6th BOCC meeting agenda for adoption. c. Efland Sewer Rate Study The Board was to consider reviewing the recently completed rate study and provide recommendations on implementation of the new rate schedule. 8. Board Comments DEFERRED 9. County Manager's Report DEFERRED 10. Appointments DEFERRED a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee — New Appointments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee. b. Agricultural Preservation Board — New Appointment The Board was to consider making a new appointment to the Agricultural Preservation Board. c. Animal Services Advisory Board — New Appointment The Board was to consider making one new appointment to the Animal Services Advisory Board. d. Board of Health — New Appointment The Board was to consider one new appointment to the Board of Health. e. Information Technology Advisory Committee — New Appointment The Board was to consider one new appointment to the Information Technology Advisory Committee. f. Interlocal Agreement Committee for the Hillsborough Area-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan Phase II — New Appointment The Board was to consider making one appointment to the Interlocal Agreement Committee for the Hillsborough Area-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan Phase II. Orange County Planning Board — New Appointments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Orange County Planning Board. 11. Information Items • Orange County and OE, Inc. Memo 7 • Mutual Aid Report Memo • Possible Fire Districts Realignment Process Memo • Timeline for Fire Rescue Study RFP Memo • 9/15/08 & 9/22/08 Emergency Services/Orange County Rescue Squad, Inc. Meetings Minutes 12. Closed Session - None 13. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn the meeting at 11:04:40 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Note: Access the agenda through the County's web site, www.co.orange.nc.us 7 Orange County Water Supply Reservoir Water Levels Available information as of 2:00 PM, Friday, October 3, 2008 Lake Orange • Water level is full and spilling slightly and has been doing so since early on September 6th. • Water storage capacity is at 100% (475 million gallons) • Approximately 141 days of water supply remaining (at Capacity Use specified release rate). • The Hillsborough USGS stream gage indicates that the latest Eno River flows are at approximately 9.9 cfs (6.4 mgd). This flow represents a level that is approximately equal to the historical median flow level for this day of the year. The Eno River Capacity Use Restrictions are NOT currently in place, due to recent elevated flow (above 10 cfs). • Orange Alamance continues to operate its water plant five days a week (Monday- Friday) with average withdrawals of 300,000 gallons per day. West Fork Reservoir (as of 10/03/2008 [last available update)) • Water level is full and spilling. • Water storage capacity remaining is 100% • Approximately 334 days of water supply remaining (assuming Town's current 30 day average water consumption rate (1.29 mgd). • 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 11.75" below full • Water level at University Lake is full • Total remaining water storage capacity is approximately 95.7 % • Approximately 381 days of water supply remain with no additional rainfall (at the current 30-day average daily demand [8.9 million gallons per day]) • OWASA's year-round water conservation requirements are in effect National Weather Service/NOAA Regional Precipitation data (through 10/02/2008) (inches above [+] or below [-] normal) RDU Piedmont-Triad +4.98" since September 1, 2008 0.40" since September 1, 2008 +8.33" since January 1, 2008 -2.67" since January 1, 2008 7 Miscellaneous notes The NC Drought Management Advisory Council drought map, last updated September 30, 2008, indicates that all of Orange County lies within the area characterized as experiencing normal precipitation conditions, i.e. no drought conditions.