Note: Background Material on all abstracts available in the Clerk s Office
Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act - Interpreter services and/or special sound equipment are available on request. Call the County
Clerk s Office at (919) 245-2130. If you are disabled and need assistance with reasonable accommodations, contact the ADA Coordinator in the County Manager s Office at (919) 245-2300 or TDD 919-644-3045.
The Board of Commissioners pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful,
courteous manner toward each other, county staff and the commissioners. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The BOCC asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone.
Arts Moment Cassie Lipton is a senior at Orange High School. She enjoys writing, and recently won a Silver Key in Poetry from the Scholastic Art and
Writing awards. She is a dedicated member of the band program at Orange High School, participating in the Orange Panther Regiment Marching Band and the OHS Jazz Ensemble. She also participates in many honors ensembles throughout the area including the Central District Band and the North Carolina Youth Wind Ensemble. In the fall of 2020, she will be attending the University of Virginia where she plans on double-majoring in Mathematics and Music Performance.
(We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked.)
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda (Limited to One Hour THREE MINUTE LIMIT PER
SPEAKER Written comments may be submitted to the Clerk to the Board.)
Petitions/Resolutions/Proclamations and other similar requests submitted by the public will not be acted upon by the Board of Commissioners at the
time presented. All such requests will be referred for Chair/Vice Chair/Manager review and for recommendations to the full Board at a later date regarding a) consideration of the request at a future Board meeting; or b) receipt of the request as information only. Submittal of information to the Board or receipt of information by the Board does not constitute approval, endorsement, or consent.
The first reported attempt to introduce women s suffrage legislation in North Carolina was led by a group from Asheville, the North Carolina Equal
Suffrage Association ( NCESA ), in 1894. In 1913, the NCESA, an affiliate of the National American Woman Suffrage Association elected Barbara Henderson of Chapel Hill as President, who initiated suffrage legislation in 1915 and 1919. However, the legislation failed to pass.
Once Congress approved the 19th amendment in 1919, 36 states needed to ratify the amendment in order for it to be included in the United States
Constitution. In June 1919, Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan were the first to ratify the amendment. Within the following year, 32 additional states ratified the amendment, with North Carolina or Tennessee poised to become the 36th state.
Southern States were adamantly opposed to the amendment, and seven of them - Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina and
Virginia - rejected it prior to it being considered by the North Carolina General Assembly. On August 11, after rejecting ratification of the amendment, a majority of the members of the North Carolina House of Representatives sent a telegram to their counterparts in Tennessee telling them that they had not ratified the amendment because it interfered with states rights and urging the Tennessee legislators to reject ratification too. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the 36th state to ratify the 19th amendment by a margin of one vote. North Carolina would not ratify the 19th amendment until May 6, 1971.
If not for Gertrude Weil, and the legions of suffragettes before her, the march toward the women s right to vote may have stalled again. Weil s
FURTHERMORE that Orange County Board of County Commissioners does hereby recognize the 100th anniversary of the founding of the League of Women
Voters in the United States and in North Carolina and applauds the members of the League of Women Voters for the impact its historic accomplishments have made on public engagement and the civic life of the community, the state and the nation.
BACKGROUND: Celebration of Women s History Month had its roots in the socialist and labor movements in New York City. The first Women s Day took
place on February 28, 1909. The day honored the one year anniversary of the garment worker s strikes that had taken place in New York, where thousands of women marched for economic rights. That strike followed another strike that occurred in 1857 when garment workers marched for equal rights and 10- hour work days. Within two years the event grew into an international event. In 1975, the United Nations officially began International Women s Day; which will be celebrated on March 8th this year.
At the inception of Women s History Month, feminists in the United States saw the designation of the month as a way to celebrate a history that had
largely overlooked the contributions of women in America. Women s History Month has its origins as a national celebration in 1981 when Congress authorized and requested President Jimmy Carter proclaim the week beginning March 7, 1982 as Women s History Week. In 1987, the Women s History Month Project petitioned the US Congress to designate the month of March as Women s History Month. Ronald Reagan was the first president to proclaim March as Women s History Month.
Currently, local, state and federal governments annually proclaim March as Women s History Month. Each year the National Women s History Project
declares a theme. The 2020 theme is Valiant Women of the Vote. The theme honors the brave women who fought to win suffrage rights for women, and for the women who continue to fight for the voting rights of others.
WHEREAS, American women have played and continue to play critical economic, cultural, and social role in every sphere of the life of the Nation by
constituting a significant portion of the labor force working inside and outside of the home; and
WHEREAS, American women of every race, class, and ethnic background served as early leaders in the forefront of every major progressive social change
WHEREAS, American women have been leaders, not only in securing their own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity, but also in the abolitionist
movement, the emancipation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, and other movements, especially the peace movement, which create a more fair and just society for all; and
The amendment also updates existing references to the final normal pool elevation (NPE) of the reservoir, which according to the Town of Hillsborough
is going to be 642 ft. In the summer of 2019, the Town indicated the NPE for the reservoir was going to be 643.9 ft. and staff proceeded with an amendment based on this information. After being notified of the updated NPE, the amendment now references a NPE of 642 ft.
BACKGROUND: Section 6.13.4 Minimum Buffer Widths for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts of the UDO establishes a 150 ft. wide setback around
reservoirs. This area is intended to be left in an undeveloped state. Additionally, Section 4.2.9 Water Supply / Sewage Disposal Facilities of the UDO establishes a 300 ft. setback for septic tanks from a reservoir.
In the 1990 s, the Town of Hillsborough began the necessary permitting processes at the State level to construct the West Fork on the Eno reservoir
within the Cedar Grove Township of the county.
Work was broken down into two phases, with Phase 1 including the Town purchasing property to expand the reservoir. The final boundary of the
reservoir was established on February 11, 1997 with the recording of plats within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds Office denoting the Town s purchase of property along the West Fork of the Eno. Attachment 1 contains maps of the existing reservoir boundary, based on 2017 aerial photographic data, denoting the aforementioned 150 ft. (structure) and 300 ft. (septic) setback areas.
While the Town purchased sufficient property to accommodate the approved expansion of the actual reservoir, the required reservoir setback could
still potentially impact adjacent parcels of property. Adjacent property owners have expressed concern the UDO does not specifically reference the expansion of the reservoir thereby making their properties potentially non- conforming to applicable watershed management regulations (i.e. required reservoir setbacks).
While property owners are still required to abide by applicable setbacks per Section(s) 4.2.9 and 6.13.4 of the UDO, they will have greater latitude
in demonstrating compliance with applicable standards. This amendment will not necessarily allow for additional development of structures closer to the actual reservoir. It will, however, recognize the conforming status of existing development and not arbitrarily make same non-conforming. The status can be important with respect to property transactions and mortgage applications.
The amendments are necessary to address current inconsistencies within the UDO relating to the definition of what constitutes existing lots and/or
existing development with respect to compliance with applicable reservoir setbacks. This amendment should likely have been completed in 1997 when the Town was purchasing property to establish the reservoir.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its February 5, 2020 regular meeting, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement
of Consistency and the proposed UDO text amendment. Excerpts of the draft minutes from this meeting, as well as the Board s signed Statement of Consistency, are included in Attachment 3. Agenda materials from the meeting can be viewed at: https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26.
It should be noted the amendment presented to the Planning Board referenced changing the NPE for the West Fork on the Eno from 643 ft. to 643.9 ft.
This was based on data from the Town. The amendment package now reflects the Town s corrected NPE for the reservoir of 642 ft. resulting in a slight reduction in the 150 ft. (structure) and 300 ft. (septic) setback areas around the reservoir.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable to this item:
GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races,
cultures, incomes and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.
5 6 NOTE: A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS. 7 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Representative;
Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; 10 Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, 11 Bingham Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo, At-Large 12 Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large Representative; 13 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Inspections Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; 16 Tina Love, Administrative Assistant III 17 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order 20 21 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 3: WEST FORK ON THE ENO RESERVOIR - To begin review and discussion on proposed amendments to 24 the UDO pertaining to the West Fork on the Eno reservoir to address concerns over reservoir setbacks. The 25 expected timeline for the Planning Board recommendation and BOCC public hearing has not yet been determined. 26 27 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 28 29 Michael Harvey reviewed the proposed amendments to the UDO regarding reservoir setbacks and provided 30 background information. 31 32 Carrie Fletcher: How many residents does it affect? 33 34 Michael Harvey: A couple dozen. 35 36 Patricia Roberts: Wouldn t you have to buy their house if did penalize them? 37 38 Michael Harvey: Hillsborough would, in my mind, have to buy their house but that s me saying that. 39 40 Craig Benedict: Hillsborough should have bought all the way up to that 150 from their future pool area, 41 I think they were trying approximate that 150 area but it should have been from their phase II reservoir 42 not their, possibly phase I reservoir pool area. 43 44 45 ORC was adjourned through consensus 46 47
5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Representative; David Blankfard (Vice-Chair), Hillsborough 6 Township Representative; Adam Beeman,
Cedar Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township 7 Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township 8 Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large Representative; Carrie Fletcher, 9 Bingham Township Representative 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo, At-Large Representative; 12 Hathaway Pendergrass, At-Large Representative 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 15 16 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT EROSION CONTROL PERMITS - To 17 make a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the UDO pertaining to the West Fork on the Eno 18 reservoir to address concerns over reservoir setbacks. This item was introduced at the November 6, 2019 ORC 19 meeting and is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on March 10, 2020. 20 21 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 22 23 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract and proposed changes to the UDO and provided the Board within an updated 24 Attachment 4, an updated copy of the proposed amendment package. 25 26 Lydia Wegman: Does this amendment allow someone to expand an existing septic system or residence closer to the 27 reservoir? 28 29 Michael Harvey: No. Under Section 4.2.2 (F) you can make repairs to existing residences and septic systems and 30 even expand same but you cannot, in my mind, go closer to the actual reservoir. We do, however, want to recognize 31 the legal viability of the development and not penalize property owners for abiding by applicable rules at the time they 32 located their residences or septic systems. 33 34 Adam Beeman: Is there a discrepancy in the maps provided in the package? It seems the reservoir actually 35 includes property north of Carr Store Road. 36 37 Michael Harvey: The reservoir does extend north of Carr Store Road correct. That is why we have the revised 38 map(s) in your packet. Sorry for the confusion. 39 40 Hunter Spitzer: Why is the Town of Hillsborough not required to own the required buffer area? 41 42 Michael Harvey: (If you are referring to the required 150 ft. and 300 ft. setbacks for buildings and septic systems) 43 State law does not mandate the Town own the area required to comply with the established setbacks. That is one 44 reason for the amendment. 45 46 Craig Benedict: There probably should have been an easement required to ensure the area was protected by the 47 Town. And the Town had to negotiate with these property owners to secure the property necessary to accommodate 48 the reservoir. 49 50 Michael Harvey: This is one reason the County has regulations governing what constitutes existing development and 51 existing parcels when addressing compliance with required reservoir setbacks. 52 53 Patricia Roberts: Can someone replace an existing manufactured home with a stick built or modular residence? 54
Michael Harvey: There is nothing in the UDO that would prevent that. All the property owner would have to do is 55 comply with applicable setback
standards. 56 57 Michael Harvey: What this amendment does is establish a key date as it relates to the enforcement of the reservoir 58 setback from the West Fork on the Eno. The amendment establishes the date for staff to ascertain what constitutes 59 an existing lot and existing development when enforcing the required structure and septic setbacks. The UDO 60 contains waiver provisions for an existing lot so that property owners who own a parcel established prior to the 61 development or designation of a reservoir site with respect to locating a structure and septic system. Unfortunately 62 this amendment will not address everyone s issues along the Eno. For example we have a property owner who has 63 subdivided his lot several times from 1997 to today. His property will not qualify as an existing lot under this 64 provision. The County staff chose the proposed date that made sense as it relates to the enforcement of reservoir 65 setbacks. February 12, 1997 is the date the West Fork on the Eno reservoir was established as it relates to 66 identifying the point where the 150 ft. structure and 300 ft. septic setback are taken from. 67 68 I am asking the Board to approve the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 3 and recommend the adoption of the 69 revised Attachment 4, which establishes the key critical date with respect to what constitutes existing development 70 and an existing lot along the West Fork on the Eno of February 12, 1997. 71 72 Hunter Spitzer: Is there a way to amend the proposal to change the dates for what constitutes a legal lot and existing 73 development to a different date? I am concerned there may be some property owners who will not qualify with the 74 February 12, 1997 date and we will make more structures nonconforming. 75 76 Michael Harvey: I am not comfortable with that. The intent of the identified sections is to define what qualifies as 77 existing development and an existing lot as it relates to when a reservoir was established. From the date a reservoir 78 is established, people who subdivide their property are obligated to abide by applicable reservoir setbacks for 79 structures and septic systems. I will remind all parties there is nothing in this section preventing a property owner 80 from seeking a variance from the Board of Adjustment if they believe the strict interpretation of the UDO infringes on 81 their development or redevelopment of their property. 82 83 Hunter Spitzer: That only covers regulated subdivisions correct? 84 85 Michael Harvey: All property, created through the regulated, expedited, exempt subdivision processes, are required 86 to abide by the established setbacks when they develop their property. This is handled as part of the zoning 87 compliance permit process, which is separate from the subdivision process, and would include compliance with the 88 150 ft. setback for all structures and the 300 ft. setback for all septic systems from a reservoir. You are correct, 89 however, it is likely a property owner engaging in an exempt subdivision will not be aware of the potential impacts of 90 their action as it relates to complying with applicable reservoir setbacks. Unfortunately that is not something staff can 91 address. We can continue to advise property owners of the issue but cannot require they take the consequences 92 into account when deciding to proceed with an exempt subdivision. 93 94 Craig Benedict: Some of these issues hit home for property owners when the Town began clearing property to allow 95 for the raising of the reservoir. It became clearer to those property owners just where the edge of the reservoir was 96 going to be and that led to questions of us on anticipated impacts. 97 98 Patricia Roberts: Will these people have to purchase flood insurance? 99 100 Michael Harvey: There is nothing in the UDO mandating property owner purchase flood insurance. There is existing 101 special flood hazard area along the reservoir. It is typically up to the lending institution if flood insurance will be 102 required. Again I want to clarify this amendment package, in and of itself, does not create the need for flood 103 insurance. I will not bore you with my 20 minute presentation on why you should purchase flood insurance 104 regardless of your property s location within a special flood hazard area. 105 106 Randy Marshal: The aerial photo still shows trees along the reservoir area. Has clearing begun? 107 108
Michael Harvey: Yes clearing has already occurred and is nearly completed. My last conversation with the Town on 109 this matter led me to believe
the majority of clearing activities had already occurred but that additional work may be 110 necessary. I am of the opinion work on the dam is being finalized and there is still roadwork that has to be completed 111 for the project. Unfortunately all I have access to is 2016/17 aerial photo data so it does not show the existing of 112 clearing activities that have already occurred. 113 114 MOTION by Randy Marshal to approve the statement of consistency, and the updated text amendment package 115 as provided by staff. Seconded by Lydia Wegman. 116 VOTE: Unanimous 117 118 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT 119 Meeting was adjourned by consensus 120 121
122 123 124
David Blankfard, Chair 125
STATEMENT OF APPROVAL AND CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has initiated
amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) pertaining to the West Fork on the Eno reservoir to address concerns over reservoir setbacks. The following Section of the UDO is proposed for amendment:
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed amendments.
Substantial changes in items presented at the public hearing may be made following the receipt of comments made at the public hearing. Accommodations
for individuals with physical disabilities can be provided if the request is made to the Planning Director at least 48 hours prior to the Public Hearing by calling one of the phone numbers below. The full text of the public hearing items may be obtained no later than March 6, 2020 on the County website www.orangecountync.gov at the County Commissioners Agendas link.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located on the second floor of the County Office Building
at 131 West Margaret Lane, Suite 201, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call (919) 245-2575 or 245-2585 and you will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions or you may e-mail questions to email@example.com.