Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Chair Gordon referred to the actual letter from Chapel Hill which outlines the three items. She read the <br />language Chapel Hill wants to add to the first item, which states: <br />"The deed to this property will include a restriction prohibiting the use of the parcel for <br />burying solid waste or as a construction and demolition waste disposal site. This <br />restriction would become effective at the same time that the contemplated rezoning <br />is effective so long as zoning remains effective which allows solid waste management <br />uses other than burial of waste, as permitted uses." <br />Commissioner Brown asked about the public hearing mentioned on October 11th on page 38. She has <br />questions about the timing of the signing and the effective date of the new rezoning. <br />Commissioner Carey feels that the agreement will not be effective if the zoning is not approved. <br />Chair Gordon said that the agreement could be signed before the zoning takes place but Orange County <br />does not take over until the zoning is in place. <br />Geoffrey Gledhill said that if the agreement is signed and distributed by September 7th, the effective date wil <br />be January 1, 2000 if the conditions have been met, which are included in the inter-local agreement. <br />Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 13 and the 180 days after delivery of the agreement. As he <br />understands this, the 180 days is no longer applicable. <br />Chair Gordon said that the 180 days is the general principle, but then there is an exception to that if the <br />agreement is signed by July 15t". If the agreement is not signed by September 7t", it will revert to the general principle, <br />which is six months. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the inclusion in <br />the agreement as underlined on page 38 and summarized in the abstract. <br />VOTE: AYES, 4; NO, 1(Chair Gordon) <br />John Link explained that Chapel Hill's interest is that there be at least Carrboro or Chapel Hill involved with <br />the County in addressing these fees because their opinion is that they represent a sizable population, and a fee increase <br />has a greater impact on their jurisdiction. This is not in writing, it is his understanding from discussions with the <br />Manager. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to include the county and <br />one of the two largest municipalities in addressing fees. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that he is against this. He said this was basically saying, "the County and any <br />other governments, except Hillsborough." He does not think business should be done this way. He thinks this will <br />convey that Orange County doesn't care what Hillsborough thinks. Chair Gordon agreed. <br />Commissioner Carey withdrew the motion and Commissioner Brown withdrew her second. <br />Geoffrey Gledhill pointed out that the language is on page 16 and 17, and says, "the governmental fees can <br />be approved by the County and at least one other party." The Board of County Commissioners could leave <br />it this way or change it to say, "the County and two other parties." He said that if they are going to say, "the County and <br />two other parties," they need to stay with the original language that was stricken through. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the language <br />that mayor Waldorf had in her letter that states, "the County and at least one of the two largest municipalities." This <br />motion gives the Chair the authority to address any side affects of approval. <br />VOTE: AYES, 3; NOES, 2 (Chair Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs) <br />OTHER FEES <br />By consensus, the County Commissioners decided not to change this section. <br />JULY 15-SEPTEMBER 7 <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to authorize the Chair <br />to sign a version of the agreement that changes the signing date of the interlocal agreement from July 15th to September <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />REIMBURSEMENT <br />Commissioner Carey feels that the County needs flexibility in using this property. He's concerned that any <br />of the jurisdictions can veto the Board putting a piece of this land to a public use. What may be public use now may <br />change in fifteen years. <br />Chair Gordon pointed out that this issue has to do with the price. She explained the rationale for the