NCDOT - Chatham County
After looking at the Jack Bennett Rd. DOT project, got a little interested in how we (Chatham) fare when it comes to DOT funding. FWIW, from the NCDOT website, here are a few that did not make the cut:
CHATHAM, (US 15-501), Pittsboro, NC 87 To US 64, 2 lanes on New Location (multi-lane ROW). This route is shown on the 1996 Chatham County Thoroughfare Plan as a rural principal arterial highway. $33,300,000 This project did not rank high enough to merit a portion of the limited funding available for the area.
CHATHAM, (NEW ROUTE), SR 1100 (Airport Road) / SR 1181 (Gilliand Road) TO SR 1107 (West 3rd Street) / SR 1362 (Piney Grove Church Road) / SR 1006 (Old US 421) - Widen Roadway. SR 1107 (West 3rd Street) To SR 1006 (Old US 421) - New Location $14,800,000 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (NEW ROUTE), Siler City Inner Loop from SR 2113 (South Chatham Avenue) at College Street & to Cross School Road & from Sunrise Place to US 64 (East 11th Street) - Two Lanes on New Location (multi-lane ROW). $8,100,000 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (NC 87), Improve NC 902 North To The Alamance County Line from South of US 64 to North of US 64. Widen And Replace Bridge No. 61. TARPO Local Priority PITTSBORO-3 and CHATHAM-3. $18,106,000 This project did not rank high enough to merit a portion of the limited funding available for the area.
CHATHAM, (US 15-501), New Signalized Intersection at Park Drive and US 15-501 in Pittsboro. This is a Statewide Strategic Highway Corridor until the Pittsboro Bypass (R-2628) is completed. US 15-501 was shown as a major thoroughfare in the 1972 Pittsboro Thoroughfare Plan. $360,000 This project will be considered for special funding sources that focus on improving road safety.
CHATHAM, (Alton King Road), Increase elevation of sections of Alton King Road that are subject to flooding. Costed as new location; crossings considered innate in that figure since not entirely new; ROW deemed adequate. $5,443,307 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (Corinth Road), Surface and Elevation Improvements around crossing with Shaddox Creek. East of the confluence of the Haw and Deep Rivers and subject to flooding. Shown in the 1996 Chatham County Thoroughfare Plan. $4,213,350 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (Everette Dowdy Road), Increase the elevation of sections of Everette Dowdy Road that are subject to flooding from Georges Creek. Div. 8 advised costing based on new location; crossing costs considered innate since not entirely new location. $1,038,801 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (Ike Brooks Road), (Rives Chapel Road), Widen and resurface; This route is effectively serving as a bypass of Siler City for southbound traffic originating east of Siler City. Cost assumes 1.4 mil/mile shoulders + resurfacing and contingency. ROW presumed adequate. $19,598,661 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (Jordan Road), Increase elevation of sections of Jordan Road that are subject to flooding. Costed as new location; crossings considered innate since not entirely new, ROW adequate. $8,924,553 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (Old Graham Road), (Old Graham Road), AND CHATHAM-13: Add 2' Shoulders from NC 87 to Chicken Bridge Road. This route is shown as a major thoroughfare in the 1972 Pittsboro Thoroughfare Plan. (length 8.0 miles) $18,418,400 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (Pea Ridge Road), Widening & Bicycle Lane Improvements. This route is shown in the 1996 Chatham County Thoroughfare Plan as a major rural collector. $560,000 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (Pittsboro-Moncure Road), Upgrade to accommodate new development. Shown as Major Thoroughfare on 1972 Pittsboro Thoroughfare Plan. Cost based on 1.4 mil/mile + contingencies. 2 culverts & 1 bridge not included (ROW deemed adequate). $19,109,090 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (River Road), Shoulder Widening; cost based on 1.4 mil/mile plus contingencies; ROW deemed adequate. $6,343,482 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (SR 1701), (East Thompson Street), Resurfacing & Sidewalk (on one side) Improvements. Route shown as a minor thoroughfare on the 1972 Pittsboro Thoroughfare Plan & sidewalk identified in 2009 Pedestrian Plan. $260,450 This project did not rank high enough to merit a portion of the limited funding available for the area.
CHATHAM, (SR 1717), (Jack Bennett Rd), Jack Bennett Rd (SR 1717) (US 15-501 to Lystra Rd (SR 1721))safety improvements. $6,900,000 This project will be considered for special funding sources that focus on improving road safety.
CHATHAM, (SR 1721), (Lystra Rd), Lystra Road (SR 1721) (US 15-501 to Farrington Point Rd. (SR 1008)) safety improvements. $10,000,000 This project did not rank high enough to merit a portion of the limited funding available for the area.
CHATHAM, (SR 1762: Jeremiah Dr), Jeremiah Drive (SR 1762) (Lystra Rd (SR 1721) to End) elevate road for flood control. $100,000 This project did not rank high enough to merit a portion of the limited funding available for the area.
CHATHAM, (SR 2153), (Rosser Road), Resurfacing $850,020 This project did not rank high enough to merit a portion of the limited funding available for the area.
CHATHAM, (US 15-501), Widen and add continuous turn lane from Roberson Creek (Bridge No. 17) to NC 87; cost based on widen to 3 lane from 2; urban ROW $4,172,919 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (US 15-501), Widen to provide continous turn lane, C&G, & sidewalk from Launis Street to SR 1599 (Rock Springs Cemetery Rd). Considered a Statewide Strategic Corridor until Pittsboro Bypass is complete. $7,153,575 This project did not rank high enough to merit a portion of the limited funding available for the area.
CHATHAM, (US 15-501), Interchange Signalization US 64 Bypass/US 15-501. US 15-501 shown as a major thoroughfare in the 1972 Pittsboro Thoroughfare Plan. Considered a Statewide Strategic Highway Corridor until Pittsboro Bypass (R-2628) is complete. $360,000 This project will be considered for special funding sources that focus on improving road safety.
CHATHAM, (US 15-501), Widen to 4 lanes with bicycle lanes: This route is shown on the 1996 Chatham County Thoroughfare Plan as a rural principal arterial highway. $81,931,063 This project did not rank high enough to merit a portion of the limited funding available for the area.
CHATHAM, (US 421), Diamond interchange on new location. Serves Chatham County sponsored business park. $9,983,750 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (US 64), New median crossing and potential emergency signal to allow access to westbound US 64 for Fire Station # 16, just west of SR 1008 (Beaver Creek Road); cost is without signal based on new 2-lane facility for .013 miles on existing ROW. $40,920 Of the 1100 projects considered, this project did not rank high enough to receive funding.
CHATHAM, (SR 1721), (Lystra Rd), Lystra Road (SR 1721) (Jack Bennett Rd (SR 1717) to west side of North Chatham Elementary) increase length of turn lanes. $250,000 This project will be considered for special funding sources that focus on improving road safety.
| Write Comment
Virginia Penley asking to get a Jeffrey Smackdown...
June 25, 2015, 09:31:50 PM by One Shed Jackson
I do not Know Ms. Penley but I do feel sorry for her. Apparently she is unaware of Jeffy Baby's alleged mad litigation skills and is further unaware that it is rumored that he threatens to file against anyone who crosses him! Miss Penley is likely in for a serious bout of finger pointing and threats of civil action...look out girl or Jeffy will be coming for YOU!
| Write Comment
Jack Bennett Rd.
June 24, 2015, 04:36:30 PM by jmidd
Maybe I'm the only one put out by the lack of urgency in the completion of this road, but it's been long enough....Began work on 3/10/2015....Projected completion is NOW 11/10/2015....Eight months to work on .35 miles of road, grading, paving, drainage, utilities, erosion control...61% of work done...Bid was $750,000+...Resident Engineer is Gary Phillips (919-776-9623)...After the use Mt. Gilead road is getting it will need replacing and it was bad to begin with... Geeze...
| Write Comment
Chatham Planning Board members not made aware of petitions against zoning
In a video of Chatham County commissioner Walter Petty at a Crutchfield Crossroads community meeting we learn that the Chatham Planning Board members were not made aware of petitions against county-wide zoning that were submitted at the April 20th Chatham County Commissioners meeting public input session.
On June 11, 2015 copies of the anti-zoning petition went out to planning board members thanks to a request by Commissioner Petty -From: Lindsay Ray
Date: Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:51 PM
Subject: Zoning Petitions from the 04.20.2015 Board of Commissioners Public Input Session
Commissioner Petty asked that I forward each of you copies of the Zoning petitions submitted by Chip Price at the Public Input Session at the 04.20.2015 Board of Commissioners Meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Lindsay K. Ray
Clerk to the Board
PO Box 1809
12 East Street
Pittsboro, NC 27312
| Write Comment
CJ - Chatham residents hosting paid guests must pay occupancy taxes
Chatham residents hosting paid guests must pay occupancy taxes http://chathamjournal.com/2015/06/18/chatham-residents-hosting-paid-guests-must-pay-occupancy-taxes/
Pittsboro, NC – AirBnB has taken steps to pay state and some local occupancy taxes on lodging in North Carolina beginning June 1, 2015. More than 400 homes around Chatham County have space listed as lodging options through such services as Airbnb, HomeAway and VRBO. These are popular options for visitors looking for affordable or unique lodging that meets specific needs.
State and local laws require state sales tax and occupancy taxes to be paid regardless of the venue used to market lodging options. The contracts with Airbnb, HomeAway and other services also require hosts to collect and remit all applicable taxes.
If you rent out your home, a room(s) in your home, a cottage or vacation property for at least 15 combined days per year, you are required to collect from your guests a 3% county occupancy tax plus state sales tax. However, if you rent it for a consecutive period of 90 days or more, this is considered a short-term rental situation and taxes do not apply.
According to Margaret Goldston in the Chatham County Tax Office, local homes hosting paid guests should register with the Chatham County Tax Office. A monthly occupancy tax report should be filed on or before the 20th day of the month, along with payment of the 3% occupancy tax by check or money order.
Click here to get more information on the occupancy tax and the reporting form. If you have questions, call Margaret Goldston at 919-542-8224 or email her at firstname.lastname@example.org
After June 1, the NC Department of Revenue will have reports from Airbnb, along with state sales tax payments, so a database of homes doing business through Airbnb will exist.
Neha Shah with the Pittsboro-Siler City Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB), which serves the entire county, said, “This is an important issue because the more traditional lodging entities, such as bed and breakfasts and hotels, have been collecting the occupancy tax from guests and remitting it to the county. News stories across the state have reported that some traditional entities have been hurt by losing business to those not paying the required taxes.”
As required by law, revenues generated by the occupancy tax must be spent on visitor marketing. In Chatham, the revenues have been used as the sole funding source of the CVB, which markets and promotes these businesses to potential visitors. The CVB has consistently increased visitor spending in Chatham County every year and has won numerous awards for its marketing of local establishments.
People renting out areas of their homes through Airbnb, HomeAway and other such places also may be required to have inspections or permits from Chatham County or one of the towns. For example, requirements related to kitchens, fire safety, building codes, food service, and water and septic systems may apply. For more information on what might be required, contact Central Permitting at 919-542-8230.
| Write Comment
Fire station on Manns Chapel leveled?
So did they level the old fire station on Manns Chapel Road because they're going to build a bigger, better one? Or did we lose that fire station?
| Write Comment
Notes on May 19 subcommittee meeting for Alternatives to Open Use Zoning
Notes on planning board subcommittee meeting for Alternatives to Open Use Zoning
George, Tammy, Barb, Matt, Bill, Gene, Tandy, Caroline
Jason, Hillary, Angie
No public comment
Discussion on draft pros and cons list for zoning options:
• Option 1 – Doing Nothing
o Pro column is fine
o Suggestion to include the addition of a reference to farmland protection and groundwater resources in the con column.
• Option 2 – Open Use Zoning
o Wording change of “stifles” to “limits” in con column in reference to public input during a quasi-judicial hearing.
o Public input will be vital for identifying a comprehensive list of uses that would be prohibited and thus requiring a conditional use permit. Staff would look closely at other jurisdictions using Open Use Zoning.
• Option 3 – Traditional Zoning (Interim Zoning)
o Home businesses would be allowed – both neighborhood and rural. These are defined and regulated in the zoning ordinance and there have been no problems with them in zoned areas in the past.
o The term “helter skelter” was removed in favor of “unplanned”
• Option 4 – Interim Zoning in some areas and Open Use in other areas
o Difficulty in determining the boundaries – Interim would be in areas that are most high growth and Open Use in the remaining areas.
o Any homeowner, or agent of owner can initiate zoning of a minimum of 640 acres as can the BOC. A suggestion was made that areas closest to high growth could be zoned in small segments but this would be a very piecemeal approach.
o A distinction was made regarding homeowner associations that might impose restrictions that are stricter than County imposed zoning regulations. These are not enforced by the county but by the homeowners.
o Agricultural uses would not be affected by zoning ordinances. Input from the agricultural community will be important for identifying and exempting the types of businesses that farmers are likely to endeavor in to augment their farming income.
The planning board will hopefully hold a joint meeting with the Agricultural Advisory Board.
o Areas with traditional zoning tend to have higher real estate values and are attractive to developers in spite of zoning regulations.
• Option 5 was newly proposed and would include Interim Zoning in high growth areas, Open Use in areas bordering the Interim Zoning areas and nothing in the areas in the far western areas of the county where growth pressures are presently negligible.
o This provides solutions targeted to where the problems exist
o There is a difference in perception of threats between the eastern and western areas of the county.
o The con is that implementation will be more complicated – as with option 4, boundaries of zoning designations will have to be decided and this could be complicated
o Zoning gradations would radiate from densely populated areas.
• Farmland preservation was discussed.
o Farmland is easiest to develop and most susceptible. Once farmland is converted to residential or commercial development it is rarely or never returned to agriculture.
o There are a number of farmers and landowners in unzoned Chatham who have donated or sold development rights for conservation or farmland preservation easements and certain land uses in their communities could affect how they can use or sell their properties.
o Uses that are incompatible to farming such as residential and commercial developments can negatively impact the ability of farmers to continue to farm and often results in neighboring farmers being forced to sell their farmland for development.
o Chatham County has a Agricultural Land Use Plan that addresses farmland preservation
• There was discussion about whether the subcommittee would make a specific recommendation of one of the 5 options or pass on the list of 5 options with pros and cons to the Planning Board. George, as chair of the subcommittee, suggested the later was his preference.
Next meeting to be held on June 16th
| Write Comment
Chatham approves pending deal with Duke Energy over coal ash
Chatham approves pending deal with Duke Energy over coal ash
PITTSBORO, N.C. (WNCN) – Chatham County Commissioners have come up with a pending agreement with Duke Energy over its plans to move coal ash to the Brickhaven mine in Moncure.
Duke Energy will provide substantial funds to help monitor site safety and will limit the amount of ash deposited at Brickhaven.The agreement must be signed by both parties to be final.
“The agreement we voted on is certainly not everything we sought, because actions by the State of North Carolina prevent us from denying the site and have minimized our leverage. Even so, we have secured several important requirements that will help protect the safety and health of the community and natural resources,” said County Commissioner Chairman Jim Crawford in a written release.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) recently announced that it had already granted key coal ash disposal permits to Duke Energy.
Crawford explained that the 2014 Coal Ash Management Act passed by the General Assembly ensured that local governments had no option to deny lined repositories and also limited local regulation of them.
“Anything we did that was perceived as precluding the disposal of coal ash would be struck down, but we could bind Duke to testing and compensation for the risks our county has taken on for the state,” Crawford said.
The agreement would mean that Chatham County can still hold legally accountable two key parties: Charah Inc., the contractor managing coal ash transport and disposal, and Green Meadows LLC, the property owner.
As part of the arrangement, Chatham County will receive $18 million. An initial payment of $6 million must be paid within 10 days after the first coal ash is placed at the site. Subsequent payments will be made annually.
“This will give the county funding to monitor and keep track of various environmental risks associated with lined repositories of coal ash in and around the Brickhaven site,” said County Commissioner Vice Chairman Mike Cross in a written release. “We will not hesitate to sound an alarm when it needs to be sounded. The safety of residents, businesses and natural resources in that area is paramount.”
In addition, Duke Energy would pay Chatham County $114,193 per year for five years to help make up for property tax revenue losses due to the closure of the Cape Fear Plant. The Moncure Fire Department also was impacted by lost fire tax revenue, so Duke Energy will pay an additional $300,000 to help pay off the department’s debt service for equipment and facilities.
The agreement would mean that Duke Energy agrees to cap the total amount of coal ash in Brickhaven at 12 million tons and would not allow coal ash from outside the state to be stored there.
The agreement would address issues related to the now-closed Cape Fear Plant. Duke Energy must work with Chatham County on future plans to more safely contain the coal ash already stored in ponds at the plant, which could include moving some to the Brickhaven site. Duke Energy also can’t send any other coal ash from other plants to this plant site.
Several specific safety and health measures were included in the pending agreement:
• Delivery and Deposit Records: Chatham County will be able to petition with reasonable notice to obtain the records from Duke Energy to determine how much ash has been deposited and dates of delivery. Duke also must maintain delivery logs as required by law and make them available to the county on request.
• Permit Violations: Duke Energy would be required to notify Chatham County if there are any permit violations issued by DENR related to the Brickhaven operations and must do so within 10 days.
• Local Regulations: Any local regulations generally applicable to all developments would be applicable to the Brickhaven site, including provisions related to setbacks, buffers, stormwater and lighting. Chatham County already has issued a notice of violation to the site owner for preliminary clearing for the rail spur track at the site without first submitting a required erosion and sediment control plan.
• Ash & Groundwater Sampling: Chatham County could request and receive from Charah the results of sampling tests for the Brickhaven site performed BEFORE any coal ash is deposited. This includes baseline sampling and ongoing subsequent sampling of ash and groundwater.
• County Sampling: With notice, Chatham County also could conduct its own split sample tests on a quarterly basis at groundwater wells on the site. The county also will use funding from the agreement to set up its own monitoring systems around the site.
In response to the agreement, Duke Energy in part said :
“We are pleased to have reached an agreement with local leaders that will provide positive benefits to the people of Chatham County. Duke Energy is committed to being responsible and transparent as we move forward with work at the Brickhaven mine, and ensuring that work is done safely and with a focus on protecting the environment. In addition to economic benefits for the county, this agreement will provide opportunities for local leaders to have greater access to information and to our coal ash work in Chatham County throughout the project.”
| Write Comment