The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNS Contract - Strategic Growth Rural Conservation Consultant Implementation Update Amendment~, '_ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 11, 2007 Action Agenda Item No. ~_ SUBJECT: Strategic Growth -- Rural Conservation (SGRC also known as TDR) Consultant Implementation Update/Possible Contract Amendment DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENTS: (Under Separate Cover) 1) Additional Background information and Program Administration INFORMATION CONTACT: Summary Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245 2) October 3, 2007 Planning Board 2592 Minutes and Resolution Glenn Bowles, 245 2577 3) Phase III Contract and Suggested Revisions 4) SGRC Draft Report • PURPOSE: To receive an update of the SGRC/TDR consultant work and consider a contract amendment. BACKGROUND: The BOCC retained The Louis Berger Group and the University of North Carolina -Charlotte Urban Institute to complete Phase III of the TDR study. The Phase III studies are a continuation of the first two phases (background data collection and feasibility), which Berger and the Urban Institute completed in the fall of 2006. ORIGINAL TIMELINE The original contract timeline proposed completion of work in late 2007; however, delays occurred in scheduling meetings with appropriate stakeholders and advisory groups. In addition, comments received at recent public meeting presentations has prompted more time consuming deliberations. The role of the consultant and planning staff was to proceed with the adopted contract which included a specific scope of deliverables (including various meetings) and a specific timeline to accomplish said work. The consultant has proceeded at a pace that the various groups could absorb but not without some resistance to the complexity and timing of the topic. The original Phase Three contract calls for an implementation Work Group, which was intended to be different from the Phase I and II Task Force. The Phase I & II Task Force dealt with many philosophical and policy issues, which the consultant now relies upon the BOCC for direction in Phase Three. A few of the original Task Force members are serving on the Work Group. • 2 .~ BOCC INPUT ` The BOCC considered the TDR program and administrative design options at their May 24, 2007 session and asked that the topic proceed with additional attorney input on the residential to non-residential conversion. At the August 27, 2007 BOCC work session, the Proposed Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation Program was further discussed. Under this Program, the County would designate "Growth Areas" and "Conservation Areas" in its land use planning jurisdiction. Conservation Area property owners could sell a conservation easement on their property to Growth Area property owners. Growth Area property owners could then transfer the easement to the County in exchange for permission to develop those areas more intensely, within specific guidelines to minimize impacts of the increased development. The consultant's handout is summarized as The proposed Growth Areas include properties outside of municipal jurisdictions that are: 1. In Economic Development Districts as zoned by Orange County, or 2. In "urban transition areas" in either the Hillsborough Strategic Plan or the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan, or 3. In "rural community nodes" in the Orange County Land Use Element Excluded from Growth Areas are properties that are either already protected as open space or historic or environmentally-sensitive Proposed Conservation Areas include properties outside of municipal jurisdictions that are not in a designated Growth Area. Within the Conservation Areas, properties eligible to participate are not already protected by a conservation easement and not already developed to their maximum • density by zoning. Conservation Area properties must also be at least one of the following: 1. Adjacent to an already protected property, or 2. Fifty (50) acres or larger, or 3. Historic or environmentally-sensitive. Several questions were posed at this meeting. The answers to those questions are addressed in the matrix found in Attachment 1. The Commissioners agreed that the next step in this process would be to bring back a report to address all the decisions, as well as the answers to the questions. Further, the SGRC program would not be brought forward to public hearing at this point. WORK GROUP AND PLANNING BOARD INPUT On October 1, 2007, a contract outlined .implementation advisory group met and informally voted to extend the contract work (to next spring) to allow more time to understand the implementation proposal. On October 3, 2007, the Planning Board called into question the need to continue the program until the Comprehensive Plan work is complete (Planning Board approved minutes are attached including an approved Resolution provided on page 7 of this abstract) The Planning Board has a good amount of Comprehensive Plan organizational and content responsibility in the coming six months. A meeting with the Planning Board in late winter or spring may assist in Planning Board • identification of work load and priorities. CONSULTANT RESPONSE The following time schedule was outlined by the consultant considering recent input. • TDR Timeline Comparisons 2007 2008 Jan Feb Mar A r Ma Jun Jul Au Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A r Ma Ori final Phase Three Contract Consultant Su estion to Extend Contract Term with No Additional Fees or Meetin s Consultant Su estion to Extend Contract Term with Additional Meetin sand Fees The consultant's suggested the BOCC consider the program and administrative design options and provide the consultant and staff direction on the issues presented. 1. Complete contract work as soon as possible. 2. Complete contract work per extended timeframe with no fees. 3. Complete contract work with additional meetings and fees ($12,582.49) Meeting and Fee Breakdown a. One Meeting with Joint Advisory Boards (#3,043) • b. Two Joint Advisory Boards Conference Calls ($889) c. Advisory Board Meeting Support ($1,654) d. Two Stakeholder Focus Group Meetings ($2,624) e. One Open House ($4373) FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with first option to extend the contract term into the spring of 2008, except that direct expenses must be re-imbursed. The Phase III contract calls for repayment of direct expenses to the consultant, in addition to the fee. To date, those direct expenses amount to $2,515.70. Should the BOCC elect to pursue the additional meetings, then an additional $12,582.49, including $509.92 in direct expenses, -must be re-budgeted to the TDR Phase III program from BOCC undesignated funds or Planning and Inspections public hearing designated funds or 2008-09 budget if delayed by an action herein. Approximately 48% of the costs have been paid from the original budgeted $49,000. Planning Department staff can support the initialization of the program, as tentatively designed. ERCD also has a role. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the consultant be relieved of deadlines noted in the original contract and consider reinitiating work in the first round of the implementation ordinances after the Comprehensive Plan is complete (approximately fall 2008). r 4 ATTACHMENT 1 _ Additional Background Information Staff has continued to work with The Louis Berger Group since their contract was amended in • November 2006 to include Phase III work to define specific program and administrative design issues. The Environmental Resource Conservation Department and the County Attorney have been consulted on all aspects of these issues. The consultants made an informational presentation to the Planning Board on March 7, 2007. As noted in Phase 3 contract an implementation work group was formed by members of the Planning Board, Affordable Housing Advisory Board, the Agricultural Preservation Board, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Commission for the Environment, the Economic Development Commission met with the consultant and Planning staff on April 23, 2007 to review the TDR program and administrative Agriculture Building Food Lab. The Planning Board received an update on the program at its October 3 regular meeting. A public open house was scheduled on October 8 in the Link Governmental Services Center but was canceled at the Planning Board's suggestion. The following table summarizes the consultant's work through the fall of 2007. Program Design Criteria Summary Criteria Growth Area Exem t Conservation Area Eli ible Conservation Area Points Allocated For 1. Use Value /Farm use / 2. Historic site or structure / / / 3. Ad'acent too ens ace / / 4. Watershed Critical Area / / / 5. Ri avian buffer 150' / / / 6. Wetlands h dric soils / / / 7. Natural Herita a Invento site / / / 8. Prime Rated Forest Habitat area / / / 9. Wildlife Corridor area / / / 10. Stee slo es of 25% or hi her / Growth Area Exempt =properties that otherwise would fall within a designated Growth Area (e.g., in an ED district) that are exempted and instead designated as Conservation Area properties Conservation Area Eligible =criteria for making smaller Conservation Areas (under 50 acres) eligible r~ U Conservation Area Points Allocated for =criteria for allocating up to one additional point per acre to CA eli ible ro erties = UI question re whether to keep as is above or change • Text in red =Added since 7.20.07 version ATTACHMENT 2 Excerpt from Minutes MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 3, 2007 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative, Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At Large; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee Price, Hillsborough Township At Large (Vice-Chair); Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township; Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township Representative (Resigned) STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Michael, Harvey, Planner II; Donna Davenport, Administrative Assistant II; Roger Waldon, Clarion Associates GUESTS PRESENT: Roger Waldon, Clarion Associates; Margaret Hauth, Planning Director Town of Hillsborough; Kendal Brown, Town of Chapel Hill Town Planning Agenda Item 10: Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Implementation Update • Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II Craig Benedict: Originally, this item was to be a summary of a follow up meeting with an ad hoc committee with various advisory boards. Based on the content of Monday's meeting, I would think this meeting should be a continuation of the pace we are moving forward. The committee made a recommendation to slow down the process. I would like to talk briefly about where we are and what it will take to proceed. Phases I and II of the TDR Implementation Program was approved in 2004. Phase I was a case study of how it is done in the United States and it also included a legal analysis. Phase II was a feasibility analysis. Those were design options that if chosen maybe workable for the future. There was another task force appointed with community outreach held that .does say that it would be feasible for Orange County to move to the Transfer Development Rights Program which was approved by the BOCC in June 2006 to proceed to Phase III; implementation. A consultant was hired to proceed with how to take those feasibility ideas and wrap into a program design. The TDR program has a two- fold purpose. The first is to create a mechanism to purchase rural conservation easements and the other is to direct growth to areas that can handle it that have urban services such as public water/sewer, transportation, etc. The new name is Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation Program. Our attorney has suggested we not use "TDR° because some communities have tried to use TDR programs and have asked the legislature to use the program which .enables them to say, yes or no. Using this, we have the authority to develop a program within the existing zoning authority we have now. We had questions asked at Monday's meeting such as, "Is this the appropriate time or should it be delayed to be more concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan efforts?° My role in this program is to look at the timeframe approved by the Board of County Commissioners and proceed with it in the amount of meetings, with the amount of public hearings, with the amount of outreach and with the amount of hours with the consultants that were dictated by the contract including the timeline. The timeline that was approved by the commissioners last year was programmed to expire after the November Quarterly Public Hearing where we hoped to bring some regulations to this board. It is the recommendations from the sub-group that there is not enough time for additional committee or community involvement. What will have to occur is on October 23~d I will be bringing a amendment to the consultants contract to our commissioners that will say; since we do not think we can meet the existing contract please let us know what timeframe you . 6 want to accomplish this. Any thoughts you would have would be wrapped into .the comments to the commissioners. My role is not to be an advocate one way or the other but try to implement the contract that was approved by the commissioners through the specific amount of meetings they ask for. Ja B an: M understandin is that we are not asked to take the action listed in the abstract? The Y rY Y 9 action has been withdrawn? Craig Benedict: Yes. This is for information for the board and we are not asking you to take any action. It was sent just to the committee. Renee Price: One thing that should be clearer. One of the main reasons the group wanted to slow down the process was there had not been participation of the group for nine months. rra~~ Benedict The last meetinTs A ri1 . , 2007 Renee Price: Most people did not feel they had an opportunity for input. We found many items uncomfortable, for example the 50 acres and that would leave out a lot of people. We didn't condemn the program we just wanted more input. Judith Wegner: There were questions. If we wanted community buy-in, we need to break the complex material down into information that is more feasible to understand. We have a lot of questions about sending and receiving areas. This seems out of sync with many issues. Some of the issues were; what were the criteria for a potential candidate to be in a sending area. There has to be a balance created. There is also an issue of how this is explained to people. I don't see the market for that. The issues are complex. The small task group said, "don't go there yet". Renee Price: There was a thought to slow it down. On the other hand there was also the speculation to • go forward because we have been looking at this for fifteen years. Jeffrey Schmitt: I commend this ad hoc group and anything that this Board can do to slow down that process will be a benefit the County and citizens. At a minimum it would seem we would have the Comprehensive Plan developed and ready to go forward before we decide this will work? Can we put this consultant in neutral for a while? Craig Benedict: Consultants often have a proposal to finish something in a specific timeframe. A suggestion by the ad hoc group was to have more committee and outreach meetings. So they are coming up with a proposal. The contracts are up to $47,000 now for Phase III work. It may be the new timeframe will be something that is agreed to. There will be additional monies for additional meetings. The November 19th meeting was not to have an ordinance, it was to have a plan and how credits would be created in sending and receiving density bonuses would be created on the other end and if that looked fine, we could proceed to ordinance writing in the spring of 2008. It would be a two-step process like with some of the small area plans. Jeffrey Schmitt: It seems this is a way for the County spends more money that most committees think has no value added. How can we go to the Board of County Commissioners and stop this? Craig said he is the manager of the process. If it were I, I would be frustrated. Craig Benedict: I am hearing this is a fast process but it has been discussed for 15 years. In 1997 it became a clear commission goal. The Board of County Commissioners has approved the process for Phases I, II and III, which is the implementation program. My direction is not to discuss policy questions but maybe the timing of it now. I agree that maybe November is too early. The task force appointed by the commissioners for Phases I and II was different than the task force where this board offered up interested parties to work on the implementation and the amount of outreach and involvement was more • on a technical basis. You can suggest changing the timeframe to have more community involvement and those modifications can be brought back to the commissioners. Jay Bryan: In summary, basically we have heard from Jeff about general concerns about continuing to • spend money on a process that is flawed or not supported. We have had two people that attended the meeting and have concerns. If anyone wants to make a motion to address the concerns, we can pass on a resolution if it passes a vote, to consider another presentation. Staff has worked hard in keeping with the Board of County Commissioners direction on this for following through. The Planning Board can take a different position. Craufurd Goodwin: I think Craig demonstrated a real problem, which is that this Board has never had an opportunity to think about the fundamental issue. It seems we are trying to accomplish preservation of rural land by relaxing zoning for a few people in the receiving areas. We don't understand why we are in this Phase III and it seems reasonable to express our views at that level. I Conservation Program? Why can't we take this as a final document to study and stop it there? This will give this Board and other boards time to understand it. This has come before the Planning Board before and it was put on the back burner. Craig Benedict: We are still talking about it 18 years later. MOTION made by Judith Wegner I would like to offer a Resolution; Whereas.the planning board believes that it is necessary to bring the comprehensive plan process closer to fruition before a meaningful discussion can be had about an detailed technique involving transfer of development rights (or related variations of such techniques designed to transfer density bonuses in return for the acquisition of conservation easements); • Whereas we believe that there is need for full blown consideration of related issues of equity, transparency, balance, public understanding, and possible alternatives within the planning board. Whereas we believe it's premature and wasteful to spend additional time and money at this juncture to work through details of program design and administration until we are further along in the comprehensive planning process. We resolve to ask the Board of County Commissioners to ask the consultants to bring the project to a temporary hiatus, and to defer further work on this initiative by consultants or staff until the comprehensive planning process is brought to closure and the Planning Board recommends further action. Jeffrey Schmitt seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous Judith Wegner: It was the sense of the Board of County Commissioners that they had some sense of unsure. Renee Price: It was to move forward. Judith Wegner: If we give them a resolution that this is not the right time for it. Renee Price: Could we ask the consultant to provide us with a temporary final version. Craig .Benedict: The consultant said he would meet with the ad-hoc committee in two to three weeks to make further adjustments to those documents. That is the closure the committee had asked for. There were six people in the committee meeting, three that were not interested in moving forward in the timeframe, two said we have to bring it to closure and one that said we have to move forward and not let it linger. This was not a fully cooked document so we have not brought this to the public. • Judith Wegner: You want us to bring this to a place to solve some of the policy matters and put in on the shelf. Craig Benedict: At least do that. 8 Judith Wegner: My motion was not to do that, it was intended to stop it. Sam Lasris: How much are we talking about if we were to continue and how much would we save if not. • Craig Benedict: The full contract was $47,000 plus the $37,000 in Phases I and II. If they stop now, it would probably $5,000- $7,000 less with an incomplete document. If it were to move forward with additional outreach as suggested on Monday's meeting, it would probably be another $5,000-$7,000 dollars. Sam Lasris: Has that money been budgeted? Craig Benedict: No. That is pending to go before the Board of County Commissioners on October 23, 2007. Jay Bryan: It is up to the Board of County Commissioners to address this issue. Will there be another ad hoc committee meeting? Craig Benedict: If they extend the contract, there will be more meetings, if not we will find out what has to be done to satisfy the contract. At future meetings, we will discuss this further. Judith Wegner: Can you send the Planning Board materials? Craig Benedict: Yes. • • Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Feasibility Study 8 Phase Ill Scope of Services (8.31.2006) • Orange County Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Proposed Phase III (Program Design and Implementation Plan) Statement of Purpose Orange County would like to implement the adopted TDR Plan and program administrative organization to support the adopted TDR program; apply for grants or other external programs for program support; and revise existing land development regulations according to specifications of the adopted TDR Plan. The following is a summary of the preliminary goals and objectives of this study; the actual work to be performed is described in the subsequent Task TDR Goals ^ Preserve the farm economy ^ Protect drinking water resources ^ Preserve environmental and cultural resources ^ Preserve the character of rural Orange County ^ Avoid excess public costs to provide water, sewer, and education services TDR Objective • Direct growth and development activities away from important natural and cultural resources by shifting growth and development activities to areas more able to accommodate such growth. Page 8 Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Feasibility Study 9 - ' Phase III Scope of Services (8.31.2006) Scope of Services and Deliverables As noted below the "Client" is Oran e Count North C rolin n its f • t • g y, a a a d s to f, he "Consultant" is The Louis Berger Group, Inc, and the UNC-Charlotte Urban Institute. A. Select Program Design Options 1.Detailed Economic Evaluation. Conduct an in-depth economic valuation assessment on Receiving Area design options to include more detailed information on valuation on properties and tax assessment data. The Client will provide the Consultant with land pricing in orma Ion In a parse Igl a format to conduct this analysis: The purpose of this sub-Task is to determine if there is a real market to build at higher densities than currently allowed in unincorporated areas of Orange County, and if TDR is expected to make a difference in that trend. 2.Four (4) Meetings/Work Sessions: Program Design. Conduct one, one-hour meeting with the Orange County Board of County Commissioners; and two, three-hour work sessions with key departmental staff (the first hour of the first session of which will include Planning Board members to familiarize them with the process and gain their input) to prioritize Program. Design options based on TDR's interoperability with existing programs and initiatives, emphasizing the Lands Legacy Program and the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Consultant will conduct and facilitate these meetings; the Client will provide meeting space and support. One week prior to the meeting, the Consultant will provide an agenda to the Client and communicate refinements via telephone. The Client will distribute the agenda to participants in advance of the meeting. 3.Working Group Meeting # 1. The Client and Consultant will conduct one (1) Working Group meeting to provide input into the selection of Program Design options based on the results of sub-Tasks A. ] and A.2. The Client will provide summary minutes of this meeting and be responsible for coordinating meeting space and support. The Consultant will provide an agenda one (1) week in advance of the Working Group Meeting. 4.Technical Report No. 1: TDR Program Design. The Consultant will make recommendations in consultation with Planning Staff on the selection of a specific Program Design based on all of the above considerations. The Consultant will provide five copies of a Technical Report which will include a summary, detailed recommendations on a TDR Program for Orange County including a map or criteria set for identifying Sending and Receiving Areas, and appendices that address findings and discussions from staff and Working Group meetings. If appropriate and requested by the Client, a flowchart identifying the work flow of a typical TDR transaction will also be provided in this Technical Report. The Consultant will update the Page 9 Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Feasibility Study 10 Phase !1! Scope of Services (8.31.2006) • TDR web pages to include these materials and transmit the update to the Client for mounting to the Orange County website. 13. Select Administrative Design Options l.One Work Session: Administration. The Consultant will facilitate one work session with key Orange County department staff to identify and quantify operating requirements and costs associated with Administrative Design options. The emphasis on this work session will be (1) refining the process flow based upon the Program Design from Task A; and (2) identifying re uirements, and an technological or training gaps that exist. Regular TDR processes as well as periodic support requirements (e.g., performance monitoring and reporting) will be included in the Administration development. The Consultant will prepare a brief technical memorandum describing the recommended Administrative Design. 2.Working Group Meeting No. 2. The Consultant will facilitate one (1) Working Group meeting to provide input into the selection of a recommended Administrative Design option based on the results of Task A and sub-Task B.1. The Client will provide meeting support including summary minutes, and distribute an agenda one week prior to the Working Group meeting. The Consultant will facilitate the meeting and prepare an agenda in cooperation with the Client in advance of the agenda distribution. 3.Technical Memorandum No. 2: Administrative Design Recommendations. The Consultant will make recommendations and cost/resource estimates to the Planning Staff on Administrative Design of the Orange County TDR Program based on all of the above considerations, including a summary of all meetings that took place during Task B. The product of this Task will be to provide guidance to the Client on the optimum administrative design to fit the program design derived from Task A; the Client will be responsible for providing input and staffing/resource costs and implementing the recommendations. Five hard copies will be transmitted to Orange County staff for review along with a digital format copy; five final hard copies and digital format will be prepared based upon comments/corrections received by the Consultant within one (1) week after receipt. The Consultant will prepare an update to the TDR Program web pages that includes the final Technical Report and transmit the relevant HTML files to the Client for mounting to the Orange County website. • Page i 0 Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Feasibility Study 11 Phase III Scope of Services (8.31.2006) C. Finalize Proposed TDR Implementation Plan • 1.Two Work Sessions: Finalized Implementation Plan Review. The Consultant will conduct one (1) one-hour Planning Board and one (1) three-hour key Orange County departmental staff work session to (A) review the selected Program and Administrative Design option, (B) to recommend appropriate TDR Program Evaluation measures, and (C) to recommend aroll-out of the TDR Program to include approximate dates (month/year) and responsibilities. The staff and Planning Board sessions should be conducted ' +~e-serge-dr~~-Draft materials will be~rnYidPCi by the Consultant and transmitted to the Client at least 10 working days prior to each work session for the Client to distribute to meeting attendees. 2.County Commission Work Session. The Consultant will facilitate one (1) County Commission work session to review the selected Program and Administrative Design options and the appropriate TDR Program Evaluation Measures. The Client will provide summary notes from this meeting relevant to any modifications of any aspect of the TDR Program Design, Administrative Design, and Evaluation Measures. 3.Technical Report No. 3: Finalizing the TDR Program. The Consultant will conduct one (1) in-person meeting with the Orange County staff to finalize the TDR Program, Administrative Design, and Evaluation Measures for inclusion in TDR Implementation Plan. Based upon this discussion and previous Tasks and sub-Tasks, the Consultant will prepare a Technical Report that describes the TDR Program, Administration, and Evaluation Measures. Five hard copies will be transmitted to Orange County staff for review along with a digital format copy; five final hard copies and digital format will be prepared based upon comments/corrections received by the Consultant within one (1) week after ~ receipt. The Consultant will prepare an update to the TDR Program web pages that includes the final Technical Report and transmit the relevant HTML files to the Client for mounting to the Orange County website. • Page 11 Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Feasibility Study 12 Phase III Scope of Services (8.31.2006) D. Draffing TDR Program Ordinance Revisions In order to implement the TDR Program, the Unified Development Ordinance will need to be modified to accommodate the recommendations from the previous Tasks. TDR Ordinance Template. The Consultant will draft a template for a proposed TDR ordinance that will identify key items to be covered in the TDR ordinance, and will reference sample ordinance language from other jurisdictions where relevant and will be designed to fit the Program and Administrative Design options and Evaluation measures selected in process steps A-C. Research on TDR ordinances used in other localities will be carried out to inform the creation of the Orange County TDR ordinance template. The Client will draft actual TDR ordinance language from the template prepared by the Consultant. The Client will also estimate associated staffing and other resource costs. 2. Two Work Sessions: Ordinance Template Review. The Client will conduct one (1) work session with the Planning Board and the Consultant will conduct one (1) 1.5-hour work session via telephone with key Orange County department staff to review the proposed TDR ordinance language. The Consultant will be responsible for preparing an agenda • one week in advance of the departmental work session. 3. Work Session: County Commissioners. The Consultant will attend one (1) one-hour County Commission work session conducted by Client to review the proposed TDR ordinance language, staffing and other resource cost estimates. The Client will make refinements to these recommendations based on comments received. 4. Technical Report No. 4: TDR Ordinance Language. The Client will prepare a Technical Report describing the final proposed TDR ordinance language, staffing and other implementation cost estimates based on an initial, detailed template provided by the Consultant. Five hard copies will be transmitted to Orange County staff for review along with a digital format copy; five final hard copies and digital format will be prepared based upon comments/corrections received by the Consultant within one (1) week after receipt. The Consultant will prepare an update to the TDR Program web pages that includes the final Technical Report and transmit the relevant HTML files to the Client for mounting to the Orange County website: • Page 12 Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Feasibility Study 13 Phase III Scope of Services (8.31.2006) E. Prepare for TDR Implementation Plan Adoption . 1. Working Group Meeting No. 3/Public Meeting: TDR Program Review. The Consultant will conduct one (1) public work session with the Working Group to familiarize the public and property owners with the proposed TDR ordinance language; staffing and implementation cost estimates; the proposed Evaluation Measures; and to receive public feedback. The Client and Consultant will agree to a format for this meeting in advance of its being scheduled. The Consultant agrees to provide a minimum of three (3) staff to support and facilitate this meeting for period not to exceed 3.5 hours. The Client will distribute an agenda prepared by the Consultant at least one week in advance of the Work Group meeting and prepare summary minutes from this meeting. 2. Two Elected/Appointed Official Presentations. The Consultant will present public feedback findings at one (1) Planning Board meeting and one (1) meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The Consultant will revise TDR Plan, ordinance language, and implementation cost estimates as needed based on direction from the County Commission. 3. Preparation of Project Report. The Consultant will prepare five draft and five final copies plus one unbound original of a final Project Report. The Final Report will contain a complete set of recommendations on Program Design, Administrative Design, Ordinance Revisions, and Implementation Schedule. Appendices available on CD-ROM in each of the final reports will include materials generated from or received during the previous tasks. • Page 13 Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Feasibility Study 14 Phase 111 Scope of Services (8.31.2006) • F. Build Public Awareness, Understanding, and Seek Public Input The Consultant will assist the Client with developing and conducting a public awareness and education program about the TDR Program; make informational materials readily available through multiple outlets to reach as many residents and businesses as possible; provide multiple means for the public and property owners to give feedback or ask questions; and continue responding to the Public and media throughout the process of developing the Plan and preparing to adopt the program. In all cases, unless specified otherwise in this Scope of Services or through a written agreement between +hA C~IIPn+ rtinrl (~nnC11It(y-lt the -nApting_sDace advertising and production of summary minutes are the responsibility of the Client. 1. Working Group Meetings. The Consultant will facilitate three (3) Working Group meetings as described in Tasks A., B., and E. in this Scope of Services. These Working Group meetings will be advertised by the Client and made open to the public and media. The Consultant will provide a one-page press release upon request to additionally support media involvement in the planning process. The Working Group should have representatives of those Orange County constituents that are directly affected by the TDR Program: large-lot property owners, real estate professionals, and people residing/working in the proposed Receiving • Areas. 2. Public Meeting (under Task E.1). The Consultant will facilitate one, three- hour public meeting, and will be responsible for generating handouts, boards (2), presentation(s), and any other materials needed for this meeting. The. Client will be responsible for procuring meeting space and advertising the Public Meeting. The Consultant will prepare a summary of the Public Meeting within one (1) week after the Public Meeting for submittal to the Client. A minimum of three (3) staff from the Consultant will be present at the meeting site 30 minutes before the meeting begins until its completion. 3. Project Website. The Consultant will be responsible for updating the TDR Program Website and transmitting relevant HTML files to Orange County staff via FTP linkage a minimum of four (4) times during the course of this study, and a maximum of six (6) times during the course of this study. 4. Newsletter/TDR Program Summary. The Consultant will create 75 full-color copies of one brochure describing the TDR Program, as well as provide the Client with a digital copy and one additional hard copy suitable for reproduction. This newsletter will also be available on the Project Website. C~ Page 14 Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Feasibility Study 15 Phase III Scope of Services (8.31.2006) G. Administration 1. Payment. The Client will be responsible for processing payment to the Consultant at the completion of each Task (A-F) as described herein, according to the following schedule of payment: Task A: 30% Task B: 40% Task C: 60% Task D: 80% Task E: 100% 2. Coordination. The Client and Consultant will coordinate on a regular, pre- approved schedule no less than every two (2) weeks from the Notice to Proceed being received by the Consultant until project completion. If agreed to by both Client and Consultant in advance, the bi-weekly meeting can be cancelled or rescheduled. The Consultant will initiate each meeting by teleconference or by providing acall-in number in advance. 3. Contacts. The contacts for Client and Consultant are as follows, unless otherwise notified by the Client or agreed to by the Client/Consultant: ORANGE COUNTY STAFF: Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Planner II Orange County Planning Dept. 306E Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245-2575 cbenedict@co.orange.nc.us CONSULTANT: J. Scott Lane, AICP, GISP The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250 Cary, North Carolina 919.467.3885x 14 slane@louisberger.com r~ ~_~ Page 15 • • „~ 16 Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Feasibility Study Phase III Scope of Services (8.31.2006) - ~onsuRant Services Cost Estimate Spreadsheet grange County Transfer of Ds velopmsntRights -.Phase IIL• Implementation a.31.2oas ~ha Louis Barger Group. Inc. A Phase III. A Phase III. B Phase III. C Phase III. D Phase III. E ~~ Total Direct Labor ;ilk aencv ~ 0 56A ~.D 20.0 32.0 170.0 183 0 532.06 532.92 55,453.6D S6,D24.36 Co-Piojecthlauagei ILBG! NCC LBr~ UNCC . 55.0 24.0 32.U 44,0 ~•0 0 46 . ~ 0 522.60 56,326.00 ) Co.PtojectMauagei IU LBG ~'0 ~.0 62,0 12.0 . . 0 12 S1B.15 5217.80 Plarrrrer Specialist Real Estate LBG 12.0 D•D 0.0 20 0 p•p 26 0 0.0 26.0 . 170.0 524.46 54,161.60 , PduclpalPlauuer UNCC 76.0 47 0 16.0 6 0 . 10.0 . 10.0 4.0 79.0 515.00 51,185.00 Graduate Assistant UNCC . 290.0 . 19).0 156.0 111.0 118.0 891.0 TOTAL Hl1URS }11.999.)0 DIRECT LABOR LBG }2:762.20 08 }3.785.28 72 350 }1 }2.)27.76 }1.693.8) }912.80 }2.283.92 }2.111.36 }1.667.20 }11.370.96 }23 36 370 DIRECT LABOR i UNCC ALL AGENCIES }).376. #7.138.28 . . }5.136.00 }).120.80 }3.196.72 }3.778.56 . . lR TOTAL DIRECT LAB Phase III. A Plwse III. B Phase III. C Phase III. D Phase III. E TOTAL I RC; Direct Exoenses Reyralactiuu i C at 50.04lpage) (pages 20D ~ ~ 200 4pD 16 1,200 48 546.00 524.00 es op Black 8 While , at SD.501page) (pages 6 B B B B 32 560.00 CokrCopies ESeries Maps , (maps, at 52.50/map) B 4 4 B 0 50.00 Travel r ~ ~ (days, at 561.50PoaY) 2 1 5 5140.00 Meals da s at 528Poa ( Y . Y) 2 720 ~0 1,6pD 5675.00 Mileage (0.375/mile) ~ }967.00 }361.00 }22.00 }351.00 }32.00 }208.50 TOTAL LBr3 DIRECT EXPENSES I INeC Exoenses (incl overhead ratel 1Ftrips 4 (250 miRrip Q 5.375/mi plus 0 S 526.75 1 S 132.19 1 S 132.19 1 S 132.19 21 22 1 S 132.19 42 S 44 S 1,057.50 S 213.62 mileage meals (at state per diem rates plus 0 S 120.20 5 13.40 13.40 S 96 9 . S 97 S 19 . S S 79.66 maps (at 1.77lmap plus OH) S 19.97 45 63 S 9.9B 00 S 5 . S ¢ 70.00 . S 109.28 10 ~ S S 197.73 70 S 1 546 copies (at S.O5lpage plus OH bAv) . S S 732.37 . S 160.57 S 165.57 S 283.64 S 206.57 . total ex enses Summary Fee cos DIRECT LABOR 1LBG1 571,999.41 OVERHEAD RATE (LBG) 137.00% 516,439.1' FIXED FEE (LBG) 9.D% 52,559.4 DIRECT LABOR IUNCCI 511,370.9 OVERHEAD RATE (UNCC) 41.00% 54,662.0 TOTAL LABOR })7.031.1 DIRECT EXPENSES }2.515.7 Page 16 ~-t ; THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. - 1001 Wade Ave. Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Tel (919) 866-4400 Fax (919) 755-3502 www.louisberger.com • November 26, 2007 Craig Benedict, Director Orange County Planning and Zoning Department 306E Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Contract Period Extension Dear Mr. Benedict (Craig): I am writing to formally request action for two items related to the Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Study (Phase III), as follows: (i) Contract Period Extension. We would like for Orange County to formally acknowledge a revised schedule for the project to Tune 30, 2008. The original contract expired on September 30, 2007. Due to (A) the work starting in late January of 2007 rather than the fall of 2006 as was initially expected; (B) delays incurred by considering multiple program design options and concomitant reviews by legal staff; and (C) the desire of the Joint Advisory Board to extend the review process, the extension is warranted. No cost change is proposed under this item. • (2) Proposed Contract. The joint Advisory Board (7AB) has requested additional opportunities for internal and external coordination. We would like for Orange County to consider these adjustments prepared in response to the issues and concerns raised by the JAB. The additional public and internal engagement methods are identified specifically in Attachment (A), and are shown as modifications to the current wntract in Attachment (B). This change would, if all five additional items are adopted, incur a contract cost change of an additional $12,583. Note that (A) all direct costs and salary rates have been held constant from the original contract; and (B) each of the five work items may be undertaken independently. Thank you for considering these matters, and please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. J Scott Lane, AICP, GISP Director of Planning cc: Glenn Bowles, AICP, Orange County Planning Departrnent Vidd Bolt, UNC-Charlotte Urban Institute Attachments: (A) Desviption of Additional Coordination Items (B) Track Changes Version of Original Contract Induding Supplement No. 1 Cost • Attachment (A) Proposed Revisions to Scope of Services (Supplement No. 2 dated 12.3.2007) Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Plan (Phase III) Based upon comments provided by the project steering body (Joint Advisory Board, or JAB) on October 1, 2007, additional work items to increase the public engagement and coordination with the JAB have been requested. One additional meeting with the JAB and one Open House were included in the original contract and have yet fo occur, the following items would be in addition to those events. Rather than providing a rigid additional scope of services, following is a menu of suggested items that can be selected from to accomplish these two objectives. In other words, not all of the following may be necessary to complete the additional recommendations made by the JAB, but some items may accomplish informing the public and '~laet#er~ki~_o#heXS The ~^^~ ^^~ ± s~~ecze^~ ^n which items are selected (per-item costs are noted). Labor and direct expense rates have been kept constant ftom the original agreement. 1. One Meeting wffh JAB ($3,043). An additional meeting with the JAB, along with preparations and summary /follow up has been recommended by the JAB. The purpose of this additional meeting would be to final'¢e the draft plan. The preparation would include developing handouts, graphics, etc. to explain these concepts to the JAB, and then preparing agenda and meeting summary [with one round of corrections for the tatter). 2. Two JAB Conference Calls ($889). The Consultant will conduct /facilitate two, one-hour conference calls to address specific questions ftom the callers, presumably members of the JAB. A summary of the discussion and follow-up items will be compiled and distributed to each JAB member and O.C. staff (with one round of corrections). 3. Advisory Board Meeting Support ($1,654). The Consultant will prepare summary materials for the Orange County staff to present at any advisory board meeting. This would include a 1-2 page handout and presentation, as well as copies of additional materials discussed by the JAB (max: 50 copies). Note: This cost is for updating any of the Orange County committees / boards, but multiple updates maybe required. 4. Twv Stakeholder Focus Group Meetings ($2,624). The Consultant will work directly with the Orange County staff to identify and contact 5 - 10 people that represent large lot landowners and developers /real estate professionals to review the SGRG Program and gain specific feedback and concems. The JAB would conduct a review of the proposed stakeholder focus group attendees, if desired, or even suggest attendees for each focus group. The Orange County staff is responsible for coordinating meeting space and assisting with developing contact information; the consultant would develop and distribute agendas, prepare summary notes, and create materials for the stakeholder focus group meetings (e.g., two maps, summary explanation of SGRC program, questions for focus group members). 5. One Open House ($4,373). The Consultant would provide four (4) staff members to help facilitate and conduct an additional Open House event of 3.5 hours' duration, to help provide a second opportunity for people to review the same materials and presentation as the originally-scoped Open House. The consultant would be responsible for preparing and managing comments; working with the public; and preparing presentations and up to three (3) map display boards. Orange County staff would provide the meeting space and assist with notifying potential attendees. Note: The JAB and previous (Phase l/llj Task Force should be notified specifically, and perhaps one hour dedicated to explaining the project provisions fo these two groups. • Page 2 lR Attachment (6) Proposed trope of Semites (with supplement No. 2 dated 12.3.2007 shown in red) Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Plan (Phase I11) Orange County Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) • Proposed Phase III (Program Design and Implementation Plan) Statement of Purpose Orange County would like to implement the adopted TDR Plan and program administrative organization to support the adopted TDR program; apply for grants or other external programs for program support; and revise existing land development regulations according to specifications of the adopted TDR Plan. The following is a summary of the preliminary goals and objectives of this study; the actual work to be performed is described in the subsequent Task descriptions. TDR Gocls ^ Preserve the farm economy ^ Protect drinking water resources ^ Preserve environmental and cultural resources ^ Preserve the character of rural Orange County ^ Avoid excess public costs to provide water, sewer, and education services TDR Objective Direct growth and development activities away from important natural and cultural resources by shifting growth and development activities to areas more able to accommodate such growth. • Pa e 3 • 9 ao Attachment (B) Proposed Scope of Services (with Supplement No. 2 doted 12.3.2007 shown in rod) Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Plan (Phase III) Scope of Services and Deliverables As noted below, the "Client" is Orange County, North Carolina and its staff; the "Consultant" is The Louis Berger Group, Inc. and the UNC-Charlotte Urban Institute. A. Select Program Design Options 1. Detailed Economic Evaluation. Conduct an in-depth economic valuation assessment on Receiving Area design options to include more detailed information on valuation on properties and tax assessment data. The Client will rovide the Consultant with land pricing information in a parsed digital format to conduct this analysis. The purpose of this sub-Task is to determine i ere is a rea market to build at higher densities than currently allowed in unincorporated areas of Orange County, and if TDR is expected to make a difference in that trend. 2. Four (4) Meetings/Work Sessions: Program Design. Conduct one, one-hour meeting with the Orange County Board of County Commissioners; and two, three-hour work sessions with key departmental staff (the first hour of the first session of which will include Planning Board members to familiarize them with the process and gain their input) to prioritize Program Design options based on TDR's interoperability v~ith existing programs and initiatives, emphasizing the Lands Legacy Program and the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Consultant will conduct and facilitate these meetings; the Client will provide meeting space and support. One week prior to the meeting, the Consultant will provide an agenda to the Client and communicate refinements via telephone. The Client will distribute the agenda to participants in advance of the meeting. • 3. Working Group Meeting #1. The Client and Consultant will conduct one (1) Working Group meeting to provide input into the selection of Program Design options based on the results of sub-Tasks A.1 and A.2. The Client will provide summary minutes of this meeting and be responsible for coordinating meeting space and support. The Consultant will provide an agenda one (1) week in advance of the Working Group Meeting. 4. Technical Report No. 1: TDR Program Design. The Consultant will make recommendations in consultation with Planning Staff on the selection of a specific Program Design based on all of the above considerations. The Consultant will provide five copies of a Technical Report which will include a summary of detailed recommendations on a TDR Program for Orange County including a map or criteria set for identifying Sending and Receiving Areas, and appendices that address findings and discussions from staff and Working Group meetings. If appropriate and requested by the Client, a flowchart identifying the work flow of a typical TDR transaction will also be provided in this Technical Report. The Consultant will update the TDR web pages to include these materials and transmit the update to the Client for mounting to the Orange County website. Page 4 ~a~ Attachment (B) - Proposed Stops of Services (with Supplement No. 2 dated 1 Y.3.2007 shown in red) _ Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Plan (Phase III) B. Select Administrative Design Options • 1. One Work Session: Administration. The Consultant will facilitate one work session with key Orange County department staff to identify and quantify operating requirements and costs associated with Administrative Design options. The emphasis on this work session will be (1) refining the process flow based upon the Program Design from Task A; and (2) identifying necessary internal process changes, staffing requirements, and any technological or training gaps that exist. Regular TDR processes as well as periodic support requirements (e.g., performance monitoring and reporting) will be included in the Administration development. The Consultant will prepare a brief technical memorandum escn mg a recom 2. Working Group Meeting No. 2. The Consultant will facilitate one (1) Working Group meeting to provide input into the selection of a recommended Administrative Design option based on the results of Task A and sub Task B.l .The Client will provide meeting support including summary minutes, and distribute an agenda one week prior to the Working Group meeting. The Consultant will facilitate the meeting and prepare an agenda in cooperation with the Client in advance of the agenda distribution. 3. Technical Memorandum No. 2: Administrative Design Recommendations. The Consultant will make recommendations and cost/resource estimates to the Planning Staff on Administrative Design of the Orange County TDR Program based on all of the above considerations, including a summary of all meetings that took place during Task B. The product of this Task will be to provide guidance to the Client on the optimum administrative design to fit the program design derived from Task A; the Client will be responsible for providing input and staffing/resource costs and implementing the recommendations. Fve hard copies will be transmitted to Orange County staff for review along with a digital format copy; five final hard copies and digital format will be prepared based upon comments/corrections received by the Consultant within one (1) week after receipt. The Consultant will prepare an update to the TDR Program web pages that includes the final Technical Report and transmit the relevant HTML files to the Client for mounting to the Orange County website. Page 5 C~ as Attachment (B) Proposed Scope of Services (with Supplement No. T dated 12.3.2007 shorn in red) Orange Countlr Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Plan (Phase III) C. Finalize Proposed TDR Implementation Plan 1. Two Work Sessions: Finalized Implementation Plan Review. The Consultant will conduct one (1) one-hour Planning Board and one (1 j three-hour key Orange County departmental staff work session to (A) review the selected Program and Administrative Design option, (B) to recommend appropriate TDR Program Evaluation measures, and (C) to recommend aroll-out of the TDR Program to include approximate dates (month/year) and responsibilities. The staff and Planning Board sessions should be conducted in the same day. Draft m(yt~rinlc will ha provided by the Consultant and transmitted to the Client at least 10 working days prior to each work session for the Client to distribute to meeting attendees. 2. Two JAB Conference. Calls. The Consultant will conduct /facilitate two, one- hour conference calls to address specific auestions from the callers, presumably members of the JAB. A summary of the discussion and follow-Up items will be compiled and distributed to each JAB member and O.C. staff with one round of corrections). 3. County Commission Work Session. The Consultant will facilitate one (1) County Commission work session to review the selected Program and Administrative Design options and the appropriate TDR Program Evaluation Measures. The Client will provide summary notes _ from this meeting relevant to any modifications of any aspect of the TDR Program Design, Administrative Design, and Evaluation Measures. 4. Two Focus Group Meetings. The Consultant will work directly with the Orange County staff to identify and contact 5 - 10 peoale that represent large lot landowners and developers /real estate professionals to review the SGRC Program and gain specific feedback and concerns The JAB would conduct a review of the proposed stakeholder focus aroup attendees, if desired, or even suggest attendees for each focus group The Orange Counfv staff is responsible for coordinating meetina space and assisting with developing contact information; the consultant would develop and distribute agendas, grepare summary notes and create materials for the stakeholder focus aroup meetings (e.a.. two macs, summary explanation of SGRC~roaram, questions for focus group members). Working Group Meeting No. 3: Finalize Recommendations. Athird meetin with the JAB. along with preparations and summary /follow-up will be conducted by the Consultant with assistance from the Client staff. The purpose of Phis third meetina would be to finalize the draft plan. The preparation would include develoQna handouts, graphics, etc. to explain these concepts to the JAB, and then preparincl crgenda and meetina summary (with one round of corrections for the latter). 6. Technical Report No. 3: Fnalizing the TDR Program. The Consultant will conduct one (1) in-person meeting with the Orange County staff to finalize U Page 6 a3 Attachment (B) Proposed Stops of Serrrcss (with Supplement Mo. 2 dated 12.3.2007 shown in red) Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Plan (Phase III) the TDR Program, Administrative Design, and Evaluation Measures for inclusion . in TDR Implementation Plan. Based upon this discussion and previous Tasks and sub-Tasks, the Consultant will prepare a Technical Report that describes the TDR Program, Administration, and Evaluation Measures. Fve hard copies will be transmitted to Orange County staff for review along with a digital format copy; five final hard copies and digital format will be prepared based upon comments/corrections received by the Consultant within one (1) week after receipt. The Consultant will prepare an update to the TDR Program web pages that includes the final Technical Report and transmit the relevant HTML files to the Client for mounting to the Orange County website. • Page 7 a~ Attachment (B) Proposed Scope of Services (with Supplement No. 2 dated 12.3.2007 shown in rod) Orange County Transfer of Development Rights. Implementation Plan (Phase III) D. Drafting TDR Program Ordinance Revisions In order to implement the TDR Program, the Unified Development Ordinance will need to be modified to accommodate the recommendations from the previous Tasks. 1. TRD Ordinance Template. The Consultant will draft a template for a proposed TDR ordinance that will identify key items to be covered in the TDR ordinance, and will. reference sample ordinance language from other jurisdictions where relevant and will be designed to fit the Program and Administrative Design options and Evaluation measures selected in process steps A-C. Research on TDR ordinances used in other localities will be carried out to inform the creation of the Orange oun or finance emp a e. language from the template prepared by the Consultant. The Client will also estimate associated staffing and other resource costs. 2. Two Work Sessions: Ordinance Template Review. The Client will conduct one (1) work session with the Planning Board and the Consultant will conduct one (1) i .5- hour work session via telephone with key Orange County department staff to review the proposed TDR ordinance language. The Consultant will be responsible for preparing an agenda one week in advance of the departmental work session. 3. Work Session: County Commissioners. The Consultant will attend one (1) one-hour County Commission work session conducted by Client to review the proposed TDR ordinance language, staffing and other resource cost estimates. The Client will make refinements to these recommendations based on comments received. 4. Technical Report No. 4; TDR Ordinance Language. The Client will prepare a Technical Report describing the final proposed TDR ordinance language, staffing and other implementation cost estimates based on an initial, detailed template provided by the Consultant. Five hard copies will be transmitted to Orange County staff for review along with a digital format copy; five final hard copies and digital format will be prepared based upon comments/corrections received by the Consultant within one (1) week after receipt. The Consultant will prepare an update to the TDR Program web pages that includes the final Technical Report and transmit the relevant HTML files to the Client for mounting to the Orange County website. • Page 8 a5 -. Attachment (B) Proposed Stops of Services (with Supplement No. 2 dated 12.3.2007 shown ie red) Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Plan (Phase III) E. Prepare for TDR Implementation Plan Adoption 1. Working Group Meeting No. ~JPublic Meeting: TDR Program Review. The Consultant will conduct one (1) public work sessions with the Working Group to familiarize the public and property owners with the proposed TDR ordinance language; staffing and implementation cost estimates; the proposed Evaluation Measures; and to receive public feedback. The Client and Consultant will agree to a format for this meeting in advance of its being scheduled. The Consultant agrees to provide a minimum of three (3) staff to support and facilitate this meeting for a period not to exceed 3.5 hours. The Client will distribute an agenda prepared by the Consultant at least one week in advance of the Working Group meeting and prepare summary menu es om is mee ing. 2. Two Elected/Appointed Official Presentations. The Consultant will present public feedback findings at one (1) Planning Board meeting and one (1) meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The Consultant will revise TDR Plan, ordinance language, and implementation cost estimates as needed based on direction from the County Commission. 3. Preparation of Project Report. The Consultant will prepare five draft and five final copies plus one unbound original of a final Project Report. The Final Report will contain a complete set of recommendations on Program Design, Administrative Design, Ordinance Revisions, and Implementation Schedule. Appendices available on CD-ROM in each of the final reports will include materials generated from or received during the previous tasks. Page 9 • _ Attachment (B) ~~ Proposed Scope of Services (with Supplement No. 2 doted 12.3.2007 shown in redj Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Plan (Phase III) i F. Build Public Awareness, Understanding, and Seek Public Input The Consultant will assist the Client with developing and conducting a public awareness and education program about the TDR Program; make informational materials readily available through multiple outlets to reach as many residents and businesses as possible; provide multiple means for the public and property owners to give feedback or ask questions; and continue responding to the Public and media throughout the process of developing the Plan and preparing to adopt the program. In all cases, unless specified otherwise in this Scope of Services or through a written agreement between the Client and Consultant, the meeting space, advertising, and production of summary minutes are the responsibility of the Client. Working Group Meetings. The Consultant will facilitate three (3) Working Group meetings as described in Tasks A., B., and E. in this Scope of Services. These Working Group meetings will be advertised by the Client and made open to the public and media. The Consultant will provide cone-page press release upon request to additionally support media involvement in the planning process. The Working Group should have representatives of those Orange County constituents that are directly affected by the TDR Program: large-lot property owners, real estate professionals, and people residing/working in the proposed Receiving Areas. 2. Public Meetings (under Task E.l ). The Consultant will facilitate eaetwo, three-hour public meetings, and will be responsible for generating handouts, boards (2), presentation(s), and any other materials needed for#~a+seach meeting. The Client will be responsible for procuring meeting space and advertising the Public Meeting. The Consultant will prepare a summary of the Public Meetings within one (1) week offer the Public Meetings for submittal to the Client. A minimum of three (3) staff from the Consultant will be present at ##a+seach meeting site 30 minutes before the meeting begins until its completion. 3. Project Website. The Consultant will be responsible for updating the TDR Program Website and transmitting relevant HTML files to Orange County staff via FTP linkage a minimum of four (4) times during the course of this study, and a maximum of six (6) times during the course of this study. 4. Newsletter/TDR Program Summary. The Consultant will create 75 full-color copies of one brochure describing the TDR Program, as well as provide the Client with a digital copy and one additional hard copy suitable for reproduction. This newsletter will also be available on the Project Website. 5. Advisory Board Meeting Support x$1,654). The Consultant will i~repare summary materials for the Orange County staff to present at any advisory board meeting This would include a i-2 paae handout and oresentation, as well as copies of additional materials discussed by the JAB (max: 50 cogies1 Page 10 Attachment (B) Proposed trope of Service: (with Suppknusnt No. 2 dated 12.3.2007 shown is red) Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Plan (Phase III) G. Administration 1. Payment. The Client will be responsible for processing payment to the Consultant at the completion of each Task (A-F) as described herein, according to the following schedule of payment: Task A: 30~ Task B: 40% Task C: 60% Task D: 80~ 2. Coordination. The Client and Consultant will coordinate on a regular, pre- approved schedule no less than every two (2) weeks from the Notice to Proceed being received by the.Consultant until project completion. If agreed to by both Client and Consultant in advance, the bi-weekly meeting can be cancelled or rescheduled. The Consultant will initiate each meeting by teleconference or by providing acall-in number in advance. 3. Contacts. The contacts for Client and Consultant are as follows, unless otherwise notified by the Client or agreed to by the Client/Consultant: ORANGE COUNTY STAFF: Glenn Bowles, AICP, Planner II Orange County Planning Dept. 306E Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245-2575 gbowles@co.orange.nc.us CONSULTANT: J. Scott Lane, AICP, GISP The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250 Cary, North Carolina 919.467.3885x 14 Slane@louisberger.com Page 11 a~ r~ • • Attachment (B) Proposed Scope of Services (with Supplement No. 2 dated 12.3.2007 shown in redj Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Plan (Phase III) Contract Cost (Sunulement ONLY) Ccin~i rit~f9rvl¢It1lCasi ket)mets.~pruactaht3et' ,., i ii `Ja ~a b ~# ' i .~ ~ ~~; ~j}~~ ~(~ ~ ' ' ' ~,. ~ ' Qrti a unty'~;~ nrrt r ? "D a.+tglo ~ttnpij Rl~httr«3?h~!!~ "{~U,~ . .~> . __. -..,>~.,.,~.~~..~. ,~ .. ~.__.,_ .~ , ~.~ ~ .: u '((~„Gpu~~pgfS(4~~~tuPtln~:: :. ~i . w, c.,.1t•~.~b67 ' ~« ~ -~ '~.lAH McK6nC~F~k ~~ h~ ~a~ Hrat~': ,ih~+ua tiv ~' k` - tip.n Nauae ~1j ~ ~~ ~ te: '~ ~ s u_, ,,, J. r ~ ~ . ., :rs Nrt~.K . ~ +a~~: ~r s~ > ~ Jd~eiln9a {2) ...~: '~k}'2~ ~~~ s. ~ ~~ . -' Y , -, { -~{' 3 ) {r ~ ..~a. ~.~ ,: +~ . . Ge~ro)eciManapar(LB(i) , . : .. . , . LBO , _ F . . . BLO> 4.0 8.0: f 8.0 . r 12,0 J .:. ..,d . .313.0 ..., . i. S32.OB 51,154.89 Co.Pro)•dManapn(UNCC) UNCC 1tr;o 4.0 - 4,tl' ~ 2tl 1e,0 ; 42.0 E32.92 E1,382.84 Planner LBO 1d,0 4.0 ~ 12,0 32 0 24.0 j 88.0 E22.80 E1,988.80 Real Eatab Specialist LB(i ' 0.0 518.15 E0. Pdnolpd Planner UNCC 20.0 4 0 i 4.0 30.0 ~ ~ 58,0 E24.48 11,419.84 Ondusb Assisbnt UNCC 1 ( ~ 0.0 E15.00 E0.00 TOTAL HOURS 58,0 16.0 28.0 42.0 820 224.0 DIRECT LABOR LBO 5884.08 E218.72 E483.88 E879.64 E927.38 E3, 143.88 DIRECT 1A80R UNCC 11,018.32 E229.80 E229.80 E65.84 51,261.12 E2,802.46 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR ALL AGENCIES 51,670.40 E448.32 E893.28 E1,046.86 E2,188.48 E6,948.18 ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ M' k k "} ,IAA Alsetlny w~Y ~~f~~ ~t ~ '~ +~ 54~1-QCAUp. ti41t4 ~ D(Mrt NOtril! t1) M 1 f - ,~ <.~ :~ v .. ~~. _ _.. < .._r ~~..M,. ~ , .,~ ~ ,~ }s .., :..fGn fT ^l~, ~la~t~t. ~ _ .~+s,. , . _ ~tA~ .r~ __ a45r. . ~ _ .n LBG Direct Expenses I ( ~ Reproductlon Black 8 Whits Copley (papas, at E0.04/pape) Btl0 ~ ~,OO Cdor Cop/sa (popes, at 50.50/pape) 200 i E100.00 E-Series Maps (mops, at E2.50/myr) i ~ E0.00 Trawl j Lod'p/np (days, al E81.50/day) ~ i E0.00 Meda (days, at E28/day) 0 0 0 E0.00 Mllaps (0,375/mlls) 0 ;, f _.. o 0 S0, TOTAL LBO DIRECT El(P1743ES fo.oo so.oo St32 0o So.oo So.oo E132. UNCC l_xuensea (Intl o~erneed rate) # tripe milape - (250 ml/trip ®E.376/mi plw O E 132.19 E 132.19 E 284.38 meals (at state per diem rata plus O E. 28.80 E 28.80 E 63.80 maps (at 1.77/map plus 01~ E 9.88 E 18.86 S 28.94 copla (at 5.05/pape pws OH My S 10.00 E 20.00 E 30.00 total expenses E 178.87 E E S E 198.95 E 377.92 • 'V Attachment (B) Proposed Rsri:ion9 to Scope of Svrvi~es (Suppl9mant No. 2 dated 12.9.2007) Orange County Transfer of Development Rights Implementation Plan (Phase III) Contract Cost (Original Contract PLUS Supplement) :o~roJea Manaysr (LBG) . LBG 38,D 60,D 38,D 28.0.; j 44 tl ~ 206.D 132.48 ~; :o•Project Manaysr (UNCC) UNCC y1.0 ~ 28,D ! 38 D ' J: -48,0 44.0: ~ 225.0 532.92 S7; slanner LBfi 86.0 92,0 74,0 t .4~.0:, 72.0 388.0 E22.80 58, teal Eebte Spsclallat LBO 12,0 0,6 ; b,D 1_ D,0 0 D '~ 12.0 518.15 S srinolpal Planner UNCC 88:0 22.tl 24 D ~:! 28,0 58.0 ~ 228.0 524.48 S5, 3radueb AsMebnt UNCC 47.D 8.0 _ ~ , ; i0 0 .I'" ,"t0,a : 4 0 79.0 516,00 S1, DOTAL HOURS 518.0 210.0 181.0 166.0 2220 1,118.0 NRECi LABOR LBO 55,318.28 x,004.00 52,891.44 51,892.84 55,058.72 518, ERECT LABOR UNCC 56,59210 57,680.52 57,922.84 52,549.78 52,925.32 574, DOTAL DIRECT LABOR ALL AGENCIES 58,706.86 56,664.32 54,611.08 54,142.40 56,867.04 529, ~' ~4+ . x.~..M,.. .. ~.~..,T~,..~ ., ..... ' ... .' ~,~.:~K!~±s~~e5~:.:r~>.~~t~ie~iTf.~ ~~±t~~r-~I ~x. ~~uph`5~7.(r;~x ~Pn~r.l!!:~ ~~ ` ..,..:!+t~.,~` .... ,.~ a.~ LBG Duect Exoensea i Zeproductlon ' ~ 31ack 3 White Copies (payee, at 50.04/paye) 1D0 ~ 200 s 1000 ~ ' 2D0' 400 ~ 2,000 ;dor Copies (papas, a< 50.60/pege) 8 8 ` 2D8 t e ' 6 ~ 246 E F-Serres Msps (maps, at 52.60/map) e .: q 1 4 ~ e ) 8 32 Inwl ~ ~ L ( :odging (days, at 381.60fday) 0 D ~ 0 ! 0 D 0 Mea/a (deya, at S28/dey) 0 D 0 ~ D D 0 191eaye (0.375/mlte) `~ 0 0 j. 0 D 0 TOTAL LB(i DIRECT EXPENSES 552.00 ~ 511,00 ~ 5184,00 ~ S51.D0 ~ 544.00 ~ 5 5 1 1 1 2 (260 mUtdp ~ i.37Wmi plus O S 880.94 S 132.19 5 132.19 S 132.19 S 284.38 5 1,321.88 (at state per diem rates plus 0 S 147.00 S 13.40 S 13.40 S 22.21 5 71.22 S 287.22 (at 1.77/map pkp OH) S 29.95 S 9.98 S 9.98 5 19.97 S 39.93 S 109.80 (at 5.05Jpaye plus OH b/w) S 73.45 S b.00 S 10.00 S 109.28 S 30.00 S 227.73 S 911.34 S 150.57 S 185.b7 5 283.84 S 405.52 S 1,928.82 DIRECTLABOR(LBO) ~ 575,143.D6 OVERHEAD RATE (LBG) 137.00% 520,748.02 F00=D FEE (LBG) 9.0% 53,230.02 DIRECT WBOR (UNCC) 514,173.44 OVERHEAD RATE (UNCC) 41.00% 55,811.11 70TAL LABOR 588,103.87 DIRECT EXPENSES 52;270.82 Page 13 ~ '~ • .~ .~ STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007) • TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Executive Summary: Implementation of the SGRC Program in Orange County Chapter 1: Overview: Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation Program 2 1.1 SGRC Program Feasibility Study 1.2 SGRC Program Implementation Plan Chapter 2. SGRC Program and Administration 5 2.1 SGRC Goals 8, Objectives ~ ~ c~R~ Program Design 2.3 SGRC Administrative Design Chapter 3. SGRC Performance: Measuring Success 23 3.1 The Reason for Measuring Performance 3.2 Initial Benchmarks 3.3 Monitoring Performance Chapter 4. Ordinance Provisions for SGRC Implementation 4. I Implementing the SGRC Program Through Countyy Ordinances 4.2 Ordinance Template for SGRC Program 4.3 Ordinance Provisions for SGRC lmplemenfiafiion FIGURES AND TABLES PAGE Table 1-1. Contracted Service Process 3 Table 1-2. Program Development Process 3 Figure 2-l . Recently Developed Parcels, by Land Value per Acre 9 Table 2-2. Land Value Statistics for Near-Urban vs. Rural Areas 1 ~ Table 2-3. Cross-Correlation of Key Variables for Recently Developed Parcels 10 Fgure 2-4. Average Land Value per Acre for Recent Development, by Density 11 Fgure 2-5. Density of Recent Development 12 Figure 2-6. Land Value vs. Parcel Size for Recent Development 13 Table 2-7. Residential Planning Flow Process 16 Table 2-B. Commercial Planning Flow Process 21 Figure 3-1. SGRC Scorecard 24 APPENDICES A. Draft SGRC Implementation Plan B. Draft Land Development Ordinances C. SGRC Ordinance Iempia#e D. Sample Conservation Easement Template E. Sample Reporting Fgures (MS-Excel native format) F. Summary of Public Engagement Process G. SGRC Educa#ion and Malke#ir~g i'lan H. TDR Program Manager Case Studies (Implementation Phase) • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007( Chapter ~ . Strategic Growth and Conservation Program This chapter 1.1 SGRC Program Feasibility Study discusses in brief the This report is the result of the third phase of Orange County's Planning process development of a Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation used to determine (SGRC) Program. The first two phases, collectively known as the the feasibility of creating and Feasibility Study, were conducted during 2005 and 2006. The operating a overall purpose of the Feasibility Study was to address and development credit avide--FeEeaar~en~lations o~ ~P~A~ry~ issues critical to the program in Orange feasibility of an SGRC program in Orange County. Additional County. detail on the Feasibility Study can be found in the Phase II Report (www co orange nc us/planning/TDR files/Phase II ReDOrt Final 10.13.06 .adf). The major issues addressed in the Feasibility Study were the legal, administrative, design, and economic feasibility of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDRj program in Orange County and North Carolina in general. Background legal and economic research was conducted, as well as interviews with key stakeholders that included developers, elected officials from municipalities, and Orange County staff. A Task Force of stakeholders was appointed to assist the consultants in evaluating the results of the research. Case studies of similar programs in other locations throughout the country were conducted. Generalized maps of potential strategic growth and rural conservation areas were created, and various options for how to calculate credits were offered. In addition, the Feasibility Study evaluated the effects, positive and negative, that an SGRC program may have on existing programs and services in Orange County. One important conclusion of the Feasibility Study was that a traditional TDR program would require additional authority from the state of North Carolina. Consequently, the charge to Staff and Consultants in the third phase of the process was to develop recommendations fora Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation Program that achieves similar objectives as a traditional TDR program, but relies on existing County authority. A summary of the SGRC Program development during the first two phases, in terms of contracting and in terms of results produced, are detailed in the following two tables. Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft ~ 10.1.2007 • Table 1-1. Contracted Service Process Contracting Process J-me 23;; 2(104 BOCt >euNtorizes is~attce at RFQ to p~fession~ plar~ng cx>~ultants to ~ a countywi~ TDR pnogram. Jt~y 6, 2004 RFQ posed on APA na5a'~ and Nbrftr Canoga Chapter websibes. Acrg. t~ 2Q04 ~ RFQ • f=ive were: received. Sep: ~-l3, 2004 intervietivs atthe Govemntenhal Se~vice't' Ekt 13, 2004 F'e>aiists (Fredch, t ~ CtJames M~chol~/J, J, ~ G arni Louis Ber~erNNC Charfo0e Urblet Institute} are seated and ad~tianla quastiorrs are sent. lbw. 2~ 2t?04 t30CG seledstor~s 8ergerNNC tlof6e Utbarl lnsbe Jurje 23} 2005 f30CG appraints SGRC Task Face. .fie 27, 2008 SOCC r+ecenfes the COnSUltant'S SGf2C F~sibitity Study draft repgrt and affiCms the recorrtmeridation of tt~e' SGf2C Task Fa~ce`that the prac~s of a SGRC stwufd ~ foiivu~d. Se~.19, 2006 BOCC appr~s oontrad vrith Louis 6ecgerlUNG Charlotte Urban ir~tihrte ~ o~dud Phase 111 of ~ SGt?C program devefopment 1~ ~, Z00~ BC3CG approves budgettOr f~tase III ref consultant contract Dec i9, 20(1$ OranOe Coin s~iF give consultant fomral to pfoceed vrith Phase fIE. Table 1-2. Program Development Process SGRC Program i~trelcrpr~ltent Process ~ 1 and Ptraae It wane both completed in June , wifh del'n-erat~s by BaCC in October 20t>g: D~verables c~n'be f+~rnct at http:tlwww co.a~range.nc:usfptanningt'['DR f~t~deat.f~rM. Phase = f3ackgrormd. Research and t)ata Gathering A, y values and rrrarket trends a~lysis B. Draft Feasitty Decisbn Flarrt C. Pubt~ Engagement Press Plan. D: regal assessment E Cals$ studies ~TDWSGRC F tCey stakeholder views Phase q = Feagibigtj- Study and Concept Punt A. Assess Sender Area potential B. A Reoet+img'Ar~ po~nti~ G: t}etermine averntl e~ ~bidt3r D A~ess issues, oonstcah~ts and ~potttlureies istraGve, fiut) f.. t=maze Feility 0ecaswon Flo-~d>arf F. identify impat~ of-SGRC on eaos~g county programs i~se g - Pnognnn, Design and bttpi~nerrtatiotr Piam A. Pro~am Qeai9n options B Adrrstrative Desgr,Optia>g C, frrr>entahort P(an D. Otd'riarx~e Detnabpment Ava~able fVew on web'. NC tjct:2t><J6 Yes No Oct.2tlQ6 Yes No Oc~'2tlIJ6, - Yes No Oct. 2006 Yes Yes Ocf.20Q6 Yes. Yes +C~ct:2~6 Yes Yes Od.2Qf>6 Yes Yes tJd. Yes Yes tkt.2lm6 Yes Yes Oct.2f>06 Yes:. Yes (kt.2006 Yes Yes Oct ~QU6 Yss Yes {htgoit>tg N~ Yes Qrgoirrg trot yet Yes. f+fot yet Yes. 9 fdat yet Yes • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007) 1.2 SGRC Program Implementation Plan Each of the four major categories of the Feasibility Study identified decisions that needed to be made in order to Graff an SGRC program, decisions that were constrained by legal or other obstacles, and the remaining questions and issues that needed to be addressed. Following are the SGRC Program decisions made during the Feasibility Study (the program would be unfeasible otherwise): ^ Orange County participation only. Municipalities may participate later, once the program is better established. ^ Use existing ordinances and authority. No state enabling legislation will be sought. ^ Minimal government involvement in the SGRC transaction. The County will act as a facilitator, but not a ro er, a ween ^ SGRC credits cannot "float" -that is, the conservation easement protecting the rural conservation area must occur at the same time as the credits are used in the strategic growth area. Following are the SGRC Program decisions left to be determined as part of the Implementation Plan: ^ Criteria and maps delineating rural conservation and strategic growth areas. ^ Formulas to determine how credits are calculated in rural conservation and strategic growth areas. These decisions, questions and issues then formed the basis for this third phase of the SGRC program development. The purpose of the third phase was to conduct additional research and discussion to address the issues and questions raised during the first two phases, then to formulate a complete implementation plan for an SGRC Program for the Board of County Commissioners to consider for adoption. In addition, this third phase addresses how the performance of the SGRC program should be measured and tracked. This report details the implementation planning process that has been underway since December, 2006. An appendix to this report is the actual Implementation Plan that will be considered for adoption. Additional appendices include proposed changes to the Orange County ordinances that would be necessary to implement the SGRC program, as well as a proposed conservation easement and other forms necessary for staff to administer and track the progress of the SGRC program. • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.20071 Chapter Z. SGRC Program and Administration This chapter 2.1 SGRC Goals 8~ Objectives describes the core Earl in the tannin process, Staff and Consultants sou ht goals and basic Y P 9 g characteristics of direction from the Board of County Commissioners as to the the SGRC Program, primary goals for the program, which would then be used to breaking out r'ts guide recommendations for program and administrative design. characteristics into The resulting three goals were identified: Program Design and Administrative Goal # 1 Design. ura reserv ion. ro conservation easements on farms, water quality protection lands, historic properties and wildlife habitat to preserve them in their farmed or undeveloped state. Goal # 2 Strategic Urbanization. Provide incentives for increased' development in the Economic Development zoning districts, and the Efland-Mebane and Hillsborough transition areas and Rural Community Nodes as identified in the Comprehensive Ptan. -Goal # 3 Monitor Program Performance. Identify and track appropriate, cost-effective measures of the degree to which the program is meeting the rural preservation and strategic urbanization goals. The Commissioners also indicated an interest in promoting both residential and non- residential development in the urbanizing areas of the County. Finally, they signaled a willingness to allow the program to take several years to mature and establish a track record of SGRC Program transactions. Consultants and Staff identified these two additional objectives for success of the SGRC Program: Simplicity and Ease of Understanding. The program should be just nuanced enough to accomplish the Goals while being easy to explain and straightforward for participants. More complex features can be added to the program as it matures. Lega! Framework. The program should rest upon the existing legal framework of planning and regulatory authority vested in the County by the State of North Carolina. No new authority is to be requested from the General Assembly. 2.2 SGRC Program Design 2.2. l Planning Process for SGRC Program Design Overview. Planning Department Staff and Consultants worked closely together to conduct analyses and develop initial program design recommendations. A Working Group of representatives from selected County Advisory Boards -dubbed the Joint Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007 _ Advisory Board -provided review and comment on the initial recommendations. The public was then invited to give feedback on the draft SGRC Program Design at an informal SGRC Open House. A final draft of the. SGRC Program Design recommendations were then forvvarded to the Board of County Commissioners for public hearing and eventual consideration of adoption. (See section 2.2.3 for final draft SGRC Program Design recommendations.) Analysis of Previous Findings and Additional Assessment. Planning Department staff and Consultants reviewed the findings from the Feasibility Study and the SGRC Goals set by the Board of Commissioners. These key program design issues were identified for initial analysis and deliberation: ^ Designation of Gro an onserva i parcel-specific criteria-based designation ^ Eligibility criteria: whether to use any eligibility criteria, and if so, what criteria to use ^ Partial participation: whether Conservation Area properties must participate by placing all undeveloped property under easement or may choose to protect only part of the property ^ Reversal of participation: whether to allow Conservation Area owners to "buy back" the conservation easement on their property ^ Economic Factors: a closer look at the economic factors that influence Conservation Area sales of conservation easements and Growth Area development project proposals ^ Conservation Area Points Allocation: fixed formula or merit based? Per acre or per housing unit? Exclude existing structures or overlook them to provide an extra incentive? ^ Growth Area Development Intensity Bonus 8, Bonus Limits: fixed formula or merit- based? One-to-one ratio? Density limits fixed or criteria-based? ^ Allowing Commercial uses of Points: define a formula for commercial development intensity bonuses? ^ Incentives for Participation: points allocation/translation bonuses? Downzoning? Streamlined approval process? ^ Growth Area design guidelines: what amenities/buffer or other design requirements should be specified? For a listing of all issues and the rationales for and against each available option, please see Appendix X. Note that administrative design issues and options are included in the list in Appendix X and are discussed in Chapter 2.3 of this report. The issues associated with designation of areas and eligibility criteria were tackled first. Consultants conducted analysis using GIS (Geographic Information Systems) to evaluate the number and extent of properties that would qualify for SGRC Program participation under different area designation and eligibility scenarios. Recommendations were developed for presentation to an SGRC Working Group (see below for composition of the Working Group.) Planning Department staff and Consultants then examined the second set of program design issues, associated primarily with awarding of Conservation Area Points and Growth Area Development Intensity Bonuses. Consultants conducted analyses using GIS (Geographic Information Systems) to evaluate the distribution of Conservation Area Points under different points awarding formulas, and the resulting possible impacts on • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007 average sales price of Conservation Area Points (CAPS). Consultants also conducted interviews and focus group sessions with developers to gain insight into the monetary value of Development Intensity Bonuses. (See section 2.2.2, Economic Analysis.) Together with Staff and the County Attorney, recommendations were developed for each remaining program design issue with an eye towards: ^ simplicity and ease of understanding, ^ fitting within the legal framework outlined by the County Attorney, ^ reflecting County policy objectives for preservation and growth, and ^ balancing the monetary value of CAPs and Development Intensity Bonuses so they were in reasonable enough proximity to each other to allow a market to function. The recommendations on the second set of design issues were then presen e o e SGRC Working Group at its second meeting for (heir feedback. Working Group. An SGRC Working Group was formed to review and comment on Staff and Consultants' initial program and administrative design recommendations. The Working Group consisted of representatives of several existing Advisory Boards, plus key staff from the Planning and Environment and Resource Conservation departments, the County Attorney, and the Consultants. These Advisory Boards were invited to nominate one or two members to participate in the Working Group: ^ Planning Board ^ Economic Development Commission ^ Agricultural Preservation Board ^ Historic Preservation Board ^ Commission for the Environment ^ Affordable Housing Advisory Board The first Working Group meeting was held on April 23, 2007. Staff and Consultants presented initial recommendations on designation of Growth and Conservation Areas and Eligibility Criteria. The Working Group expressed strong interest in the next set of issues scheduled for discussion, those related to Conservation Area Points awarding and Growth Area Development Intensity Bonuses and Design Guidelines. (See section 2.2.3 for those issues and recommendations.) A second SGRC Working Group meeting [was] held on October 1, 2007. Staff and Consultants presented initial recommendations on methodologies for awarding of Conservation Area Points and Growth Area Development Intensity Bonuses. Public Feedback. The public in Orange County [was] invited to provide informal feedback on the draft SGRC Plan at an SGRC Open House on October 8, 2007. Staff and Consultants presented the draft SGRC Plan and received feedback from the Open House participants, as well as from the SRGC Plan posfied on the County's website. Submiital to BOCC. Based on Working Group and public feedback, the final SGRC recommendations as presented in this report [were] submitted to the Board of County Commissioners with a request for a formal public hearing on November 19, 2007 and subsequent consideration by the Commissioners of adoption of the SGRC Plan. Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007) -- 2.2.2 Economic Analysis - . A successful SGRC Program needs to "balance" potential sending area credits and receiving area credits in order to ensure that the amount that a developer is willing to pay for a receiving area credit is comparable to the amount that a sending area land owner would be willing to accept for his development rights. Moreover, the density bonus achieved by using TDR credits must make economic sense to developers, or they simply won't participate in the program. This section will address directly the assumption made previously that a density bonus in Orange County will be beneficial to a developer and will quantify the willingness of developers to pay for additional units of density. This analysis forms the basis of a later section focusing on achieving the balance of credits. Characteristics of Recent Residential Development in Orange County. In determining how much developers may be willing to pay for .density bonuses under the SGRC Program, we first needed to characterize recent development trends in terms of location, density and value. Understanding trends in recent development will assist in predicting how the housing market in Orange County will affect SGRC transactions by focusing on only the mos# relevant, recent transactions. "Recent development" is defined as parcels within Orange County (excluding municipalities and municipal extra- territorial jurisdiction (ETJ)) that have been built upon from January, 2004 through February, 2007. This analysis focuses on residential development because data are not readily available for the few commercial transactions that exist. Location. Of the 916 parcels recently developed in unincorporated Orange County, about half are located in "near-urban" areas. Near-urban areas were defined as those within two miles of a municipal or ETJ boundary, as illustrated in Fgure 2-1. The fact that the recently developed parcels are split between the two areas, even though the near- urban area is less than one third the size of the rural area, simply confirms that development in the proximity of urban areas is more attractive to developers and home buyers. Existing demand for housing in the near-urban areas is critical to the success of the SGRC Program. The distinction between near-urban and rural areas is important because the housing markets in near-urban and rural areas are quite different -the type and density of housing built, the price of land, and even the demographics of those who live in the different areas. In addition, using near-urban and rural areas in analyzing housing trends is a helpful proxy for receiving and sending areas, respectively. Orange County, North Carolina • i• ~J J STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007 Figure 2-1. Recently Developed Parcels, by Land Value per Acre ~~ ~ R~ s .. i ,,: ,;~ • ^ .. << ~~~" ~ '~ ., " ,•~.t ,,, r ~^ ~. l ~. ~ (( ~1 F ~~ xSt ~~r'Ri ~~i~ ~ . ~ ~ ~"'•~ w°~Wo..wK7 ~ III .. « S F SS . '~~~~Ji )~j, ~ IF Y~~~ i~i *~k ~ FS a, µ ~ Nei' I.kbB(1 B ~^~7 . y . f ~ ~ t~.~~,~ ,~~, ~.~ ~'`"~'~ , : F ~~'~~ Mk-tritxp~ies - ~ `+f ~ y A .ter `/ , ~ t ~~A ~y~ 4 "r ~ ' ~ ~ . ^ $ ' ~ 12,142 ~ 34.049. ~ ~, ~ x F ~`» ' 34.054' 75,95Q r` - 75,55'! -135;504 0 1.25 2:5 51uMes 1 r ~ ~ 1 ( ~ ~ I ~ ~~,~ " $58,388 ~. .~ ~ ,,~ .: r * ~ e ~!` K ` ~ ~ ~ ~~ -•rt ~ ~ ~ ~ r r i Fi L a- ` _ ` t~ r ~ ~; ~ ~! ~ P. ~- `k . ~.. ;; ~ j { _ '~ A ~ ~ f R ' ~ > . ,' ~ .,~. ~ ~C. ~ ,. • t ~ ry'~ ~ ~ - ,~ 3 ~ { _ k '~ y a /// } ~ r wwi,~~ ~ ' ~. i .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x r '` i q~, a . ~ F ~ i. s :~- '~ Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (IOJ.2007~ Value. The median land value per acre of recently developed parcels near-urban areas is double that of recently developed rural parcels, $32,000 per acre compared to $14,000 per acre (Table 2-2). This finding confirms that there are different housing markets in the two areas, and that the SGRC Program will need to take into account the inherent differences in land value when setting formulas to convert developable acres from the rural areas to the near-urban areas. Table 2-2. Land Value Statistics for Near-Urban vs. Rural Areas _~ ._ Near-Urban 0 556,368 38,063 24,576 47,943 1.6 Deve o e Recent develo ment 0 556,368 90,141 32,298'rr' 130,425 1.5 Undevelo ed 0 446,359 22,067 13,241 32,688 2.4 Rural 0 175,267 16,658 11,958 16,127 3.4 Develo ed 0 175,267 18,567 14,426 16,130 2.8 Recent develo ment 0 127,313 24,743 14,257- 27,577 4.1 Undevelo ed 0 155,945 12,024 7,517 15,154 6.1 The reason for using land value per acre, rather than simple land value or total value per acre, is to assess the parcels on a level playing field, without taking into account the size of the parcel, or the size or value of the house itself. Moreover, data in Table 2-2 show that the range and standard deviation of land values in the near-urban areas is nearly four times that of the rural areas, indicating strong fluctuations in value in the near-urban areas. Large differences in value are significant when considering that the SGRC Program must take into account differences in land value to correctly set formulas that will result in appropriate economic incentives. To further investigate how much distance from a municipality influences land value, we ran across-correlation between distance, parcel size, land value and total (land + building) value per acre (Table 2-3). A value close to one in the table indicates that the two variables are strongly influence each other, while a value of less than 0.5 indicates that the two variables are largely independent. A negative value indicates that when one variable increases, the other decreases. For example, land value per acre is correlated with total value per acre very strongly,. with a value of 0.95, indicating that when land value is high, total value is very likely to be high. The correlation values between distance from municipal boundary and land value per acre and parcel size do not show a strong correlation. This indicates that the variables are largely independent, and land value is based on additional factors. Table 2-3. Cross-Correlation of Key Variables Parcels Distance from munici al bounds 1 0 Parcel Size 0.26 1.0 Land Value er acre -0.38 -0.21 1.0 Total Value er acre -0.32 -0.17 0.95 1.0 Orange County, North Carolina ~ • • STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007) Density. Land value per acre is higher for housing developed at higher density, for both near-urban and rural areas (Figure 2-4). This finding is an indication that developing at higher densities may yield a higher return to developers, which is crucial to the success of a SGRC Program that proposes to increase the density of development in near-urban areas. If the returns to developing at lower densities were greater than developing at higher densities, using SGRC as a method to develop at higher densities would not make sense. Likewise, if housing is currently being built at relatively low densities, regardless of higher density allowed by zoning, that would indicate that the market for higher density housing in Orange County is not strong, and a SGRC Program may need ' 'teal-+nFer~#+ves to k~-successf~ Figure 2-4. Average Land Value per Acre for Recent Development, by Density 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 G 300,000 m a ~ 250,000 v m 200,000 J 150,000 100,000 50,000 20 10 B 8 4 3 2 1 1.5 ac 2 ac 3 ac 4 ac 5 ac 6 ac 7 ac a ae sae iu ac > w ac unlWee unks/ae uroWacuniW~ unks/ac uraWac umis/ac unlVac Recently developed parcels in the near-urban geographies were developed at an average of 1.5 acres per unit, while those in rural areas were developed at an average of 4.1 acres per unit. The histogram in Figure 2-5 illustrates the distribution of both near- urban and rural development density. Most parcels in the near-urban areas were developed between one and three acres per unit, likely because current zoning does not permit development at greater than one unit per acre in most cases. Both near- urban and rural development experience another peak at one unit per 10 acres or more, likely because current zoning regulations are less stringent for such large parcels. • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007) Figure 2-5. Density of Recent Development X20 ... , , _ .~.,.. - .. • Density (Parcel Size) One issue raised during this analysis was whether large-lot (10 acres or greater) development can be more beneficial to developers than higher density development, such as would be produced with the SGRC Program. There is some indication, as discussed above, that there is a tendency to develop large-lot subdivisions in Orange County, as evidenced by the relatively high number of 10+ acre parcels developed recently. This type of development may, however, be the unintended result of a different approval process for such subdivisions, rather than an indication of profitability at different densities. Two findings indicate that it still may be more profitable for a developer to develop at higher densities. Land value per acre declines as parcel size increases, as discussed above and illustrated in Figure 2-6. Figure 2-6 also illustrates that there are few properties with a land value per acre higher than expected ("outliers"). In the figure below, each dot represents one of the 916 recently developed parcels. Most of the parcels are clustered near the axes, indicating either a large parcel size with low land value per acre, or a small parcel size with high land value per acre. Just a few parcels are farther from the axes, indicating ahigher-than-expected land value for parcels that size. Both of these findings seem to support a more profitable development by increasing density on any particular parcel. • Orange County, North Carolina 20 10 8 8 4 3 2 1 1.5 ac lac Sac 4ac Sac eac Tae eac Sac 10 ac >10ac uniWac ~nifs/ae uiils/ac ur~ts/ac uniWac units/ac uiits/ac uritlac STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (i t7.1.2007~ Figure 2-6. Land Value vs. Parcel Size for Recent Development Land Value per acre Developer Interest in TDR in Orange County. While the data are helpful in indicating . trends in recent development, the economic analysis would not be complete without a discussion with developers currently working in Orange County. The conversation with the developers was intended to gauge their response to the proposed SGRC program, characterize the current housing market and viability of higher density development, and assess their willingness to pay for additional density credits. In general, the developers were supportive of the idea of a SGRC-type program, and said that it made sense to them. Especially in the I-85 corridor (Mebane, Hillsborough and east of Hillsborough), they do see a market for higher density housing. Their biggest concern was the additional cost, in terms of time and money, involved in the SGRC transaction. Working directly with sending area landowners would involve an additional negotiation for the developers, which they indicated was a primary source of delays and uncertainty. The developers suggested several alternative scenarios that could reduce the transactional costs to them, and thus incentivize participation in the SGRC Program. First, the county could take a more active role in serving as a broker to match developers and landowners, perhaps acquiring a binding agreement to sell development rights within a certain price range from landowners prior to negotiation with developers. Second, there could be third-party brokers, such as land trusts, nonprofit conservation organizations, or companies specializing in wetlands mitigation, that the developers could hire to conduct the transaction with the sending area landowner. A third option would be to pay.the county afee-in-lieu of conservation credits, which the county could in turn use to fund its own land preservation program. This alternative would have the advantage of allowing the county to select parcels most worthy of preservation. An additional complication with this altemative would be the issue of equitably setting the fee, since it will no longer be determined by the fair market. Orange County, North Carolina o so,ooo ~oo,ooo ~so,ooo 200,000 2so,o~ soo,ooo sso,ooo aoo,ooo aso,ooo soo,aoo STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Droll (10.1.2007) An additional concern was whether the SGRC Program could succeed in protecting • the right land in the sending area. A substantial amount of land in Orange County has soil that is inappropriate for septic systems, making the land essentially undevelopable anyway. The developers expressed concern that the development rights for this marginal land would be offered at a lower price than land more worthy of permanent protection. In addition, the land most ih danger of development (i.e. closer to the municipalities) also costs more. The developers urged the creation of credit formulas that incentivize the preservation of land that truly deserves it, rather than marginal (cheap) land far from urban areas. In terms of the developers' willingness to pay for an additional unit of density in a games-#~ey~Praerell~agreed that~y would be willing to pay their per unit cost for raw land. For example, a particular parcel costs $15,000 per acre, and current zoning would allow it to be built at one unit per acre (one unit = $15,000). With SGRC conservation credits, they could build four units on that acre, meaning they would be willing to pay up to $15,000 for each of the three TDR credits they would need to buy (land = $15,000, three credits = $45,000; four units = $60,000). The resulting per unit cost to acquire the land and development rights would be the same as the no-SGRC (or "base") option. One developer acknowledged that there might need to be a discount factor in this equation, to account for the fact that he might have to build a smaller house (and thus have less profit) due to the smaller lot sizes. The developers acknowledged that this formula may not be feasible for a development with several different types of homes. In summary, the data analysis and discussions with developers indicated that a SGRC • Program is economically viable, and that there would likely be interest from developers in participating provided that appropriate formulas for credit allocation and reduced transactional costs are incorporated into the SGRC program and administrative design. 2.2.3 Conservation Areas (Points Allocation Formulas) Staff and Consultant Analyses. Planning Department staff and Consultants examined the second set of program design issues (see section 2.2.2 above for list of issues). Consultants conducted analyses using GIS (Geographic Information Systems) to evaluate the distribution of Conservation Area Points under different points awarding formulas, and the resulting possible impacts on average sales price of Conservation Area Points (CAPS). Consultants also conducted interviews and focus group sessions with developers to gain insight into the monetary value of Development Intensity Bonuses. Together with Staff and the County Attorney, recommendations were developed for each remaining program design issue with an eye towards: ^ simplicity and ease of understanding, ^ fitting within the legal framework outlined by the County Attorney, ^ reflecting County policy objectives for preservation and growth, and ^ balancing the monetary value of CAPs and Development Intensity Bonuses so they were in reasonable enough proximity to each other to allow a market to function. Working Group. A second SGRC Working Group meeting was held on October 1, 2007. Staff and Consultants presented initial recommendations on Conservation Area Points and Growth Area Development Intensity Bonus methodologies. . Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft ~ 10.1.2007 • Public Feedback. An SGRC Open House was held on October 8, 2007 to which the public in Orange County was invited. Staff and Consultants presented the draff SGRC Plan and received feedback from the Open House par#icipants, as well as from the SRGC Plan posted on the County's website. Conservation Area Points. Proposed conservation easements on eligible Conservation Area properties are assigned Conservation Area Points (CAPs) as follows: a. One CAP per acre is awarded to all participating CA properties; b. Additional CAPs are awarded based on pre-easement tax-assessed land value: - 9,999.99 0.0 $10,000 - 14,999.99 0.5 $15,000 - 19,999.99 0.9 $20,000 - 24,999.99 1.2 $25,000 - 29,999.99 1.4 $30,000 and hi her' 1.5 c. Up to one additional credit per acre is awarded based on actual acreage meeting any one or more of eligibility criteria b)iii-x above, or containing steep slopes of 25% or higher. d. The total CAPS assigned to an eligible CA property are the sum of CAPs awarded under steps a, b, and c above. Development Intensity Bonus. Eligible Growth Area property owners may apply for a development intensity bonus to be awarded upon conveyance to the County of a privately-purchased conservation easement on an eligible Conservation Area property. a. For Residential Development: i. CAPs are translated to Growth Area development intensity bonuses at a 3:1 ratio, meaning for every 3 CAPs assigned to the conservation easement, 1 additional housing unit may be built in the Growth Area property. ii. Alternatively, owners of Growth Area properties 25 acres or larger may enter into a Development Agreement with the County, which will negotiate a development intensity bonus taking CAPs into account along with other factors, such as provision of affordable housing or LEED- certified construction. iu. The final gross density of projects using CAPS may not exceed 15 housing units per acre. b. For Non-Residential or Mixed-use Development: i. Owners of Growth Area properties 25 acres or larger may enter into a Development Agreement with the County, which will negotiate a development intensity bonus taking CAPs into account along with other performance factors agreed to by the property owner. ii. Growth Area properties of less than 25 acres are not eligible at this time for non-residential or mixed-use density bonuses through the program, but may be added to the program at a later date. Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft ~ 10.1.20071 Design Requirements. Design requirements will be incorporated into eventual SGRC ordinance provisions based on the County's design guidelines developed for the • Efland-Mebane area. These will apply to all Growth Area properties participating in the SGRC Program and will serve to ensure that the increased development intensity does not negatively impact nearby land values or quality of life. 2.3 SGRC Administrative Design In addition to the considerations of how the SGRC Program will be operated from the perspective of the users (participants) of the program, the project team also considered hc~w SGRC would operate internally. The following two sections illustrate a rocess workflow for both residential and commercial properties, highlighting areas t a p would be applicable only to proposed projects using SGRC conservation credits. Frst, it is useful to understand how residential and commercial planning review processes operate in Orange County now, described briefly in the following section. 2.3.1 Existing Planning Process Affer the initial contact with the Orange County Planning 8, Zoning Department staff ("staff"), the developer prepares a description of the location of the site, which staff then reviews to determine if the site is within a managed area (e.g., critical watershed), the suitability of the soils for in-ground septic treatment, and if the proposed use "fits" the existing zoning code. This is a followed by a Preapplication Meeting, which describes the site in more detail, notably determining the "yield" or number of residential units (or commercial square feet of floor area) that the proposed development site could contain. Different requirements will be placed on the developer depending if the proposed residential subdivision is a minor, major, Special Use, or Planned Development application, which in tum depends on the number of units .being proposed and if the site is located in an urban or rural area. If the subsequent Application Fee and Application are- furnished, then the staff must review the application and approve or disapprove with comments. Once approved, the developer then prepares a conceptual site plan, noting important features of and near the site, but not necessarily having all lot lines surveyed. This concept plan is then reviewed at a Neighborhood Meeting, adrop-in style meeting of nearby residents that are notifed of the proposal and meeting opportunity by staff. The Planning Board then gets to review the (modified, if needed) concept plan, and can approve, disapprove, or disapprove unless corrective actions are taken by the developer. Once the concept plan has gained approval, the developer then must prepare a preliminary plat (surveyed), present the proposal again at a Planning Board meeting, at a quarterly public hearing (if the proposal has 20 or more residential units), and then obtain approval from the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The Final Plan is subsequently submitted, recorded, and fees submitted by the developer. Commercial developments typically undergo a slightly less lengthy process, notably omitting the Neighborhood Meeting requirements, but are still required to be presented at a quarterly public hearing for official comments. Commercial sites using the Economic Development District (EDD) designation would also be required to adhere to the EDD Design Manual specifications, which may be somewhat more costly and time consuming to meet. • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007 This entire process is likely to take 12 to 15 months or longer, depending on the preparedness of the developer and his familiarity with the planning process; the complexity /controversial nature of the proposed development action; and how the timing of the proposal effort aligns with the required meeting schedule (particularly the quarterly public hearing meeting). This planning process, while extensive, helps to ensure that adequate public review of proposals are conducted at a level that Orange County feels is commensurate with the potential impact of the proposed development action. 2.3.2 SGRC Planning Process and Agency /Participant Responsibilities The SGRC Program would influence the development review process at severs eves. The developer and staff would want to know, for example, how SGRC credits would influence the site yield or if bonus credits could be accommodated. Perhaps most significantly is the negotiation process between the developer and Ruraf Conservation Area participant to reach an agreed-upon price for the conservation credits. The flow diagrams on the following pages illustrate the planning process in a step-by- step fashion for both residential and commercial (EDD) development types highlighting actions led by the developer (red text) and Orange County staff (green text). Additionally, apre-review process involving a hypothetical Rural Conservation Area participant is demonstrated (blue text); and, at the end, the annual performance report described more fully in Chapter 3 is summarized (purple text). Any task in the flow diagram that is required uniquely as a part of the SGRC Program is in bold text. Oiange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.20071 Table 2-7. Residential Planning Flow Process -. - A. Orange Counfjr Promotes SGRG Program After Approving Work through homebuilders and Ordinance Revisbns realtor associations; distribute brochure; create on-fine, self- guided presentation on SGRC o ram B. SGRC Ordinance(s) Goes into Effect Note that the Conditional Use a. Create new field in Parcel GIS Database to Tag SGRC Zoning /Permit process would also Actions need fo go into effect prior to b. Internal Review wffh O.G. Staff to Rehearse SGRC Process inifiatin SGRC. C. Landowner (Rural Conservation Area) Expresses Interest to range a. Name/Contact Information b. Parcel(s) Identification and Acreage/Number of SGRC Credits c. Known Resources Identtiied Through a Checklist d. Information on SGRC Pro ram Provided b OC Staff D. Validation of Participation Requiremenfs in SGRC Program to Baseline Report (Figure J) is Landowner (Rural Conservation Area) prepared and logged into SGRC a. Validate Parcel(s) in Rural Conservation Area database. b. Validate Resource Information Supplied by Landowner Participant is logged into fhe Rural c. Provide Additional Information to Landowner on SGRC Conservation Area Participant Pro ram database Fi ure 2 . i. Developer Cali /Visit to Planning ~ Zoning Department Initial communication with develo er 2. Locate and Define the Site Verify fhat fhe parcel meets a. Water/Sewer Provision location requirements and the b. Inside Strategic Growth Area intended use fits with land use / zonin ordinance table 3. Concept Review Attended by developer, Planning g. Discuss developer expectations for density and use Staff and EDC Staff i. Base zoning ii. Potential with density bonuses (e.g. affordable housing, lEED) h. Review the Development Process and Design Standards with and without SGRC is Discuss potential issues that will need to be addressed in the design Noti Interested Rural Conservation Area A licants 4. Concept Plan Development In the concept plan for projects k. Sketch Plan proposing to use SGRG, it would I. Location of Notable Features be wise fo have a qualitative m. Negotiate with Rural Conservation Area Participant(s) notation identifying any resources, utilities, roadways, or school capacities that would be negatively affected should fhe SGRC o Lion be ursued. 5. Pre-Application Conference Attended by developer, Planning n. Explain the review and approval process Staff and EDC Staff o. identify remaining problems or issues that will need to be addressed prior to submittal of an application • • . • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007) • Table 2-7. Residential Planning Flow Process (Continued) • C, -. - - 6. Initiate the Application Submittal p. Pay Application Fee(s) q. Internal Staff Review i. Approve li. Disa rove with Comments 7. Concept Plan Development In the concept plan for projects On-Site Visit with O.C. Staff r proposing to use SGRC, it would be . Sketch Plan (conventional or flexible) s wise to have a qualitative notation . identi in an resources, utilities, t. o ayou s no necess roadways, or school capacities u. Location of Notable Features that would be negatively affected v. Negotiate with Rural Conservation Area Participant(s) should the SGRC option be ursued. 8. Neighborhood Informational Meeting During this meeting, there is an w. Mailings (Address List from Developers) Sent to opportunity to explain both the People within 500' Buffer Around Project CUP and SGRC process /program x. Drop-In Style Meeting Format and how they benefit Orange Covn 9. Concept Plan Review Note that no conditional use y. O.C. Staff Only requirement will be LESS restrictive Same Review Group as Preliminary Plan Review z than any overlay district . aa. Offer Comments to Developer requirement already in place. A CUP essentialy requires a bb. Note CUP Conditions for Approval rezoning to a Conditional Use District. 10. Planning Board Review of Concept Plan me CuP process would allow cc. Staff/ Developer Presentations public boards to attach additional Public Comments dd conditions on approval, especially . ee. Review Concept Plan design and mitigation measures to offset negative impacts due to i. Approve more intensive uses. ii. Disapprove (One-Year Moratorium) iii. Disa rove with Corrective Actions 11. Preliminary Plat Development The SGRC property valuation ff. Roads /Driveway Permit assessment would be presented at gg. Erosion Control Review this time, should the Rural Conservation Area landowner and hh. Environmental Health Review developermutually agree that one ii. Fire Su cession Plan pp is necessary. At this time, the U. Solid Waste Review developer could pursue a kk. Lot Surveys Completed Development Agreement with the II. Binding Option Signed with R.C.A. landowner County as an alternative to the mm. Easement Language and R.C.A. Strategic fraditional approval process. Growth Area Shown on Ma 12. Preliminary Plat Review nn. O.C. Staff Only oo. Conduct R.C.A. Review (if inffial review older than two years) pp. Letter to Developer for Comment (if significant comments) . Review Si ned Bindin O tion A reement Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Oraff (10.1.2007) Table 2-7. Residential Planning Flow Process (Continued) -. - 13. Public Hearing (20+ Units) rr. Formal Public Hearing /CUP Hearing (Required) ss. Comments 14. Planning Board Map should note location of tt. Present Final Easement Language conservation easement. uu. Present Map of Rural Conservation Area Property vv. Preliminary Plat Review i. Approve ii. Disapprove Transaction 15. County Commission Meeting Map should note location of ww. Present Final Easement Language conservation easement. xx. Present Map of Rural Conservation Area Property yy. Preliminary Plat Review Commission would i. Approve approve/disapprove of a ii. Disapprove Development Agreement at this stage, if applicable. iii. Approve w/Conditions (including SGRC Transaction 16. Final Plan Submittal Notes: zz. Permits Completed (1) Ufilize the log spreadsheets aaa. Signing Sheets Submitted to County Engineer .provided to track information on bbb. SGRC Transaction Completed each SGRC transaction and i. Payment to R.C.A. Landowner inquiry (Figures 2 and 3) ii. Deed Modffication to Include Easement (2) Important to keep copies of all records (e.g., easement, dates iii. Modify GIS Parcel Layer to Tag SGRC of meetings) in a dedicated fife Action for each project to provide an iv. Record Actions in SGRC Transaction administrative record. database (Figure 3) (3J Development Agreement would be recorded at this stage if a licable Benchmarking and Progress Reporting (Annual) Notes: a) Search for Parcel IDs with Recorded SGRC (1) Inquiries are noted as Participation benchmarks in the first two years i) Conservation Parcels of the SGRC program since it is ii) Strategic Growth Parcels unlikely that many SGRC iii) Develop Mapping of SGRC Active Parcels transactions will occur initially. (2) Use one-page report format Overlaid with SG and RC Areas, Town Boundaries provided for annual reporting b) Research (or as requested by Planning i) Inquiries Regarding SGRC (first two years ONLY) Board / BOCC) (Fgure 4) ii) Number of Acres Conserved (3) May be d~cult to get price per iii) Price Range and Average of Credits credit information since iv) Number of SGRC Transactions transaction is between third v) Number of Units Constructed with SGRC Credits parties. vi) Number of Units Allowed in SG Parcels Without SGRC c) Report i) Presentation to Board of County Commissioners ii) Recommended Adjustments to Program iii Comments from Partici ants • • Orange County, North Carolina ~ STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff 110.1.20071 • • Table 2-8. Commercial Planning Flow Process - - - . A. Orange County Promotes SGRC Program After Approving Work through homebuilders and Ordinance Revisions realtor associations; distribute brochure; create on-fine, self-guided esentafion on SGRC ro ram B. SGRC Ordinance(s) Goes iMo Effect Note that the Conditional Use Zoning a. Create new field in Parcel GIS Database to Tog SGRC /Permit process would also need to Actions go into effect prior to initiating SGRC. b. IMemal Review with O.C. Staff to Rehearse SGRC Process C. Landowner Rural Conservation Area) Expresses]nterest to Orange County c. Name/Contact IMormation d. Parcel(s) IdeMificatton and Acreage/Number of SGRC Credih e. Known Resources Identified Through a Checklist f. Information on SGRC Pro ram Provided b OC Staff D. Validation of Participation Requirements in SGRC Program to Baseline Report (Figure 1) is prepared landowner (Rural Conservation Area) and logged into SGRC database. g. Validate Parcel(s) in Rural Conservation Area Participant is logged into the Rural h. Validate Resource Information Supplied by Landowner Conservation Area Participant i. Provide Addfional IMormation to Landowner on SGRC database (Figure 2). Pro ram 1. Developer Call / Visit to Planning 8, Zoning Initial communication with developer De artment 2. Locate and Define the Site Verify that the parcel meets location Water/Sewer Provision a requirements and the intended use . b. Inside Strategic Growth Area fits with land use /zoning ordinance table 3. Concept Review Attended by developer, Planning i) Discuss developer expectations for density and Staff and EDC Staff use Base zoning ii) Potential with density bonuses (e.g., LEED) c. Review the Development Process and Design Standards with and without SGRC d. Discuss potential issues that will need to be addressed in the design e. Notify Interested Rural Conservation Area A licants 4. Concept Plan Development In the concept plan for projects Sketch Plan f proposing to use SGRC, it would be . g. Location of Notable Features wise to have a qualitative notation identifying any resources, utilities, h. Negotiate with Rural Conservation Area roadways, or school capacities that Partici ants P () would be negatively affected should the SGRC option be pursued. 5. Pre-Application Conference Attended by developer, Planning i. Explain the review and approval process Staff and EDC Staff j. Identify remaining problems or issues that will need to be addressed prior to submittal of an a lication Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007) Table 2-8. Commercial Planning Flow Process (Continued) -. - - 4. Preliminary Plan Development The SGRC property valuation k. Detailed plan developed assessment would be presented at I. Binding Option Signed with R.C.A. landowner this time, should the Rural m. Easement Language and R.C.A. Strategic Growth Conservation Area landowner and developer mutualy agree that one is Area Shown on Map necessary. At this time, the developer could pursue a Development Agreement with the County as an alternative to the traditional a oval rocess. n~ la e e n. Pay Application Fee(s) ins on the first and Third Monday of each o. Staff review application to ensure it is complete month. If an application is not complete by the fifth day following the cycle deadline, the submittal will need to be resubmitted in a future review c cle. 6. Preliminary Staff Review/Distribution to Review A full list of the agencies who may be Agencies consulted to review the submittal is p. Planning Staff conduct internal review included in the Economic q. Agencies conduct review and submit comments Development District Design Manual to the Planning Department r. Staff compiles the comments and prepares a Preliminary Report. The report will be distributed to the developer and the review agencies prior to the Develo ment Review Meetin . 7. Development Review Meeting Attended by developer, Planning s. Agency comments summarized, conflicting Staff and review agencies requirements discussed t. Conduct R.C.A. Review (if initial review older than two years) u. Review Signed Binding Option Agreement v. Staff will decide to approve or deny application w. Approval will include all conditions and requirements necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance and the EDD Design Manual. x. Applicant notified in writing of decision to approve or den , alon with an conditions of a royal 8. County Commission Quarterly Public Hearing Map should note location of y. Present Final Easement language conservation easement. z, Present Map of Rural Conservation Area Property aa. Development Plan Review Board of Commissioners would approve/disapprove of a i. Approve Development Agreement at this ii. Disa rove pp stage, if appfrcable. iii. Approve w/Conditions (including SGRC Transaction) • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.20071 • Chapter 3. SGRC Performance: Measuring Success This.chapter describes how Orange County will 3.1 The Reason for Measuring Performance measure the We really don't know how much transfer credits are selling for, ongoing or how many have been created or applied in strategic performance and rowth areas. outputs of the SGRC 9 Program, and then During one of the peer conservation program interviews, this was describes ways of one of the responses we received. Not surprisingly, the South increasing or ('nrnlinn community that operated this particular development restraining the eme~-nt of-Sr~RC credit program did not advertise it or view it as a success: Other activity. communities did not aggressively report. the performance of their programs. Even though transfer credits have to be applied as deed restrictions (or, sometimes, covenants) and most transfer credit transactions can only occur as part of at least an administrative review process, it is possible that this statement can be true. Over time, as the SGRC program matures and the Orange County staff and elected /appointed officials that helped to create the program change, the potential for losing track of the SGRC program is great. Initially, the project team anticipates very few transactions, which may also create a tendency to stop recording information about the credit transactions that do occur. Measuring the performance of the SGRC Program allows • Orange County staff, officials, and citizens to determine if the Program is living up to their expectations, how to change the Program, and further promote it to reach potential participants. 3.2 Initial Benchmarks Books have been written; companies started and thrived; many lecture courses have been taught, and magazines and software programs launched to address performance measurement. Entering into a detailed discussion is not relevant, nor should the task of measuring performance be difficult or onerous for Orange County. Measuring performance simply requires four things to be successful: ^ Data, in a format and quantity that is suitable to the task; ^ Relationships, between the performance measurement(s) and the goals /objectives of the program; ^ Analysts, that are capable and have the time to prepare and report information to decision-makers; and ^ Reaction, from decision-makers to modify the program that is being measured. A SGRC scorecard has been created that describes a number of performance benchmarks that Orange County Planning and Zoning staff will complete as transfer credits are created and applied. Since the project team anticipates that, like almost all similar programs, the SGRC Program will begin slowly, the first two years will include a benchmark to measure how many contacts are made with property owners and developers inquiring about the Program. The SGRC scorecard is shown in Figure 3-1. • Orange County, North Cazolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007) figure 3-1. SGRC Scorecard • Orange County SGRC Scorecard Date Submitted: . Submitted To: As shown in the preceding figure, the following performance factors are included in the SGRC scorecard: ^ Inquiries About SGRC Program (Year 1 and 2 ONLY) ^ Number of SGRC Acres Conserved ^ Average Price per Conservation Credit ^ Low Price for Conservation Credit ^ High Price for Conservation Credit ^ Units Constructed Using SGRC Credits ^ SGRC Credits Extinguished ^ Existing Development Allowed ^ SGRC Development Allowed ^ Variance (Existing v. SGRC Development) The first six measures are oriented towards measuring effects on Strategic Growth areas; the remaining measures are dedicated to realizing the effects of the SGRC Program on Rural Conservation areas. The area for comments at the bottom of the scorecard is reserved for notes on performance and issues that may have arisen during the course of the year regarding comments received from participants and staff. The first measure, • Orange County, North Carolina ~ STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007) Inquiries about the SGRC Program, may include meetings with developers; baseline reports prepared for Rural Conservation Area participants; or other contacts with potential participants. After the second performance report is issued to the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners, this measure will be dropped, since the Program should have "legs" by then and recording inquiries can be time-consuming. 3.3 Monitoring Performance No performance measurement system works without some time dedicated to its maintenance and a process for implementing change to improve performance (and The followin sections describe how the performance of the SGRC Program works, and suggestions for making changes o e Program, if determined by the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Board. 3.3. t Performance Reporting The only times that the Orange County Planning staff should make a record in the SGRC scorecard are when (A) an inquiry or contact is made about the SGRC Program (first two years only); (Bj when a transfer credit is purchased or sold; or (C) when a transfer credit is actually applied during the (conditional use) development review /approval process. The general steps for monitoring performance are outlined below. Step 1. Collect Data. Orange County staff (Planning Department) should maintain records on inquiries (first two years only); when a transfer credit is purchased /sold; and, at the end of the development review process, note the number of credits extinguished and amount of development that occurred with the credits as opposed to the development that would have occurred without the SGRC Program in place. Step 2. Present to Planning Board. At the beginning of the new fiscal year (July), Orange County staff will submit the SGRC scorecard to the Planning Board for their review and comment. The Planning Board and staff will discussion options for modifying the existing SGRC Program based on the indications provided by the scorecard. Step 3. Present to Board of County Commissioners and Take Public .Comments. The Board of County Commissioners should have one meeting to discuss the results of the SGRC Program for the previous year, and a second meeting (September) to take comments and present recommended changes to make the SGRC Program better serve the community. Step 4. Making Changes. Orange County Planning staff, county manager, land records, legal counsel, and other service divisions should have one coordination meeting to discuss changes. The Orange County Planning staff will follow-up to ensure that these changes are carried out by the end of the calendar year (December). Education materials and presentations may have to be modified; any changes to the code of ordinances may occur at a later time, but within the first three months of the new calendar year (January - Marchj. This would require another pass. through the Board review /adoption process, and review at a Quarterly Public Hearing. • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM - Draff (10.1.20071 3.3.2 Ways to Encourage Additional SGRC Activity • During the performance monitoring process, it is likely that one or more changes to the SGRC Program will be suggested, particularly to increase or, less likely, to decrease the amount of participation in the SGRC Program. The following are suggestions on how to modify the Program to encourage more participation from the development community and landowners (NOTE: The following are not in priority order). Option Number 1: Streamline the Planning Review Process. Developer representatives - on the initial Task Force and during external interviews expressed interest in shortening the development review process that Orange County uses in order to gain interest in the SGRC Program. In particular, the Quarterly Public Hearing process can add three or more mon s on o e review. , utilizes a "One-Step Special Review" process to review proposed private developments that make use of development credit transactions. The trade-off is that there is less time for the public and other stakeholders to review a proposed project, perhaps especially meaningful in the early stages of the SGRC Program. Option Number 2: Engage Municipalities in Orange County in SGRC. Any significant expansion of the SGRC Program is quite likely to require the involvement of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, Mebane, or Carrboro. Although the rewards to the towns are smaller, participating in SGRC still translates into a surrounding area that retains a rural character. Option Number 3: Create a SGRC Approval Procedure that is Conducted Administratively. While the Conditional Use Permit process that is indicated by the Implementation Plan has benefits, it nevertheless requires aquasi-judicial hearing on its actions. Creating a mechanism that can approve SGRC transactions by Orange County staff -under well-managed guidelines -may reduce the risk or perception of risk that a private developer will invest in aless-established planning process to gain the desired result. Like streamlining, this option would tend to reduce the amount of public scrutiny to SGRC-enhanced private development proposals, and is better considered after the program has become established over a period of time. An additional drawback is the necessity of ensuring legal sufficiency in any SGRC-type program, a circumstance that will need to analyzed carefully prior to modifying the program to a more administratively-owned process. 3.3.3 Ways to Reduce Participation in SGRC Although the project team considers the situation highly unlikely, there are conceivable situations where the public, elected officials, or staff feel that slowing down or adding more conditions to the SGRC Program is desirable. The following, not in priority order, are measures that, while enhancing the benefits of the SGRC Program, would likely reduce participation by Strategic Growth or Rural Conservation participants, or both groups. Option Number 1: Make Affordable Housing and LEED Design Practices Required. Currently, a Strategic Growth Participant (e.g., private development interest) can optionally choose to bolster the density in an eligible proposed development by demonstrating a commitment to either or both affordable housing and LEED design practices. By requiring such participation as a precondition, the number of interested development parties would be reduced, although the benefits of inclusionary housing Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007 • practices and energy-efficient structures would accrue to all of the remaining SGRC transactions. Option Number 2: Modify Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation Area Extent or Conditions. By reducing the amount of land eligible to participate in the SGRC program, there wlll be fewer participants. For example, increasing minimum parcel size to something greater than 50 acres would sharply reduce the amount of Rural Conservation participation, as would limiting the Rural Conservation areas to the three critical watersheds in Orange County or productive farming operations. The effect would be to have a more focused conservation program with fewer participants, and the potential for fewer SGRC transactions. • • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007) APPENDICES A. Draft SGRC Implementation Plan B. Draft Land Development Ordinances C. SGRC Ordinance. Template D. Sample Conservation Easement Template E. Sample Reporting Figures (MS-Excel native format) F. Summary of Public Engagement Process G. SGRC Education. and Marketing Plan H. TDR Program Manager Case Studies (Implementation Phase) t Orange County, North Cazolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff ~ 10.1.2007) A. .Draft SGRC implementation Plan Please see the following pages, which are intended to print on 11 x 17 paper. • Orange County, North Carolina DRAFT How Does the program Work For Conservation Area LandownersT How Does the Program Work for Growth Area Landowners/Developere7 Step 1. Come Into the Orange County Planning and Zoning Office and ask to work with our ateft to complete a Baseline Repport describing how many Conserve n Area Points (CAPs) your props Is worth. Any portion of your Orange County property~0 or more acres In size in en e6glble Conservation Area can be conserved with the SGRC program. SmaAer properties may also be eAipible, and all eligible properties eam extra CAPs If the property has wegands, drinking water supply, natural habitat areas, ar meets other historic or environmental criteria. Step 2.Orange County will contact you when someone interested In purchasing your CAPs has contacted ua. We will put you in touch with the Growth Area property owner to work out your own price for your CAPs. Step 3.Once the devebpment process has been ap- proved, the Growth Area property owner will pay you for your CAPs; at that time, you will have to sign an agree- ment toplace a conaervatlon easement on that portion of your property that will remain undeveloped In perpetu- ity. Step 1. Come Into the Orange County Planning end Zoning Department to get familiar with the SGRC plan- ning process and requirements, including streamlining the development review process and getting'bonus credit" for Including eftordable housing and LEED-certl- fled elements. Step 2. During the devebpment of your conceptual site plan, our alaft will work with you to determine how many residential units you can place onyour property with and without ppurchasing Conservation Areas Points (CAPs) from a Conservation Area, property owner perticlpagng in the SGRC program. Step 3. If you choose to use CAPS from the SGRC progrem, we wIB contact property owners with CAPs to sell. You will then negotiate direcdy with them on the price of the CAPs. Step 4.Onca the devebpment pro)ect Is approved, you must pay the Conservation Area participant prior to startMg wnsWdion on any phase of the project. Define how the program would work Put the plan into effect STRATEGIC GROWTH 8r CONSERVATION PLAN This Strategic Growth 8 Rural Conse Plan (the SGRC Plan) documents C County's vision for a program that will i options for preserving some of the G rural areas through incentives for strategy planned growth in its urbanizing areas Plan presents the SGRC Program goa objectives, developed in consultation w Board of County Commissioners. The Plan also outlines how the program woul and how it would be administered. [ Growth Areas (GAs) and Conservation (CAs) are Illustrated in a map. The Strategic Growth & Conservation the third part of a four-part planning F undertaken by Orange County begin) 2005 (see back page for a description of phases). The planning process was cor for the County by a consuRant team fror Berger Group, Inc. and UNC Charlott oversight by County staff, and with input citizen Task Force, a Working Group of Advisory and Planning Boards, and the p The s and ;h the iGRC I work efined Areas 'Ian is ~ocess ng in dl four iucted Louis , with T ~ ~ i ~ Program Administration SGRC PROGRAM GOALS • • I • DRAFT Desiggnated Growth Areas. Growth Areas are comprised of the folktw(ng (except as noted bebw): I. Economic Devebpmenl Zoning Districts; ii. Rural Community Nodes or 10-year and 20-year Urbanizing TrensfUon Areas In the Eflend-Mebane area as depicted In the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element; iii. Land within the County jurisdiction Joint planning areas or Hillsborough Transition areas as depicted In the proposed Hillsborough SUategic Plan. Propertles are excluded from Growth Areas and ere designated as Conservation Areas K any of these cdterla are met: I. Enrolled in the state's use value tax-assessment progrem; Ii. Llaled on the Natlonal Historic Raglaler, or Is oUterwlae designated as a hlslodc Bite or as containing a historic structure; ill. Contains environmenialy sensitive features or areas: 1. Water Supply V1laterehed designated Critical Area; 2. Within 150 feet of the main body or perennial stream of a river, 3. A wetland; 4. A Natural Hedtage Inventory site; 5. A Prime Rated Forest Habitat area; or, 5. A VNWgfe Corridor area. Elig(bflity. All Growth Area properties that are not subject to a conservation easement, deed restriction or other enforceable agreement prohibiting development are eligible to paNGpate in the SGRC Program. D@VelOpment Intensity Bonus. Eligible Growtlt Area properly owners may apply for a devebpment Intensity bonus to be awarded upon conveyance to the County of a prvately-purchased conservator easement on an eligible Conservation Area property. a. For Residentlai Devebpmenl: I. CAPs are trenalated to Growth Area development intensity bonuses at a 3:1 ratio, meaning for every 3 CAPs assigned to the conservation easement, 1 additlonal housing unit may be built in the Growth Area properly. Ii. Allematlvely, owner of propertles 25 acres or larger may enter Into a Development Agreement with the County, which will negotlale a devebpment Intensity bonus taking CAPs Into axount ebng with other factors, such as provision of affordable housing or LEED- certlfled conatructlon. ill. The final gross density of projects using CAPs may not exceed 15 housing units per acre. b. For Non-Reaidentlal or Mixed-use Devebpmenl: I.Ownero of propeNea 25 acres or larger may enter Into e Development Agreement with the County, which will negotlate a development Inlensgy bonus taking CAPs Into account ebng with other performance factors agreed to by the properly owner. ii. Propertlea of less than 25 acres are not eligible at this Ume for non- residential or mixed-use density bonuses through the progrem, but may be added to the program at a later date. Design Requirements. Design requirements will be deveoped based on the County's design guideUnea developed for the Efland- Mebane area. These will apply to all Growth Area properties participating In the SGRC Program and wig serve to ensure that the Increased devebpment intensity dose not negatlvey impact nearby land values or quagty of life. STRATEGIC GROWTH & RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM MAP QONSERVATION AREAS Conservation Areas. All land within County land fiction that la not designated as Growth Area Is designated Iiglplnty. Not all propartlea within the designated Consarvatlon Areas e eligible to participate In the SGRC Program. Eligibigty criteria are: Mual have unused development potentlal based on current land rvelopment regulations and absence of any dead restrictions or maervatlon easements. Must meet at least one of the following additional criteria: i. Is 50 acres or larger II. Is adjacent to a publicly-owned perk designated prtmadty for natural habitat preservation or passive recreatlon, or to a privately-owned properly under a permanent conservatlon easement; ill, is enrolled In the state's use value tax assessment program; iv. Contains a National Historic Register site or structure. v. Is in a Water Suppy Waterehed designated CdUcal Area; vl. Contains land that is within 150 feet of the main body or perennial stream of a river; vll. Contains a wetland; viii. Contains a Natural Heritage Inventory site; ix. Contains a Prime Rated Forest Habgat area; or, x. Contains a WIIdIKe Conidor area; Owners of properties amager than 50 acres may agree to bundle their :reage to meet that criteria, provided that ag properties in the bundle set the criteria for unused devebpment potential. onservation Area Points. Proposed conservatlon easements t eligible Conservation Area properties are assigned Conservation Area Dints (CAPs) as folbwa: One CAP per acre Is awarded to all partidpatlng CA properties; Additional CAPs based on pre-easement taxassesaed land value: Tax-assessed Additional CAPs lend value per acre per acre SO - 8,999.99 0.0 510,000 -14,999.99 0.5 515,D00 -19,999.98 0.9 520,000 - 24,998.99 1.2 525,000 - 29,999.99 1.4 53D,D00 and higher 1.5 Up to one additional credit per acre based on actual acreage meeting iy one or more of eligibility criteria III-x above, or wntaining steep sbpes 25% or higher. Growth Area Watershed CriUcalArea (CA Eligible) Already Protected Properties (CA Ineligible) Conservatlon Area Eligible Properties Lakes, Rivers Conservation Area Ineligible Properties ~ilunlc(p`a~iUes ~~'w`-` i STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM - Draff (10.1.2007) - ~. Draft land Development Ordirtances i • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (1 Q.1.2007~ C. SGRC Ordinance Templafie • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007) D. Sample Conservation Easement Template The following sample should be considered a draft presentation of a conservation easement pending full legal review. This draft was created from the existing Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) conservation easement used by Orange County, as well as research into other easement texts. • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTFI AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff / 10.1.2007) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE WARRANTY DEED OF STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM (SGRC) EASEMENT This Deed of Agricultural Conservation Easement ("Conservation Easement") is granted on this _ day of , 20~ by and , [husband and wife,] having an address of Road, , NC 27_ (referred to as , , Hillsborough, NC 27278 (referred to as "Grantee"). PART L GRANTOR CONDTI'IONS WHEREAS: (1) Grantors aze the sole owners in fee simple, of certain farm Property, more particulazly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property"), which consists of approximately acres of land, located in Township, Orange County, North Cazolina and identified as that portion of Tract that is not depicted as " " on the plat of property titled "Property of ," prepazed by ,Inc., which plat is recorded at Plat Book _, Page _, Orange County Registry (PIN -_ _~. The Properly includes buildings and other improvements, which are shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. (2) Development rights are transferred from sending sites through the issuance of "Sending Area Credits" pursuant to [cite Orange County code], a process which requires the grant of a conservation easement restricting development on the Sending Site. (3) SGRC certificates can be freely sold by the sending site landowner to whom they aze issued. Receiving site landowners who obtain SGRC certificates may use those certificates to obtain density bonuses or other development incentives pursuant to applicable county regulations. (4) Pursuant to [cite Orange County code], Grantors submitted an application to obtain a SGRC Sending Area Certificate on ,(hereinafter "SGRC Certificate Application") for certain real property (hereinafter "Protected Property") owned by Grantors in fee simple and located in Township, Orange County in the State of North Carolina, described in a deed to Grantors, dated and recorded under Orange County Auditor's File No. , at Orange County Registry of Deeds. A legal description of the Protected Property is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. (5) T'he SGRC Certificate Application materials submitted by Grantors are on file with the County, in the Land Use Records Management System under File No. ,and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. These application materials detailed existing conditions on the Protected Property and stated Grantors' intentions concerning future residential development, if any, to occur on the Protected Property. The Grantors represent that these application materials reflect existing conditions on the Protected Property as of the date this Easement is executed, as well as the Grantors' intentions concerning future residential development, if any, to occur on the Protected Property. • Orange County, North Cazolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff ~ 10.1.20071 (6) Pursuant to [cite Orange County code], the County issued a SGRC certificate Letter of Intent on , a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. In the letter, the County agreed to issue Grantors SGRC Certificates, to be numbered ,provided that the Grantors grant a conservation easement on the Protected Property to Orange County in accordance with the requirements of [cite Orange County code]. (7) Consistent with the foregoing requirements, and subject to the specific terms of this Easement contained herein, the Grantors and the County, as Grantee of the Easement, intend and have the common purpose of retaining the Protected Property for agricultural use by placing restrictions on the use of the Protected Property, which shall run with the land and bind the Protected Property in perpetuity. PART II, CONSERVATION VALUES OF EASEMENT PROPERTY The Property consists or possesses one or more of the following characteristics that make it suitable for conservation under the Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation Program of Orange County: (1) The Property contains productive agricultural land. The majority of the soils on the Property have been classified as "prime" or "statewide important" soils by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, (also referred to as "NRCS" or "the United States: ') It is the primary purpose of this Conservation Easement to protect the agricultural soils and agricultural viability and productivity of the Property. (2) The Property includes outstanding woodland and/or riparian habitats for a variety of wildlife species of importance to the Grantors, the people of Orange County and the people of North Cazolina. (3) The Property includes perennial waters, namely ,and .Said waters flow into reservoirs that provide a portion of the drinking water supply of the people of Orange County, making the preservation of the property important to the health and welfaze of the general public. Portions of the Property are within the Protected Watershed. (4) The Property includes structure(s) and/or district(s) listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including > and .Said structure(s) and/or district(s) possess historic values that can be appreciated by the people of Orange County and the people of the State of North Cazolina. Furthermore, the Property contains outstanding scenic qualities that can be enjoyed by the general public, namely the views along Road (State Road , The resources, including the agricultural value of soils; wetland and water supply provisions; historic property value; and wildlife habitat and scenic resources of the Property to be preserved by this Conservation Easement aze collectively referred to as the "conservation values" of the Property. The specific conservation values of the Property and its current use and state of improvement aze described in a Baseline Report ("Report") prepazed by the Grantee with the cooperation of the Grantors, and acknowledged by both parties to be accurate as of the date of this Conservation Easement. This Report, attached as Exhibit E, may be used by the Grantee to document any future changes in the use or character of the Property in order to ensure the terms and conditions of this Conservation Easement aze fulfilled. The Baseline Report, however, is not intended to preclude the use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the Property if there is a controversy over its use. The Grantors and Grantee have i Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft ~ 10.1.2007) copies of this Report, and said report will remain on file at the office of the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. The Grantors and Grantee agree that the current use of, and improvements to, the Property are consistent with the conservation purposes of this Conservation Easement. The Grantors intend that the conservation values of the Property be preserved and maintained, and further, Grantors intend to convey to the Grantee the right to preserve and protect the conservation values of the Property in perpetuity. The conservation purposes of this Conservation Easement aze recognized by, and the grant of this Conservation Easement will serve, the following cleazly delineated governmental conservation policies: (1) Sections 1238 H and 1238 I of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, which authorizes the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, administered through the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, which provides funds for the acquisition of Conservation Easements or other interests in prime, unique, or other productive soils for the purpose of limiting conversion to nonagricultural uses of the land; (2) North Cazolina General Statute 139-2 et seq., which provides that "it is hereby declared ...that the farm, forest and grazing lands of the State of North Cazolina aze among the basic assets of the State and the preservation of these lands is necessary to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfaze of its people... it is hereby declazed to be the policy of the legislature to provide for the conservation of the soil and resources of this State;" (3) North Cazolina General Statute 106-583 et seq., which states that "It is declared to be the policy of the State of North Cazolina to promote the efficient production and utilization of the products of the soil as essential to the health and welfaze of our people and to promote a sound and prosperous agriculture and rural life as indispensable to the maintenance of maximum prosperity;" (4) The Uniform North Cazolina Conservation and Historic Preservation Agreements Act, North Cazolina General Statute 121-34 et seq., which provides for the enforceability of restrictions, easements, covenants or conditions "appropriate for retaining in land or water azeas predominantly in their natural, scenic, or open condition or in agricultural, horticultural, farming or forest use;" and which provides for tax assessment of lands subject to such agreements "on the basis of the true value of the land and improvement less any reduction in value caused by the agreement;" (5) The North Cazolina Conservation Tax Credit Program, North Cazolina General Statute 105- 130.34 and 105-151.12 et seq., which provides for state income tax credits for donations of land that are useful for fish and wildlife conservation and other similaz land conservation purposes; (6) The establishment of the North Cazolina Farmland Preservation Trust Fund established in 1986 (N.C.G.S. 106-744(c)) to preserve important farmland in North Cazolina; (7) The special use assessment of farm and forestland as set forth in North Carolina General Statute 105-277.2 et s,eq.; and (8) The zoning of the Property by Orange County as (9) the Orange County Boazd of Commissioners' goal (adopted June 21, 1999) to identify and coordinate the preservation of the County's most significant natural azeas; and • Orange Co~mty, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Droll (10.1.2007) (10) the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (adopted September 2, 1981 as amended) with its goal of conserving and protecting Orange County's significant "Resource Protection Areas" from adverse development impacts, including natural areas, wildlife corridors and lands placed by individual property owners into conservation easements; and (11) the protection of similaz Orange County properties designed to protect conservation and open space values through conservation easements granted to the Grantee and others in the vicinity of the Grantors' Property; and (12) Article 17 of the North Cazolina General Statutes NCGS 113A-24, entitled Conservation, Farmland and Open Space Protection and Coordination, otherwise known as the "Million Acre Initiative," appropriate federal, State, local, and private land protection efforts so that an additional one million acres of farmland, open space and conservation lands in the State are permanently protected by December 31, 2009; (13) the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, North Cazolina General Statute 113-145.1 et seq., which recognizes the importance of protecting riparian buffers in conserving clean surface water; and (14) the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 enacted by the National Park Service (Public Law 89-665; 80 STAT.915; 16 U.S.C. 470) which states that, "historic properties significant to the Nation's heritage are being lost or substantially altered, often inadvertently, with increasing frequency," and that "the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans: 'Orange County is a Certified Local Government, actively participating in the identification, evaluation, and protection of historic properties. PART IIL PURPOSE OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT Grantors and Grantee have the common purpose of protecting the above-described conservation values and current condition of the Property and preventing conversion of the Property for any use that diminishes the Conservation Values as stipulated in Part II except as otherwise allowed in this Agreement. The Grantors agree to create and implement a conservation plan (hereinafter the "Conservation Flan") that is developed utilizing the standards and specification of the NRCS field office technical guide and 7 CFR part 12, and is approved by the local Soil and Water Conservation District; The Grantee is a body politic existing under Chapter 153A of the North Carolina General Statutes, and is qualified to hold Conservation Easements under the applicable laws of the State of North Cazolvna; NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons given and other good and valuable consideration and in consideration of their mutual covenants, terms, conditions and restrictions contained herein, the Grantors hereby grant and convey unto the Grantee a Conservation Easement, of the nature and character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, in respect to the Property as described in Exhibit A; The terms, conditions and restrictions of the Conservation Easement are as hereinafter set forth: 1. Grant of Conservation Easement Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (f 0.1.2007) Grantors hereby voluntarily grant and convey to the Grantee, and the Grantee hereby voluntarily accepts, a perpetual Conservation Easement in the Property, which easement is an immediately vested interest in real property. the nature and character described herein. Grantors promise that they will not perform, nor knowingly allow others to perform, any act on or affecting the Property that is inconsistent with the covenants herein. Grantors authorize the Grantee to enforce these covenants in the manner described below. Grantors hereby voluntarily grant and convey to the Grantee all development rights for the Properly, except as otherwise reserved and provided by the terms of this Conservation Easement, that are now or hereafter inherent in the Property. The parties agree that such development rights aze terminated and extinguished, and may not be used on or transferred to any other property adjacent or otherwise, nor used +~,-ro~~^,f^ale>~g$eissiblP Iot~iPld of thP~e*ty ~r and, other--Rrope~Y 2. Statement of Purpose It is the primary purpose of this Agricultural Conservation Easement to enable the Property to remain in agricultural use by preserving and protecting its agricultural soils and agricultural viability and productivity. Except as specifically permitted herein, no activity that would impair the actual or potential agricultural use of the Property shall be permitted. To the extent that the preservation and protection of the natural, historic, recreational, habitat or scenic values referenced in this Conservation Easement are consistent with the primary purpose stated above, it is within the purpose of this Conservation Easement to also protect those values, and no activity that would significantly impair those values shall be permitted. [OR] The purposes of this Conservation Easement aze to ensure that the Easement Area will be retained forever predominantly in its [e.g., natural, scenic, forested, and/or open space] condition; to protect native plants, animals, or plant communities on the Easement Area, while allowing traditional uses on the Easement Area that aze compatible with and not destructive of the conservation values of the Easement Area such as [selective timber harvesting, grazing and farming of existing pastures and fields and hunting]; and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will impair or interfere with the conservation values or interests of the Easement Area. This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. It is an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against the Grantors, their representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents, and licensees. 3. Rights and Responsibilities Retained by Grantors Subject to the terms and restrictions hereof, the Grantors reserve to and for themselves and their successors the right to quiet enjoyment of the Property and the right to partake in passive recreation on the Property. The Grantors reserve to and for themselves and their successors all customary rights and privileges of ownership, including the rights to sell, lease, and devise the Property, provided such transaction is subject to the terms of this Conservation Easement and written notice is provided to the Grantee, together with any rights not specifically prohibited by or limited by this Conservation Easement, and consistent with this Conservation Easement. Unless otherwise specified below, nothing in this Conservation Easement shall require the Grantors to take any action to restore the condition of the Property after any Act of God or other event over which they had no control. Grantors understand that nothing in this Deed relieves them of any obligation or restriction on the use of the Property imposed by law. • Change County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft () 0.1.2007 4. Right to Farm . Grantors retain the right to farm, or to permit others fo farm the Property, consistent with the conservation values of the Property and in accordance with applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. Subject to the terms of this Agricultural Conservation Easement, farming, grazing, horticultural and animal husbandry operations aze permitted only if conducted consistent with Best Management Practices promulgated by the State of North Cazolina and in conformity with a Conservation Plan as required in Pazagraph 9 of this Conservation Easement. Cattle and other livestock aze allowed to exist and to graze on the Property, except within [100] feet of a stream nr nthar water hndy-the locations of which aze identified and mazked on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein. Exhibit B is a copy of a GIS rendering of the Property, the original of which will be maintained with the Baseline Report at the office of the Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department. [If applicable: Fencing intended to keep cattle and other livestock . out of the 100-foot stream buffer shall be installed no later than six months after the signing of this Conservation Easement.] S. Right to Privacy Grantors retain the right to privacy and the right to exclude any member of the public from trespassing on the Property. This Conservation Easement does not create any rights of the public in, on or to the Property. 6. Right to Use the Property for Customary Rural Enterprises • Grantors retain the right to use the portion of the Property within the "Farmstead Area" (which contains approximately acres) as identified on Exhibit B, and more particularly described in the Baseline Report, for otherwise lawful and customary rural enterprises, such as, but not limited to, farm machinery repair, sawmills, firewood distribution, or educational programs so long as such activities are consistent with Orange County zoning regulations and permits required by and issued by Orange County under its laws and ordinances, and are conducted in buildings otherwise permitted under this Conservation Easement in a manner that is consistent with the conservation purposes of this Conservation Easement. Conducting customary rural enterprises on any other part of the Property is not permitted without the advance written permission of the Grantee in each instance. Grantee shall not give such permission unless Grantee determines that the proposed use will not diminish or impair the conservation values of the Property. 7. Procedure to Construct Buildings and Other Improvements The Grantors' rights to construct or reconstruct buildings and other improvements are described in subpazagraphs (a) through (fj below. Any construction or reconstruction not permitted below is prohibited. Before undertaking any construction or reconstruction that requires advance permission, the Grantors shall notify the Grantee and obtain written permission. All construction or reconstruction is subject to Orange County zoning regulations and must be consistent with permits required by and issued by Orange County under its laws and ordinances for such construction activities. (a) Fences -Existing fences may be repaired and replaced, and new fences may be built on the Property for purposes of reasonable and customary management of livestock and wildlife or to fence off the perimeter of the Property without any further permission of the Grantee. ~ • Orange County, North Carolina ' STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007) • (b) Structures & Improvements -Structures, improvements and other impervious surfaces located on the Property, including those existing on the date of this Agricultural Conservation Easement, shall not exceed 2 percent of the total area of the Property. Existing structures, including existing agricultural structures and existing improvements, may be repaired, reasonably enlarged and replaced at their current locations within the "Farmstead Area," as shown on Exhibit B, without further permission from the Grantee. New buildings, barns, sheds and other structures and improvements to be used primarily for agricultural purposes, including the processing or sale of farm products predominantly grown or raised on the Property, may be built on the Property without any further permission of the Grantee provided they are located in the "Farmstead Area." r'F-applisal~le la~istingr~sidential strncturec and imnrovements,~y be repaired, reasonably enlazged and replaced at their current locations within the "Existing Residential Envelopes," as shown on Exhibit B, without further permission from the Grantee. New accessory structures and improvements may be built on the Property without any further permission of Grantee provided they aze located in the "Existing Residential Envelopes."] Structures, improvements and other impervious surfaces located in the "Farmstead Area," including those existing on the date of this Agricultural Conservation Easement, shall not exceed percent of the total area of the "Farmstead Area" or result in exceeding the total impervious surface limit on the Property of percent. Any new buildings, structures or improvements proposed for locations outside the "Farmstead Area" may be built only with the advance written permission of the Grantee. The Grantee shall give such permission within a reasonable time if it determines that the proposed building, structure or improvement would not diminish or impair the conservation values of the Property or • otherwise be inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. (c) Farm Support Housing - No more than [one (1)] new single - or multi-family -dwelling to house farm tenants, employees or others engaged in agricultural production on the Property may be built on the Property without any further permission of the Grantee, provided the dwelling is less than . 1,000 squaze feet in floor azea and is located within that azea identified and mazked as the "Farmstead Area" identified on Exhibit B. At the time that construction of such structure is to commence, Grantee shall be notified so that its records can be updated. (d) Single-Family Residential Dwellings - residential dwelling exists on the Property within the Farmstead Area. All appurtenant structures (garage, sheds) shall be contained within the "Farmstead Area." No new residential dwelling may be built on the Property except for that which is authorized in Paragraph 7(c) of this Conservation Easement. (e) Recreational improvements -Grantors expressly reserve the right to engage in recreational activities requiring no surface alteration of the land and posing no threat to the conservation values set herein such as hunting, fishing, hiking, bird watching, etc. and to control access of all persons for the purpose of hunting and fishing; provided that these activities do not impact the protection and conservation of any animal habitat or other conservation values of the property. However; under no circumstances shall golf courses or ranges, airstrips or helicopter pads be constructed, placed or permitted to remain on the Property. . (f) Utility Services and Septic Systems -Installation, maintenance, repair, replacement, removal and relocation of electric, gas, and water facilities, sewer lines and/or other public or private utilities, including telephone or other communication services over or under the Property for the purpose of providing electrical, gas, water, sewer, or other utilities to serve improvements permitted herein, and • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007) the right to grant easements over and under the Property for such purposes, is permitted. Grantors shall • not permit or grant easements for utility transmission or distribution facilities or systems without the written consent of the Grantee. Maintenance, repair or improvement of a septic system(s) or other underground sanitary system that exists on the Property at the time of this Conservation Easement, or the construction of a septic or other underground sanitary system, for the benefit of any of the improvements permitted herein, is permitted. All other utilities aze prohibited on the Property including, but not limited to, cellulaz communication towers or structures. 8. Subdivision The Property currently consists of one tract / tracts of land. The further subdivision of the Property, including its partition, is prohibited except as may be required by Orange County to enable the construction of the farm support dwelling provided for in Paragraph 7(c). In the event a farm support dwelling is constructed that requires Orange County subdivision approval, the subdivided lot shall, so long as this Conservation Easement is applicable to the Property, remain in the same ownership as the pazent parcel from which the farm support dwelling lot is divided. This prohibition applies regazdless of how many separately described parcels aze contained in the legal description attached as Exhibit A. In any event, all terms, restrictions, and conditions of this Conservation Easement shall apply to any subdivided pazcel permitted by the terms of this Conservation Easement, including but not limited to the requirements of agricultural viability of the Property, the restrictions on future development, the impervious surface limits on the Property as described in Pazagraph 7(b) of this Conservation Easement, the necessity of a Conservation Plan, and the prohibition on activities that aze described in this Conservation Easement. It is understood that notice of this Conservation Easement will be included in any instrument recorded that subdivides, partitions or otherwise divides pazcels. 9. Conservation Practices • As required by Section 1238 I of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, the Grantors, their heirs, successors, or assigns, shall conduct all agricultural operations on the Property in a manner consistent with a Conservation Plan prepazed in consultation with NRCS and approved by the Soil and Water Conservation District. This Conservation Plan shall be developed using the standazds and specifications of the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide and 7 CFR Part 12 that aze in effect on the date of execution of this Conservation Easement. The Grantors may, however, develop and implement a Conservation Plan that proposes a higher level of conservation and is consistent with the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide standazds and specifications. MRCS shall have the right to enter upon the Property, with advance notice to the Grantors, in order to monitor compliance with the Conservation Plan. In the event of noncompliance with the Conservation Plan, NRCS shall work with the Grantors to explore methods of compliance and give the Grantors a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed twelve months, to take corrective action. If the Grantors do not comply with the Conservation Plan, NRCS will inform the Grantee of the Grantors' non-compliance. The Grantee shall take all reasonable steps (including efforts at securing voluntary compliance and, if necessary, appropriate legal action) to secure compliance with the Conservation Plan following written notification from NRCS that (a) there is a substantial, ongoing event or circumstance ofnon-compliance with the Conservation Plan, (b) NRCS has worked with the Grantors to correct such noncompliance, and (c) Grantors have exhausted their appeal rights under applicable NRCS regulations. If the NRCS standazds and specifications for highly erodible land aze revised after the date of this Grant based on an Act of Congress, NRCS will work cooperatively with the Grantors to develop and implement a revised Conservation Plan. The provisions of this section apply to the highly erodible land conservation requirements of the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program and aze not intended to affect any other natural resources conservation requirements to which the Grantors may be or may become subject. • Orange County, North Cazolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (i 0.1.2007 • 10. Forest Mana ement g Trees may be removed, cut and otherwise managed to control insects and disease, to prevent personal injury and property damage, to remove non-native species, for pasture restoration, for firewood and other non-commercial uses, including construction of permitted improvements and fences on the Property, so long as it is in accordance with the Conservation Plan referenced in Paragraph 9 of this Conservation Easement and in accordance with a forest management plan prepared by a professional licensed forester approved by Grantee, such approval to not be unreasonably withheld, that is consistent with the above referenced Conservation Plan. Any other cutting, removal or harvesting of trees, including any commercial harvesting of trees, may be un a en wi a areas >i en ie an mar e for clearing land for cultivation or use by livestock, and b) it occurs outside of the stream buffer described in Paragraph 4 of this Conservation Easement, and c) it is in accordance with the Conservation Plan and forest management plan referred to in this Paragraph 10. Trees may be planted, harvested and removed within the area identified and marked as "Farmstead Area" on Exhibit B without the advance written permission of the Grantee, so long as done in accordance with the Conservation Plan and forest management plan referred to in this Paragraph 10. 11. Inning There shall be no filling, excavation, dredging, mining or drilling, removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals or other materials; and no change in the topography of the land in any manner except as necessary for the purpose of combating erosion or flooding in accordance with the Conservation Plan and as reasonably necessary for any permitted maintenance, construction or reconstruction on the Property. Disturbed areas for the purpose of removing soil, gravel, rock, peat, minerals or other materials necessary for permitted customary agricultural uses on the Property will be limited to 1 acre in total surface azea and will be restored as soon as practicable after the disturbance. Under no circumstances is the drilling for or exploration for hydrocarbons permitted in, on or to the Property. 12. Paving and Road Construction Construction and maintenance of farm roads that may be reasonably necessary and incidental to carrying out the improvements and uses permitted on the Property by this Conservation Easement are permitted. Other than the existing entrance driveways within the Farmstead Area, as indicated on Exhibit B no portion of the Property shall be paved or otherwise covered with concrete, asphalt, rock, gravel or any other impervious material, without the advance written permission of Grantee. Grantee shall not give such permission unless Grantee determines that the proposed paving, or covering of the soil, or the location of any such road, will not diminish or impair the conservation values of the Property. Any such road covered by any impervious material including rock or gravel is subject to impervious surface requirements in Paragraph 7. 13. Dumping and Trash Dumping or storage of soil, trash, refuse, debris, ashes, gazbage, waste, abandoned vehicles or parts, appliances, machinery, or hazardous substances, or toxic or hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or above ground storage tanks or other materials is prohibited. Provided, however, that the storage of agricultural products, byproducts (including the composting of biodegradable material for on- farm use) and agricultural equipment used on the Property is allowable, so long as such storage is done in Orange County, North Carolina ' STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff ~ 10.1.2007) accordance with all applicable government laws and regulations and in such a manner so as to not impair • the conservation values of the Property. The land application, storage and placement on the Property of domestic septic e$Iuent and municipal sewage sludge or liquid generated from such sources for agricultural purposes may be undertaken only if in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 14. Water Rights Grantors shall retain and reserve the right to use any appurtenant water rights sufficient to maintain the agricultural productivity of the Property. Grantors shall not transfer, encumber, lease, sell or otherwise sepazate such water rights from title to the Property itself. 1 S. Natural Resource Restoration and Enhancement Activities Notwithstanding any terms contained within this Conservation Easement, Grantors may engage or contract others to engage in any activity designed to repair, restore, or otherwise enhance the natural resources found or once present on the Property, that aze consistent with the conservation values of this Conservation Easement and subject to the written approval of Grantee and NRCS. 16. Signs No new signs shall be permitted on the Property except interpretive signs describing activities and conservation values of the Property, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement, signs identifying customary rural enterprises on the Property as provided for in Paragraph 6 of this Conservation Easement, and signs giving directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Property. All signs permitted on the Property shall conform to applicable Orange County caning, subdivision and building code regulations. • 17. Ongoing Responsibilities of Grantors and Grantee Other than as specified herein, this Conservation Easement is not intended to impose any legal or other responsibility on Grantee or the United States, or in any way to affect any existing obligation of the Grantors as owners of the Property. Among other things, this shall apply to: (a) Taxes -The Grantors shall continue to be solely responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments levied against the Property. If Grantee is ever required to pay any taxes or assessments on its interest in the Property, the Grantors will reimburse Grantee for the same. (b) Upkeep and Maintenance -The Grantors retain all responsibilities and shall beaz all costs and liability of any kind related to the ownership, operation, and upkeep and maintenance of the Property, including the maintenance of adequate comprehensive general/farm business policy or homeowners policy liability insurance coverage. The Grantee and the United States shall have no obligation for the upkeep or maintenance of the Property. Grantors will remain responsible for upkeep, maintenance, and repairs to any impoundments located on the Property. (c) Liability and Indemnification -- Grantors agree to indemnify and hold Grantee and the United States harmless from any and all costs, claims or liability, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees arising from any personal injury, accidents, negligence or damage relating to the Property, or any claim thereof, unless due to the negligence of Grantee or agents of Grantee, in which case liability shall be as provided by law. In addition, Grantors agree to maintain liability insurance covering the Property with the limits as follows: (i) $300,000 per person for personal injury or death, up to $300,000 per occurrence; and (ii) $300,000 per occurrence for property damage; and warrant that Grantee is and • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007) • will remain a named insured on Grantors' Property insurance policies covering the Property. Grantors shall provide Grantee with a certificate of insurance coverage on the effective date of this Conservation Easement and within 10 days of each insurance renewal date. 18. Transferability of Development Rights (a) Development rights properly transferred from a sending site can be applied, pursuant to [cite Orange County code], to "Receiving Sites" where development is encouraged under the SGRC. (b) Development rights are transferred from sending sites through the issuance of "SGRC certificates" to pursuant to [cite Orange County code], a process which requires the grant of a conservation easement restricting development on the sending site. (c) SGRC certificates can be freely sold by the sending site landowner to whom they are iss„P~ RPrPivino c;tP landowners who ~hta;n T'l7R certificates may use those certificates to obtain density bonuses or other development incentives pursuant to applicable county or city regulations. (d) Pursuant to [cite Orange County code], Grantors submitted an application to obtain SGRC certificates on ,owned by Grantors in fee simple and located in Township Orange County in the State of North Carolina, described in a deed to Grantors, dated and recorded at Orange County Registry of Deeds. A legal description of the Property is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. (e) The SGRC Certificate Application materials submitted by Grantors are on file with the County, and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. These application materials detailed existing conditions on the Property and stated Grantors' intentions concerning future residential development, if any, to occur on the Protected Property. The Grantors represent that these application materials reflect existing conditions on the Protected Property as of the date this Easement is executed, as well as the Grantors' intentions concerning future residential development, if any, to occur on the . Protected Property. (~ Pursuant to [cite Orange County code], the County issued a SGRC certificate letter of intent on , a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein. by reference as if set forth in full. In the letter, the County agreed to issue Grantors SGRC Certificates, to be numbered ,provided that the Grantors grant a conservation easement on the Protected Property to Snohomish County in accordance with the requirements of [cite Orange County code]. (~ Consistent with the foregoing requirements, and subject to the specific terms of this Easement contained herein, the Grantors and the County, as Grantee of the Easement, intend and have the common purpose of retaining the Protected Property for agricultural use by placing restrictions on the use of the Protected Property, which shall run with the land and bind the Protected Property in perpetuity. 19. Enforcement With reasonable advance notice to the Grantors or with the Grantors' prior verbal consent, Grantee shall have the right to enter the Property for the purpose of inspecting for compliance with the terms of this Conservation Easement. Grantee shall have the right to prevent violations and remedy violations of the, terms of this Conservation Easement through judicial action, which shall include, without limitation, the right to bring proceedings in law or in equity against any party or parties attempting to violate the terms of this Conservation Easement. Except when an ongoing, or imminent violation could irreversibly diminish or impair the conservation values of the Property, Grantee shall give the Grantors written notice of the violation and thirty (30) days to cure the violation, before commencing any legal proceedings. Grantee may obtain an injunction to stop a violation or a threatened violation, temporarily or permanently. The parties agree that a court may issue an injunction or order requiring the Grantors to restore the Property to its condition prior to the violation, as restoration of the property may be the only appropriate remedy. >n any case where a court fords that a violation has occurred, the Grantors shall reimburse Grantee for all its expenses incurred in stopping and correcting the violation, including but not • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007 limited to reasonable attorneys' fees. The failure of Grantee to discover a violation or to take immediate • legal action shall not baz it from doing so at a later time for that violation or any subsequent violations. In any case where a court finds no such violation has occurred, each party shall beaz its own costs. In.any case where the court finds that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the losing pazty, the court may awazd a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing pazty as provided by applicable law. In the event that Grantee fails to enforce any of the terms of this Conservation Easement as determined in the sole discretion of the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, the said Secretary of Agriculture and his or her successors and assigns shall have the right to enforce the terms of the Conservation Easement through any and all authorities available under federal or State law. In the event that Grantee attempts to terminate, transfer, or otherwise divest itself of any rights, title, or interests of s onservarion asemen vv>< ou a pnor consen o Agriculture and payment of consideration to the United States, then, at the option of such Secretary, all right, title, and interest in this Conservation Easement shall become vested in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 20. Transfer of Conservation Easement Subject to the contingent rights of the United States of America as specified in pazagraph 19 and other pertinent paragraphs herein, and with timely written notice to and approval of the United States Department of Agriculture, the Grantee shall have the right to transfer the Easement created by this Deed to any public agency, provided the agency or organization expressly agrees to assume the responsibility imposed on the Grantee by this Deed. [OR] Grantee has the right to transfer, assign, convey, or otherwise to co-hold the Conservation • Easement created by this Deed to any public agency or private nonprofit organization that, at the time of transfer, is a qualified organization under Section 170(h) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, as amended and under NCGS 121-34 et seq., provided the agency or organization expressly agrees to assume the responsibility imposed on Grantee by this Deed. If Grantee ever ceases to exist or no longer qualify under Section 170(h) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or applicable State law, a court with jurisdiction shall transfer this Conservation Easement to another qualified organization having similaz purposes that agrees to assume the responsibility imposed by this Conservation Easement. 21. Transfer of Property The Grantors agree to incorporate by reference the terms of this Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument by which they transfer or divest themselves of any interests, including leasehold interests, in all or a portion of the Property. The Grantors shall notify Grantee in writing at least thirty (30) days before conveying the Property, or any part thereof or interest therein. Failure of Grantors to incorporate by reference the terms of this Conservation Easement in an instrument of transfer or conveyance or to notify Grantee of a transfer or conveyance shall not impair the validity of this Conservation Easement or limit its enforceability in any way. 22. Amendment of Conservation Easement This Conservation Easement may be amended only with the written consent of Grantee and the Grantors. Any such amendment shall be consistent with the Statement of Purposes of this Conservation Easement and with Grantee's Conservation Easement amendment policies, and shall comply with Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code or any regulations promulgated in accordance with that section. Any such amendment shall be duly recorded. Grantee shall give notice of any amendment to and secure prior written approval from the United States. • Orange County, North Carolina ~ ' STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff ~ 10.1.2007) • 23. Procedure in the Event of Termination of Conservation Easement If it determines that conditions on or surrounding the Property change so much that it becomes impossible to fulfill the conservation purposes of this Conservation Easement, a court with jurisdiction may, at the joint request of both the Grantors and the Grantee and with prior consent of the United States Department of Agriculture as provided herein, terminate or modify the Conservation Easement created by this Deed in accordance with applicable law. If the Conservation Easement is terminated and the Property is sold then as required by Section 1.1 70A-14(g)(6) of the IRS regulations, Grantee shall be entitled to percent ~%) of the net sale proceeds (equal to the ratio of the appraised value of this Conservation Easement to the unrestricted fair mazket value of the Property, as these values aze determined on the dale of this Conservation Easement), subject to any applicable law which expressly divide the resulting proceeds in accordance with the percentage of the purchase price of the Conservation Easement that each party contributed. The percentages aze _% for the Grantee and _% for the United States of America. All termination related expenses incurred by the Grantors and Grantee shall be paid out of any recovered proceeds prior to distribution of the net proceeds as described herein. 24. Procedure in the Event of Condemnation or Eminent Domain Grantors and Grantee recognize that the partial sale of this Conservation Easement gives rise to a property right, immediately vested in Grantee, with a fair mazket value equal to the proportionate value that the Conservation Easement bears to the value of the Property prior to the restrictions imposed by the • Conservation Easement. Accordingly, if any condemnation or eminent domain action shall be taken, on all or part of the Property, by any authorized authority, said authority shall be liable to Grantee for the value of the property right vested m Grantee at the time of the signing of this Conservation Easement. Due to the federal interest in this Deed, the United States must consent to any condemnation action. If condemnation or a taking by eminent domain of a part of the Property or the entire Property by a public authority renders it impossible to fulfill any of the conservation purposes of this Conservation Easement on all or part of the Property, the Conservation Easement may be terminated or modified accordingly through condemnation proceedings. Grantors and Grantee agree that the Conservation Easement is a currently vested real property right with a value equal to the proportionate value the Conservation Easement has to the unencumbered value of the fee, as of the date of this grant. If the Conservation Easement is terminated or modified and any or all of the Property is sold or taken for public use, then, as required by Section 1.170A-14(g)(6) of the IRS regulations, Grantee shall be entitled to the proportionate value of the Conservation Easement, which has been predetermined at percent (_%) of the Property's unrestricted value, subject to any applicable law which expressly requires for a different disposition of the proceeds. If this Conservation Easement is terminated or modified by condemnation action or eminent domain, the Grantee and the United States shall share, _% to Grantee and _% to the United States, the Grantee's proportional value of the Conservation Easement. If, however, after the condemnation or eminent domain proceedings, a court of jurisdiction does not include, in the just compensation awazded as a result of the taking, the amount of the Conservation Easement value, then the Grantors shall not be responsible to share any proceeds awarded. • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007) All condemnation-related expenses incurred by the Grantors and Grantee shall be paid out of any • recovered proceeds prior to distribution of the net proceeds as described herein. 25. Interpretation This Conservation Easement shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of North Carolina and the laws of the United States, resolving any ambiguities and questions of the validity of specific provisions so as to give maximum effect to its conservation purposes. 26 Perpetual Duration; Severability The Conservation Easement created by this Deed shall be a servitude rnnning with the land in perpetuity. Every provision of this Deed that applies to the Grantors or Grantee shall also apply to their respective agents, ears, execu ors, moos a ors, , appear. Invalidity of any of the covenants, terms or conditions of this Conservation Easement, or any part thereof by court order or judgment shall in no way, affect the validity of any of the other provisions hereof which shall remain in full force and effect. 27. Merger The Parties agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee and easement interest in the Property. 28. Notices Any notices required by this Deed shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered or sent by first class mail to the Grantors and the Grantee respectively at the following addresses, unless a party has been notified in writing by the other of a change of address: To the Grantors: To the Grantee: To the NRCS: • NC 27_ Orange County ERCD PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 State Conservationist 4405 Bland Rd., Suite 205 Raleigh, NC 27609 29. Grantor's Title Warranty The Grantors warrant that they hold fee simple title to the Property, free from all encumbrances, except for those exceptions deemed by the Grantee as acceptable and set fiuther in Exhibit D to this Conservation Easement, and hereby promise to defend the same against all claims that may be made against it. 30. Subsequent Liens on Property No provisions of this Conservation Easement should be construed as impairing the ability of Grantors to use the Property as collateral for subsequent borrowing. Any such liens shall be and remain subordinate to this Conservation Easement. 31. Subsequent Easements/Restrictions on the Property The grant of any easements or use restrictions that might diminish or impair the agricultural viability or productivity of the Property or otherwise diminish or impair the conservation values of the Property is prohibited. Any such easements or restrictions shall be subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Orange County, North Carolina • STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM " Draff (10.1.2007 • 32. Grantor's Enrvironmental Warranty "Environmental Law" or "Environmental Laws" means any and all Federal, state, local or municipal laws, rules, orders, regulations, statutes, ordinances, codes, guidelines, policies or requirements of any govennemental authority regulating or imposing standazds of liability or standazds of conduct (including common law) concerning air, water, solid waste, hazardous materials, worker and community right-to-know, hazard communication, noise, radioactive material, resource protection, subdivision, inland wetlands and watercourses, health protection and similaz environmental health, safety, building and land use as may now or at any time hereafter be in effect. "Hazardous Materials" meazis any petroleum, petroleum products, fuel oil, waste oils, explosives, reactive materials, ignitable materials,. corrosive materials, hazardous chemicals, hazardous wastes, hazardous substances, extremely hazardous substances, toxic substances, toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, infectious maten s an any o er a emen compoun m e, so u ion or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. Grantors warrant that it is in compliance with, and shall remain in compliance with, all applicable Environmental Laws. Grantors warrant that there aze no notices by any governmental authority of any violation or alleged violation of, non-compliance or alleged non-compliance with or any liability under any Environmental Law relating to the operations or conditions of the Property. Grantors further warrant that it has no actual knowledge of a release or threatened release of Hazazdous Materials, as such substances and wastes aze defined by applicable Federal and state law. Moreover, Grantors hereby promise to defend and indemnify Grantee and the United States against all litigation, claims, demands, penalties and damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or connected with the release or threatened release of any Hazazdous Materials on, at, beneath or from the Property, or arising from or connected with a violation of any Environmental Laws • by Grantors or any other prior owner of the Property. Grantors' indemnification obligation shall not be affected by any authorizations provided by Grantee to Grantors with respect to the Property or any restoration activities carried out by Grantee at the Property; provided, however, that Grantee shall be responsible for any Hazazdous Materials contributed after this date to the Property by Grantee. Nothing in this Conservation Easement shall be construed as giving rise to any right or ability in Grantee or the United States, nor shall Grantee or the United States have any right or ability, to exercise physical or managerial control over the day-to-day operations of the Property, or otherwise to become an operator with respect to the Property within the meaning of 'The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended. 33. Entire Agreement This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, and understandings or agreements relating to the said easement. 34. Recording Clause The Grantee shall record this instrument and any amendment hereto in timely fashion with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County, North Cazolina, and may re-record it at any time as may be required to preserve its rights under this Conservation Easement. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD this Deed of Conservation Easement unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever. • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors and Grantee, intending to legally bind themselves, have set their • hands on the date first written above. GRANTORS: [Typed Name] [Typed Name] GRANTEE: ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA By: ,Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: By: ,Clerk to the Boazd of Commissioners ACCEPTANCE OF PROPERTY INTEREST BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE The Natural Resources Conservation Service, an agency of the United States Government, hereby accepts and approves the foregoing Deed of Conservation Easement, and the rights conveyed therein, on behalf of the United States of America. Authorized Signatory for the NRCS • i Oranse County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007) • Acknowledgments NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE I, , a Notary Public of Orange County, North Cazolina do hereby certify that and wife personally appeazed before me and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument. My commission expires: Notary Public NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that Donna. S. Baker personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, North • Carolina and that by authority duly given and as the act of said County, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by the Chair of said Board of Commissioners and attested by her as Clerk to said Board of Commissioners. Witness my hand and notarial seal this the day of , 20 My commission expires: • (Seal) Notary Public Orange Courrty, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007 • EXHIBITA PROPERTY DESCRIPTION • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007) • EXHIBIT B PRESENT CONDITION MAP OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff ~ 10.1.2007 EXHIBIT C CERTIFICATE OF LETTER OF INTENT TO APPLY FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENT • • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Droll (10.1.2007) EXHIBIT D. PERNIITTED EXCEPTIONS (a) All enforceable easements and rights of way currently depicted in the Orange County Registry; and (b) Public Road rights of way affecting the Property; and (c) Current Orange County property taxes and any deferred taxes as provided by law. t • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Droft ~ 10.1.2007) EXHIBIT E COPY OF BASELINE REPORT ON PROPERTY • • Orange County, North Carolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007 • E. Sample Reporting Figures (MS-Excel native format) Orange County SGRC Program Rural Conservation Area Baseline Report Date Ot InIU81 Review ua[e or vemtcaoon: Reviewer Reviewer: Name:'' Telephone (Work): Telephone (Home a Cell):'.. Address L Address 2 . -- -- - ~ Zip Code: '' Email: ParceitD(s): (separate wAwmmas)- ~ Township: ~~'°`e Watershed: liMle diva i T Total Aces: 50 In Sending Area OO Yes do Base Credits: Bonus Crediffi o Wetlands: ~storic Stream: Total Credits 0 • Additional Comments: The information shown is byre and correct to tire best o/my knowledge: Partldpant Signature Date Orange County staBcan tooted me if a purdraser becomes available and to verify information: Partiapant Signature Date Oran a Covtt ,North Carolina L tY STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Darft (10. i.2007~ Base Credks _ w~ar~ e cam: t~~-- .Tots! Cremes AcrAS Catassrved Qatil3 of Conservation basement .[fate Oeve d !?ate CrBdits' Fxtin~ished Orange County SGRC Program Transaction Report 919-555-0001 1966 Landmark Lane Suite 101 Hillsborough NC Richard Pruett 919-555-0002 1972 Southampton Road Suite 400 Buckingham Township PA 10001 • R@c@nrtng Parc@1~8) P1N re ngu rs ng ve opmen ow ev _Pmen_ owe TOtaISGRG'DBY@wpmemEUtoWea ' v@ omen n ons c res onserv a a onserva on semen prow a nqu Orange County, North Carolina • Orange County SGRC Program Rust Consr~ervatjon Area Partkipanb STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft ~ i t7.1.2007~ Orange County SGRC Scorecard Date Submitted: Submitted To: eve o. Amen • Res (units) Com. (sq ft) ~ Res (units) Com. (sq ft) ~ Res (units) Com. • Orange County, North Cazolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff ~ 10.1.2007) - F. Summary of Public Engagement Process During the first phases of the TDR Feasibility Study, seven meetings of a Task Force comprised of varied representatives of the Orange County community were used to gain input. Additional interviews were conducted with developers, farmers, and TDR program managers from other parts of the country. The third and final phase, implementation, also used a steering committee, but this committee was comprised of members of various advisory boards already in place in Orange County. Hence, it was dubbed the Joint Advisory Board, or JAB. Three meetings were scheduled to be held with the JAB. The following are the key public outreach and coordination efforts that were used during the implementation study. ^ Project Website (4-6 updates). As in Phases I / II, the project website continued to be updated, as needed. The website contains relevant information and reports emanating from the planning process, which have been few since the program design (and hence administrative design) considered more options than originally conceived. ^ Public Meetings (1 J. The current scope of services called for one more of these open, drop-in style sessions, in addition to the meetings held at the Planning Board and City Council meetings. The Consultant provided three staff people and produce a presentation, display boards and handouts to facilitate discussion at this session. • ^ Working Group Meetings (3J. There were three meetings of the Joint Advisory Board (JAB) scheduled. The purpose of the JAB was to bring together members of the community that are more directly involved in the process and product of any SGRC Program, and to help provide feedback on very specific issues regarding program and administrative design. This is in contrast to the purpose of the appointed TDR Task Force, which brought together a wider variety of stakeholders to examine a broader range of issues related to TDR feasibility. ^ Newsletter (75 copies). The Consultant produced a newsletter to illustrate the program design and purpose, once the report and project were completed in a final draft format. ^ Miscellaneous Outreach and Coordination. The Consultant conducted five additional case studies from other, county-based TDR programs around the country and submitted the summary of findings. The Consultant has interviewed people in the development business in Orange County for their viewpoints on specific program and administrative design issues. Frequent telephone calls coordinating the project occurred throughout the project, typically scheduled on Fridays at 11 am. Orange County, North Caroluia . ~ STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff ~ 10.1.2007) G. SGRC Education and Marketing Plan • • Orange County, North Cazolina STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff (10.1.2007 H. TDR Program Manager Case Studies (Implementation Phase) The Project Team utilized case studies in the initial feasibility phases of work to help explain key concepts to the Stakeholder Committee and the interested public. During the development of program and administrative design concepts, a second round of case studies was conducted that focused exclusively on county-managed TDR programs, especially those that adhered to free-market approaches with limited government intervention between buyers and sellers of development rights. The following five TDR programs are reviewed in this section: ~~+~ _ ^ Island Coun , WA; _~ ~~-,~,.' ' ,..., ~ .-. ^ Gallatin County, MT; p~-- ,. :~ Pitkin County, CO; ~ .~-`. ~~ -w- ~ ,... ^ Greenville County, SC; and ~-- ~ ~ ^~~~ «-~ a. ., ^ Talbot County, MD. ~,,.,,,~ ~- ~,..,, .~ ~~~ ~~ M..:~ a.... ~ e ~-- • Population 118,227 71,558 67,831 14,872 379,616 33,812 ,,~ labor Force 64,970 34,672 40,054 10,138 197,809 15,883 Square Miles (Land) 400 208 2606 970 790 269 ,~, Density (Pop J Land Area) 29b ..343 26 1 S 480 126 Growth Rate (1990 - 2000) 26% 19% 34 0 18% 19% 1 1 0 ~, Median Nousefiold Income $42,750 $45,557 $38,235 X59,529 $41,313. $43,829 College Degree 52% 27% 41 0 57% 25% 28% Drove Alone to Work 70% 7430 71 % 51 ~ B2% 79% Orange Coumy, North Cazolina The initial selection of which TDR programs to include in the case studies considered a number of general characteristics, which are indicated in the table below. The chart at the right of the table indicates the relative position of Orange County with respect to these indicators (orange line and orange bar). li ~ ~ . . STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Droll (10.1.2007) Supplementing these interviews were descriptions of the TDR programs contained in one of two compendiums of TDR program developed by Rick Pruett, AICP.'• 2 Both works by Mr. Pruett are seminal in terms of explaining the process of developing TDR Programs and providing a compendium of cases of TDR programs in effect across the country. A number of questions were asked of each of the people that managed or had a strong understanding of the TDR program: 1. Do you have benchmarks for performance of the TDR program? If so, what are they, how easy are they to track, and have you met the benchmarks or raised/lowered them over 2. What are TDR credits selling for currently? What degree of density bonus is one credit worth? How are credits awarded in Sending Areas (e.g., one credit per acre, one credit per unit of zoning density, or by amerit-based formula?) What are underlying raw land values ($/acre) in your RAs? In your SAs? 3. Have you had concems expressed from property owners living in or near Receiving Areas, and, if so, what steps have been taken to allay concerns of increased densities in Receiving Areas? 4. Have concerns about land prices increasing in Receiving Areas in response to the additional development potential been an issue in your program, and if so, what have you done to mitigate or address the effect? 5. How do you handle highly variable land prices in Sending and Receiving Areas (e.g., proximity to existing urban areas v. rural; areas provided with public water/sewer)? Are there adjustments in credit values that are applied, requirements/recommendations for appraisals? If soils aren't conducive for development (in-ground septic rystem), then do you adjust the TDR Sending Area credits accordingly? Do you require a "perk" test on soils? Do you increase the value (number of credits) in Sending Areas because some have more intrinsic value to the overall conservation goals of the community (water supply watersheds, historic properties, active farmland)? If you consider environmental factors in your Sending Area calculations, how do you account for streams or other features that influence only a part of a Sending Area in terms of credits generated? 6. Have you encountered any issues with applying conservation easements (e.g., part of a parcel) or enforcement? 7. What measures in terms of pricing structure, program design, or administrative (review) process have you implemented to entice more activity in the TDR program (e.g. streamlined reviews, tax credits for Sending Area participants)? 8. Any additional advice for a new program just starting out? The following is a brief summary of the highlights of each discussion, preceded by a brief description of the TDR program in each county and case. ~ Rick Pruett, AICP, "Saved by Development: Preserving Environmental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights:' (Burbank, CA: Arye Press, September, 1997). 2 Rick Pruett, AICP, "Beyond Takings and Livings: Saving Natural Areas, Farmland, and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights and Density Transfer Charges." (Marina Del Ray, CA: Arje Press, February, 2003). Orange County, North Carolina ~ ~ ~ STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM ~ Draft (10.1.20071 Island County, Washington. Literally a group of islands in Jeff Tate, Assistant Director the Puget Sound Region of Washington, Island County Planning Department discontinued its TDR program in 1995 after 11 years of (360) 679-7344 operation. Low participation rates on the development / JeffT@co.island.wa.us receiving side was the primary reason cited, with the result that only 88 acres were preserved. In 1998, the County started another program with significant input from the farming community called the Earned Development Credit (EDC) Program. This program, like TDR, allows farmers (and farmland owners only) to create a Farm Management Plan that, when adopted, guarantees that the farm will stay in use according to deed restriction, and that the property owner gets 0.2 EDU credits for every acre preserved. The owner can then sell each EDU credit or, more likely to occur, a owner uses a cre 1 Imse o construct on another piece of property elsewhere that he also owns. There are no designated Sending /Receiving Areas, although only areas zoned agricultural .can participate (about 80% of the land area of the County). Notable Features: Unlike the other examples, the EDU credits can be used for non- residential purposes like churches, country inns, mini-storage facilities, and restaurants, all of which have varying numbers of credits that would be required to develop the particular land use. Like the Orange County SGRC proposal, Island County does not serve as a broker or banker of credits. Unlike the Orange County program, only farmers can participate in generating EDU credits. Strong design guidelines are integral in mitigating density concerns from residents. Issues: The Island County program does not recognize differing development pressures to adjust its credit ratio, nor does it have established performance benchmarks or a dedicated tracking mechanism. The free market determines the worth of an EDU credit to the seller; however, in all cases thus far, the seller and buyer of credits has been the same person. . Pertormance: Years TDR Program in Effect: TDR in effect 14 years; EDU for 10 years Number of TDR Credits Created: 160 Acres Conserved: 800 Gallatin County, Montana. The Gallatin area is a Tim skop, Planner gateway into Yellowstone National Park as well as the Planning Department Bridger Bowl skiing area, both very popular tourist (406) 582-3130 destinations. TDR is used to transfer development rights in tim.skop@aallatin.mt.aov only three zoning districts currently, one of which is used primarily to allow higher densities of development closer to popular ski slopes, thereby reducing traffic on local roadways. The main incentive for participating in the program is the high development costs associated with providing roadway access and infrastructure to remote areas within the County. Clustering development is a requirement in two of the three zoning districts, with no more than 10% - 15% of Orange County, North Carolina . • • ~ • STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM ' Draft (20.1.2007) - available ,land allowed to be used for development and the remainder preserved through deed restriction. The application of TDRs is handled through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, and at least three of six conditions have to be met: effects on scenic vistas, prime agricultural land, use of woodlands to screen development, minimizing disturbance to natural features, hillside / creekside development, and proximity to existing roads and homes. Notable Features: In Gallatin County, there is no designated sending or receiving area in the TDR program. Development costs and desirable agglomeration of higher-density residential uses in prime locations are used to drive participation in the TDR program. Issues: The County is currently discussing mo ) )ca Ions o e program o encourage more participation, such as waiving environmental reviews for major subdivisions. The County staff is currently working to expand the program to include more of the County outside of the three zoning districts where TDR is allowed now. A number of improvements, such as accounting for the varying importance of land preservation due to the presence or lack of environmental features and mitigation of receiving area concerns, are being considered for the TDR program. There are no benchmarks or comprehensive tracking mechanism in place now to understand or measure performance. Performance: Years TDR Program in Effect: 15 Number of TDR Credits Applied: Unknown Acres Conserved: Approximately 5,000 Pitkin County. Colorado. Hvme to the extremely popular tourist destinations of Aspen, several ski resorts, and Mike Kraemer, Planner national forests, Pitkin has seen extraordinary Community Development (970) 920-5482 development pressures from people wishing to construct michaelkQco.gifkin.co.us large homes in the area.. As with Gallatin County, Montana, the Pitkin. County program has a focus on preserving scenic areas, especially those that have had their development potential (and thus value) reduced due to constraints imposed by (and use regulations. While TDR credits can be used to create a new development right in the Aspen urban growth boundary, the vast majority of credits are used to allow additional square footage on new or existing homes. (n most of the zoning districts where TDR is permitted, house size is limited to 5,000 square feet. A TDR credit is worth an additional 2,500 square feet up to the (typical) maximum of 15,000 square feet. Depending on the underlying zoning district, varying amounts of acreage are required to be preserved in order to generate one credit (10 - 35 acres). Driving the program are (A) the very desirable location of the area; (B) strong zoning and rezoning policies; and (C) the Growth Management Quota System which can be exempted in the presence of a TDR project. Notable Features: Like the proposed Orange Covnty SGRC program, Pitkin Counfy does not broker or bank TDR credits, which are traded directly between buyers and sellers. A Orange County, North Carolina • y~ STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007) ` one-step special review process for TDR applications is conducted to {ocate a developable "envelope" on the target property, and to ensure all conditions are met. • The Pitkin County program does an outstanding job of tracking the TDR program's progress on a monthly basis, and uses the following benchmarks in an annual report and assessment to the County Commissioners: (1) adequate market /transactions; (2) sufficient incentives to create activity in the program; (3) are there smooth /efficient provisions in the regulations and process; and (4) monthly updates are provided on TDR Certificates Issues; credits extinguished; and acres conserved are recorded. Issues: The major issue in Pitkin County and the TDR program is the frantic pressure to develop, particularly to develop very large (in excess of 5,000 square feet) homes. This pressure has driven the price of a TDR credit to over $300,000. The credit is then used to simply add another 2,500 square feet of floor space onto a home, new or existing. The situation has created "instant millionaires", and has brought into question the transfer credit ratio. However, the TDR program is not blamed for influencing home prices, which are seen to be subject to larger economic forces. Performance: Years TDR Program in Effect: 11 Number of TDR Credits Applied: 70 Acres Conserved: 5,358 Greenville County, South Carolina. In 1982 Greenville Patricia Webb, subdivision created a TDR program in response to the high demand Administrator for residential development near Paris Mountain, a scenic Planning Department area in close proximity to downtown. Greenville's (864) 467-7270 downtown has staged a renaissance in the past decade, pwebb@areenvillecountv.ora and now contains over three million square feet of office space, numerous cultural amenities, and more than 60 restaurants3. TDR was originally created to protect the traffic-carrying capacity of Altamont Road, an approach that determined the amount of development permissible in the Sending Areas to maintain an acceptable level-of-service on the road, and to compensate landowners who saw their land get down-zoned. Eleven principles help shape the TDR program goals, including that each zoning district has its own method for allocating development rights. There are no incentives for the program to succeed. Notable Features: Tying the amount of development back to a specific carrying capacity of a piece of public infrastructure (Altamont Road) is novel. The program attempts to compensate landowners who have their properties' potential development reduced, as well as compensating landowners that have land that is • 3 Greenville, SC, USA. 2007 City of Greenville, South Carolina. 29 August 2007. www. ry eatergreenville.com/ development/dtn map.aso. Orange County, North Carolina ~ ' ' ~` . . STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draff ~ 10.1.2007) compromised by steep slopes and other site constraints. The transfer process is handled almost entirely administratively. Issues: The TDR program, according to the contact person, has not been a success. The failure is blamed in large measure on the County's inability to consistently track the severance of development rights. Deed modifications have proved to be expensive, and have not been followed-through by county attorneys. The result is that the value of credits, number of acres actually conserved, and amount of transfer activity historically is not known, and the staff does not actively promote the program. Site conditions are not used to adjust transfer ratios, and there are no measures in place to address concerns about increased density in Receiving Areas. Performance: Years TDR Program in Effect: 24 Number of TDR Credits Applied: Approximately 10 Acres Conserved: Unknown Talbot County, Maryland. Located in a State that is famous for its purchase of development rights program Martin Sokolich (the 30-year-old Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Long-Range Planner Planning and Zoning Dept. Foundation, or MALPF), Talbot County supplements that (410) ~~o-so3o effort with its own TDR program. Two district types, both ms4kolichQtalbaov.ora rural conservation districts that together comprise 80°b of the land area in the County, offer TDR credits at the rate of one per 20 acres plus three additional dwelling units. Sending areas are typically parks, open space, agricultural, and natural habitat areas. Receiving areas can accept TDR transfers up to one unit per five acres. The program is free-market-driven, and land prices have increased in recent years without any influence of TDR. Current discussions about improving the program include requiring benchmarks, better tracking through GIS databases, and program incentives to make TDR more popular and effective. Another change may occur when the County adopts a greenbelt program currently being considered that would designate low-density lands surrounding each town /village; TDR would be used to compensate landowners in the greenbelt areas for down-zoning their properties. The contact noted that the staff feels as if they are still just getting the program really started, even though it has been "on the books" for a decade. Notable Features: Like some of the other cases, Talbot County's TDR program is free- market-driven, with the County serving in a facilitation, education, and recording capacity. Adjacent Caroline County has changed their position to be more of a broker of TDR credits, and this option is being discussed in Talbot County as well. Receiving Areas were initially assigned to be partitioned among election districts. TDR Receiving Areas /developers are incentivized to cluster developments and can achieve a higher density if they do so. • Orange County, North Carolina ,~ .. ~ STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Draft (10.1.2007 • Issues: The County laments not having gotten the towns involved at the outset, and now wonders what motivation the towns have to participate at this point. The septic capacity of the soils typically limits development to one unit per two acres, which also hinders the TDR program in achieving meaningful density 'increases in Receiving Areas. In one case, a developer constructed their own private septic system and graywater irrigation system fora 70-unit development. The recent slow-down in the housing market has hurt sales of this development and the participation rates in the TDR program generally. Performance: Years TDR Program in Effect: 10 Number of TDR Cre i s App ie Acres Conserved: 1,000 Common Findings. Based on the review of these case studies and others, several important findings can be summarized that would Affect both program and administrative design aspects of the Orange County SGRC program. 1. Create a Tracking Mechanism for Credit Transfers and Program Util'aation. Early benchmarks such as the number of inquiries about the TDR program should be succeeded by performance measures such as the number of credits created / extinguished, number of development units (e.g., homes) created, and acres of land conserved. Pitkin County, Colorado is a standout in this regard, reporting monthly and annually their figures on TDR participation. Greenville County, South Carolina staff cited the lack of an adequate administrative procedure and tracking mechanism as a major flaw with the current program. 2. Don't Get Overly Concerned with Inequity Issues. In all of the cases cited, there was no adjustment for the "quality" of the Sending Area based on the presence or lack of natural, scenic, historic or other features. Most of the contacts when asked the question thought that this would be "a good idea," but none of them were doing it under the current program structure. 3. ANon-Broker Role Can Work. In all of the cases the County had a fairly limited role in credit transactions that did not include acquisition of credits for later extinguishment or sale to development interests. Counties tended towards actions that included program design adjustments, tracking of participation, education, and application of conservation easements, covenants, and deed restrictions to enforce the conservation aspect in Sending Areas. 4. Clustering of Development is Important. Several programs cited that the clustering of development units -the practice of building homes in close proximity to each other and leaving areas of the parcel that have important scenic, environmental, historic, or buffering characteristics undisturbed - was a critical part of the program. Talbot County, Maryland allows a density bonus for clustering in addition to the TDR bonus. 5. Land Use Conversions from Residential to Commercial Can be Accomplished. The Island County, Washington program has assigned a number of credits required to construct a variety of uses that people in the County feel would be beneficial to them from an economic or convenience standpoint, such as "country" inns, restaurants, and so forth. Orange County, North Carolina