HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-14-1999 - 2ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 14, 1999
Action Agenda
Item No. ,Z_
SUBJECT: Shaping Orange County's Future Update
DEPARTMENT: ERCD PUBLIC BEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
• SOCF Scenario Process
® 1998 Accomplishments
® Schedule of Activities
• Summary of 2030 Current Trends Scenario
(to be provided at meeting)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Stancil, ext 2590
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive a status report from staff and representatives of the Shaping Orange County's
Future (SOCF) Task Force concerning recent activities and milestones that will be reached in coming
months.
BACKGROUND: Since December 1996, the Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force has been
working to develop a countywide program for quality growth and community building for Orange
County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough. Significant headway has been made in the last eight
months, as the Task Force of 27 citizens has adopted a synthesized grouping of issues, a values statement,
and a working set of goals and objectives.
The Task Force is currently engaged in developing scenarios of the County's future. Since February 25,
members have split into three facilitated work groups to analyze the "current trends" scenarios for the year
2030 that were prepared by staff, and visualize an Orange County in 30 years that is consistent with the
group's goals and values. The three groups willreport on their vision for the year 2030 to the Task Force
on May 11, and the Task Force as a whole will take the rest of May and June to coalesce these visions into
a "Preferred Scenario" of our future in the year 2030. This preferred scenario would be the springboard for
provisional recommendations from the Task Force, expectedby December 1.
The SOCF update can be accommodated in 45 minutes with the following structure:
Co-Chair Ellen Ironside -.Introduction and Recent Accomplishments (5 minutes)
Staff - Summary Presentation of Current Trends/Baseline Year 2030 Data (10 minutes) — this includes
an explanation of what this scenario is and is not, (i.e., summary of whafthe County and Towns could
be like 30 years from now if current trends continue unabated)
Task Force representatives - Report from Scenario Work Groups (15 minutes, 5 for each work group)
2
® Questions / Feedback from Boards (15 minutes)
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial imp act associated with this status report.
RECOADMNDATION(S): The Managers recommend that the Boards receive the report for
information only at this time.
3
`tea Cep
-70 "MU Scenario Process
FUTURE
What is a scenario?
Scenarios are stories of the future. They provide a way to innovatively think about the future
and the results of current and future policies, or lack there of. The purpose of the scenario
process is to create a bridge from the goals and objectives of the Task Force to
recommendations.
Baseline and Alternative Scenarios
The SOCF scenario process will involve creation of two types of scenarios. Firstly, SOCF staff
has created a baseline scenario broken down into three parts covering 1)
Environment/Management of Growth, 2) Economy, and 3) Community. This '"baseline" (or
"null') scenario is one that plays out the future using current trends and policies. This scenario
is a picture of what Orange County could be like in 30 years given the current rates. of growth,
the current state of the economy, and all other current trends. The data used to develop this
.scenario is based on the findings reported in the Orange County Profile (a status and trends
databook created by SOCF staff) and one projections done by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc.
It is important to remember when reading the "'**baseline" scenario that while it has a relevant
factual basis, predicting and extrapolating data to the future is not a perfect science. A
limitation of the '"baseline" scenario is that it is an extrapolation of current trends, and therefore
does not account for future changes in trends, or alternative policy choices to alter the future.
For consistency, staff has attempted to project the future true to this concept, even when
imminent or expected changes could alter the future.
Even with these caveats, the "baseline" is a useful tool to initiate thinking about the implications
of action in the. future. The "baseline" scenario has been used by the Task Force as an
evaluative staffing point for treating their own alternative scenarios or stories of what the
future could be. The alternative scenarios created by the Task Force are different from the
"baseline" in that the process works back from visualizing what the future should be, and then
describing how that future can be achieved.
The Alternative Scenario Building Process
In December and January -a small subgroup of 'task Force members met with Orange County
and Dispute Settlement Center -staff to design the scenario building process. The agreed upon
process involved the Task Force breaking down into three -small groups, with any interested
citizens also involved. At three Task Force meetings in February and March staff presented the
three parts of the "baseline" scenario for the groups to react to. Each group evaluated what
they liked and did not like about the "baseline"' scenario, and then started to brainstorm how
they would like the future to be different from that described by the baseline scenario. Thus,
the 'baseline" is being used by the Task Force, along with the information in the Orange County
Profile, previous committee -reports, and SOCFs adopted goals and values in creating alternative
visions or scenarios of what the future of the County could be like.
By May each of the three work groups will have finished creating their alternative scenario, and
will present it to the Task Force. The Task Force will then forge the preferred parts of these
scenarios into one "preferred" scenario. Further input from the governing boards and citizens
will be sought at this point to refine the vision and garner support and consensus.
2
SOU Accomplishments
June 1998 to April 1999.
Since the Assembly of Governments presentation last June 1 the Task Force has
achieved several milestones.
.7une 25 : The Task Force received a report from the Sustainability Committee
outlining principles and goals for sustainability for the County, and
defining a preliminary set of 44 County sustainability indicators.
June 25 The Community Building report outlined community- building priorities
for Orange County, and identified elements supporting and impeding
community building in the County.
Seotember28The Task Force received the report-from the Synthesis Work Group.
This 'report provided a framework of eight focus areas to direct the
remainder of the Task Force's work.
October 22 The Task Force adopted a Values Statement to serve as guidance in
creating recommendations.
November 4 SOCF cosponsored with the Triangle Land Conservancy a forum on
techniques for preserving open space.
November to The Conflicts and Opportunities Committee submitted its report
to the Task Force. The report provided a method of reframing pro vs. con
issues into. questions as to how all concerns can be taken into account.
January28 The Task Force received the Orange County Profile, prepared by staff.
This profile describes the status and trends for 25 issue areas, and is
serving as a concise data source for the Task Force.
January28 The Task Force adopted a working set of goals and objectives.
Feb. - presentThe Task Force received a set of three baseline scenarios done by staff
on Environment /Management of Growth; Economy and ' Community. The
baseline scenarios provide a picture of what Orange County maybe like in
the year 2030 if current trends continue.
Feb. - presentThe Task Force has been utilizing all of the above information and
products to create their alternative scenarios of what the future of
Orange County could be like in the year 2030.
4J
H
/ -0 1
64h...
w
��i
•
R
0)
Ln
N
0
OOi ,C
bo
CN Ln
(U O.
m a
A. P, co 0 0)
bri
C-4 47 ro
co U 15c J0
;; z I
X =
a) 0 co U
bD co = to - C
0 2 C?
0
-
-0
bo
0
V)
cp a
u
u
cp 0)
u
0
c
c
< =)
cp
0-
0
L-
4-J
:3
En
C O)E.WWEWCMO
(10 L-
W
F=
-0
L-
C
=I =
c
Ew
4-J
CL
c
—
"a
c
7 X
(A
UL-
m
U
o u
U
= W.L
u
j
a
w
E
U
V)
u
E cn
a: 3:
%..00
(n
L-
C
L-
0
E
z� L-
(v
L-
w
=
L-
(D IU
= u
>7 L-
w
4-J 0
to
E
L
0
-0
cu
CL
En
0
u
4.J
:3 c
4-J
=1
.
4-J
?
C: 4-J
M C
E 0
<
fa
=
L_
I-
(a
4J
=1 E
0 W
(n
a
0
0 (1)
U u
0 (1)
U) V)
0 CL)
cn U)
0 AD
u u
0
co
0
u
u
to th
o
4-3
>
0
>
p
4+
t
0
E
E
E
2
w
03 w
E L-
w
&-
c 0
w
E
o
0
(n a)
— U) 4.
Jw-
41
CU
0
u
u
0
u
(n
4-J
4-j
t
u U)
F; 0 a)
Cl)
CL
CL C:
to
• 0
:r,
0)
4-J
C)
0.
c:
r (a C.
0 c a)
0 u
U)
4.J f M
0
0.
0
CL
L
CL
v°_°
C
(u
a)
cu
'a
2 E
w
0
w u
m u " o
2 o
a) -0
W
w
L-
a)
a)
4.J 0
•-
Cj)
4-J
M.
U
E
L9 in.
0
'E
ch .1.1
a)
-W th
C: U-
CL I
L-
U- fu
2
a) r
-a m
L-
:3
"0
C
c
:p
0
u
>a)
:3
4.1
mo
="a
m E
a)
(n :3 .Z C:
V) a)
_,.Z r_
U) W
4_
C
WL-
4.j
4-1
M
E c
WU
t
=L
w
E
a)
w
U)
E
• (1) "a
IS
U)
E o
(n u
W 0'
E " m u
m cn
m u
0
rn cL
4MJ
in
4-J
(n
0
u U)
4'
E
EEC
a
.0
Ln
0
U
V)
4-J
0
4-J
•C
u
w
40
m
-W
c
w
CL
0
e
E
cl
0
cn
cn
cp
cp
G
tm
C
CD
c
0
U
4-
cn
c
4-J
(n
M
C>)
E
E
a)
L-
m
a) 4-J
t
:ri
w
:p
cu
c
0 e�
C)
:ri
w
4-J
w
o
-tlne
o
U
E
cu
E
a)
E
E
w
E
0
M
0 1:�Z
a)
E
(V
E
4cj
(D
4-
(v
O
.0
U
w
w
u
w
u
a)
u
ca %-..
cu
u
w
u
w
E
0
E
L-
0
:3
0
I-
0
L-
0
U-
I-
0
U-
o
E w
0 E
L-
0
U-
I-
0
0
U-
U-
CL
0
0
-0
E
:3
E
o
*Ui
U-
C)
a-
C)
U- e�
0
U- C)
0
CL 0
.0 1-
W
-ld
w
0
E
>
-X
v) In
-W
r- '�!
-�e
cn
_%z
cn
(n
m
.0
in
cn
>
a)
a)
tn
V)
0
0
m N
on
m
fu
M
=
m
m
<
u
0)
Ern
E
cu
0)
(U
O
M
>
0
m
Tl
Z
a)
a)
a)
C%j
OD
N
N
U)
.0
WD
E
N
N
a)
a)
a)
w
=1
a:)
45
0
cu
u
a
r-L
a
:3
:3
=1
:3
>
75
cr
:3
CL
w
t
<
<
<
L
<
(n
010
R
0)
Ln
N
0
OOi ,C
bo
CN Ln
(U O.
m a
A. P, co 0 0)
bri
C-4 47 ro
co U 15c J0
;; z I
X =
a) 0 co U
bD co = to - C
0 2 C?
0
-
-0
bo
0
V)
M
cn `+-
O
u�
" E
o
cn n .
L- ¢
n
U) c
3
U p�
fo
--0
U
fl-U
0 =
i
M a
a�
�E
E
u�
c
V
cu
N >
.0
Ln
N
ro
c
O
{
O
p
.N
Mn
o°� C
i N Q
O
�>
O U
L ro tn
CO C h
=-
L iu
vi N r. to
c
4-
U'
N
CO U x 0
o Z Z m ,�
to
N
U)
i
U _
nCU o ono co u
a m
-p
ro0 29 a%
.t-+
En
� p �
4- 0
.0 'D
�
Q = o
c
tom!') N Ln
>
c
O
E
O c
U 0
V) c
c w
OE
O U U
a,
fa
U .J
4.J
N O
ECU
c�cQ
U C
U
�
E=
�E
.oU�
u
01 N 4J
0) i cn .
td-i .�
U N
-0
u-
U N
O
d
N
m C
N
U C
U
N
(-C- -C U
c
n
, L U
�E 40- (�
55-TURN'M 41
April 14, 1999
Economic Change
.- 33,623 new employees
.-Average annual increase: 1.2%
.-Largest increases:
• Government (primarily UNC) (10,948)
• Services (6,622)
• Retail (6,044)
• Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (4,555)
2030 Population by
Township
Little River
6,212
Cedar Grove
8,701
Cheeks
11,796
Hillsborough
15,728
Eno
11,983
Bingham
12,204
..
Chapel Hill'Twp
112,116
Baseline Scenario
•- Projection of future community,
economic, and development trends
.-Projections based on continuation of
past trends only
.-Used by Task Force in effort to create a
preferred scenario of the future
Population Change
.-An additional 65,850 people (25,656
households)
2w Annual population growth rate: 1.45%
(less than 2.5% growth rate 1960 -98)
.-2030 County population of 178,740
(69,620 households)
Demographic Change
1
1998
2030
#
#
% change
Total
112,880
178,740
58%
Children
22,912
45,851
100%
Seniors
13,398
33,302
148%
Minority
23,392
36,600
56%
Hispanic
3,063
16,770
448 %'
1
Housing Units
Rental
1998
Existing
Added
2030
Little River
1,201
1;300
2,501
Cedar. Grove
1,930
1,573
3,50
Cheeks
2,748
2,001
4,74
Hillsborough
4,587
1,745
6,33
Eno
2,773
2,051
4,82
Bingham
2,906
2,007
4,91
Chapel Hill
30,156
14,980
45,13
Total
46,301
25,656
71,95
Residential Acreage
x"'46% of County developed by 2030
-In next 30 years would develop 2/3 as much
land as has been developed from settlement
to present
- Chapel Hill township largely built out. Of
3,000 developable acres left in 2030, most
in Rural Buffer
Recreation and Parks
x'740 new acres of park and recreational
space needed
-1.3 times the current acreage (560)
'Joint parkland'funding/ acquisition?
Housing Cost
Rental
1998
2030
1 bdrm
$498
$1285
2 bdrm
$604
$1558
3 bdrm
$710
$1832
4 bdrm
$721
$1861
5 bdrm
$1121
$2894
Owned
New
$265,000
$510,466
Existing
$186,000
$358,289
All numbers in 1998 dollars
Non - Residential Acreage
New Commercial /Industrial Space
(1998 -2030)
Commerc lay Indusinal Annual
S ace Increase I Acres Added
1998 2030 998-20_30 998 -2030
...__._....._..._.__........__._... .___....._.._...__....___...._. % 11 ._........_._,_)_
Chapel 3,423,155 4,695,316 _ 1.0% F 649
Hiil Carrboro
Hillsborough 230,70_ D 318,464 1.0% 45
Mebane /EflandT ,1,562,380 ^ 3,279,673 23% 876
Transportation
- Annual 2.3% increase in vehicle miles
- Increase from 35 to 45 miles per driver /day
- Increase attributed to continuation of:
• Land use patterns;
• Commuting patterns of County drivers;
• Transportation infrastructure provision.
2
Education
a►Expected School Enrollment Growth:
• 6,520 additional elementary students
• 2,740 more middle school students
• 2,800 more high school students
Child Well Being
-66% of public assistance recipients are
children (1999)
wincreased number of children in
poverty (1800 in 1990 and 2,850 in
2030)
Health
(Mental and Physical)
2wTrends
. Hispanic population increase (33% currently
lack health care)
. Growth in North & Central orange (health
services in Southern Orange)
• 19,904 seniors (increased health needs, financial
burden of illness for individuals /community)
Schools
scltoolType Number needed CostRange
Elementary
10 or 11
$130 -$155 mullion
Middle
4
$74 -$90 mullion
High
2 -3
$68 -$90 mullion
Total
16 -18
$272 -$355 million
Child Care
.►°12,670 children less than five years of
age, by 2030
2-,66 new day care facilities, by 2030
.-Day care costs increasing
r 2-Trends
. Demographic change (Hispanic, Seniors)
• Shift in development (away from Chapel Hill
Twp)
• Economic shift (agricultural decline, loss of
mid -level jobs, lack of living wage)
• Traffic Congestion (increased travel time and
distance)
K
Solid Waste
-Depending on whether current
reduction goals are met:
. 2,824,616 to 3,850,337 tons of MSW and
C &D waste projected.
. 1.91 to 3.00 lbs. MSW landfilled per
person per day in 2030
. Landfill equal to .9 to 1.2 of current
landfill required
Timeline for Project Completion
z "May -June: Task Force produces
preferred scenario and seeks
input from elected boards
and citizens
-Aug.-Sept.: Task Force develops-draft
recommendations
-Sept. 30: Assembly of Governments
meeting
Alternative Scenarios
-Task Force visions of how, County should
be in 2030
-Uses baseline, Orange County Profile,
committee reports, and goals and values
"OThree work groups work independently
'Three interim scenarios melded to one Task
Force preferred scenario
Timeline (continued)
-*'Oct. -Nov.:
Community workshop /forum
and creation of provisional
recommendations
'Dec. -Jan.:
Provisional recommendations
-Feb.-Mar.:
Staffs review and report
-Apr.-May:
Public hearings and AOG
"June:
Reconvene to issue report for
implementation
vp
F
Goal Synthesis - The Overall Vision
The SOCF Task Force envisions Orange County in the future with sustainable economic development
that is equitable for all citizens, and conserves and improves the environment. People will be able to
live in dignity in an affordable community with commercial, industrial, and agricultural opportunities,
and we will seek to understand the relationship between human activity and natural resources. The
major institutions, towns, county and the Triangle region will work in conjunction to plan for growth,
resource protection, and area quality of life.
The historic and social character of our towns will be maintained. Each town will continue to have a
thriving business economy. The focus of economic development will be on encouraging and supporting
a diversity of businesses that provide quality jobs paying a living wage and that conform to and promote
the community's sustainability goals.
The towns' historic neighborhoods will be preserved and new neighborhoods will offer a variety of
development choices that include a range of affordable housing and are designed with goals of
integrating people's needs to live, work, shop and socialize, and decreasing auto - dependency in mind.
Increasing opportunities for people to use public and alternative transportation (i.e. bicycling, walking)
will help. to alleviate traffic and air quality issues. Our transportation planning will be community-
oriented and take into account the environmental and economic impacts of different methods. An
effective and efficient transportation system will help link people in rural communities with jobs in
towns, and will be a large incentive to limit auto use and commute by public and alternative transit.
Incentives will be provided to cluster rural growth around transit corridor nodes.
The County will institute a program to protect critical natural areas and farmland through incentives to
landowners. County-scale patterns of development will encourage the maintenance of natural areas and
large inter- connected open space designed to protect critical habitat, wetlands, and land for recreational
and visual enjoyment through the encouragement of denser development in the towns and clustering of
development in rural areas. The County will still maintain a vital and thriving farm community that
will be a significant contributor to local food consumption and the local economy.
The water quality of all streams in the County will be at least as good as it is in 1999, and the Eno
River will still be home to several rare species of fresh water mussels. Availability and quality of
surface and groundwater drinking supplies will be integrated into planning for development.
Orange County will be a place that includes cultural diversity, addresses human rights and relations
issues, and builds and sustains a strong sense of community. The County will be able to provide health
and human services for all of its citizens. Our community will work to eliminate substandard housing,
homelessness, child abuse, drug abuse, and poverty. The County will have a vibrant community life
spurred by UNC, area arts, multi-cultural. diversity, recreational opportunities, and active citizen
participation.
Our community will have fair, accountable, representative governing bodies that encourage all citizens
to participate in decision - making. Local governments will be fiscally responsible and use tax dollars as
effectively and efficiently as possible, and work inter jurisdictionally in a coordinated fashion.
We envision Orange County in the future without underemployment and illiteracy. Our community
will provide quality educational opportunities to meet the needs of all of its citizens throughout their
lives. Our school systems will be models for the State in providing challenging learning environments
and focusing on meeting the needs of each student.
Economic Vitality and Quality
Goal 1. Encourage Employment Opportunities that Pay a Living Wage
Objectives:
® Encourage businesses offering mid -wage, mid -skill jobs
Goal 2. Promote Business Diversity
Objectives.
® Encourage entrepreneurship, particularly UNC- related spin -offs, small scale, innovative
agriculture, and heritage arts programs to attract tourism
® Increase viability of agriculture as a business (through increasing public awareness and
examining agricultural regulations and removing any unnecessary ones)
Goal 3. Link Economy and Environmental Concerns
Objectives:
• Encourage environmentally - friendly businesses and business activities (such as recycling,
eco- industrial parks) that protect the resource base and reduce waste
• Capitalize on business opportunities related to creation of environmentally sound and
efficient transportation systems
• Seek to keep money within the local economy in order to enhance local job opportunities
and reduce energy consumption and pollution associated with transportation
Management of Growth and Development
Goal 1. Encourage and Coordinate Planning Among Major Institutions, Towns, County and Region
Objectives:
® Lobby the NC General Assembly for a statewide planning mechanism that would require
regional planning and local government cooperation
® Create, coordinate and implement a countywide comprehensive plan
m Pursue a coordinated, regional approach for protecting natural resources
Goal 2. Promote Land Use Patterns that Combine the Needs of People and Protect Natural Resources
Objectives:
® Identify and promote areas of denser, mixed -use development within existing service
districts and future transit corridor nodes
® Protect the quality of natural resources including open space, and protect the integrity of
the rural buffer
• Promote development that combines people's needs - work, home, schools, and services
• Provide a range of development choices
• Improve and streamline development review process for commercial and residential
development; encourage clear guidelines and positive incentives for developments that
meet the community's goals
Goal 3. Ensure Infrastructure Provision is Regionally Coordinated and Supports Other County and
Town Land Use Development Goals
Objectives.
Encourage coordination of local and regional water /sewer boundaries
Be aware of impacts of infrastructure on natural areas and integrate into planning process
Transportation Issues
Goal 1. Link Transportation Planning with the Way Orange County Citizens Live in Their
Community and with Environmental Protection
Objectives:
• Have concurrent, integrated transportation and land use planning that is needs - based,
community- oriented, and regionally coordinated
• Coordinate transportation planning with UNC
® Increase environmentally sound and efficient transportation systems to link people with
jobs and services
• Increase public transportation opportunities (for example, increase bus service between
Hillsborough and Chapel Hill /Carrboro; support development of light rail)
• Lobby for increased federal and state funding for public transportation
• Increase incentives for bicycling and pedestrian transit (for example, include paved
shoulders (4' wide) for all upgrades to roads (re- paving or widening); require all urban
thoroughfares to have sidewalks and all rural thoroughfares to have shoulders)
• Discourage further highway construction
• Create a community in Orange County that is less dependent on the private auto; phase
down use of private auto
• Pursue additional means to reduce air pollution from automobile use (for example, lobby
for state inspection for heavy -duty trucks; promote ownership of low emission motor
vehicles; promote less polluting traffic patterns by requiring park and ride lots and auto -
free zones)
Environment and Natural Resources
Goal 1. Understand and Assess the Limitations of Our Natural Resources, and Ensure Their
Sustainable Use
Objectives:
• Examine status and trends of each resource, based on a small number of key indicators;
• Create a permanent County database for these key indicators
• Establish a general guide of standards and criteria based on resource limits that will help
define parameters of sustainability in Orange County
• Examine the impact on the natural resource base and environment of not having users pay
the full costs for resource use and pollution
• Promote citizen awareness and understanding of environmental issues
Goal 2. Protect and ((in Special Cases Preserve) or (Conserve)) Natural Areas and Farmland
Objectives:
• Promote conservation of areas identified in the 1988 Natural Areas Inventory for Orange
County as well as buffers around these areas and corridors among them, and protect
large, contiguous tracts of hardwood forest as outlined in the 1997 report A Landscape
with Wildlife for Orange County
• Promote the maintenance of open space, both large and small scale
• Recognize and provide incentives for long -term stewardship of land by rural citizens
• Develop policies, incentives and public awareness to help protect: traditional and start-up
farming, farmland, and use of prime agricultural soils for agricultural purposes
Goal 3. Protect Water Quality and Supply
Objectives:
• Satisfy water quality standards and protect the water quality of all streams from point and
non -point pollution, particularly those used for public water supplies; and guide growth to
prevent the necessity of new discharges into public water supply watersheds
• Protect critical habitat for rare aquatic species
• Ensure individual water /waste water systems and oil tanks are not polluted /non - polluting
• Continue efforts to determine groundwater capacities and establish policies to protect
groundwater and limit its use to its carrying capacity
• Reduce per capita water use (through conservation, efficient use, and recycling strategies)
Goal 4. Protect Air Quality
Objectives:
• Protect the respiratory health of all people; achieve and surpass national ambient air
quality standards for particulates, carbon monoxide and ozone
• Pursue objectives listed under Transportation related to air quality
• Promote improved indoor air quality, particularly with respect to cigarette smoke
Goal 5. Reduce Solid Waste and Conserve Energy
Objectives.
• Initiate simple energy accounting studies to monitor trends in energy use, particularly per
capita use
• Adopt conservation strategies in building design and construction, particularly for local
government and schools
• Encourage the use of alternative energy sources, such as solar; consider subsidizing
alternative electrical production
• Promote reduction, reuse and recycling of solid waste and the elimination of the use of
toxic chemicals; meet Orange County's adopted goal of 45 % solid waste reduction by
2001 and 61 % by 2006
Responsive Governance and Quality Public Services
Goal 1. Involve a Wide Variety of Citizens in Planning and Decision - Making
Objectives:
• Increase representation of rural and minority residents on governing boards, and address
concerns of rural and minority residents that they do not have a meaningful impact on
local decision - making
• Ensure adequate representation for citizens living outside municipal boundaries, but
inside municipal planning jurisdictions
• Establish more effective participation and decision - making processes in land use matters
Goal 2. Minimize Taxes and Encourage Efficient Use of Tax Dollars
Objectives:
• Provide services as efficiently and at as low a cost as possible;. encourage fiscal
responsibility; and promote and maintain efficient use of resources
• Quantify (where possible) the effects of different patterns of growth on local budgets and
tax burdens
• Explore legislative options for increasing compensation for the loss of property tax base
and cost for local government services due to UNC
• Increase the non - residential proportion of the property tax base
Goal 3. Provide a Central Information Base for Decision- Making
Quality Community Life and Participation
Goal 1. Create a Strong Sense of Community Crossing Cultural, Economic, Racial, Generational,
Geographical and Educational Barriers
Objectives:
• Fully include all people within the community, including minorities, seniors, and people
with disabilities; foster multicultural involvement
• Comply fully with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
• Improve relationships between the University and Orange County residents
Goal 2. Support and Foster a Vibrant Community Life
Objectives:
• Locate and empower an agency or individual to lead the way to better collaboration and
communication among artists, the community, and community leaders
• Increase funding for the arts /find public - private partnership to fund arts
• Complete the Orange County Arts Commission data base
• Conserve significant historic and archeological sites and landscapes created by the
different Orange County ethnic, national, and cultural groups, and by industrial and other
activities important to the history of the county
• Increase developer and citizen awareness of significant historic resources and the need to
protect them
• Improve parks and recreation facilities by 1) creating more parks adjacent to schools, in
high density areas, and along New Hope Creek, 2) developing bikeways, 3) expanding
access to existing school facilities, and 4) Increasing incentives for landowners to donate
small plots for neighborhood benches, playgrounds
• Improve parks and recreation services by providing more outdoor education services
• Celebrate Orange County's Uniqueness
Basic Human Needs, Services and Issues
Goal 1. Provide Healthy, Quality Child Care for all Children
Objectives:
• Ensure provision of available, accessible, quality child care for all families who require it
• Provide level of government funding for child care similar to that for public schools
• Ensure provision of adequate salaries for child care workers
• Ensure provision of adequate supervision for all young children such as after school care,
tutors, summer programs, cultural, and social experiences
• Provide health care coverage for new and expectant parents
• Promote responsible parenthood by expanding proy en approaches (provide solid
information and support to parents, as well as more intensive assistance when needed)
• Safeguard children in early care and education programs from harm and promote their
learning and development; eliminate unsafe, substandard day care
• Enable communities to have the flexibility and the resources (funding) they need to
mobilize on behalf of young children and their families
Goal 2. Provide Safe, Affordable Housing for all Citizens
Objectives:
• Provide affordable housing that meets the needs of all individuals including older adults,
persons with disabilities, mentally impaired, battered women, the homeless, and low -
income households
• Achieve excellence in product design and produce homes that are safe, durable,
comfortable, cost effective and energy efficient
• Provide a wide mix of housing types and options
Goal 3. Provide Health Services for all Citizens
Objectives:
• Develop an overall emphasis on preventive health care, and provide education on physical
and mental health issues to all citizens
• Ensure adequate funding and access for all citizens to health services, including physical,
mental, and prescriptive services
Goal 4. Ensure a Safe Community
Objectives:
® Reduce crime and respond promptly to citizens' needs for emergency services
0 Ensure public safety in emergencies
Goal 5. Provide Services for Senior Citizens
Objectives:
• Maintain seniors in the least restrictive environment through a continuum of readily
available care
• Establish Senior Centers throughout the county, each of which is a focal point for
integrated services
Diverse Educational Needs and Services
Goal 1. Promote and Provide Adult Education and Job Training
Objectives:
• Ensure that job training, job search, and related services are available and accessible to
Orange County citizens, particularly those without a 4 -year college degree; seek
employer and community support
• Ensure that ESL, literacy, and basic education, and related services are available and
accessible to all residents who need them; seek support of area employers and the
community
• Promote lifelong learning: further develop and publicize both institutional and informal
lifelong learning opportunities; seek more involvement of UNC in community lifelong
learning
• Assess current and changing adult education needs on a regular basis
Goal 2. Provide Quality K -12 Education
Objectives:
• Create challenging learning environments
• Ensure integration of technology; develop a long -range technology plan
• Meet each child's individual needs
- Keep schools and classrooms small enough so that each student is known, observed,
and encouraged in his /her intellectual development
- Develop resources to meet the needs of students who struggle with difficult home
circumstances or mental health issues which impede their chance of success
- Foster access to multilingual education
- Increase parent /community investment in each student's education; Enhance
communication between parents, teachers and school administrators; Foster active
community-based programs to keep parents connected with their children's
educational experiences
- Improve special needs services: Foster opportunities to have "moderate" inclusion
practice within the districts; Add or expand transition services and coordination for
high schools; Add additional resources for Exceptional Education Support Services
and early intervention services; Add classrooms for students with autism at middle
and high school levels (Orange County Schools); Develop training program for
staff and resources to hire staff to serve as Inclusion Facilitators; Evaluate concerns
of special needs educators to see if factors that create professional stress can be
reduced
• Put equal emphasis on preparing those students who will go directly into the workplace
following high school by supplementing the traditional curriculum with skill development
opportunities available in apprenticeships and on-the-job-training
• Increase mentor /tutor programs at the high school level (including business, university,
and peers)
• Seek to limit the number of tests and /or surveys that have become so burdensome and
time- consuming; petition the legislature to reactivate alternative assessment proposals
• Open and maintain lines of communication and support between regular public school and
charter school leaderships
V
To: Orange County Board of Commissioners
From: Craig N. Benedict, Orange County Planning Director
CC: John M. Link, Jr., County Manager
Dave Stancil, ERCD Director
Date: 04/09/99
Re: Proposed Goals for 1999-2000
Commissioner, Barry Jacobs and County Manager, John A Link, Jr. requested that staff
formulate a new or combined goal. Dave Stancil, ERCD Director and I have developed
the following.
The attached goal entitled Rural Character Preservation is not a new goal but a more
comprehensive 'goal that will focus on the various subtopics of Farmland Preservation,
Visual Resource Preservation and Rural Growth Management through Flexible
Development Standards. Two goals noted in the 1990-2000 goals outline; Long Range
and Current Planning - Flexible Development Standards and Resource Protection and
Development - Farmland Preservation have been combimed into the new Rural Character
Preservation Goal along with an objective on visual resource preservation.
The new overarching goal also directs and promotes coordination to achieve the
preservation of the rural picture.
•
� w �
"C3
a�
y
U v Ti
U �
•�
9.0
�a
a. m 0 0 M
Cl O -cl
Q 149
+Q U
O ° IS, ~ c�
Cd
o p
a c � o
I O .O O
4.
0 ED
�' .. �, o o
U� 0
C B �.
b0 °
.� b4
10
I en
U a1 °
., p,
f�U'>
O
a
�o
..r
5
O
b
0
0
C7
0
H
� b
0
F
c�
cd
A �
bA
� U
A ti
W�
a�
� 3
C
O
0
O
!:1,
O
b
�n
a
0
U
�
O
w
O
Z
o
o
�A
�
r
En
M
W
Cl)
O
C07
IL
cl U
v P
W
a
4-4 N
rA o
' a
U
o
a
°� �
,0
Iwo
an
W
J
�•�
�
�
O
o
U
0
'
w
..��
O
0
H O
PC
c
cl
� w �
"C3
a�
y
U v Ti
U �
•�
9.0
�a
a. m 0 0 M
Cl O -cl
Q 149
+Q U
O ° IS, ~ c�
Cd
o p
a c � o
I O .O O
4.
0 ED
�' .. �, o o
U� 0
C B �.
b0 °
.� b4
10
I en
U a1 °
., p,
f�U'>
O
a
�o
..r
5
O
b
0
0
C7
0
H
� b
0
F
c�
cd
A �
bA
� U
A ti
W�
a�
� 3
•
i�
Q1
ON
Q
O
•
•
r
_ r
•
•
•
•
R
O
ebA.
C6
O " p
ccS1.�
Ed
O,
R
-
k
t
RX
u rt
J
,.
c3f-rT
F,,
IMOW
O
• t1
O
aN
i-1
�i
N
N
0
O
Q
0 Oi
cu
rO Fi
{I-
L''a^�
u
l
O
,
to-
tiq
4-+
T
O
m
S
yny4f
°
` °
,
.-r
cz
?
"Cl
~F-+
y
o 41
dr
p
ggg
uj
?1
s 1'k;
CCi
•
o
0
e
O
b ++ N p
o y to °' H
t,
ak a�-:�.
"' '.
A
'�
715
a' o Z
O y 11 O
s
a
f
U
cn
wlw11
cd
�C °
}
4-i
R d!
t
iU- Qi
� G1 �" •
r�kF�
id
.=i o oO1,
cd i=i
y
WAW C
rr-
.:� O ^O L-4
ri
tf.P t 3
F.
O
V1
C/1
O�
O �
•
I.
ti
`O
O
-
:��?.
<..s;
ml
z
w
O
LL
N W
Q O
01
bA
01
to
� O
cT C)
t-�
O
p
O
U
c
O
°o
N
FsL
M
4i,aLr'iX'
U
a�
O
'SLL1vFj�.�-
O
(V
Fy
y-4i
�♦H'
H
i�•Y
tyO�
to
t'1/�t
CP
("Cl��
..iy
(in
wl
W..v
h
a
W
•�'
U
t
O
a
O
O
a
�;^lri z�
O
4-;
c1OF
CFa�
~ c
Uy
CO)
W
�O
O^
P4
^1
i1
Cd
N
4•i
CO
P4
O
O
U
�
O
� b
Gi
Fy' r1`yd'yTfE
cn
2
Q
'P'
ra
rr
T�
Q) r-Vy7
Q)
xi
x-16}
cis to
d a,
,�•cY,;
H
H E"' O
�O�
n:
s
>_4
W-4
i
w
Ems
I
4,5171;nA�l
Fuli'MR1,
1 a 1,gt,
pr
C)
C)
C)
C14
113
LU
z
w
Q
Cd 0
U)
to
'IM
CO
ca
191
2 0
rj
P-4
p
I I
1p
r
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
W
•
•
CN
0
0
N: in
'_
rvJy`.1
O
U14
C*)
Q�
* ' O 0
O
24
` 43 uH o
O
> U
'rJ
catx�
U O
iOY U �
•�
�
'"'may ^y� :Q-1
�
,�•
lY W
IY Q
•V'+
�#
U
+�
N b4
0
N Q p
®
U N
��
?� O Cd U "Cl
C4
G�
U Rl
CD
Q
��q
�4
`�i
U �
if
O rD?
U
O bA
++
U � .� 40,
�Y
U
O U O
to U N
N
"Cl
Y
• �
��1* �
� � "41'-li
�.
�
cCl S�
O C
U
w
U
Q
0
y�. Mu U •r�l U
0
r?Y 0
ai
y �
W
A •3 A,
bq�p
N
3? N
440
W
rA
w'En Ob
0
0
N
01
01
.—a
O
COO
TGo
V1
O�
P4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
���f `
Ell
-°
IT.
o o
O1
V
�Sv tr
V
i xa�r
O
O
fill
{�K
a
t,
rJy; 0
V�
t `; i a
yV1�ji
yN�
55nYyf 0
�
�
�i
yf}
rn
i
�
O
to O
~
je�' m
� t�; %��s
cu
!MY
r
A v
gta;
pit �;�� �
W V
H
O
O
O
N
A
•
•
•
At
r
•
c,
Q1
O
d'
O
1kq
l
j�7�,ti
"O
N ~
to o b ai
hCl �(yCj �
O y o °b
H V
Cs
a\
O�
'tr
CC
O uj
U
�,'Cs
�,
To
rA
o
V�
:.�frr,
O � •� .�
O
4
�,o 0 y
®
c
p0
yr
O y
H
O
4-4
P4
O
0
y
b . a
a
O
o
rA`r
a cd w
V2
Ed -5 O
Cd
'�
b
;-4
y a� v
°
U
y 4_4 C/� ° O
to
o
f
a� �
4
Y l7njui
cd
b —� U Co
555 a
�1i U �-+ U
U
rn
rv^t
mO
v�, b
tcj W
O
O
'
cct
t-+ U
.
Old
�.y,�
iy�.t$T}
O
ni . M y QI V
O
y
i;,.
lN
",
m W
A �+
o ° O
N
A
-R.
tip s wA:
O ID4 -El U O
1
I
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
cci
a
O
b
y
O
TJ
Q
W
a
CN
k
�, O
fryL�i?"6�g
�r•,���i O
t, O
' plt
C/1
F jai O
C4
�+a
���• �
y1
W
''
• t"r
V
frr.
G�-Qy
`?in 1ii;; Uj
T +�
fNa O
n
U
4�'LSY.
rn
"d
rn
O
t rj5
va
.�
4�r;z � a
�a-
•�
9B
M� rn
a
o
W H U
t
f cn .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Comprehensive Plan Work Group
I FROM: Roger S. Waldon, Planning -7 Director
SUBJECT: Population Projections
DATE: March 23, 1999
This memorandum discusses several issues related to projecting the population of Chapel
Hill in the year 2025, the horizon year for the Comprehensive Plan Revision.
BACKGROUND
In January we published a Data Book for Chapel Hill. Among many other data sets, the
document contained projections of population and dwelling units. It also included a tally
of existing land use.
We have noted to the Work Group that, in a related and coordinated project, OWASA is
preparing population projections for its planning, horizon, (2050).' We have'w(orked with
OWASA staff to assure that our assumptions and data bases are consistent, and have
reported to the Work Group that we believe the draft OWASA projections are reasonable
and consistent with our projections.
At a recent meeting of the Work Group, Members Alan Rimer and Kimberly Brewer
separately raised questions about our projections and land use figures. The memoranda
from Mr. Rimer and Ms. Brewer are attached.
This memorandum offers our latest and best thoughts and observations about these issues.
SUMMARY OF DATA PUBLISHED TO DATE
In our Data Book, we offered the following key figures:
® 1998 estimate: #. dwelling units in Chapel Hill: 17,400
® 1998 estimate: Chapel Hill population: 45,000
1998 estimate: % of land in Chapel Hill Area that is developed: 90%
• 2025 projection: # dwelling units in Chapel Hill: 24,800
® 2025 projection: Chapel Hill population: 67,600
® 2025 projection: % of land in Chapel Hill Area that is developed: 100%
DISCUSSION OF PUBLISHED PROJECTIONS
We note that a statement that "Chapel Hill is 90% developed" has been repeated often
during discussions about the Comprehensive Plan. We want to point out that when we
use that phrase, we mean that 90% of the land in the urban service area has development
on it, that 10% is currently undeveloped. This does not mean that we have achieved 90%
of the development that we will ever see. As can be seen by the above figures, we are
projecting that, by the year 2025, our population will grow by about 50 %. The reason
that our "amount of developed land" will grow by only 10 %, but that we expect our
population to grow by 50 %, is that we expect that infill and redevelopment activity will
be taking place as undeveloped land becomes ever more scarce. An additional factor to
note is that the University's Horace Williams property is not counted as part of the 10%
of land that is available for development, but we have included assumptions about
residential development on the Horace Williams property in our population projections.
The question of how much infill and redevelopment activity will take place, and at what
pace, involves educated guesses. Our 2025 projections are based on what we believe is a
reasonable and realistic scenario: that by the year 2025, all of the undeveloped land in
the Chapel Hill Urban Services Area will be developed, and some of the land that is
currently developed at very low intensity will be redeveloped. To arrive at our
projection, we looked at each of approximately 20 different areas of Chapel Hill - -
looking at existing land use, existing zoning, and development trends - and made our
best assessment about how many more additional dwelling units might exist in each zone
at buildout.
Considering the 27 years between now and the year 2025, we are projecting the addition
of 7,400 dwelling units. This would be the equivalent of adding approximately 275 units
per year. This figure is slightly lower than our recent historical trends. (During the last
eight years, Chapel Hill added an average of just over 300 units per year). This
projection is in line with our expectation is that, as land becomes ever more scarce, the
average number of units added per year is likely to begin dropping.
9
ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
High End Pro[ectio
In response to the Rimer and Brewer memoranda, we have done additional work on these
projections. We continue to believe that the projections published in the Data Book,
noted above, and currently being incorporated into OWASA's planning effort, are our
best estimates and are a reasonable projection for the future. We note, as we stated
above, that the rate at which infill and redevelopment activity occurs can affect the future
number of dwelling units, possibly driving the figures higher.
In pursuit of this idea, and at the request of the Work Group, we have developed a pair of
numbers that represents a "theoretical maximum" number of dwelling units and
population for the Chapel Hill Urban Services Area. We believe that these numbers are
not achievable because of natural, regulatory, and market considerations, but the numbers
may be useful in establishing an upper end of sorts, even if it is an unrealistic upper end.
To accomplish this, we took all of the area zoned residential (approximately 80% of the
total land area), and broke the area down by zoning district. Then we took the regulatory,
theoretical maximum density for each zoning district, assumed that every parcel of land
within each district would be developed to that maximum, and added it up. The result is
a theoretical maximum of 44,125 dwelling units, housing a population of 110,000. (A
table showing the number of acres in each type of zoning district in Chapel Hill is
attached).
The reason that these figures are unattainable is that the theoretical calculation takes no
account of any constraining factors. Examples:
• No account for floodplains or difficult topography.
• No account for overlay zoning districts such as the Resource Conservation District.
• No account for non - residential uses in residential zones, such as schools, day care
centers, churches.
• Assumes that every residential lot in Town that is above the minimum will be
subdivided to add dwellings.
• Assumes that every multi - family development in Town that is below the maximum
density will be either torn down or expanded to come up to the maximum.
• No account for difficulty in gaining approvals for such redevelopment.
If not this theoretical maximum, what would be a reasonable "high end" projection? If
our best guess turns out to be an underestimate, how high might we get by 202?
We believe that a reasonable alternate, high -end projection would be to assume that
average rate of growth we have been experiencing over the past decade, instead of
beginning to slow, might instead accelerate. Under this scenario, one might project that
as many as 400 dwelling units per year over the next 27 years might be added. This
would result in 10,800 additional units for a total of 28,200 units housing 70,500 people.
Low End Projection
Alternatively, our projections might end up being overestimate. Assume that the
economy weakens, and/or that interest rates soar like they did in the 1970's. During that
period, the slowest growth era of the last 25 years, the average number of new units
added per year was 150. Assuming that slowest pace over the next 27 years, the area
would net an addition of 4050 new units. This would mean a 2025 total of 21,450 units,
housing a population of 53,625.
SUMMARY
The following table summarizes these estimates for the Chapel Hill Urban Services Area:
(150 units /yr) (275 units /yr) (400 units /yr)
We believe that our 2025 projection of 24,800 dwelling units housing a population of
67,600 is reasonable and realistic. We believe the theoretical maximum is not attainable.
POSTCRIPT - - GROWTH OF UNC STUDENT BODY
We note that discussions are underway to raise the enrollment of the UNC student body.
There are many "unknowns" in these discussions, including what the number of
additional students might be, how many of those students might be undergraduate vs.
graduate students, and the timing of expansion. The population projections discussed
above do not incorporate the assumption of a growth in student enrollment.
We suggest the following ideas for adding student enrollment to the projections:
• Assume 6,000 additional students
• Assume that 4,000 of the students will be undergraduates, with additional dormitory
rooms provided.
Under these assumptions, we would suggest adding 4,000 to the population figures across
the board for the low, main, and high projections. There would be no addition to the
number of dwelling units for these 4,000, since group quarters are not included in the
dwelling unit counts.
M
1998 Estimate
2025 Low End
Projection
2025
Projection
2025 High End
Projection
Theoretical
Maximum
# Dwellings
17,400
21,450
24,800
28,200
44,125
Population
45,000
53,625
67,600
70,500
110,000
(150 units /yr) (275 units /yr) (400 units /yr)
We believe that our 2025 projection of 24,800 dwelling units housing a population of
67,600 is reasonable and realistic. We believe the theoretical maximum is not attainable.
POSTCRIPT - - GROWTH OF UNC STUDENT BODY
We note that discussions are underway to raise the enrollment of the UNC student body.
There are many "unknowns" in these discussions, including what the number of
additional students might be, how many of those students might be undergraduate vs.
graduate students, and the timing of expansion. The population projections discussed
above do not incorporate the assumption of a growth in student enrollment.
We suggest the following ideas for adding student enrollment to the projections:
• Assume 6,000 additional students
• Assume that 4,000 of the students will be undergraduates, with additional dormitory
rooms provided.
Under these assumptions, we would suggest adding 4,000 to the population figures across
the board for the low, main, and high projections. There would be no addition to the
number of dwelling units for these 4,000, since group quarters are not included in the
dwelling unit counts.
M
Regarding the extra 2,000 students who might be in private housing, and the associated
growth in faculty and staff. We believe it is reasonable to expect that some of this
population will live in Chapel Hill, some in surrounding areas. We believe that the
segment of this population that would live in Chapel Hill could reasonably be considered
to be part of the growth that is already built into the growth assumptions of the
projections.
5
Chapel Hill Zoning Distribution in Urban Services Area
Zoning
Urban Services Area (Acres)
Inside
Outside
Percent of Total
Total
City Limits
City Limits
Outside C.L.
Area
CC
327.3
0.0
0%
327.3.
CC-C
16.9
0.0
00/.
16.9
IND
34.3
0.0
0%
34.3
MU-01-11
166.8
52.9
24%
219.7
MU-R-1
71.2
139.7
66%
210.8
NC
40.8
9.8
19%
50.61
NC-C
1.3
21.9
94%
23.21
01-1
44.9
0.0
0%
44.9
01-1-C
2.6
0.0
0%
2.6
01-2
916.5
10.6
1 %
927.1
01-2-C
1 7.41
0.0
0%
7.4.
01-3
895.41
0.1
0%
895.51
R-1
4,927.3
1,098.61
18%1
6,025.91
R-1 A
365.4
132.81
27%
498.11
R-2
2,830.5
414.6
13%
3,245.1
R-2A
29.9
0.0
0%
29.9
R-3
658.2
1.3
0%
659.5
R-3-C
26.8
25.8
49%
52.6
R-4
748.7
0.7
0%
749.41
R-5
225.6
31.0
12%
256.51
R-5-C
240.1
194.2
45%
434.41
R-6
30.5
0.0
0%
30.5
R-LD1
2.1
930.7
100%
932.8
R-LD5
1.4
524.5
100%
525.9
RT
0.0
368.6
100%
368.6
TC-1
7.9
0.0
0%
7.91
TC-2
76.7
0.0
0%
76.7
TC-2-C
0.5
0.0
0%
0.5
Total
12,697.11
3,957.5
24%
16,654.6
Source: Chapel Hill Planning Department
To:
Roger Waldon
From:
Alan Rimer
Cc
Ed Kerwin/Ed Holland
Date
02/17/99
Re:
Town of Chapel Hill Build-out
Because of on trio. | will be unable to plan Work Group
(CPVG) - | mentioned in my voice neU iwould like to share with you, and the CpVG, some
concerns |have
regarding the projections that are being considered for the future population of Chapel Hill.
At a recent OVVASANab/rol Resources /Technical Systems committee meeting we discussed population
projections for the OVYAGAsen/ine area' In the oaunss of that discussion, we bhaMv touched on the current
assumptions fbrthose projections. | have some concern that the assumptions we may be making eboutour
projected build-out may not reflect the reality of our current zoning. Ifwedo not make the correct assumptions
it will thus impact both our work on the CpVVG and (]VVAS/Ys long term water demand estimates.
Here is my take on a potential problem which might exist based on my understanding of our position. We are
currently stating that the oznmundv is at about 906 of full build-out. It would be my opinion that such a
number is probably not quite correct. � such o number were not co�ect� could lead toenoneouaaasunpUona
about ev��thmg from mw amount of water ^�~� service we must provide boschoo|s ` �anapo�oflon
'
police andfire services, and all other essential public services.
|f| understand the situation correctly, vvehave
two considerations when making population projections: a) making projections for that land which is currently
undeveloped and can support whatever development it is zoned for, and b) projections fbrthat|andwhichks
currently built upon, but not bz the potential cf ifs current zoning classmcati on. Condition ha> is straight 5zrward
projection. Condition 0b' > is a bit more challenging. For example, an area may be zoned R4, but is currently b/outat R2' If such
were the case, with in+fil|. additional dwelling units could be constructed on that property
without much recourse by the Town. For example, if we assume that the maximum dwelling units in R2 is 4
and that in R4 is 10 the delta of six units could skew the possible build-out population.
This anokm�.V ev6nrnarginaUvconnc�' |�sihetvvecou|dgnzwa|otrnoreUhon'ust1Oq6w�hds attendant
public policy �auaa' |thinkvv~ should dz 'bui|d-outana�s�baaedonwhet�dle'currenLs{tuation. This will
then help to focus our discussion about what va might wentbr ch on�e to bring what we want see in the
future more into line with reality. This might well result in modifications of the current zoning. '
On a related matter, it would be useful to have Uze consultants help us to visualize what some of the
devo|opnentonenoh—o might look like. They apparently have some superb skills inthis area and some 3-U
models that might help the CpVG to visualize more dense
anaoa would be quite useful. To that end. | also
think d would ba useful boamsngeforthaCPVVGbospenda|itUehmehonna||y|ookingetwhetthoVVorkG»oup
members thought were good and bad about the community.
Kimberly Ann Brewer 301 Purefoy Road, Chapel Hill N.C. 27514
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Hawkins
FROM: , Kimberly Brewer
RE: Defining Town Buildout
DATE: February 10, 1999
I am sorry to say I will be out of Town February 15 when our Comprehensive Plan Work
Group meets with the Councit. I wanted to follow up the Group's recent discussion about
the need to better define key terms such as affordable housing, density, and buildout.
I
Particularly, I'd like to share my concerns about the current definition of "buildout" and
suggest an alternative method of projecting build-out conditions.
First, let me say why build-out analysis is important. The analysis should assist the commu-
nity in understanding the level of development it has authorized through zoning and other
land use controls. It is not intended to project a given population or development that will
occur, simply that which could occur under our Town's current regulations. The other impor-
tant use of the build-out analysis is to help answer, Are we able to achieve our goals
under existing programs and regulations? If not, what additional strategies are needed and
where?" Only through understanding what is authorized in each Town district canwe begin
to' answer these questions.
The I Data Book the Work Group recently received states that 90% of the Town is devel-
oped. According to the staff, this figure is based on (1) excluding all University property, and
(2) an assumption that a parcel is undeveloped if it is either undeveloped completely or
underdeveloped (defined by having 1 house per 3 or more acres). Therefore, if a 2.9 acre
parcel currently. has 1 house, the lot is defined as fully developed at this density. Compare
this to the 11 units or more that.could be built on the parcel under our low density zoning
category.
To get some perspective on buildout, I reviewed two tables the Planning Department pre-
pared for the 1986 Land.Use Plan. These tables show 1984 Land Use and Land Use
Buildout. Although the Urban Service Area is now 4000 acres smaller, the tables which I've
attached nicely summarize 1984 and projected conditions. Using the revised Urban Ser-
vices Boundary/Land Use Plan Map in our packet, I also did a very rough, back-of-the-
envelop estimate of housing buildout potential for residential areas. This rough estimate
yielded a buildout potential of approximately 67,000 units. Currently, we have 17,345
housing units. This rough approach indicates we are at about 25% of housing buildout
potential.
By not accounting for the Uriiversity's growth potential and the development authorized
through zoning, we can not account for the possible positive and negative impacts on
issues we hope to address. It also appears that we greatly underestimate growth potential.
I would like the Work Group to consider asking the Town staff to update the attached tables
and do a build-out analysis by Town districts (defined by specific residential areas, commer-
cial/office areas, and University-owned land). I believe the Town's GIS system has the data
layers needed; alternatively, the Town could ask TJCOG to conduct the analysis using its
GIS system. The projections could consider
- current structures plus the capacity for infill on the remaining underdeveloped and
undeveloped land,or
- capacity for complete redevelopment and infill, or
- both scenarios.
Well, when you asked me to write a memo about my concerns/ideas, this is probably more
than you ever wanted! If it would be helpful, I would be happy to share with the staff differ-
ent buildout approaches that we use at Tetra Tech or recommendations from others such as
Randal Arendt. I'm sure that our project consultants have similar approaches.
Thank you for considering these suggestions.
Attachment
1984 Land Use
Land Jse Cate crory
Acreage
Percentage
of Total
Agric .11ture
777
.
4.3
Residantial
low Density
Aedium Density
3,664
20.3
Sigh Density
292
262
1.6
Mobila Home
19
1.5
0.1
Retail and
'qholesale
384
Servi:e
398
2.1
Institutional
1,413
2.2
Transportation, Communications,
7.8
i Utilities
57
Indus :rial
14
0.3
Manufacturing
I
>0.1
Mininj
>0.1
78
0.4
Open ;pace
Right-of-way
1,036
5.7
Vacanh Land
1,279
8,348
7.1
Total
IT,_022
46.3
100.0
"Buildout" Land Use
Land- Ise Categor
Percentage
of -Total
Resid�ntial
Low Density
Medium Density
8,261
2,980
35.9
High Density
1,309
13.0
5.7
Rural Residential
786
3.4
Comme:cial
592
2.6
Of fic.�
-Tnsti:Utional
382
1.7
Trans; 7,818
.?ortation, Communications,
7.9
; Utilities
61
-Mixed -Use
750
0.3
Manuf.Icturing & Assembly 23
3.3
0.1
Open Space
4,484
Right.;- '
of-�,iav
19.5
Total
520
2t,'!;_�
6.6
100.0
t
Presentation to Assembly or Governments by Scenario Workgroup 3
Alternative Scenario in Year 2030,
Orange County
Important Baseline Assumptions:
• Population will increase by 60 ;000 (58%
above year 1998) to total of 179,000
• Dwelling units will increase by 25,600
(55% increase) to total of 72,000
Open Space
• Rural buffer zones create clear separation
between each town and its countryside.
• A network of green space, mostly
contiguous, exists for parks, natural areas,
farms, open space.
• 60 % of existing rural land has been
preserved through incentives, policies, and
regulations
Transportation
• Public transit corridors link the four towns
• Working commuters use park and ride lots
• Within each town a range of travel options
exists : buses, biking, pedestrian walkways,
neighborhood connector roads
• Public transportation + growth in compact
neighborhoods have resulted in reduced use
of automobiles, less than projected traffic
congestion, and improved air quality
12 Point Focus of the
Alternative Scenario
1. Open space
2. Intill
3. Transportation
4. Job diversity
5. Economic
development
6. School system
7. County -wide
planning
S. Citizen involvement
9. Representative
government
10. University
development
11. Services: elderly,
disabled, poor
12. Infrastructure for
preventing sprawl
Infill
• Growth in population and housing is
focused into compact neighborhoods
within the towns of Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, Hillsborough and Mebane.
• 85% of population growth is channeled
into these 4 towns.
• Adequate, environmentally sound
commercial and public facilities exist
within the county to serve residents
Job Diversity
• Diversity of employment opportunities exist
through training in high schools and
community colleges, for skilled manual and
technical jobs
• Diversity exists in the agricultural economy
by expanded direct field -to- consumer
opportunities and agritourism
z
Economic Development
• Scores of new small businesses exist,
helped by. available start -up facilities and
incentive programs
• New businesses are drawn by a skilled
workforce, an infrastructure for research
and development, and UNC
County -Wide Planning
• Growth in population, dwelling units,
businesses and schools has occurred
within a county -wide plan to foster
compact development and an
infrastructure for public transportation
• Town and county governments and the
University have cooperated in developing
and adhering to an integrated growth
management plan
IL
Representative Government
• County Board members are elected by
district, thus assuring representation for
all regions of the County
• Active local forums (town, township)
have significant input to the deliberations
of the county -wide Citizens Roundtable
School System
• 16 new schools have been added since
1999, at least one specialized for training
In technical and manual skills
• Greater diversity of education and cost
effectiveness have been achieved by
merging the two school systems
• Area community colleges are meeting the
needs of citizens for skill training and
post secondary work
Citizen Involvement
• A Citizens Roundtable, appointed by the
governing boards, has created a process.
for arriving at consensus on county-wide
planning
-- widely publicizes its deliberations
-- obtains input from citizens
-- builds a county-wide sense of
community
University Development
• In coordination with the County's
transportation plan, the main UNC
campus is an auto -free zone
• The significant increase in on- campus
dorms relieves student demand for
nearby off-campus housing, making the
latter more available and affordable for
non - students
1
I
13 10
Services: Elderly, Disabled, Poor Infrastructure for Preventing Sprawl
Appropriate facilities and services enable
well and disabled elderly to remain in
their homes or communities
• An expanded public transportation
system provides mobility for elderly,
disabled citizens and working poor
• Adequate child -care facilities are linked
to schools and businesses
u
Infrastructure for Preventing Sprawl
• An effective and working Adequate
Facilities Ordinance is in place to assure
public and private facilities for supporting
growth in compact neighborhoods
• Adherence to county -wide plans has
resulted in desirable infill, public
transportation, job diversity, economic
vitality, and preservation of green space
• Population and economic growth has been
largely constrained to areas with
established water and sewer services
• The projected traffic congestion has been
reduced by a firm commitment to air
quality standards and public transportation
WHAT IS THE BASELINE SCENARIO?
The Baseline Scenario is a projection of
future community, economic and physical
development trends in Orange County to
the year 2030.
It has been developed on the premise that
future economic, community and physical
development in the County will occur at the
same rate and pattern as it has during the
past 30 years (or other past trends
depending on data availability).
WHO DEVELOPED THE BASELINE?
Staff from the Orange County Planning
department - and the Orange County
Environment and Resource Conservation
Department worked together to develop
this baseline. Information in the baseline
comes from a variety of sources and
agencies both within and outside the
County.
WHY WAS IT DEVELOPED?
The baseline was developed for use by the
Shaping Orange County's Future (SOCF)
Task Force in evaluating future
development - patterns and identifying
trends they desire to retain and/or change.
The Task Force is using the baseline, in
conjunction with the Orange Counhj Profile,
committee reports, & adopted SOCF goals
and values in crafting alternative scenarios
that conform to SOCF goals and values.
WHAT ARE ITS LIMITATIONS?
Projections have been limited to those areas
for which historical data exists. Data gaps
have been filled through extrapolation or by
reliance on qualitative estimations of past
and present development patterns.
In keeping with a goal of projecting based
on past trends, the baseline does not take
into account future policy choices. Thus
projections of population and dwelling unit
growth for municipalities, particularly
Mebane and Hillsborough, do not reflect
changes in . policy that , may stimulate
development activity beyond past levels or
into new urban areas.
It is important to note that these limits do
not reduce the value of the baseline as a
tool. The baseline should be understood 'as
one estimation of future development
trends. Actual patterns of development may
differ given policy or market forces, but the
overall trends identified in the baseline
reflect a possible picture of development.
activity over the next 30 years in Orange
County.
WHAT ARE THE FINDINGS?
Future community and physical
development patterns in the County will be
driven by population and employment
growth. This section will begin by
documenting the employment and
demographic changes projected to occur
during the next three decades, if present
trends continue. It will conclude by
detailing the impacts that these changes
could have upon Orange County.
April 1999
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC
CHANGE
Orange County population growth is
related to the number of employment
opportunities available in the-County. As
employment opportunities increase they
attract new residents, thereby increasing the
rate at which the population expands.
Employment projections, through 2020,
were obtained from Woods and Poole
Economics, Inc., a Washington D.0 based
economics consulting firm.' These,
projections are based on the assumptions
that: 1) employment opportunities in
Orange County are impacted by shifts in
the Triangle and national economy; and 2)
Orange County employers will react to
economic changes in a similar ar manner as
they have in the past. To be consistent with
the 30 year planning horizon (2000-2030)
adopted by the SOCF Task Force, forecasts
were extended until 2030. In extending
Woods & Poole data staff assumed that
County employers (public, private and non-
profit) would experience the same average
net growth in employment between 2021-
2030 as occurred from 2011-2020.
Employment
During the next 32 years approximately
33,623 jobs are projected to be added mi
Orange County.This is lower than the total
number of jobs (46,176) added during the
28 years prior to 1997.
Figure 1: Employees Added
Total Employment 46,176 33,623
The additional jobs will not substantially
alter the make-up of , the . County's.
employment base. State and Local
Government, will remain the primary
employer in the County, accounting for 36%
of all County employees in 2030, compared
to 38% in 1998. The service and retail
sectors will employ the next, largest
percentage of - workers, 21% and 17%
respectively.
The Finance, Insurance, Real Estate,
Transportation and Utilities sector, and
Wholesale Trade will cumulatively account
for the next largest percentage of workers in
2030 (15%) This is in contrast to 1998 when
these sectors accounted for approximately
12% of all employees. Unlike other sectors
of the economy, firms in these three sectors
will add more workers over the next thirty-
two years than they did in the past 28.
Population
Orange County's population (includes
towns) will grow by an average of 1.45 %
annually between 1998 and 2030. While
slower than the rate of growth experienced
by the County between 1950- 1998 (2.50%),
this growth will add an additional 65,850
persons or 25,566 households to the
County. By 2030, the County's total
population is projected to number 178,740
persons, or 69,620 households.
Figure 2: Orange County Population
1998 2030
Population growth over the next 32 years
will noticeably change the demographic
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
1969-1997
1998-2030
Construction
1,661
717
Manufacturing
2,262
1,459
Transport, etc.
1,291
1,465
Wholesale
1,136
1,346
Retail .
8,064
6,044
Finance, etc.
4,083
4,555
Service
11,643
6,622
State/Local Gov't
15,678
10,948
Total Employment 46,176 33,623
The additional jobs will not substantially
alter the make-up of , the . County's.
employment base. State and Local
Government, will remain the primary
employer in the County, accounting for 36%
of all County employees in 2030, compared
to 38% in 1998. The service and retail
sectors will employ the next, largest
percentage of - workers, 21% and 17%
respectively.
The Finance, Insurance, Real Estate,
Transportation and Utilities sector, and
Wholesale Trade will cumulatively account
for the next largest percentage of workers in
2030 (15%) This is in contrast to 1998 when
these sectors accounted for approximately
12% of all employees. Unlike other sectors
of the economy, firms in these three sectors
will add more workers over the next thirty-
two years than they did in the past 28.
Population
Orange County's population (includes
towns) will grow by an average of 1.45 %
annually between 1998 and 2030. While
slower than the rate of growth experienced
by the County between 1950- 1998 (2.50%),
this growth will add an additional 65,850
persons or 25,566 households to the
County. By 2030, the County's total
population is projected to number 178,740
persons, or 69,620 households.
Figure 2: Orange County Population
1998 2030
Population growth over the next 32 years
will noticeably change the demographic
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
characteristics of the County. Most
noticeable are increases in the County's
child, senior, minority and Hispanic
population
Figure 3: Population Increase
1998 2030
0 W % change
Children
22,912
45,851
100%
Seniors
13,398
33,302
148%
Minority
23,392
36,600
56%
O.C. Hispanic % of OC pop
1998 2030 1998 2030
Hispanic 3,063 16,770 3% 9%
The following sections outline population
increase within these cohorts.
Minority Population
Minority refers to persons classified as
either African American, Asian or Pacific
American, Native American. Between 1998
and 2030, approximately 13,629 persons of
minority status are projected to reside in
Orange County.
This is a slight increase over the last 28
years, which saw 12,407 persons of minority
status persons as Orange County residents.
Consistent with today, the majority of the
County's non-white population is expected
to be of African descent.
Hispanic Population
Hispanic or Latino is a broad term referring
to people of Spanish speaking origin. It is
an ethnic classification and not a racial
class, therefore persons of Hispanic
ethnicity can classify themselves as white or
non-white. It is not known what percentage
of the County's Hispanic population
classifies themselves as white or non-white.
During the next 32 years it is projected that
13,707 new Hispanic residents will call
Orange County home. This will increase
Orange County's Hispanic population from
an estimated 3,063 in 1998 to 16,770 in 2030.
Given this increase, by 2030, 9% of all
County residents will be Hispanic, this
contrasts with the present, where 3% of the
all residents are Hispanic.
Detailed demographic characteristics of the
County's Hispanic population are . not
currently known. At best, one can presume
that the make-up of the County's Hispanic
population does not differ considerably
from that of the make-up of the larger
North Carolina Hispanic population. Based
on anecdotal evidence from various new
stories, the Hispanic community in North
Carolina is extremely diverse, as noted in
by the following comments attributed to
Julio Cordoba of the North Carolina
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, in the
9/4/98 edition of the News & Observer.
"...a distinguishing factor of North
Carolina's Latino community is its
diversity. Laborers work on farms in the
country and at construction sites in the city,
while the state's universities and large
companies such as IBM, Glaxo Wellcome,
and Northern Telecom draw future and
current engineers, chemists and computer
designers. There is also a healthy ethnic n-dx
of people from every country in Latin
America and from Puerto Rico."
Seniors
Since 1970, the 60+ population has
increased by 148%, so that as of today
(1998) there are 13,398 persons age sixty or
older. The future shows continuation of this
trend. By 2030, the County's senior
population will number an estimated
33,302, ironically another 148% increase
between 1998 and 2030. The demographics
of the senior population in 2030 will not
look substantively different than today's
senior population. Despite a projected 134%
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
increase in the number of non -white males
over 60 (approximately 1,338 new persons),
the majority of seniors will continue to be
female and white.
Children
By 2030, Orange County's child population
will number 45,851 children (persons aged
0 -17 years). This represents a doubling of
the current (1997) children's population
figure of 22,912.
As the figure below shows the percent
increase in the number of children is greater
during the next three decades than during
the previous 28 years.
Figure 4: Increases in Orange County
Child Population
Ages
1970
1997
2030
% Change
1,930
1,573
3,503
Cheeks
70 -97
97 -30
0-4
4,370
6,430-
12,670
47%
97%
5 -10
5,380
7,930
14,810
47%
87%
11 -13
2,720
3,530
6,500
30%
84%
14-17
3,400
4,600
7,590
35%
65%
Total 15,870 22,912 45,851 44% 100%
One of the unfortunate consequences of
projected increases in the child population
is parallel growth in the incidence of
children in poverty. Assuming continuation
of the ten year trend, (1980 and 1990), by
2030 6.9% of children in the County will be
living in poverty. This percentage is down
from 1980 and 1990 (11.4% and 10.3 %'
respectively), but the actual number of
children living in poverty will have
increased from approximately 1,800 in 1980
and 1990, to over 2,850 in 2030.
IMPACTS
Impacts refer to anticipated increases in
residential and . non residential acreage,
housing and public services resulting from
projected population and employment
growth.
4
Dwelling Units
In order to house projected population, a
total of 25,656 dwelling units will need to
be constructed between 1998 and 2030. The
number of dwelling units required by
township and municipality is highlighted in
the figure below. It is important to note that
this distribution does not take into account
land availability. Also, in keeping with a
goal of projecting based on past trends,
these numbers do not take into account
future policy choices. Thus figures for
municipalities, particularly, Mebane and
Hillsborough, do not reflect changes in
policy that may stimulate development
activity beyond past levels. Additionally,
this distribution is based on the assumption
that future dwelling units would be located
in the same proportion as units constructed
between April 1990 and June 1998.
Figure 5: Required Dwelling Units
Existing Added Projected
Township 1998 98 -30 2030
Little River
1,201
1,300
2,501
Cedar Grove
1,930
1,573
3,503
Cheeks
2,748
2,001
4,749
Mebane
255
148
402
Rural Cheeks
2,493
1,853
4,347
Hillsborough
4,587
1,745
6,332
Hillsborough
1,895
378
2,273
Rural H'boro
2,692
1,367
4,059
Eno
2,773
2,051
4,824
Bingham
2,906
2,007
4,913
Chapel Hill
30,156
14,980
45,136
Chapel Hill
16,402
7,178
23,580
Carrboro
7,305
4,029
11,334
Rural CH
6,449
3,772
10,222
TOTAL 46,301 25,656 71,958
As evidenced in the above figure, if current
residential development patterns continue
58% of all new housing units will built in
Chapel Hill township, as compared to 65%
of the housing stock in existence today.
Rural portions will encounter greater
residential development, than in the past.
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
The highest annual increases would occur
in Bingham, Little River and Cedar Grove
townships, which could grow by 2.701/o,
2.32% and 1.88%, annually. Some of the
growth within Cheeks, Hillsborough and
Eno townships might be captured inside the
expanded town limits of Mebane,
Hillsborough and Durham.
Residential Acreage
To accommodate projected residential
development, in the same fashion as today,
approximately 47,733 acres of land would
need to be developed in the County during
the next 32 years. A breakdown of acreage
required, is detailed in the figure below.
Notable findings associated with future
land demand include:
♦ 46% of the County would be developed
by 2030.
♦ Within the next 30 years Orange County
would develop 2/3 as much land as has
been developed from the time of
settlement to the present.
o Chapel Hill township would be largely
built-out. Only 3,000 acres will remain
.developable, most of this in the Rural
Buffer.
Figure 6: Required Acreage, 1998-2030
TOTAL 70,135 169,023 47,733
In the above figure, acreage for Cheeks,
Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough townships
include municipal areas inside the
townships. Also, by 2030 Hillsborough's
municipal boundaries could extend into
Eno and Cheeks townships. Durham's
municipal boundaries may extend into Eno
township as well.
It is important to note again that the
amount of land estimated to be developed
was based on past trends. Impending new
development in the Hillsborough area is not
taken into account. The amount of land
estimated to be currently developed was
determined by the following method.
Outside of municipal planning
jurisdictions, developed land is defined as
parcels 10 acres or less having a structure
on them, plus a 10 acre developed envelope
for each parcel Veater than 10 acres having
a structure on it. Within municipal
planning jurisdictions a 2 acre, rather than
10 acre, cutoff was used.
Estimated acres needed for projected
growth were calculated by multiplying the
number of projected dwelling units by the
average lot size for each area. For rural
portions of the County average lot sizes
were calculated using 1987-1994 permit
data for major and minor subdivision
activity. In municipal areas the average lot
size . was provided by town planning
departments.
Housing Cost
Aside from land consumption one of the
more significant impacts, over the next 32
years, of population growth and demand
for housing will be the continued rise in the
cost of housing.
Estimations of future housing cost were
developed based on best available data. It is
important to note that these are provided as
a point of reference. These projections have
not taken into account future land
availability or any policy or market changes
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
Little River
8,162
14,895
3,770
Cedar Grove
11,728
30,333
4,152
Cheeks
7,863
17,790
5,994
Hillsborough
4,483
8,112
3,650
Eno
6,442
10,703
4,738
Bingham
12,037 1
29,239
6,623
Cha el Hill_
19,420 1
21,972
18,806
TOTAL 70,135 169,023 47,733
In the above figure, acreage for Cheeks,
Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough townships
include municipal areas inside the
townships. Also, by 2030 Hillsborough's
municipal boundaries could extend into
Eno and Cheeks townships. Durham's
municipal boundaries may extend into Eno
township as well.
It is important to note again that the
amount of land estimated to be developed
was based on past trends. Impending new
development in the Hillsborough area is not
taken into account. The amount of land
estimated to be currently developed was
determined by the following method.
Outside of municipal planning
jurisdictions, developed land is defined as
parcels 10 acres or less having a structure
on them, plus a 10 acre developed envelope
for each parcel Veater than 10 acres having
a structure on it. Within municipal
planning jurisdictions a 2 acre, rather than
10 acre, cutoff was used.
Estimated acres needed for projected
growth were calculated by multiplying the
number of projected dwelling units by the
average lot size for each area. For rural
portions of the County average lot sizes
were calculated using 1987-1994 permit
data for major and minor subdivision
activity. In municipal areas the average lot
size . was provided by town planning
departments.
Housing Cost
Aside from land consumption one of the
more significant impacts, over the next 32
years, of population growth and demand
for housing will be the continued rise in the
cost of housing.
Estimations of future housing cost were
developed based on best available data. It is
important to note that these are provided as
a point of reference. These projections have
not taken into account future land
availability or any policy or market changes
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
that may alter the cost of housing. They are
based on the assumption that future
increases -in County-wide housing cost will
occur at the same annual rate of growth that
occurred in the Chapel Hill housing market
between 1988 and 1998. The decision to
base projections the Chapel Hill market was
dictated by the fact that figures
documenting the character of the Orange
county housing market do not presently
exist.
Between 1988 and 1998 the price of owner
occupied homes in Chapel Hill grew by an
annual average of 2.07% . The cost of rental
properties grew by a yearly average of
3.01%.
The average market value, in 2030, for an
owner occupied home and rental property
is outlined in the following figure.
Figure 7: Market Value of Orange County
Housing, 1998 and 2030
Housing Type
1998 dollars
Rental
1998
2030
1 bdrm.
$497.95
$1285.38
2 bdrm.
$603.75
$1558.48
3 bdrm
$709.55
$1831.59
4 bdrm
$721.05
$1861.27
5 bdrm.
$1,121.25
$2894.32
Owned
New
$265,000
$510.466
Existing
$186,000
$358,28
If housing cost, continues to increase at the
rates identified above, it will remain cost
prohibitive for residents and families
earning at or below the mean per capita
income to live here. The projected average
per capita income for a resident in 2030 will
be $41,068 (1998 dollars). This is in contrast
to the estimated per capita income in 1998
of $28,223 (1998 dollars). If this resident
chose to purchase an existing home for
themselves and their family in Orange
County in 2030, they would find that they
would have to spend approximately 8 times
their annual income. To purchase a new
home the same resident would have to
spend 12.4 times their annual income. US
Housing and Urban Development
Department guidelines define affordable
housing as selling at 2.5 times annual
income. Given the cost of a single family
home, this resident may consider renting.
Applying US HUD guidelines for
affordable rental housing (30% of monthly
income) a resident earning the average per
capita income in 2030, could afford a to rent
a property at $1026.59 per month.
If present trends continue rental properties
will not be that inexpensive. In 2030, rental
properties will be rented at 37% to 84% of
the average monthly per capita income
($3442.31). For single or two person
householders, spending more than 30% of
their monthly income on housing may be
acceptable, given that they do not have
other significant expenses (child care,
health, college loans, etc.). For households
with such additional expenses, particularly
those with children, spending more than
1/3 of their monthly income is certainly less
desirable.
Non-Residential Acreage
Limited data dictated that projections of
future commercial acreage be calculated for
Chapel Hill/Carrboro, Hillsborough and
Mebane/Efland only. Projections were
based on the assumption that future
commercial land - demand could be
projected given knowledge of based on the
ratio of current dwelling units to current
square feet of commercial space, and future
dwelling unit demand.
Given this assumption it is projected that
approximately 3,077,218 square feet of new
commercial/industrial space,, or 1,569 acres
will be constructed by 2030. It is important
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
to note that this acreage does not account
for commercial/industrial space that could
be developed in the future as part of reuse
or infill projects or changes in the ratio of
non-residential to residential development.
Required commercial/ industrial space for
Chapel Hill/Carrboro, Hillsborough and
Mebane/Efland are listed in the figure
below.
Figure 8: Required Commercial/Industrial
Space, 1998-2030
Conserved Natural Areas
Resource limitations have precluded a
quantitative assessment of the impact that
proposed development will have on the
quantity , of natural areas that will be
preserved in response to development
pressure. In its place we offer a qualitative
assessment of impacts, based on
conversation with prominent conservation
organizations and review of their plans.
The County's three largest landholders of
preserved open space: Duke Forest (4,739
acres), OWASA (3,017 acres), and the Eno
River State Park (1,648) will likely see some
changes in acreage preserved.
Duke Forest will likely sell off several of its
parcels considered not to be of research or
preservation value, and may purchase a few
new properties especially where the
potential exists for linking areas of the
forest. The former are generally smaller
and more isolated, totaling approximately
303 acres. However, one 162 acre parcel
(the Korstian Division land just north of
7
Chapel Hill) could have significance due to
its location in the rural Buffer adjacent to a
new Triangle Land Conservancy land
preserve.
OWASA has plans to purchase another
1200 to 1300 acres in the Cane Creek
watershed for water supply protection
purposes.
The Eno River State Park is interested in
.expanding and acquiring more land
adjacent to the Few's Ford portion of the
park, though there are currently no
definitive plans. The Town of Hillsborough
has received grant funding to preserve a
corridor linking Eno River State Park to
Occoneechee Mountain Park.
It is expected that the Triangle Land
Conservancy will acquire ownership or
easements protecting more open space in
the County, though it is impossible to tell
how many acres will be preserved by TLC
in the year 2030. And Orange County will
be implementing a Resource Acquisition
Program that will have prioritized natural
areas for preservation and will be actively
pursuing voluntary acquisition of lands
and/or development rights.
Recreation and Parks
To meet the needs of the projected 178,740
persons of Orange County in 2030, national
standards indicate that the four local
governments should have at a minimum
1,300 acres of land devoted to residents'
recreational needs.
Currently, there are 560 acres countywide
in 1998 (Chapel Hill - 400 acres, Carrboro 70
acres, Orange County 60 acres and
Hillsborough 30 acres). In particular, hiking
trails and additional parks would be
needed based on current standards.
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
Commercial/
Acres
Industrial Space
Added
1998 2030
98-30
CH/Carr
3,423,155 4,695,316
649
Hills.
230,700 318,464
45
Mebane
1,562,380 3,279,673
876
& Efland
Conserved Natural Areas
Resource limitations have precluded a
quantitative assessment of the impact that
proposed development will have on the
quantity , of natural areas that will be
preserved in response to development
pressure. In its place we offer a qualitative
assessment of impacts, based on
conversation with prominent conservation
organizations and review of their plans.
The County's three largest landholders of
preserved open space: Duke Forest (4,739
acres), OWASA (3,017 acres), and the Eno
River State Park (1,648) will likely see some
changes in acreage preserved.
Duke Forest will likely sell off several of its
parcels considered not to be of research or
preservation value, and may purchase a few
new properties especially where the
potential exists for linking areas of the
forest. The former are generally smaller
and more isolated, totaling approximately
303 acres. However, one 162 acre parcel
(the Korstian Division land just north of
7
Chapel Hill) could have significance due to
its location in the rural Buffer adjacent to a
new Triangle Land Conservancy land
preserve.
OWASA has plans to purchase another
1200 to 1300 acres in the Cane Creek
watershed for water supply protection
purposes.
The Eno River State Park is interested in
.expanding and acquiring more land
adjacent to the Few's Ford portion of the
park, though there are currently no
definitive plans. The Town of Hillsborough
has received grant funding to preserve a
corridor linking Eno River State Park to
Occoneechee Mountain Park.
It is expected that the Triangle Land
Conservancy will acquire ownership or
easements protecting more open space in
the County, though it is impossible to tell
how many acres will be preserved by TLC
in the year 2030. And Orange County will
be implementing a Resource Acquisition
Program that will have prioritized natural
areas for preservation and will be actively
pursuing voluntary acquisition of lands
and/or development rights.
Recreation and Parks
To meet the needs of the projected 178,740
persons of Orange County in 2030, national
standards indicate that the four local
governments should have at a minimum
1,300 acres of land devoted to residents'
recreational needs.
Currently, there are 560 acres countywide
in 1998 (Chapel Hill - 400 acres, Carrboro 70
acres, Orange County 60 acres and
Hillsborough 30 acres). In particular, hiking
trails and additional parks would be
needed based on current standards.
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
In terms of funding, Orange County and
Carrboro have accumulated $425,000 and
$473,000 respectively through "payments -
in -lieu" through the development process.
Questions have been raised, however,
whether the current system of land
acquisition is sufficient to meet needs. Part
of the problem is that, some recreational
facilities are developed privately, and are
not open to the public. Also, small parcels
of land that are donated for public use often
end up being of use neither to the public
nor to the development itself, since their
size or location makes them difficult to use.
Updates to this approach would be needed
to provide any substantial funding
mechanism for future needs.
Schools
Based on the expected population growth
by the year 2030, school enrollment will
increase by:
® 6,520 elementary students;
® 2,740 middle school students;
® 2,800 high school students.
If current trends hold true (same ratio of
students in public schools, same public
school structure, continuation of current
trends, student population and capacity
standards), the above increase in
enrollment would translate into the
following new schools needed by 2030.
Figure 9: Required Schools, 1998 -2030
8
classified into three functional
classifications: Well, Disabled, or
Institutionalized. As of today the
overwhelming majority (79 %) are well, 16%
are disabled and 5% are institutionalized.
Assuming that these proportions stay the
same in the future, it is projected that the
majority of tomorrow's senior population
will demand preventative, rather than
supportive or protective, services. As the
name suggests, preventative services
prevent the early breakdown of functional
capacity, whereas supportive and protective
services provide direct care services for the
elderly (for a list of services classified under
each functional type see Profile pg. 33).
Based on current standards 17 care facilities
(including adult day care, assisted living
facilities and family care homes) will need
to be developed. This is particularly critical
for seniors living on fixed incomes and/or
those that need supportive or protective
services. Based on this population increase
28,662 sq. feet of new space will need to be
devoted for one or multiple senior centers,
if current standards are to be maintained.
This is equivalent to approximately 2 spaces
the size of Chapel Hill Senior Center, 1'
space the size of Efland- Cheeks Community
Center and 1 space the size of the Northern
Orange Community Center.
Elementary 10 or 11 $130 - $155 million
Middle 14 $74 - $90 million
High 2 -3 $68 - $90 million
TOTAL ( 16-18 schools 1 $272 - $355 million
Note: Current capacity not factored in, but most
existing schools are over or near capacity in 1999.
Senior Facilities
According to the Orange County
Department on Aging, the elderly can be
Child Services
At present there is approximately 1
licensed day care facility in Orange
County for every 94 children. Given
an additional 6223 children, 66
facilities would need to be built
during the next 31 years to provide
child care services at the current ratio.,
In addition to the increased demand for
child care services, the issue of affordability
will become increasingly important. Data is
not available as to the cost of child care in.
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
the future but given continuation of
shortages of facilities, economics would
suggest that the cost of child care will
continue to rise.
The increased number of children living in
poverty between today and 2030, speaks to
the fact that children, particularly those in
single parent households will find
themselves in the same economic
predicament in the future as they do today.
Generally speaking, in the future, children
in poverty will find that the wage earner in
their home is often working in the lowest
paying economic sectors, retail or service.
The child's enrollment in childcare is being
subsidized by the public sector, as/if funds
are available. Because of their families'
financial predicament, they are living in
lower quality housing, receiving lower
quality health care, and may be living in
family situations where their mental
and/or physical health is more threatened.
Police Protection
As of 1996, there were 246 full time officers
serving Orange County. Between today and
203 ' 0 an additional 152 officers will be
needed to maintain 1996 service levels.
Commensurate with this increase in officers
is the need for a joint training facility for all
Orange County officers. Such a facility
would need to contain A firing range,
classroom and driver training area..
Health Services
Developing projections of the number of
persons impacted by disability or illness is
difficult, without a clear understanding of
possible advancements in health treatment
and technology. At best we are able to
provide a qualitative assessment of how
population growth may impact upon the
provision of health and related services.
Increases in the Hispanic and senior
population, along with the growth of areas
9
outside of Chapel Hill and Carrboro will
shape the delivery of health services in the
coming thirty years. The disparity between
Hispanic residents . and non - Hispanic
residents in terms of health coverage and
the graying of the population, will
ultimately increase the need for health
services. At present Orange County, ranks
second statewide in the number of beds and
health care workers, but most of these
services are concentrated within Chapel
Hill township. As the population moves
outward to other portions of the County,
health services, will need to follow. This
may require the construction of facilities,
and/or the development of an affordable
and accessible transportation system that
enables those with mobility or economic
restrictions access to health services.
Disability Services
In addition to increasing accessibility to
health care, one of the chief tasks facing
County residents will be to provide support
services for the County's disabled. The lack
of job training, educational opportunities,
and job opportunities for the disabled is one
of the reasons why the unemployment rate
for the disabled (8.7%), in Orange County is
more than double, the county-wide
unemployment rate (3.6%). The most recent
and available unemployment numbers for
the disabled is from the 1990 census. Since
1990, the Orange County unemployment
rate has fallen to approximately 2%.
According to the 1990 census, 3497 County
residents were not in the labor force
because of their disabilities.
Solid Waste
Given the projected population Orange
County residents would produce 2,824,616
tons of municipal solid waste if the
County's waste reduction and diversion
goals are met If these goals are not met
3,850,337 tons of municipal solid waste will
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
be produced during the next 30 years. The
total tonnage estimates translates to a per
person per day waste total of 1.9 to 3
pounds.
If reduction or diversion strategies are
implemented,* waste generated in the next
30 years would require a landfill .9 times
the size of the Orange Regional Landfill,
which has a capacity of 4.75 million cubic
yards. If goals are not met then a landfill
1.2 times larger than the Orange Regional
Landfill would be needed.
Transportation
Extrapolation of the 10 year trend in daily
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) between 1987-
1997, reveals that Orange County daily
VMT will increase from 3,113,800 in 1997 to
7,867,650 in 2030.. This translates to an
increase in daily Orange County VMT from
35 miles per driver per day in 1997 to 45
miles per driver per day, by 2030.
10
Low gas prices provide an incentive for
drivers to make multiple, short trips that
they would not ordinarily make, but do so
given the reduced fuel costs. In general
larger distances between residential
development and commercial/ office space
increases auto dependency. As Orange
County residents live further and further
from shopping and work they will rely on
automobiles for transportation, in the.
absence of other travel choices. One result
of the spatial mismatch between residential
and commercial/ office development, is that
drivers are encouraged to drive for longer
distances with fewer passengers.
The current transportation infrastructure
provides few options, other than driving,
for persons who commute long distances
(>15 miles from point of origin). Chapel
Hill Transit provides and will continue to
service the needs of Chapel M and'
Ca-rrboro residents and UNC students
within these towns. The
Figure 10: Projected Orange County VMT, 1998-
2030
8000
7000
6000
95000
W
004000
WOO
-2000
1011111
N CR a N a
These projected increases in daily VMT will
occur given population increase and
continuation of: 1) low gas prices; 2)
regional land use patterns; 3) the
commuting patterns of county drivers and
4) transportation infrastructure provision.
— Rural
--- Urban
Total
5
Triangle Transit Authority
provides limited bus service
between Chapel Hill,
Raleigh and Durham. TTA
is conducting preliminary
analysis for a regional rail
station to be developed in
Chapel Hill. Bicycle
commuting is and will
continue to be a viable
alternative for in-town
commuting. Bicycle
commuting between towns
and/or suburbs will be
a a "I difficult unless current
thoroughfares are equipped
with proper measures to
facilitate bicycle traffic.
Diversification of the County's
transportation network will be needed to
serve seniors, the disabled and low income
residents whose physical, and or economic
limitations prevent them from driving.
2030 Baseline Scenario April 1999
0-1
Orange nty, NC
April 5,,
W
o
April 9, 1999
- Includes Chapel Hill, CanborD, Hillsborough and parts of Mebane
a.k.a. "mobile homes" - Does not include replacement units in parks.
The attached table shows new housing starts in Orange County (including the municipalities of
Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Mebane) for calendar year 1998. For Orange County and
the Town of Hillsborough, new housing data was compiled from Orange County's ORPERMIT
computerized building permit system. Data from Carrboro and Chapel Hill are provided by the
Inspection agencies for both jurisdictions, and data from the City of Mebane is compiled from
records of the Orange County Tax Assessor's Office.
1998 Points of Interest
New Housing Starts Up 30% Overall!
A total of 1,506 new housing units were e permitted in all of Orange County in
1998, which is a whopping 30% increase over 1997 and the largest single-
year jump since the building boom of the mid -late '80's. New single-family'
compromised 60% (899) of the new housing starts, with 31 % new multi - family
(465) and 96/o new manufactured (mobile) homes (141). This compares to
64%, 24%, and 11 % respectively in 1997.
Nearly half of new units were in Chapel Hill jurisdiction.
The largest number of new housing permits were in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction
with 738 new units (49.0%), followed by Orange County with 535 (35.5%),
Carrboro 157 (10.4%), Hillsborough 72 (4.8%), and Mebane 3 (0.2%).
Single-Family Houses Up 21%
After suffering a slight drop in numbers from 1996-97 (755 to 745), single-
family housing starts increased to 899 units in 1998. Just over 55% of these
were within the municipal jurisdictions of Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, Carrboro
and Mebane.
Rural Orange and Hillsborough Reach New Single-Family Highs
By far the most significant trends in new single-family starts occurred in the
rural County jurisdiction and Hillsborough. Both jurisdictions reached high-
water marks since record-keeping was standardized in 1987. New rural
homes crossed the 400 plateau for the first time in 1998, with a total of 402
houses permitted in the rural areas of the County last year — up 29% over
1997 and the largest number recorded since the mid-80's (and perhaps
before that). The average in County jurisdiction the previous eight years of
this decade was 281. Hillsborough town jurisdiction also showed a dramatic
40% jump, with 66 new homes in 1998. The Hillsborough data continues a
three-year growth trend. Prior to 1996, the high year for new single-family in
the Town was 22, and the average 1990-96 was 16 new houses per year.
Average construction of new single-family homes increased
The average construction cost of a new site-built single-family house in
Orange County increased last year, from $144,483 in 1997 to $162,262, an
increase of 12%. Geographically, the area with the highest average cost was
in rural Chapel Hill Township (Rural Buffer) at $217,665, while the lowest
average cost was in the Orange County portion of Mebane ($62,500).
Cheeks Township Led Rural Areas in New Units.
For the third year, rural Cheeks Township led the rural areas in new single-
family housing permits (95), followed by rural Chapel Hill (72) and Eno (69).
Multi-Family Rebounds Dramatically In Chapel Hilil New County High
The always-fluctuating multi-family activity, took a leap forward in 1998, as the
Town of Chapel Hill approved permits for 456 new units. This, combined with
nine new units in Carrboro, account for a 64% increase in multi-family units
and by far the highest number of units this decade.
Slight Increase in New Manufactured Homes
A nine- percent increase was seen in new manufactured (mobile) homes in
1998. A total of 141 were permitted. This does not include replacement
mobile homes for existing lots in mobile- home parks.
do" 11000
TV!, i i 10 F1,
7,' fi
Carrboro
147
9
1
-62%
Chapel Hill
282
456
0
+146%
.Hillsborough
66
0
6
+50%
Mebane
2
0
1
-50%
Orange (rural)
402
0
133
+23%
TOTAL
899
465
141
+30%
1 Includes modular single-family housing units.
00
U)
(D
z
U)
D
0
W
z
OnA
D CL
0
c)
LU 12
(D >1
I
LO C*4 Clf) 00 d N
Lo ~ ti r CY)
0
co C)
c')
ce)
T— 04
T— 04
111 C\
:. L
co ce)
04 LO
69. 61!)- 69. � 6%
C) C) 0 (0 0)
U')
wt
(D CID 0 04 (D
14" (D 0 C)
l4i CNL Ili N Cli
t- t- 04 G) 00
64 61)- 69- V13, 69-
C-4 (o N
0(0 0N 0 CY)
CD
"D
2
0
CL
I-- T r- m w L- " (D
.0 E
0
024-v-
2 4- W-
2 �5 , o 0
0)
a M 0
m (1) >, S 3 0
>. :E
m 0 ic
9
zo
O
E
CL
CD
tis
0
0
a)
M
14
E
Data compiled by Orange County Planning and ERCD, 4/5/99
Includes data from Orange County and Towns.
Modular homes treated as single-family units 1995-present. Mobile homes 1990-94.
Manufactured (mobile) home data 1990-92 may include some replacement units.
pLo
V
cAp
ti
U
o-r
z
Q
0
Q
a
H
C\
O
w
an
C
.y
D\
O
CN
o,
�r
v
0
0
C)
N
O
0)
0)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p�
DD
b
00
W
O
M
h
O
h
°i
N
V'
Ui
r-
-i
t`
14:
CN
M
M
O
.hr
00
oo
O
O
N
h
00
W)
,o
a
r
h
a\
N
M
r
00
,D
a
l0
N
N
M
,D
00
tT
o
ON
�
V'1
M
N
00
V)
C\
N
to
M
e}
{
00
In
V'1
00
00
D\
M
M
,O
O
N
r
oo
M
et
h
h
W
-n
oo
m
c!'
7
r
N
h
N
rn
M
oo
ON
0
O
Ct
°N
to
N
M
IT
p
M
h
rn
c
N
'°
00
M
r
to
rn
oo
g
r
rn
W
Cam,
rn
h
00
M
.
W
0000
m
000
�t
N
N
7
h
V'1
r
V'
r
N
O
M
M
oo
N-
ON
b
M
�V
ON
00
vNi
aK
m
oo
�!'
to
h
h
N
,D
h
V'
N
N
V9
N
o0
,o
O
,o
oo
r-
O
M
m
�
.-r
v7
%
00
h
vmi
.-�
11'
.h-�
00
m
000 0
00
oNi
Er f
Off,
h
N
N
_£
to
O
00
kn
rt
r
,o
�
o
�n
00
M-i
N
o,
N
h
O*,
N
M
t}'
ono
tt
M
N
;)
N
M
CN
,°
,o
W
00
o
,o
v
°,
a\
V'1
r
h
.N-i
00
oo
.�.
N
N
M
h
N
O
�•-�
•Nd'
•-+
h
,°
O
v''
,o
O
.•'�
` >' .
�1
N
V'1
rP
r
V•
ct
h
M
.-+
,D
O,
,°
,D
.-�
m
�n
O,
°i
N
a\
rt
M
O,
O
M
01
h
N
O
,°
\O
M
�t
N
'[t
ON
oo
v't
to
CN
L
.r
�8`
y
y
00
to
h
M
V
,o
O
<t
N
h
ON
M
kn
1p
V9
00
O
00
M
to
GD
°
o,
N
r
"
O
h
h
0o
v
w
M
h
•-�
M
v
N
oo
M
et
kn
�o
tT
� .'�
G
N
h
\0
c1'
N
V7
O
N
�n
O
h
v
,O
.
b
.
N
oo
o,
,o
M
d"
D\
N
h
O
O
r
N
r-
M
oo
h
N
M
00
0
U
o
Q
•�
0
.�'�?r�
a
d
W
�
��
�
x
a
R
U
.a
U
�
Q
a
�
"�
C\
O
w
an
C
.y
D\
O
CN
o,
�r
v
0
0
C)
N
O
0)
0)
O
d
1 O
i H
9
� A
0
�
h
0
00
00
0
c)
O
an
V)
a�7s
40
d'
rt
n
O
W
�O
rt
N
[-:
Vo
M
vj
.h-•i
ON
G
n
N
:4,g
o Er
d3'
�h oo O� O o0 d' M o0 kD '10 r, 00
M
N
1 I
.N
_2rt�
ry
MA ce.:
oo
It
M
c}'
h
01
N
h
O\
01
�o
�D
O
M
M
�o
t-
h
O
N
oo
N
h
.�.
N
h
D\
W
h
dam'
N
VO'
h
N
ON
�
ao
�
�,
01
M
N
4 '
P _
h
N
N
ar)
O
h
�D
Vo
�D
0n
V)
h'
e>•
•--�
to
ara
d'
M
et
t
M
N
N
o0
.Mr
N
V)
n
It
�--�
�,.,�
M
�o
M
�
--�
V
N
tirz nk�"
�
Va
M
N
a
h
M
V)
In
01
�o
e1'
M
•-�
mot'
O
N
V)
a!'z
ch
%o
-t
et
h
N.
N
00
O
01
h
an
ti
O
M
h
M
00
�
M
OMl
111'Oy
d'
N
r7r'^
i `aa
m
a
e7'
M
h
M
VY
O
an
h
M
N
N
.an-�
O\
V7
b
V'
an
O
V)
M
O
W
b
h
h
M
h
"t
M
O
en
10
V)
00
00
O1
N
D0
an
an
O
N
M
N
V)
-T
a!7
O
et
M
eY
N
N
N
h
O
vi
to
�o
00
O
O
h
N
oo
O
O
N
o0
O
00
V1
N
V)
an
N
N
r`
vz
N
M
oo
N
7
f
M
N
O
00
N
m
Ql
O
M
h
Vn
V)
'd'
V)
Vn
e}
ao
N
00
F!
�
�o
N
h
\o
•-�
e}'
V)
O
M
00
0%
N
V)
N
m
M
h
m
aV"
~
rs
N
M
O�
N
an
N
N
.N.r
O.
to
0 0
O
n
n
N
Vane
r
O�
IT
M
mot'
N
In
O\
%O
3
e
h
M
00
N
O
N
�o
N
M
'.
H
N
O
rt'
00
M
N
W
D•
00
h
M
N
00
N
00
oo
o o
In
'
`d'
.Mr
It
S�t ay
N
i°
yyyy
�
M
.-�
00
..�
N
N
O
ti
.aoy
00
M
V)
h
an
h
M
V)
h
OV
N
N
oo
oo
h
OV'
N
N
an
o0
�.
CL
t
O
D
a
o
CJ
on
au
00
O
N
O
V
o_
a
a
U
Q
I
H
rM'L'
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1S;yn
tlt
O
O
O
O
O
00
O
IT
ua
�r
C
w
N
N
C
O
O
O
C
C
�,q
M
O
00
C
C
0
b
iws
�4
in
v
.�•�
e"'n
o°�
a
a
s
lip.
aTG�EE
!
bf
t
t
t
Iq
a
to
•��'
v'�
�D
Ci
V1
to
O
N
N
O
�IdF1"
*!
1
r
M
N
r
h
N
000
N
W
N
O
.N�r
O
t
fs7r
b
t
t
t
t
tn
N
^;
a
N
h
N
h°
N
4
o0
4
00
�
t
�•, n
m
'•«:�rs
.L
in
O
O
y�r]pry'w`'A.
6fT5 �,
'1
�
tPi
V1
�• r
y
O
O
to
M
m
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
P.
0
N
O
N
N
O
t11
h
0
Cz
a
N
M
M
M
M
tIn
-n
f1Air
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
to
O
vt
O
v1
v't
O
v7
v7
O
�! F
e ..... +c
Y
O
O
o0
00
O
!f'
�t
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
vr• ' �
N
.-r
DD
a0
A
xGrl
'YF
O
O
`O
O
O
\O
I'D
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
h
O
O
00
%D
00
kO
O
O
O
O
l-
tn
C-
kn
O
O
O
O
x.1a
on
a
w
bn
t
tw
g
ca
o�
a
o
: >...
d
w
a=
c7
gi"
=
5
Q=
a
r
w
v
w
rn
o'
rn
U)
O
00
C:rA wy
O
ti
OD
0)
C)
CY)
U)
=3
0
:c
Cy)
Q
0)
:4
"D
In
g
-g
YS
t.
N
ri
t
IIR
C)
"i
m
R
.
rn
.
C)
I
CD
.
C>
CN
O
.Mr
ON
N
C.,
N
00
eq
eq
en
N
00
eq
in
eq
In
en
fq
In
00
C4
eq
N
�o
oo
',.
00
00
,n
M
�D
45
31
.1
ON
C-4
r-
C14
00
1-
r-
a,
vn
ON
M
m
IN
M
N
r-
en
1.0
0o
"D
C*
00
M
0
r. .
o0
00
O
oo
M
N
en
O
c -4
en
00
ON
a
r-
rq
M
w
N
O
00
"o
00
C>
ko
N
cn
C>
c,
en
C;,
rn
fn
M
C,
r-
O
O
O
O
cp
ci
m
r-
C>
t-
w
rill
Cl
C>
In
O
C.
e.
C,
N
r4
m
m
•4- -
kn
O
On
In
In
In
as
1.4
N
rq
IN
4� sec
O
"R
�
U
OD
0)
C)
CY)
U)
=3
0
:c
Cy)
Q
0)
:4
,nia Of
+�# fav2`
Welcome t Orange County
0'
North Carolina,, USA
J
�
M
c'1 Z�
Contact Us...
Departments
Services
Job Oaenings
Agendas &
Reports
Meeting
Calendar
Press
Releases
Maps &
Directions
You Count in Orange Countyl.
Please send comments and suggestions to
web master @co.orange.nc.us
Click here for information about this site
Copyright @ 1999 Orange County, North Carolina, USA
All rights reserved
M
IM
Economic
Volunteer
Shaping Oranae
Arts
Development
Boards
County's Future
Commission
You Count in Orange Countyl.
Please send comments and suggestions to
web master @co.orange.nc.us
Click here for information about this site
Copyright @ 1999 Orange County, North Carolina, USA
All rights reserved
1 ;r
1 A
11 �? i
�i ,! ��
I � i',
i. iii �i. :- ,
i �'
� � � y'
��
i �; �
�..
t qve �� �., �.
:�i;��