Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 02-26-2001APPROVED 6/5/2001 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING February 26, 2001 The Orange County Baard of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a quarterly public hearing on Monday, February 26, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, and Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray and members Lea Allison, Howard McAdams, Rachel Preston, James Selkirk, Runyan Waads, Bob Strayhorn, Theodore Triebel, Hunter Schofield, Barry Katz, Lynn Haltkamp, and Craufurd Goodwin NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Halkiotis called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. He made reference to item #5 on the agenda, the Preserve Planned Development Mixed Use and Special Use Permit, Class A, and said that it had been withdrawn. He said that the developers from Maryland decided not to go forward with this project and apologized for any inconvenience this may have caused. Item #4 on the agenda, Public School Impact Fee, was moved upon the agenda right after the resolution to "Establish a Special Board of Equalization and Review." B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair read the public charge. Chair Halkiotis said that Nicole Gooding-Ray, Chair of the Orange County Planning Baard would chair item C -The Comprehensive Plan Text Map Amendments, Orange County Zoning Text Amendments, and Orange County Zoning Atlas Amendments. ADDED ITEM: Resolution Creating a Special Board of Equalization and Review Tax Assessor John Smith said that he was recommending that the County Commissioners adopt a resolution that will create a special Baard of Equalization and Review for the hearing of appeals related to the 2001 revaluation. Commissioner Gordon said that her understanding was that there would be three regular members and then additional alternate members. She suggested a change in the language so that it is clear that there would be alternate members in addition to the three regular members. Commissioner Brown asked when the members would be appointed. John Smith said that the staff would put together a recommendation and present it to the Commissioners at a later Board of County Commissioners' meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution below with the changes as stated above, and establish the recommended level of compensation for members of the E&R Board as stated in the abstract. The staff will recruit applicants for the E&R Board and appointments will be made at a future Commissioners' meeting. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW WHEREAS, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 105-322, the Board of Equalization and Review of Orange County is presently composed of the members of the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County is authorized to appoint a special Board of Equalization and Review to carry out the duties imposed by North Carolina General Statute 105- 322; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County deem it advisable to appoint a special Board of Equalization and Review and by this resolution provide for the membership, qualifications, terms of office, and the manner of filling of vacancies on the special Board of Equalization and Review; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THAT: 1. The special Board of Equalization and Review of Orange County is hereby created. 2. The Orange County special Board of Equalization and Review shall consist of 3 regular members and additional alternate members, each to serve for a term in accordance with G. S. 105-322. 3. Vacancies occurring and existing on the Orange County special Board of Equalization and Review shall be filled by the Orange County Board of Commissioners at their next regular meeting after the occurrence of the vacancies. 4. Each member of the special Orange County Board of Equalization and Review shall be a resident of Orange County, should have paid all Orange County taxes currently owed, and have the statutory qualifications necessary to hold the public office of County Commissioner in Orange County. The Orange County Board of Commissioners shall appoint members to the special Board of Equalization and Review of Orange County in the same manner as it uses for other appointments. After the members of the special Board of Equalization and Review of Orange County have been appointed, the Orange County Board of Commissioners shall designate a chair of the special Board. This, the 26th day of February 2001. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS a. Area 1 b. Area 2 c. Area Sa d. Area 3b e. Area 3c Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict presented this item. He said that the next few items have to do with the economic development district area that is south of Hillsborough. Over the last 12 months, members from the Orange County Board of Commissioners and members from the Town of Hillsborough Commissioners have met to examine the existing land use patterns within and around the economic development districts that lie south of Hillsborough. The general area is around Old NC 86 between the interchanges of I-8511-40 and New NC 86 near the intersection of I-85. The comprehensive plan is a base layer of land use issues within the County. This gives general development patterns and is a guidance tool for zoning layers. He said that Gene Bell, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, would be explaining each Economic Development District (EDD). He said that the EDD Task Force that has been meeting since February 2000 has been one of the most prolific task forces that has met over the last year. The task force has met over 20 times and has analyzed a lot of issues that could potentially affect the quality of life of residents in and around Hillsborough. There was interest within the task force to look at issues such as transportation impact, transportation capacity, and the image of the entranceway on the major interchanges. He said that in 1993, 1994, and 1995 Orange County developed Area A, which is a set of standards far economic development districts. Area A is not being amended because it is an existing economic development district. Gene Bell went over all the areas as listed above. Area 1 is currently rural residential, and the proposed change is for aten-year transition and economic development activity node. Area 2 is currently classified as 20-year transition, and the proposed change is to the economic development activity node. Areas 3a and 3b are currently commercial activity nodes, and the proposed change would designate this area as an economic development activity node. Area 3c is currently 10-year transition. The proposed change would be to an economic development activity node. He spoke about the procedures for amending the plan. The reasons for amending the comprehensive plan are as follows: 1} because of a change or changes of conditions in a certain part of the County; 2} to correct an error or omission in the plan; or 3) in response to a change in policies, objectives, principles, or standards governing the physical development of the County. This is from Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance. He made reference to Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance and said that the plan was premised upon two basic strategies -activity nodes and infill development. Activity nodes serve to cluster commercial and industrial development at major intersections throughout the County in locations appropriate for serving the needs of residents. The infill development strategy is premised on the desirability of encouraging development to occur first within the corporate limits of the towns. The proposed plan amendments that are being considered are consistent with the two basic plan strategies. Two goals that are particularly relevant to these plan amendments are: 1}Goal #5 - the management of growth so that it is directed to areas where growth is desirable and could be accommodated; and 2) Goal #6 -the promotion of economic development which emphasizes employment, meeting local needs while preserving the character of communities and protecting the natural environment. Gene Bell said that within the plan, each category has a set of 11 location criteria. The criteria are land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, public services and utilities, the transportation system, energy use, existing land use, agriculture and forestry, population density, and historical and cultural resources. Of the five areas, Area 1 complied with 10 out of the 11 criteria. There was an inconsistency related to agriculture and forestry. The Orange County land records system indicates that lots 15, 16 and 17 on map 49, block B and lot 8 on map 50 are taxed under forestry use value taxation. Lots 15 and 17 are taxed as forestland and lot 16 is taxed as agricultural land. These lots which are contiguous account for approximately 70 acres of the total 97.67 in the area. All other areas complied with the eleven criteria. The Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments for the reasons as outlined in the agenda abstract. Craig Benedict made reference to a map and identified each area and the uses that would be permitted in each area. He said that he is not saying that everything must conform to the uses as listed. He is saying that the areas are only identified as a guidance far what would be compatible with the land use. Transportation is one of the most important issues with any development. Questions from County Commissioners or members of the Orange County Planning Board Commissioner Gordon asked about the essential differences between the uses now and what is being proposed. Craig Benedict made reference to a map said that the orange area that is proposed which is located northeast of I-40 is very similar to the primary 1 area that was there before, except that a higher intensity of use is suggested to also allow residential development in that area. Previously, no residential development was allowed in the area. The potential density would be 8-12 units per acre. The northwest quadrant previously allowed retail, but in the new plan there would not be any retail because the orange area located northeast of I-40 would have retail potential. In the southwest quadrant, the primary change is that there is some residential allowed in the short-term prior to the provision of water and sewer. Under the previous plan, there was some limited residential, but now even more residential will be allowed. The southeast quadrant is very similar to what it was previously with an extra emphasis on office flex, meaning office-industrial. Areas 1 and 2 were part of the 10-year transition and intended for residential only. The new proposal is suggesting that it be residential plus a limited office component. Area 2 is presently transition, zoned R-3, and would remain the same but allow an office component. Commissioner Gordon asked how the transition area would function in this plan. She asked if it would be going from rural to urban. Craig Benedict said that these areas are outside of the Hillsborough ETJ, which is the definition of transition. This would have the potential of annexation depending on Hillsborough's annexation rules. This proposal would make the transition areas more similar to the adjacent Economic Development District areas. Planning Board member Runyon Woods asked about sewer lines in that area. Craig Benedict said that water and sewer lines are feasible through that area along Cates Creek. Hillsborough does have the capacity to serve this area. It has been identified in Hillsborough's interim master plan that water and sewer extension would occur in these areas. The only exemption is the southwest quadrant, which could also be served. Citizen comments were held until after the presentations. 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Economic Development District Amendments far the Hillsborough Economic District b. Amend Section 7.21 Zoning Ordinance c. Add new section 2.1A in Design Manual creating subdistricts with Hillsborough EDD Craig Benedict said that the changes to the Zoning Text Amendments would create some sub-districts, which would be compatible with the Land Use Plan previously discussed. He made reference to the map and said that a new zoning district known as Economic Development Flex has been created that would allow light industry. Another zoning district known as Linear Office was created. A zoning area known as Limited Office was also created. In the Buckhorn EDD and the I- 85/US 70 EDD near Durham, these categories are not readily available because there is no underlying land use plan that could be directed towards such zoning districts. The second part that is being changed is the Economic Development District Design Manual. The standards have now been abridged to the point where these standards can be used as a site design manual. The most important part of what is occurring in area "A" from a zoning text standpoint is the process requirements. In the present process, if someone brings in an application for 300 acres of development in that area, it will go through a review process, and within two or three weeks, it could be approved. The new proposal would create a new process where there is more input from the Planning Board, Board of County Commissioners, and citizens. The goal is to take all of the properties within areas A, 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 3c down to a limited zoning district, which is suggested as Economic Develop (ED} Limited Office {LO) District 1. If someone comes in with a very large project (i.e., multi-family complex or 200,000 square foot shopping center), they must apply far a rezoning. The developer also must request a Special Use Class A application. 3. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. Area 1 b. Area 2 c. Area A (NW, NE, SE and Part of SW Quadrant) d. Area A (Remaining SW Quadrant) e. Area 3c Craig Benedict said that this proposal would rezone all of the areas to Economic Development Limited Office 1. All of the areas would be given an office emphasis. In most cases, areas A, 1, and 2 are relatively undeveloped. In areas where there are no uses or any structures, this rezoning does not create any problems. In areas where there are houses or structures, it would be taking residential property and rezoning to a higher use zoning area. If someone wants to stay in a residential house that is rezoned, they may stay there the rest of their life. The house or structure would have to be 75°~ destroyed before it would revert to the new zoning district. Other non- residential nonconforming uses would have to be 60% destroyed before they would revert to the new zoning district. He made reference to Chandler Concrete and said that if they wanted to expand, they would have to expand their Special Use Permit and that would be unlikely since it would be a nonconforming business. If there were a use that is no longer operating for 90 days, then the use would have to conform to the zoning district. The rezoning that is being suggested is not a new concept around the United States. It is putting growth in an area that is appropriate and may take the pressure off of growth occurring in the rural area where there is no provision of water and sewer. Notices outlining these changes have been sent out to the neighbors in the areas listed above. Questions from the Orange County Commissioners or from members of the Planning Board Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the nonconforming use and asked if he could build an addition onto his house if it were a nonconforming use. Craig Benedict said that they would look at the intensity changes caused by the addition and probably determine that the intensity would not change. There is some flexibility with the nonconforming uses. Commissioner Jacobs recognized Commissioner Lloyd and Commissioner Sheridan from the Town of Hillsborough. He made reference to the proposed courtesy review with the Town of Hillsborough and noted that this process would need to be included in the County's code. Craig Benedict said that any jurisdiction could very easily be included in a courtesy review. Citizen Comments Areas 1 and 2 Mark Westhafer said that he understands that the reason for the changes on areas 1 and 2 was to provide a buffer between New NC $6 and area A. He said that he also understands that area A remains undeveloped. He thinks that the residences between areas 1 and 2 are going to be trapped between commercial areas. If the transition is really a valid idea, he suggests that area A be amended to buffer the residences, and that areas 1 and 2 be left alone. He said that he thinks the bottom line is to create an access to New NC $6. He said that it would make sense to create an easement from area A to New NC 86, and as the intensity increases talk about transitioning area 1. He would like to leave areas 1 and 2 out of the rezoning until it becomes absolutely necessary. Martin Brawn is a homeowner who lives between area 1 and 2. His lot splits area A and area 2. He has a concern with bringing in commercial development immediately adjacent to a residential area. He would hope that the Board would consider keeping the area residential adjacent to present residential areas. With reference to the proposed roadways into the subdivision, he said that their road is not paved at this time and it would cause great concern to access a commercial or large residential area. He said that this type of road would degrade the nature of the subdivision. Phil Shloss lives in Becketts Ridge and objects to the building of townhouses directly behind his property. He said that what was once a subdivision and infrastructure will now be used as office space. He feels that area 2 is an area that people are looking at developing right now. He said that there were a lot of people from Becketts Ridge at the meeting that had already left, and he hopes that there will be another opportunity for them to speak. Pete Langon lives in Wildwood, which is above Becketts Ridge. He mentioned that it looks like a road will be needed from Old NC 86 to New NC 86. He suggested planning a road below the school so that the private homes will not be disturbed. Iris Simon lives in Becketts Ridge and said that he is opposed to the expansion of a business district behind their Names. If it does proceed, he would like to see at least a 200-foot wooded buffer behind the Names in Becketts Ridge. Don Charland, a resident of Becketts Ridge, said that he was concerned because when he bought this property he understood that it was residential. He said that there are a lot of children in the area and with increased traffic there would be an increase in the danger for children. Also, noise would be an issue. He is opposed to the rezoning. Jeff Hillsburg, a resident of Becketts Ridge, is opposed to this plan. He feels that there would be increased traffic with the thoroughfare between Old and New NC 86. Also, he does not want light industry in his back yard. Area 3a Lawson Brown spoke on behalf of Chandler Concrete Company. He supports excluding Chandler Concrete from the rezoning. He said that the Planning Board recommended, with a vote of 7-2, that Chandler be deleted from the rezoning of area 3a. He spoke about the reasons for excluding Chandler Concrete -general land planning principles, peculiar character of this property, historical use of this property, present zoning of the property, special use permit that is on the particular property, extensive regulation of the existing use of the concrete facility by the state and federal governments, and the fact that Chandler has been a stellar corporate citizen. He said that basically, the Chandler property was the tail of the property, and across the street is a commercial use and a trailer park on the north, which were originally included in 3a but have since been excluded. He feels that the goals of economic development could be accomplished by the exclusion of Chandler without wrecking any plans. At this time, it was about 10:30 p.m. and the Board decided to hear the remainder of the citizen comments. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that there was a moratorium deadline and another meeting should be rescheduled quickly because this still has to ga to the Planning Board, back to the County Commissioners, and be completed before April 18tH Area 3b Carl Merritt was representing Merritt Marine. His property is zoned commercial industrial. He is not sure if he is against the rezoning or for it, but he thinks he is against it. He is trying to gather information about the impacts this rezoning may have on his property. Area A Wayne Pollard lives adjacent to Stagecoach Run Subdivision and owns aaine-acre tract. He said that it looks like he will be surrounded on three sides by office space and he would like to see the boundary with him not included in it. He is actually not part of Stagecoach Run Subdivision but has access to his property through the subdivision. He cannot subdivide his property because he is not on astate-maintained road. He would like for his property to be included as an additional tract in Area A. But if it is not going to be allowed for any residential or transition residential, then he has a concern for his neighbors that would be brought closer to a commercial area. He submitted a letter to the Commissioners requesting that his tract of land be considered as an addition to the EDD, with consideration for possible rezoning to allow transitional residential as a buffer for Stagecoach Run into office use. Commissioner Gordon had several questions. She asked about the new design manual far these new areas and if the present standards would apply to the other two EDDs and Craig Benedict said yes. The other EDDs will remain intact. Commissioner Gordon asked what the advantages were of using the master plan approach. Craig Benedict said that staff realized, based on the Corbin Downs experience, that it might be unrealistic to expect a developer to bring in a project of 300 acres and know exactly what is going to happen on every parcel. By allowing the master plan approach, the County Commissioners can take a look at the big picture with the rezoning and the Special Use Permit to see what the potential uses would be. This gives a reasonable amount of time for the County Commissioners to see the plan and provide input into the plan. He clarified that there can be mini-master plans far areas of two acres. Commissioner Gordon asked why a person would need amini-master plan with such a small area. She also asked that the standards be written so that they are easier to read and understand. She said that the manual was still very complicated. She asked about the entire design manual and Craig Benedict said that the entire design manual would still exist for the two other EDDs. The abridged manual has statements of objective and subjective standards. Commissioner Brown asked about the most logical and first places that sewer would be extended. Craig Benedict said that sewer systems typically follow creek beds. He said that Cates Creek does go under I-40, but it would be a lengthy process to provide water and sewer south of I-40. He used a map to show where water and sewer service is available and where it could be provided. Area A is probably the next place for water and sewer to be extended. He said that Area A could be the focal point for a transportation hub far atransit-oriented development with access to I-40 and I-$5 and access to potentially two four-lane divided highways in the future. This is probably the only opportunity that Orange County will have with the best transportation access. Commissioner Jacobs asked about plans for a connection through Becketts Ridge. Craig Benedict said that there has been an accommodation for a connection through Becketts Ridge, which is in the process at this time. The EDD Task Farce will be looking at the transportation network in and around Hillsborough. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was a requirement for public facilities like fire stations, police substations, parks, and school sites in the EDD manual. Craig Benedict said that the design manual addresses the mixture of uses and compatible public facilities. He said that there should be a generalized overview in the manual of the capacity concept for the transportation network in the area. Affordable housing will also be addressed in the generalized overview. Commissioner Jacobs said that the issue has been raised about limiting the size of big-box retail to control the overall traffic impacts. Craig Benedict said that when discussing this topic in the EDD Task Farce, it was the general consensus that this is something that the County needs to be sensitive about so as not to hurt the downtown area of Hillsborough. Commissioner Jacobs said that some of the uses indicate that there will be no drive- through facilities in the Hillsborough EDD. Craig Benedict said that the intent was to not have drive- through facilities. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 67 and the linear office district. He made several notations, which Craig Benedict will take into consideration in editing the manual. The issues included vehicular connectivity, open space connectivity, and setbacks and buffers. Commissioner Gordon will write down additional comments and submit them to Craig Benedict before the Planning Board meeting in April. She is particularly concerned about the complexity of the regulations. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendments (items C, 1-3) to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners on April 17, 2001 meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPACT FEE The County Commissioners heard a report from the consultant, Mr. Paul Tischler, on the calculation of maximum permissible public school impact fees that consider differentiated fees based on housing type. After the report, public comment was received on the amount of the impact fee and anything related thereto. At the conclusion of the public comment period, the County Commissioners considered referring the report to the administration for a recommendation on whether the impact fees should be changed or not, and if so, to what amounts. That recommendation is to come back to the Board as the Board decides in the context of the Board's deliberation leading to the adoption of the July 1, 2001 budget. Planning Director Craig Benedict made introductory remarks. He said that the public school impact fee in Orange County is unique. In 1987, the North Carolina legislature gave Orange County the opportunity to assess impact fees. Impact fees are used to receive additional revenue to help offset the capital casts of certain types of facilities. In 1993 the first Impact Fee was enacted in Orange County. This fee was set at $750.00 for both school systems. Over the last few years, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District has requested an increase in the impact fee for their district from $750 to $1,500 to $3,000. This report is an analysis that the County does on a regular basis. As part of this mechanism to reevaluate the student generation rate and the costs of providing schools, the County also wanted to look at the number of students being generated. The two school systems are being evaluated independently because there are different growth rates. Overall, there has been a lot of work done over the last three years to determine the level of service standards. The County chase to hire a consultant, Paul Tischler and Associates, to conduct the school impact fee study because of the consultant's expertise in this area. Questions from the Orange County Commissioners and members of the Planning Board In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Craig Benedict said that if there were not an impact fee the property tax rate for existing properties would likely be higher. In brief, the impact fee is having new growth pay a portion of school capital needs associated with that growth. Also, impact fees are not used for renovations of existing schools. Commissioner Brown asked who pays impact fees and for what. Craig Benedict said that impact fees are paid for residential construction. Some of the exemptions are dormitory housing that has no student impacts that has been deed restricted, office development, or commercial development. He clarified that anyone putting an addition onto a house would not pay the impact fee; it is only for new construction. New growth pays for new capital improvements. Chair Halkiotis verified with Craig Benedict that if a house is burned to the ground and rebuilt that person would not have to pay impact fees. Paul Tischler from Paul Tischler and Associates said that impact fees are for new growth to help pay for school capital needs. He spoke about revenues and why impact fees were becoming increasingly popular throughout the country. There are increased mandates in the schools and the school systems must come up with the additional funds to pay for the increased level of service. There are five components to the school impact fee: 1) the land cost per student; 2) the local share of a student's space in the two districts; 3) any relocatable classroom cost; 4) vehicle cost; and 5) the support buildings. The total cost is calculated on aper-student basis and is netted out for principal payments. The maximum amount is not what the total cast is, but it is what the maximum impact fees could be. He said that it was also important to note that impact fees have nothing to do with operating expenses, only capital casts. The revenue received from the impact fee pays for 10-20% of the total costs of schools as illustrated on pages 34 and 36 of the report. The maximum supportable impact fee for the Orange County School district far single-family detached dwellings is $5,364 and for all other residential housing $2,539. The maximum supportable impact fee for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School district far single-family detached is $7,345 and for all other residential is $3,298. These are the maximum amounts that can be supported. The County could set the amount anywhere below these figures and it would be supportable. The reason for the differential between the two districts is primarily due to pupil generation rates being higher in the Chapel Hill Carrboro School District than in the Orange County School District. The fees are easily updated. He said that to the extent that the County does not implement the maximum supportable fee, the level of service would either decline or property taxes would have to be increased to support the level of service desired. He said that the net capital cost per high school student for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School system would be $25,000 and the net capital cast per high school student for Orange County would be $23,000 plus the debt service, which would be over $25,000. The pupil generation rate in the Orange County school district for single-family detached is .309 and for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district .386. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that the cutoff date for the analysis was October 2000, which does not take into account schools that have opened since that time. The fee structure would probably be increased with the additional schools. Planning Board Chair Gooding-Ray asked how the consultant determined how many children there were in each household. Paul Tischler said that the information was taken from the 1990 census. The expectation is that within the next year the data from the 2000 census will be available. He explained that the average number of students generated was used. In answer to a question from Hunter Schofield, Paul Tischler said that the impact fee would only be charged on new net construction and not rehabilitation or additions to homes. He said that there were a few impact fees around the country that use square footage to calculate the amount of the impact fee. He has found in many cases that it is very difficult to show that public school students increase as the square footage increases. Sometimes there are more children in starter homes than there are in some of the larger homes. Ms. Holtcamp made reference to page 28 of the document. She read from the report and asked about the alternative where the County could require the developer to pay all or part of the impact fee. Paul Tischler said that the intent of the language was to exempt someone from paying the impact fee that was going to build something that was deed restricted to a certain land use (i.e., elderly housing or housing for the mentally ill). In answer to another question, Paul Tischler made reference to page 8 of the study and said that to the extent the maximum supportable fee were discounted, then the builder would pay whatever the adopted fee would be, and the taxpayers would pay the remainder. He said that in the vast majority of cases, the impact fee is passed an to the purchaser of the property. In answer to a question from a member of the Planning Board, Paul Tischler said that in approximately 10% of the places where he has done impact fee studies, there have been exceptions to the payment of the fee in the form of waivers. A characteristic is that the housing stock in a jurisdiction is inadequate in providing current affordable housing, which is the major factor in the exception. In answer to a question from Commissioner Carey, Craig Benedict said that there could be other policies in place to accommodate affordable housing. In Orange County there is a reimbursement plan in place far impact fees for certain types of housing. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification about states that have impact fees and the difference between the level of responsibility that each state places on the local government entity. John Link said that in North Carolina the primary responsibility for funding the capital building projects is with each county. He said that the basic responsibility for operations of schools resides with the state, but that is at a very basic level. Paul Tischler made reference to the differences in the levels of service between each County and between each state and said that as students per teacher are decreased, the costs are greatly increased. Hunter Schofield asked Paul Tischler if he had ever seen impact fees tiered based upon the size of the subdivision and Paul Tischler said no, because each house has the potential for the same demand. Citizen Comments Marinda Martin, a mother of two children at Efland Cheeks Elementary school, spoke about the change in landscape because of the growth in the area. She thinks that Efland's growth parallels Chapel Hill. She noted that Chapel Hill has a world class public education system and she feels this is because they already have a $3,000 impact fee in place. She also spoke about the increase of non-English speaking residents Gaming to the Hillsborough area. She said that new curricula and new programs would have to be developed to address the language barrier. She suggested that the maximum impact fee be put into place as a reasonable impact fee for Orange County. There is only one opportunity to collect this fee because Orange County is on the cusp of major development. She feels that now is the time to raise the fee to the maximum supportable amount. Weldon Rigsbee said that he is against the impact fee. He said that there have been school bonds in the past and that the taxes on property have gone up. He questioned where all of the money had gone. He said that some of the people that want to build could not come up with the impact fee to start a house. Mark Marcoplos said that he was somewhat ambivalent about the impact fee. He said that the perspective of the home-schooled child has not been discussed in this. He said that the impact fee would negatively impact home-schooled children because they do not get any money from the state ar County. He feels that there is a better way to do this. He is moving one mile down the road and he will have to pay an impact fee. He said that a lot could be done to make home-schooled children a more appreciated part of the community. He feels that the County feels the pressure because of bad programs at the federal level. He feels that if energy efficiency were initiated in the schools, that each school would save $20,000 a year. Matthew Freytag spoke in support of the impact fee. He is a father of afirst-grader and a rising kindergartner at Grady Brown Elementary School. He feels that the need is obvious. He said that, unlike the bond, the impact fee is the fairest thing on the table. He hopes that the County will move forward to implement an increase in the impact fee. Gary Geddy spoke in support of affordable housing. He feels that the impact fee is a regressive fee. He said that impact fees were not necessary in order to build schools. He said that it is true that a waiver may help, but like medical services, it will leave the working poor out in the cold. He feels that this fee is worse than the sales tax on food and pharmaceuticals that the State is in the process of trying to abolish. He said that the taxpayers can pay this and that it was a far better means of paying far the schools. Horace Johnson, Mayor of Hillsborough, spoke far the working poor. He said that he does see a need for a modest increase, but if it is increased to the maximum he sees the County moving toward an elitist citizenry. He does support a very modest increase but not to the maximum. He asked the County Commissioners to allow those who want to live in Orange County be allowed to do sa. Susan Halkiotis, member of the Orange County School Board, said that the School Board started talking about supporting an increase in the impact fee last year. Initially, the school board members were split with some not wanting to see any increase at all and some wanting an increase based an the study that the County commissioned. She said that Orange County Schools hope to have a middle school on the upcoming band referendum in November 2001. She pointed out that although the vote to increase the impact fee was not unanimous, the only point of dissentian was whether or not to go with $3,000 or $3,500. She said that she appreciates and respects every speaker that has expressed an opinion. She said that it was a very difficult position, but the reality is that the schools can no longer depend upon bond funds to build the needed facilities. Dana Thompson, member of the Orange County School Board, said that she came to Orange County to put her children in the Orange County schools. She talked about the importance of having high quality schools. There is na argument about the quality of the schools that they desire but there is an argument about who is going to pay to put another seat in a school. If we are asking a new homeowner to pay an impact fee, we are asking the rest of the residents to pay the remainder that is needed. By increasing the impact fee, this lowers the burden for those who have been in the community for a long time. The $3,000 impact fee is a number that the School Board feels good about. She said that, in the end, we agree that we want to maintain the quality of our schools. David Hunt said that he is proud of the quality of both school districts in Orange County. A lot of people move here because of the two school districts. We continually have new people moving into the area. He made reference to the study and asked if there was any indication of the percentage of the new housing for people who have been in the County less than 10 years. He feels it is absolutely fair to increase the impact fee to $3,000, especially if we can show that most of these fees are being paid by new citizens in the County. Nick Tennyson, Executive Vice President of the Homebuilder's Association of Durham and Orange Counties, said that public school impact fees are not philosophically the right thing to do. He said that public school education was an indivisible public good. He said that the Homebuilder's Association did support some types of impact fees, such as water and sewer and transportation, but it is impossible to sort out anyone who benefits more from having an excellent public education system. Vic Knight is opposed to an increase in the impact fee. He said that if the $3,000 impact fee were impaled, a person would have to increase their income more than 3% to be able to afford a home costing $100,000. He does not feel this is a fair way of doing this. He supports an assessment on the property tax. He said that mast people who are in favor of the increased impact fee are people who already live here and have purchased a home. People who have not moved here yet are not represented because mast of them probably do not know if they will live here or nat. He asked the Commissioners to consider limiting the impact fee to the current rate, if anything at all. Doug Stewart who lives in Hillsborough asked the County Commissioners to consider mitigating the impact fee, which seems bound to pass, by considering the allocation of 10°~ of the total bond funds for affordable housing units. He said that UNC-CH would be adding thousands of jobs, many of them low-paying jobs, with the planned expansion in the next 5-6 years. He said that the crisis of affordable housing, especially in southern Orange County, could be mitigated through the use of land banking. He suggested using a land bank method and using more of the bond money to buy land that would be put aside for affordable housing. If the southern part of Orange County were going to have new jobs, it would be reasonable to have those people live near their jobs. Anne Neville VIlilliams lives in Chapel Hill Township and pays taxes for Chapel Hill- Carrboro City School. She said that her family has been there for over 100 years. Her son built a home on the farm, on which her ancestors paid the taxes. Before her son could build his home on the farm, he had to pay the $3,000 impact fee. She made reference to the waiver for affordable housing and asked for consideration of a waiver for owners of farmland. Craig Benedict said that any additional comments could be made in writing to himself or the Clerk to the Board. This information can be put on the public record prior to the next Planning Board meeting. The testimony from this public hearing will be considered by the Planning Board next month for a recommendation, and then back to the County Commissioners for a consideration for an amendment to the educational impact fee ordinance within two months. Information from both school districts will also be considered with the public comment. Nicole Gooding-Ray asked if there has been any study done on charging an impact fee by using a percentage of the total purchase price instead of a fixed fee or flat amount. Craig Benedict said that the Planning Board could discuss this issue next month. Paul Tischler reiterated that this is a fee and not a tax. Commissioner Brown asked for the number of new houses that have been sold for $100,000 in Orange County within the last five years. Craig Benedict will bring back the cost of housing from new construction that has occurred over the last five years. Commissioner Jacobs asked for a report about reimbursement and how many people get this waiver, how we let people know that they may qualify for the waiver, how they do quality, etc. Craig Benedict will work with Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes on the history of reimbursements of impact fees. Commissioner Brown asked Paul Tischler if there is anyplace in the United States that levies impact taxes and he said that there are excise taxes, which go into a broader pot of money. Orange County does not have this type of legislation available. Hunter Schofield asked Paul Tischler if he was familiar with any system where a waiver was provided when the applicant was constructing a new residence for an immediate family member and Paul Tischler said no. Paul Tischler said that if a jurisdiction wanted to waive the fee for such a party, they would have to provide reimbursement. Any exemptions granted would have to be replaced by the amount of money that was waived. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer the public school impact fee to the Orange County Planning Board along with the information and comments received, to be received back with a recommendation to be considered during the July 1, 2001 budget adoption process. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss, a motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 6, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Stephen H. Halkiotis, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, CMC