HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-25-2002 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT PUBLIC.HEARING AGENDA
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING NOTE: INFORMATION IS
February 25, 2002 AVAILABLE IN THE
7:30 P.M. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JUDGE GORDON F. BATTLE COURTROOM OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE
ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE (new)
106 E. MARGARET LANE
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is
available on request. If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's
Office at 732-8181 or 966-4501.
PAGE#
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its
respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful,
courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time
should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public
charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until
that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored,
the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment
to this public charge is observed.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5 1. Petitioner Initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Pierre Morin, agent for Biltmore Homes LLC requests a text
amendment to Article 9 SIGNS of the Zoning Ordinance
15 2. Orange County Hazard Mitigation Plan
17 3. Adoption of the 2002 North Carolina Building Codes
19 4. Moratorium on Telecommunications Towers
D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
25 1. Presentation: Triangle Greenprint Regional Open Space
Assessment
27 2. Presentation: Population and Demographic Update and Build-out
Projections Using GIS
E. ADJOURNMENT
a
0001
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the
- New Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, Nurl.h Carolina,
on Monday, February 25, 2002, at 7:30 PM for the purpose of giving all interested citizens
an opportunity to speak for or against the following items:
A. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Pierre Morin, agent for Biltmore Homes LLC requests a text
amendment to Article 9 SIGNS of the Zoning Ordinance
The specific petitioner request is to change a.section in the unregulated sign
portion of the ordinance that would allow a 16 square foot instead of the
present 4 square foot maximum sign to be installed on the same lot as a
builder's model home. The sign would specifically convey information about
the builder and hours for viewing the house.
Purpose: Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance regulates signage within the
Orange County zoning jurisdiction. Section 9.6 of the sign ordinance sets
forth the types of signage that are not regulated by the zoning ordinance
(Signs Not Subject To Permit Requirements). Section 9.7 of the sign
ordinance states that any sign not referenced in Section 9.6 are to be
regulated (Zoning Compliance Permit Required). Therefore if the
amendment is approved, builders would be allowed up to a 16 square foot
sign without a zoning compliance permit.
B. ORANGE COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Purpose: In June of 2001, the North Carolina General Assembly passed
Senate Bill 300: An Act to Amend the Laws Regarding Emergency
Management as recommended by the Legislative Disaster Response and
Recovery Commission. Among other provisions, the bill requires that local
governments have an approved hazard mitigation plan which includes a
community assessment and mitigation strategy in order to receive state public
assistance funds (effective for state-declared disasters after August 1, 2002).
Participating municipalities would be part of the county-wide plan to aid in
coordination and consistency.
C. ADOPTION OF THE 2002 NORTH CAROLINA BUILDING CODES
Purpose: The state adopted a new building code standard that is more
universal in application in terms of format, technical code provisions that may
be more easily understood by multi-state builders. Based on prior legislative
action, this year, the 2002 North Carolina Building Code (International Code
with North Carolina Amendments) will become the official North Carolina State
Building Code along with the 2002 North Carolina Residential Code, Volume 1-
A Administration, 1-C Accessibility, Volume ll Plumbing, Volume 111 Mechanical,
0002
2
Volume IV Electrical, Volume V Fire Prevention, Volume VI Gas, Volume Vll
Modular Construction, Volume IX Existing Buildings and X Energy, to replace
the Council to American Building Code Officials, One and Two Family Dwelling
Code and the 1994 Standard Building Code, General Construction. If adopted
by the Orange_County Board of Commissioners, then the 2002 North Carolina
Building Codes and associated codes noted above by volume would be
effective in Orange County's building jurisdiction.
D. MORATORIUM ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS
Invoke a six-month moratorium on all towers that are in process and
unapproved and those to be received and processed regarding applications for
new telecommunications towers on lands within Orange County's jurisdiction.
Pur ose: To permit additional time for review of proposed amendments to
Article 8.8.17a (Telecommunications Towers) of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance. Proposed amendments may, among other things, address the
location, spacing, height, appearance, processing and total number of towers in
Orange County. Opportunities for"co-location" of facilities on individual towers,
promotion of tower facilities in existing electric transmission corridors and
limited use of public land may also be addressed in the proposed ordinance
amendments.
E. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Presentation: Triangle Greenprint Regional Open Space Assessment
The Triangle GreenPrint is a joint project to develop a regional open space
plan for the Triangle, building on local programs such as Orange County's
Lands Legacy program. Phase I of the process has been a regional open
space assessment, bringing together open space and conservation
professionals from across the region to identify critical natural and cultural
resource lands. Representatives from Triangle GreenPrint (which is
coordinated by N.C. Parks and Recreation, Triangle J Council of
Governments, and Triangle Land Conservancy) will present the results of the
Phase I/Regional Open Space Assessment.
2. Presentation: Population and Demographic Update and Build-out
Projections Using GIS
The Orange County Planning Department is analyzing existing demographic
components and proposed conditions based on land use to develop a new
comprehensive plan. As part of the research process, a study of population
and demographics has been performed. This presentation will focus on
population changes derived from 2000 Census data; population and housing
linear projections through 2020; and a build-out scenario based on maximum
market rate growth using existing land use densities.
30003
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals that reflect debate, objections
and discussion at the hearing.
Accommodations for individuals with physical disabilities can be provided if the
request is made to the Director of Planning at least 48 hours prior to the Public. .-.
Hearing by calling the appropriate number listed below. The full text of the
changes may be obtained after February 20, 2002 from the Planning Department.
Also, the text may be obtained at the County website www.co.orange.nc.us at the
Agendas and Reports link prior to the meeting.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning
Department located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road,
Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday. You may also call 245-2575 (Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-
9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension
2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions.
PUBLISH: News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald
February 13, 2002 February 13, 2002
February 20, 2002 February 20, 2002
0004
1
ORANGE COUNTY 0005
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 25, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Text Amendment: Article 9 Signs
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) YES
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Letter requesting amendment Craig Benedict, Director, Ext. 2592
Ordinance with proposed amendment Robert P. Davis Planner III, Ext. 2580
Table of Permitted Signs TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To hear public comment and the staff recommendation on the proposed
amendment to Article 9. Signs of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Petitioner: Pierre Morin, Biltmore Homes, LLC
• Proposal is to amend Section 9.6 Signs Not Subject To Permit Requirements
• Adds subparagraph I in the unregulated signs portion of the ordinance (Section 9.6)
• Current maximum of signs not subject to permit requirements is 4 square feet
• This proposal would allow a 16 square foot maximum sign to be installed on the same lot
as a builder's model home
• Would add provision requiring a minimum of 12 square feet of landscaping including
flowering plants or bushes to be provided surrounding the sign
• Sign would limit information conveyed to: 1) the builder's name, 2) phone number, 3) the
hours that the model is open for viewing, and 4) an e-mail address
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no public fiscal impact associated with this decision item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Staff recommends DENIAL of the amendment.
The Administration recommends that the proposed
amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a
recommendation returned to the Board of County Commissioners
no sooner than May 21, 2002.
0006
f ' f
0007
HILT
Burt farkfe!
PO Box 848
Apex,NC 27502
August 28, 2001
Orange County Planning &Inspection Dept
306F Revere Road
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough,NC 27278
To Whom It May Concern:
We would like to make a text amendment in regards to Article 9 section 9.6 paragraph J
which state:
Temporary real estate signs for lots of less than 5 acres, single sign on each street
frontage may be erected. It shall not exceed 4 square feet in area, and may contain the
message that the property is for sale, lease or rent and the name, address and phone
number of the agent. For lots of 5 acres or more in area and having a street frontage in
excess of 400 feet, a second sign not exceeding 32 square feet in area may be permitted.
We would like to include the following to this statement:
New subdivisions with more than 1 builder, a single temporary sign may be erected to
advertise a specific builders model. It shall not exceed 16 square feet, and may contain
builders company name,phone number, hours that the model is open and e-mail address.
It shall also, have a minimum of 12 square feet of landscaping surrounding it, including
bushes or flowers.
Due to competition we feel it is necessary to have signs advertising the builder of the
model. I sincerely hope everything will suffice.
Sincerely,
Biltmore Homes,LLC �X ��� — 0 ��
0008
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of
Orange County
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, that the
Zoning Ordinance is hereby amen-ided_?s.-follows:
Section 1: Petitioner proposed language in bold to amend Article 9 of the Zoning
Ordinance:
ARTICLE 9. SIGNS
9.1 Intent
Amended
1/3/84
It is the general intent of this Article to prohibit signs of commercial nature in
districts in which commerce is barred; to limit signs in the commercial
districts in relation to the intensity of the use of the district and its
surroundings; and to control the number, area and locations of signs in other
districts.
It is the intent of this section to regulate signs on a per lot basis in
conjunction with the zoning designation of the lot as described in the current
tax roll.
9.2 Traffic Safety Precautions
Notwithstanding any other provisions in this ordinance, the following
practices in relation to signs are prohibited in order to preserve the safety of
pedestrian and vehicular movement:
a) No sign shall be erected so that any part of it intrudes into the sight
preservation triangle.
b) No sign shall use words such as "stop," "slow," "caution", "danger", or
similar admonitions which can be confused with traffic directional
signs erected by governmental agencies.
C) No sign shall be erected so that, by its location, color, nature or
message, it would tend to be confused with or obstruct the view of
traffic signals or signs or would tend to be confused with the warning
lights of an emergency or public safety vehicle.
d) No sign shall contain flashing lights, except those showing time of day
and temperature.
9.3 Prohibited Locations For Signs
Except where specifically permitted by this ordinance, all signs, including the
supports, frames and embellishments thereto, shall not be located within any
9-1
0009
required setback area or public right of way, nor shall any sign be attached,
affixed or painted upon any utility poles, any tree, rock or other natural object
within the public right of way. No sign shall be permitted on the side street
frontage of a corner building, if such building is located within one hundred
feet of a Residential District.
9.4 Restrictions On Illumination, Etc.
No source of illumination on a sign, such as floodlights, spotlights,
unshielded bulbs, etc., shall be directly visible from any public right of way,
from any residential district or from adjacent premises. Animated, rotating,
or other moving or apparently moving installations are prohibited.
9.5 Signs Subiect to Control
Amended
7/5/88
All signs visible from the public right of way shall be erected, maintained,
and operated in accordance with this ordinance and other relevant controls
unless specifically excepted. Any sign authorized by this ordinance may
contain non-commercial copy in lieu of any other copy. Signs not subject to
the provisions of this ordinance are listed in 9.6.
9.6 Signs Not Subiect To Permit Requirements
The following signs are not subject to the permit requirements ordinance:
a) Non-illuminated signs not exceeding 2 per lot and 2 square feet in
area, of a non-commercial nature and bearing only property
identification numbers and names, post office box numbers and
names of occupants of the premises.
b) Flags and insignia and signs of any government, when displayed in
connection with a non-commercial activity. One flag of the United
States displayed in connection with a commercial activity.
c) Legal notices, identification and informational signs and traffic
directional signs erected by or on behalf of a governmental body.
d) Integral decorative or architectural features of buildings, except
letters, trademarks, moving parts or moving lights.
e) Signs directing and guiding traffic on private property, not exceeding 4
square feet each, and bearing no advertising matter.
Amended 1/3/84 f) Signs, not exceeding 16 square feet in area and limited to 2 single-
faced signs or 1 double-faced sign at each point of egress, giving the
name of residential subdivisions, multiple family housing
developments, or mobile home courts.
9-2
0 0 1 0 g) Internally lighted or unlighted church bulletin boards and identification
signs, not exceeding 1 per abutting street and 16 square feet in area.
h) Signs not exceeding 64 square feet in area, advertising agricultural
products produced on the premises, if the lot is not part of a bona fide
farm.
i) Unlighted directional signs o non-profit organizations not exceeding 6
square feet in area, that bear no advertising matter or logo.
j) Temporary real estate signs for lots of less than 5 acres, a single sign
on each street frontage may be erected. It shall not exceed 4 square
feet in area, and may contain the message that the property is for
sale, lease or rent and the name, address and phone number of the
agent. For lots of 5 acres or more in area and having a street
frontage in excess of 400 feet, a second sign not exceeding 32
square feet in area may be permitted.
k) Temporary construction sign. A single construction site identification
sign shall be permitted. It shall not exceed 32 square feet in area,
and may contain in its message identification of the project, its owner
and/or developer, architect, engineer, land planner, landscape-
architect, contractor and sub-contractors. Such signs shall not be
erected prior to issuance of a building permit.
1) New subdivisions with more than 1 builder, a single temporary
sign may be erected to advertise a specific builder's model. It
shall not exceed 16 square feet, and may contain the builder's
company name, phone number, hours that the model is open
and e-mail address. It shall also have a minimum perimeter
landscaping of 12 square feet containing a mix of shrubs and
flowering plants.
9.7 Zoning Compliance Permit Required
Before any sign, except those specifically exempted from such a
requirement, shall be erected or structurally altered, a Zoning Compliance
Permit must be obtained.
9.8 RESERVED
9.9 Determining the Number of Signs
a) For the purpose of determining the number of signs, a sign shall be
considered to be a single display device containing elements
organized, related, and composed to form a unit. Where matter is
displayed in a random manner without organized relationship of
elements, each element shall be considered a single sign.
9-3
b) Without limiting the generality of subsection (a) above, a multi-sided 0011
sign shall be regarded as 1 sign. Unless specifically permitted
elsewhere no more than 1 ground or pole-mounted sign having not
more than 2 sign surface areas, each limited to 20 square feet, may
be erected on any 1 lot.
9.10 Computation of Sian Area
a) The surface area of a sign shall be computed by including the entire
area within a single, continuous, rectilinear perimeter of not more than
eight straight lines, or a circle or an eclipse, enclosing the extreme
limits of the writing, representation, emblem or other display, together
with any material or color forming an integral part of the background
of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or
structure against which it is placed, but not including any supporting
framework or bracing that is clearly incidental to the display itself.
b) If the sign consists of more than one section or module, all of the
area, including that between sections or modules, shall be included in
the computation of the sign area.
c) With respect to three dimensional or multi-sided signs, the surface
area shall be computed by including the total of all sides designed
either to attract attention or communicate information.
d) The sign surface area of any sign located on the wall of a structure
where the closest element of the sign is at least sixty feet from the
street center line shall be computed by multiplying the true sign
surface area subsection 9.9 (a) by 0.5.
9.11 Permitted Signs
Amended
1/3/84 SEE TABLE 9.11 PERMITTED SIGNS, SIZE NUMBER, HEIGHT, AND
LOCATION OF
9.12 Miscellaneous Requirements
a) If a lot has frontage on more than 1 street, then the total sign surface
area permitted on that lot shall be the sum of the sign surface area
allotments related to each street (as determined in accordance with
district in which the lot has frontage). However, the total sign surface
area that is oriented toward a particular street may not exceed the
portion of the lot's total sign surface area allocation that is derived
from frontage on that street.
b) Signs for home occupations shall not exceed 1 per lot and 4 square
feet per sign in the R-1 and AR districts. The size in all other
residential districts shall not exceed 2 square feet.
9-4
0012
c) Outdoor advertising signs shall be considered principal uses of land
and shall not have other principal uses on the same lot.
Amended d) Outdoor advertising signs shall not exceed one sign every thousand
6/4/84 (1000) feet measured in a radius from the sign.
e) All signs shall comply with the construction requirements of the North
Carolina State Building Code. Trailer mounted signs do not meet
these standards.
Amended f) Signs identifying any non-residential use permitted by right or by
1/3/84 special use permit in a residential zone shall not exceed 16 square
feet in area and shall be limited to one single or double-faced on-
premise sign per street or road frontage. No sign shall exceed six (6)
feet in height. Height of the sign shall be measured from the average
finished ground level to the highest point of the sign. Measurement
shall not be taken from the highest point of a mound or berm at the
sign site.
Amended g) No more than 3 signs totaling 9 square feet in area are permitted on
1/3/84 each residentially zoned lot in connection with elections and political
campaigns. Such signs shall be removed within 7 days after the
election or the conclusion of the campaigns. In cases of second or
subsequent primaries, signs must be removed 7 days after the
concluding election.
Amended h) Within the Major Transportation Corridor(MTC) District the following
6/4/84 additional requirements shall apply:
1. Outdoor advertising signs shall not be permitted in the MTC
district.
2. Permitted signs within the MTC district are limited to
identification and incidental signs.
3. Within the MTC district the maximum area of any sign face
shall not exceed seventy-tWo (72) square feet.
9.13 Sign Survey Required and Compliance Deadlines Set
The Zoning Officer shall make an inventory of all signs not meeting the
requirements of this Article. This inventory, which shall include all land
within the zoning jurisdiction of the County of Orange, shall contain the
location*and a description of the sign and the name and address of the
owner(s) of the lot on which each sign is located, as contained in the current
tax roll. Additionally, for each sign, the Zoning Officer shall note the reasons
for the determination that each sign falls under the provisions of this section.
Upon completion of the inventory, the Zoning Officer shall notify by certified
mail the owner(s) of the lot which each sign is located of the determination
9-5
0013
that such sign falls within the provisions of this section. Such notice shall
also include a copy of this Article, and the name and official address of the
Zoning Officer. (See Article II).
Amended Upon determination from the sign inventory that a sign is non-conforming,
1/3/84 the following penalties are applicable:
Within one year of the mailing of such notice of non-conformity, each
sign which interferes with pedestrian or vehicular safety (Sec. 9.2)
shall either be altered to bring such signs into compliance or be
removed.
Within five years of the mailing of such notice, all other signs not in
compliance with other provisions of Article 9 shall either be altered to
bring such sign into compliance or be removed.
Any person violating this ordinance subsequent to the compliance
period shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as
provided in G.S. 14-4.
Section Two: That this ordinance shall be effective upon approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County
Commissioners that the proposed Text Amendments be approved.
Upon motion of Commissioner I , seconded by Commissioner
the foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of ,
2001.
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange,
North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the
proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on 2001 as relates in any
way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute
Book No. of the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of ,
2001.
Clerk to Board of County Commissioners
M
9.11 PERMITTED SIGNS: SIZE, NUMBER, HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF C
Residential Commercial Industrial
Districts Districts Districts �•
ALL
RB/AR/R1 OTHER LC-1 NC-2 CC-3 GC-4 EC-5 01 El 1-1 1-2 1-3 AS ED
MAX NO.OF SIGNS 1 1 2 3 5 5 5 2 3 3 3 5 3 3
MAX NO.OF SIGNS IN MTC 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
TOTAL SO. FT.FOR ALL 4 4 85 100 200 200 200 85 100 100 100 200 100 85
SIGNS
MAX SO. FT.SIZE 2 2 85 100 200 200 200 85 100 100 100 200 100 85
MAX SO. FT.SIZE IN MTC 2 2 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72
FOR ANY SIGN
MAX HEIGHT OF SIGN IN N/A N/A 30 35 40 40 40 30 35 35 35 40 35 30
FEET
MAX HEIGHT IN MTC 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
EXPANSION ABOVE BLDG. X X X X 10 10 10 X 10 10 10 10 X X
PARAPET IN FEET
PROJECTION FROM X X X X YES YES YES X YES YES YES YES X X
BUILDING WALL
ILLUMINATED SIGNS X X YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
ALLOWED*
POLE-MOUNTED SIGNS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LOCATION OF SIGN IN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
SETBACK
FRONT DISTANCE FROM 1 1 1 15 10 10 10 15 10 25 25 25 15 25
R/W FT.
SIDE/REAR FROM 1 1 10 10 10 10 10 15 10 25 15 15 10 15
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK TO ADJACENT N/A N/A 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
RES.ZONE
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING IN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
(5 MTC
N OUTDOOR ADVERTISING YES X X X X YES YES X X X YES YES X X
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 N/A WA
SIGNS NUMBER
oSETBACK FROM RIGHT OF 660 WA WA WA N/A 660 660 N/A WA WA 660 660 WA WA
Q WAY
AREA IN SO. FEET 200 WA WA WA N/A N/A WA N/A N/A WA 200 200 WA WA
0 ADJACENT TO US 70,
p NC 86, NC 57
HEIGHT IN FEET 25 N/A WA WA N/A N/A N/A N/A WA WA 25 25 N/A WA
0 SPACING REQUIREMENT N/A WA N/A WA N/A 1000' 1000' WA WA N/A 1000' 1000' N/A WA
X-Not Allowed
{
N/A-Not Applicable
I
ORANGE COUNTY 6 U 1 5
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 25, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Orange County Hazard Mitigation Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) es
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Hazard Mitigation Plan Craig N. Benedict, ext 2592
(separate enclosure)
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive comment on a proposed Orange County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
BACKGROUND: In June of 2001, the North Carolina General Assembly passed Senate Bill
300: An Act to Amend the Laws Regarding Emergency Management as recommended by the
Legislative Disaster Response and Recovery Commission. Among other provisions, the bill
requires that local governments have an approved hazard mitigation plan which includes a
community assessment and mitigation strategy in order to receive state public assistance funds
(effective for state-declared disasters after August 1, 2002). Participating municipalities would
be part of the county-wide plan to aid in coordination and consistency.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends adoption of the proposed Orange
County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
0016
ORANGE COUNTY
'0 1
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 25, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Adoption of 2002 North Carolina State Building Codes
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) es
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig N. Benedict, ext 2592
Susan Mellott ext 2593
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE:
To adopt the 2002 North Carolina State Building Codes by reference as the minimum
regulations governing the conditions and maintenance of all property, buildings and structures;
by providing the standards for supplied utilities and facilities and other physical conditions
essential to ensure that structures are safe, sanitary and fit for occupation and use; and the
condemnation and remediation of buildings and structures unfit for human occupancy and use.
BACKGROUND:
Adoption of the 2002 N.C. State Building Code would comply with state requirements in G.S.
153A-351, that every county shall perform the duties and responsibilities set forth in G.S. 153A-
352. These duties include enforcement within the county's territorial jurisdiction State and local
laws and local ordinances and regulations relating to the construction of buildings, the
installation of such facilities as plumbing systems, electrical systems, heating systems,
refrigeration systems and air-conditioning systems; the maintenance of buildings in a safe,
sanitary, and healthful condition. These duties and responsibilities include receiving applications
for permits and issuing or denying permits, making necessary inspections, issuing and denying
certificates of compliance, issuing orders to correct violations, bringing judicial actions against
actual or threatened violations, keeping adequate records, and taking any other actions that
may be required to adequately enforce the laws, ordinances and regulations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
It is expected that the number of rejected inspections will increase due to new code
requirements resulting in the need for re-inspections. An increased number of inspections
could necessitate the hiring of part-time contract inspectors during peak workloads.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends adoption of the North Carolina
State Building Codes.
0018
00110
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 25, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No. _
SUBJECT: Moratorium on Telecommunications Towers
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
• Draft Resolution to Adopt Ordinance Craig N. Benedict, ext 2592
Establishing Six-Month Moratorium
• Excerpt from Draft 1-28-02 BOCC TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Work Session Minutes Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider adoption of a six-month moratorium on telecommunications towers
that are in process and unapproved and on applications for new towers in Orange County's
jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND: At a work session on January 28, 2002, the Orange County Commissioners
proposed a series of amendments to the telecommunications tower section of the Zoning
Ordinance (Article 8.8.17a). It was Board consensus that a moratorium on processing tower
applications is advisable while preparation of the ordinance amendments is underway.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There will be no fees collected during the moratorium for Class A or
Class B special use permit applications for new telecommunications towers.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends adoption of the ordinance
establishing a six-month moratorium on telecommunication towers.
0020
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 0021
A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
An Ordinance Establishing a Six (6) Month Moratorium on all
Telecommunications Towers that are in Process and-Unapproved and those to
be Received and Processed Regarding Applications for New
Telecommunications Towers on Lands within Orange County's Planning and
Zoning Jurisdiction
WHEREAS, there are currently 49 telecommunications towers located in Orange
County's planning and zoning jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate for Orange County to consider the scope of
regulation for additional telecommunications towers in Orange County's planning and
zoning jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners on January 28, 2002
discussed potential amendments to Article 8.8.17a (Telecommunications Towers) of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, potential ordinance amendments may, among other things, address
the location, spacing, height, appearance, processing and total number of towers in
Orange County; opportunities for co-location of facilities on individual towers; notification
of 'balloon testing' to affected parties; promotion of tower facilities in existing electric
transmission corridors; and limited use of public land; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners proposed a moratorium
on all telecommunications towers that are in process and unapproved and those to be
received and processed regarding applications for new telecommunications towers on
lands within Orange County's planning and zoning jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, a six month moratorium to complete work on proposed ordinance
amendments specific to telecommunications towers is in the best interest of the citizens
of Orange County.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY
ORDAINS:
Sectionl. From the effective date of this ordinance for a period of six months, the
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department shall not process applications for
telecommunications towers that are in process and unapproved and those to be
received and processed regarding applications for new telecommunications towers on
lands within Orange County's planning and zoning jurisdiction.
002 .3 .
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Section 2. All provisions of any Orange County ordinance in conflict with this
ordinance are repealed from the effective date of this ordinance and for its duration.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective on , 2002.
Upon motion duly made by Commissioner , and duly seconded
by Commissioner the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the
Orange County Commissioners at a meeting held on the day of , 2002.
Ayes: Commissioners
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of
Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so
much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2002 as
relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are
recorded in the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this of , 2002.
Beverly A. Blythe
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
DRAFT 1-28-02 BOCC Work Session Minutes
4 0023
1 2. TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNA DISCUSSION
2 This item was presented to discuss possible areas of revision to the tower ordinance to provide
3 alternate review processes and a telecommunication plan to promote co-location and master grid
4 planning as well as information on the differentiation between Class A and Class B review processes.
5 Chair Jacobs said that it is interesting that Class A towers (200'+) must come to the Board of
6 County Commissioners for approval and none have been submitted since 1996.
7 Craig Benedict clarified that Class A towers are 200 feet or higher. Class B towers are 199 feet
8 and lower and six have been approved by the Board of Adjustment within the last two years. He made
9 reference to the map showing the tower sites in Orange County and mentioned that to date there are 49
10 towers. In some cases the company is the telecommunication provider like AT&T. Also there is a new
11 company called Telecommunication Providers and these are companies that go out and find locations
12 and then promote colocation and process applications. He made reference to the consultant's
13 contract, which was in response to a County Commissioners' goal. He said that Metrosite is still doing
14 business in North Carolina and interested in doing work for Orange County. He expanded on what
15 Metrosite could do saying that they have experience in dealing with other governmental entities.
16
17 Craig Benedict suggested that maybe the County Commissioners may want to put a moratorium
18 on accepting any further applications for towers.
19
20 Commissioner Halkiotis asked about fees and Craig Benedict said that there is an inspection fee of
21 $50 at the present time. He is recommending that this be increased to $4,000.
22
23 Commissioner Halkiotis asked if we require that an abandoned tower be taken down and Geoffrey
24 Gledhill said that the tower companies are bonded and they must take the tower down if it is abandoned.
25
26 Geoffrey Gledhill said that 199' is telling but when the County Commissioners revised the
27 ordinance a couple of years ago, the objective was to build lower towers so the citizens have responded
28 to that.
29
30 Chair Jacobs said that there were some articles the County Commissioners received last year
31 about the towers interfering with birds.
32
33 Geoffrey Gledhill suggested that the County Commissioners focus on how the County
34 Commissioners want to proceed from this time forward.
35
36 John Link asked if this moratorium item could be added to the quarterly public hearing in February
37 with the ordinance to come back in August and Craig Benedict said that it could.
38
39 Craig Benedict asked if changes to the telecommunications ordinance should be made
40 based on staff knowledge and input from the County Commissioners or would the County
41 Commissioners consider hiring a consultant that would assist with developing these changes and
42 managing towers on public sites. Also, should we bring in telecommunication providers to help with
43 these changes and do we invoke a moratorium while we are going through this process of changing the
44 regulations.
45
46 Commissioner Brown said that she wants to make sure that we protect the public's interest in all
47 this— not only the scenic view we all enjoy but at ground level also. She supports a moratorium and also
48 placing these on public properties so that the County would receive the money.
49
50 Commissioner Carey supports the moratorium so that we have time to learn about these towers
51 and their effects on people and also he agrees with placing these towers on County lands where people
52 do not live near by. We need to try to generate a revenue source. He is leery of consultants who
53 extract a part of the revenue for evermore. He feels we should get some advice from a consultant who
54 will help us develop a better ordinance. He feels a discussion with the stakeholders would be beneficial.
0024 DRAFT 1-28-02 BOCC Work Session Minutes
5
1
2 Commissioner Gordon reinforces hiring someone to help with the changes to the ordinance but
3 she agrees that it is not wise to give away part of the revenue for the infinite future. She asked about
4 the regulatory changes and Craig Benedict said that additions could be added to the regulations to be
5 more specific.
6
7 Chair Jacobs said that we need to address the schools and the schools negotiating deals with
8 telecommunication tower companies.
9
10 John Link suggested that we add to the quarterly public hearing a moratorium on
11 telecommunication towers.
12
13 Commissioner Gordon suggested getting information from Chatham and Durham who are also
14 facing the same issues as Orange County.
15
16 In answer to a question from Commissioner Brown about taking applications once a year, Craig
17 Benedict said that having all the providers in the same room at one time is beneficial.
18
19
20
21 3. COUNTY SUPPORTED FACILITY NEEDS
22 This item was presented for information and for the purpose of receiving feedback from the
23 County Commissioners for County supported facility needs. Purchasing Director Pam Jones led the
24 discussion using a PowerPoint presentation, which is incorporated herein by reference.
25 1. Justice Facilities Expansion
26 Pam Jones said that the master plan for the expansion of the justice facilities was
27 presented to the Board of County Commissioners in April, 2000. It called for four phases of
28 development of approximately 24,000 square feet each. The phase I facility may include the Sheriff's
29 Department and expansion for functions currently located in the courthouse. There are two design
30 options with option A including a parking deck constructed as part of building phase 2 or a free-standing
31 multi-level parking structure located where the Sheriff's office now stands and constructed during phase
32 2. The facility planning process was approved by the County Commissioners on September 4, 2001.
33 She elaborated on the desired planned outcomes and on the expanded plan, which revises the number
34 of development phases from four to three. The consultant will present a full report in the Spring of 2002.
35
36
37 2. Space Study Projects including Senior Centers and Northern Human Services
38 Center
39 Pam Jones listed the Level 1 projects as stated below:
40
41 ❖ Government Services Center Expansion
42 ❖ Planning and Ag Building Renovations/Farmers Market
43 ❖ Justice Facilities- Phase 1
44 ❖ Conversion of Southern Human Services Center Residence to Conference
45 Center
46
47 Pam Jones said that there was some discussion as to whether a third story could be
48 added to the Government Service Center and have it still fit in the downtown area. She spoke to Ken
49 Redfoot who indicated that he feels that there could be a third story and even a fourth story added to the
50 Government Service Center without.any problem.
51
52 Regarding the Animal Shelter, she originally projected 10,000 square feet. The Animal
53 Shelter now indicates that they need a significant-expansion. The lease at the current site expires on
54 December 31, 2006 and talks with UNC indicate that there will not be an opportunity to expand this
ORANGE COUNTY 0025
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 25, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Triangle GreenPrint Regional Open Space Assessment
DEPARTMENT: Environment and Resource PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
Conservation
ATTACHMENT INFORMATION CONTACT:
Triangle GreenPrint Report (Feb. 2002) David Stancil, 245-2590
(separate enclosure) Rich Shaw, 245-2591
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive a presentation of the Triangle GreenPrint report.
BACKGROUND: An effort is underway to develop a regional open space plan for the six-
county Triangle region. A coalition of three organizations —the Triangle J Council of
Governments, the Triangle Land Conservancy, and the NC Division of Parks and
Recreation— is working with local partners to develop a "Triangle GreenPrint" covering
Orange, Durham, Chatham, Wake, Lee and Johnston counties.
Phase I of the project began with a series of workshops, or "charrettes," held in November
2000. Representatives from the six counties, several municipalities, state and federal
agencies, conservation groups and other entities participated in the mapping of important
natural areas, farmland, forestland, historic areas, and existing/proposed parks and
greenways within the region. Orange County participants included staff from ERCD, Soil and
Water Conservation and the NC Forest Service.
Phase 11 of the project—the public outreach and input phase of the project— begins with a
presentation of the proposed GreenPrint to county and municipal advisory boards and
elected boards for their information, input and eventual "buy in." The GreenPrint sponsors
hope that local governments will endorse the GreenPrint and use the plan as a guide to
developing their own local open space plans.
For Orange County, which already has an adopted "open space plan" in Lands Legacy, the
GreenPrint will help to show that our county plan is part of a larger regional plan for
0026 2
protecting important natural and cultural areas within our boundaries and crossing into
neighboring jurisdictions.
The BOCC and Planning Board will receive this introductory presentation at a public hearing
along with members of the Commission for the Environment, Recreation and Parks Advisory
Council and Agricultural Preservation Board. The advisory boards will be expected to review
the GreenPrint report and the accompanying draft maps in March and return comments to
the BOLO fCr Consideration in April or May.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the GreenPrint
presentation and refer the report to the Planning Board, Commission for the Environment,
Recreation and Parks Advisory Council and Agricultural Preservation Board for their further
review and comment.
00217
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 25, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Population and demographic update and buildout projections using GIS
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Orange County's Comprehensive Plan Process Craig N. Benedict, ext. 2592
• Current Population Study
• Population Projections
• Buildout Scenarios TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane (336)227-2031
PURPOSE: The county planning department will report its findings on population and
demographics to the Board of County Commissioners. This presentation will be made in three
parts:
I. Population changes derived from 2000 census data
A. Orange County changes by ten-year periods, 1980-2000
B. Orange County population baseline for 2000
II. Population and housing linear projections through 2020
A. Orange County projection by ten-year period from 1980-2020 using percentage growth
method
B. Orange County projection to 2040 using percentage growth method
III. Three different buildout scenarios and historical model of total population and dwelling units
based on various land use policy approaches to growth
A. Historical densities
B. Growth scenario I — maximum market rate growth model using existing land use densities
C. Growth scenario II — moderate growth model
D. Growth scenario III — restricted growth model
BACKGROUND: The county planning department is analyzing existing demographic components
and proposed conditions based on land use to develop a new comprehensive plan. As part of the
research process, a study of population and demographics has been performed with scenarios that
illustrate potential growth existing and possible patterns that can be guided through master land
use planning and density management. The 'GOOD' planning model was considered in the
analysis.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive as information make comment.
w• 0028
0029
ke-
_ f
a
- "• a :� a
Current Population Study
Categories of study
-- Overall population changes
— Reasons for change
-- Subsections
• Race
• Age
(Component of proposed new
comprehensive plan
1
0030
North Carolina and Orange County
Population Growing Moderately
► ..........................................I.......................................... ................................................ .............................................................................................................................
✓ Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill MSA ranked 12th
nationally in population growth
Fastest growing MSA in NC
Orange County ranks fourth in population growth
in six county MSA
— 26.0 percent increase from 1990-2000
— Exceeds NC (21.4 percent) and US (13.1 percent)
— North Carolina ranks ninth in the country in percent
population growth from 1990-2000
Orange County Experiences
-Modest-Pop.ulation Growth
High Growth,High Not In-Migration
Lj Modest Growth,Net In-Migration
Low Growth,Not In-Migration
L w/Modest Growth,Net Out•Migration
Pop.Loss,Not Out-Migration
Low/Modest Growth,Extremely High
Birth Rates,Strong Out-Migration
2
0031
Orange County Population,1940-2000
140,000
120,000 118227
100,000 93,851
O
80,000 77.055
m
c 60,000 57,707
Q.
40,000 42,970
20,000
34,435
23,072
0
Year Source:US Census Bureau
Orange Growth Primarily in
Southern-Pat of Coun_ty________
Chapel Hill Township accounts for 70
percent of growth
- 80 percent in Chapel Hill and Carrboro
V Historic growth patterns may be changing
- More residential growth seen in northern
townships than in past
► - Urbanization can have greater effect on fabric
of rural communities
- Rising land and commuting costs may require
the traditional land settlement pattern to change
3
0032
Orange Growth Primarily in
Southern Part of County
Percentage of County Growth,1990-2000
Uni—porated A-
38% Chapal HIN••
37%
Matuaw••
1% HiNa6orough Carrboro
5% 19%
E---,Mir■Carrboro OHlllsborough®Mebane••■Unincorporated Areas
Northern Townships showing
Dramatic Population Increase_
Percent Increase in Population by Township,
1990-2000
45 39.6
40 33.6
35 30.3
30 27.9
25 19.2
20 15.8 14.8
15
10
5
0
eCO'
4
0033
Migration Major Cause of Growth
-Table 2.8.3 ,
Not Migration;7990-2000 "
North Carolina 8,049,313 6,632,448 21.4% 1,000,991 15.1%
Chatham 49,329 38,979 26.6% 8,630 22.1%
'40 Durham 223,314 181,844 22.8% 26,197 14.4%
Johnston 121,965 81,306 50.0% 33,782 41.50/9
Lee 49,040 41,370 18.5% 4,711 11.4%
Orange 118,227 93.851 26.0% 1�;27r 20.5%
Wake 1 627,846 426,311 47.3% 150,280 35.3%
Net Migration Rate(%of Population Change 1990-2000 attributable to migration)
'Source:NC Office of State Planning
Orange County Experiencing
Increased_.Racial Diversity-___________
Increased migration has brought greater
numbers of Hispanic residents
— 4.5 percent of Orange County population in
2000, compared to 0.89 percent in 1980
— Increases congruent with those seen
statewide
/Percentages of white and black
population decreased from 1990-2000
Milli
5
0034
Orange County Experiencing
I n-.c re a'so_d. ...........R.a cJ al D ivers ity...............................................
Table 2.&4 County a d MunicApal Population by RaM 2
North Carolina 8,049,313 72.1% 21.6% 1.2% 1.4% 4.7% 2.3% 1.3%
Carrboro 16,782 72.7% 13.5% OA% 5.2% 12.3% 5.9% 2.4%
Chapel Hill• 48,715 77.9% 11.4% OA% 7.2% 3.2% 1.2% 1.9%
Hillsborough 5,446 60.3% 34.8% 0.6% 0.6% 2.8% 1.6% 2.2%
Mebane* 7,284 77.4% 17.5% 0.2% 0.6% 6.2% 2.9% 1.4%
,Source:2000 US.Census.U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census
;`Total populations for multi-county towns
Orange County Age Patterns
Chang
/Shift from predominantly young age
4 brackets
-Those ages 15-24 dropped from 31 to 24
percent of population from 1980-2000
Due to absolute increases in other age
brackets
%t Greatest gains seen
- Schoolage children (5-14)
- Older adults (45-59)
- Seniors (75+)
6
0035
Orange County Age Patterns
Changing............... _........................... ____..................._........_...__.._......._............_..._____..._..... __ ............_
Tabld21.6 'Qrafige Pbunty Population By Age,199(T=20�Qn i
0.4 31994 5.2% 5,331 5.7% 5,854 5.0% 523 9.8%
5-14 8,891 11.5% 9,922 10.6% 14,200 12.0% 4,278 1 43.1%
15.24 24,298 31.5% 23,974 25.5% 28,803 24.4% 4,829 20.1%
25-34 15,537 20.2% 18,226 19.4% 17,887 15.1% -339 -1.9%
35.44 7,751 10.1% 14,286 15.2% 17,448 14.8% 3,162 22.1%
45-54 5,709 7.4% 8,206 8.7% 15,923 13.5% 7,717
5559 2,776 3.6% 3,048 3.2% 4,791 4.1% 1,743 57.2%
6054 2,326 3.0% 2,853 3.0% 3,390 2.9% 537 18.8%
65.74 3,553 4.6% 4,777 5.1% 5,275 4.5% 498 10.4%
75.84 1,752 2.3% 2,534 2.7% 3,482 2.9% 948 3Z4%
85 and over 478 0.6% 825 0.9% 1,174 1.0% 349 1 42.3%
Totals 77,065 100.0% 93,982 100.0% 118,227 100.0% 24,245 25.8%
'Source:Triangle J Council of Governments
Results of Demographic Study
,! Orange County population growth reflects
state and MSA
Migration biggest reason for population
growth
Age demographics for Orange County
changing
- Greater percentages of schoolage children and
established adults
Racial makeup of Orange County shifting with
diverse needs
- Large influx of Hispanic residents
7
0036
Population Projections
.................................-............................................................................................................... ................ ....... ............. ..................................................
Based on existing
trends
Forty year projections
created - possible
timeframe for new
comprehensive plan
.1 Projections of
population and
dwelling units
performed
Elm
Orange County Population Trends and Projections by Township,
1980-2040
25000-
20000-
Bingham
15000- CedarGmve•
10000- Cheeks
40 0
5000- —e—Hillsborough
--+—L!tUe River
0
1980 1990 2000 2010* 2020* 2030* 2040*
O
0037
Population is Expected to Continue
to Rise in Orange County
Population Counts and Projections by Township, 1980-2040
Township--. 1980 1990° . 2000 2010, 2020 2030 . 2040
Bingham 3954 5184 ` ' 6181 7726= 9658 12073 15091
CedarGm4e '3166 3691 . 4930 n 6187 , 7765.: 9745 A 12230
Cheeks x.4821 5422,`• °7064 8547 10342 12514 16142
Eno 4450 5262-1 1 6092 x:7128 8340 . ..9758 .11417
Hillsborough 8599 101367 11639 13559 15796 18402: >'21439
Little River 1493 2183 3047 -4357 6231 8910 12742
Chapel Hilo 5Q572 .,.,61973 .79274 99489' ;124859 -156698 796656:
Population Increases by Township, 1980-2040
Township- 1980-90 1990-2000 2000-10'2010-20* 202030*,2030-40'`
Bingham` 1230 997 1545 1 1932 2415 3018
Cedar Grove 525 1239 1257 1578 1980 2485
Cheeks 11601 1642 1483 1795 2172 1 2628
Eno 812 830 1036 1212 1418 1659
Hillsborough 1537 1503 1920 ' 2237° 2606 3036
Little River 690 864 1310E.. 1874 '2679 3831
Chapel Hill ,..1,14Q1 17301;;' 20215f, 31899 39958=
*projection
Orange County Dwelling Units Trends and Projections by Township,
1980.2040
10000
8000
t Bingham
6000 - —a—Cedar Grove
W 4000 ,;
----'' -. .Cheeks
---x—
2000 —*—Hillsborough
— Little River
0
1980 1990 2000 2010' 2020" 2030' 2040`
•Projection
9
0038
Observations of Population
Pro'ect_o_ns _______ __ ___ _.
_ __� .....................__.._.....
JThe population of Bingham and Cheeks
townships will be equal in 2040.
%/The population and density of Little
River township will equal Cedar Grove
and Eno townships by 2040.
/ If current trends continue, the
population of Orange County outside of
Chapel Hill township will approach
90,000 in forty years.
Chapel Hill Township Is
Approaching
-
Between 2000 and 2025, Chapel Hill expects to
accommodate an additional 15,000 residents on
its remaining land.
Very few large tracts for major residential
developments are left within the jurisdictions of
Chapel Hill and Carrboro
./ Buildout of Chapel Hill and Carrboro is expected
in the near future.
As Chapel Hill and Carrboro approach buildout, it
is likely that Orange County will see more
residential development pressure.
10
0039
A New Comprehensive Plan
..�......_ ._�Needed _....._-......................................._...................._........................_....._........................................._ _ _
*Current plan is a twenty year plan
written twenty-one years ago.
Residential growth in rural Orange
County is expected to continue and
increase with buildout of Chapel Hill and
Carrboro.
►
/Greater environmental awareness and
changing transportation issues
necessitate plan update.
Analysis for Comprehensive
PI_an ---- -- --- - --
GOOD plan
— Study of infrastructure,
environment, and
watersheds
— Achieves many core
values of BOCC
Location of
subdivisions since
1987
V Growth scenarios
Buildout projections
11
0040
Guiding Principles of BOCC
J Progressive Government and Long Term
Sustainability
Customer Service and Good Citizen
Communication
J Land Use and Zoning with Smart Growth
Principles
( Social Justice
,t Environmental Preservation
*/ Intergovernmental Cooperation and Regional
Planning
Urban Sprawl a Major
Concern in Orange County
Sprawl can have many
negative effects on a
community
— Inefficient and expensive
public services
— Poor tax conservation
— Longer response times for
public safety services
— Increased commuting time
— Higher fuel costs
— Greater auto accident rates
12
0041
Urban Sprawl a Major
..Gon.60rn in Oranae County ..............
.......................
Concern.. ............................................................... ...................................................................
Sprawl also leads to
-1
environmen4-tal
degradation
- Greater pollution of air and
water
- Loss of wildlife corridors
- Stormwater management
of greater concern due to
more impervious surface
The new comprehensive
plan will mitigate the
effects of sprawl
The GOOD Plan
f GOOD - Growth Optimal Overlay Design
A plan to limit sprawl in Orange County
Ties new development to locational
planning principles
- Distance from transportation
- Environmental considerations
- Watershed Protection
The new comprehensive plan would strive
to guide growth to areas that can best
accommodate it.
13
0042
Attributes of the GOOD Plan
- I.................................. - .....--........_.........................._.........................-_........-....-...-......................_......................._...._.......................................-.....-...................._.................................
V Transportation ,t Watershed Protection
Urban Services Environmental
— Water and Sewer -- Wildlife Corridors
Service V Soil/Septic Suitability
— Fire Protection
— EMS
— Police
— Urban Nodes
• Commercial
• Industrial
Office
— Schools
The GOOD Plan and BOCC Core Values
,1 GOOD plan incorporates smart growth and
guiding principles
— Directing growth towards urban service areas and
away from fiscally inefficient and environmentally
sensitive places
,t Comprehensive plan based on GOOD plan aims
for long term sustainability
V A clear plan better communicates community
needs to citizens and developers
V GOOD plan can accent many community
interests
14
0042
GOOD Plan Does Not Include
.. ........... ..............
/Legislative land use decisions
,fZoning
e.g. Rural Buffer is not included as a
consideration in the GOOD plan
(Cultural/Lifestyle concerns
- However, GOOD plan can be adapted to
10 meet these needs
GOOD Plan Scale
Values are given Legend:
based upon
► suitability for 3.4
development 2.75 - 3.4
- The higher the 0 2.15 - 2.75
number, the greater
the suitability
- The color scheme at M
right represents 0 - 1 .05
these values
• Green most suitable,
white least suitable
15
i
GOOD Plan - Watersheds
To Watershed • •D Plan
or Residential densities
should be lower in
important
watersheds
FI Improvement of
water quality
Lower costs for
water treatment
Protection of
groundwater acquifer
i
GOOD " . Environmental
Environmental •• •
Plan
Lower densities in
environmentally
important
— Wildlife Corridors
— Farming/Forestry
concerns
Floodplains and
flood prone areas
cps
a
T„L + -
��� Q
�,
GOOD Plan - Infrastructure
Infrastructure GOOD Plan .......
High density
development should Mi'
be accessible to
transportation
corridors
- Interstate and state
highways
- Incoming TTA rail
r.
— Existing and planned
water/sewer service 4
areas
Subdivision Adherence to the
'r* D Plan
(All subdivisions back to 1987 analyzed
against the transportation portion of the
GOOD plan.
*/A trend line was created to measure
whether new developments were near
transportation corridors.
/Analyzed for major, minor, and exempt
subdivisions.
"Aft
0046
Major Subdivisions Tend to
L..o-c-at..e.......N p..a r Tra. n s..r..).o rt Qp rri 0 o r.s................
AM"P 01shalaa eaM M4w SUN61,16M ft Tr pftdm Cor"e In 0-9,C—V
o
4
loss Ion low ION 19�. 19011 1e 6 20. =2
raw 9ubdNlrbnw.beet
Minor Subdivisions Increasingly
Farther from Transport Corridors
Average Distance from Minor Subdivisions to Transportation Corridors In Orange County
4
is
o
I. loss 199D 1 992 lee' 1995 1 2000 2002
fthi Year bdd.. b.111
18
0047
Exempt Subdivisions Nearing
Tlansportation Corridors
► ............................................ ...Corridors................... . .......................
Average Distance Ararn Exempt SubdIvIalan.to Tranap-tallan Cat,Wm In Orange County
7
5
40
3
L1 2
I
0
ION 1988 IDWO I 1 11" 1'" 1995 1000 2002
Yor Observations of Subdivision
Trend Lines
► %t Major and exempt subdivisions are
gradually nearing transportation corridors
over time, while minors are increasing in
distance from major highways.
Minor subdivisions are widely distributed
and often miles from a major highway.
Improvement of major subdivision location
to transportation and infrastructure should
take place.
19
4 p ,
0048
Major Subdivisions since 1987
...................._.._.._...._................... .............._...._........ ...............__.._.
. ......................
Major Subdivisions Overlay Transportation
✓ Major subdivisions Orange County Comprehensive Pun
are clustered in the
Chapel Hill and
► Hillsborough cores. �..
' VA number of major
subdivisions have
located outside of 14-1
proper
transportation
corridors in the last
fifteen '
years.
Minor Subdivisions since 1987
-- '�------ Minor Subdivisions Overlay Transportation
Orange County Comprehensive Plan
,/'Though a clustering •. :r
of minor
subdivisions exists, r ,
a more erratic ••a� -. .
development pattern
emerges.
V Minor subdivisions
are the most LWEND
numerous type in
Orange County.
20
0049
Exempt Subdivisions since
1987
............._........................._...._...............................................-................._.._._.............-............._._..... Exempt SubiivisionsOver kyTransportation
Orange County Comprehensive Ptan
No discernable
pattern to exempt
subdivisions. . . F
Continued
observation of
exempt subdivisions
for possible future
development `
pattern.
a.e.x.wlbrr wua
w.suxv
Growth Scenarios
' . Four scenarios created
— Historical density(HD)
— Maximum growth(MD M_
- GS1)
-- Moderate growth(GS2)
Restricted growth(GS3)
Anticipated buildout `R
dates are based on these
�F+4Jb
scenarios
21
1
0050
Buildout Scenario Scale
..............................
✓ Colors assigned
based on
current/future 1du10.25ac (24,620ac)
► residential density 1 du 10.33ac (4,668ac)
1 du 10.5 ac"" (7,763 ac)
— Gray represents highest 1 d 10.92ac(0 ac)
density, white represents 0 1du12ac* (25,285ac)
lowest density 1 du 12 -3ac— (139,558ac)
No attempt t0 1 du 12 -5ac— (55,533ac)
p 0 1 du 16 ac(0 ac)
influence density
decisions in the town
jurisdictions within
Orange County _
Historical Densities
Historical Densities
/ Snapshot of
' residential density
by Small Planning N
Area
— Densities are current
If growth continues
at present pace, this
pattern could
drastically change
22
0051
Growth Scenario I
.......................-.--..................._.........._........................._..._......._......._.._.................................. Growth Scenario
Maximum density Maximum Densities
forecast at current
zoning levels
- Increased density far
from major roads and N
services.
- Concerns about sprawl
in areas where proper
services cannot be
V provided
- Housing is not focused
near existing and
t�ulic P,u�«
planned infrastructure
Growth Scenario 11
Growth Scenario II
--- ------- ------- Moderate Densities
V Moderate growth
regulated through lower
l
density allowances in
environmentally
sensitive areas 6"
- Growth boundaries
become more defined
- Density promoted in
MoOxda GM1Mllll MaEal
urban service areas
- More watersheds
protection ,
Allowances for wildlife ^��
corridors .•--•.•-•--._•w.-
23
°
0052
Growth Scenario III
Growth Scenario III
..._._.......__.................................................................................................... ...._.._ Restricted Densities
Growth further restricted °" rq tRa'fxp nss sq
— Maintain proper density in
established and projected
urban service areas
— Greater watershed "xa
protection
— Reduce rural traffic ,.
— Make public transport
more feasible R"M...G--
Ls d
- Help ensure continuation
g .ulx]x"NANq
1sYIxA.,p,1Nax)
of rural character
�; n°.�" .11u1x-xu�PSASSaxI
1 x.mr P.+srq
1d—tWrxap
— Minimize agricultural vs. �n...,,q � °„.,,:o,;---•
residential conflicts
Buildout Dates
Buildout Dates For Four Land Use Scenarios
600000
Growth Scenario 1
500000 Buildout-2063
400000 Growth
Scenario 3
300000 Buildout-2042 Growth
S o2
200000 Buitdout-2046
Historical Trend
100000 Buildout-2040
0
.. 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
'Based on Historic Population Growth Trends
V Altering maximum densities may not accelerate
the date at which the county reaches buildout.
J The historical trend buildout is sooner than the
most restrictive proposed densities.
24
0053
Population Growth
..........._._..._.........._.......__..........................................._
Po P...................................................._.__._...._................_...................................._..._............._...._.......:....................._....._.........._...._.................
ulation Growth Under Four Growth Scenarios
400000
300000
-r--Hlalonc
200000 tMaxlmum
Moderate
' -p Reatdeted
100000
O
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
1t Under the current plan and zoning regulations, the
county's population could reach nearly 300,000 in
forty years.
Goal is to moderate the trend towards maximum
density in order to preserve historical density through
comprehensive plan land use amendments.
Conclusions
Growth management scenarios can provide
► for preservation of Orange County's lifestyle.
.( The maximum allowable density could almost
quadruple the county population in sixty
years.
Spatial considerations for growth need to be
implemented.
✓ Comprehensive plan is a growth pattern
guide, not a forced lifestyle change.
25
0054
Next Steps
....._._..--.-................................................._.._.._.........---.--.--......_........_............................_....................................__.........................._....-...._.........................._.....
Receive input from
commissioners
regarding proposals.
Create small planning
area work groups.
Begin writing
introductory sections of
the new comprehensive
plan.
Quarterly public hearing
in May 2002.
26