HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05-28-2002 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING NOTE: Background
Tuesday, MAY 28, 2002 Material on all abstracts
7:30 P.M. available in the Planning
ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE Department or the
F. GORDON BATTLE COURTROOM Clerk's Office
106 MARGARET LANE
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Compliance with the "Americans with Disabilities Act" - Interpreter
services and/or special sound equipment are available on request. Call
the County Clerk's Office at 732-8181, extension 2130. If you are
disabled and need assistance with reasonable accommodations, contact
the ADA Coordinator in the County Manager's Office at 732-8181,
extension 2300 or TDD# 644-3045.
Time Page
7:30 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
7:35 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.
7:40 C. PUBLIC HEARING
001 1. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
Memorandum of Understanding
8:00 D. ADJOURNMENT
g:%craig%May28,2002PHAgenda%5-23-02Wg
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
i
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 0001
Meeting Date: May 28, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No. C_
SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) YES
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
• List of Amendment Areas and Craig N. Benedict, AICP,
concerns since November, 2000. Planning Director, Ext. 2592
• The 11/14/01 SLUC recommended TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
version of the MOU and Ordinance Hillsborough 732-8181
distributed on 2118102 to all parties to Chapel Hill 968-4601
the agreement Durham 688-7331
• Probable School APFO Mebane 336-227-2031
Implementation Flowchart
PURPOSE: To receive public input during the Quarterly Public Hearing of the May 28,
2002 meeting regarding the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU). Please note, this hearing does not constitute the
process of adoption of the actual land development code regulation. That process
will occur this fall.
BACKGROUND: The original public hearing on this item was November 27, 2000.
A summary of the item proposed for public hearing is provided. Staff is available to
research and answer questions prior to the public hearing.
Purpose: To conduct a second public hearing on the Schools Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and
ordinance to address modifications suggested through previous public
hearings, Schools and Land Use Councils (SLUC), attorney, and
administration comments. The revisions specifically address the timing of
issuance of a school Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities (CAPS) to
new development and a process for annual reevaluation and update to
the technical school capacity/membership formula. A few other matters
were addressed in the proposed MOU and are noted in the attachment.
Residential growth has increased sharply in Orange County over the past
decade, in large part due to the well-known quality of the public schools in
the county. Concern has been expressed by elected officials that
overcrowding in the schools could jeopardize the quality education that is
a linchpin of the quality of life in Orange County. In 1999, a joint
g:traig%abstractsWlay 28,2002 Public Hearing Legal Ad Abstract.do66-21-02\c1
0002 -
committee of elected officials, staff members from the County and Towns
of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough and both school districts began
the process of designing ways to maintain proper levels of educational
service by synchronizing residential growth with educational capital
facilities.
This committee began to look at the issue of linking new development to
the capacity of schools as a way to help ensure quality schools in Orange
County. From this committee was developed a model MOU and a model
ordinance. This MOU and ordinance have been refined through previous
public input including a public hearing conducted in Orange County on
November 27, 2000. Based upon recommendations from public
comment, from the host of public meetings and work session agendas,
from various jurisdictions and school districts, the Joint Schools and Land
Use Council has amended the MOU and ordinance into its current form at
its November 2001 meeting. Because of substantive changes made to
both documents, it is required that they come to a public hearing a second
time.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this decision.
Advertisement costs are included in the departmental budget for County initiated items.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends the Board of County
Commissioners conduct the public hearing.
g:traiglabstractsWlay 28,2002 Public Hearing Legal Ad Abstracl:AW5-21-02%cl
0003
SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE
LIST OF AMENDMENT AREAS AND CONCERNS SINCE NOVEMBER 2000
The issues that have arisen from public and elected official comment are summarized as
follows:
1. Educational Levels of Service (LOS):
The percentage capacity for each school level both School Districts have remained the
same and are included in the text of the Memorandum of Understanding(MOU):
Elementary School Level 105%
Middle School Level 107%
High School Level 100%
Recent(Spring 2002)comments have provoked evaluation of these percentages to ensure
that upon initialization of the actual School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,the
Educational Levels of Service is supported by the Capital Investment Plan so a "de facto"
moratorium does not occur.
2. Memorandum of Understanding versus School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
implementation:
The Memorandum of Understanding now states that there are four variables to be agreed
upon by all parties prior to the adoption of the actual ordinance:
Section 1 c
(i) Capital Improvement Program- (CIP)
(a/k/a Capital Investment Plan);
(ii) Projected growth rate for student membership at three levels for ten years;
(iii) Methodology for projections;
(iv) Student Generation Rate by generalized housing type.
These determinations have been recommended by the Schools & Land Use Councils and
are also in committee with the Schools Facilities Task Force. The initialization phase would
include the above groups and, thereafter,the Memorandum of Understanding promotes a
planning directors, school representatives technical advisory committee (PSTAC)to annually
update the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance computer model and variables.
3. Timing of Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) Issuance:
The Certificate of Adequate Public Schools was originally scheduled to be given by the
School District prior to submittal to the local government. However,this situation could
have led to "hoarding" of Certificate of Adequate Public Schools that may be attached to
a project that was unrealistic from a zoning standpoint in size, or had a multi-year
G:\Cassie\SLUC\Misc\SAPFO Amendments 052302 1
0004
approval process. The Certificate of Adequate Public Schools issuance was shifted in the
revised Memorandum of Understanding to a date after local government's preliminary
approvals. Due diligence of the developer will likely bring a tentative Certificate of
Adequate Public Schools analysis to be used in the project approval such as phasing the
development program.
4. Initialization and Annual Update:
February 15 of each year is the Memorandum of Understanding date by which the School
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is updated/re-certified with new mathematical
(numbers),variables based on actual current year school membership and capacity.
5. Exemption from Certificate Requirements:
The Memorandum of Understanding was revised to include an "at least thirty years"
provision for elderly and/or dormitory housing exemption. Also, any change of use
would require the project to be processed through the School Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance system.
b. Certificate of Adequate Public Schools Appeal Process
The local government who has the development approval authority by state-law
ultimately will decide on adherence to the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance if
appeals are presented.
G:\Cusie\SLUC\Misc\SAPFO Amendments 052302 2
4,nnt? or O
BARRYJACOBs.CHAR ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 00 e
57EPHENH.W.HALVOns, V/CECHA/R P.O. BOX 8181
MARGARET BROWN
MOSCS 200 S. CAMERON STREET "'
AUCE M.M.GORDON HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278
www.co.orange.nc us
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Mike Nelson, Mayor, Town of Carrboro and Board of
Aldermen
The Honorable Kevin Foy, Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill and Chapel Hill
Town Council
The Honorable Valerie Foushee, Chair, Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of
Education and Board Members
The Honorable Joe Phelps, Mayor, Town of Hillsborough and Board of
Commissioners
The Honorable Barry Jacobs, Chair, Orange County Board of
Commissioners and Board Members
The Honorable Brenda Stephens, Chair, Orange County Board of
Education and Board Members
FROM: Alice M. Gordon, Chair, Schools and Land Use Councils
DATE: February 8, 2002
SUBJECT: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding and
Ordinance
COPIES: Schools and Land Use Councils Members, Planning Directors, School
Superintendents
On November 14, 2001 the Schools and Land Use Councils (SLUC) unanimously
recommended approval and forwarding of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and model Ordinance (Schools APFO) to the
respective local governments and school boards. The two year process of developing
these documents has been an important and progressive collaboration of many parties
to create a policy and ordinance that will help maintain the high quality of education that
serves as a linchpin to the quality of life in Orange County.
Amendments
Over the four months preceding the SLUC meeting, these two documents were
amended from the earlier drafts by an Attorneys/Planning Directors/School
Administrators (APS) Work Group composed of representatives from the local
governments and school boards. The amendments, drafted to address comments from
various public hearings, are summarized below:
You Count In Orange County
AREA CODE(919)245-2130:FAX(919)644.0246
MEMORANDUM
February 8, 2002
Page 2
0006
1. Changing the timing of receipt of the Certificate of Adequate Public School Facilities
(CAPS) to reduce upfront "locking up" of capacity
2. Phasing of development to synchronize the impacts with available capacity
3. Defining the Schools APFO implementing methodology and subsequent
maintenance or revisions to the methodology
On November 14, the Schools and Land Use Councils (SLUC) made a few additional
modifications before approving the MOU and the Schools APFO for transmittal. Since
November 14, the staff has revised the agreement to reflect the changes made at the
November 14 SLUC meeting and to clarify the timing of implementation contained in
certain sections of the documents.
Transmittal of Documents
Accompanying this memorandum are the following documents:
1. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding (Approved
11/14/01 by SLUC; Drafted 2/08/02 by staff)
2. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Model Ordinance (Approved 11/14/01 by SLUC;
Drafted 2/08/02 by staff)
3. Memorandum from the APS Work Group to the Schools and Land Use Councils
(10/11/01)
The MOU includes all of the general understandings used in the proposed
implementing model ordinance (Schools APFO). However, there are four elements of
the MOU that need to be decided prior to ordinance adoption to provide the technical
basis and resulting methodology for the Schools APFO system. These elements are
listed in Section 1 c of the MOU.
The memorandum from the APS Work Group elaborates on the changes made by that
group, and should be read with the understanding that further changes were made by
the SLUC on November 14.
Adoption and Implementation
Because of the changes to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities documents, the
approval process is likely to include an additional public hearing and adoption meeting.
The MOU and ordinance can be evaluated in two phases, since it is anticipated that the
MOU could be approved with the chosen four elements (in Section 1 c) prior to the
adoption of the ordinance. It is suggested that the time for implementing the ordinance
be November 15, 2002. That should allow time for the necessary preliminary work and
approvals.
You Count In Orange County
AREA CODE(919)245.2130:FAX(919)644.0246
MEMORANDUM
February 8, 2002
Page 3
Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning and Inspections Director (and one of the APS
work group team members that included your attorney and planning director or other
representative), is available to meet with you or your board to answer questions as the
public hearing and adoption process continues. He can also explain the ongoing
preliminary work necessary for implementation.
Conclusion
The preparation of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities MOU and model Ordinance
represents a major effort of many contributing boards, committees, and work groups.
There have been many benefits already from improved data standardization, collection,
and reporting and from cooperative planning and discussion among all the parties. The
proposed ordinance can help us ensure that our school construction keeps pace with
our rapid growth, so that our children can be educated in facilities that truly meet their
needs. Excellent schools are essential elements of our quality of life here in Orange
County.
Thank you very much for your consideration of the Memorandum of Understanding and
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
g:kxaigNsapfolsapfo memo from alice\243-02Wg
You Count In Orange County
AREA CODE(919)245-2130:FAX(919)644-0246
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02 -
0008 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this day of ,
200_, by and between the Town of , the Town of . Orange
County, and the (the"School District").
WHEREAS, the portion of Orange County, served by the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange
County] School System has for the past decade been experiencing rapid growth in population;
and
WHEREAS, this growth, and that which is anticipated, creates a demand for additional
school facilities to accommodate the children who reside within new developments; and
WHEREAS, the responsibility for planning for and constructing new school facilities lies
primarily with the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange County] School Board, with funding provided
by Orange County; and
WHEREAS, [Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill School District]
[Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District], have recognized the
need to work together to ensure that new growth within the School District occurs at a pace that
allows Orange County and the School District to provide adequate school facilities to serve the
children within such new developments;
WHEREAS, the parties have worked cooperatively and developed a system wherein
school facilities are currently adequate to meet the needs of the citizens of the county and will
continue to maintain a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that is financially feasible and
synchronized with historical growth patterns;
NOW,THEREFORE,the parties to this Memorandum hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. The parties will work cooperatively to develop a realistic Capital Improvement
Plan for the construction of schools such that, from the effective date of this
Memorandum, school membership within each school level (i.e. elementary,
middle or high) does not exceed the following:
Elementary School 105% of Building Capacity
Middle School 107% of Building Capacity
High School 110% of Building Capacity
a. For purposes of this Memorandum, the term "school membership" means
the actual number of students attending school as of November 15 of each
year. The figure is determined by considering the number of students
enrolled (i.e. registered, regardless of whether a student is no longer
attending school) and making adjustments for withdrawals, dropouts,
deaths, retentions and promotions. Students who are merely absent from
g:kraiglsapfo\rnou-final 1
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
class on the date membership is determined as a result of sickness or some
other temporary reason are included in school membership figures. Each
year the School District shall transmit its school membership to the parties
to this agreement no later than five(5) school days after November 15.
b. For purposes of this Memorandum, "building capacity" will be determined
by reference to State guidelines and the School District guidelines
(consistent with CIP School Construction Guidelines/policies developed
by the School District and the Board of County Commissioners) and will
be determined by a joint action of the School Board and the Orange
County Board of Commissioners. As used herein the term "building
capacity" refers to permanent buildings. Mobile classrooms and other
temporary student accommodating classroom spaces are not permanent
buildings and may not be counted in determining the school districts
building capacity.
C. Prior to the adoption of the ordinances referenced in Section 2, the parties
shall reach agreement on the following:
(i) A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that will achieve the
objectives of this Memorandum;
(ii) A projected growth rate for student membership within the School
District's three school levels during the ten year life of the CIP;
(iii) A methodology for determining the projected growth rate for
student membership; and
(iv) The number of students at each level expected to be generated by
each new housing type (i.e., the "student generation rate").
d. After the adoption of the ordinances referenced in Section 2, the Orange
County Board of Commissioners may change the projected student
membership growth rate, the methodology used to determine this rate, or
the student generation rate if the Board concludes that such a change is
necessary to predict growth more accurately. Before making any such
change, the Board shall receive and consider the recommendation of a
staff committee consisting of the planning directors of the Town(s) and the
County and a representative of the School District appointed by the
Superintendent. The committee shall provide a copy of its
recommendation to the governing boards of the other parties to this
memorandum at the time it provides such recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners. In making its recommendation, the committee shall
consider the following, and in making its determination, the Board of
Commissioners shall consider the following:
g:\craig\sapfoMou-final 2
_. ___.._..._.._.........__._-._._._.�____. _.._.�-��..._.............�......�..,..........-....w.......,..........aom.m.a.ww.r+wrax.w..win,w.:.r+ww+...wr
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
0 0 1 0 Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
(i) The accuracy of the methodology and projected growth rate then
in use in projecting school membership for the current school
year;
(ii) The accuracy of the student generation rate then in use in
predicting the number of students at each level actually generated
by each new housing type;
(iii) Approval of and issuance of CAPS for residential developments
that, individually or collectively, are of sufficient magnitude to
alter the previously agreed upon school membership growth
projections;or
(iv) Other trends and factors tending to alter the previously agreed
upon projected growth rates.
If any such change is made in the projected growth rate, the methodology
for determining this rate, or the student generation rate, the Orange County
Board of Commissioners shall inform the other parties to this
Memorandum prior to February I" in any year in which such change is
intended to become effective what change was made and why it was
necessary.
e. The Orange County Board of Commissioners shall provide a copy of the
updated CIP to each of the parties to the Memorandum as soon as it is
revised, annually or otherwise.
Section 2. The towns and the county will adopt amendments to their respective ordinances,
in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to coordinate the approval
of residential developments within the School District with the adequacy of
existing and proposed school facilities.
Section 3. The following process shall be followed by the School District to receive and take
action upon applications for Certificates of Adequacy of Public School Facilities
("CAPS") submitted by persons who are required by an implementing ordinance
conceptually similar to that attached as Exhibit A to have such certificates before
the development permission they have received from the town or county becomes
effective.
a. On February ISh of each year, the School District shall calculate the
building capacity of each school level and the school membership of each
school level as of November 15`h of the previous year. Also on February
15`h of each year, the School District shall calculate the anticipated school
membership for each school level and the anticipated building capacity for
each school level as of November 15`h in each of the following ten years.
These calculations shall be made in accordance with the provisions of
Section 1 and also in accordance with the remaining provisions of this
section.
g:kraiglsapfo\rnou-final 3
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
0011
b. School membership calculations made on February 15`h (utilizing the
previous November 15`h data) for each of the ten years following the year
in which the calculation is made (the base year) shall be determined by
applying the projected school membership growth rates determined in
accordance with Section 1 of this Memorandum to the actual school
membership numbers of the base year.
C. The school building capacity calculations shall be based upon the
following:
(i) A calculation of the existing building capacity within each school
level;
(ii) The anticipated opening date of schools under construction;
(iii) The anticipated opening date of schools on the ten-year CEP for
which funding has been committed by the Board of
Commissioners as a result of an approved bond issue, an approved
installment purchase agreement, or otherwise; and
(iv) The anticipated closing dates of any schools within the School
District.
d. By comparing the existing and calculated school membership to the
existing and calculated school building capacity each year, the School
District shall determine what remaining capacity (if any) exists or is
projected to exist to accommodate new development. The School District
shall make that information known to the local governments within 15
days of the comparison.
e. As CAPS are issued for new developments during the course of the twelve
month period from February 15`h of one year to February 15`h of the next
year, the School District shall continually reduce the remaining available
school building capacity in each of the ensuing years wherein new
students are
projected to be added to the school system by the
developments for which the CAPS are given during that year.
f. When an application for a CAPS is submitted, the School District shall
determine the impact on school membership for each school level as
calculated on February 15`h in each year of the period during which the
development is expected to be adding new students to the school system as
the result of such new construction. In making this determination, the
School District shall rely upon the figures established under Section 1 of
this Memorandum as to the number of students at each level expected to
be generated by each housing type, and data furnished by the applicable
planning department as to the expected rate at which new dwellings within
developments similar in size and type to the proposed development are
gAcraig\sapfo\rnou-final 4
w--a.wv«+v..+.+..w.•....v..vww.w.r•....v...w....w..v.w�•-+............... ............. .. ......................_-r....•.v.n...r......aw+... ....w.. .. w.w.. . .a.....x.a.l.+.Ni`w'..tlCMba.:.C.v.�'N!:.....-:1':!^..-'1'^1:1:'ww]'.�w•.:�'lF:1Tw:Y:v.:..Lti4i10i:1O1
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
0012 Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
likely to be occupied. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, upon request of
the applicant, the planning jurisdiction approving the development
imposes enforceable conditions upon the development (such as a phasing
schedule) to limit the rate at which new dwellings within the development
are expected to be occupied, then the School District shall take such
limitations into account in determining the impact of the development on
school membership.
g. If the School District determines that the projected capacity of each school
level is sufficient to accommodate the proposed development without
exceeding the building capacity levels set forth in Section 1 of this
Memorandum, then the School District shall issue the CAPS. If the
School District determines that the projected capacity of each school level
is not sufficient to accommodate the proposed development without
exceeding the building capacity levels set forth in Section 1, then the
School District shall deny the CAPS. If a CAPS is denied, the applicant
may seek approval from the appropriate planning jurisdiction of such
modifications to the development as will allow for the issuance of a
CAPS, and then reapply for a CAPS.
h. The School District shall issue CAPS on a "first come first served" basis,
according to the date a completed application for a CAPS is received. If
projected building capacity is not available and an application for a CAPS
is therefore denied, the development retains its priority in line based upon
the CAPS application date.
Section 4. A CAPS issued in connection with approval of a subdivision preliminary plat,
minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit shall
expire automatically upon the expiration of such plat,plan, or permit approval.
Section 5. The towns and the county will provide to the School District all information
reasonably requested by the School District to assist the District in making its
determination as to whether the CAPS should be issued.
Section 6. The School District will use its best efforts to construct new schools and
permanent expansions or additions to existing schools in accordance with the CIP.
Section 7. Orange County will use its best efforts to provide the funding to carry out the
Capital Improvement Plan referenced in Section 1 above.
Section 8. In recognition of the fact that some new development will have a negligible
impact on school capacity, a CAPS shall not be required under the following
circumstances:
a. For residential developments restricted by law and/or covenant for a
period of at least thirty years to housing for the elderly and/or adult care
living and/or adult special needs;
uArrai¢hanfo\mou-final S
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
b. For residential developments restricted for a period of at least thirty years 0013
to dormitory housing for university students.
If the use of a development restricted as provided above changes, then before a
permit authorizing such change of use becomes effective, a CAPS must be issued
just as if the development were being constructed initially.
Section 9. The parties acknowledge that this Memorandum of Understanding is not intended
to and does not create legally binding obligations on any of the parties to act in
accordance with its provisions. Rather, it constitutes a good faith statement of the
intent of the parties to cooperate in a manner designed to meet the mutual
objective of all the parties that the children who reside within the School District
are able to attend school levels that satisfy the level of service standards set forth
herein.
g:kraig\sapfo\mou-final 6
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
0014 Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
Exhibit A
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THAT THE ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC
SCHOOL FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT
BE CONSIDERED IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS
WHEREAS, the portion of Orange County served by the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro]
[Orange County] school system, has for the past decade been experiencing rapid growth
in population; and
WHEREAS, this rapid growth, and that which is anticipated, creates a demand for
additional school facilities to accommodate the children who reside within new
developments; and
WHEREAS, the responsibility for planning for and constructing new school
facilities lies primarily with the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board] [Orange County
School Board],with funding provided by Orange County; and
WHEREAS, [Chapel Hill,Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro
School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District]
have recognized the need to work together to ensure that new growth within the School
District occurs at a pace that allows Orange County and the School District to provide
adequate school facilities to serve the children within such new developments; and
WHEREAS, to implement the Memorandum of Understanding between [Orange
County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board] [Orange
County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School Board], the [governing body]
desires to provide a mechanism to assure that, to the extent possible, new development
will take place only when there are adequate public school facilities available, or planned,
which will accommodate such new development;
NOW THEREFORE, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section of the Development Ordinance is amended by
adding a new to read as follows:
ADEQUATE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES
1. Purpose.
The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that,to the maximum extent practical, approval
of new residential development will become effective only when it can reasonably be
expected that adequate public school facilities will be available to accommodate such
new development.
g:lcraig\sapfo\ordinance-final 1
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
2. Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities. 0 0 1 5
(a) Subject to the remaining provisions of this [article], no approval under this
ordinance of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or
conditional or special use permit for a residential development shall become effective
unless and until Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities (CAPS) for the
project has been issued by the School District.
(b) A CAPS shall not be required for a general use or conditional use rezoning or for
a master land use plan. However, even if a rezoning or master plan is approved, a CAPS
will nevertheless be required before any of the permits or approvals identified in
subsection (a) of this section shall become effective, and the rezoning of the property or
approval of a master plan provides no indication as to whether the CAPS will be issued.
The application for rezoning or master plan approval shall contain a statement to this
effect.
(c) A CAPS must be obtained from the School District. The School District will
issue or deny a CAPS in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of
Understanding between [Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County, and the Chapel Hill
Carrboro School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School
District] dated
(d) A CAPS attaches to the land in the same way that development permission
attaches to the land. A CAPS may be transferred along with other interests in the
property with respect to which such CAPS is issued, but may not be severed or
transferred separately.
3. Service Levels.
(a) This section describes the service levels regarded as adequate by the parties to the
Memorandum of Understanding described in subsection (b) with respect to public school
facilities.
(b) As provided in the Memorandum of Understanding between [Orange County,
Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District] [Orange County,
Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District], adequate services levels for public
schools shall be deemed to exist with respect to a proposed new residential development
if, given the number of school age children projected to reside in that development, and
considering all the factors listed in the Memorandum of Understanding, projected school
membership for the elementary schools,the middle schools, and the high school(s)within
the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange County] School District will not exceed the following
percentages of the building capacities of each of the following three school levels:
elementary school level 105%
middle school level 107%
high school level 110%
g:\craig\sapfo\ordinance-final 2
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
0016 Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
For purposes of this ordinance,the terms "building capacity" and "school membership"
shall have the same meaning attributed in the Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Memorandum of Understanding among the Towns of ,
and Orange County and the Board of
Education.
4. Expiration of Certificates of Adequacy of Public School Facilities.
A CAPS issued in connection with approval of a subdivision preliminary plat,
minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit shall expire
automatically upon the expiration of such plat,plan, or permit approval.
5. Exemption From Certification Requirement for Development with Negligible
Student Generation Rates
In recognition of the fact that some new development will have a negligible
impact on school capacity, a CAPS shall not be required under the following
circumstances:
a. For residential developments restricted by law and/or covenant for
a period of at least thirty years to housing for the elderly and/or
adult care living and/or adult special needs;
b. For residential developments restricted for a period of at least
thirty years to dormitory housing for university students.
If the use of a development restricted as provided above changes, then before a
permit authorizing such change of use becomes effective, a CAPS must be issued
just as if the development were being constructed initially.
6. Applicability to Previously Approved Projects and Projects Pending
Approval.
(a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions of this ordinance shall only
apply to applications for approval of subdivision preliminary plats, minor subdivision
final plats, site plans and conditional or special use permits that are submitted for
approval after the effective date of this ordinance
(b) The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to amendments to subdivision
preliminary plats, minor subdivision final plats, site plans, or special or conditional use
permit approvals issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance so long as the
approvals have not expired and the proposed amendments do not increase the number of
dwelling units authorized within the development by more than five percent or five
dwelling units, whichever is less.
g:kraig\sapfo\ordinance-final 3
Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
0017
(c) The [governing body] shall issue a special exception to the CAPS requirement to
an applicant whose application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor
subdivision final plat, site plan or conditional or special use permit covers property within
a planned unit development or master plan project that was approved prior to the
effective date of this ordinance, if the [governing body] finds, after an evidentiary
hearing, that the applicant has (1) applied to the School District for a CAPS and the
application has been denied, (2) in good faith made substantial expenditures or incurred
substantial binding obligations in reasonable reliance on the previously obtained planned
unit development or master plan approval, and (3) would be unreasonably prejudiced if
development in accordance with the previously approved development or plan is delayed
due to the provisions of this ordinance. In deciding whether these findings can be made,
the [governing body] shall consider the following, among other relevant factors:
(1) Whether the developer has installed streets, utilities, or other facilities or
expended substantial sums in the planning and preparation for installation of such
facilities which were designed to serve or to be paid for in part by the
development of portions of the planned unit development or master planned
project that have not yet been approved for construction;
(2) Whether the developer has installed streets, utilities, or other facilities or
expended substantial sums in the planning and preparation for installation of such
facilities that directly benefit other properties outside the development in question
or the general public;
(3) Whether the developer has donated land to the School District for the
construction of school facilities or otherwise dedicated land or made
improvements deemed to benefit the School District and its public school system;
(4) Whether the developer has had development approval for a substantial
amount of time and has in good faith worked to timely implement the plan in
reasonable reliance on the previously obtained approval;
(5) The duration of the delay that will occur until public school facilities are
improved or exist to such an extent that a CAPS can be issued for the project, and
the effect of such delay on the development and the developer.
(d) The decision of the [governing body] involving a special exception application
under subsection (c) is subject to review by the Orange County Superior Court by
proceedings in the nature of certiorari. Any petition for review by the Superior Court
shall be filed with the Clerk of Superior Court within 30 days after a written copy of the
decision [of the governing body] is delivered to the applicant and every other party who
has filed a written request for such copy with the Clerk to the [governing body] at the
time of its hearing on the application for a special exception. The written copy of the
decision of the [governing body] may be delivered either by personal service or by
certified mail, return receipt requested.
g:\craig\.sapfo\ordinance-final 4
0018 Approved by Schools and Land Use Councils 11/14/01;
Draft completed by staff 2/8/02
(e) The [chair or the mayor] of the [governing body] or any member temporarily
acting as [chair or mayor] may, in his or her official capacity, administer oaths to
witnesses in any hearing before the [governing body] concerning a special exception.
7. Appeal of School District Denial of a CAPS.
The applicant for a CAPS which is denied by the School District may, within 30
days of the date of the denial, appeal the denial to the [governing body] of [local
government from which development permit is sought]. Any such appeal shall be heard
by the [governing body] at an evidentiary hearing before it. At this hearing the School
District will present its reasons for the denial of the CAPS and the evidence it relied on in
denying the CAPS. The applicant appealing the denial may present its reasons why the
CAPS application should have, in its view, been approved and the evidentiary basis it
contends supports approval. The [governing body] may (1) affirm the decision of the
School District, (2) remand to the School District for further proceedings in the event
evidence is presented at the hearing before the [governing body] not brought before the
School District, or (3) issue a CAPS. The [governing body] will only issue a CAPS if it
finds that the CAPS should have been issued by the School District as prescribed in the
Memorandum of Understanding among the School District, Orange County and the
[governing body]. A decision of the [governing body] affirming the School District may
be appealed by the applicant for a CAPS by proceedings in the nature of certiorari and as
prescribed for an appeal under Section 6(d) of this ordinance.
8. Information Required From Applicants.
The applicant for a CAPS shall submit to the School District all information
reasonably deemed necessary by the School District to determine whether a CAPS should
be issued under the provision of the Memorandum of Understanding between the
[governing body], Orange County, and the School District. An applicant for a CAPS
special exception or an applicant appealing a CAPS denial by the School District shall
submit to the [governing body] all information reasonably deemed necessary by the
[governing body] to determine whether a special exception should be granted as provided
in Section 6(d) of this ordinance or for the hearing of an appeal of a School District
denial of a CAPS as provided in Section 7 of this ordinance. A copy of a request for a
CAPS special exception or of an appeal of a School District denial of a CAPS shall be
served on the superintendent of the School District. Service may be made by personal
delivery or certified mail,return receipt requested.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective
The foregoing ordinance, having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote
and was duly adopted this day of , 200_.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent or Excused:
g:craig\sapfobrdinance-final 5
0019
Date: October 11, 2001
To: Schools and Land Use Council s
From: Adequate Public School Facilities Program
Planners, School Administrators and Attorney Work
Group
Enclosed with this memorandum are revised
versions of the model Ordinance and model MOU to implement
the Adequate Public School Facilities program in Orange
County. They have been revised since the last time you
looked at these documents to address concerns about the
ability under previous drafts for larger developments to
obtain certificates of adequate public schools and "lock
up" school capacity. One of the concerns expressed was that
other projects which contain amenities, for example,
affordable housing, might not be able to be built because
the school capacity is reserved for one or more large
projects. The other concern expressed was that as proposed,
the MOU and the Ordinance could result in certificates
being issued significantly prior to development approval so
as to "lock up" school capacity unnecessarily.
The new documents address these concerns by
requiring local government approval of a development before
the certificate of adequate public schools facilities
application is made. Local government approval of the
development.will be contingent on the development applicant
thereafter receiving the necessary .certificate from the
Board of Education. Furthermore, the documents provide that
the certificate can be issued according to a phasing plan
that is incorporated into the development approval and
which would limit the rate at which new dwellings within
the development_zould be constructed.
These changes to the structure of the documents,
in the opinion of the members of the work group, address
the concerns as far as they can be addressed. In that
' regard, consideration was given to limiting the life of
i-
i
I
0020
Page 2
certificates. However, this idea was not incorporated into
the documents because of a concern about the risk of
vesting or other due process claims associated with time
limiting the certificates. These issues. could arise because
of the fact that preliminary plan approval typically is a
"green light" for development infrastructure to be
constructed by the development applicant. If a development
receives preliminary approval and receives a certificate
from the Board of Education, the development applicant will
be prompted to construct infrastructure and to begin other
development activities. A certificate expiring thereafter
raises the vesting/due process question. On the other hand,
the MOU and Ordinance provide that if the development
approval lapses, the certificate from the Board of
Education lapses with it. The work group thought that the
lapsing of certificates should be linked to the development
lapse and not independent from it.
The work group also refined the documents to make
clear the methodology for determining building capacity and .
the process for applying student membership information to
determine whether a certificate should be issued by the
Board of Education. Particularly, the work group
recommends, consistent with the recommendation of the
School Facilities Task Force to the Board of Commissioners,
that school membership be the benchmark for calculating
school capacity. The MOU selects November 15 as the date to
determine school membership because it was deemed to be far
enough into the school year to be reliable. Further, the
MOU envisions that agreement would be reached on a
projected growth rate for student membership within each
school district' s three school levels and agreement would
be reached on the methodology for determining the projected
growth rate for student membership. Once agreement is
reached on the projected growth rate and the methodology
for determining the projected growth rate, maintenance and
recalibration of those indicators would become a staff
function with regular reports to the governing boards. Any
concern about the -results of staff maintenance or
recalibration could be addressed as needed by the governing
board parties to the MOU.
The work group also developed alternatives to
this staff approach. One alternative would make this
Page 3 0021
methodology maintenance and calibration a function of the
Orange County Board of Commissioners with notice to the
other MOU parties of any methodology change and the reasons
for the change. In the other alternative, the Orange County
Board of Commissioners would perform the methodology
maintenance and calibration and provide the other MOU
parties with an opportunity to object to any change. Any
objection would call for the changed parameter to be
approved by all MOU parties before it is effective. As to
the methodology maintenance and calibration, it is worth
noting that the long term viability of the Adequate Public
Facilities MOU and Ordinance depends on long term agreement
among the parties of the methodology used in their
application.
School building capacity will be founded on State
and school district guidelines, the latter being developed
by the School Boards and the Board of County Commissioners
and approved by each. School building capacity projections
will combine school building capacity with projected
opening dates of schools under construction, closing dates
of any schools proposed to be closed and projected opening
dates of schools in the 10 year CIP for which funding has
been committed as the result of an approved bond issue, an
approved installment purchase agreement or other funding
source.
The work group also offers the following comments
with respect to concerns about affordable housing and
capacity within a school district among towns.
1 . Affordable ho ,sin. Affordable housing is
addressed in the November 2000 letter from Moses Carey to
the Mayors of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough and
the Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Orange County Board of
Education Chairs that is with this memorandum. It continues
to be the opinion of the work group members that what is
stated in that November 2000 letter pertains. Reserving
certificates to accomplish other, albeit very worthy public
policies, subjects the adequate public schools facilities
program to substantial legal risk. The members of the work
group also think that stand-alone affordable housing
projects, because of their small size, are unlikely to be
denied a certificate and therefore will have minimal impact
0022
Page 4
on school facilities -planning. This is -especially true with
the modifications to the MOU and Ordinance proposed that
are designed to minimize certificate "hoarding."
2 . Allocating school capacity among
iurisdictions . Allocating school capacity within a school
district by the use of an adequate public schools facility
program draws the adequate public school facilities program
into attendance zone issues. These issues are wholly
independent of school level capacity. The concern of school
capacity is whether there is school capacity in the school
district and taking steps to insure that there is. Whether
school capacity is absorbed by one town' s development or
another town' s development, although important, is not
pertinent to facilities capacity in the school district.
Similarly other attendance zone issues which may or may not
cross town boundaries, neighborhood schools and minimizing
busing are examples, are not part- of the adequate public
schoole facilities program. The program must be designed to
deal only with capacity of school buildings on school level
and school district bases. Allocating school capacity among
or between towns and the rural part of the county therefore
must be accomplished with some other "tool."
The charts that follow are designed to aid in
your review of the draft Memorandum of Understanding and
Ordinance.
GEG/lsg
Enclosure
lsg:memos\adecpubfacwkgroup#2.mem
. ORANGE COUNTY 0023
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
r taMuLd 77.52
November 22, 2000
The Honorable Mike Nelson,
Mayor, Town of Carrboro and
Board of Aldermen
Town Hall
301 W. Main Street
Carrboro, North Carolina 27510
The Honorable Rosemary I. Waldorf
Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill and
Chapel Hill Town Council
306 N. Columbia Street
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
The Honorable Horace Johnson
Mayor, Town of Hillsborough and
Board of Commissioners
Town Hall
101 E. Orange Street
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
The Honorable Elizabeth Carter, Chair and
Board Members, Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Board of Education _
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
The Honorable Keith Cook, Chair and
Board Members, Orange County
Board of Education
200 E. King Street
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
RE: Adequate Public School Facilities
Dear Elected Officials:
Enclosed with this letter is the form of the SCHOOLS
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU" )
and the form of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THAT THE ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC
002 •
Page 2
November 22 , 2000
SCHOOL FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT BE CONSIDERED
IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS ("the Ordinance" ) recommended for your
consideration by the Orange County Board of Commissioners . The
Board of Commissioners will present these documents for public
comment at a public hearing scheduled for November 27, 2000 . The
public hearing will begin at 7 :30 p.m. and be held in the Gordon
Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough.
The form of the MOU and the Ordinance are, for the most
part, the same as was recommended by resolution of the Schools '
and Land Use Councils. The two documents differ from that
recommended by the Schools and Land Use Councils in several
important respects. This letter will explain those differences.
As to the points of difference, the documents that are being
transmitted here are in the form recommended by the planners,
school administrators and attorneys when that group developed
the documents and transmitted them to the Schools and Land Use
Council for consideration. The recommendation coming from the
Schools and Land Use Councils was submitted to the attorneys for
final legal review. The comments received from our attorneys
were consistent; their recommendation is reflected in the
documents as they appear here.
Afford-able Housincr
The Ordinance and the MOU omit altogether consideration of
affordable housing. It is not reasonable to think that the
Ordinance and MOU can be sustained if they create an exception
or an exemption for the certificates (CAPS) for affordable
housing projects or affordable housing units. This is so because
affordable housing impacts public school facilities in the same
way that non-affordable housing does . Therefore any attempt to
exempt affordable housing units or to reserve space in public
schools for affordable housing projects or affordable housing
units would put the program at risk of being determined to be
unlawful .
It is not contemplated by an adequate public schools
facilities program that the tools, the Ordinances and the MOU,
are growth-limiting devices. Rather, the chief objective of
these tools is to provide a reasonable amount of time for the
County as the fiscal "agent" and the schools as the education
"agent" to respond to the impact of residential growth on the
0025
Page 3
November 22, 2000
schools. That is, they allow both the County and the Boards of
Education to reasonably respond to the pace of development . In
that context, it is not likely that affordable housing will be
adversely impacted by the CAPS requirement. Affordable housing
Projects have not historically been and are not predicted to be
large enough to in and of themselves cause a CAPS denial. And,
if these projects come along at a time when the School System is
denying all of the CAPS applications it receives, the response
cannot be to increase the overcrowding of the schools by
approving projects which will have that result. The response
also cannot be that the schools and the County must build a
school solely to move an affordable housing project through the
process.
The only sound approach to balancing school facilities and
residential growth (student generation) is to regularly chart
the school children "generated" by growth to see what school
construction will be required. This can be compared with a
fiscal limiting chart (the amount of money reasonably available
for public school facilities) . If the two charted lines "cross, "
work needs to be done. More money must be found for school
construction or countywide (County and Towns) growth-limiting
land use regulations must be implemented.
Although the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances
and Memorandum of Agreement are not an appropriate place to
address affordable housing, that does not mean that the County
Commissioners along with the other elected officials in Orange
County are not committed to affordable housing. The opposite is,
as we all know, true.
Appeal of a CAPS-Denial-
Another important change in the documents from that which
was recommended by the Schools and Land Use Councils is the way
in which the documents handle appeals of CAPS denials . As
developed by the lawyers, planners and school administrators,
the final administrative decision regarding a CAPS denial rests
with the governing board responsible for issuing development
permits. The Schools and Land Use Councils recommendation was
that that final decision be made by the Boards of Education.
Again, our attorneys advise that the final administrative
f
0026
Page 4
November 22 , 2000
decision from which an appeal moves to the courts should be with
the governing board responsible for the development permitting.
This is consistent with the legislation enabling the County and
the Towns to issue development permits. Furthermore, it is not
the responsibility of the board of education to "take ona
' developers when developments are stopped as the result of a CAPS
denial. Since the planning government is ultimately responsible
for the planning decision, any litigation related to the
planning decision should follow a final administrative decision
of the planning government. A final concern about the
recommendation from the Schools and Land Use Councils on this
point is that its proposal creates a never-ending loop. That is,
there is no stopping point in the review by the planning
government governing board of a CAPS denial decision.
There is one other point of clarification in the MOU from
that recommended by the Schools and Land Use Councils. The MOU
recommended by the Board of County Commissioners calls for
school district building capacity to be determined by joint
action of the applicable Board of Education and the Orange
County Board of Commissioners. These two governmental units
partner in school facilities. There must be agreement between
them with respect to the all-important school district building
capacity determination.
On behalf of the Board of Commissioners, we look forward to
the public hearing process regarding the Adequate Public School
Facilities program and ultimately implementing the program. We
look forward to your continued support.
Sincerely,
))�I
Moses Carey, r
Chair, Orange County Board of
Commissioners
MC/lsg
Enclosures
lsg:letters\mosescareyletterreschoolsadegpubfac.ltr
Revised March 14,2002
Procedure for Execution of School APFO
Data Gathered
00 ,
School District School Boards and
/Provides Membership BOCC Provide Buildin
Data Capacity Figures
ovember
15th
Data Reported to PSTAC
(Planners and Schools Technical Advisory Committee);
PSTAC Recalibrates Model(i.e.updates actual
membership and building capacity)and Projections(to
assist in CIP development);Notifies All Parties of
Results
January
10`h
guildline
BOCC reviews materials from PSTAC and determines
whether or not changes to model or other elements are
necessary;notifies other parties to the agreement
February
I st
Process
renews
each fall
BOCC Certifie
Model, Na
Projections and
Results by
February 15
Y
New CAPS Model for New Development Goes Into Effect
OCS&CHCCS w/BOCC Develop New CIPs&School Capacity Limits
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
INFORMATION SESSION
Tuesday, MAY 28, 2002
8:00 P.M.
ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
F. GORDON BATTLE COURTROOM
106 MARGARET LANE
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
PLEASE NOTE: This information session will occur after the closing of the public
hearing on the schools adequate public facilities ordinance that begins at 7:30
p.m. at this location.
Compliance with the "Americans with Disabilities Act" - Interpreter
services and/or special sound equipment are available on request. Call
the County Clerk's Office at 732-8181, extension 2130. If you are
disabled and need assistance with reasonable accommodations, contact
the ADA Coordinator in the County Manager's Office at 732-8181,
extension 2300 or TDD# 644-3045.
Time Page
8:00 A. BOCC INFORMATION SESSION
0001 1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
To review and discuss the final report of the Water Resources
Committee, and to review the USGS report entitled
Investigation of Ground-Water Availability and Quality in Orange
County, North Carolina.
8:20 0035 2. Telecommunications Towers
An update on the research and multi-department coordination in
the development of an amended telecommunications ordinance
that is taking place during the Telco Moratorium.
8:40 0049 3. Agricultural Business
An update on the progress of developing a new zoning category
to address Agricultural Business such as Reba and Roses and
the proposed new review process for bonafide farm accessory
uses.
9:00 B. ADJOURNMENT
g:lcraig\Mai28,2002InfoSessAgenda2\5-23.02%dg
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS •-. 'Q
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 28, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No. A
SUBJECT: Report of the Water Resources Committee / USGS Study
DEPARTMENT: ERCD PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Report of the Water Resources David Stancil, 245-2590
Committee
USGS Ground Water Resource TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Investigation (provided separately) Hillsborough 732-8181
Discussion Notes —4/23/02 meeting Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To review and discuss the final report of the Water Resources Committee, and to
review the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report, Investigation of Ground-Water Availabilitv
and Quality in Orange County North Carolina
BACKGROUND: On May 1, 2001, the Board received the report of the Water Resources
Committee and the accompanying USGS report, Investigation of Ground-Water Availability and
Quality in Orange County, North Carolina.
These reports are the culmination of eight years of effort investigating and exploring the
County's ground water resources. The Water Resources Committee began work in late 1992 to
evaluate the County's ground water quantity and quality. During the next eight years, the
Committee produced an Interim Report, worked with USGS to produce a report on ground
water recharge rates (1996), and monitored and evaluated the progress of the recently
completed three-year USGS study. During this timeframe, the Water Resources Committee
also oversaw the initiation of a program to begin identifying all new well sites with Global
Positioning System (GPS) receivers, for incorporation into the County's GIS system. Over 1500
wells have now been located and entered into the Comprehensive Resource database. In
addition, the County instituted a Ground Water Center in 1996 to provide assistance to citizens
with questions or concerns about ground water.
The USGS report, Investigation of Ground-Water Availability and Quality in Orange County
North Carolina was published in March 2001. The report includes an evaluation of the County's
hydrologic setting and ground water availability, including analyses and mapping that identifies
"contours" of the County based on well yields, using the database of well records. The report
also conducted a comprehensive well-sampling of 51 wells across the County, weighted by
geographic distribution and underlying hydrogeology. Ground water quality in the County was
generally quite good, with trace elements detected infrequently or at levels less than State
C � 02
2
drinking water standards. However, the level of water-borne radon in some portions of the
County was worthy of note. Wells tested in a southern-central portion of the County generally
west-southwest of Carrboro revealed higher than normal readings. This area conforms
generally to an underlying granitic pluton, the likely source of the high radon readings. In all,
sixty-seven percent of the radon activities measured in the County exceeded the USEPA
proposed maximum contaminant level. However, the evaluation of radon activity is complicated
by the difficulty in measuring the aerated radon gas. While elevated and worthy of note, radon
activity in Orange County was lower than that measured in Guilford County three years ago.
Additional information on water-borne radon, how to test radon activity, and the potential issues
were provided in a fact sheet developed by Environmental Health in April 2001.
Among the other water quality findings was the incidence of some wells with an elevated level
of the naturally-occurring trace metals iron and manganese, which commonly cause staining of
plumbing fixtures and other nuisance problems.
The Report of the Water Resources Committee from March 2001 pulls together the many
findings of the last several years, and assesses the implications of the USGS report. On pages
18-19 of the report are a list of 10 findings by the Committee, followed by six recommendations
offered for further consideration by the Commission for the Environment and the Board of
Commissioners. These recommendations include:
• The need for further research into the radon results in south-central Orange, perhaps in
conjunction with Chatham County.
• An ongoing ground water monitoring program to evaluate changes over time in areas seeing
new development
• Consideration for a comprehensive water budget approach to link surface and ground water
planning
• Review of sustainable ground water yields and land use policies in some watersheds of the
County, based on the available information about ground water recharge rates
• A requirement that new subdivisions locate not only septic sites but also well sites prior to
subdivision approval
• The importance of water conservation for ground water based systems
Note: Color versions of maps in the Committee report may be found in the accompanying USGS published report.
In keeping with the Board's adopted Water Resource Quantity and Quality goal, the
Commission for the Environment has assumed the mantle of the ground water project, after a
transition meeting with the Water Resources Committee. A new CfE Water Resources
Committee has been formed and is reviewing the Committee's report. On April 23, the two
groups met to jointly review the Committee's findings and generate ideas on how the County
might proceed in this vein. Discussion notes from this meeting are attached. The discussion
notes conclude with suggestions related to the (original) Committee recommendations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving these reports. The
Environmental Health Division has procured radon test kits for any citizens interested in testing
radon in their homes (air test kits are $5 each and water test kits $10 each)
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the Water
Resources Committee report, the USGS report and the discussion points and suggested
actions included in the April 23 discussion notes.
i
Report of the
Water Resources Committee
i
� 4fi S' t4}•.'I
t lil
N
� �wi'a�[.� •Y+,:G:zs r. A:x;••�ar.f q F '." `. r i,, t ° !w ,...
County of Orange, NC
Adopted March 27, 2001
Water Resources Committee
Don Cox, Chair
Dr. Charles Daniel
Stephen Dear
Dr. Alice Gordon (BOCC Liaison)
Tom Grizzle
Terry Hackett
Margaret Holton
Diana Phillips
Rick Pratt (Commission for the Environment liaison)
John Rogers
Bob Rubin
Wes Scarlett
Thanks to: Stephen Dear, Pat Davis, Nancy Mueller, Sharlene Pilkey, Phil
Post, Larry Rogers, Ed Holland, Morris Shambley, Meg Scully, Lisa
Carmichael, Gail Hughes, Ron Holdway, Milton Heath and Ray Sparrow for
their assistance along the way.
Staff.David Stancil,Environment and Resource Conservation Director;Paul Thames, County
Engineer, Tom Konsler, Environmental Health Supervisor,Craven Hudson, Cooperative
Extension Service, Margaret Jones,Resource Conservation Technician
2
-- 00 Oa
Table of Contents
I. Project Activities.................................................................................. 1
II. Charge to the WRC / BOCC Goal....................................................... 4
III. What We Have Learned: Water Quality............................................. 5
A. Field Parameters
B. Major Ions
C. Nutrients
D. Total Dissolved Solids
E. Metals &Trace Elements
F. Organic Compounds
G. Radon
H. Susceptibility to Contamination
IV. What We Have Learned: Water Quantity.......................................... 14
A. 1996 Recharge Rate Study
B. 2001 Ground Water Resource Investigation
C. Other Information Provided to the Committee
V. Summary of Findings......................................................................... 18
VI. Recommendations and Further Research Needs.............................. 20
VII. Appendices..........................................................................................24
Orange County
;� :•_: Water Resources Project
. .~ c%Environment and Resource
Conservation Department
Jim
306 Revere Road
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278-8181
Dr. Steve Halkiotis, Chair
Board of County Commissioners
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Dr. Halkiotis:
I wish to thank the Orange County Board of Commissioners for the,creation of
this Water Resources Committee, and for the opportunity to serve as chairman.
It is the hope of the committee that the information obtained from the USGS
investigations will be used in the comprehensive planning process to assist the
citizens of Orange County in achieving a sustainable use of our groundwater
resources.
To focus on a few key points that should be of general interest, I offer the
following comments:
1. Let us put to rest the myths of an underground river or lake from
which our groundwater resource is obtained. The ground water in
Orange County is found surrounding the particles of soil and
weathered rock and in cracks in the underlying rock formations.
The water-saturated depth varies seasonally, and with multi-year
wet or dry conditions.
2. Each well is surrounded by a "recharge area" that varies depending
upon geology, topology, and surface use. Changes in land uses
from forest and fields generally result in greater compaction of the
soil and allow lower recharge rates .of rain and snowfall to the
groundwater. Storm water runoff retention structures can improve
the recharge where it has been changed by impervious surfaces
and compaction caused by roads, driveways, and lawns. These
recharge areas also need to be protected from contamination by
petroleum products, chemicals, fertilizers and, septic tanks. Once
contaminated, it may be impossible to clean up in one's lifetime - or
more.
4
• o
(Ile 0 7 -
3. We need to be mindful about the use and the potential of over-use
of groundwater. It is not only needed for the life and well being of
people, but also sustains the flow of water in our streams, creeks,
and rivers - so essential to the sustainability of all of our natural
environment.
4. It is often observed that the rated "yield" of a well diminishes after a
few years of use. One reason for this is pumping the well level
down, below the intercepted rock fracture that provides water to the
well. Repeated exposure of the fracture or crack to air can allow
mineral deposition or growth of naturally occurring bacteria or algae
to seal up the area and reduce flow of water into the well. Pump
burn-out may also be caused by pumping in excess of the in-flow
rate long enough to lower the level of water below the pump.
Pumping rates and pump depth in the well must be considered for
long term sustainable use. Some repair methods are available
where reduction in yield due to fracture exposure has occurred.
5. Finally, the committee recommends that the county institute a long-
term program of well measurements that can provide information as
to the effects of land use changes and climatic changes on the
availability of ground water. The USGS data gives us a base line of
information that can be useful into the future with the addition of a
good monitoring program.
Sincerely,
Donald N. Cox, Chairman
Water Resources Committee
5
I. Project Activities
Since its formation in 1992, the Water Resources Committee (or WRC for short)
has worked steadily to learn more about the County's groundwater resources,
with the eventual intention of helping the County coordinate and integrate
planning for surface water and ground water.
Because of the long-range, scientific nature of this project and the need for
substantial research, much of the Committee's time and energy has been
engaged in review and discussion of the major products of the report — a pair of
published ground water studies from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on the
County's ground water, and a related map report also published by USGS:
1. Ground-Water Recharge to the Regolith-Fractured Crystalline Rock Aquifer
System in Orange County. North Carolina, by Dr. Charles C. Daniel III. This
report was a pilot project recharge rate study performed by USGS in
collaboration with the County, published in October 1996.
2. Susceptibility of Ground Water to Surface and Shallow Sources of
Contamination. Orange County, North Carolina, by Silvia Terziotti and Jo
Leslie Eimers. Prepared in conjunction with #3 below, this 1999 map report
illustrates the areas of the County that are most susceptible to ground water
contamination.
3. Investigation of Ground-Water Availability and Quality in Orange County,
North Carolina, by William L. Cunningham and Dr. Charles C. Daniel III. This,
the primary project of the Water Resources effort, was a three-year ground
water resource investigation, also conducted by USGS and the County on a
cost-share basis.
The review and discussion of the above reports commanded the majority of the
Committee's time. However, over the seven years of the project a number of
other activities were also performed. Several key milestones in the Water
Resources Project are outlined below:
1
0009
Table 1 - Key Milestones 1175 ,
May, 1992 First meeting of the Water Resources Committee
March, 1993 Interim report to the Board of Commissioners
November, 1993 Committee forms two subcommittees(Public
Information and Public Education,or PIPE,and
Technical Advisory Subcommittee,or TAS)to meet
between Committee meetings
March, 1994 Informational brochure("Addressing Ground Water
Concerns in Orange County")created and mailed to
1100 households on master mailing list
April, 1994 Open house held at Homestead Center
May, 1994 Cooperative agreement signed with U.S.Geological
Survey(USGS)for pilot project ground water
analysis of recharge rates in County by watershed
September, 1995 Committee sponsors and helps conduct lead and
nitrate water screening in Hillsborough.
May, 1996 Senior essay thesis entitled"Statistical Analysis of
Data from Water Supply Wells in Orange County"
is produced by UNC graduate student,working with
County and USGS.
July 1996 Ground Water Center opens,housed in Soil and
Water office.First meeting of Ground Water Inter-
departmental Team to coordinate efforts among
Environmental Health,Soil and Water,Cooperative
Extension,County Engineer and Planning.
August 1996 Global Positioning System equipment purchased for
the location of all new wells.Part-time Water
Resources Technician hired,works with
Environmental Health to locate and map new wells.
Work begins on a comprehensive Ground Water
Database,to develop GIS coverages for all available
round water-related data
November, 1996 USGS pilot project on Recharge Rates is published
and presented to BOCC.Ground water model
purchased for demonstration and public outreach.
April, 1997 Committee sponsors and staffs ground water station
at Earthwalk,an environmental event held annually
at Eno River State park.Station includes electronic
ground water quiz and demonstration of ground
water model.Station continues annually next two
ears.
April, 1997 County applies for and is designated a Ground
Water Guardian Community,one of 54 nationwide,
by The Groundwater Foundation
June, 1997 County agrees to cooperative agreement for full
Ground Water Resource Investigation
October, 1999 Review of Ground Water Susceptibility mapping
project
August,2000 Commission for the Environment creates Water
Committee to begin transition of Committee efforts
October,2000 Committee begins discussion of final report
February,2001 Investigation of Ground Water Availability and
Quality report completed and published
2
Of these milestones, the following are of particular importance for additional
elaboration:
• 1993 Interim Report
After nine months of assessing the available knowledge on ground water and the
apparent needs, the Committee issued an Interim Report in March of 1993. The report
called for research into ground water quantity and quality, and an examination of the
impacts of human activity, and an increase in public awareness of the significance of
ground water. This report set the stage for actions of the next seven years.
1994 Info Brochure and Open House
To help spread awareness of ground water issues and offer solutions to common ground
water questions, an information brochure was developed and mailed to over 1100
households on a master mailing list. An open house also was held, which offered a
slideshow about ground water, a question and answer session and a ground water
model demonstration. '
• 1996 Recharge Rate Study
One of the pressing issues driving the ground water project, a scope of work for a joint
venture between the County and USGS was developed and pursued in May 1994 to
examine the recharge rate for ground water supplies in different basins and sub-basins
in the County. The resulting report was published by USGS in November 1996 and
presented to the Board of Commissioners.
The Ground Water Center
With increasing public awareness a project priority, the Committee suggested the
creation of a one-stop resource for County citizens, called the Ground Water Center.
Upon approval by the Board in 1996, the Center is housed in the Soil and Water District
offices in Hillsborough, and features a dedicated phone line for citizens to call with
ground water questions (644-3333 - calls are referred to the appropriate agency).
Brochures and other materials are available on site.
• Groundwater Guardian
A national program dedicated to informing the public about the protection of
groundwater resources, the County applied and was awarded membership in the
organization in April 1997. The County is one of only 156 local governments in North
America (and four in NC) to receive the designation. The Groundwater Guardian offers
public information assistance and materials and networking on ground water problems.
• 1997-2000 Ground Water Resource Investigation
To analyze the County's ground water resource more thoroughly, the Committee
developed a scope of work for a full Ground Water Resource Investigation. The USGS
was selected to conduct the project, again as a cooperative venture with the County.
The Resource Investigation featured scientific sampling of wells across the County,
further analysis of ground water availability and susceptibility, and distribution analysis
of well yield. The report was completed-and published in February 2001.
3
0011
II. Charge to the WRC / BOCC Goal
When the Water Resources Committee was formed, the Committee was charged
with the following task:
Develop a long-range study and planning process to identify and address
the impacts of various land uses and waste treatment options on the
quantity and quality of ground and surface water resources of Orange
County, so that these impacts can be factored into long-range planning.
All of the subsequent activities of the Committee and the project have been
oriented around this dual purpose of assessing quantity and quality of
groundwater. This includes the substantial research and three reports produced
by USGS, the research of graduate students, the activities of the Committee
(such as the creation of the Ground Water Center, joining the Groundwater
Guardian program, and conducting open houses and other informational
brochures). The final stages of the project, the integration of surface water and
ground water planning, is scheduled to occur in the next two years, using this
Committee's report as a guide.
Finally, as per the Board of Commissioners goal, the WRC is also asked to
conduct the following tasks:
• Estimate the activities and costs that will be needed to have complete
data and information (i.e., further research needs)
• Examine the implications of the USGS reports
• Offer ideas on directions the Commission for the Environment and the
BOCC might take for ground water protection, and in linking surface and
ground water planning into the Water Resources Element of the
Comprehensive Plan
4
III. What We Have Learned: Water Quality
Ground water quality issues may range from very localized quality concerns
(whether naturally occurring or synthetic contaminants) to larger, wide-ranging
water quality problems. There are many locations in North Carolina and other
states that have serious water quality concerns, whether from naturally occurring
substances or from municipal, agricultural or industrial contamination.
Fortunately, in this County, we have relatively good water quality. While there
are some portions of the County that are more susceptible to contamination, the
County's land use policies limiting high-water use or polluting industrial
operations has resulted in few episodes of contamination, and all of the known
areas of contamination have been identified and mapped. While there are
occasional dialogues about potential water quality (such as at the landfill), there
are few water quality problem areas in the County, and those that do exist are
very localized. This is due primarily to generally good ambient ground water
quality, and good well-siting and construction practices (the County's Health
rules for well siting and construction exceed the State standards).
The primary water quality concern in the County is from naturally-occurring
contaminants, such as iron and manganese. These metals, naturally found in the
County's soil and bedrock, produce rust-colored stains and other nuisance-type
water problems. Another potential concern identified is from water-born radon,
as noted below.
As a part of the USGS Ground Water Resource Investigation (GWRI), extensive
well-sampling was conducted at 51 wells across the County. These wells were
selected to maximize geographic and hydrogeologic distribution. NOTE: A
statistical summary of results is presented in Table B on page Z6.
Results of the well-testing confirm the County's generally good ground water
quality. The following sub-sections address the different types of well-testing
conducted, with a brief summary of the findings of those samples.
The average well in the sample was 205 feet deep, and about three years old.
A. Field Parameters (pH,conductance,temperature,dissolved oxygen,alkalinity)
Measuring field parameters such as pH and dissolved oxygen offers a broad
characterization of water quality, when taken together.
The parameter pH measures the acidity or lack thereof in water. Water that has
a pH measurement of 7 is considered neutral, while waterwith pH less than pH 7
is considered acidic, and water with a pH greater than 7 is considered basic.
Acidic water contributes to corrsiveness and can damage plumbing systems. The
5
median pH level for County ground water was 6.93, very close to neutral. There
was a wide range of values, with a high of 8.3 at a well northeast of
Hillsborough, and a low of 4.72 in Bingham Township.
Conductance measures the ability of water to conduct electricity, which is of
significance because ionized particles in ground water may be indicative of total
dissolved solids in the water. The median value in the County is 180
microsiemens per centimeter. A considerable range of conductance exists in the
County, with values ranging from a high of523 and a low of 26. Although the
range is broad , most values were typical for ground water in the Piedmont.
Dissolved oxygen is a product of precipitation and ground water recharge.
Increased dissolved oxygen can indicate loss of precipitates, while low levels of
dissolved oxygen are associated with high levels of iron, manganese, sulfate and
dissolved organic matter. The median value for County ground water was 2.5
milligrams per liter . (mg/L), with highest variance again found in felsic
metavolcanic rocks. The range of findings for dissolved oxygen runs from 9.4
mg/L to 0.03 mg/L. Again, these measurements are within the expected range of
ground water quality for the Piedmont.
Alkalinity measures the capacity to neutralize acid in the water, usually produced
by carbon dioxide and bicarbonate, The median alkalinity found in Orange is 103
mg/L of calcium carbonate, with a high of 194 and a low of 24.
B. Major Ions
Major ions dissolved from soil and bedrock into ground water also help describe
the chemical makeup of the water — whether cations (ions with a positive
electrical charge) or anions (negative electrical charge). Common cations are
calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. Common anions include
bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, fluoride and nitrate.
Calcium and magnesium, as previously noted, are among the chemicals that
cause many problems in ground water, including hardness of water — which can
potentially cause scale in pipes and precipitates in hot water heaters. In certain
areas of the County, high levels of these chemicals pose nuisance problems for
many citizens. Generally-speaking, however, the incidence of these ions in the
County's ground water is not out of line with expected levels in the Piedmont
region. The median concentration of calcium in samples was 23 mg/L, and the
median for magnesium was 4.4 mg/L. Other ions analyzed include sodium,
potassium, bicarbonate, sulfate chloride and flouride. No unusual levels of these
compounds were found in the sample.
6
.. 0014
C. Nutrients
Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are important to plant and animal
life, but higher concentrations of these nutrients can often threaten surface and
ground water supplies. Usually, increased levels of nutrients are the result of
human activity — the use of fertilizer or manure, septic systems, or combustion of
fossil fuels. Nutrients in ground water usually take the form of nitrate, nitrite and
ammonia. In particular, a drinking water standard for nitrate (10 mg/L) is set to
protect against high levels, which are dangerous and can pose health risks of
anemia and other conditions for small children and the infirm.
High concentrations of nutrients in County ground water may reflect excessive
human activity as mentioned above, or poor well construction. Of the 51 wells
studied in the County, 82% of the samples contained nitrate. While there were
widespread findings of nitrate, most were of low concentration. The median
value of all wells sampled was 0.49 mg/L, although one well had a high reading
of 7.2 mg/L. All other wells sampled were below 3 mg/L. Ammonia and
orthophosphate were only detected at low concentrations.
D. Total Dissolved Solids
Dissolved solids measures the mass of solutes in a water sample after
evaporation. Higher or lower than average dissolved solids are indications of the
potential for scaling or clogging of plumbing from precipitate minerals. Dissolved
solids are generally lower in the Piedmont's crystalline rocks than in other
regions of the state and nation, and the median dissolved solids concentration in
the County from the analysis is 125 mg/L. This level is typical of the Piedmont
area of the southeastern U.S.
E. Metals and Trace Elements
Metals and trace elements were detected infrequently in the County's well
sampling. No trace elements exceeded the U.S. EPA's MCL's (maximum
contaminant levels), although some metals were found at levels worthy of note.
Zinc, manganese, iron and copper were the most frequently detected metals.
In three samples, the level of iron exceeded the level of N.C. drinking water
standards. Manganese exceeded drinking water standards in 12 of the 51 wells
sampled — and in three cases both iron and manganese were exceeded. As has
been known for years, iron and manganese are sometimes a primary concern
with ground water supplies in the County, and cause significant water quality
nuisances in both the County and state. In excessive amounts, iron and
manganese can stain teeth, plumbing fixtures, skin or laundered products, and
also may cause odor or taste concerns.
Lead was detected in 8 of the 51 samples, .although at levels below State and
Federal MCL. The levels were, however, greater than the zero-level goal that has
7
been established by the EPA. The incidence of lead is usually tied to corrosion of
solder joints in metal household pipes and alloys in pumps and faucets. Elevated
lead exposure is known to cause delayed physical and mental development in
babies and young children and also has been linked to kidney disease.
F. Organic Compounds
9 P
The ground water samples collected in the County were also examined for
certain organic compounds that may indicate the presence of herbicides or
petroleum products. Specifically, the water testing checked for atrazine-type
compounds and total petroleum-hydrocarbon compounds, including BTEX ( a
common measurement of benzine, toluene, ethylene and xylene). Atrazine is a
frequently used herbicide.
None of the compounds were detected in the samples, and this result in the
geographically and statistically sampled wells may indicate that contamination by
organic compounds is not a widespread problem in the County. Further work
would be needed to more comprehensively determine this, however.
G. Radon
Water-borne radon is a naturally-occurring substance from the decay of uranium
bearing rocks. It is the dissolved state of radon (or radium-222) that poses
potential health risks. As ground water is exposed to air through showers and
running faucets, radon present in the water may diffuse into the air. Thus, there
are two potential means of exposure to radon — ingestion and inhaling. Because
radon exposure can occur in two ways, EPA has had difficulty addressing
regulations, eventually deciding on a "multi-media" approach. If no State or EPA-
approved mitigation program exists, the MCL for radon is 300 picoCuries per liter
(pCi/L). If there is an approved mitigation program, then 4000 pCi/L is proposed.
Results from the wells sampled in this study used these standards for
comparison.
The results of this sampling are the most significant of all the water quality
findings, as some limited incidence of high radon readings were found in the
County. These high readings are not completely unexpected. In 1998, findings of
high radon levels in nearby Guilford County (in similar geologic formations) led to
some expectation by the Committee that higher than average radon findings
would also be observed in Orange.
The range of radon activity in Orange was quite dramatic, from a low of 38 pCi/L
(picocuries per liter) to 4462 pCi/L (please see Map 2) . The median finding of all
samples was 405 pCi/L, above the 300 pCi/L standard suggested by EPA.
Generally, the radon activity was highest in felsic (silica and feldspar) rocks and
lowest in mafic rocks (iron and manganese base).
8
0016
79°15' 79"0730' 790
36"15' i i
O
OR-111 �------•- - --
i •�-
I •OR-116 OOR 10) OR-106�
o
I '
OOR-118
ORA19
0 O R-115 0 OR-111 !
I I OR-114 ` OR-1080
OR-131 0 00-110 EXPLANATION
6 0 O O OR-109 I HYOROGEOLOGIC UNITS
OR-12100R•122
I OR-112 OR-113 O UTARGIARGILLITE
I O OOR•124
36°07'30' V-- 0OR-104 OR-100' F-11(MIFj METAIGNEOUS,FELSIC
I
0 OR•123 O OR-101 0 ❑IMII!METAIGNEOUS,INTERMEDIATE
i OOR-102 ' D IMIMIMETAIGNEOUS,MARC
i ❑(MVE)METAVOLCANIC,EPICLASTIC
iOOR-120 0OR-98 I CD(MVFIMETAVOLCANIC.FELSIC
I OR-97
OR-105 OR-89 OR-130' ❑IMVIIMETAVOLCANIC,INTERMEDIATE
i
FOR-95 0 O 01 ❑(PHL)PHYLLITE
OR-87 OR-85 I (-1 ITRII TRIASSIC SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
0 0' . 99 I RADON PERPLIT ERURIES
0
36°i' OR 92 OR-80 j OR-1000 39.299ANDWELL NUMBER
OR-92 OR-1130 300.999 AND WELL NUMBER
0 OR-94 OR-81 OR-104
OR-911 pg.gp 0 ' 0 I,D00.2,499 AND WELL NUMBER
O 0 O O pR-83 OR-1260 GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 2,500
I OR-91 I AND WELL NUMBER
! , o CPR-84
'! I OR-129
O R-93 0 OR•880 0 OR-127 l
i
OR-128 OR-126 I
35"52'30' ;- ,�• 0
I I � •
0 5 10 MILES
0 5 IOKILUMETERS
Source : Investigation of Ground Water Availability and Quality in Orange County, NC, USGS, 2001
If there is a geographic area of concern for radon, it is in the south central
portion of the County. The wells sampled in the areas west and southwest of
Chapel Hill and Carrbor in excess of 2500 i
o had radon levels C L. The
P p /
underlying geology in this area contains several granitic plutons that are
relatively "newer" in geologic terms - with a high percentage of feldspar and
mica. The largest of these plutons, known as the Farrington pluton, extends
south into Chatham County at least as far as the Haw River. This same type of
geology was associated with the highest radon readings in Guilford County.
Overall, 67% of the wells sampled exceeded the USEPA proposed MCL of
300 pCi/L.
9
It is significant that the radon activity overall in Orange is lower than observed in
Guilford — but still worthy of note and further analysis. This difference may be
explained in part by the older age of the granitic plutons underlying south central
Orange, as compared to younger formations in Guilford.
The County's Environmental Health office is aware of the radon findings and is
prepared to assist property owners who may have concerns about potential
radon levels. Radon test kits are available from Environmental Health to help test
for high radon readings in air and water.
NOTE: The Committee's recommendations regarding the radon findings may be
found in Section VI, beginning on page 20.
For more, information on these water quality samples and results,
please see the USGS Ground Water Resource Investigation report.
H. Susceptibility to Contamination
To address the question of the likelihood of contamination of ground water
supplies, the USGS developed a parallel GIS analysis to indicate susceptibility to
contamination. The map results of this analysis were eventually published as a
map report "Susceptibility of Ground Water to Surface and Shallow Sources of
Contamination, Orange County, NC."These data are available from USGS as part
of their digital mapping product for the County, and will be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Resource GIS Database.
Generally, three contributing factors to indicate susceptibility were used to
compute this index:
1. Soil permeability
2. Land use/land cover, and
3. Slope
Each of these factors was evaluated through data in the GIS database and
mapped (please see Map 2). The range of values were assigned a
"contamination potential" rating, which was then used to calculate an overall
relative susceptibility value.
Generally, land with high ground, less permeable soils and forested land use
have the lowest susceptibility to contamination. Conversely, low-lying areas that
have permeable. soils and higher risk land use (underground storage tanks) have
the highest potential for contamination.
10
oo1s
MAP 2
Insert Susceptibility Map — Page 26 of USGS
Source : Investigation of Ground Water Availability and Quality in Orange County, NC, USGS, 2001
11
0019 :
As shown on the attached map, about 12% of the County's land area can be
categorized as having high susceptibility to contamination. About 21% of the
County ranks as low potential for contamination.
Water Quality Summary
Table 2
Comparison of Selected Results and Drinking Water Standards
Measure High Low • EPA/State
Reading Reading Limits for
Driking
Water
PH (units) 8.3 4.72 6.93 Not less than
6.5 units
Conductivity 523 ms/cm 26 ms/cm 180 ms/cm No established
(microsiemens limits
r centimeter
Dissolved 9.4 mg/L 0.03 mg/L 2.5 mg/L No established
Oxygen limits
(milligrams per
Litre
Alkalinity 194 mg/L 24 mg/L 103 mg/L No established
limits
Nitrate 7.2 m /L 0.02 m L 0.49 m L 10 m /L
Iron 1100 1 N/A 0.30 m L
Manganese 890 0.4 N/A 0.05 mg/L
(micrograms per
Litre
Calcium 64 mg/L 0.8 mg/L 23 mg/L No established
limits
Magnesium 21 mg/L 1 mg/L 4.4 mg/L No established
limits
Fluoride 0.6 m /L 0.1 m /L 0.12 4 m /L
Lead 3.7 1.1 N/A 0.015 m /L
Zinc 4900 4.5 N/A 5.0 mg/L
(micrograms per
Litre
Copper 24 1.1 N/A 1.3 mg/L
(micrograms/
Litre
Radon 4462 pCi/L 38 pCi/L 405 pCi/L 300 pCi/L or
(picocuries/Litre) 4,000 Ci/L
12
0020
In summary, the County's ground water quality is relatively good. A major
benefit on the new data is that a baseline of information about the status of
ground water in 2000 is now available. This baseline could be of great
importance in evaluating change in the future. As land use patterns change and
new plans are developed, the baseline of information and Susceptibility to
Contamination map will help illustrate the ramifications of change and steer
growth to areas where ground water quality will be less compromised.
While naturally-occurring contaminants (iron, manganese) cause problems for
some County residents in the color, odor and taste of ground water, only
sporadic cases of contamination have been identified. However, the high radon
readings (particularly in the southeastern portion of the County) are worthy of
note and further research may be needed to determine the extent and scope of
the potential problem.
Additionally, a program of periodic sampling in this area and Countywide may be
worthwhile to examine future water quality in developing areas to see if there
are any trends of note. These wells could be compared to "control"wells in areas
of the County not seeing development pressures, for comparison and test
purposes.
13
0021
IV. What We Have Learned: Water Quantity
The availability of ground water supplies - now and into the future - was the
initial impetus for the investigation of ground water resources and the Water
Resources project. As such, substantial time and energy has been spent in
determining the following components:
1. What is the sustainable yield of the ground water system in the County
(i.e., the amount of ground water that can be removed from the ground
water system without exceeding recharge and/or depleting long-term
storage)?
2. What type of ground water yield can be expected in the County, and
where might the highest-yielding wells be located?
3. Using the well data and statistical analysis, develop a general prediction of
areas in the County that are more likely to produce higher-yield wells.
The two reports on ground water produced by USGS (in conjunction with the
County) offer the first major research into this resource in the County,'and will
provide useful information for many years to come. While we may never be able
to predict on a site-specific basis the ground water yield for a piece of land we
can now begin to speak knowledgeably about groundwater availability at sub-
watershed level in the County.
A. 1996 Recharge Rate Study
Published in 1996 (please see page 4), this study looked at the rate of recharge
to the County's ground water supplies through investigating data for 12
watershed basins ns in the County. Ground water is taken out of storage - into
springs, streams and lakes, or is pumped from wells. Recharge may be defined
as the replenishment of that ground water.
A technique known as "hydrograph separation" allowed USGS to use computer
models to isolate the ground water component of stream flow at each of the
USGS gaging stations in these basins. From this information, seasonal and long-
term recharge to the ground water system was estimated for each basin.
Mean annual recharge to the system ranges from 4.15 to 6.4 inches per year,
with a mean of 4.9 inches per year for the 12 basins. The inches per year rates
can be converted to gallons per day per acre to assist in water supply planning
purposes. The higher the recharge rate, the more available ground water for use
— the lower the recharge, the less available ground water.
14
u
Recharge for the Morgan Creek basin (upstream from White Cross and Chapel
Hill) is higher than any other basin, explained in part by the soil properties in'this
area that allow high infiltration rates (sometimes known as "Chapel Hill gravel').
The Haw River basin (Bingham Township and the northwestern edge of the
County) and New Hope River sub-basin (northern and eastern Chapel Hill) has
the lowest recharge, the latter largely due to the presence of Triassic
sedimentary rocks and soils with low infiltration capacities.
Finally, the report offers a method of using the recharge rate data for ground
water management planning. The ultimate limit on ground water availability is
the rate of recharge, i.e., the amount that can be sustainably withdrawn without
overdrafting the supply. Two examples are provided that offer ways to translate
the recharge rate data on a basin-by-basin approach to determine the recharge
area needed and the sustainable lot size, given a known water demand.
In summary, the report found that there are significant reserves of ground water
in the County, but that the rate of recharge varies from one geographic area to
another. Although ground water supplies are currently sufficient, the report
notes the critical importance of proper management, conservation and planning
for use of ground water supplies for the future.
B. 2001 Ground Water Resource Investigation
Where the 1996 Recharge Rate report looked at the County's ground water
availability using streamflow records by basin, the 2001 Resource Investigation
augments this report with actual well data.
The new report provides a baseline on well yield in the County, from data
gathered from 649 wells. These data include yield, depth, diameter, location,
casing depth, and water level. Table 3 on page 11 of the USGS report offers a
synopsis of the water availability findings.
Well yield (in gallons per minute) ranged dramatically, as has been known for
many years by those involved in well drilling and inspection. The lowest yield
well in the 600-plus sample produced only 0.1 gallons per minute (gpm), while
the high yield well produced 240 gpm. The average well in the sample was much
lower, however, averaging 17.6 gpm.
The depth for wells in the sample likewise varied significantly, from a minimum
of 24 feet to a maximum of 805 feet. The average well depth was 208 feet.
The well yield and well depth findings allowed USGS to perform sensitivity
analysis to see what type of correlation well yield had to construction practices
and siting of wells — and to well yield per foot of depth.
15
0023
This analysis was then used to develop a map of well yield distribution based on
yield alone, and yield by depth. These maps show that there are quantity
"contours" — portions of the County where well yield was likely to fall within a
certain range. From these data, the highest-yielding contours in the County are
an area near the intersection of Dodson's Crossroads and Dairyland Road in
Bingham Township, and in south-central Cedar Grove Township. In these areas,
well yields were from 25 gpm to over 100 gpm. Nearly everywhere else in the
County, well yield was less than 25 gpm (please see Map 4 below).
When adjusted for the difference in well yields by depth of well (Map 5), the
highest contours expand in Bingham to the east and southwest, and in Cedar
Grove to the west and north.
Maps 3 and 4
Source : Investigation of Ground water Availability and Quality in Orange County, NC, USGS, 2001
16
r 0024
The areas of the lowest well yield contours were generally in northeastern,
central and southeastern Orange.
One finding of the study did not support an expected hypothesis. Previous
studies have shown that, in other areas of the Piedmont of North Carolina, there
was a relationship between the topography of the land and the well yield, such
that the average yield in valleys and draws was nearly three times greater than
wells on hills and ridges.
However, the Orange data shows well yields have little or no relationship to
topographic setting. This pattern is more similar to the Piedmont of Georgia and
Alabama than to the rest of the Carolinas. This may be due in part to the fact
that there is a difference in the way the County's underlying bedrock relates to
surface drainage patterns.
These data are then combined with the findings of the 1996 report to address
ground water availability.
C. Other Information Provided to the Committee
1. Discussion of Optimizing Existing Wells
Ray Sparrow, a local well contractor, presented information to the committee
regarding the use of"down-hole" cameras in wells to diagnose well problems
and possible remedies, such as appropriate installation of liners. Sparrow found
that the cameras prove to be a useful tool in remediabon of wells that have
become susceptible to contamination and yet can be successfully repaired by the
installation of a properly placed liner and packer. Cameras are also a useful tool
in assuring that new wells are constructed properly.
The discussion also entailed the need for proper set-up of the well pump in order
to optimize each well. This approach matches the pump size, pump depth, and
storage and pressure system to the characteristics of that particular well. A
common practice contrary to this has been to oversize pumps and set them too
deep. This results in excessive drawdown of the water column which aerates the
well wall and fracture zones. This leads to formation of slime bacteria, iron
bacteria and a buildup of minerals in the fracture zones which reduces the well
yield over time and causes water quality problems for the user.
Generally, these wells do not have to be replaced, they can be rejuvenated and
the original yield can be restored by appropriately treating the well with the
application of acids or special cleaning agents, or by methods using hydrostatic
pressure to physically clean the well out the well.
17
-� 0G �- 5
In receiving this information, the Committee noted that this draws attention to
the need for conservative pump sizing for new wells (please see Finding 9 on
page 24).
V. Summary of Findings
To summarize, the work of the last seven years has led the Committee to draw
the following conclusions and findings:
Finding #1
Potable water is a finite resource in the County. 77ze availability of potable water is an
issue that has public health, economic development and environmental ramifications. A
decline in quantity or quality would represent a potential serious environmental and/or
public health problem, and scarcity of potable water would hinder the economic
development potential of the County.
Finding #2
Ground water quality in the County is generally good and may be considered a reliable
source of potable water. Although there have been isolated or localized incidents of
ground water quality problems, the results of rite last eight years have not turned up any
widespread problems of ground water contamination. 77ze primary ground water quality
concern in the County appears to be from naturally-occurring sources, such as iron and
manganese.
Finding #3
However, while quality is generally good, elevated water-bonze radon levels in certain
geologic formations of the County (more often found in the south-central part of the
County)may pose health risks, and should be evaluated further.
Finding #4
Ground water quantity in the County can vary dramatically, due to the type of fractured
rock geology that underlies the surface. While ground water availability is adequate to
meet current needs, the density of development permitted by zoning in some watershed
basins may exceed the ability for ground water to be recharged to meet demand.
Finding #5
Protection of water supplies needs a conservative approach to maintain our resource in a
sustainable way and ensure that adequate ground water remains for future generations.
Finding #6
The results of the cooperative research with USGS has provided a solid baseline of
ground water quality and quantity, that may be used to measure trends and changes in
well yield and quality over time.
18
oo � s
Finding #7
The results of the two studies with the USGS provide sufficient data for plans and policy
recommendations to be developed to ensure sustainable use of the resource.
Finding #8
While well construction standards in the County exceed State standards, diligence is
needed to ensure that new wells are appropriately sited and constructed to the degree
that wastewater systems are addressed. In particular, new development proposals
currently are required to address the availability of acceptable soils for wastewater
(septic)systems, but no such set of requirements exist to addressing water availability for
wells prior to development.
Finding #8
Tlie 1996 USGS study provides data and examples that can be used to evaluate the
available ground water supply by watershed, and site new wells appropriately. The effect
of dense development could cause a net reduction in ground water recharge rates and in
baseflow to streams, thus reducing supplies and storage.
Finding #9
Well plumbing design and maintenance are important components of well construction.
Good pump system installation, the appropriate sizing of well pumps and balancing the
pumping rate to in flow can help to address these issues.
Finding #10
Ground water and surface water quantity and quality are inextricably niter-related.
Ground water represents the source of up to 50% of stream flow. In order to ensure that
the use of available ground water does not exceed availability (i.e., demand not exceeds
supply), future planning for water resources must recognize the inter-relationship and
address ground water and surface water protection as two parts of the same whole.
19
0027
VI. Recommendations and Further Research Needs
Over the last seven years, the Water Resources Committee had the opportunity
to receive many presentations and examine much newfound data about the
County's ground water resources. Prior to this work, very little was known about
this resource that is often "out of sight, out of mind" until problems arise.
The pursuit of these data itself is one of the Committee's proudest legacies, and
the Committee commends the Board of Commissioners for having the foresight
to be proactive in investigating ground water issues in the County.
On several occasions, representatives from other jurisdictions and agencies in
North Carolina and around the nation have expressed admiration and at times,
surprise, that a local government with no known ground water problems would
undertake such a proactive review. In almost every case, it has been reaction to
ground water contamination or overuse of supplies that has generated the type
of resource analysis undertaken here. The County can be proud of its proactive
stance in evaluating ground water quantity and quality before problems arise.
The money spent to study our resource and obtain these data will undoubtedly
Yield many benefits in years to come — benefits that will greatly outweigh the
cost of research.
As a result of this work, the County has gone from little or no knowledge about
ground water resources to a substantial database on the resource, one that
grows every day as new well data is compiled and added to the database. The
three USGS cooperative reports provide a wealth of information about ground
water — information that may not make for exciting reading, but will be of great
value in years to come, as increased demand mounts pressure on our ground
water supplies. The value of having performed this analysis now, without the
pressure of a crisis, may be tenfold in the future.
As the Board of Commissioners consider this report, and the Commission
for the Environment takes up the mantle of considering policy
recommendations for ground water(and eventually integration of surface
water and ground water protection into a comprehensive Water Resources
Element of the Comprehensive Plan), the Water Resources Committee offers
the following recommendations:
20
� 02b
Recommendation 1
Conduct further research into water-borne radon results in south-
central Orange, to see if there is a health concern present. Since the
geologic formation where the highest radon levels are found extends south
into Chatham County, the Board may wish to engage Chatham County in
discussing possible additional research that should be of mutual interest.
Recommendation 2
Create an ongoing ground water monitoring program using wells
to evaluate changes in yield and water quality changes over time in
areas of the County that are seeing significant new development.
This monitoring system would provide an "early-warning system" to provide
advance notice of impending ground water problems. It would also help
detect potential depletion of ground water storage in developments using
wells, as well as trends in availability, yield and quality over time. This data
could be compared against control well data in undeveloped areas measured
against piezometers (test wells) in new subdivisions.
Recommendation 3
As the Commission for the Environment reviews ground water and
surface water resource management options, the Committee
recommends that a "water budget" approach be studied for use as a
means to tie together planning and use of these inextricably related
components of our water resources. Changes in land use can change the
overall water budget — urbanization and development tends to decrease
recharge and increase surface runoff. This reduces ground water in storage
and increases the chance of flooding. The cumulative effects of development
within a basin can reduce baseflow to streams, which can adversely affect
instream flow needs for aquatic life and riparian vegetation habitat. More
information on water budgets may be found in Appendix H.
Recommendation 4
Based on the conservative approach to estimating sustainable
ground water yield in the 1996 USGS report, there are five
watersheds in the County that may not be able to sustain the
density of development that current zoning will permit. The
Committee recommends that potential changes to the zoning in
these watersheds be revisited as part of the ongoing update to the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and that
sustainable ground water yield be incorporated into the decision-
21
0029 :
making process for zoning. These watersheds are the Back Creek, Haw
Creek, Haw River and Hyco Creek watersheds, along with portions of the
Upper and Lower En02.
Recommendation 5
Currently, as new development proposals in the rural areas receive
approval, there are requirements that wastewater disposal be
addressed up front before development is approved. However, there
is no such assessment of water availability required, and thus
many eventual homeowners and business-owners expend
significant resources to find adequate`ground water. While it may
never be possible to predict where the best ground water yield is on
a site-specific basis, the County should consider requiring that
new subdivision lots locate a well site (as well as a
septiclwastewater site) prior to subdivision approval.
Furthermore, the Committee recommends that, as is done with septic
systems, consideration be given to requiring a "well reserve" (or a 100-foot
wellhead protection area instead of a reserve) area on new lots, so that future
well sites that are needed will be accounted for in site design. It is recognized
that this last provision may mean that an increased minimum lot size will be
needed in zoning districts where the minimum lot if less than two acres.
Areas zoned for lots larger than two acres should generally be able to meet
this provision without an effect on lot size. It is recognized that, as a growth
management issue, the potential of low-density sprawl must also be weighted
against this need.
Recommendation 6
Water conservation is not just for surface water. The use of lower-flow
appliances and reductions in water use for private wells should also be
pursued. The County should consider a public education campaign to this
end. As an added benefit, water conservation will reduce the likelihood of
overuse of wells, which can result in overloaded septic systems.
22
0030
Further Research Needs
In addition to these recommendations, the Committee suggests that the County
consider additional research in the following areas:
1. The areas of the County that contain the highest radon findings are
associated with geologic conditions that extend into Chatham County.
Additional research in conjunction with Chatham to explore these radon levels
may be warranted.
2. For those areas of Orange County with higher water-borne radon, the
potential exists for the gas to collect in houses, basements and other poorly
ventilated areas. A program for testing of air and water radon levels should
be encouraged in these areas.
End Notes
'-. Additional information on the effects of land use change, the use of on-site
wastewater systems (septic systems), swales, and retention ponds on
groundwater recharge is contained in a similar report for Guilford County written
in 1997
2- Please see table from 1996 entitled "Calculation of Recharge Area Required for
Single-Family Residential Dwellings...", included in Appendix E.
23
0031
VII. Appendices
NOTE. Many of appendices to this report are lengthy, and as such
are available upon request
A. Interim Report of the WRC, March 1993
B. 1994 WRC Progress Report
C. Ground Water Center
D. Ground Water Databse Inventory
E. 1996 USGS Recharge Rate report (Ground Water Recharge to the Regolith
Fractured Crystalline Rock Aquifer System, Orange County NC) - available
upon request
F. Ground Water Guardian Program
G. 1999 USGS Open File Map Report, "Susceptibility of Ground Water to
Surface and Shallow Sources of Contaimination, Orange County NC"
H. 2001 USGS Ground Water Resource Investigation (Investigation of Ground
Water Availability and Quality in Orange County, NC) - available upon
request)
I. The Concept of a Water Budget
24
0'. 2_
Discussion Notes
Meeting of CFE Water Resources Committee and
1992-2001 Water Resources Committee
April 23, 2002
Following a review of the 2001 USGS Ground Water Resource Investigation
and the (1992-2001) Water Resources Committee Final Report, the group
discussed the following points:
• Where would the funding come from for monitoring wells as proposed by
Committee?
• Test wells should be able to test for climatic, terrain and land use
conversion effects
• What kind of data is currently being shared with the State? 1s there
information that can be gleaned from those reports to augment the data
we are collecting via GPS?
• What water quality testing is available from Environmental Health?
What do they test for? What can the State test for (is it the same)?
• Could well-testing be piggybacked on every new well — require bacteria,
radon, mineral testing? Cost? Could the County cover the cost? Is it
reasonable to require a water test of all new wells? Nitrate, iron and
manganese might be the most useful information.
• How significant are the high radon readings? Should we start a sampling
program specific to the geographic (geologic) area of high readings? How
about including Chatham County (as the Committee proposed)? Can EPA
provide something more definitive in the way of minimum levels? There
is a lot of information available at EPA on this???
• Is there a need for a comprehensive sanitary survey to see what's out
there first?
• Should new subdivisions be required to locate well sites? Can well sites
and a well reserve area be shown on the subdivision plat to be reserved?
Would it be onerous—require drilling to show availability?
• The Committee recommendations should be prioritized and grouped into
areas that will require more work, those that can be done now and those
that need more discussion by the CFE. This information should also be
shared with the committee working on the Environmental Impact
Ordinance.
�. 0033
Suggestions
1. Begin a well-sampling program for radon in the geographic/geologic areas
where high radon was indicated in previous sampling.
2. As proposed, engage Chatham County in further research on radon levels
in the geologic formation that straddles the two counties.
3. For all new wells, consider requiring a basic well-testing program (with
airborne radon-testing optional but recommended/targeted to the
susceptibility area in south/centrai Orange)
4. Check with EPA for more definitive information on aerated water-borne
radon levels.
5. Identify sentinel new wells to be randomly sampled over time to allow
for comparative work in well yield and water quality.
6. Continue to fund regional programs (USGS/Triangle J) that fund surface
water gauging stations
7. Prioritize the Water Resources Committee recommendations (as per the
last bullet above)
The group recommended that, following Commissioners review and comment,
the reports be referred to the Commission for the Environment Water
Resources Committee (and those members of the 1992-2001 Committee who
wish to continue to be involved) for more work and analysis.
0034
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 28, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No. A-
SUBJECT: Telecommunications Towers Moratorium Update
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
• Timeline for Ordinance Adoption (pp.3) Craig N. Benedict, ext 2592
• Regulatory Issues/Concerns for Tom King, ext 2607
Consideration (pp. 4)
• Info. Obtained from Monroe Telecom & TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Trigon Engineering Regarding Hillsborough 732-8181
Towers (pp. 5-13) Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To hear an update on the progress of research into possible amendments to the
current Zoning Ordinance text relating to telecommunications tower regulation. This research
has been ongoing since the time the six-month moratorium on telecommunications towers was
adopted by the Board of Commissioners.
BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners enacted a six-month moratorium on the
processing of all new telecommunications tower applications in Orange County's planning
jurisdiction on March 6, 2002. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow Staff to prepare
proposed Ordinance amendments relating to the review of,future telecommunications tower
applications. In addition, the "telco" tower and provider industries will be brought in to discuss
the proposed changes. This, as yet, has not occurred because Planning Staff is coordinating
with all other interested County departments (including, but not limited to, Emergency
Management, Information Technology, County Attorney's office, Purchasing, Environment &
Resource Protection, etc.) regarding their input.
Ordinance amendments being considered include the following:
• Promotion of co-location possibilities not only on existing towers, but also on electric
transmission lines where existing transmission line towers exist. At this time there are
several transmission corridors located throughout the County.
• Promotion of the location of telecommunications towers and related facilities on certain
identified public and semi-public (civic) properties throughout the County.
• Annual application reviews for proposed new telecommunications towers. Any and all
proposed applications would be reviewed once per year.
4C � �
Ordinance provisions to ensure that all new towers meet zoning &building code standards, 2
and that towers are designed to.support the maximum amount of co-locations as possible.
• Amend minimum height requirements that currently determine which approval process
applications will go through. Currently towers >75-feet and <200-feet in height are approved
by the Board of Adjustment. Towers 200-feet in height and taller are approved by the
Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners.
Since the regulatory environment is evolving, the use of a consultant to fashion the final draft of
a revised Ordinance is recommended.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No fees are being collected during the moratorium for Class A or Class B
Special Use Permit applications for new telecommunications towers. Also, fees are not being
collected for stealth towers or co-locations on existing towers.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends that the Board receive this abstract
as a status report and offer comment and/or further direction based on its contents.
ATTACHMENT 1
00 � r s
GENERAL TIMELINE FOR REVISED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER
REGULATIONS
April-May 2002
Meetin .
s with
i••_ �Ilarch �22 � COUnt 9 ,Y
Department Heads
' ?, :Regarding Issues Related
" to,Telecommunications
Towers
May 28, 2002:
Update on June 2002
BOCC
Status of Tower Complete Draft Revisions to
Ordinance Revisions Tower Regulations and
Evaluate Possible Tower
Locations on Public&Semi
Public Lands
Late June 2002 . Late June 2002
Identify.Consultant that.Works Request Legal Ad for Public,
on Telco Fee,Basis Hearing on Revised
Ordinance
Late June-Ear July Late July-Early `
2002 August 2002
Meet:with Industry Prepare Ordinance
Representatives and Legal for Adoption at
Staff to Review Proposed August 26; 2002
Plans and Amendments Public.Hearing
5r,�
u
U41 .
� ooi q gusto 8200
4 . �
ub Wi ldan go is ,<
ar o Rec a da i0 i
STAFF ACTION BOARD ACTION
ATTACHMENT 2
0035 4
ORANGE COUNTY TELCO UPDATE
MAY 28, 2002
REGULATORY ISSUES/CONCERNS FOR CONSIDERATION
• "MASTER TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLAN" -ADOPTION OF PLAN TO
PROMOTE SHARING OF FACILITIES
• PROMOTE FACILITIES ON PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC LANDS
• ANNUAL APPLICATION SUBMITTAL -APPLICANTS FOR TOWERS CAN ONLY
APPLY ONE TIME PER CALANDAR YEAR
• STRONG CO-LOCATION PROMOTION - LINKED TO ANNUAL APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL (COMPETITION/COORDINATION ON SITING NEW TOWERS)
• PROMOTION OF CO-LOCATION ON EXISTING ELECTRIC
TRANSMISSION TOWERS - DUKE POWER & PIEDMONT ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP
CORPORATION
• CLASS A, CLASS B, SUP HEIGHT THRESHOLDS -LOWER HEIGHT FOR
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVED TOWERS
• INCREASED REVIEW FEES -WILL PAY FOR CONTRACTED SERVICES
• CONTRACTED SERVICE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW OF TOWER
APPLICATIONS
• ONGOING, ANNUAL COUNTY INSPECTIONS PROGRAM TO VERIFY THAT
TOWERS REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING & BUILDING CODES
• STAFF APPROVAL FOR STEALTH TOWERS LOCATED ON
ROOFTOPS/SPECIAL USE APPROVAL FOR NON-STEALTH TOWERS LOCATED ON
ROOFTOPS
ATTACHMENT 3 5
0030
I'I INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM MONROE
TELECOM AND TRIGON ENGINEERING
REGARDING TOWERS
0040 s
f'r
t
IF YOU THINK YOURS IS GOOD,
OUR APPROACH AND MODEL ORDINANCE GUARANTEES THAT . .
• THERE WILL BE NO NEW TOWERS,UNLESS THE NEED CAN BE ABSOLUTELYPROYEN I
• ANY NEEDED TOWER WILL BE THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM HEIGHT NEEDED WITHOUT
AFFECTING THE ABILITY OFMULTIPLE CARRIERS TO CO-LOCATE ONIT
• THE COMMUNITY WILL ALWAYS BE IN ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF THE ISSUE
• ENABLES THE COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP NEW SOURCES OF NON-TAX REVENUE
• ALL OF THIS IS DONE FORNO COST TO THE COMMUNITY
It's worked in more than 300 communities in 14 states
and it will work in your community!
CaCL-m at(- 18)477-8000 or(518)439-3079 or drop our principals an M.itatlmontoel @UcgplT.com or
dickna,tge�l�ecomsol.com and Learn�iow...
or 90 to our .1 Site atwww.telecomsol.com.
THE ISSUE OF TOWERS AND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES SHOULD NEVER AGAIN BE A
PROBLEM OR BE A MATTER THAT YOU DONUT FEEL COMFORTABLE DEALING WITH.
The center for Municipal SOlutlon1
S
MONROE TELECOM A COMI TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Ira aaot t Vea vw4d"SAWZS"&;D&e4v
1 The wireless industry has publicly acknowledged the need for at least 4 times the number of sites as it has
needed to- date.This will mean nearly 1 million(1,000,000)new sites over the next few years.
7
0041
THE CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS
(Monroe Telecom Associates &Comi Telecommunication Services)
THE ORGANIZATION'S GOALS&PURPOSE
Assist local governments in using their regulatory powers in a positive context to strike a balance
between the needs and concerns of the community and the needs and desires of the carriers with respect
to the siting of towers and wireless telecommunications facilities.
Bring a sense of reasonableness, orderliness and rationality to a situation that's historically been
random and often insensitive to the needs and concerns of the community, and help the local
government develop a process whereby all affected parties can"win"and get what they want in a timely
manner,with no cost to the community.Help communities assure that:
J The carrier gets to expand its service coverage faster than historically, and increase its
revenue proportionally
The community as a whole gets increased and improved telecommunications infrastructure
and service, without having to sacrifice a significant change in the nature and character of the
community or suffe r
from the heretofore virtually uncontrolled proliferation of towers.
�i Help local governments solve a problem and at the same time actually facilitate the
development and expansion of wireless telecommunications service and infrastructure.
The municipality can develop significant amount of new Non-Tax revenue
0042 8
TURNING A"WIN-LOSE-LOSE"INTO A"WIN-WIN-WIN"SITUATION
TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF(UNNECESSARY) SITUATIONS
UGLY AND TALLER THAN NECESSARY TWICE AS MANY TOWERS AS NEEDED&TWICE AS TALL AS NEEDED
THIS CHOULD BE
cIn THE HEIGHT OF THE ;
j 5 d
TOWER FOR THE 2 �•k3k , „:. ',.. �
l ATTACHED
All ALL 6 CARRIERS
CARRIERS COULD GO ON THIS
J SINGLE TOWER
+iii� f,��f! .��, + �is .•
,
Why does the situation Exist?
• Municipal Officials have never been taught how to minimize the number and height of towers in the
context of the authority they have under the federal law and the technological capabilities of the
industry.
• Tower companies want to maximize their revenue-generating resource(i.e. space on the tower)and
certainly aren't incented not to build towers . . .or to camouflage them,unless required to do so by
(local) law/regulations.
• Municipal Officials don't know that under federal law tower companies don't have a`need'—only
carriers have a `need',and in many cases there's an alternative to a new tower,or the tower can be
significantly shorter and/or often`camouflaged'.
What is the Carrier's issue as regards the permitting process?
Time,which equates to revenue or the loss thereof.Every day they're not in operation is on average
(nationwide)$3,000/carrier/site/day in lost revenue that will never be realized,but in a number of instances
significantly more,e.g. $5,000-$10,000.
What should be the community's issues?
• Is the facility needed at all?
• Does it have to be tower?
• Is there proof of the need for the requested height?
• Health,Safety&Welfare
-Structural adequacy and means of attachment
-RF Emissions(NIER)
-Electrical Grounding&Bonding
-Setback distance from surrounding dwellings and buildings
• Assure the minimal visual impact(co-location versus new tower,minimum height necessary,color,
appearancelcamouflage, screening)
• Facilitate the expansion of service for reasons of economic development
• Assure that all art-win,i.e.the public,the carriers/applicants and the local officials
yp
t
pixst taiErttaa �ti ��
4 - off VJITIT.Izl
y ry' 1,,,t, � + ,,�n',rw.r.,� r�k�f�t rI k r+r ti i � a i°„nti �f rh} �{�it(•.4 }'q,.`Z
» �:r`i
��-7,��" �F r kP � rQ �y. �1"''3�"��� r F r if% � l✓i. �, f i I r i � S1 � ( 7z ts�*is Fr�i�
fi�4t��A�S ly4 '��t�iL,�Sr�ri "I �ry'i��'yl��j,+k�.�4 + � f��.. �y,h`� ,,,�. "';i�'>!�p y�`�•.....auKt1;��.�,�r_•' r��, '1
aku rn � i w '+b�f• k ��., t t i r� d`,{ s �F.�
r r�
i �. i s' t � e (I i•'�' rT
.r
1a 43,�ti�n� I F
JA
WT
7} iy '
t
killvaUa .+v'i''�r ��II`littt
y
""e.'.�„�.z ^^' �n�--r. '• � '4 /`�"-,r"'�...: .;;r a` � ----ter,
1�' H+(4 G! eP`k.! _"_,T�. C��I l�'t�'„1 5 i' ��"�.a.'�w�r•l _L'�"y�y� - _� �fw�
0 4 PO YOU WANT TO CONTROL 10
TOWERS and ANTENNAS
IN YOUR MUNICIPALITY?
The 1996 Telecommunications Act has dramatically changed some significant factors with respect to
controlling the siting and placement of cellular and other communications towers and related facilities.
Contrary to what you may have read and heard though,the Act has not abrogated the rights or authority
of local governments but, in most instances, has specifically protected them and placed responsibility
squarely on the shoulders of local government. No one else can protect your community from the
uncontrolled proliferation of towers. However, it did create some very specific requirements for
handling applications and the permitting of them;but, to accomplish what you may want, it is critical to
know and understand:
• What the law allows,and doesn't allow; _
• What the basis for your authority is;
• How to use that authority in a procedurally correct manner,
• What the industry's real,long-term agenda is;
• What the effects of this agenda will be on the community; '
• How to deal with that agenda in the context of the current law;
How to create choices for the applicant,but limit them to those you create;
How many towers and related facilities may be going up in your community
in the next 3 to 5 years;
• How to prevent the"porcupine effect"or the uncontrolled proliferation
of towers and related facilities; /
• How to prevent a challenge to a temporary moratorium on towers.
For example, do you know that:
• There are more than thirty(30)aspects of tower siting that you can... and should
... control if you want to truly protect the community,all of which the applicants
will do,but only if they're required to.
• You can make it extremely difficult to locate a tower where you don't want one.
• There are a number of situations where you're not obligated to grant a permit.
• You can limit tower height and not risk a lawsuit.
• You can often require the applicant to do 99%of the work that most communities find 1
themselves doing with respect to processing an application.
• You can"motivate"service providers to co-locate on the same facility.
• You can create a new source of(significant)ever-increasing non-tax revenue.
Most communities do not know that they can take control - in a single step, if they do it correctly.
Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc., in association with Monroe Telecom Associates and Comi
Telecommunication Services, can assist you.
Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc. Mickey Williams or John Arnall,Jr.
P.O. Box 18846 Telephone: (336) 668-0093
TF,IGDiy
jwilliams@trigoneng.com
Greensboro,NC 27419-8846
jamail@ttigoneng.com
"7*fffs~. atom 11
COMI TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES& MONROE TELECOM ASSOCIATES
IN ASSOCIATION WITH TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. `� �1
For over a decade Specializing in Placing Munic_ inalit�in Control V V 4
Local Governments' Bridge to the 21st Century
70 Cambridge Road.Glenmont.New York 13077 Plxme:(S 18)139-3079 Fax:(S 18)478.0909
313 Gallimure Hairy Rosin Greensboro.North Carolina 27409 Phone:(336)668-W93 Fax:(336)668-3868
E-Mail:dick0telecomsol.eom Web Site www.telecomsol.com
Web Site:www.telLamsol.com
CONTROLLING
WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES SITING
YOU CAN CONTROL THE ISSUE
VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT www.mg-EcomsoL.com
IT'S WORTH THE`TRIP'
0040 12
Things the Company will never tell you
There is virtually nothing you can't do if it's done correctly, except True
keep them out, and treat one differently than another.
The municipality should be, and can be, in total control at all times,
yet still be able to treat the issue from an economic development True
perspective. The two are not mutually exclusive if one truly knows.
A tower has to be where the Company says it has to be.
A tower has to be as tall as the Company says it has to be. IS)
It must cost you "out-of-budget" to have experts handle all
applications. IS)
How tall is tall enough?
Where do you want it . . .
or not want it?
Do you even know if it's really needed? How do you know for sure?
Do you have to allow it in your community if it primarily serves another community?
13
Towers and Wireless.Facilities 0047
What a Community Can Control
1. Actual Need(How do you know that the tower or facility is really needed?)
2. Location(Preferred locations versus least preferred locations)
3. Height(Does it really have to be as tall as the service provider says?)
4. Visibility
5. Required Co-location of Facilities (to minimize the number of towers)
6. Number of Sites in the Community
7. Application Fees
8. Revenue(Different than fees)
9. Expert Assistance Paid for by Applicant
10. Certification of FCC Emission Standards
11. Aesthetics
12. Lighting
13. Required Setback
14. Signage
15. Screening
16. Structural Integrity/Adequacy
17. Site Security
18. Utilities (Underground versus Aerial)
19. Removal Bond
20. Indemnification
21. Insurance
22. Interference
0048
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
0049 ,
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WORKSESSION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 28, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No. Q 3
SUBJECT: Agri-business
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) In]
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1) Approach/Status Report Craig Benedict Planning Director ext. 2592
2) Bonafide Farm Accessory Use Brochure Dianne Reid EDC Director ext. 2326
3) Classifying Agri-business based on intensity Tina Moon Planner II ext. 2583
4) Existing/Proposed Use Matrix
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive input from the Board on ways to facilitate agri-business in the county.
BACKGROUND: Agri-businesses are becoming an increasingly important component to the
survival of our local farming community. A'Reba and Roses' application for SUP extension of their
history property/non residential use this February brought forth the need to reexamine the existing
zoning categories that do not easily comport to today's hybrid business activities. In an effort to
better accommodate agri-business and other non-traditional forms of agriculture Planning, Economic
Development, and Farm Agency staff have been working together to examine, and where
appropriate, revise county regulations regarding farm related uses. Discussion topics have included
the following:
• Developing a more straightforward and defendable definition of bonafide farm
• Evaluating our current permitted land uses and accessory uses for bonafide farms
• Identifying uses that are not allowed per our present ordinance but may be appropriate
• Considering the needs of smaller operations-5-20 acres in size
• Addressing facilities that process and/or sell agricultural products, which may or may not be
produced on site
• Allowing operations which are agricultural in character but not true agriculture
• Determining where such special agricultural operations and facilities are best suited.
Planning staff is preparing a matrix to show permitted land uses linked to agriculture and uses
accessory to bonafide farms. The matrix should serve as a starting point to identify gaps. The next
step would be to determine how best to fill those gaps within the context of our existing policies and
regulations. Since the May Quarterly Public Hearing has a short agenda there may be the time for a
possible work session with the Board to review the group's progress and ask for direction regarding
this important topic.
GATMoon\Planning\Ag Business\5-2002WorksessionAbstract.dot1
0050 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact is associated with this discussion.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning staff requests direction from the Board regarding new ways
to support agriculture and agricultural-related businesses (agri-business) in the county.
GATMoon\Planning\Ag Business l5-2002WorksessionAbstract.dot2
005
NEW WAYS TO SUPPORT OUR RURAL ECONOMY
Three-part approach
1. Evaluate agricultural-related land uses in our existing ordinance (Matrix)
• Consider need, location, and permitting process.
• Combine similar uses into categories to allow for future (unforeseen) uses
■ Consider changing name of the existing"agricultural service"floating zone to
"agricultural industrial"and create new agricultural service category to address
services for farmers (i.e. veterinarians, farm machinery repair)
• Better advertise the potential for these uses
• Improve interdepartmental cooperation to ease permitting process
2. Streamline the bonafide farm accessory use process (Brochure)
3. Consider new options for small and medium scale operations that are
agricultural in character not directly linked to a specific farm, or are cooperatives
(Matrix)
• Identify potential uses
• Create permitting procedures based on the intensity of the use, subject to performance
standards
Progress Report & Next Steps
✓ Interdepartmental group develops brochure showing new approach for processing bonafide
farm accessory uses. (Completed February 2002.)
✓ Interdepartmental agricultural business group discusses ways to support our rural economy.
(Completed spring 2002.)
✓ Agricultural Economic Developer prepares"wish list"for agricultural operations. (Completed
spring 2002.)
✓ Planning staff prepares matrix showing existing land uses linked to agriculture. (Completed
spring 2002.)
✓ Planning staff develops new land use categories based on "wish list"and places them in
matrix as proposed uses. (Completed spring 2002.)
✓ Ag business group presents materials to BOCC for comments and direction. (May 28, 2002
worksession.)
1. Ag business group discusses BOCC comments and revises materials as appropriate.
2. Agricultural Preservation Board and Planning Board.reviews proposed agricultural uses and
potential links to zoning ordinance.
3. Ag business group meets with existing local agri-business owners to discuss proposals.
4. Ag business group submits status report to BOCC and revises materials as appropriate.
5. Planning Department prepares amendments to County regulations.
4
Considering a new
farm-related operation?
x Five easy steps can get you on
your way.
k
For more information contact:
Karen McAdams, Cooperative Extension Office 245-2058
Royce Hardin, Cooperative Extension Office 245-2062
Agriculture &Planning Center• 306E Revere Road • Hillsborough, NC 27278
Gail Hughes, Soil &Water Conservation 245-2753
Agriculture &Planning Center• 306D Revere Road • Hillsborough, NC 27278
Tina Moon, Planning & Inspections 245-2583
Agriculture &Planning Center• 306F Revere Road • Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dianne Reid, Economic Development Commission 245-2325
Economic Development Commission • 110 E King Street• Hillsborough, NC 27278
0 5
Verify Farm Status
North Carolina General Statutes(NCGS) 153-A-340 and Section 1.5 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
specifically exempt"bonafide farms"(and farm related structures)from zoning regulations and some NC State
Building Code requirements. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance defines a bonafide farm* as,"the use of land for
farming meeting one of the following criteria:
1. Composing two or more acres on one or more tracts owned or leased by the bonafide farm unit;
2. Average annual sales of$1,000 for the preceding three years; or a minimum of twenty(acres] of forest land for
which a management plan has been prepared."
*The State of North Carolina qualifications for the farm use tax are different from the Orange County definition of a
bonafide farm.
❑ Be able to document your farm status with copies of annual receipts or a copy of Schedule F of your
Federal tax return.
Develop a plan
Consider agricultural operations that would complement your farm. The operation should be subsidiary or accessory
to the farm. Examples of operations considered"accessory"found in the Piedmont area include but are not limited
to the following:
■ Retail sales of products grown on the farm such as fruits and vegetables
■ Pick-your-own fruits and vegetables
■ Retail sales of nursery and greenhouse crops
■ Processing and marketing farm grown products such as milk, ice cream, canned goods and wine
■ Agri-tourism operations such as corn mazes, hayrides and horse trail rides
Work with your local farm agencies, Cooperative Extension and Soil and Water, and the Economic Development
Director to develop a plan and determine all necessary local, state and federal regulations. Do you need.a waste
management permit? What about a larger septic field? Who will run the operation? Do you need to construct new
buildings or can you use existing structures? Your farm agency representative will help you answer these questions
and coordinate the planning process. If you have a unique or a large-scale proposal,your farm agency
representative will review your plan with Planning staff and/or the Economic Development Director to ensure that it
will be considered"accessory"before you get too far in the planning stage.
❑ Some uses,such as bed and breakfast inns or stables,may require separate land use permits.
Some uses may not be allowed in protected watersheds.
0 Get a letter
Once you have a plan, ask your farm agency representative to prepare a formal letter describing your proposal. The
letter should summarize your plan and outline all the local, state and federal regulations that apply to your project.
The letter also should dearly state that the proposed use is subsidiary to the main farm use, in other words the site
will not become industrial or commercial In nature.
Satisfy agricultural requirements
Complete any remaining permitting and/or management plan requirements as outlined in the letter. You should have
copies of letters or permits from all appropriate county, state and federal agencies.
Get County permits
Go to the Planning &Inspections Department and bring the following key items:
(a) Documentation of bonafide farm status;
(b) A copy of a tax map showing property(available at Land Records in Government Services Center)and
A copy of a survey of the property or plat(available at Register of Deeds in the GSC for$3.00)with the
sketched location of any new or existing buildings linked to the operation;
(c) Copy of the formal letter from local farm agency personnel;
(d) Any additional documentation as specified in formal letter such as a septic permit;
(e) Building permit application and/or Erosion Control permit application.
Planning Staff will create a file documenting your new operation as an"accessory use to your farm."
This information will be available to answer questions from new neighbors or others questioning the
legitimacy of your business. It will also provide invaluable data about successful agricultural uses in
the county to help us develop better policies for the future.
6
14EW WAYS TO SUPPORT OUR RURAL ECONOMY
(Classifying Agri-business based on the intensity of the use)
Bonafide Farm Accessory--Exempt, see brochure
Agricultural-Tourism--Site Plan/ZP
(Retail/Tourism—bringing public to rural areas not a specific farm)
Sales:
■ Wayside stands, and cooperative stands
■ Seasonal sales: Christmas Trees, pumpkins, orchard sales, specialty fruits &vegetables,
flowers
Education:
■ Agricultural education: rural heritage museums, petting zoos, agricultural learning
centers
Seasonal, or Special Events:
■ Corn maze
■ Hay rides
Small-scale Equine-related programs
Ag Processing w/ Retail—SUP or new Zoning District?
(Not accessory to a specific farm—not grown on site, cooperative or neighborhood
oriented)
• Vineyard
• Dairy product processing
• Special product production (sauces, etc.)
• Small-scale meat processing
• Small-to medium scale cold storage facilities
Farmers' Markets
Service—for farmers or rural property owners
• Veterinarian—mobile unit or hospital
■ Farm machinery repair, small engine repair
■ Landscaping
■ Grading operations
■ Retail for farm, forest, horticulture, nursery, or equine related products
Agricultural Industrial—(appears to meet intent of Ag Service-floating zone with rezoning)
(agricultural service needs for ag community: no retail, no public access)
• Large-scale processing, distributing, storage facilities
• Cooperative processing
• Distribution facilities—hubs
• Cold storage facilities
• Livestock yards/Meat processing facilities
• Grinding/composting facilities or yards
• Bio-agricultural industries
• Commercial stables
Other issues to consider:
➢ Use of EC-5 zoning districts and rural nodes
➢ Environmental issues watershed protection, brownfield reuse
➢ Can some retail tourism be accessory to farm: educational programs and/or equine for extra
income
➢ Can service-type uses be accessory to the farm
Agricultural Business Options Matrix
(Uses are listed and shaded based on the intensity of the permitting requirements--least difficult to most difficult)
(Land Use Residential Nodes/ Existing Permitting Process Existing/
Zoning Districts Commercial-Industrial Proposed
Bonafide Farm Accessory Uses AR R1, RB Accessory-See brochure Existin
Botanical Gardens&Arboretums - AR R1 RB LC1 NC2 Site Plan Existing
Greenhouses, no on-premise sales AR, R1, RB, NC2, EC5 Site Plan Existing .
(existing AS
Class I Kennel AR, R1, RB, Site Plan Existing
(existing AS
Garden Center LCi NC2 Site Plan Existing
Farm Equipment Sales EC5 Site Plan Existing
Animal Hospitals,Veterinarians EC5 Site Plan Existing
Greenhouses,on-premise sales NC2, EC5 Site Plan Existing
Stealth Communication Towers(75 or shorter) AR, R1, RB LCi, EC5 Site Plan Existing
Rural Guest Establishments(3 rooms or less); AR, R1, RB Site Plan Existing
Agricultural Tourism ` AR, R1, RB LCi, NC2 Site Plan Proposed
Sales:
• Wayside stands, and cooperative stands
• Seasonal sales: Christmas Trees, pumpkins,
orchard sales, specialty fruits&vegetables,
flowers
Educational:
Agricultural education: rural heritage museums, ..
petting zoos,agricultural learning centers
Seasonal, or Special Events:
■ Corn maze
Small-Scale Equine-Related Programs s AR R1, RB Site Plan Proposed
Zoning Ordinance amendments(forthcoming)for proposed new land uses will include performance standards such as: thresholds for the number of
patrons/employees associated with the business or lot size, hours of operations, traffic generation, time of year, time of operation, intensity of use.
WT
Land Use Residential Nodes/ Existing Permitting Process Existing/
Zoning Districts Commercial-Industrial Proposed
x.: it".:' * �r a - "z,:rte ,w s f a'" k 1 s.;.' _ �."' r,`p
S ial,Events Under 150 le .-
AR Ri ,RBA ,: � m SUP-B �.
� � . EX SO
%.:; �.?; 1 ,._( .,i..,'rrr.=w �tr .,4_: y, x .� y� fir,: e "»?rae ^t�.5
Cam RetreatCenter:r g = - AR :Rljz,RBy
:a-
;Class JJ_a nal-�R�din _Stables °A i B <: •. �.
R ,R . , SU �B
,:,.: �
.. ... �.... � ,.. ,..; "''a.„u ..,^..y,�C '.xa`�:.� a W..e �. '�T .3 • • ..r. n
i.ci.,;ay ...
f. ;. a,. -�sF;.•:. zxtC.` •>1
.AS
Y
�Commuriidbdon-r rs” 199!feet or shorter ,,> r : _� AR':Rl'RB 7 LCi''ECS r; ..' $W'A � .. Existing
'Rural'Guest=Establishments +.8 rooms � , AR Rid=
•.
... 'e.Y. .x r' $ "p �d tt- �7a{:: .Y x�.x ,
oi3ltural�.Proce�sm' IRetail A .- 3 mLC1°=NC2 r C z
_ ..:: y i .,w f ► Pro,.,],(`]ed., ,;:4
ti, t, r ,,.: ..,j, ...•. ._.. '.. ,u ap..MJ ...y.� ifi y.,....k .....�.- rv'J'---^
fm.:..y , ,.:� u. �r^,._ .. ., , u en .• �,, _. 9tfir '` ' z^.Dai roduct r : �. ,. . ?< 1,... . k, �res 'F;
S ial roust, nxiucfion".
_ t..ru-
;�.;,Small5cale meat.
°..,.. m" ,...., .. ... f
t,.,
;, " ,sn .`' .%d:^r:a h"'i *,":-:+' r r� `.: a
�.Smalk Medium Scale.Coid Story a Pacilit�e -:,.�..,. .. ; „� ._,._u r,b., �.,. Y _
r �., ,. _ ,u; �.
r
ar. 2•.. '. ,x , ` _ `,: r '.
�Fartneis,.,Market� � " ,_ : _ �� � ���,.� _ AR R1 .R6
?� �y !,..,. r; .. �. ... .M....,�+.m��i x %d`....,g+n :i� ... ...« �,x i �K^ :,..:. .k .. :':TM .t e l� v�.5- :"�`' #` ,.,3��,v�y,,g � k.,..�c mu%.•l�aM:::
AS Agricultural Service is a floating zoning district available for appropriate uses within the AR zoning district,subject to the rezoning process.
CD
Other Ideas:
Consider changing existing "agricultural service"to agricultural industrial and create new agricultural service to address services for farmers (i.e.
veterinarians, farm machinery repair)
New Ag Service Category—(Services for farmers or rural property owners)
■ Veterinarian—mobile unit or hospital
■ Farm machinery repair, small engine repair
• Landscaping
■ Grading operations
• Retail for farm, forest, horticulture, nursery, or equine related products
Existing Zoning Districts:
AR Agricultural Residential
R1 Rural Residential
RB Rural Buffer
NCI Neighborhood Commercial (Rural Activity Nodes)
LC1 Local Commercial (Rural Activity Nodes)
EC5 Existing Commercial (Commercial activity in existence prior to zoning ¬ in Node)
AS Agricultural Service (Floating zoning district available within AR, subject to the rezoning process)
CD
0
0
cs'!