Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20050523APPROVED 811 612 0 0 5 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION May 23, 2005 5:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Monday, May 23, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. at the Government Services Center in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey and Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill and Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod Visser and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below} NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS. The meeting began at 6:10 p.m. 1. Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service Issues John Link said that about 10 years ago, Orange County went through an assessment process looking at the roles and responsibilities of the fire departments, rescue squad, and EMS. The County has continued to grow and the rescue squads work well with EMS and other departments. The Board of County Commissioners suggested examining this again since things have changed with how the departments operate, particularly with regard to the decrease in volunteers. He said that today, the staff had a productive discussion with one of the volunteer fire departments regarding the issues that they face. The issues are as follows: ^ Nat enough volunteers ^ Possibility of hiring staff -paid and volunteers to cover 2417 ^ If staff is hired, then there must be benefits ^ Equity between volunteer fire departments and municipal fire departments ^ How to be frugal with district tax revenue when operations side goes up with the cost of vehicles In the long term, his prediction is that there will be equity issues about pay and equipment. Rod Visser made reference to the background documents, which include: ^ memo from Jack Ball ^ PowerPoint slides -hard copy -includes some of the local assistance available to volunteer fire department ^ review that staff did on rescue service provisions about 10 years ago John Link said that there are five specific areas that the Board could look at, starting on page 5. Commissioner Halkiotis said that years ago they had discussions about hepatitis B vaccinations, and the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to make sure that departments did not have to pay for vaccinations. He asked if this was still the case and it was answered yes. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if there has been any discussion on how the local assistance could be expanded. For example, volunteer departments could fuel at the County diesel pump site at Public Works. EMS Director Jack Ball said that they do not do this at this time. The County vehicles have a ring that is mounted on them to allow for pumping at this site. Under the State program, most of the volunteer departments are claiming a tax credit on fuel. Commissioner Halkiotis said that it would appear that there would be more opportunities for the County to aid and assist the volunteer departments. Jack Ball said that in his earlier career he helped set up satellite fueling stations for volunteer departments. He offered to work on this if the Board was interested. Commissioner Jacobs said that he could see a couple of places the County can help with finances. He said that Guilford County is starting to hire fulltime firefighters and make them County employees so that they can receive benefits. He would like to see what the fire departments think of this idea. He suggested hiring one fulltime firefighter per department until every department had one. He thinks there needs to be some discussion to talk through these ideas and how the County can help. He made reference to the idea of duplication of capital equipment. He asked about any type of system for setting minimums or maximums or coordinating heavy equipment. He asked if one entity has the equipment if it precludes others from buying it. Rod Visser said that they do not have anything firm in this area, but they could do a Countywide inventory on equipment and use this to guide decisions that all departments might make. Commissioner Jacobs said that with the growth with the EDD and Waterstone and in the 800 acres between Efland/Mebane, the needs for some of the departments would change dramatically. It would be good to be proactive and to have a plan to move forward. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page three and the eight volunteer fire departments and if it included North Chatham and it was answered no. Jack Ball said that there is a relationship with North Chatham. Commissioner Gordon asked how North Chatham would fit into the five points, since they provide service to Orange County. Jack Ball said that they met with North Chatham recently on the tax rate, and they indicated that they were in the process of expanding services and hiring additional personnel to man the second station. This will increase the capabilities of serving Orange County. Commissioner Gordon would like to see, with the eight volunteer fire departments, information on what they have (inventory and capabilities), including North Chatham. She asked about the tax rate and the capital equipment. Rod Visser said that this information would be provided in the budget document on Wednesday. The departments that are asking for increases this year are directly related to things needed in the next five years. Valerie Foushee asked how many of the volunteer departments have paid staff and Jack Ball said five departments (Orange Grove, Orange Rural, New Hope, Eno and North Chatham have paid staff}. The number of paid staff varies from two to seven at each of those departments. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to page five, point four, the second sentence, and said that it should read, "A strategic plan trtust be developed....." He thinks that a third, neutral party should be brought in to help develop this strategic plan. Jack Ball said that the federal government has a Safer Grant that just came open. This allows volunteer fire departments to work towards hiring additional personnel and provides a recruitment and retention program that they can apply for. It is a five-year grant. The first year is 90°k funding, and it decreases each year. Jahn Link said that one of the biggest challenges would be the cost of going to paid staff. The County's salary is just not competitive with the municipalities' salaries. Jack Ball said that the rescue squads also need to be competitive regarding salary. Commissioner Jacobs said that when the County rotates out its computers, they should be offered to the rescue squads instead of being sold. He would like to talk about fire ratings and how the fire departments can improve them and explain it to homeowners and to the media. He said that there are touchy issues around firefighter pensions and he would like to look at proposed changes in policies or legislative changes that might be useful to EMS, rescue squads, or fire departments. Chair Carey asked about the $1.344 million for the bill and where this figure came from. Jack Ball said that this was a program that was put together with members of the Fire Chief's Association. Several chiefs got together and looked at some casts and came up with this figure. This includes costs for a building, a mobile classroom, fixed burn buildings, etc. He thinks this figure is short of what would be needed for the whole program. He noticed that there were no facilities for showers or restraoms. This would generate an additional cost. Chair Carey asked several clarifying questions that were answered by Jack Ball. Chair Carey suggested updating the chart on page 13 and the inventory of equipment. Commissioner Gordon asked the staff to look at the various districts and what the insurance ratings are. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the County Commissioners received a formal request from grange Rescue Squad for tax revenue and Rod Visser said no. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would view the rescue squad being similar to the fire departments in terms of public service. He suggested asking each group what it envisions far itself and develop a level playing field. Jahn Link said that this assessment would be valuable to the rescue squads also. 2. Jordan Lake Watershed Nutrient Management Strategy and Rules Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that the purpose of this item is to see if the Board is interested in providing comments to the Division of Water Quality on the proposed Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy and Total Maximum Daily Load. He said that it was not a surprise that they have to deal with nutrients in Jordan Lake, because there were predictions 20 years ago that there would be these issues. The deadline for the Division of Water Quality is May 31St far comments. He pointed out some areas of the watershed on a map. The current proposal is that the DWQ would get recommendations to the Environmental Management Commission in July and they might adapt it in September. It would take two years to finalize the rules and put them in place in 2007. He made reference to page five of the report and the nutrient reduction requirements. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to reducing nitrogen and said that a huge golf community was just approved in Chatham County. Golf courses are some of the biggest users of nitrogen. Dave Stancil said that a lot of the nitrogen comes from municipal wastewater treatment plants and there are three in this particular basin. Craig Benedict explained ten total management strategies, as follows: Jordan Lake, Non-Point Source Nutrient Management Strategy NPS Nutrient Who Source 1 -Agriculture LAC/ERCD 2 -Nutrient Management DWQ 3 - NPDES Phase II P & I 4 -Storm Water Rule: EC What Local advisory committees implement BMP's Training for fertilizer or bio-solids applicators Apply Phase II to a!! local municipalities -County inclusion is uncertain New development would require BMP's Jurisdictions required to build storm water retrofits 5 -Trading P & I Ability to develop trading or other nutrient loading offset options between and among point and non-point sources 6 -Forestry EC Pre-harvest notification. Selective buffer harvesting 7 -Adaptive Management P & I Evaluate progress of NMS and adjust. 8 -Buffer Protection EC Expand buffer rules from Neuse &Tar-Pamlico 9 -Wastewater Land Appl. DWQ Investigate strengthening its permitting program 10 - On-Site Wastewater DWQ/EH Work with Environmental Health -reduce N+P from IWWS Commissioner Jacobs said that these strategies track a number of goals that the County Commissioners have, and he would suggest the notion that the County should be able to have the authority to regulate those systems as opposed to the State regulating them. He was interested in Mayor Dell's letter back to the County about conservation where he mentioned trading credits. He would like to talk to Durham about how they are going to compensate people in the Little River area for protecting their water supply. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County should not wait another four years to study this because there could be a different regulatory environment. Commissioner Halkiatis asked if the agricultural community was aware of all of this and Dave Stancil said that they are becoming aware of it. Commissioner Halkiotis said that this is going to be horrific. Commissioner Gordon said that she wonders how hard this will fall on Orange County. It strikes her that there are massive pollutants going in, but Orange County will bear the burden. She is not sure what the County can say between now and May 31St Dave Stancil said that this is falling into two camps. The Citizens far Clean Water and the Haw River Assembly have been very supportive of DWQ's proposed rules. The impacts, in terms of new development and existing development, might fall heaviest on the urban areas. They are very concerned about the impacts on new development. It might require Durham, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro retrofitting their storm water controls in existing developments. OWASA, the City of Durham, and other providers are going to want to take it slower because it might not do what is needed for the water supply. Chair Carey pointed out that this process would not move fast. Commissioner Gordon agreed with drafting a letter to DWQ, but she thinks that the information in the packet is too supportive and maybe it should be mare along the lines of what OWASA is saying. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County Commissioners should stress its key paints in the letter about forestry, etc. Chair Carey said to add that the State has to take the lead role in establishing the authority for local governments to do the things that need to be done. Dave Stancil said that Triangle J would be coming back with a request for $833 from each jurisdiction to follow up on the adaptive management ideas through the end of 2005. With no further items to discuss, the work session was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board APPROVED 8 16 2005 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING May 23, 2005 7:30 pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, May 23, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Noah Ranells, Sandra Quinn, Brian Dobyns, and Renee Price PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Ted Triebel, Craufurd Goodwin, Sam Lasris, Hunter Schofield, Nicole Graysmith, Jeffrey Schmitt, and Timothy Webb NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. Chair Carey called the meeting to order and recognized Chair of the Orange County Planning Board Jay Bryan. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Amendments a. Amend the existing 1981 Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance according to Federal Emergency Management Agency {FEMA} Region IV suggestions and the new State of North Carolina model for non-coastal jurisdictions. b. Continue participation in the Community Rating System (CRS}, which can moderate property insurance costs. c. Review Administrative Procedures for the issuance of development permits near flaodplains. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that this is the only formal public hearing item on the agenda. This is a standalone ordinance. Orange County became a participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program in 1975 and entered the regular FEMA- NFIP on March 16, 1981. Anew series of maps has recently been published that show where the flood hazard areas have changed. Since 1994, the County has only permitted three structures within floodplains. The State made some recommendations that are part of this ordinance. He said that adopting this amended ordinance would improve the community insurance rating system. The recommendation is to close the public hearing and adopt the amended ordinance. There was no one signed up to speak to this item. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 27 and the list of chemical compounds. He asked if there were any petroleum products because he thought some plastics were made out of petroleum products. Craig Benedict said that some products made from petroleum have been converted before they get to the site. He said that they could elaborate an certain products. Commissioner Jacobs asked to differentiate between treated wood and wood that can be reused. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 28 and asked if the State requires the County to allow new construction in flood hazard areas. Craig Benedict said that, according to the State, development is allowed in the floadplain if there are certain precautions. The County can do an outright prohibition. Geof Gledhill said that there is an opportunity for hardships to be dealt with, and he could not think of a legal problem where the County could not prohibit new construction in flood prone areas. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the Public Market House, which will be the Farmer's Market, and said that part of it will encroach on the floodway. This would be in violation to what he just proposed. Craig Benedict said that there are definitions about livable areas, and this would not be classified as a livable area. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would be interested in having the Planning Board make a recommendation to the County Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon asked about page five and what is meant by "common usage." Craig Benedict said that this is a catchall phrase suggested by the State. Commissioner Gordon would also like a recommendation from the Planning Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to ask the Planning Board and staff to consider more closely the list of prohibited compounds and consider an outright ban an new primary construction in flood hazard areas. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Carey asked that it be brought back na sooner than September 1St John Link asked for clarification an the terms flood prone and flaodplain. Craig Benedict said that they are interchangeable. Commissioner Gordon said that there is the floodplain, then the flood fringe. Craig Benedict said that they would work on the definitions. D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Update an Rural Enterprises Project Planning and Economic Development staff will address questions and comments from the February 28, 2Q05 Joint County Commissioners/Planning Board Work Session on the Rural Enterprises (agricultural-related business} project. In addition, the process of review far these new uses based on their range of intensity will be discussed including a conditional district-zoning proposal. Economic Development Director Dianne Reid said that on February 28t" at a joint County Commissioners and Planning Board work session, the staff provided an update on the Rural Enterprises Project. This project goes back at least three years. There were a lot of questions and comments on February 28t" and they wanted to address these. The intent of this project is to help local farmers. As the ordinance is now, if a use is not listed, it is not allowed. As farmers have attempted to adapt to changing conditions, it has been harder to come up with new ideas. If the ideas have commercial or industrial components, it can be in conflict with the existing ordinance. They are trying to broaden the ordinance to enable farmers to pursue other things. One way to address this is by introducing conditional district zoning. This has been the most challenging aspect of the project. She made reference to the handout entitled, "New Ways to Support Our Agricultural Economy," and said that the option that is available to farmers who want to have a portion of their land rezoned for a commercial purpose is to apply far an agricultural services general rezoning. The farmers would then be able to do any of the activities listed on the handout. The conditional district rezoning would be a legislative decision and the Board of County Commissioners would decide. Commissioner Gordon asked what is in the actual language that would differentiate between example one and example two. Dianne Reid said that it has not been defined at this point, it is only conceptual. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to page 7 and an equestrian tack shop that makes sense in Bingham Township, but not in Cedar Grove Township. He asked if there was a database of where all the horses are in the County. Dianne Reid said that this was only an example. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if there was a database showing what particular agricultural functions are happening. Dianne Reid said that they are beginning to assemble the data an horses. In answer to a question about the difference between conditional use zoning and spot zoning, Geof Gledhill said that spot zoning is a buzzword for making arbitrary decisions with respect to zoning. Conditional district zoning can be arbitrary. Jay Bryan asked if the right of adjoining landowners to protest was intended to be protected under this proposal. Geof Gledhill said that counties do not have protest petitions. There would be a public hearing, and any rezoning of land would require specific notice to the adjoining property owners. Tina Moon highlighted the questions and responses beginning on page three of the agenda abstract. This is incorporated by reference. Craig Benedict said that there is clarity as to what is clearly exempt, but there is very little direction on what staff should do for a site plan and when the County Commissioners want to look at a rezoning. The staff needs some direction from the Board of County Commissioners to start developing the specifics. Commissioner Gordon asked haw the proposal would work in joint planning areas. Craig Benedict said that any zoning amendments would be forwarded to the County's joint planning area partners for comments before adoption. Geof Gledhill said that the only time there would be a joint approval is if there was a map amendment in the rural buffer. Commissioner Gordon said that the other parties of the joint planning area should be given this information. She suggested sending this to Chapel Hill and Carrboro now instead of notifying them several months from now when there is a hearing. Commissioner Halkiotis said that in the mountains some farmers are supplementing their incomes with lawnmower racing. He asked where this would fit in. Craig Benedict said that this was not taken into consideration. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if the staff was looking at existing operations in Orange County. Some of the farms are diversifying beyond the list. Jay Bryan made reference to Commissioner Cordon's comments and said that it might be helpful if the cities had a better idea of the criteria for compatibility issues. Craig Benedict said that before the information is sent to the joint area partners, the criteria need to be fleshed out a little more. Commissioner Jacobs agreed about fleshing the information out more. He thinks the Board should give the staff direction to proceed. He said that the new Agricultural Economic Specialist, after the position is filled, could help people with site planning. Commissioner Foushee made reference to the timelines and the possibility of having more frequent public hearings to speed up the process. She would request looking at other alternatives for enhancing the process that would not require more public hearings. She thinks this takes away from the process. Commissioner Gordon said that quarterly public hearings are a good idea and not more frequent public hearings. She asked that the staff give the Board a first cut at the major criteria. She pointed out that some farms are already so close to developed residential areas that some of these uses would not fit. Commissioner Jacobs said that sometimes the farms that are the most pressed by suburban development are the ones that most need options to stay in agriculture. He would not want to preclude those farms. Renee Price asked about protection for farmers and what would be in place to enable the farmers to keep up their operations. She asked how long the zoning would be in effect. Geof Gledhill said that the short answer is that the zoning runs with the land. The North Carolina Supreme Court helps also by not recognizing nuisances that would typically be thought as nuisances. Noah Ranells said that this is an opportunity for the Board of County Commissioners to strongly support what staff has done and ask them to take the next steps as aggressively as possible. He noted that this was shared at the Assembly of Governments meeting last year, so it is not new to the municipalities. Craig Benedict said that the recommendations are to proceed with developing the criteria and flesh out the details and present it to the joint planning area partners in the fall. Later the Board will discuss whether to follow the next steps on page 8 of the agenda abstract. 2. Orange County Comprehensive Plan -Land Use Element Update Text Amendments a. Overview of what has been processed to date with stakeholder involvement, what comprehensive questions need to be answered, and what steps lie ahead. b. Outline for the Land Use Element including Introduction, Existing Conditions, Growth Management and Future Land Uses, Goals, Objectives, and Policies, Implementation, and Monitoring Procedures. c. Outline for the Entire Comprehensive Plan and the specific interest areas addressed by each element. 3. Update on Residential Zoning Density and Minimum Lot Size Text Amendments a. Planning Staff will present six (6) options far Residential Zoning Density within the County's rural planning jurisdiction that range from existing zoning density to increasingly resource-based, limited-density plans addressing water and air quality and limiting traffic. No changes are suggested for Urban Transition Areas or Rural Activity Nodes. b. Presentation of a proposal to raise the Minimum Lot Size from 0.92 acres {40,000 sf) to two (2) acres (87,120 sf) to address identified growth challenges in the areas of sustainability, water and air quality, and groundwater recharge. Craig Benedict gave the PowerPoint presentation. Item D2 -Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Update 1. Research 2. Prior goad work - Rural Character Study - Shaping Orange County's Future - Water Resources Report - Other 3. Advisory board perspective and public - Advisory board reps and focus groups 2002 - Public outreach 2004 & 2005 - Full advisory boards 2005 Ideas and recommendations - 13 Growth management challenges - Staff's ideas and options Big questions - Limited resources. Limit growth? - Haw much growth can Orange County sustain? - So we limit long-range build-out by lowering density? Or... - Do we rest with existing and trended growth patterns by accommodating development? - Should the minimum lot size in rural areas be more than 40,000 sf for single-family without encroachment an critical private septic and well facilities?Outreach: Issues and Responses 6a. Lower Density -Sprawl - VMT Gb. Lower Density -Land Value 6c. Downzone - Upzone 6d. 2 acre Minimum Lot Size -New? 6e. Do people want larger lots? 6f. Larger lot cost? 6g. Lower density -Reduced Housing Options? 6h. Strict Land Use -Pushes Growth? 6i. Economic Development 7. Land Use Element outline/other elements - Review and recommendations process - Planning Board role - Timeframe - Next steps Background Information Collected and Presented During Township Meetings Addressed: - Sustainability - Population - Environment -Air, Water, & Habitat - Rural Character - Sprawl - Economy -Including Farm Economy Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee ~CPLUC) 13 Growth Management Challenges 1. Efficient provision of Public Services 2. Protection of Rural Community Character 3. Preserve Farmland and Viable Local Farm Economy 4. Protect Water Resources -Watershed and Groundwater 5. Traffic Reduction 6. Reduction of the Fiscal Impacts of Development 7. Hazard Mitigation -Reduction of Storm Water Runoff and Flooding 8. Protection of Natural AreaslWildlife Corridors 9. Reduction of Air Pollution 10. Development Location and Type 11. Economic Prosperity and Diversity 12. Affordable Housing 13. Preservation of Community Character -Neighborhoods and Historic/Cultural Features Issue Orange County population growth (2.6°~ annually} yields build-out in 75-100 years. - What's the problem? - Why change land use and zoning now? Response - An unsustainable pattern of growth (cumulative to over 100,000 rural dwelling units} will ultimately lead to poor quality of life regardless of growth rate - Difficult to reverse growth - Opportunity to be proactive and establish a sustainable pattern - Growth will accelerate when Chapel Hill and Carrboro reach build-out (Years 2025 and 2010, respectively) - Growth may accelerate as adjacent counties reach build-out and people seek the quality of life preserve in Orange County. Charts and maps Issue Does lower density mean: - Mare sprawl? - More Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT} Response NO........ Lower Density means: Fewer Lots Fewer People Lower VMT Lauver Public Service Costs More Open Space 1.5-acre density is for illustration purposes only, and currently there are not zoning areas with a 1.5-acre density, but this reflects what could be permitted by present zoning. Assuming a 1-acre minimum lot size, a maximum of 1,000 homes could be built. ** Low Impact Design is a suggested subdivision option, which can provide environmental benefits. A smaller lot size than the 2-acre proposal may be suggested if the overall proposed density remains the same, and more open space is achieved. FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY The previous land use map is a hypothetical 1,000-acre area of the County. The land use map shows green as residential areas and the dark green as resource protection areas {i.e. stream buffers.) The purpose of the map is to illustrate two different lot patterns: - Plan 1 with lower density shows a larger lot size (3-acre}; - Plan 2 with the existing density shows a smaller lot size of 1.5 acres. Please note that Plan 1 has the ability to preserve more open space by clustering the 3-acre lot density to a 2-acre minimum lot size, which permits at least 33°~ open space or with Low Impact Design, a smaller lot size of 1.84 acres could provide subdivisions with over 44% open space. Development of 300+ units a year does not occur in a confined area as shown on the various plans. Rather, growth is occurring in a sprawl pattern speckled amongst over 200,000 acres. Except for the County's designated urban transition areas, there are no criteria based on location to discourage sprawl. However, the County's subdivision growth management system adopted in 2004 is an attempt to take this into consideration. If 333 lots were developed on 1,000 acres (i.e. 3 acres per unit density}, Plan 1 would reflect the pattern after one year, which is approximately the growth rate of one year in the County. Plan 2 shows 333 lots built in year 1 (same growth rate as Plan 1}and an additional 333 lots built in year 2 for a total of 666 lots. The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in year 1 of Plan 2's random pattern of development is approximately the same as Plan 1. However, clearly after year 2 of Plan 2, the VMT doubles when density remains higher (in other words, smaller lots}. Plan 3 illustrates another growth lot and density pattern not suggested by the County. This land use program would restrict growth to a defined area {shown as the southern '/ of the plan). The northern'/ of the plan would be restricted to agricultural zoning of 1-unit per 20 acres or more to decrease the total impact of the relatively higher density in the southern'/. This pattern of growth has been used in other places around the country. Issue Does lower density mean: Less land value Less land equity RespanseN0.1999 Cane Creek watershed density reductions (1 du/5 acres)did not negatively affect land values. Land values have increased in Cane Creek watershed at a greater rate than the surrounding Bingham township. Land and lots > 20 acres, > 3 acres, and < 3 acres have all posted greater acreage value. - Less Supply -Same or higher demand =Higher Value Charts Issue Residential down-zoning in rural areas should be offset by automatic up-zoning in the urban transition areas. Response 1)RURAL AREAS have known environmental limitations for growth and known productive opportunities for farming and forestry. 2) Two Urban Transition Areas have been identified for up-zoning to occur when present unknowns are resolved: - Public water and sewer is available - Roads are adequate - Public transit is supportive - Integration of higher-density projects into the existing urban or village neighborhoods is based on the merits of the specific proposal and assured through the re-zoning review process. Map of Efland and Hillsborough Transition Areas Orange County has identified two Urban Transition Areas in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan: Efland and Hillsborough. These are depicted on the map on the preceding slide. Higher residential densities through re-zoning are possible in the Transition Areas when conditions as specified under RESPONSE on page 1 are satisfied. The following tables illustrate existing conditions in the Transition Areas and potential new housing units at various densities on undeveloped portions of the respective areas through up-zoning. Table 3 projects years to build-out based on the densities from Table 2. Finally, the pie chart on the last page depicts the size of the Urban Transition Areas relative to remaining County and municipal jurisdictions. Pie chart and table Issue Will larger lots (2-acre minimum) be: - Something new for minor and major subdivisions? - A problem? Response NO. Minor Subdivisions -Average lot size aver 10 years is 2.97 acres - 4.55 acres (3.72 average) Somewhat. Major Subdivisions -Average lot size over 15 years is .98 acres - 2.86 acres (1.75 average}. (Recent years have included more open space.} Graphs Issue Same people may not want to buy larger lots. Response - 51 °lo (6,869} of existing lots in the county smaller than 2 acres in size are currently undeveloped. This represents 25°~ of all parcels in Orange County's Planning JurisdictionPotential homeowners would still have the option of purchasing and building upon the available supply of smaller lots or buying an existing dwelling on a smaller lot. Issue Does a larger lot mean: - Higher costs to the potential homeowner? Response Yes. - There is an approximate 5°k cost increase for the total lot and house. - Value in land offers total equity stability. - Larger lot is not twice the cost since most lots need to be larger to accommodate private infrastructure; and lot cost goes down per acre as lotlparcel sizes increase. Tahle Issue Does lower density mean: - Reduced housing options - Less affordable housing Response NO. Lower density in the rural areas coupled with higher density (through re-zoning} in the Transition Areas means: - Wider range of housing choices as to type, availability, and cost - Housing closer to schools, employment, shopping, services, and recreation - Lower public service casts through economies of scale - Investment of tax dollars in services vs. sprawlMore stringent land use regulations in Orange County will force growth to adjacent counties. Response This may be true in some cases. However: - Think regionally but also act and grow smart locally - Orange County's responsibility to preserve quality of life for its citizens and businessesGrowth policies in adjacent counties is their own challenge - Maintain balance between anticipated new jabs in Orange County and housing opportunitiesOrange County shares in the regional impacts of RTP where housing was scarce near the source Graph Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Sustainability Issue The County should do more to promote economic development and provide employment opportunities. Response Orange County has designated over 1,800 acres of Economic Development Districts {EDDs} in three strategically-situated locations along the I-85/I-40 corridor. Key features include: - Pre-zoning far wide range of permitted uses including: Light Industrial Retail Office Warehouse/Distribution Flex Space Business Services • New water and sewer agreements in place for the majority of the EDD areas. • Administrative approval of site plans (no public hearing required} utilizing design guidelines • Designating Housing Areas are matched to accommodate associated EDD needs. Map In the mid-1990's, Orange County designated three EDDs in the I-851 I-40 corridor: one near the Buckhorn Road/I-8511-40 interchange, a second south of Hillsborough in the vicinity of Old NC 86 and I-40, and a third at the I-85/US 70 interchange at the Durham County line. These are depicted on the map on the preceding slide. A key feature of EDDs is that they are "pre- zoned" for a defined range of commercial, manufacturing, and office uses and can be approved administratively by staff utilizing a stringent set of design guidelines. This represents a departure from the County's traditional approach to commercial and industrial land uses involving a re-zoning public hearing, Planning Board review, and County Commissioner decision - a process that can take in excess of six months. Table Item D3 - Update on Residential Zoning Density and Minimum Lat Size Amendments Land use density Options (1-6) Maps Schedule and Passible Outline for Campletian of Land Use Element tLUEa Update Process May 3rd - BOCC Legal Ad approval -Initial Public Hearing Legal Ad including Map for expanded advertisement May 23rd -Initial Public Hearing 1} LUE Goals, Objectives, and Policies 2} Zoning Implementation, Amendments a} Residential Density Reduction b) Increase Residential Minimum Lat Size June -Sept -Planning Board reviews item 1) above July -Oct -Staff revises items 1) & 2} above Mid-Oct - PB recommendation Nov 2nd - BOCC Legal Ad approval -Final Public Hearing Legal Ad and First Class mail notice Nov 3rd -Stn -First class mail notification Nov 21 ~ -Final Public Hearing 1} Initial Public Hearing Items 2} Complete LUE text amendments Dec - PB comments Feb 06 - BOCC Consideration/Adoption LAND USE ELEMENT ABBREVIATED OUTLINE Nate: Complete outline provided in packet, Item D.2, Attachment 3 A. LAND USE ELEMENT 1. Introduction 2. Existing Conditions 3. Growth Management and Future Land Uses 4. Goals, Objectives, and Policies (Specific only where related to land use; other Elements provide their respective specific Goals, Objectives and Policies) 5. Implementation a. Regulatory {I.e. zoning, subdivision) b. Nan-Regulatory (public educatianlawareness} 6. Monitoring Procedures EXCERPT FROM ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE Comprehensive Plan, Intent The Comprehensive Plan shall constitute an internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the long-term, physical development of that portion of Orange County under County jurisdiction. The Comprehensive Plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include maps and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards and plan proposals for physical development. The Comprehensive Plan shall be comprised of the following individual Elements: a) Land Use Element b) Transportation Element c) Services and Facilities Element d) Open Space Element (will now be called the "Natural and Cultural Systems Element, which includes the Open Space and Agriculture Elements) e} Housing Element f) Economic Development Element g) Recreation Element h} Intergovernmental Coordination Element {Suggested by Planning Department) Tahle End of presentation Marge Limbert spoke an item D-3. She said that she noticed that this plan relies on down zoning and increases in the lot size. She feels that it would not benefit the County to limit the tools to downsizing lot sizes. She thinks it would further make the community more automobile focused and would not reduce vehicle miles traveled. She is on the Commission for the Environment and said that in the State of the Environment Report, it considers vehicle miles traveled as a primary indicator of environmental health. She thinks that this will have a detrimental effect on the housing prices, pushing people out of the County. She is grateful that the County is considering transfer of development rights. She said that up-zoned areas would also promote walkability. Allan Rosen spoke on item D-3. He is on the Affordable Housing Advisory Board and The Village Project. He said that he could tell that same of the slides in the PowerPoint presentation were in response to the questions and comments from the outreach sessions earlier in the year. He appreciated this. He thinks the message that comes through is where to reduce the amount of growth. He thinks the focus should be on where the County should grow to accommodate growth at a much wider range in a sustainable way. He made reference to the real estate economics of how much down zoning would increase the average lot size and said that mare time and attention is called for on this. He thinks the increase in prices would be mare than five percent. James Carnahan submitted some handouts. He is Chairman of The Village Project. He told a story of when he moved to North Carolina. He said that the issue is what to do when space and resources are limited. The Village Project is interested in the concept of density transfer. They feel that down zoning by itself is shutting out. They would like to see a "rounding out", or making room around the hearth when space and resources are limited. Mike Brough is an attorney representing Eno Farms, Inc., which was formed by the DuBose family to own, maintain, and manage a tract of 1,000 acres located around Wayside Baptist Church. He said that this tract offers a unique opportunity in that it is the largest tract in single ownership in Orange County. This gives the County an opportunity to deal with only one owner. The family has held the property for almost 100 years. There are no particular proposals for development, but they wanted to bring to the County's attention the opportunity that exists. They are willing to work with the County to have this tract appropriately planned for the kind of development the County Commissioners would like to see. Will DuBose is one of 16 family members that own Eno Farms. His great-grandfather got the property. Some of the property was used to increase the size of Eno River State Park by aver 800 acres. He said that he met with Craig Benedict a couple of weeks ago about this property. They would like to work with Orange County in developing the proper project. There is not a specific need or hurried event at this time. He asked that the County Commissioners remember that this property is out there. Patrick McDonald distributed a handout. He said that there is local evidence that density reduction has not reduced vehicle miles traveled. He said that the Triangle has had a 4°l0 density reduction in the last 22 years, and at the same time experienced a 302°lo increase in vehicle miles traveled. He said that density reductions will prevent Alamance County residents from moving to Orange County in greater numbers, but it will not prevent them from driving through Orange County to Durham, Chapel Hill, RTP, and Raleigh for work. They will drive further and will burn more fuel than they would if they lived in Orange County. He said that density reductions would also force greater amounts of driving an Orange County residents. He does not believe that large-scale density reductions are the way to proceed. He said that Washington, D. C., Denver, and Dallas have been experiencing high population growth and have managed to take a different path. Noah Ranells asked if the Board of County Commissioners received the resolution passed at the May 4t" Planning Board meeting. It was answered yes. He said that he is very concerned about the trend of the comprehensive plan land use element. He asked haw the diverse comments were going to be brought together. The Planning Board has never taken a proactive stance in supporting the land use element. He said that, as a member of the Planning Board, he struggles to find the understanding between the Planning Board, staff, and the County Commissioners as to the course of events. He said that they are still very far away from a cohesive comprehensive plan that addresses same of the creative thought that is occurring on the Planning Board. Chair Carey said that the Board has not had a chance to discuss the resolution from the Planning Board yet. He said that the Planning Board should take a lead role in pulling together comments from other boards and commissions. Bryan Dobyns made reference to the comment about land values. He said that Cane Creek was being used as a demonstration of how restricting development increases land values. He had a planning company that was hired by OWASA in 1997 to negotiate with landowners in Cane Creek. He worked with one landowner that wanted $12,000 per acre. When they did an analysis of the land, they came up with $7,000 per acre. He said that if OWASA is the largest purchaser of land in the Cane Creek watershed, they would be skewing land value figures for everyone else. He thinks it is a mistake to use this area as an example. He made reference to page three of item D-2, number three, and the first item, "Advisory Board Representatives and Focus Groups 2002." He said that the advisory board representatives were brought together in CPLUC. In the fifth meeting of CPLUC, the advisory board members put together eight recommendations to go forward. In the last CPLUC meeting, the staff presented five recommendations, which were not the ones presented at the fifth meeting. He said that the advisory board members were not part and parcel to creating the recommendations. He made reference to page 5, item 2c, "Evaluation and Appraisal of Existing Plan," and said that there has never been an evaluation or an appraisal of the existing land use element as far as he knows. He made reference to the minimum lot size and said that Environmental Health does not believe that minimum lot size will have any effect on groundwater absorption as groundwater is absorbed in different soils in different ways. It is a soils issue and not a lot size issue. He would like far everyone to work together. He said that they have only been presented to and have not been part of the process. Commissioner Jacobs said that they cannot go backwards and start aver with the process. He thinks that the Planning Board should make a case one way or another and make a recommendation to the County Commissioners that would change the process. He said that the Board of County Commissioners respects the planning process, the Planning Board, and the Planning Director. If a case can be made, then the Board will listen. Noah Ranells asked when the County Commissioners would respond to the Planning Board resolution from May 4th. He said that they need help in clarifying their role. Chair Carey said that the Board would provide a response to the Planning Board as soon as possible. Commissioner Gordon suggested that the response define how the County Commissioners want to be involved in the process. Sometimes the County Commissioners wait all the way until the end, and she thinks that they should not wait until the end with this issue. She also noted that the 13 growth management challenges (CPLUC} cited by Craig Benedict had been superceded by a shorter list approved by the Board of County Commissioners. She asked why the Commissioners' approved list was not being used, and she also said that the list approved by the Commissioners was the one that should be used in all future presentations. E. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn the meeting at 10:12 p.m. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board