Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20060227APPROVED 411 012 0 0 6 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING February 27, 2006 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 27, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mosey Carey, Jr., Valerie Foushee, Stephen H. Halkiotis, and Alice M. Gordon COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Jahn 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 Brian Dobyns, Craufurd Goodwin, Michelle Kempinski, Sam Lasris, Renee Price-Saunders, and Ted Triebel PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandra Johnson-Quinn, Bernadette Pelissier and Jeffrey Schmitt 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 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order and asked that the public speakers keep their comments to three minutes or less. John Link introduced Dr. Tyrone Jackson, the new Director of Human Resources for Orange County. He said that Dr. Jackson was most recently the Director of Personnel for the State of Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CLASS A (BOCC Public Hearing] SUP-A-1-06 Partnership Academy Alternative School Consideration of a Class A Special Use Permit for proposed Partnership Alternative School for Orange County on a 20.8-acre tract at the northeast intersection of NC Highway 86 and East Storey Lane. Phase I of the project includes a 3,600 square foot building and 19 parking spaces with adrop-off area and sidewalks. The building will contain two classrooms, restrooms, and office space. A total of 50 students and five staff members are anticipated to occupy the building. Access to the building will be provided from Storey Lane. A future building expansion area of 2,900 square feet is also included. Phase II will provide four tennis courts and a softball field. The Planning Board recommendation was made at its February 1, 2006 meeting. David Hunt swore in the group of people to speak that were to give testimony. Planning Director Craig Benedict said this first item is a Class A Special Use Permit and is held in aquasi-judicial manner that is consistent with providing evidence and findings of fact. The process begins with an application, goes through staff review, and is submitted to the Planning Board for review, and then this public hearing. The Planning Board has already given a recommendation based on the evidence provided by the staff, the consultant, and other sources. The two other items are not quasi-judicial. Planning Supervisor Robert Davis presented this item. He said that the joint property owners have been notified by certified mail. There was also a sign posted on the property. This is in accordance with the ordinance and State law. He made reference to the pink sheet, which is a Finding of Na Significant Impact. Pages 7-23 of the packet are the findings of fact. He listed the general conditions. He made reference to the second general condition, which is that the use will maintain ar enhance the value of contiguous property, unless the use is a public necessity, in which case, the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. He said that the Board would need to determine if this use is a public necessity. If it is determined that this is not a public necessity, then the applicant will be required to put an evidence indicating that the use maintains or enhances the value of the property. This property is located just to the north of the existing Stanback Middle School. It is located in Chapel Hill Township and is proposed to be constructed in two phases. The zoning is rural residential and it is not in the watershed. The total tract acreage is 20.8 acres. There is a single-family neighborhood to the east and to the north. The traffic impact for this particular use will be fairly minimal because there will only be 19-20 students. They are planning for 50 students. Water and sewer is existing in the area and the Town of Hillsborough provides the service. The County will design, construct, and pay for connections. He made reference to the Planning Board comments on page 4 of the lavender sheet. The Planning Board has voted unanimously for the Board of County Commissioners to approve this Class A Special Use Permit. There was an 11t" condition added, which is that afive-foot sidewalk located three feet behind the curb and gutter on Storey Lane shall be constructed from the easternmost entrance to the school out to NC 86. Mike Hammersley from Corley, Redfaat, and Zack spoke about this project. He said that this facility is very needed by the Orange County School system. This facility is provided in leased trailers in downtown Hillsborough and this lease will be up very soon. The school system wants to get the children into a permanent structure. The children are middle and high school students that have special needs. The building would have two classrooms to accommodate 50 students and four administrative staff offices. There would be 19 parking spaces and a bus drop-off. He said that the overall site was evaluated by them. They did further studies on the site of phase 1 -technical investigations, sail borings, and environmental assessment. Phase 1 is the building and related parking and phase 2 is the tennis facilities and ball field. In between the two phases is an existing community relations building that the school system already operates. The schedule far this work is that the building facility in phase 1 is needed for fall of 2006. The phase 2 portion is unknown -three to five years or as long as ten years. He said that an the overall plan there is a natural buffer from NC 86 with an oak hickory forest. There is also a big buffer along the back of the property. Commissioner Gordan said that it was her recollection that this decision was far a future meeting. She said that it has not been the Board's practice to decide things on the same night as the public hearing. Chair Jacobs said that he had the same question. Craig Benedict said that the ordinance allows for the Board to make a decision on the same night if it is so inclined, but it has not been the practice. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if this was being driven by the lease of the modular units and why it would have to be approved tonight. Associate Superintendent for Support Services of Orange County George McFarley said that the reason for getting the special use permit approved as soon as possible is impacted by the facility that the school is currently occupying. The leases expire in June 2006. Commissioner Halkiotis said that there has been na harm done by the facility in Hillsborough as was feared when it was put there. He would hope that the Town of Hillsborough would consider an extension of the lease for a couple of months since things are moving along. Chair Jacobs made reference to the process and the finding that there is a public necessity that exempts the applicant from the evidentiary requirement. He said that this was new to him. Geof Gledhill said that the ordinance has always been this way. Commissioner Gordon asked why this has not come up before and it was answered that it came up with OCS Middle School #3. Commissioner Carey asked when the Board would have to make the finding of public necessity. Geof Gledhill said that it is part of the deliberation process. He would recommend that the special use permit be left open so that the applicant is not foreclosed from presenting the evidence. Public Comment Sally Logan (the map says Sarah Logan, but her friends call her Sally} said that her property is next to the proposed softball field. She said that before the football field at Stanback was constructed, all of the trees were cut. The school board had promised that a buffer of trees would be left between their houses and the field, but the loggers cut all of the trees. The homeowners endured months of site preparation and dust and the noise of earthmoving equipment. There were also erosion problems. She said that when she moved to Orange County, she wanted to live in the woods. She loves her house and that there are so many trees around. She said that it was almost an afterthought that "phase 2 will provide four tennis courts and a softball field as shown on the overall site plan." She said that this softball field will be 200 feet from her house and anyone standing in the outfield will be able to look in her windows. When she bought her house she knew that she would hear students, but she never expected to see them. She said that she has many questions, and she listed them: Do you intend to cut all of the trees along my property line? What will you do to ensure that the loggers do not cut all of the trees on my line? What compensation will I receive if my trees are cut? Will the hill beside my house be leveled or flattened? How deep will the excavations go? What assurance can be given that the consolidated rock will not be disturbed? How will the large rocks in the hill be removed? By dynamite? Who will pay if the windows in my house are broken? Who will pay if there is any damage to my house during construction? Will my well water be affected? (I have already been advised to take a baseline sample of the water.} What will be done to prevent or correct any contamination to my well and who will pay for it if there is? What will be done to prevent erosion? Has anyone assessed the effects of a project of this magnitude on the groundwater in the area? As a taxpayer, haw much will the construction of the ball field cost? If you moved the house near the proposed tennis courts and put the proposed ball field there, would it be more cost-effective? The girls should have a softball field, but it doesn't need to be at the expense of the Stoneycreek neighborhood. Will there be lights on the field? Who will use the field? At present, I hear noise from the football field. The loudest people use it on Sundays in the summer -sometimes even before 9:00 a.m. When I went to the school, I discovered that there were grown men and not children using the football field. Will there be a buffer of trees - or anything else - to prevent or reduce access to our neighborhood? She said that it was her understanding that the Town of Chapel Hill is very careful to leave buffers around a school and spend the money required to do this. She asked why the people who live in the country should be less important. She said that the destruction of natural areas would have a negative impact on the environment. She asked where the Environmental Impact Statement was. She said that the County Commissioners adopted a policy on December 5, 2005 on environmental responsibility in government. She asked what steps are being taken to comply with this policy. She asked if there would be another hearing before any trees are cut and before any dirt is moved. Meg McKean lives next to Sally Logan. She said that she went through the construction of Stanback. She said that there seems to be a couple of areas of confusion where the affected public is getting multiple stories. It is less the school and more the long-term deforestation plans in phase 2 that bother her. She said that they are getting inconsistent information. She said that there are only 15-20 students now and the phase 2 plan expects this number to increase to 100. She said that they are very confused about how many of this population of students would be children expelled from school, how many would have psychological problems, and how many would be children that need to be taught differently. The Stanback parents have been told that na children with psychological, disciplinary, or legal problems will be at the alternative school. Another peculiar thing to her is that the environmental impact statement refers to the 1.4 acres, but the special use permit refers to the 20 acres and includes phase 2. There are currently no funds to do phase 2 and there has not been an impact study on this. She said that it is confusing to her that a school with a maximum population of 100 students will need a softball field and tennis courts. It is fairly plain that the softball field is really for Stanback. She said that the parents at Stanback have been told that there will be no mixing of children in the use of athletic facilities. She said that this is probably not the case. She said that the tennis courts seem a little lavish and it seems that phase 2 should be discussed very slowly and carefully. She said that with the construction of Stanback, they noticed a big difference in I-40 noise. She is worried about the additional sound impact from this much clearing. She said that Stanback students already use this forested area for cross-country and it would be a shame to lose a free naturally-provided athletic facility. Her request is that the phase 2 elements be removed from the special use permit in order to allow for a more realistic projection of County needs, a clearer public discussion of what students will be combined together in the alternative school and which children would use which facilities, and much more community input in negotiations over the placement and scope of athletic facilities and deforestation that will accompany this. Also, she would like an environmental impact of a scaled down plan and a schedule far negotiations on buffers, fencing, additional plantings, hours of use, and a total ban on lights for nighttime use. Tom Clark said that he strongly endorses the separation of phase 2 from this special use permit. He does not understand why it is being added to this special use permit. He is glad to hear that the Board does not feel obligated to decide on this tonight. He said that the Planning Board was told that there was substantial public opposition to putting the phase 1 of the portion of the project on an existing campus and then phase 2 would merge the campuses' athletic facilities. He said that the public did not have any idea about this before and it was not discussed during the public hearings about the initial school. This was a concession made by the school board that it would be adjacent and not an a school campus. He made reference to the stakeholder section of the smart growth document that says that there were numerous public hearings held to decide the location and receive feedback. He said that all of this process was about phase 1. He said that there should be options where the County could subdivide the land and ask for a separate special use permit. He thinks that there is a large list of priorities for the school system that would come above phase 2 and he does not think there would be funding anytime soon. He asked that phase 2 be removed from this special use permit. Carmine Prioli asked how many people had been to a Stanback baseball game. He has two children that have bath played sports and they are very grateful to have the opportunity to have their children enjoy the facilities. He made reference to the existing baseball field and its proximity to the track and the football field and said that the only thing that has kept Orange County from getting sued is the lack of left-handed batters in the league. There have been many fly balls going into the track and onto the stands. This tells him that the planning for the original school, Stanback, was very poor. He said that it was no exaggeration to say that when the trees were cleared, they were cut all the way to the property line. He lives in Stoneycreek, but not near the school. He spoke in support of his neighbors that live near it. He thinks that the bad planning that went into the original fields is shaving itself again in the proposed baseball field. He said that there is already a parking problem here. He asked where the parking would be for this proposed baseball field. Chair Jacobs made reference to the issues that were brought up -buffers, land clearing, erasion control, swapping the field and the building, whether the environmental survey relates to phase 2, whether the expansion is for 100 students, the relation and interaction with the middle school, and the general issue of the phasing. Mike Hammersley made reference to the buffers and said that the plan as shown is what would be left as a buffer. This is 130 feet of natural woods that would remain. He said that they would install an orange fence, and the area within the fence would be examined by the Orange County Planning Department to make sure that the area within the fence is clearly delineated before the loggers go in there. There is also a site plan approval after the special use permit that will have the erosion control permits from the County and State. Chair Jacobs asked when Stanback was built if the County had the same requirements and Geof Gledhill said that there was no special use permit requirement for schools when Stanback was built. Commissioner Halkiotis said that about ten years ago there was a proposal from the Recreation and Parks Department to look at putting lights on the fields at Stanback, and the neighbors made it clear that they did not want lights. He asked if any thought had been given to moving the tennis courts and pulling the softball field away from the trees and houses. Mike Hammersley said that, with regard to erasion control, they ga through the permit process with the State of North Carolina and Orange County. There must be approved permits before any grading is done. Craig Benedict stated that school board, education, and County projects are not under their purview in Erosion Control, but are authorized by the State. He said that they can offer advice in the process, but are not in the regulatory role. Mike Hammersley commented that the original Stanback Middle School was not their project. He said that they went through the orange fence process at Gravelly Middle School and it worked well. He said that, regarding the confusion of the biological inventory, this is on all 20.8 acres of the site and even includes a wetlands delineation. Chair Jacobs asked if they would consider swapping the existing building with the field location. Mike Hammersley said that the existing building is an important function of what goes on at the school now. George McFarley said that it is School and Community Relations and they did not look at moving the house and placing it in the place of the athletic fields. He said that the intent with the tennis courts was making facilities available to the public. Tennis courts are an issue in the County and they saw a collaboration opportunity. He also said that at no time is there any intent to intermingle students from Stanback with the students from the alternative school. He clarified that the full expansion of the alternative school is for 100 students. He made reference to the type of students that would be attending and said that a lot of people think that these are bad children or juvenile delinquents and that the next step will be jail. He said that it is very far from this. He said that there are students that learn better in anon-traditional environment, and they are finding that there is not enough space to meet the needs of all children. There will be same students with disciplinary issues in the traditional classrooms, but there will also be an opportunity to meet needs of students that do not learn as well in an 18-20-person classroom. Chair Jacobs asked how closely tied is phase 1 to phase 2. George McFarley said that there is no plan to expand this facility within the next five to ten years. Commissioner Gordon asked about the environmental assessment an the 1.4 acres and that it does not relate to the whole site, but the County Commissioners are still being asked to approve the entire tract. Robert Davis said that under the County Environmental Impact Ordinance, there is an environmental assessment and then the environmental impact statement, which is required if a finding is made of significant impact. This is 40,000 square feet of disturbed area. If it did not reach the 40,000 square foot level, then there would not be a requirement for the EIS. Chair Jacobs said that it could be added as a condition of approval. David Logan asked if there would be an environmental assessment prior to phase 2 being approved and if there would be a public hearing. Tom Clark said that Dr. McFarley indicated that there would be no intermingling of students. He said that his mother-in-law was told last week that everybody would use the softball field but today Dr. McFarley told him that only Stanback would use the softball field. He also understands that the tennis courts would be shared by the public, the alternative students, and the Stanback students. He does not see how you can share the same facilities and not have intermingling concerns. Commissioner Gordon said that she is struck that most of the public's concern has to do with the processor impact on surrounding property. John Link asked George McFarley to elaborate on the types of students that would go to the alternative school, because it sounded like some of the students would be the same that would go to the middle college. He asked for a delineation between these two types of students. David Hunt swore in Dr. Shirley Carraway, Superintendent, Orange County Schools. Shirley Carraway said that their first priority is to have a location for their alternative students. The addition of the athletic facilities was provided in an effort to meet some of the needs relating to the public being able to have access to athletic facilities. This is not the school board's first priority. The softball field was something that had been talked about with some of the Stanback parents in years past. She said that they still have a commitment to ensure that the students at the alternative site will not at any time interact with the students at Stanback. Regarding the type of student, the school proper would serve students as an alternative to long- term suspension. The two areas of students that it has not been able to serve because of limited space has been the students who need an alternative setting and students coming out of facilities (group homes, etc.} and transitioning into the public school. This is very different from middle college, which is designed for students that want to move faster than the normal school. Chair Jacobs asked if it would slow the school down if they were to sever phase 1 from phase 2. Shirley Carraway said no and that they need phase 1. There is no money in the budget to do phase 2 at this time. Chair Jacobs verified with Geof Gledhill that there would be another public hearing process if phase 2 were added later. Mike Hammersley answered several clarifying questions of the County Commissioners. Chair Jacobs said that it strikes him that one way to resolve the concerns of the neighbors is to sever the two phases. Geof Gledhill said that his recommendation is to ask the applicant to do this. Mike Hammersly said that he would be happy to withdraw the application for phase 2. Geof Gledhill said that the easiest way to deal with it would be to remove the improvements that make up phase 2 from the application. The permit would apply to the whale 20 acres, but the facilities would not be approved as far as the special use permit. Chair Jacobs said that a condition could be added that Storey Lane shall be a public road. Commissioner Gordan suggested scheduling this for another meeting and not taking action tonight. Chair Jacobs suggested scheduling to continue on March 21St Commissioner Halkiotis suggested getting a letter to the Tawn of Hillsborough and give them an update and assure them that everything is moving along nicely to find a new location far the school. Chair Jacabs asked far the assistance of Dr. Carraway in writing a letter to the Town of Hillsborough. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to indicate that the alternative school, phase 1, is a public necessity. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs said that the public hearing would be held open until the next regularly scheduled meeting on March 21St Geof Gledhill recommended that all exhibits and documents be made part of the record. Chair Jacabs said that it should be understood that it is the Board's practice for the Planning Board to hear evidence at a public hearing on a Class A Special Use Permit and then make a recommendation to the County Commissioners as opposed to making a recommendation before hearing from the public. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to hold the public hearing open until March 21St to receive additional information and to make all evidence submitted as part of the record. The decision on the special use permit will be made on March 21St, and will only include phase 1. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon suggested looking at the text of the ordinance and see if the Board wants to make it more than just the practice and ask the staff to bring this as a possible hearing as a text amendment on May 22"d. The Board agreed. D. ORANGE COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (BOCC Public Hearina] 1. Amendments to Orange County Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance Amend Section 2 -Definitions, for consistency with the State Building Code and to provide definitions and examples for the following terms: single family detached, all other residential types, and new residential dwelling unit. Amend Section 4 -Public School Impact Fee Exceptions, to add an impact fee exception when a dwelling unit is moved to a new lot. Craig Benedict said that this is a public hearing on the Orange County Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance. The original ordinance was put into effect in the early 90's and has been modified occasionally. The changes tonight have to do with definitions and the exceptions. He made reference to page three of the ordinance and the areas in red, which is the suggested new language for definitions. The exception section is on page six of the abstract. He explained the two items in red on page six. Chair Jacobs said that no member of the public has signed up to speak to this item. Allan Rosen said that he would like for the County Commissioners to pay particular attention to those situations of an efficiency apartment on an R1 or single-family lot and that it also not require a 100°~ impact fee in specific situations {mother-in-law apartments or other extended family members). Craig Benedict said that when the original impact fee study was done, there was not a clear differentiation of all the different categories. He said that the efficiency apartment would be clustered as another residential unit, which would be $1,420 per unit in Orange County and $1,979 in Chapel Hill/Carrboro. If there can be credible information about different types of units and different definitions, they can more clearly assess the impacts of how many children come forward from these types of apartments. Chair Jacobs made reference to the moving of the lots and said that it is missing one permutation - if someone moves a building from a lot and they have already paid an impact fee and they move it to a new spat, he sees no logic in extinguishing the development rights on the lot they left in order to preclude them from having to pay an impact fee again. He said that if a new structure is built an the lot they left, it seems logical that the new structure would have an impact fee associated with it. He does not understand why this is not the most logical possibility. Geaf Gledhill said that the reason that the recommendation is the other way is that impact fees are land use regulations that run with the land and not with the buildings. Anew house on a lot that had a house on it before would not trigger an impact fee. Chair Jacobs asked for something in writing analyzing this. He thinks that this is unnecessarily restrictive. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page six, item `d', and said that it does not make clear that the person doing this has any say in whether the development rights are extinguished or not. She suggested rewording it so that the development rights are not accidentally extinguished. Geof Gledhill agreed with the suggestion and said that one of the premises of the whole analysis is that the reason why the house is available is because of some change in the property and there will be something else going on. He will try and make this clearer and provide an analysis for Chair Jacobs. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to the comments by Allan Rosen and asked what prompted the staff to come back with the efficiency apartment piece. Craig Benedict said that there have been requests more recently from Carrboro that allow for these apartments to be built mare liberally on the typical single-family lot. Orange County has always had the restriction for not more than 800 feet of additional structure far accessory residential uses. Commissioner Halkiotis asked Craig Benedict if he saw a difference in Carrboro that also may be appealing to a graduate student market and not necessarily an aging senior citizen market. Craig Benedict said that there are a lot of different uses far the additional apartments. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he has heard this issue raised with citizens over the last few years, and people are building extra rooms for their parents. In a case like this, he sides with the citizens because this would not be impacting the schools. Chair Jacobs said that if the public hearing is being left open, then they do not have to decide on this tonight. He verified with Geof Gledhill that he would be bringing back a report on the issue of moving a house and providing an exception to the impact fee. E. ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE Draft Land Use Element Text Update This is the second of a three-part public hearing process for the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element (LUE) Update and is to present the LUE text update. Among other things, the update will: • Incorporate 2000 US Census data; • Reflect new growth trends; • Revisit Goals, Objectives, and Policies; • Include new subdivision data; • Revisit Future Land Use Map categories and descriptions; • Achieve desired land uses and densities; and • Develop a more user friendly and understandable document. The first public hearing was opened on November 21, 2005. Planning Board Chair Jay Bryan introduced this item. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri reviewed some background information, including what a land use element is and where the County is in the update process. There have been outreach meetings in all townships and staff developed a rough draft of the text and staff received written comments from the Planning Board on the draft text. He said that the land use element text is being updated to incorporate 2000 US Census data; to reflect new growth trends; to revisit goals, objectives, and policies; to include new subdivision data; to revisit future land use map categories and descriptions; to achieve desired land uses and densities; and to develop a more user-friendly and understandable document. Tonight is the second of a three-part public hearing process for the land use element update. This public hearing will remain open until the May 22"d public hearing is held. The land use element is a policy guide and not a regulatory document and must be implemented through the zoning ordinance andlor subdivision ordinance. Per County ordinance, prior to the May public hearing, Planning staff will be sending a mail notice to any property owner affected ar within 500 feet of an area to be affected by any future land use map amendment or zoning map amendment. The Board of County Commissioners will be hearing public comments at the public hearing before referring all of the items to the Planning Board far their recommendation anticipated in June or July of this year. The County Commissioners will close the public hearing at a subsequent meeting and a decision could be made as early as August 22"d The citizens can obtain a copy of the draft text on the County's website - at the "Agendas" link under the February 27t" Quarterly Public Hearing. It is also available at the Planning and Inspection homepage. Hardcopies are available for review at the Planning Department and also at the Orange County Libraries in Hillsborough, Carrbaro, and Cedar Grave. Craig Benedict said that there are three projects in process. One is a transfer of development rights feasibility study put together by the County Commissioners. A consultant has been hired for this. Also, they are in the latter stages of a small are plan for Efland-Mebane area. Lastly, there is a strategic growth plan for the Hillsborough area. He made reference to page 103, which shawl the principles that the Board decided were important. There are also optional goals. Regarding the implementation process, there is a four-step process overall. He spoke about what the land use plan does ultimately. He said that the land use plan does two things -determines what areas can grow and what areas have environmental constraints and cannot grow and haw much density there can be. The zoning maps in place now would allow density in the rural areas to have a population of 300,000 using "paper density" -dividing how many undeveloped acres by how many units per acre are allowed. This is not realistic, but there is a trend that would approach 240,000 in the rural areas of the County. These growth rates would eventually affect quality of life and there is a ceiling for traffic, air quality, and water quality. He said that the Orange County planning jurisdiction is 95°~ rural and 5% urban. He said that the staff will come forward with recommendations that will narrow down the options discussed and suggest what is manageable in the future and the County Commissioners and the public can react to this at the May public hearing. Public Comment Steve Yuhasz said that he represents several owners of property along NC 57 and he is here to express their support and appreciation of a creation of a rural economic development area. This is the Orange Speedway area. As things move forward with this, the landowners want to be included in making the determination as to exactly what uses may be allowed within that node and what the conditions are. Allan Rosen said that he has lived in the County for 14 years. He made reference to the charts and said that he would like to see a true time dimension added to the growth rate predictions. He would also like to see an inclusion of the number of dwelling units that would be put in the urbanizing areas as well as the rural. He said that the materials that were available online for this item were only made available late last week. He suggested that far the May public hearing, there should be much more substantial lead-time for when this is available to the public. Regarding sustainability, he would like to think that environmental conservation, economic growth and development, and social equity dimensions would also be included when sustainability is discussed. For example, he would like to see a plan that states how much and haw soon the County would invest in water and sewer capacity and how much return and jab creation and retention, increased tax base, residential housing, and particularly affordable housing units the County would expect from such an investment. He made reference to "upzoning" and said that a few premises should be challenged. He said that criteria #4 allows the "not in my backyard" protests to have authoritative status. He thinks this is wrong and should be taken out. Secondly, the "upzoning" process, in his opinion, should not be, "initiated by the developer and considered on a case by case basis," nor should "upzoning" areas be synonymous with transfer of development rights receiving areas. His recommendation is that the County lead the way in "upzoning" by investing in water and sewer capacity. Dolly Hunter lives in Bingham Township and she said that her concerns are for the rural people and not for herself. She said that the Planning Department's arguments far the need for larger lot sizes are inaccurate and do not reflect the reality of what is being created under the current regulations. She said that the build out scenario shown on the presentations have been based on the current minimum lot size allowed and do not reflect what is actually occurring in the County. She said that the many factors that affect lot size and density need to be acknowledged. Subdivisions approved during the past ten years have resulted in lots that are larger and fewer than the Planning staff indicates in the build out figures for a number of reasons, including restrictions, private road standards, acreage and rights-of-way, impervious surface ratios in watersheds, etc. She said that current subdivision regulations make subdivision very expensive with survey, septic approval, engineering approval, attorney fees, landscaping documentation, recreation fees, and the high cost of building road access to required standards. For these reasons, she said that more and more landowners create subdivisions with ten-acre lot size minimums with restricted covenants not allowing smaller lots. These subdivisions are exempt from County regulations and the County has used this exemption as an excuse to ignore these lots and their calculations. There has been a decrease in the number of major, minor, and exempt subdivisions since 2002. She said that the charts should show accurately what is happening on the ground and it would show that they would meet the targeted densities if they did nothing. She said that the land use element process is incomplete and she urged the County Commissioners to cancel the May 22"d public hearing and require that this process be done in a full, clear, accurate, and ethical way. Allan Parnell said that he is a long-time resident and a topographer. Much of his work is with civil rights and housing attorneys. He said that regulations for minimum lot size have given rise to the rapid escalation of home values in the communities. He said that he and his wife own several platted lots smaller than five acres in northern Orange County, and the proposed exclusionary zoning will result in significant increases in the value of these properties by reducing the supply of similar lots. He said that the proposed exclusionary zoning is bad public policy and unnecessary and will harm the community. He said that exclusionary zoning exists where local zoning regulations limit the market by requiring certain house sizes prohibiting multi- family housing, or by having large lot sizes. He said that if the goal of proposed land use changes are to limit sprawl, it would in fact have the opposite effect. He said that the five acre minimum will drive the already high property values up, pushing many out further to find affordable housing and thus increasing sprawl. He said that this proposal with the lot sizes would certainly limit who could live in Orange County. He said that he has described this proposed zoning to civil rights and housing attorneys across the country, and they are amazed that a community as progressive as Orange County would be seriously considering such action. He referred to the Smart Growth of America position on inclusionary zoning. Jean Earnhardt lives in Chapel Hill Township. She spoke on behalf of friends that live in the rural townships. She said that the land use update affects the people in the rural areas of the County more than any other citizens, and yet these were the least represented and the least able to participate in the updating process. She said that the landowners and the potential homeowners who cannot afford the five-acre tracts have not had their concerns addressed. She said that the entities that represent these citizens have not been included as they should be. For example, the CPLUC was not representative of the entire County and the ideas considered now were not that committee's ideas. There was no representation for Eno or Little River Townships. Of the 15-committee members, 10 were from Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Carrboro. Only 5 members were from rural townships and 3 of thane were from Bingham. Cheeks and Cedar Grove were represented by a County Commissioner and a Planning Board member. She said that at the last meeting of that committee, the Planning staff presented their own ideas and these are the ones that are being considered. She said that the outreach meetings included an hour-long presentation and did not encourage give and take talk. She said that the Planning Board has been restricted from any meaningful coordination of this process, though it has the responsibility to propose, direct, and advise the County Commissioners an the comprehensive land use plan. She said that, as of this date, the Planning Board has not approved any part of the presentations or the draft and the members did not even receive the draft until four days prior to the hearing. She said that it seems obvious that the original intention was to downzone the land in the rural part of the County and this has been a great disservice to the people of this County and to the decision-makers who represent them. She said that this plan relies on the concept of larger lots to meet all the County's comprehensive land use needs and so much time and money has been spent on this very narrow concept. She said that there should be an honest, accurate, and innovative plan for the future and the update should be done the way it was supposed to be done, with the Planning Board, the supervisory boards, the County departments, and the landowners collaborating on the future. Patrick McDonald is the board chair of The Village Project, an Orange County based non-profit that advocates for ecologically sound land use. He usually represents Triangle Transit Authority, but is not doing so in any capacity tonight. He said that the staff report on the County's website reaches highly dubious conclusions about the impacts of density reduction. On page 23, the report states, "the positive aspects of density reduction in the County's rural areas include: reduced potential far increases in vehicle miles traveled and protection of water quality and quantity." He said that reducing density puts more distance between homes and businesses, between homes and schools, homes and worship, etc. When more distance is put between the elements of the communities, citizens are forced to drive more. He said that the Environmental Protection Agency has gone on record in a publication entitled, "Protecting Water Resources with Higher Density Developments" to say that when impervious surface coverage is considered at the watershed level rather than the level of the individual house, higher density development requires less impervious surface than law density, which means less runoff and perhaps better water quality. The problem with only looking at the amount of impervious surface on an individual lot is that it does not count all the extra pavement needs far the automobile. He said that it is difficult to support the staff conclusion that lower density is somehow the key to water quality in Orange County. He said that this process remains flawed because it isolates land use planning from other critical portions of the comprehensive planning process. He urged the Board to move to a process that considers all of the elements together and adopt a plan that encompasses them. Joe Phelps is a native of Orange County. He said that the County does need some changes, but the proposed plan is way too drastic. He said that the Board approved a subdivision in Efland on Frazier Road several years ago, and he pointed out that if they do this type of plan, then it will keep the people that can buy these types of houses from living in Orange County. This subdivision has one-acre lots and the houses range from $150-170,000. He said that five-acre lots would keep the lower and middle-income people from being able to live in Orange County. Ben Lloyd is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He said that in the previous public hearing, four different options with proposed densities were shown. He requested at that time to be provided with the number of acres in each proposal. He asked if this had been done. Craig Benedict said that they are not suggesting any options tonight. He said that he would get this information to Mr. Lloyd. Jay Zardosa said that in 1981, he was in the University Mall and was given the new land use plan. He has not read the text and does not knave if there is any mention of package treatment plants, but he urged the County Commissioners to continue to oppose the establishment of subdivision package treatment plants. He also asked the County Commissioners to consider treating five-acre lot subdivisions as exempt. Commissioner Gordan said that she understands from the presentation that the future land use map is just here for review, but she wonders where it came from. She asked if the Planning Board had anything to do with it and it was answered no. Craig Benedict said that there are no maps that are part of tonight's presentation. There were four maps in November that had to do with options and different densities (p. 99}. These options are a range of possibilities that can be considered by the Board at the appropriate time. The Planning Board has seen the options and has participated in the process. At the May public hearing the staff will present some densities that they think could help achieve a sustainable program. He said that he has had instructions from the County Commissioners for the last five years to not narrow all the range of possibilities until they get to the formal public hearings. Commissioner Gordon said that she understood that the map was not part of this hearing, but it is in the materials (Future Land Use Map} and she asked if the staff drew it up. Craig Benedict said that this map is from some ideas that came forward from discussions of small area plans. It was drawn up by the Planning staff. It does not have anything to do with density changes. Commissioner Gordon suggested having the existing land use plan map along with the proposed future land use map. Commissioner Gordon said that she understands that the principles are the ones the Board of County Commissioners approved based on the 13 principles from the CPLUC. She asked about the optional principles, goals, objectives, and policies (p. 141). Craig Benedict said that the 1981 goals, objectives, and policies were brought forward in their entirety, and then the optional ones are new goals that staff has pulled from professional sources around the United States and North Carolina for things that were not even thought of in 1981. If the Board is not comfortable with the optional policies, they can be referred to in an addendum or thrown out. Chair Jacobs suggested that the motion be that they hold the public hearing open to May 22, 2006. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey to hold the public hearing open until May 22, 2406. Commissioner Foushee said that she has concerns about moving into the third public hearing with so many unanswered questions. She still has concerns about the process. She has no concept as to how this element relates to other elements in the plan. Her passion is affordable housing and there is nothing in the public hearings that helps her to understand how this element relates to other elements in the plan. She would like to consider some of the elements in tandem. She is just trying to understand the process and the element. She is afraid that if they move on the projected schedule, then they may enact a plan that may have an adverse relationship to other elements. Chair Jacobs said that the motion that he suggested did not include talking about the future land use map amendments and zoning text and atlas amendments at the May 22~a public hearing. He suggested having the Planning Board came back on May 22~d with a recommendation on the options. If the Planning Board feels comfortable with the process and wants the Board to proceed and consider some of this, then it can. Commissioner Gordon said that the land use element is one of several elements being considered in the development of the comprehensive plan. Another important element relates to water. All these elements will have to be completed before the comprehensive plan is finished. One question is whether the elements should be enacted, via zoning ordinance, before all of the elements are complete. She feels like it is still too early to implement the land use element with the zoning, even in concept. She likes the idea of having the Planning Board go over what has happened at the two public hearings and come back on May 22"d with a reviewed or refined set of documents. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he has been impressed with the level of mature concerns expressed by the public. He thinks there is some legitimacy to what people have raised. He thinks that there are concerns that should be discussed with the Planning Board and same answers brought back. He said that there was nothing sacred about May and there should be no hurry. Chair Jacobs rephrased the motion: "consider a motion to hold the public hearing open until May 22, 2006 to receive comment and analysis by the Planning Board and public on the materials and proposals presented at the November and February Public Hearings and the comprehensive plan and the land use plan update." Commissioner Foushee seconded the motion. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he wanted to address Mr. Rosen's concern about availability of what will be brought forward in May and that it be out there for more than three or four days. He would like for it to be available for at least ten days. VOTE: UNANIMOUS F. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss, a motion was made by Commissianer Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board