HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-06-1996 - X-B •
1
t
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 6. 1996
Action Agenda
Item # X-B
SUBJECT: REPORT - FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
11/27/95 Public Hearing Minutes Planning Director X2592
Written Comments
1/4/96 Staff Memorandum TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
1/17/96 Planning Board Minutes Hillsborough 732-8181
2/7/96 Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill 967-9251
2/19/96 Planning Board Minutes Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive a report on the Planning Board's recommendations concerning
proposed Flexible Development open space preservation strategies presented at
public hearing on November 27, 1995.
BACKGROUND: OPEN SPACE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT: For almost nine years, a
variety of meetings,work group sessions, and/or public hearings has been held for
the purpose of developing a set of rural character/open space preservation
strategies. The activities associated with this goal are summarized below:
• January, 1987-Rural Buffer zoning district adopted.
• June, 1987 - Assembly of Governments consensus on preserving open space
in Rural Buffer.
• November, 1987-Rural Character Study Committee appointed.
• May, 1990 - Rural Character Study Committee adopts Conceptual Guidelines
for Rural Buffer.
• September, 1990 - Rural Character Study Committee initiates work on
Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange.
f
2 r
• January, 1993 - Rural Character Study Committee completes work on
Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange.
• December, 1993 - At a work session involving the governing boards of
Orange County and Hillsborough, agreement is reached to establish the
University Station Planning Group.
• January, 1994 - Meetings are held in the northern, central, and southern
portions of the county to present alternative rural character preservation
strategies.
• January-April, 1994 - The University Station Planning Group completes its
work and presents its recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.
• May, 1994 -A proposal to create an Open Space Development Area Land Use
Plan category is presented at public hearing. The proposal also includes its
application to the University Station property.
• May, 1994 -A proposal to create an Open Space Development zoning district
category is presented at public hearing.
• June, 1994 - A proposal to rezone the remaining portion of the county to
require two-acre minimum lot sizes is presented at public hearing. Citizen
comment is also requested on the desirability of clustering, mandatory open
space requirements,and density bonuses.
• September, 1994 - October, 1995 - The Planning Board reviews all
materials/evidence received, including the Rural Character Study Committee
recommendations(January, 1993),and prepares recommendation.
The Planning Staff has reviewed the material produced and/or received, including
comments provided by citizens through township meetings and public hearings.
While a variety of approaches and options exist, the three basic approaches which
have been recommended to date include:
• The Rural Character Study Committee recommendations;
• The "Status Quo";and
• A "Cluster Option" incorporating a mandatory 50% open space requirement
and density limits based on the carrying capacity of the soils.
SUMMARY OF STAFF PROPOSAL: In an effort to focus the discussion and
"balance"the many interests expressed to date,the Planning Staff has prepared this
proposal which consists of three parts. The first section contains "Goals and
Action Strategies" (as recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee).
3
The second section contains a "Flexible Development" option which contains the
following provisions:
• The existing one-acre minimum lot size requirement would be retained.
• The provision of open space would be optional, however, a developer would
be required to submit two concept plans - one for a conventional subdivision
and another for a"flexible" or open space subdivision.
• If a Flexible Development option is chosen, at least one-third (33%) of the
land within a subdivision must be preserved as open space which may be
preserved through:
0 An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4)
acres or greater in size, building limits (50%) are established for each lot,
and the open space outside such limits is preserved through restrictive
covenants and/or conservation easements; or
0 A "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open
space is preserved through the use of conservation easements held by the
County or a land conservancy; or
0 A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved
through such reductions is dedicated to the County or a land conservancy,
or owned and maintained by a homeowners' association; or
0 A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are
clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the village is
surrounded by open space; or
0 Some combination of the above, including the use of"density averaging"
to allow flexibility in areas where two-acre minimum lot size requirements
exist.
• Density bonuses, while limited by the type of water supply/sewage disposal
service available to the development,may be achieved by:
0 Providing greater amounts of open space than required; or
0 Providing affordable housing units either as part of the development or at
an off-site location;or
0 Purchasing the development rights on farm or forest lands, natural areas,
and similar resources;or
4
0 Some combination of the above.
• Water supply/sewage disposal service may include:
0 Individual wells and septic systems on each lot or located off-lot within a
recorded easement, including subsurface disposal or spray irrigation on
open land; or
0 A community water and/or sewage disposal system, including subsurface
disposal or spray irrigation on open land, designed, constructed, and
maintained in conformity with all applicable state, federal, and local rules
and regulations; or
0 Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by a
municipality, association, or water or sewer authority. As part of such
service provision,public water and sewer extensions would be permitted to
defined "transit corridors" and "transition areas".
The "Flexible Development" option has been prepared in the format of an
amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. The basic strategy is to substitute it
for the current "Cluster Development" standards. Associated with the amendment
would be the preparation of a Rural Design Guidebook to illustrate,through a case
study approach, how to use the options in designing open space or "flexible"
developments.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS: Public Information Meetings were
held on November 16,20,and 21 at the Orange Grove Community Center, Walnut
Grove Methodist Church, and New Hope Elementary School, respectively. Prior
to the meetings,flyers were distributed at country stores and community locations,
and approximately 250 notices were sent to advisory boards and subcommittees,
and interested citizens.Approximately 30 citizens attended the three meetings.
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS: A public hearing was held on November
27 at the New A.L. Stanback Middle School for the purpose of receiving citizen
comment on the "Flexible Development" proposal. Minutes of that hearing are
provided as an attachment.
COMMENTS RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO PUBLIC HEARING: Section
VII-D-4 of the Subdivision Regulations permits evidence not presented at the
public hearing to be submitted in writing at or prior to the meeting at which the
Planning Board prepares a recommendation on the proposal. Written comments
received since the public hearing as well as a Staff memorandum responding to
issues raised at the public hearing are provided as attachments.
5
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Board
considered the Flexible Development proposal are its January 17, February 7, and
February 19 meetings. Rather than prepare a recommendation on the entire
proposal, the Planning Board elected to focus on the specific issues raised at the
public hearing and provide recommendations to the Commissioners concerning
them. Those issues and the actions taken by the Planning Board are summarized
below.
1. Affordable housing applicability. The specific issue is whether it is
discriminatory to allow developers of affordable housing to submit a
conventional subdivision plan only.
Planning_Board Decision: That both conventional and flexible development
plans be required of all subdivision, including those which are to provide
affordable housing. Vote: 8-2.
2. Groundwater resources - quantity and quality. The specific issue is
whether cluster lots will be subject to well failures because of the
number and proximity of wells.
No decision - The Planning Board asked that it be kept advised of the status
and findings of the USGS groundwater resources study so that this concern
may be addressed in the future.
3. Community sewage disposal systems. The specific issue is whether
community sewage disposal systems should be allowed, given problems
encountered with such systems in the past.
Planning Board Decision: That the Planning Board is generally supportive of
the use of community sewage disposal systems to encourage open space
development. However, the Planning Board has specific concerns about the
financial security of such systems and asks that the appropriate staff be
directed to deal with such issues as soon as possible. Furthermore, the
Planning Board wishes to stress that a"yield plan" is a determining factor in
terms of how many units or house lots may be served. Vote: Unanimous.
Planning Board Decision: That the number of lots permitted in a subdivision
be based on a "yield plan" (e.g., conventional subdivision plan) as the
Flexible Development proposal permits. Furthermore, that the staff
continually evaluate the use of the soil survey and the effect on"yield plans"
prepared using survey data. Vote: 8-2.
4. Higher administrative costs. The specific issue is whether the adoption
of the Flexible Development provisions will require additional staff and
whether developers will incur additional cost to adhere to the standards.
6
No decision -discussion only.
5. Interdepartmental coordination/communication. The specific issue is
how to insure that adequate communication between County
departments is established so that approvals by one department are not
held up by the requirements of another.
No decision- discussion only.
6. Development plan exceptions. The specific issue is whether allowing a
developer to submit gnjy a Flexible Development plan is discriminatory.
No decision- discussion only.
7. Rural Buffer annlicability. The specific issue is whether land within the
Rural Buffer should be subject to the Flexible Development provisions.
No decision-discussion only.
8. Open space percentage. The specific issue is whether the percentage of
open space required (e.g.,33%) is too low.
Planning Board Decision: That 33%be accepted as the minimum open space
requirement. Vote: 7-4.
9. Exclusion of unbuildable land. The specific issue is whether floodplains,
wetlands,and steep slopes should be counted as open space because they
are considered .unbuildable. The alternative suggested is to apply the
required open space percentage after subtracting such features from the
total site area.
Planning Board Decision: That unbuildable land be counted in determining
the amount of open space; e.g., that open space would be calculated on the
basis of the total tract area. Vote: 7-4.
10. Mandatory open space. The specific issue is whether the provision of
open space should be voluntary or mandatory.
Planning Board Decision: That the provision of open space be voluntary
rather than mandatory. Vote: 10-1.
11. Incentives vs disincentives. The specific issue is whether more
disincentives should be added to discourage conventional development
and fewer incentives provided to encourage more open space set asides.
A 7
Planning Board Decision: That the incentives included in the Flexible
Development proposal be retained, at least for the first year to determine
their effectiveness. Vote: 8-3.
12.Village option. The specific issue is whether to hold another public
hearing on the Village option, since it is complicated and has not
received a lot of attention.
Planning Board Decision: That the Village Option be removed from the
Flexible Development proposal, be elaborated on, and be sent back to public
hearing as soon as possible. Vote: 6-5.
13. Conservation easement credit. The specific issue is whether land
protected through a conservation easement prior to development
application can be counted toward satisfying the open space
requirement.
Planning Board Decision: That conservation easements, the terms of which
are consistent with the Flexible Development guidelines in effect at that time,
be allowed to count as credit toward open space. Vote: 9-2.
14.Minor subdivision applicability. The specific issue is whether to make
Minor Subdivisions subject to the Flexible Development standards.
Planning Board Decision: That the Flexible Development requirements not
apply to minor subdivisions but that applicants be encouraged by staff to use
the options in the submission of the single required plat. Vote: 8-1.
15. Consistency with goals. The specific issue is whether the Flexible
Development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of rural
character preservation.
No decision-discussion only.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends consideration of the following
implementation schedule:
March 6, 1996 Board of Commissioners receives report on
Planning Board recommendation; identifies
additional issues to be addressed, if any.
March 21, 1996 Board of Commissioners conducts Work Session;
receives additional information; continues
discussion on proposal.
8
April 1, 1996 Administration recommendation is presented;
Board of Commissioners adopts proposal; sets
effective date for July 1, 1996.
April 15, 1996 Planning Board receives draft Design Guidebook
for review/comment.
May 1, 1996 Board of Commissioners receives draft Design
Guidebook for review/comment.
May 20, 1996 Planning Board receives final Design Guidebook.
June 6, 1996 Board of Commissioners receives final Design
Guidebook.
June 17-28, 1996 Training workshops are held for land owners,
surveyors, developers, etc. on use of Design
Guidebook and Flexible Development approval
process.
July 1, 1996 Effective date of Flexible Development standards.
The Open Space Design Guidebook for the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
(APES) Region is due in draft form for review by project participants
during February, 1996, with publication and distribution of the
Guidebook occurring in March or April. Publication and distribution is
being handled by the N.C. Association of County Commissioners, with
distribution initially to the 36 counties in the APES region, then the
remaining 64 counties in the state. Orange County is one of the 36
counties in the APES region.
The APES Open Space Design Guidebook is to serve as the model for
Orange County's guidebook and will include case studies to illustrate
how to use the "four-step" open space design process in preparing plans
for each of the Flexible Development options. The Guidebook is a
"guide"on how to apply the ordinance provisions. It is not an ordinance,
but the Flexible Development provisions as adopted will be included as
an appendix.
Draft November 27, 1995 Public Hearing Minutes 9
III. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT/OPEN SPACE PROPOSALS
This item was presented by David Stancil to receive citizen comment on open
space development strategies, including a staff generated Flexible Development Proposal. He
reviewed the timeline for this project which began in December of 1993 with a work session
between the governing boards of Orange County and Hillsborough. At that meeting it was
agreed to establish the University Station Planning Group. As a result of the work by citizens
and staff , three basic approaches have been recommended. They are:
The Rural Character Study Committee recommendations;
The "Status Quo"; and
A "Cluster Option" incorporating a mandatory 50% open space requirement and density limits
based on the carrying capacity of the soils.
The Planning Staff has prepared a proposal which consists of three parts. The first section
contains "Goals and Action Strategies" (as recommended by the Rural Character Study
Committee). The second section contains a "Flexible Development" option. The "Flexible
Development" option has been prepared in the format of an amendment to the Subdivision
Regulations. This entire report is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
David Stancil replied to a question from Commissioner Gordon. He stated that the
convention and flexible development proposals would be considered together and either both of
them would be approved or both of them would be denied. This will assure that the process is
not used to mandate flexible development.
Mary Willis noted that Concept Plan approval is the Planning Board's commitment that, if
the Preliminary Plan comes in essentially the same as the Concept Plan, then the Planning
Board will recommend approval.
Commissioner Gordan asked if it would be necessary for developers to submit two plans,
or could they submit only a flexible development proposal. If that happens, how would staff
know how many lots to approve.
David Stancil replied that if the developer intends to submit only a flexible development
proposal there is no need to prepare a conventional concept plan. There is also an exemption
for developments that involve affordable housing units. The development of a "Yield Plan",
using either a soil survey or random site testing of 10-15% of the site, is still a part of the
process and determines the number of lots permitted. The Yield Plan also utilizes existing
zoning. The options available are to use existing soil maps developed as part of the Soil
Survey, or actual site testing, working with the soil scientists in Environmental Health.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to
extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING BOARD
10
Planning Board Member Karen Barrows commented that she is disappointed by the
provisions concerning low and moderate income housing. She felt that it sent the wrong
message and was perhaps even discriminatory to allow developers of such projects to submit
only a conventional plan.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS BY CITIZENS
John Roger, a resident of Hideaway Drive, felt that the Flexible Development Plan does
not give an adequate attention to sources of water. He mentioned his concern to
Commissioner Gordon earlier in the year, and she said that staff was studying water resources
in the County to clarify the status of the aquifers that exist in the area. He noted, in particular,
that the proposal does not give enough attention to water resources. Attention is given to how
to dispose of the water after it is used but not to where the water is going to come from. He is
concerned that cluster development will result in well failures.
Jay Zaragoza spoke against the portion of the proposal ( which would allow multiple
homes to be connected to a community sewage disposal system. He stated that the history of
these systems is one of failure, and often necessitates bailout by the County. He spoke in
support of the overall plan but asked that this portion be eliminated.
Nick Tennyson, Executive Vice-President of the Home Builders Association of Durham-
Orange County, stated that he was impressed with the positive tone of the document. He
asked that the County keep in mind that the complexity of rules could result in higher costs. He
also asked for assurance that the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Staff will stay
in communication with other county departments, especially Environmental Health, who
oversee different aspects of the regulation process.
Bob Strayhorn stated that he was 100% in favor of the proposal. He commended staff
on the good work that they did. He felt that the rural landowners will accept the plan, and it
would encourage protection of open space as well as affordable homes.
John Hartwell, spoke in support of the plan. He likes the voluntary nature. He
commended the Commissioners on their leadership in this matter.
Vic Knight commended the staff people and volunteers who worked on the plan. He
indicated that that he supports 80% of the plan. He would like to see more clarification on the
issues. He commented that much of what is currently required by the Subdivision Ordinance is
static. He approves of the flexible development concept but feels that there are still many
unresolved issues. Some of the open space may be static as are the number of lots that are
going to come out of that. He mentioned that there are bonuses, other than density bonuses,
that developers are willing to use, and for which the public is willing to pay. He felt that allowing
a developer to present only a flexible development plan was discriminatory. He was disturbed
by the statement that Flexible Development pertains everywhere in the County except the Rural
Buffer Zoning District.
Mary Willis mentioned that the Planning Board uses the Concept Plan to identify issues
11
that are likely to come up in the Preliminary Plan. Approval with conditions would continue in a
similar fashion. The Planning Board would look at both plans and would approve both plans.
That approval could be "with conditions" for both Conventional and Flexible Development
options.
Lee Rafalow commented that good work has been done here. However, he felt that the
proposal would create different and possibly better suburban sprawl. A 33% requirement of
open space is inadequate. It will not achieve the objectives that he sees as necessary for
promoting agricultural, wildlife habitats, and conservation. He mentioned a November 10 Wall
Street Journal article which discussed conservation oriented development. The article
discussed open space developments ranging from 68% to 98%. He asked that options
continue to be explored and provided to encourage flexible development. However, he also
requested that the importance of zoning regulations not be forgotten.
Bob Hall, a member of the Economic Development Commission, spoke in support of the
proposal to encourage open space. He spoke in support of requiring an open space concept
plan, and limited density bonuses for affordable housing. He also supported the concept of
higher design standards or disincentives for conventional subdivisions, including paved streets
with bike lanes, sidewalks, construction setbacks, and tree lined buffers for major roads. He
asked for caution regarding expanding the menu of land development options for building in
rural Orange County. Too many options could create incentives and cause it to be more
profitable to develop. He also questioned the bonus options which allows off-site land to be
protected through conservation easements and used to increase the number of homes being
built. He asked that the density bonus.section be written so that it can be used only to create
the kind of homes that the County wants and needs. Another issue he addressed was setting
the minimum open space at 33% of all land. Carrboro's standard is 40% in their Urban
Transition Area. For the County to accept 33% invites a developer to build deeper into the
County. The standard is based on all land, not just buildable land. The 33% would allow for
steep slopes, wet lands, and flood plains to be counted toward open space. He stated that
Randall Arendt recommends 50% of buildable land. He asked that this percentage be reviewed
and revised. He asked that the concept involving the "Village Option" be pulled from this plan
and sent to public hearing separately for further discussion and input.
Dan Bromal, an Eno Township resident, asked that the County consider the cost of
administering the additional standards.
Marty Mandell, a Carrboro resident, spoke in support of mandatory open space.
Carrboro has mandated 40% open space. They do not give density rewards for the open
space. Rural Orange County should increase the amount of open space by not including
unbuildable land in that percentage. Clear cutting needs to be prohibited. She also requested
that the issue of open space continuity be addressed.
Dolly Hunter, Chair of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board, mentioned that the
Advisory Board is teaching the Planning and Agricultural staffs, and the public, the process of
establishing conservation easements and land protection for tax benefits. If open space
c
12
becomes mandatory whenever land is subdivided then conservation easements could not be
counted toward meeting the open space requirements. If open space becomes mandatory,
then incentives for dedicated conservation easements would be lost in this county.
A motion was made by Commissioner Wiilhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to
forward the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned
to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 16, 1996.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting
of the Board of Commissioners is scheduled for December 4, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in the Old
Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk
• Peter Darrance V(919)932-7296 0112/13/95 O 11:37 PM D 212
To: Orange County Planning Board 13
Attention: Marvin Collins
From: Dolly Hunter
As Chair of the Orange County Agricultural Districts Advisory Board, I wish to
make the following observations about the Flexible Development Proposal:
1. The Agricultural District Advisory Board supports the proposal because it is
voluntary. We encourage Primary and Secondary Resource delineation by
Orange County to enable landowners to better meet IRS criteria for conservation
easement tax benefits.
2. Careful consideration and encouragement should be given to the landowner
who puts property into a conservation easement and to the developer who
develops the remaining land so that open space credit is given for the original
conservation easement.
3. Minor subdivisions should have the option to submit an open space plan.
Planning staff may assist such landowners in recognizing primary and secondary
resources on subdivided portions in relation to remaining property.
4. Off site septic systems assist in better lot design and use of better soils.
5. The use of Flexible Development should be carefully monitored to account for
what works, and what doesn't work should be revised.
6. With many fearful of change and many others fearful of the status quo, it might
be constructive to make an effort toward voluntary flexible options from which
we can all learn and in the future, perfect.
14
4512 Powder Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-9641
December 10, 1995
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Orange County Planning Board
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Subject: Flexible Development/Open Space Proposals
This letter is to reiterate and expand upon my testimony at the public hearing
on November 27th. Although I believe the terms of the debate over rural
character preservation have shifted in a positive direction in the last
several years, there are still significant issues that need to be resolved.
Both this proposal, and the Rural Character Study Committee report upon which
it is loosely based, use words like "conserve," "preserve," "agriculture" and
"wildlife habitats" to state achievable quality of life and enviroamental
objectives as we manage development in Orange County. The proposal, however,
falls short of its objectives. There are two underlying assumptions in this
proposal that need to be made explicit and carefully examined.
The first premise is that building "better" suburbs will help achieve rural
character preservation and that to attempt to do more would be too much. In a
recent article published in the Wall Street Journal ("New Communities Make it
Easy Being Green," 11/10/95, pg B14), one can quickly conclude that
conservation-oriented development is not experimental, it is not even cutting
edge, it is an emerging market. Enlightened developers are quoted in the
article saying they are not engaged in philanthropic projects, but rather
business ventures. "In a survey last year. . .78% of 800 consumers who bought
or shopped in planned comnnuiities cited 'lots of natural, open space' as
essential or very important" (emphasis added).
Although the article draws heavily on examples from the very high-end market
segment most interesting to the Wall Street Journal audience, there are
examples of lot and home prices that are consistent with those found in-orange
County today. Interestingly, the examples given have between 68% and 98%
set-asides for conservation, not the 33% suggested in the current County
proposal. In one case, with house prices in the $200,000 to $400,000 range,
the development is concentrated on 20% of the land; "the rest is devoted to
farmland, organic gardens, a nature preserve and cam:mmnity space:" that's 80%
natural open space. This development gets about 100 prospective buyers a
week.
Randall Arendt's Rural By Design guidelines suggest eliminating primary
conservation areas from the calculation and then preserving an additional 50%
of the remaining land in open space. Although any figure chosen will be
somewhat arbitrary, it's clear that the currently proposed 33% doesn't came
close to the preservation and conservation objective; Carrboro has a higher
open space requirement for its transition area than this proposal has for
exurban and rural areas of the County. The "Flexible Development" proposal
would consider 98 acres divided into 16 4 acre lots and 34 conventional 1 acre
15
lots as meeting the objectives of rural character preservation: it does not.
I suggest that we begin with the Arendt guideline and adjust it over time as
we determine appropriate instead of beginning with something that doesn't
attempt to achieve the objective.
Another aspect of the proposal that is inconsistent with the objectives and,
instead, aimed at building better suburbs is the notion that active
recreational uses help preserve rural character. This is not to suggest that
active recreational uses aren't important, but let's not confuse that goal
with the rural character preservation objectives. The County already has
provisions for establishing active recreational uses; if they are
insufficient, they should be amended. But recreational needs and conservation
needs are different and should not be traded off against one another. There
should be no allowance, and definitely not 50%, for active recreational uses
as a substitute for natural and agricultural spaces.
The second underlying premise in the "Flexible Development" proposal is that
the only barrier to achieving rural character preservation is that the zoning
ordinances prevent developers from doing what they would otherwise be eager to
do. Although there is certainly a need to improve the ordinances, the fact of
the matter is that we have some provisions for cluster development on the
books today. The same Wall Street Journal article notes that "while same
(conservation-oriented) projects spring from principle, more often than not
they're spawned by legal battles." Clearly, we don't want a development
atmosphere that is poisoned by battles like Meadowmont or University Station.
Like any business person, every developer wants to know what's allowed so they
can manage their time and money effectively. Let's avoid future battles in
Orange County, let's tell developers what's expected: we want rural character
preservation, not conventional suburban sprawl, not even improved suburban
sprawl. Although we need to make sure there are a range of options from which
to choose, we should be clear a limit permitted uses to those that meet the
objectives. Although we need to respect the property value rights of our
citizens and not reduce permitted densities, we should be clear about how to
achieve those densities so as to meet the rural character preservation
objectives. This can be done, without downzoning, by determining densities
based on a yield plan but only allowing those densities with the open space
suggested above. Lower densities, in a conventional layout, might be
permitted as in the "Estate Lot" proposal, but conventional subdivisions at
full buildout might be by special use permit only. Density bonuses are not
required and are not consistent with rural character preservation.
In addition to the above broader issues, I also have a number of questions and
concerns about the proposal.
1. Several aspects of the proposal point to other designations for guidance on
what appropriate uses might be. So, for example, a change in the scenic
road designation or a transportation corridor designation would change the
definition of appropriate uses for a particular development. I am
particularly concerned about turning any more land use authority over to
the DOT than absolutely necessary, but it is important that any of these
changes get adequate public review before they create de facto land use
plan changes.
z
16
2. There are places in the proposal that have more regulation than appears to
be necessary. For example, it appears that the Estate Lot Option prohibits
a gazebo outside the building envelope and would prohibit a dock on a lake.
3. The proposed change to include street right-of-ways in lot size is an
upzoning of up to 8%. If we are attempting to achieve density neutrality
in these changes, why are we giving away higher density?
4. The Village Option is complicated and needs further discussion and review
by the public. The inclusion of village greens in the calculation of open
space is inconsistent with the rural preservation objectives. Why does the
proposal permit 1 side of the village core to be on a major road; this
encourages exterior rather than interior orientation. I have other
questions, but would prefer that this option get more public education and
opportunity for comment.
I am concerned about the use of density bonuses to encourage open space.
Fitting more units into less space does not make a convincing argument for
either rural character preservations or, for that matter, increased profits for
the developer or landowner.
Lastly, there are a number of related issues that need further development in
this proposal . TDRs are discussed, but the County Catmissioners should ask
the State for authority to use them. Our current tax laws provide lower taxes
for farm uses, but they impose a severe penalty on the farmer when the land is
sold, regardless of its use by the new owner; this is farmer preservation, not
farmland preservation. The County Camissioners should take steps have these
laws changed as well.
I look forward to the outcome of your deliberations.
Sin rel ,
ee Rafa ow
I E HOME FRONT- si4 `"` �,JOURNAI. 1'
a=— .,. .
FRIDAY,NOVEMBER 30, t�
New Communities Make It Easy Bem* g Green
By STaFerr FeTSrs forests,mountain lions,eagles and other species.
Staff Reporter of TH[WALL Sr Wr JOLMNAL "IResidentsl must understand the risks and the joys and
the possibilities of living in a wildlife habitat—and definitely
have their eyes open,"says Jeffrey Froke,president of the
Gruxsl. ,ILL Santa Lucia Conservancy and a onetime park ranger.
HE EGRETS COME RIGHT UP THERE,"Carol SOnnenschein says,gestur- On Dewees Island near Charleston, S.C.,65%of the
»` ing toward the prairie grasses and sedges that roll into the lake a few feet
1.200-acre ocan't lexceed 5,000 m permanent Cbuyerva must
square feet,and buyers must
a from her porch. Off to the right, she points to where red-winged blackbirds analyze the topography, solar orientation, prevailing
winds,soil and tree stands before building.Residents zip
blanketed a marsh in summer. Geese use the wetlands as a flyway, she notes around unpaved roads in electric golf carts.Lots fetch up
proudly,and at night coyotes can be to$475,000,and 11 homes are up so far,the
heard baying at the moon. priciest for 5$00,000.
Contrary to this bucolic picture, While eco-friendliness boosts construo-
tion costs,it also cuts long-term expenses.
though, Ms. Sonnenschein's home ./ - ` tj "When you don't build all these golf courses
isn't some rural retreat but a new community `` and don't have all these manicured land-
under construction in the increasingly . scapes and don't have all these paved roads,
crowded suburbs north of Chicago.The reason you end up with enormous reductions in in-
for the unspoiled views of native flora and l frastructure investment"and lower mainte-
co i is simple: In Prairie Crossing, as the � � � nonce costs,says John L Knott t chief
community is known,the environment is king. executive of Island Preserve Partnership,
rship,
Across the country,a growing number of the Dewees Island developer.
residential communities are seeking to bah , , It pays in other ways,too.The develop-
ance development and conservation. The ^ ers of Wildcat Ranch near Aspen, Colo.,
u market ranges from million-dollar tots at a where 9870 of 6,800 acres will remain unde-
California ranch set in a nature preserve to , veloped,changed its land-use plans from 35
an"open space subdivision"outside Philadeb lots of about 160 acres to 14 lots of about 500
phis where homes on half acre tracts start acres.While the number of sites dropped
around a env00• -V overall revenue increased,with lot sales av
_ While environmentally correct cornmuni r •` eraging$4.1 million.Farmview,a clustered-
""' ties aren't new—think Walden—only recently housing development with 200 acres of pro-
have they become a bona fide market. The A& tested farmland in Bucks County,Pa.,has
reasons:growing disillusionment with subur outsold conventional subdivision-style
ban sprawl and a willingness to pay a pre- �' • homes that offer larger lots.
mium to live in a place that protects the land. In other words,people will sacrifice per`
"This is not a philanthropic project.It's a sonal space for protected land they share
business venture,"says George A.Ranney with neighbors. In a survey last year by
Jr., the president of Prairie Crossing's de- American Lives Inc.of San Francisco,78%
velopment company."It will have social out- of 800 consumers who bought or shopped in
comes we hope will be noteworthy and affect • planned communities cited"lots of natural,
public policy and business practice.We hope open space"as essential or very important.
other builders will say, 'Someone else has "Our lot size isn't big,but when you look at
done it,let's get into the market.'" the overall development,you've got a lot-df
z, Calling itself a "conservation commu- rum space.-says 3r-year-old Bob Flanary,the ex-
oity,"Prairie Crossing plans to develop just organic-meat wholesaler,who with wife Lisa,
m one-fifth of its 667 acres. When completed, 33,moved from Worthington,Ohio,to a four-
all 317 single-family hones,priced from around$200.000 bedroom house in Prairie Crossing.
to$400,000,will have long views.The rest of the property Eeo•Developments "We can wean people away from the idea that they
is devoted to farmland,organic gardens, a nature pre- need a large lot when they want to be in the country,"
serve and community space.The Washington-based Con- Some environmentally sensitive home projects: says Randall Arendt of the Natural Land Trust, a land
servation Fund holds an easement that will keep 150 acres ■EAGLE RM RESERVE Wbere•Bozeman,Mont; conservancy in Media,Pa. "Ultimately, if they have a
in farm use forever. Sim:800 acres;Price:39 lots from$150,000-5200,000 large lot,there's no country left."
More than 100 prospective buyers visit Prairie Cross• each;houses from$300,0004750,000 Still,the trend isn't spreading like prairie grass.Most
ing weekly. By year's end, 18 families will have settled developers, especially in high-end communities in the
in—including an agronomist,a biologist two landscape •FARRWIEW:Where:Lower Makefiekl Township,Pa.; West,remain addicted to miniestates of fenced-in proper-
architects, a former organic-Meat wholesaler and Ms. Sim:330 homes on 500 acres;Price:Homes for ties with big lawns and long driveways."The major mar-
Sonnenschein,a Loyola University sociologist whose dis- $250,000-S500•0 keting tool used by developers here is own your own little
servation concerned growth on Chicago's urban fringe. 0 PRESERVE AT HOUERS LANE Where:Attawa,Wis.; Piece of heaven," says Michael Scott of the Wilderness
The 19urcentury faun ho se-style homes are linked by 10 Sim-285 acres:Price: 41 lots,$80,000-$130,000; Society in Bozeman,Mont."What we tend to see is more
miles of crashed-limestone trails,not sidewalks.Residents cookie-cutter.single-acre development."
can receive a basket of homes$500,000-S1 million
organic Produce weekly or grow their And while some projects spring from principle,more
own. Yards must be landscaped only with native plants. ■SPIN ISLAND:Where:Near Hilton Head,S.C.;Sim: often than not they're spawned by legal battles.Prairie
Storm water drains naturally,not through pipes. 500 homes on 3,000 acres;Price:Average lot,$280,000 Crossing's land was purchased by a group of wealthy
"Where you have peer pressure,p wdadatly on the East sowm DAft~wnwzm~Law MWRM families in 1987 after a 15-year fight over its develop-
Coast,to have the best lawn,here you're going to have peer ment.In Washington's pristine Methow Valley,environ-
pressure to be the most responsible homeowner," says mentalists and citizens persuaded developers to forsake
Michael Sands,Prairie Crossing's environmentalist. ters and other creatures were mapped and protected. a downhill-skiing center for a lower-impact cross-country
Not all eco-developments are as tightly focused as One of the biggest—and ritziest—eco-projects is Santa skiing and golf resort:1.5%of property sales will support
Prairie Crossing.But such principles separate those that Lucia Preserve near Carmel, Calif. The 32-square-mile an environmental center.
practice environmentalism from those that just use site was purchased by a group of investors for$70 million That's the sort of deal today's new-breed environmen-
Mother Nature as a marketing tool. in 1990. Rather than inundate the old cattle ranchland talists are happy to make.The philosophy:Not all devel-
At 800-acre Eagle Rock Reserve outside Bozeman, with houses,the owners intend to develop just 107c of the opment is bad,and influencing development beats stand-
Mont., homes are banned from ridge tops and elk property—about 300 moderately clustered homes,a small ing idly by while the bulldozers roll.
ranges. At Rocking K Ranch next to Saguaro National hotel,a low-impact golf"trail"and a village center. "You can't save it all,"says Patrick F.Noonan,chair-
Park near Tucson. Ariz., a nonprofit environmental Lot prices will start at $1 million and should climb man of the Conservation Fund,which holds the Prairie
group monitors development. On Spring Island near quickly. The remaining land, scarred by 200 years of Crossing easement."You can't stop growth.You have to
Hilton Head,S.C.,the habitats of eagles,quail,river ot- overgrazing,will be set aside as a preserve of redwood understand it and work with it."
18
3615 Windy Hill Rd.
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
December 3, 1995
Orange County Planning Board
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Dear Members of the Planning Board,
I have been following with interest the progress of your proceedings regarding
Flexible Development/Open Space. I am quite pleased that Orange County is looking
ahead. I am sure that you saw the recent estimates that the triangle now has a population
of 1 million. When you picture Orange County on the edge of a metropolis area of that
size, you can see the growth pressure that exists.
In general I like the proposals created by the planning staff. I would like to see either a
50% open space standard or exclusion of unbuildable land from the calculations as I think
that the proposed standard is not really going to preserve much open space. In order to
encourage developers to opt for open space development I would recommend that a
special open space category be defined such that developments of that type either be given
a lower property tax rate (if that is legal) or have discounted county fees during the
development and building process.
Thank you for your efforts with this very important issue.
Sincerely,
4&-Y � '�
Robert A. Harrell
19
Bob Hall
5706. 01d Stony Way
Orange County
Durham, NC 27705
489-1931
: December 14, 1995
Dear Planning Board Member,
I serve on the Orange County Economic Development Commission and the
Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan, and have followed many of the hearings
on development and rural character. Here are a few thoughts on the
Flexible Development Proposal you are reviewing again on December 18 .
I support the overall goal of promoting Open-Space Flexible Developments.
I support requiring conventional subdivision developments to submit an
Open-Space concept plan. I would encourage you to develop higher design
standards than currently in place for conventional subdivision, such as
paved streets with bike lanes, sidewalks, and wider construction setbacks
or tree-lined buffers from major roads .
AFFORDABLE HOMES>> I support the concept of awarding limited density
bonuses -- but only for building affordable housing, using the state's
median family income as the standard to calculate "affordable" rather than
the Triangle's inflated salary scale. This area's median income means an
"affordable house" in Orange County can cost up to $97, 000.
While I support the Flexible Development concept, I think we must be
cautious about expanding the menu of options for building in the rural
part of the county. We could provide so many options or incentives that we
wind up making it easier and more profitable to build in rural Orange
county, and wind up sucking development away from the urban and transition
areas -- which is exactly the opposite of the goal expressed in the
county's Land Use Element.
We won't really know what we' ll get for what we're giving until. we try it,
and I definitely agree that we should review the consequences of these
changes after several plans come forward. But let me offer a couple of
horror stories that I think are avoidable if the plan is adjusted now.
DENSITY BONUSES>> Under the plan as written, I could easily add 100 lots
with $300, 000 homes to my Flexible developments by simply paying a small
amount for conservation easements on 100 acres of wetlands or stream
floodplain or steep slopes scattered across the county's northern edge.
That's not much a benefit for the added density going into rural areas.
That's the way the Density Bonus and Purchase of Development Rights
section now reads -- add 1 unit per 1 acre of "primary conservation area
protected. " I think it should change. Density bonuses are a financial
reward to developers -- real wealth created from public policy -- and they
should be used to get the kind of homes the county needs. Consider
20
lowering the 1-per-1 bonus ratio, make the developer save land that DBE be
developed, and permit only affordable housing in the additional density
awarded.
OPEN g ACE>> Another major, problem is setting the minimum amount of Open
Space at 33% of all land. First, Carrboro's standard is 4096, and that's in
an urban-transition area. For the county to accept a 33% standard just
invites me, as a developer, to go deeper into the county to build a
subdivision.
' Second, the standard is based on a.0 land, not just the buildable land.
Under the plan, the 33% could consist entirely of steep slopes, wetlands,
and floodplain -- i.e. , unbuildable "primary conservation areas. " Contrary
to Section II, page 2, this is = what experts consider preserving Open
Space. All through this document, you have Randall Arendt pointing out
that the 33% figure is way too low [for example, see his comments on pages
58, 65, 71, and 771 -- he recommends 50% of buildable land. Contrary to
Section II, page 2, the Orange County commissioners recommended setting
aside 30% of buildable land in the University Station work group, which
means not counting the wetlands or floodplains as Open Space. The standard
should be a minimum of 30-33% of buildable land or at least 50% of AU
land. Carrboro's 40% standard of all land is a conservative compromise.
To highlight the consequences of going with the present proposal, remember
that we have a defacto "open space" policy now with the soil suitability
(perc) standard. Based on history, it lowers density by nearly half, to
about 1 unit per 2 acre -- meaning its keeps about 50% of the land in R1
zoning undeveloped. Requiring that only 33% of the total tract be set
aside is not much progress. And then if you're liberal about adding
density bonuses and permitting multi-lot common sewage systems, you could
easily increase density well beyond our current standards. The current
policy may protect rural character better than the new liberal proposals .
$ VILLAGES>> Finally, the detailed village section is a new proposal
for a complicated development package that has not received public
discussion in public hearings or town meetings. Most discussion has
focused on questions about Open Space quality and amount, and Incentives
and Density Bonus. But now we have many pages of details about building
little towns -- building design, road grids, site location, density,
commercial activity, storefronts, and a Village Green. You have to imagine
all the varieties that might be built in different parts of rural Orange,
perhaps using package sewage plants or other devices to increase density.
The multiplicity of comments by Arendt and Joyner illustrate the lack of
consensus on this plan.
It would be nice to have a standard for what a "rural village" is, but
because of its significance, impact, and lack of public consensus, I urge
you to specifically limit these to current Transition areas and/or require
a full public hearing on any village development that a developer
proposes.
Thank you for your hard and conscientious work. Bes/w' hes,
B b�
12i 2A/t qqr, 10:11 9199687737 TOWN OF CARRBORO PAGE 02
21
TOWN OF CARRBORO
NORTH CAROLINA
•
Deownbw 28, 1995
Mr.John Link
County Meow
Orlewcoulty
P.O.Hoot 8181
IBdsborough,N.C.27278
Dear John..
The Mayor and Board of Awarnen asked tae to ft*you and the Caulty C,ommssi for sending
David Stoll to our December 19th Board meetitag. He did an oweilift job in presorting the County's
hleoable dev�doptamt proposal.
The Mayor and the Board of Aldermen have also requested that I convrry to the County
Camniatione s and the County Planning Board comments and questim raised by members of the
curboro Board so they might be considered by each body as it deliberates on the 8aabie development
proposal.They were as fodows:
1. The plan does not seem to have airy el5od6ve ad woatrent provisions or ovtue power
to d &cdvely preserve the CouwA dwindlt ritual resources and 8rm hands.
2. Are there any stabstm to show the a mess or Mm rate of sbMw vollmtwy
;tow using W=dm?
3. Does the Estate Plan re dy provide open space?Who is and what is not open space,
Per 3%as a desirabk,societal and aesthedW Cahfine
4. To achieve the Web of the plan,an evahttntioa process should be in phaoe prior to
itaplaaeawtioa of the plan with a set period for the evaluation to tWm place.
Again,dwk you for die prosentation on this proposal and for Conveying these ranorks to the QraW
County Plasrarng Board and the County Cormni siaaas at the appropriate times. The Board looks
forward to their respome and attention,to its conoary
Yours v*,
Robert W.Morgat,
Toga Manager
P.O.•OX•111 • 101 MOST MAIN 1TREET,CANRgORO,NC 37110•(111)112•1641 • PAX total 1161.7701 • TDO 1111)111.7717
AN COUAI OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
22
MEMORANDUM
TO. ORANGE COUNTY PL BOARD
�C3�c9t,c1
FROM. MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
DATE: JANUARY 4, 1996
SUBJECT: FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
COPIES. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER
GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY
A public hearing was held on November 27 at the New A.L. Stanback Middle School for the purpose
of receiving citizen comment on the "Flexible Development" proposal. Section VII-D-4 of the
Subdivision Regulations also permits evidence not presented at the public hearing to be submitted in
writing at or prior to the meeting at which the Planning Board prepares a recommendation on the
proposal. Specific issues and/or concerns raised during the public hearing and/or through written
correspondence subsequent to the hearing are summarized below in boldface type. Staffs response is
provided following.
Affordable housing aaalicability. The specific issue is whether it is discriminatory to allow
developers of affordable housing to submit a conventional subdivision plan only.
Staff Response. The provision of affordable housing is a goal of Orange County, and a concern
about "open space" or "flexible development" designs is that they result in "high-end" housing.
Two provisions were added to the Flexible Development proposal to address this concern
specifically. The first provision is contained in Section IV-B-10-G.2, Density Bonuses/To
Encourage Affordable Housing, and was added as an "incentive" to encourage developers to
provide such housing as part of a Flexible Development proposal. The second is contained in
Section III-D-1-c, Concept Plan Approval/Application Requirements, and was added to allow
developers, whose goal was singularly the provision of affordable housing, to forego the
requirement of submitting a Flexible Development plan. As part of the Planning Board's
discussion of this provision, wording was added to"encourage"applicants to submit such as plan.
Groundwater resources- quantity and quality. The specific issue is whether cluster lots will
be subject to well failures because of the number and proximity of wells.
Staff Response. At the request of the Water Resources Committee, the Board of Commissioners
has provided matching funds through which to finance a study of the groundwater resources of
the county. The study is being jointly funded and undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey, and
is scheduled for completion by the end of this fiscal year. The study will provide information
about the availability, quantity, and quality of groundwater as well as guidance concerning well
23
placement. However, the Environmental Health Division staff has indicated that under current
standards governing separation of wells from homes, septic systems, property lines, and other
wells are met, few problems associated with well failures have been encountered. Where such
situations have occurred, they have resulted from failing septic systems.
Community sewage disposal systems. The specific issue is whether community sewage
disposal systems should be allowed, given problems encountered with such systems in the
past.
Staff Response. A "monitoring and maintenance" program for community systems has been
approved by the Board of Health and the Board of Commissioners. Yet to be completed are
provisions concerning "financial security" to insure that funds will be available to adequately
maintain the system and correct any problems. The provisions are to be prepared by the County
Attorney and will require a significant time commitment.
Higher administrative costs. The specific issue is whether the adoption of the Flexible
Development provisions will require additional staff and whether developers will incur
additional cost to adhere to the standards.
Staff Response. There will be some additional cost to the applicant in terms of preparing two
concept plans. However, the provisions have been drafted in an attempt to keep these costs to a
minimum. Staff will also work with applicants in providing site information and developing
concept plans in an effort to eliminate and/or reduce plan revisions. No additional staff will be
needed, however, some reorganization within the Planning Department may be necessary to
provide "hands-dn" assistance to applicants. If any additional cost is incurred, it will be for GIS
hardware through which to develop/maintain a resource database to benefit staff, landowners, and
developers.
Interdepartmental coordination/communication. The specific issue is how to insure that
adequate communication between County departments is established so that approvals by
one department are not held up by the requirements of another.
Staff Response. Discussions with some departments and/or divisions have occurred, particularly
the Environmental Health Division. The purpose of the discussions has been to alert other agency
staff of the need to establish a more formalized "development review" process through which to
identify/address agency concerns and eliminate project approval delays. The inclusion of a"Public
Information Meeting"as part of the approval process is also intended to provide the applicant and
staff with information from adjoining property owners about concerns/issues which may be
addressed prior to Planning Board consideration.
Development plan exceptions. The specific issue is whether allowing a developer to submit
only a Flexible Development plan is discriminatory.
24
Staff Response. The provision contained in Section III-D-1-c, Concept Plan Approval/Application
Requirements, was added as an incentive to allow developers to reduce costs by foregoing
conventional plan preparation and focusing specifically on a Flexible Development plan.
Rural Buffer applicability. The specific issue is whether land within the Rural Buffer
should be subject to the Flexible Development provisions.
Staff Response. The Rural Buffer is located in the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint
Planning Area. When the Rural Character Strategies for the Rural Buffer were prepared, a joint
public hearing was held with Chapel Hill and Carrboro to provide an opportunity for
review/comment consistent with the Joint Planning Agreement. Application of the Flexible
Development provisions within the Rural Buffer has not been proposed, so that a similar process
might be undertaken with the two municipalities.
Open space percentage. The specific issue is that the percentage of open space required
(e.g.,33%) is too low.
Staff Response. Suggested alternatives to the open space percentage contained in the Flexible
Development proposal are as follows:
• 501/6 open space requirement, applied to buildable land only, after subtracting out Primary
Conservation Areas or"unbuildable"floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes; or
• 50% open space requirement, applied to total tract; or
• 40% open space requirement, applied to total tract, as adopted by the Town of Carrboro; or
• 33% open space requirement, applied to buildable land only.
To provide some basis for comparison, the Flexible Development standard was compared to each
of above mentioned options, applied to a 100-acre tract with: no unbuildable land; 25 acres of
unbuildable land; and 50 acres of unbuildable land. As shown on Attachment A, one obvious
conclusion is that as the percentage of open space required increases so does the amount of land.
For those persons advocating a 50% (or 33%) open space requirement after deducting
unbuildable land, it is also obvious that that standard results in a higher percentage of open space,
depending upon the amount of unbuildable land present on the site. As an example, when one-
fourth of the tract is unbuildable, the 50% standard actually becomes a 63% open space
requirement, while the 33% standard becomes a 50% requirement. Where one-half of the tract is
unbuildable, the 50% standard becomes a 75% open space requirement, while the 33% standard
becomes a 67% requirement. Likewise, as the permitted density increases, so does the density of
the development area(e.g.,buildable area), reaching levels under one- and two-acre zoning which
would require the use of community systems or access to public sewer to be feasible.
The issues of density and water and sewer availability, as well as housing cost, are also evident
from review of a November 10 Wall Street Journal article, provided by a citizen and cited as
25
justification for a 50%open space standard. The focus of the article is the growing number of new
communities across the country seeking to balance development and conservation. One source for
the article was Urban Land magazine, and staff was able to collect (from Urban Land and the
ULI Project Reference File) information concerning five of the 10 developments cited in the
article. Summarized on Attachment B is the information pertaining to those five developments.
One model suggested for use was the open space provisions adopted by the Town of Carrboro on
June 27. The Carrboro provisions require every residential development containing 15 or more
dwelling units to set aside at least 40% of the total area as open space subject to the following
conditions:
• One or more areas suitable for play fields must be included in every development with at least
50 lots. Each area must contain a minimum of 20,000 sq.ft., and the total area must be at least
400 sq.ft. per lot or dwelling unit.
• All area within 60 feet of the edge of mapped floodway (or center of stream if there is no
mapped floodway) if a development contains any portion of a stream designated on
Carrboro's stream classification map.
• Areas identified in the Carrboro Natural Constraints Map or the Inventory of Natural Areas
and Wildlife Habitats in Orange County.
If the area included in the features listed above is more than 40% of the tract, then the amount of
area set aside in one or more categories may be reduced so that the total open space is not more
than 40%. If the area included in the features listed above is less than 25% of the tract, then the
following areas must be included to make up the remaining 15% of the required open space:
• Wooded areas;
• Entranceway vistas;
• Streams, ponds,wetlands, floodplains;
• Slopes>15%;
• Unusual natural features(e.g., rock outcrops);and/or
• Other environmentally, historically or archeologically unique areas.
On December 19, a staff member presented the Flexible Development proposal to the Carrboro
Board of Aldermen. In a December 28 letter, the Town Manager has provided a list of comments
and questions from the Board of Aldermen(copy attached).
Each of the alternatives described above represent a continuation of the discussion which
preceded the preparation of the Flexible Development proposals. Each was considered, but within
the context of competing interests of "no open space" or "20% open space", the standard
contained in the current Cluster Development provisions. As noted at the public hearing, the
Flexible Development proposal represents an attempt to strike a"balance" between many diverse
and competing interests.
26
Related to the Canboro provisions, suggestions have been made that a 33% standard in the
county and a 401/6 standard in Carrboro would drive developers deep into the county. Such a
scenario is unlikely, for the higher densities permitted in Carrboro and the availability of public
water and sewer provide developers with more opportunity for satisfying the 40% open space
standard and achieving a financially feasible project. Furthermore, a higher open space standard
may be more desirable in an urban setting like Carrboro where the area in which additional growth
can occur is limited. As an example, the approximate area in Carrboro's ETJ is 2,240 acres. If
40% of that area were preserved as open space, the total land area would equal 896 acres. In
contrast, the area of Orange County's jurisdiction, outside the JPA and municipal jurisdictions is
approximately 154,944 acres. If 33% of that land area were preserved as open space, the total
land area would equal 51,131 acres, or an area twice the size of the city limits and ETJ's of all the
county's municipalities combined.
Exclusion of unbuildable land. The specific issue is whether tloodplains, wetlands, and
steep slopes should be counted as open space because they are considered unbuildable. The
alternative suggested is to apply the required open space percentage after subtracting such
features from the total site area.
Staff Response. The Flexible Development proposal recognizes floodplains, wetlands, and steep
slopes as valuable resources, e.g., Primary Conservation Areas. As an example, the riparian zone
of a river, stream or other body of water is the land adjacent to that body of water that is, at least
periodically, influenced by flooding. The flooding of the riparian ecosystem is important for the
maintenance of that system for several reasons. The flooding water and subsequent ground water levels
are the main determinants of the type and productivity of vegetation found in the riparian zone.
Flooding waters also bring nutrient-rich sediments to the floodplain, export organic and inorganic
material from the floodplain, and serve as a primary agent for long-terra aegradation (deposition of
alluvial material)and degradation(downcutting of surface geology)of the floodplain.
As another example, wetlands comprise one of the Earth's most productive natural ecosystems and
have a set of common natural functions that make them valuable resources.
• Wetlands affect the quality of water. Aquatic plants change inorganic nutrients into organic
material, storing it in their leaves The stems, leaves, and roots of these plants also slow the flow
of water through a wedwig allowing the silt to settle out Consequently, wetlands protect
downstream water resources from siltation and pollution.
• Wetlands hybunce the quan* of water. They act as a sponges, retaining water during dry
periods and hold it back during floods, thus keeping the water table high and relatively stable.
• Wetlands are important resources far overall environmental health and diversity. They provide
essential breeding, nesting, and feeding grounds and cover for marry forms offish and wildlife.
These factors have the value of providing general environmental health by creating recreational,
research, and educational sites, and adding to the aesthetics of the community.
27
As stressed previously, it is because of these natural and valuable functions that such features are
credited toward meeting the open space requirements. A related reason, however, is the
association of these features with others, such as natural areas, wildlife corridors, etc. In
developing a Comprehensive Resources Map for the county, a "corridor" system resulted,
comprised of Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas which overlapped. For example, steep
slopes are generally associated with major stream channels and prominent topographic features
such as hills and mountains. Associated with the major stream channels are floodplains and
wetlands, as well as many identified natural areas and wildlife corridors. Also associated with
steep slopes and prominent topographic features are identified natural areas such as Pickards
Mountain, McCauley Mountain, Blackwood Mountain, Currie Hill, and others. Additionally, the
greatest potential for archeological sites is in major stream corridors. Thus, the overlapping nature
of multiple features makes it difficult to draw a distinct line and say one feature may count but
other may not.
A final reason for crediting "unbuildable" areas (e.g., Primary Conservation Areas) toward
meeting the open space requirement is that a common open space standard (e.g., 33%) applies to
all land owners. As noted previously, deducting unbuildable areas first, then applying the open
space standard will result in some land owners providing 33% open space while others must
provide 50%, 67% or more (see Attachment A). A common standard provides a level playing
field.
Mandatory open space. The specific issue is whether the provision of open space should be
voluntary or mandatory.
Staff Response. This issue is also a continuation of the discussion preceding the preparation of the
Flexible Development proposal. Those persons who advocate mandatory open space argue that
open space will not be provided unless it is required. Some developers and surveyors have argued
that unless the financial incentives are high enough, a voluntary approach will not be used. The
Carrboro Board of Aldermen has also asked the question, what is the success or failure rate of
jurisdictions which have tried a voluntary approach.
Information concerning success/failure rates is not available, and, even if it were, there is no
guarantee that the same results would hold true in Orange County, just as there is no guarantee
that a highly successful open space project in Bucks County, Pennsylvania will have the same
success in Orange County. Again,the Flexible Development proposal attempts to strike a balance,
mandating on that two concept plans be submitted, one for a conventional subdivision and
another for an open space subdivision. Combined with educational workshops for land owners,
developers, and surveyors, a voluntary approach, evaluated for success, is considered a better way
to encourage open space design.
Consistency with coals. The specific issue is whether the Flexible Development proposal is
consistent with the goals and objectives of rural character preservation.
Staff Response. Several examples are cited to illustrate that the proposal is inconsistent with the
goals and objectives, including the following:
28
• 98 acres divided into 16 four-acre lots and 36 one-acre lots does not meet the objectives of
rural character preservation.
• Recreational (active) needs and conservation needs are different and should not be traded off
against one another.
The goals and objectives of rural character preservation do not advocate that open space design
be the only mechanism for preserving rural character. Like Randall Arendt, the Rural Character
Study Committee viewed open space design as "one tool in the tool box". Arendt recognizes
purchase of development rights and transfer of development rights, as well as other options, as
supporting elements to an area-wide program of conservation and development that is most
logically based upon the flexibility and advantages offered by open space development design.
Likewise, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board has recognized the linkage between these
elements, supporting the Flexible Development proposal while recommending that the Board of
Commissioners pursue enabling legislation through which to implement a transfer of development
rights program.
With regard to the illustrations above, the "98-acre" scenario may very well meet rural character
preservation objectives if the 16 four-acre lots (and the house sites on each) are so located to
preserve a scenic road corridor or are located within a wooded area. With respect to the issue of
trade-offs, there have to be, otherwise nothing will be accomplished. As an example, a site
covered equally by woodlands and farmland presents competing objectives. Housing units could
be placed in the woodlands and the farmland preserved, or vice versa. As Arendt has noted,
"politics" and "planning" represent the "art of the possible". The same flexibility built into the
Flexible Development proposal must also exist in approaching the goals and objectives of rural
character preservation.
Incentives vs. disincentives. The specific issue is whether more disincentives should be
added to discourage conventional development and fewer incentives provided to encourage
more open space set asides.
Staff Response. One concern is the increased density which may achieved through bonus
provisions. The example given suggests that 100 acres of wetlands could be purchased in the
northern part of the county and 100 units added (one unit for one acre) to a flexible development
project. The example also suggests that 100 acres of wetlands is not much of a benefit for the
added density going into rural areas.
If one accepts the value of wetlands, then one realizes the benefit achieved through preserving
100 acres of wetlands. The example implies, however, that the additional density would be shifted
to rural areas and does not recognize the locational standards governing bonus units. Such units
could only be placed in one of the locations listed in Section IV-B-10-G.4, including:
• Within Transition Areas designated in the Land Use Element, subject to a maximum permitted
density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
29
• Outside Transition Areas but within an area designated for service by a utility provider as part
of a long-range water and/or sewer extension plan, subject to a maximum permitted density of
1.3 dwelling units per acre.
• Outside Transition Areas but with % mile of an interstate corridor or a major thoroughfare
designated as a HOV/busway route as part of an adopted regional transit plan, subject to a
maximum permitted density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
• Outside Transition Areas but with 1/2 mile of a transit station designated as part of an adopted
regional transit plan, subject to a maximum permitted density of 5.0 dwelling units per acre.
Outside of these locations,the use of density bonuses would not be permitted.
Another concern about density bonuses involved affordable housing and the use of the median
family income for defining "affordable" units. Associated with this concern was the suggestion
that the median family income for the state as a whole be used as the measure of affordable
housing rather than that for Orange County.
In 1995, the median family income for a family of four in Orange County was $47,900. Based on
25% of the family income being used for the mortgage payment, a 30-year loan, and an 8.5%
interest rate, the family would be able to afford a home valued at $129,750. For the state as a
whole, the median family income was $36,100. Based on the same assumptions, the family could
afford a home costing$97,800.
If the concern is over the price of the home which qualifies as "affordable housing", a better
approach than using the state median income is to use a percentage of the county median income.
A threshold of 80% of the median family income is generally recognized by DHLJD as the upper
limit of low and moderate-income families. By applying that percentage to Orange County, the
median family income would be$38,320, and the family would be able to afford a house valued at
$103,800.
Village option. The specific issue is whether to hold another public hearing on the Village
option,since it is complicated and has not received a lot of attention.
The Village option has received considerable attention over the life of the rural character
initiative, including public hearings. In its initial stages, the Village option was the"Rural Village"
concept first proposed by the Rural Character Study Committee. During the development of the
Flexible Development proposal, the Village option was given more substance using the model
developed by Loudoun County, Virginia.
The suggestion has been made that there is lack of consensus on the standards because of the
comments of Arendt and Joyner. The number of comments by them should not be considered as
lack of consensus but suggestions for improvement. Most of these comments were taken into
30
account in revisions to the standards, and, if they weren't, it was because they reflected the same
concerns about percentage of open space, etc. expressed about the other options.
Villages are simply another flexible development option and are subject to the same limitations as
the other options, including the locational standards governing density bonuses. The difference
between the Village and other options is that more detailed design standards must be met by
Villages. To illustrate this point, Attachment C compares several Village scenarios, including the
following:
• A 50-acre Village, with and without commercial uses;
• A 100-acre Village, with commercial uses;
• A 200-acre Village, with commercial uses; and
• A 400-acre Village, with commercial uses, and with and without bonus units.
A couple of points should be remembered:
• The wording "at least" means that minimum acreage or percentage must be provided. The
wording "not more than"places a limit, but it also means that the applicant does not have to
provide any townhouse, storefront, and/or workshop uses. In such situations, a Village would
consist of residences, a village green or commons, parks and squares, and space for churches,
day care, etc.
• The ceiling placed on the Village Proper creates the requirement for more open space as the
size of the Total Village increases. This is best illustrated on Attachment D which shows that,
beginning at a size of 150 acres, the open space requirement increases, resulting in 75% open
space in the case of a 400-acre Village.
Additional public hearings are not necessary for the Village option. If changes are warranted, they
should be recommended as part of the overall recommendation concerning the Flexible
Development proposal.
Conservation easement credit. The specific issue is whether land protected through a
conservation easement prior to development application can be counted toward satisfying
the open space requirement.
Staff Response. The answer to this question is yes, but only if the applicant purchases the entire
parcel, including the acreage protected by the conservation easement. As an example, suppose a
farmer, as part of estate planning purposes, conveyed a conservation easement to Triangle Land
Conservancy on 100 acres of his/her 300-acre farm. One year later, a developer offers to purchase
the total farm. Given the existence of the conservation easement on 33% of the tract, the
developer could submit plans for a Flexible Development project which show the "conserved"
area as satisfying the open space requirement. If the developer had purchased only the 200 acres
(excluding the conserved area), he/she would have had to meet the 33% open space standard on
the 200-acre portion.
31
Minor subdivision auplicability. The specific issue is whether to make Minor Subdivisions
subject to the Flexible Development standards.
Staff Response. During the period 1987-1994, the Planning Department processed a total of 461
minor subdivision applications which encompassed 3,705 acres and 1,065 lots. On an annual
basis, 58 minor subdivisions were processed, the average size of each subdivision was 8.0 acres,
the average number of lots was two per subdivision, and the average lot size was 3.5 acres.
During the same period, the Planning Department processed a total of 89 major subdivision
applications which encompassed 1,952 acres and 934 lots. On an annual basis, 11 major
subdivisions were processed, the average size of each subdivision was 22.0 acres, the average
number of lots was 10 per subdivision, and the average lot size was 2.1 acres.
While the number of lots created through both major and minor subdivision processes is similar,
the visual impact of "minor" lots is much less evident because they are so widespread.
Nevertheless, over the long term, the impact on rural character and resource protection could be
just as great as for major subdivisions.
Minor subdivision lots do serve a purpose, however, in that many of them are created for family
members, and, in many instances, do provide a source of affordable housing. For this reason, staff
recommends that one of following options be approved:
• That minor subdivisions be excluded from the Flexible Development standards,but applicants
encouraged to work on a voluntary basis with staff to address open space preservation
concerns through the approval process;or
• That up to five (5) minor subdivision lots be allowed for each lot of record as of the effective
date of the ordinance, and that thereafter, all lots created from the tract in question be subject
to the Flexible Development standards.
The second option is similar to a provision proposed by the Rural Character Study Committee
which would have allowed up to five one-acre lots to be created. That proposal, of course, was
coupled with the application of two-acre minimum lot sizes across the county. No rezoning is
proposed as part of the Flexible Development proposal, but the five-lot provision certainly could ,
have applicability.
ATTACHMENT A 32
COMPARISON OF OPEN SPACE PERCENTAGE STANDARDS
Acreage Requirements/Densities for
Development/Open Space Standard 100-Acre Tract w/Unbuildable Area of
0 Acres 25 Acres 50 Acres
OPEN SPACE
50% open s ace after deducting unbuildable land 50 63 75
50% opens ace 50 50 50
33% open space after deducting unbuildable land 33 50 67
40% open space 40 40 40
33% opens ace 33 33 33
DEVELOPMENT AREA
50% opens ace after deducting unbuildable land 50 38 25
50% open space 50 50 50
33% open space after deducting unbuildable land 67 50 33
40% open s ace 60 60 60
33% open s ace 67 67 67
DEVELOPMENT AREA DENSITY a@ ONE UNIT PER TWO GROSS ACRES
50% open space after deducting unbuildable land 1.00 1.33 2.00
50% open space 1.00 1.00 1.00
33% opens ace after deducting unbuildable land 0.75 1.00 1.54
40% open space 0.83 0.83 0.83
33% opens ace 0.75 0.75 0.75
DEVELOP ENT AREA DENSITY ONE UNIT PER GROSS ACRE;
50% open space after deducting unbuildable land 2.00 2.67 4.00
50% open s ace 2.00 2.00 2.00
33% opens ace after deducting unbuildable land 1.49 2.00 3.08
40% open space 1.67 1.67 1.67
33% open space 1.49 1.49 1.49
DEVELOPMENT AREA DEN M TWO UNITS PER GROSS ACFR
50% opens ace after deducting unbuildable land 4.00 5.33 8.00
50% open space 4.00 4.00 4.00
33% open space after deducting unbuildable land 2.99 4.00 6.15
40% open s ace 3.33 3.33 3.33
133% open s ace 2.99 2.99 2.99
EXAMPLE
For a 100-acre tract with 25 acres of unbuildable land and a 50% open space requirement
(after deducting unbuildable land), the calculation is as follows:
1. 100 acres less 25 acres of unbuildable land= 75 acres of buildable land
2. 75 acres of buildable land x 50% open space requirement= 37.5 or 38 acres
P. Total open space=25 acres(unbuildable)+ 38 acres(50% standard)=63 acres
33
ATTACHMENT B
Provided with correspondence received from a citizen was a November 10 Wall Street Journal
article concerning conservation oriented development. The focus of the article is the growing
number of new communities across the country seeking to balance development and conservation.
One source for the article was Urban Land magazine, and staff was able to collect (from Urban
Land and the ULI Project Reference File) information concerning five of the 10 developments
cited in the article. Summarized below is the information pertaining to those five developments.
Wildcat Ranch Wildcat Ranch is a 6,500-acre development near Aspen and Snow Mass,
Colorado, with 13 500-acre single-family lots proposed. Each lot would
have a building envelope restricted to eight acres (2% of the tot area), and
all improvements except driveways must be located within the envelope. As
of March, 1995, eight of the 13 lots had been sold for an average price of
$4.0 million. The development also includes a 34-acre commons and a
ranch management and maintenance center with equestrian facilities. Total
open space in the development is 98%, with most of it comprised of the
land in individual ownership located outside the building envelope (98% of
the lot area).
Prairie Crossing Prairie Crossing is a 667-acre development located in Lake County, Illinois
near Chicago. Original plans for a 2,200-acre development were rejected
by Lake County, and litigation following the decision resulted in a
neighborhood group purchasing 667 acres for$5.2 million.
A total of 317 homes are to be clustered on 132 acres_(2.4 units/acre), with
lots ranging from 7,700 to 24,300 square feet. Homes will range from
1,500 to 3,500 square feet, with costs varying from $190,000 to $400,000.
Community amenities will include an animal barn, a farm market, a
community center, tennis courts, a fitness center, a swimming beach, a
village green, a six-acre community organic garden, and 25 miles of interior
trails.
Overall density is 0.5 units/acre (1 unit/2 acres) with approximately 75% of
the development preserved as open space, including 350 acres of open land
and 150 acres of working farm.
Spring Island Spring Island is a 3,000-acre island development located near Hilton Head,
South Carolina. 500 single-family home sites are proposed, consisting of
125 cottage sites, 300 estate sites, and 75 golf course sites. Lots vary in
size from one to 10 acres, and sell for an average price of $280,000.
Community amenities include an 18-hole, 7,200-yard, par 72 golf course,
and tennis courts. 1,000 acres or 33% of the island area is to be preserved
as a nature preserve.
34
Rocking K Ranch Rocking K Ranch is a 4,400-acre desert development near Tucson,
Arizona. A mixed-use resort and residential community is proposed,
consisting of four resort complexes, 9,000 to 10,000 housing units, and
related commercial uses. The development plan calls for over half the total
site to be preserved as protected open space, with an overall density of 2.0
to 2.3 units/acre Densities within developed areas (approximately 2,200
acres)will range from 4.1 to 4.5 units/acre.
Farmview Farmview is a 418-acre development in Bucks County, Pennsylvania near
Philadelphia. 332 houselots are clustered on 204 acres (1.6 units/acre),
with an average lot size of 22,000 square feet. Overall density (0.79
units/acre) was determined by a `yield plan" showing the number of lots
achievable under a conventional layout. Approximately 51% of the entire
site was preserved as open space, including 68 acres of woods and
wetlands, and 145 acres of farmland. Homes will range from 2,600 to
3,700 square feet, with costs varying from $261,900 to $356,900. All lots
are served by public water and sewer.
35
O O 1 0 p O C o O ° u 4 N N
t
00 It S c�i 00
o op o o
N
z o ri
O O V1 N N V1 V1 N
M ^ N
oc
° lei g S ¢ o
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °• \ +� �
p O 6 -+ vi N N Vi wi N n DO y 3
Cj
F� N th ..n M N �O •--i M ri M M ti t*O .0
U 3 M a o g S d o
Wi
d
N N z o 0
Go
wi
N N z 0 0
w
qu
� d
U a
N5
do
Q
U V � cs N 0 O L
w 4. 64
on
.. a c
to 44
CX. 64
cn
F > > > F z
36
ATTACHMENT D
COMPARISON OF ACREAGE/OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR
VILLAGE CONSERVANCY AND VILLAGE PROPER
Village Site Village Village Village
Area Conservancy Conservancy Proper Village Proper
(Acres) (Acres) as % of Site Area (Acres) as % of Site Area
50.0 16.5 33.0% 33.5 67.0%
60.0 19.8 33.0% 40.2 67.0%
70.0 23.1 33.0% 46.9 67.0%
80.0 26.4 33.0% 53.6 67.0%
90.0 29.7 33.0% 60.3 67.0%
100.0 33.0 33.0% 67.0 67.0%
110.0 36.3 33.0% 73.7 67.0%
120.0 39.6 33.0% 80.4 67.0%
130.0 42.9 33.0% 87.1 67.0%
140.0 46.2 33.0% 93.8 67.0%
150.0 50.0 33.0% 100.0 67.0%
160.0 60.0 37.5% 100.0 62.5%
170.0 70.0 41.2% 100.0 58.8%
180.0 80.0 44.4% 100.0 55.6%
190.0 90.0 47.4% 100.0 52.6%
200.0 100.0 50.0% 100.0 50.0%
210.0 110.0 52.4% 100.0 47.6%
220.0 120.0 54.5% 100.0 45.5%
230.0 130.0 56.5% 100.0 43.5%
240.0 140.0 58.3% 100.0 41.7%
250.0 150.0 60.0% 100.0 40.0%
260.0 160.0 61.5% 100.0 38.5%
270.0 170.0 63.0% 100.0 37.0%
280.0 180.0 64.3% 100.0 35.7%
290.0 190.0 65.5% 100.0 34.5%
300.0 200.0 66.7% 100.0 33.3%
310.0 210.0 67.7% 100.0 32.3%
320.0 220.0 68.8% 100.0 31.3%
330.0 230.0 69.7% 100.0 30.3%
340.0 240.0 70.6% 100.0 29.4%
350.0 250.0 71.4% 100.0 28.6%
360.0 260.0 72.2% 100.0 27.8%
370.0 270.0 73.0% 100.0 27.0%
380.0 280.0 73.7% 100.0 26.3%
390.0 290.0 74.4% 100.0 25.6%
400.0 300.0 75.0% 100.0 25.0%
DRAFT
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 37
JANUARY 17, 1996
and Hillsborough should be different from rural
areas.
Katz asked if the other instances that Willis
referred to had been addressed through the Board
of Adjustment. Willis responded that the others
had withdrawn their requests. She continued that
if the issue had not been one of a stream buffer,
the criteria for a variance would have been very
difficult to grant. The other cases would not
have met the criteria for a variance.
Katz agreed that a more comprehensive review of
the issue should occur, however, he did feel it
would be appropriate to address this issue now.
Allison agreed that this amendment seemed to be
more appropriate than having the applicant
present a variance request to the Board of
Adjustment.
VOTE: 7 in favor.
2 opposed (Brown - comments already made,
Rosemond - more comfortable with the Board of
Adjustment continuing with the variance
requests) .
a. Flexible Development/Open Space Proposal
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
(A copy of the Planning Staff's response to citizen
comments from the November 27, 1995 public hearing
is an attachment to these minutes on pages . )
Affordable housing applicability. The specific
issue is whether it is discriminatory to allow
developers of affordable housing to submit a
conventional subdivision plan only.
Collins stated that the provisions regarding
affordable housing, including the option to pursue a
conventional plan only, as well as density bonuses
for affordable housing, were in response to a
request by Commissioner Willhoit. Collins noted
that Commissioner Willhoit had emphasized that
affordable housing is a goal of Orange County.
Collins continued that he did not feel it is
discriminatory if it is recognized that there are
more goals than just the provision of open space.
He noted that previous Planning Board discussions
had indicated a desire to change the wording to
encourage applicants to submit the flexible
38 �.
development plan, but not require it if the singular
goal was the provision of affordable housing.
Collins stated that another issue is "what is
affordable housing?" The proposal as worded
allows those earning 100% of the median family
income to be considered as eligible for affordable
housing. It has been suggested that the State
median income rather than that of Orange County be
used. The HUD definition of low and moderate income
housing is 80% of median family income, and Collins
suggested that figure be used. Use of that figure
(80% of median) would mean that a family of four
could afford a house costing $100,000 or less.
The average house constructed in Orange County at
the present time ranges between $135,000 -$140,000.
In response to a question by Katz regarding median
income, Collins noted that HUD has a breakdown by
jurisdictions, including rural and urban Orange. The
figure being used is that those for rural Orange.
Brown expressed concern that the housing cost
figure quoted by Collins only included the
structure, not the land. Brown continued, asking
the value of mobile homes and double wides in the
County. Collins responded $38,000 - $40,000. She
noted this seemed to be considered affordable.
Collins continued that Farmers Home Administration
housing costs would range from $80,000 to $100,000.
Katz asked if the Board of Commissioners had defined
affordable housing. Collins responded that the
Commissioners generally use HUD criteria employed by
the County's Housing and Community Development
Department. He continued that Donna Dyer of Orange
Housing Corporation works with affordable housing
projects, and she follows the same criteria. Those
who Habitat works with would fall in the same
category or range.
Brown stated that she felt it was more reasonable to
consider $40,000 - $60,000, including the cost of
the land, as affordable housing. She suggested that
additions be made to this section in the Flexible
Development proposal to address the other types of
housing that qualify as affordable housing.
This would better define the issue of affordable
housing.
Allison agreed that he felt the figures noted by
Brown were more in line with affordable housing.
Waddell noted that the 80% figure from HUD was the
39
most recent he had heard relating to affordable
housing. He continued that this document may not be
the right place to further define the issue of
affordable housing.
Katz stated that he felt it is important how
affordable housing is defined and if the desire is
to encourage other levels of affordable housing, it
should be stated. Otherwise, there would be no
possibility of getting it.
Barrows stated that she felt everyone should present
a flexible development plan as well as a
conventional plan.
Brown agreed with Barrows. She emphasized again
that all levels of affordable housing should be
supported and encouraged by Orange County.
Jobsis stated that if the goal is to encourage
affordable housing, efforts should be made
to reduce the cost of providing that housing.
Rosemond agreed with Barrows, noting that the issue
is whether to submit one or two plans and asked the
additional expense of a second plan. Collins asked
surveyor, Steve Yuhasz, the cost of submitting a
concept plan. Yuhasz responded that for a 10 to 15
lot subdivision, the cost would be approximately
$1,000. The addition of a second plan would
increase the overall cost of plan preparation by
75%.
MOTION: Katz moved that presentation of two plans be
mandatory. Seconded by Brown.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
2 opposed (Walters - felt that, if the intent is to
provide affordable housing, even an extra $100 per
lot is too much; Waddell - felt the need to help
Habitat and others working on affordable housing
rather than increasing the burden) .
Katz stated that he felt there was as much potential
to reduce the cost as to increase it particularly
with the provision for density bonuses.
Groundwater resources - quantity and quality. The
specific issue is whether cluster lots will be
subject to well failures because of the number and
proximity of wells.
Collins stated that a study of groundwater resources
of Orange County is in process, jointly funded and
40
undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey. The study
is scheduled for completion by the end of the year.
Until the study is completed, there is no definitive
data. However, the Environmental Health Division
Staff has indicated that when current standards
governing separation of wells from homes, septic
systems, property lines, and other wells are met,
few problems associated with well failures have been
encountered. Where such situations have occurred,
they have resulted from failing septic systems.
Brown expressed concern that there was no way to
determine problems such as wells going dry. She
noted that "we really don't know what our
groundwater situation is" . Stancil responded that
information by watershed would be determined, but he
did not know whether it could be determined by
subdivision lots. Brown continued, expressing
concern that the groundwater usage is not known.
She stated that her concern was, with such a dense
concentration of wells being proposed, who would be
responsible if the water supply fails and who would
provide water. Collins responded that the Utilities
Service Area Task Force is working on this issue to
define service areas. It is hoped that the report
will be completed this year.
Walters responded to the concern voiced by Brown
regarding wells going dry. She noted that a permit
is required by Environmental Health before drilling
another well and Stancil noted that a permit is also
required for abandoning a well.
Jobsis stated that she has never been an automatic
supporter of open space because of clustering. She
noted also, that she does not have as much concern
as others do regarding the traditional method of
development of homes in Orange County. She noted
also that she felt clustering would create more
problems with wells and septic tanks.
Price asked if it would be incumbent upon the
developer to verify water supply. Collins responded
that subdivision lots can be platted and recorded.
The availability of sufficient water is determined
lot by lot. If a well permit cannot be obtained,
then there can be no building on the lot.
Price asked for clarification for clustering and
whether an individual property owner or the
developer would be responsible for wells. Waddell
emphasized that availability of a well site must be
determined prior to issuance of a building permit.
Discussion indicated that the Planning Board must be
41
kept informed of any information provided by the
groundwater study in order to address this concern.
Community sewage disposal systems. The specific
issue is whether community sewage disposal systems
should be allowed, given problems encountered with
such systems in the past.
Collins stated that a monitoring and maintenance
program for community systems has been approved by
the Board of Health and the Board of Commissioners.
The provisions for financial security to adequately
maintain the system and correct any problems have
not been completed. These provisions are to be
prepared by the County Attorney and will require a
significant time commitment. It may not be possible
to use community systems until the County Attorney
completes the work on these provisions.
Katz asked if the issue is whether recognition of
community systems is explicitly in the Flexible
Development proposal. Collins responded that
community disposals systems are advocated by Randall
Arendt and other open space proponents because they
will allow cluster development and provide open
space. Such systems are expensive and a financial
analysis must be done to determine whether the
System will pay for itself. If there are acceptable
standards at the State and local level to govern
design, construction, and maintenance and adequate
provisions are made for financial security, there
should be no problem with such a system.
Katz asked if those provisions should be a part of
the Flexible Development proposal. Collins responded
that the use of community systems involved decisions
ay the Board of Health and the Board of
Commissioners. The issue of allowing such systems is
not a Flexible Development issue but one which
applies to all development.
Brown asked about the timeframe for completion of
the provisions by the County Attorney. Collins
responded that while it could take a substantial
amount of time, the Commissioners could request that
the Attorney "speed up the process" so the financial
security issue could settled.
Rosemond expressed concern that the yield plan is
not addressed with regard to clustering. Collins
responded that one of the provisions does require a
yield plan.
Price expressed concern again with responsibility.
42
Collins responded by emphasizing that what is being
discussed is a concept plan. Once a concept plan is
approved, then work begins on all of the concerns
and issues that have been discussed. All of the
issues must be addressed when the preliminary plan
is presented. Then, prior to issuance of building
permits, the community system has to be engineered
and constructed. A community well system must meet
the same requirement; it must be constructed and
proven. Price asked about the same protocol for
individual wells. Collins responded it is too cost
prohibitive to require a developer to drill every
proposed lot to determine adequate water supply.
Collins noted that there have been few problems with
individual wells. Any problems are usually solved by
recombining lots, changing lot layouts, etc.
MOTION: Jobsis moved that the Planning Board recommend to
the Board of Commissioners that they allow community
sewage disposal systems and that efforts to complete
the financial security proposals be increased.
Seconded by Allison.
Katz suggested an amendment clarifying that the
community systems be allowed to provide open space
development. The amendment was accepted by the first
and second to the motion.
Brown stated that she would prefer not to accept the
community systems until the safeguards are in place.
Rosemond expressed concern that there was no
reference to the yield plan. Waddell responded that
the yield plan is addressed in the provisions.
Collins offered the following: The Planning Board
is generally supportive of the idea of using
community disposal systems to encourage open space
developments. However, the Board has a specific
concern about the lack of provisions related to
assuring the financial security of such systems and
asks that the Staff deal with those issues as soon
as possible. Also, the yield plan is a determining
factor in terms of how many units or house lots
could be served.
The revised wording by Collins was accepted by the
first and second to the motion.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Higher administrative costs. The specific issue is
whether the adoption of the Flexible Development
provisions will require additional staff and whether
43
developers will incur additional cost to adhere to
the standards.
Collins stated that there will be some additional
cost to the applicant in terms of preparing two
concept plans. The provisions have been drafted in
an attempt to keep these costs to a minimum. Staff
will also work with applicants in providing site
information and developing concept plans in an
effort to eliminate and/or reduce plan revisions. No
additional staff will be needed, however, some
reorganization within the Planning Department may be
necessary to provide "hands-on" assistance to
applicants. There will be additional cost for GIS
hardware through which to develop/maintain a
resource database to benefit staff, landowners, and
developers. This has been addressed through the
Capital Improvement Program and would involve a one-
time expense. Waddell clarified that the increase
to developers would be an on-going expense. Collins
agreed, but, indicated that the Staff will be
working with the developer to keep that cost as low
as possible.
Rosemond noted that the Planning Board had discussed
an up-front educational program on flexible
development and a tracking/monitoring program over
the next 2-5 years and asked if that was built into
the provisions. Collins responded that a tentative
schedule had been prepared (an attachment to these
minutes on pages ) which includes educational
workshops. In regard to tracking and monitoring,
everyone will be involved in that process.
Price expressed concern with the impacts on GIS.
Collins responded that the only impact of flexible
development on GIS is time. The cost of equipment
will simply occur sooner than later. Price also
asked about Planning Board time involved in
reviewing flexible development projects. Collins
responded that he did not feel it would take any
more time than it already does for subdivision
applications.
Jobsis asked for Collins' response to Mr. Yuhasz's
comment of an increase of 75% in plan preparation.
Collins responded that Mr. Yuhasz is very concise in
his concept plans. Collins indicated that he felt in
a large development, the cost could be much less.
This would be the area where GIS could provide
savings to landowners and developers.
Katz asked if the yield plan is a conventional
subdivision plan. Collins responded that what a
44
yield plan tells is how many building sites are on a
piece of land. It is the basis for preparing a
conventional plan. Then, an open space plan is
developed, indicating how open space is preserved
with smaller lots. Collins noted this is the method
used by Randall Arendt.
Waddell indicated that a motion was not needed
noting that the Board recognizes the additional cost
in regard to GIS.
Collins clarified the concept of a yield plan,
stating that the number of perc sites located on a
property is the "yield" . A conventional plan simply
draws the lot lines around the location of the perc
sites. The yield plan is not a new concept, it is
used to define the carrying capacity of the land.
Lee Rafalow, from the audience, stated that the
yield plan was to be based on GIS, not on actual
site testing. Collins responded that what was being
discussed for flexible development, in the terms of
a yield plan, is no different than it is for
conventional development. Collins continued that
what is being considered is a concept plan, and
actual verification of perc sites by Environmental
Health occurs at preliminary plan stage.
Mr. Rafalow continued that there is a built-in
assumption in the yield plan process in flexible
development that says "whatever GIS says, is what it
is" . Collins emphasized again that we are dealing
with the concept stage. The actual yield plan is
determined by Environmental Health at the
preliminary plan stage. He noted that if the
Planning Board wished to do so, it could require
that a certain number of lots be perked at the
concept stage. However, he felt this was an
unnecessary expense for the owner/developer.
Rosemond noted confusion between yield plan and
allowable density. Collins responded that will
always be an issue. it is assumed that a developer
or landowner is allowed the density provided by the
zoning, but that is not realistic. Rosemond
continued, noting confusion with yield plan
and buildable land.
Brown asked about the density of Piney Mountain
Subdivision, and Collins responded one unit per two
acres. Brown stated that subdivision was a good
example of how the community is not based on a yield
plan. Collins responded that under flexible
development provisions, a yield plan must be done
based on a conventional plan.
45
Discussion continued regarding the yield plan being
based on GIS and nothing else. Waddell and Collins
emphasized again that, prior to preliminary plan
approval, actual perc sites must be located and
approved.
MOTION: Brown moved that the issue of carrying capacity of
the land be addressed when proposing community
sewage disposal systems and not rely entirely on GIS
at the concept plan stage.
Motion failed for lack of second.
Rosemond suggested that enough time be allowed to
determine the accuracy of GIS.
Jobsis indicated that she felt there has been an
attempt to give some benefit to those willing to do
open space development. She felt that too many
restrictions would wipe out the purpose which is to
promote open space development.
Price clarified that a concept plan should be very
basic and she felt GIS information would be
sufficient. All of the other options, restrictions
and/or requirements should be addressed at
preliminary plan stage.
Walters stated that she felt the soil survey
information used by GIS is current and has been
updated as necessary.
Price stated that placing a lot of restrictions at
the concept plan stage would encourage conventional
development rather than open space development.
Collins indicated that, if the County wishes to
encourage open space development, efforts must be
made to keep front-end costs as low as possible.
However, if the Board wants to have a percentage, or
all, of the lots perked at concept plan stage, then
make it a requirement.
MOTION: Jobsis moved to leave this provision as stated.
Seconded by Barrows.
Katz recommended an amendment to continually
evaluate the use of soil survey data and the effect
on producing yield plans. The amendment was
accepted by the first and second to the motion.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
2 opposed (Brown, Price)
46
Brown left the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Interdepartmental coordination/communication. The
specific issue is how to insure that adequate
communication between County departments is
established so that approvals by one department are
not held up by the requirements of another.
Collins noted that this comment was made by Nick
Tennyson of the Homebuilders Association. The
comment refers specifically to Planning and
Environmental Health.
Discussions with Ron Holdway, Environmental Health
Supervisor, had indicated this issue has been
resolved. Efforts toward a more formal development
review process with Holdway's staff are to be
proposed.
Collins noted that "public information meetings" are
not public hearings. They are for the benefit of
developers, property owners, and adjacent property
owners. Such meetings must be used to voice concerns
and address those concerns prior to presentation of
plans to the Planning Board.
Barrows asked if some of the meetings would be
disorderly. Collins responded that, in some cases,
the lines have already been drawn prior to the
meeting. The public information meeting is to occur
immediately after the application is presented so
the developer will know the concerns and issues up
front.
Collins noted that, if there is already animosity in
a community, there is nothing that the Staff or
developer can do or say that will address that.
Development plan exceptions. The specific issue is
whether allowing a developer to submit only a
Flexible Development plan is discriminatory.
Collins indicated he did not feel it is
discriminatory, but, rather an incentive.
Rural Buffer applicability. The specific issue is
whether land within the Rural Buffer should be
subject to the Flexible Development provisions.
The Rural Buffer is located in the Orange County-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Area. When the
Rural Character Strategies for the Rural Buffer were
prepared, a joint public hearing was held with
Chapel Hill and Carrboro to provide an opportunity
47
for review/comment consistent with the Joint
Planning Agreement. Application of the Flexible
Development provisions within the Rural Buffer has
not been proposed so that a similar process might be
undertaken with the two municipalities.
Katz asked if there was anything in the Joint
Planning Agreement that would preclude open space
development. Collins responded that it could be
done under the current cluster provisions.
Open space percentage. The specific issue is that
the percentage of open space required (e.g. ,33%) is
too low.
Collins reviewed the suggested alternatives (a copy
an attachment to these minutes on page ) .
Barrows noted that public hearing comment seemed to
indicate a desire for a higher percentage than 33%.
Allison asked how the 33% open space requirement
applied to buildable land compares to the Carrboro
Plan. Collins responded by reviewing the Comparison
of Open Space Percentage Standards (an attachment to
these minutes on page ) .
Rosemond referred to a letter from Bob Hall in the
agenda attachments which indicates the carrying
capacity of land in Orange County is about one unit
to two acres. Thus, requiring 33% is not much
progress. If density bonuses are added and multi-lot
sewage systems are allowed, density could be
increased beyond the current standards. She asked
for discussion of this concern noting that if the
assumptions are correct, this would address her
greatest fear.
Collins commented that some of these issues were-
discussed by the Planning Board on October 10, 1995.
He assured the Board that, if the decision is 50% of
buildable area, not one developer will pursue an
open space plan. All developers will choose a
conventional plan except those who are truly
altruistic. Collins continued that if the Board
wants 50%, then the issue of mandatory versus option
must be considered. He noted that developers and
surveyors have indicated to him that the only way to
achieve 50% of buildable
area then, it must be mandatory.
Waddell noted that, while a lot of progress was not
made, the Board had been given much information to
consider.
48
It was determined that the January 22 agenda was
already full. Chair asked that an item to determine
the process for completing review and discussion of
flexible development be added to that agenda.
Meeting adjourned 10:30 p.m.
Prepared By
Approved By
Date
49
DRAFT
SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 7, 1996
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joan Jobsis (Chair) , Leo Allison, Karen Barrows,
Margaret Brown, H. Paul Hoecke, Cheryl Howie,
Arnie Katz, Larry Reid, Cherie Rosemond, Bill
Waddell, Elizabeth Walters.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Renee Price - excused.
STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, David Stancil, Joanna Bradshaw.
AGENDA ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEM #3: PUBLIC CHARGE
AGENDA ITEM #4: CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair thanked Board members for attending an extra
meeting. She noted that attachments to the agenda
materials included Planning Board discussion from
October 10. and draft minutes from the Long Range
Planning Board meeting January 17, 1996.
AGENDA ITEM #5: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING - 11/27/95
a. Flexible Development/Open Space Proposal
Chair noted that there had already been considerable
discussion and debate on every issue. She continued,
that unless there was some specific need for Staff
presentation on any of the issues, such as a major
change, she would prefer to discuss each issue and
hopefully vote on a recommendation for the Board of
Commissioners. She noted that recommendations,
votes, along with Planning Board comments and
discussion, will be forwarded to the Board of
Commissioners.
Collins provided a summary of issues on which
Planning Board recommendations have been made.
Chair quickly reviewed the summary noting that there
were eight issues which remain to be discussed.
Walters made the following statement:
50
Flexible development does not affect the Chapel
Hill, Hillsborough, Carrboro area or the Rural
Buffer. It affects the rest of the rural part of
the County exclusive of the Rural Buffer. The
minutes of the last public hearing indicate that
only one or two people in the affected area attended
the public hearing. When Walters asked residents
why they did not attend the hearing, the response
was, "Why should we bother, they didn't pay
attention to us before, they're not going to pay
attention to us again. " Walters continued that the
previous public hearing on 2-acre minimum lot size
and 50% mandatory open space, the majority of the
people were opposed to 50% open space. One comment
made to Walters was, "We don't go to Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, or Hillsborough and tell them how to run
their area, we very much resent people from the
municipalities and areas not affected telling us how
to run our section of the county. She noted that,
while she did not always agree with those residents,
she felt that some consideration should be given to
the rural residents and landowners opinions. She
continued that none were in favor of 50% open space.
She felt that the Planning Board should start with
open space gradually. If that does not work, then
there could be a gradual increase.
Allison stated that he felt Issue #2 - Exclusion of
unbuildable land - should be considered before Issue
#1 - Open space percentage. The decision regarding
the percentage of open space would be greatly
affected by the decision of whether to exclude
unbuildable land or whether it would be a percentage
of the entire tract.
Rosemond commented that her understanding of this
process is to try and preserve rural character and
asked that Board members remember this. She
continued that if that is really the mission, there
are many strategies to achieve that, but preserving
rural character is fundamentally what it is about.
By consensus, the Board agreed that it made more
sense to discuss Issue #2 first.
2. Exclusion of unbuildable land. The specific issue
is whether floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes
should be counted as open space because they are
considered unbuildable. The alternative suggested is
to apply the required open space percentage after
subtracting such features from the total site area.
Howie stated that she felt the open space percentage
should be calculated on the total tract site/size.
51
It would be very cost prohibitive to keep reducing
the total tract size. The floodplains, wetlands,
steep slopes, etc. are automatically preserved
because of the nature of that area. To exclude any
more, it does preserve rural character, but it
"flogs in the face of affordable housing" , which is
also a goal of Orange County Board of Commissioners.
She continued that Orange County is already one of
the more expensive places to buy land.
Brown asked for clarification that wetlands and
steep slopes are already considered "set aside" .
Stancil responded that there is a category in the
Land Use Plan, Resource Protection Areas, which
identifies those and signifies them as important
areas. They include 100-Year Floodplains, areas of
steep slopes and alluvial soils. Those areas are
already protected through the category, Resource
Protection Areas. Brown continued, that if they are
excluded, because they cannot be built on anyway, it
would seem that we should be dealing with whatever
percentage of buildable area. Stancil referred to a
table in a memo from Collins titled Comparison of
Open Space Percentage Standards. He noted that the
table illustrates how a 100-acre tract with
different types of unbuildable area might function
in some of the options. Provision of a certain
percentage of open space will actually yield more
than that percentage. For example, a required 33%
subtracting out the unbuildable land could result in
67% open space requirement.
Rosemond noted that it could also go the other way.
If someone has 33% unbuildable land there would be
the possibility of density bonuses on land that,
under conventional methods, would get no bonuses.
That would provide rewards for greater density.
Stancil responded that if they were in the
transition areas or transit corridors that might be
a possibility. Rosemond emphasized, depending on
the site, it could go either way.
Brown noted that there would then be no open space
applicable in the flexible development plan to the
rest of the land because it would already be taken
up. Stancil responded that if there were 33% primary
open space, then the requirement would be satisfied.
Brown continued that the development would then be
under no flexible development plan providing open
space. Stancil responded that it would depend on how
the Board wishes to value unbuildable land. In the
Plan it is given a value by stating that it is a
Resource Protection Area; it is recognized as a
valuable resource. Brown responded that this would
52
seem as if no progress is being made in the plan.
Nothing is being achieved.
Waddell stated that in previous discussions he had
agreed with Howie that the open space should be a
percentage of the total tract size. He noted
agreement that unbuildable areas should be excluded
before calculating the open space requirement and
gave the following reasons: if we wish to protect
and preserve agricultural activities in Orange
County, then there should be areas where that would
be practiced. One of those would be open fields and
those cannot exist on steep slopes nor wetlands. We
also want to preserve the woodlands. Therefore, he
felt the areas that are unbuildable be excluded
prior to computing the percentage of open space.
Katz stated that he felt the issue was what people
would be rewarded for. The whole point is creating a
series of incentives that are worth money to people
so that they will provide open space development.
He continued that it seems we are going to reward
people for what they are already required to do in
the current ordinances. He felt that there was no
logic in that. It must go beyond what is already
required. If we are satisfied that the status quo
is already preserving sufficient open space and
rural character, then why not leave it as it already
is. The incentives should go beyond the current
regulations.
Barrows noted that Randall Arendt's comments on the
plan already in place indicated many times that
unbuildable land should be excluded. She asked
whether it was wise to ignore those statements by
Arendt.
Jobsis stated that she felt excluding unbuildable
land would make the process so costly that the
results the Board would like to see would not be
achieved which is to encourage landowners to buy
into the idea of open space. She felt it would
drive people away. She continued that even though
the wetlands and steep slopes are already somewhat
protected, they are as worthy of being protected and
called open space as any farm tract or wooded areas.
Some prefer wetlands as wildlife habitat, some
prefer open fields and others prefer wooded areas.It
is all open space that is to be protected. She noted
her greatest concern was in creating something so
difficult to work with that people will be driven
away from the idea of providing open space.
Reid agreed with Jobsis. He noted that he felt the
wetlands already created problems for landowners.
53
He felt that 25 to 33% was a workable percentage and
still preserve what he felt is rural character. He
noted that previous hearings had indicated the rural
landowners considered 33% too stringent. He noted
that the maps that have been prepared indicate there
are large amounts of wet areas and steep slopes in
Orange County. He continued that, in totality, the
amount of buildable space, as it stands now, in
comparison to what would be open space, as the rules
are now, the proportions set fine in his mind. Until
such time as someone presents numbers that prove the
buildable land, by current guidelines, outweigh the
33% to the point that it would push it back to 10%,
then he could understand increasing the percentage
and including the unbuildable land. However, if the
unbuildable land is included, then you are driving
the cost of buildable land higher. He felt this
would take away any opportunity to provide
affordable housing in rural areas.
Rosemond, in response to comments by Jobsis, stated
that she did not see the issue of buildable or
unbuildable land choice as valuing or not valuing
the land. She felt there is value to wetlands and
steep slopes and it does go a long way in preserving
rural character. Her concern in this particular
issue is that people will be rewarded with density
bonuses for preserving open space and she felt
bonuses should be granted for areas that could not
be built on anyway.
Jobsis asked Staff if density bonuses are automatic
once the 33% is achieved or, if there are other
conditions. Stancil responded that there are other
conditions. Density bonuses can only be permitted
in transition areas, areas that are designated for
water/sewer service, and areas within 3/4 mile of
transit stops or 1/2 mile of transit corridors.
Basically, it is limited very closely to I-85
corridor with a few watershed areas removed. Stancil
emphasized again that these areas are the only ones
where density bonuses are permitted. Stancil
clarified that density bonuses for affordable
housing also are only permitted in these same areas.
Lee Rafalow noted that the designated areas for
water/sewer service referred to by Stancil are part
of a long range plan for Hillsborough. The Town of
Hillsborough has a long range plan to cover a
significant portion of northern Orange County. He
continued that OWASA has a long range plan to cover
a significant portion of southern Orange County.
Stancil stated that the Water/Sewer Boundary Task
Force is continuing to meet to resolve some of those
54
issues. There has been a draft map identified which
would identify Hillsborough service area and OWASA
service area. That has been adopted on a tentative
basis until they resolve some other objectives.
Katz continued with the concern regarding affordable
housing as expressed by Reid. He noted that the
number of units that could be built is based on a
yield plan based on the underlying zoning. The
percentage of required open space is irrelevant to
that. It limits where the units can be placed, but
it does not limit the number of units and therefore
it shouldn't have any impact on the cost of each of
those units. In fact, it would tenor toward making
them more affordable in some ways because it is
going to cut down on road and infrastructure
development costs. He noted a lack of evidence that
increasing the amount of required open space will
increase the cost of a house.
Reid responded that once you get out of the
transition areas, out of the Rural Buffer, the
density bonuses does not apply. He continued that
in the rural areas, the majority of the land is
still in ownership of families who will be applying
in the future for subdivisions to provide housing
for family members. Katz stated that this would not
have any impact on the cost of the unit. Reid
responded that it is not only the cost of the unit.
It also involves the cost of acquiring land. Katz
responded that the amount of land being purchased is
the same; the only difference is how the units would
be placed on the tract.
Jobsis stated that if 33% of the land is already in
wetlands and must be preserved, and an additional
33% is required, that reduces the buildable acreage
to 34%.
Waddell clarified that based on the yield plan with
conventional development, there would be a certain
number of houses that could be built on a tract of
land. If the applicant chose to make an open space
development, he would still be permitted the same
number of houses that he would be permitted with a
conventional development. It would not be fewer
houses, but, smaller lots. He felt that would make
them less expensive.
Vic Knight, developer, stated that because of the
limited locations available for density bonuses,
those bonuses could only be achieved if water and
sewer are extendable to those sites. Because of the
soil constraints in most of Orange County, density
55
bonuses could only be achieved with public water and
sewer. For every percent that the open space is
increased, it will drive up the end cost for the
consumer.
Katz noted again that he did not understand the
comment regarding increased cost if there is no
increase in the number of units. Mr. Knight
responded that the nature of soil conditions can
create costly complications for sewage disposal
systems as much as $5,000 - $6,000. Katz responded
that he could accept that there are and could be
situations where that would be true but there are
also situations where it would not be true.
Howie stated that the transition areas are clearly
defined because those have also been identified as
economic development areas. She stated that the
Planning Board is charged with rural character
preservation and also with representing the
landowners. These landowners don't seem to be the
ones who come to public hearings and let their voice
be heard. She suggested that there be two flexible
development plans with one percentage in the
transition areas and another in the rural areas.
Then it could be determined if, outside the
transition areas, whether it includes the total
tract or just the buildable portion of the tract.
She continued that the transition areas are not
going to preserve the rural character or Orange
County. She noted that the County does not seem to
attract commercial businesses except in those
particular areas. It would almost be beneficial to
encourage some density bonuses in the transition
areas if you were a developer. Perhaps these should
be reviewed/studied separately.
Jobsis noted that she felt it was already separated
out since density bonuses only apply in those areas.
Howie responded that she was referring to the
percentages.
Brown indicated this was an interesting idea.
However, she could not support the idea until water
and sewer districts are defined. Howie responded
that she felt it would all eventually prove itself
out. Wherever the water lines would be placed,
development would come.
Reid asked what the Board has in mind for the rural
areas where density bonuses do not apply. He felt
that what was explained for the transit areas will
happen almost automatically. Howie responded that
she felt affordable housing would not occur in the
56
rural areas of the county. Reid indicated
disagreement noting that affordable housing as
described in the transition areas would fall under
the jurisdiction of the municipalities very quickly
so that affordable housing would then fall in the
range of $120,000 to $180,000 and he did not feel
that could be considered affordable housing. He
felt that a house in the rural area would come more
in the range of $120,000. Affordable housing is
most needed for families and he felt it more likely
that would occur in rural areas rather than the
transition areas.
Jobsis alerted the Board that an hour had already be
spent on this one issue and encouraged them to stay
focused in order to consider a motion.
NOTION: Allison moved to include the unbuildable land when
making a decision to determine the percentage of
open space. Seconded by Howie.
VOTE: 7 in favor.
4 opposed.
1. Open space percentage. The specific issue is
whether the percentage of open space required
(e.g. ,33%) is too low.
Katz asked if Staff had figures of what the current
open space in subdivisions that have been approved
in the last year. Collins responded that all of the
subdivisions approved between 1987-1994 had been
surveyed and. Stancil has updated the report for
1995. The amount of open space is so small that it
may as well be considered zilch. It has only been
during the last six months that there has been any
attempt to address the open space issue through
methods already permitted in current ordinances.
However, there have been no cluster developments
presented.
Rosemond stated that, particularly in the face of
the motion just made and passed, 33% is a step
backwards in preserving rural character. She noted
that had been supported by Randall Arendt and
numerous people in the public hearings and 50% has
been the percentage heard time and time again.
Brown asked about the zilch number and Reid asked
where the statistics came from. Stancil responded to
the question of where the statistics came from
noting that Staff did research on all major and
minor subdivisions and exempt plats from 1987 - 1994
for another project in 1994 to determine the average
57
lot size. He continued that with very few
exceptions, there have been no subdivisions with
designated open space.
Brown asked if the steep slopes and wetlands were
taken out and Stancil responded no.
Reid asked if that included transition areas.
Stancil responded that it included everything in the
County's jurisdiction.
Brown stated that the exclusion of unbuildable land
and the "zilch" figure do not really reflect what is
being discussed. Stancil responded that the open
space determined from the survey was only that
designated on the plats as open space.
Jobsis stated that the County residents have
attended many public hearings, TAC meetings,
Planning Board and Board of Commissioners' meetings
and have heard presentations and discussions many
times. The rural residents have indicated many, many
times that they feel that they have been the
preservers of the open space and do not want the
people from the towns telling them that they
don't know how to preserve open space and being
forced to do so by the government so that the people
from the towns can ride out and look at the land.
They value the land and have maintained what is
beautiful about it much more than those who live in
towns have done. They have been out in force for
many years saying that they want the minimum
restrictions; that they basically believe in a
beautiful countryside and they want to maintain a
beautiful countryside. They do not think that the
only- way to do that is by cluster developments and
open space as defined by the County, but, they are
willing to consider that as an option not a mandate
and would like to keep the percentages around 33%.
Jobsis continued that the plan that came from the
latest public hearing indicated that and so, the
rural residents did not feel compelled to come out
in force. She felt that they had spoken loud and
clear and it would not be wise to assume that they
have no opinion on these issues; they have a very
strong opinion.
Bob Strayhorn, rural resident and farmer, spoke from
the audience in appreciation of the comments made by
Jobsis noting that she was correct in her belief of
how the rural community felt and how it had spoken.
Barrows, representing Little River Township, stated
that she had heard some of the same statements as
58
Jobsis. However, she had also heard some ambiguity.
There are people in the township who don't want the
development that is coming in, they prefer to keep
the area as it was. They say that on one hand and on
the other do not want many restrictions. She felt it
was simplistic to say that there is only one voice
from rural Orange County and it is also simplistic
to say that the same person knows what they want.
They want it the way it has always been and they
also want to be able to sell it and have no
restrictions. Nobody is going to have everything
they want. The issue is how does the Planning Board
mesh all of this together and make it look like a
place where their desendents want to continue to
live.
Hoecke stated that he felt there must be a
compromise position and he saw 33% as such a
compromise. He continued that when the 33% is
applied to an area with 100% buildable area, there
will be considerable more open space than there is
at the present time. He felt that 33% will be more
acceptable and more appealing to the business
community who will be developing that land.
Otherwise, they will be driven away, or, into high
priced development. While not "wedded" to 33%,
either that figure, or something very near it should
be the percentage used.
Waddell stated that he was torn toward making the
percentage higher, particularly when offering
incentives. However, he also felt the Board must
make it start somewhere. If it is set too high,
the risk will be that it will never happen. If it is
determined, after some experience, that it is too
low, the Commissioners can increase the number. We
should start low, so that, at least we start.
Barrows agreed that there must be a starting point
and felt this would a good one to make people aware
of the options and, hopefully they will choose open
space development.
MOTION: Reid moved to accept 33% as the minimum open space
requirement. Seconded by Waddell.
Lee Rafalow, from the audience, stated that there is
a point of order and that is whether or not this
achieves the goals. He felt that leaving that item
until the end of the meeting was not in order.
He continued that it has already been stated that
the objective is the preservation of rural
character and he felt this does not meet that
59
objective. He stated that the County has hired a
world class expert to try and tell what must be done
to achieve that objective. The growth pressures in
the Triangle Area at this time are tremendous and to
start out erring on the side of not achieving the
objectives means you will not achieve those
objectives. What you will do will be to establish a
precedent stating that open space is 33% including
whatever primary conservation areas there are. The
results will be urban sprawl and in three years it
will be too late to remedy the situation. There is
conflicting information about the open space that
already exists. He encouraged the Board to take a
stand and 33% is not it.
Katz stated he would have to vote against the motion
in good conscience because he did not believe it was
going to have any positive effect and the only
purpose of passing this would be to "pat ourselves
on the back and say we passed Flexible Development" .
Howie stated that she felt "the longer we wait, the
more we err" . She continued that the project of
University Station has now come in and been approved
in pieces and no open space. This will keep
happening. If this Board recommends to the
Commissioners and they approve something more than
the public will accept, nothing will be
accomplished. She continued that she would rather
have 33% and know that was acceptable. To go with
too much and have it rejected will waste another
year and allow for more urban sprawl to occur.
Hoecke stated that "If the time to act is now, then
33% will give us more open space than we have now
or will have under current regulations" .
Collins suggested that if the Planning Board
approves 33%, they may wish to include a
recommendation for an annual report. This would
provide for evaluation every year. If, at the end of
the first year, the Planning Board doesn't feel that
it has worked, then tell the Board of Commissioners.
Reid stated that he felt Issue #3 would address the
concern of an annual report.
VOTE: 7 in favor.
4 opposed.
MOTION: Barrows moved that an annual report be prepared by
the Planning Staff for reassessment of the entire
open space/flexible development proposal. Seconded
by Reid.
60
Katz expressed concern that the Planning Board is
setting up an evaluation procedure but is not
providing the criteria for the evaluation. He felt
it would be useless exercise.
Collins noted that he had discussed this concern
with Roscoe Reeve Insko and that he is unable to
provide the benchmark at this time. Once Land
Records completes the property mapping, it will be
possible to determine the benchmark. That may occur
as soon as within the next two months. He continued
that he felt everyone, the development community as
well as the Planning Board, Commissioners and
general public would be in favor of an annual
report.
Walters agreed that it should be evaluated. She felt
such a motion should be made once all of the issues
have been discussed and voted on so that it is clear
that the evaluation includes every issue.
Stancil pointed out that there is language within
the Flexible Development document in each of the
goals that refers to an annual report to the Board
of Commissioners and the Planning Board evaluating
impacts.
VOTE: Unanimous.
3. Mandatory open space. The specific issue is
whether the provision of open space should be
voluntary or mandatory.
Waddell stated that there have been numerous
signatures on petitions to make open space voluntary
rather than mandatory. While there have been many
speakers in favor of a provision for mandatory and
an expert who stated that it works best if
mandatory, the people of Orange County made it very
clear they wanted it to be voluntary. They did not
like the idea of it being forced on them at all, but
if it is to be, they want it to be voluntary.
Rosemond stated that she has always felt that
mandatory has many negative connotations. However,
she indicated she was finding it more acceptable.
The reason for that is that, if the objective is
preserving rural character, the votes tonight have
left it so watered down that the County will lose a
real window of opportunity even waiting a year to
evaluate. She continued expressing concern that if
development continues as it has in the past ten
years, there will be no change, only more of the
same. She felt the Board was falling far short of
61
the mark of preserving rural character. She added
that she felt developers and landowners can be
creative enough to it work.
Brown stated that she had always felt that the
open space requirement should be mandatory. She also
felt it should be a phased in program with a very
significant educational process to help developers
understand how to re-design development for open
space protection. She noted that she would like for
the end result to be mandatory. An education process
is very important for all concerned; developers,
Board members and Staff. She also noted that there
would not be much results unless people understand
how to do it. It will take time for everyone to
understand the concept of open space.
Walters reminded the Planning Board that the
Agricultural Districts Advisory Board has been
working on many farmland preservation techniques.
The item that the Board is currently working on
is donation of conservation easements which allows
for some State and Federal inheritance tax benefits.
If the open space requirement is made mandatory, it
would totally eliminate any State and Federal tax
benefits.
Brown asked for clarification on the statement made
by Walters regarding the elimination of Federal and
State inheritance tax benefits. Waddell responded
that since open space is not mandatory at this
point, it is allowed by Federal and State Statutes
for an individual to deed open space rights to a
conservation group and receive tax benefits. Working
with individuals on such a project provided the
information that the Statutes are clear that a
mandatory open requirement would preclude those
benefits.
Lee Rafalow, from the audience, stated that unless
North Carolina has a specific statute on this issue,
the loss of benefits is incorrect. Collins
responded that there is a specific statute that
addresses the issue.
Reid asked for clarification of phased in mandatory
open space.
Hoecke asked if something was being discussed that
would be a part of the annual review anyway.
Jobsis stated that Orange County citizens have
spoken loud and clear in TAC meetings, in Rural
Character special work sessions, and previous public
62
hearings that the only way that this is reasonable
for them to try is if it is voluntary. If this comes
across as a mandatory decision by County Government
on the people of the county there will be a
tremendous reaction. Bob Strayhorn, from the
audience agreed noting that open space, if mandated,
would be completely changing the way of life that
rural people would want their families to live.
There are no objections to it being an option, but
it is not a way that rural people wish to live.
Katz agreed with Mr. Strayhorn that making open
space mandatory at this time would be a very
negative thing to do, but, he felt the suggestion
made by Brown regarding an education process should
be used. He felt that the County must provide a very
substantial technical assistance program for
landowners and developers or open space development
will not occur.
Jobsis agreed that education and technical
assistance could be provided to try and persuade
landowners and developers to try this type of
development, but the idea of mandatory would not
work.
Vic Knight, developer, spoke from the audience that
the landowners are the ones who control the sale of
land, not the developers. He continued that the way
to meet the goals and objectives is to create the
right set of incentives. Even though education is
provided, if there are not sufficient incentives to
get people, landowners and developers, to go in that
direction, it simply will not happen. He emphasized
that he felt this is the key to achieving the goal
desired by the Board.
MOTION: Reid moved that open space be voluntary rather than
mandatory. Seconded by Barrows.
Reid, referred to Issue #8 regarding goals, noted
that he felt through annual review of the items
being voted on tonight, the goals and objectives
would be met.
VOTE: 10 in favor.
1 opposed (Brown - without having in place, along
with this, some sort of educational process that
developers understand that this is not a punitive
or density reduction ordinance, that it is a
design difference, she did not feel that goals
and objectives would be achieved. )
4. Incentives vs. disincentives. The specific issue
63
is whether more disincentives should be added to
discourage conventional development and fewer
incentives provided to encourage more open space set
asides.
Rosemond asked that Mr. Knight comment more fully on
what he felt would be incentives for landowners and
developers. Mr. Knight responded that he felt the
overall concept of the proposal is good; a skeleton
that needs some meat to make it work. He used estate
lots as an example. Instead of mandating 4-acre
lots, he felt the objectives would be met with 4-
acre average lot size. These are the kinds of
incentives that would appeal to landowners and
developers. Developers are only going to invest
their money in an area where they can get a return
on it and there is a market for that product. He
felt there would be no problem with the educational
aspect. He noted that he did not feel that
landowners and developers are opposed to the concept
of the proposal at all. It has to make physical
sense; if it does not, they will not be interested
in making it happen.
Barrows stated that she would rather accentuate the
incentives rather than "piling on" more
disincentives. It is important that people see this
as a positive.
Katz asked if there are any disincentives currently
in the ordinance. Waddell responded that nothing
really changes for traditional subdivisions. The
incentives are to go the other way.
Jobsis asked about the disincentive/incentive
regarding private roads. Collins responded that
there are incentives in flexible development that
would allow more lots accessing private roads. .
Waddell noted that the only disincentive is the one
requiring two plans.
Katz noted that there could be a disincentive in
regard to density bonuses. There could be a mid-
point, where, if a plan goes below that point, the
applicant would be allowed less than the yield plan.
Brown asked that Collins review the incentives and
how they apply to each category. Collins responded
that there are incentives for each option. As an
example, in estate lots, the minimum required lot
width can be reduced to 100-feet from 130-feet, T-
turnarounds could be used instead of cul-de-sacs,
the minimum required lot frontage could be reduced
to not less than 20 feet for flag lots from 50 feet.
R
64
These are some of the specific things that
developers asked for.
Collins continued that some of the incentives are
the same for the conservation option. An additional
incentive for the conservation option is that public
and private streets rights-of-way may be included in
the calculation of lot size. That was also a
specific request from developers.
In terms of cluster development, you have the
maximum flexibility/incentives in terms of
modification of dimensional requirements, the
minimum lot area could be reduced by 65% but no
smaller than 5,000 square feet. The current cluster
provisions are 50%. Also, public and private
streets rights-of-way can be included in the
calculations. Minimum lot width requirements may be
reduced by 20%, but no less than 50-feet. Minimum
setbacks can be reduced by 25% but shall be no less
than 10-feet.
There is a different incentive for village
development and that is the allowance of more non-
residential uses. There is a ceiling percentage that
you cannot exceed the village proper.
For all the flexible development options, one of the
big provision is that the cutoff for private streets
goes to 50 lots (currently 25 lots) . However, there
are conditions.
Collins continued that density bonuses are not an
incentive. They are included to encourage more open
space, not to encourage people to do open space
either in the development or somewhere else.
Brown asked for clarification of providing oPen
space somewhere else. Collins responded that is the
issue of going offsite to provide open space. He
noted that issue was discussed at the public
hearing. He continued that the discussion the
Planning Board has had about this issue is whether
it should be within the same township. This is
included in the minutes in the agenda materials.
This was also the discussion regarding affordable
housing; whether or not that should be provided
within the same township.
Barrows asked about off-site septic systems. Collins
responded that is also an incentive but they are
sometimes incentives for different purposes. Not
necessarily an incentive to do open space, but to
allow the flexibility of doing open space
65
development. An example of this would be an area
that has 2-acre zoning and this would probably be a
watershed. There are real opportunities in such an
area to do 50% open space. If off-site systems
could be used, there could be half-acre lots which
could provide 75% open space. It is an incentive in
the sense that it gives the flexibility to design an
open space development that does, in fact preserve
more open space.
Mr. Knight stated that if the process that
developers must go through could be shortened that
is an incentive in itself. The next biggest expense
to developers is the road issue. He asked if the
private road justification and the Staff evaluation
of that justification would still be required.
Collins responded that if one of the flexible
development options is used and the 33% open space
is provided, and stay with the 50 lot cutoff, then
private roads are allowed. The plan would be the
justification, additional justification would not
be required.
Mr. Rafalow asked for clarification of the statement
regarding the purchase of land in one township and
using those development rights in another township
and whether it was a form of Transfer of Development
Rights. Collins responded with an example. If a
developer wanted to get 50 additional units in a
project in Hillsborough Township and a landowner in
Cedar Grove Township has 50 acres of qualifying
open space land he is willing to sell, then that has
to be dedicated or protected in some way as open
space and have a conservation easement recorded on
it. If a developer does that, then he would get
credit at one unit per acre and that credit could be
used in the project in Hillsborough Township.
Another way to get this same credit would be to
provide 50 more acres of open space than is required
on the same tract on which the project is located.
Mr. Rafalow stated that apparently he had missed
this and noted that the County must be very clear
and careful regarding the Transfer of Development
Rights. By allowing any place in the County to be a
sending or receiving area, you will be creating
areas around the County where there is no
development potential for the next fifty years.
However, you will be creating more suburban sprawl
in the core of the County instead of having
development that is preserving open space on site in
such a way that it preserves rural character
everywhere in the County. Collins emphasized that
there are designated receiving areas; transition
f
66
areas, water/sewer service districts and transit
lines.
Mr. Rafalow responded to be very careful about the
water and sewer service areas. Collins responded
that Stancil had already addressed that issue and
it is to be determined by the Utilities Service
Areas Task Force. Collins commented that the term
sprawl has many definitions. Any development option
that allows a developer or landowner to achieve the
same number of units that is allowed under
conventional development is sprawl. It is simply a
change in development pattern and mixing of some
open space with the sprawl. The impacts are the
same.
Mr. Strayhorn stated that he felt that there is
merit to a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
program. He noted that there is very little
agricultural land in the transition areas and he
felt this is an option that would allow for more
preservation of more agricultural land. There are
more positives than negatives to such a program if
the receiving areas are those that can provide water
and sewer services.
Rosemond noted that the comments regarding TDR raise
many more questions. She noted that she did not
recall voting on this concept as part of the
package. She would like more discussion on what she
saw as a very large issue. Stancil noted that this
issue was discussed at the October 10, 1995 meeting
and the Board determined to send those comments
forward and not take votes.
Jobsis noted that there would be more opportunities
to discuss some of these issues because the Board
would be reviewing and discussing the design manual.
She asked that the Board stick to this issue of
whether to have more disincentives.
MOTION: Katz moved to include both incentives and
disincentives. Seconded by Reid.
Brown stated that she felt the Board is dealing with
specific incentives and she had concerns with some
of them. One area of concern is conservation areas.
She felt that should be taken out because there is
no definition for conservation areas. Building can
occur in conservation areas.
Brown continued expressing concern with TDRs. That
is a whole separate issue. She also noted a very
serious problem with the undefined water and sewer
` 67
service areas. She felt that she was not sure the
Board could do what Katz wanted to do with his
motion because of. dealing with very specific things.
Waddell asked for clarification of 'the motion.
Katz stated that there is currently a proposal that
provides for a series of incentives. He believed
that, given the minimal requirements or level of
open space and the definition of open space, if the
Board wants substantial open space to happen, he
would like to see a series of incentives for making
it happen and a series of disincentives for not
making it happen. As an example, he suggested
reducing the yield plan for conventional development
and increasing it for open space development when
50% rather than 33% is met.
Waddell indicated he felt this would. put more burden
on landowners and developers should they choose to
do open space development. He felt that it had been
stated in public hearing that open space development
would not put more burden on developers and
landowners.
Rosemond stated that she felt there should be more
review and discussion on the specifics and she would
like to table this issue.
Jobsis stated that she could not support the motion
by Katz because she felt disincentives are another
form of mandatory and it would be viewed by rural
landowners as down zoning and taking their land
rights. They would see this as being done in a "back
door" manner rather than an "up front" manner.
In response to a question from Brown, Katz stated
that he felt the Board could do better in getting
developers and landowners to go the route of open
space development if incentives are added as more
open space than required is provided. He felt that
including disincentives would help to discourage the
current development pattern. He continued that there
has been broad dissatisfaction across the County
with the current development pattern and the purpose
of this whole exercise is to change that pattern.
Jobsis stated that the plan as presented to the
people has been to make it voluntary and this would
be viewed by the public as mandatory. Katz
disagreed noting that he felt it was still
voluntary.
Collins noted that the concerns expressed by Katz
4
o �
68
and Jobsis had been discussed by Staff. If the
Planning Board wants to take the approach
recommended by Katz that is your perogative.
However, if you do that, the whole' thing will have
to go back to public hearing. He noted that if it
goes back to public hearing, it will be very
different in that the rural property owners will be
expressing their concerns.
Barrows noted she understood the concerns presented
and was unsure how to mesh all of these together.
Jobsis responded that she felt the Board could move
-ahead on the concept of whether to include
disincentives or keep it as an incentive oriented
program. Another issue could be to reduce the number
of incentives. However, she did not feel that each
incentive should be debated at this point.
VOTE: 4 in favor.
7 opposed.
The motion failed.
MOTION: Walters moved to stay with the incentives as
presented at public hearing for at least the first
year. Seconded by Howie.
VOTE: 8 in favor.
3 opposed (Katz - reasons already stated, Brown -
specifically concerned with water and sewer issue
and creating TDRs without a clear definition, and no
definition of conservation easement and concern with
the yield plan, Rosemond - felt it was a mistake not
to vote on each incentive and disincentive) .
Reid added that the Planning Board should be very
specific about the incentives in order to address
the issue of meeting goals and objectives.
5. Village option. The specific issue is whether to
hold another public hearing on the Village option,
since it is complicated and has not received a lot
of attention.
Mr. Rafalow stated that he felt there had not been
sufficient education of the public on the village
option. There is very little understanding of the
option. He noted that a public hearing is not a
very educational process and felt another public
hearing was not the answer.
Brown expressed grave concerns with the village
option citing the Southern Village in Chapel Hill as
t
69
an example. She felt that the village option must -
be very definitely defined. She indicated it would
be preferable to have a Village Ordinance such as
that presented by Andre Duany.
Barrows agreed with Brown's concerns.
MOTION: Brown moved that the village option be pulled from
the flexible development proposal, to be elaborated
on and sent back to public hearing as soon as
possible. Seconded by Rosemond.
VOTE: 6 in favor.
5 opposed.
6. Conservation easement credit. The specific issue
is whether land protected through a conservation
easement prior to development application can be
counted toward satisfying the open space
requirement.
Stancil stated that it is Staff's position that this
amendment should be added to the flexible
development proposal.
Rosemond asked if land purchased to remain in open
space in another area would be considered a
conservation easement. Stancil responded if they
chose that route to protect it, yes. Rosemond
continued that she was concerned with the
possibility then of double credit for the same tract
as open space. Stancil responded that this issue
specifically regards conservation easements that are
created to receive Federal and State inheritance tax
credit. This would be a recorded conservation
easement.
Brown asked if this referred to the generic term of
conservation easements noting that easements could
simply be considered open space.
Stancil stated that he felt it was spelled out in
the proposal that easements would be for open space
uses.
Belk stated that conservation easements are tailored
to the desires of the landowner so each one is
different. No conditional part of the preserved area
could be used for something else.
Rosemond continued to express concern that land
created for open space for density bonuses might
later be used again when the lot that contains the
open space is developed. Stancil responded that once
r
1
70
land has been credited toward a density bonus it
could not again be used to qualify as open space.
If a tract with open space that was credited
elsewhere was later developed as a Flexible
Development, additional open space would be required
because the previous land had already been used to
satisfy open space requirements.
Waddell noted that there were some uses such as
farming that the Board would wish to encourage in
conservation easements.
Stancil stated the design guidebook would likely
address the concerns that have been expressed
regarding uses in conservation easements.
Allison asked if the conservation easement would go
with the sale of the land. Belk responded yes.
Those conditions would always be attached to the
property.
Adjournment time was reached.
MOTION: Reid moved to extend the meeting to get the vote on
Issue #6 and leave remaining issues for the next
Planning Board meeting. Seconded by Brown.
VOTE: Unanimous.
MOTION: Waddell moved to allow conservation easements to
count as credit toward open space. Seconded by
Allison.
Barrows asked if open space and conservation
easements are in perpetuity. Stancil responded yes.
Walters noted that State and Federal laws regarding
conservation easements for estate purposes state
that the easement is in perpetuity.
Katz proposed an amendment to the motion that:
conservation easements, the terms of which are
consistent with the flexible development guidelines
in effect at the time.
The first and second to the motion accepted the
amendment.
VOTE: 9 in favor.
2 opposed (Rosemond - still has questions regarding
conservation easements, Brown - reasons already
stated) .
Meeting adjourned 10:35 p.m.