HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-01-1994-X-C � 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMNIISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: MARCH 1. 1994
Action Agenda
Item # X -C,
SUBJECT: REPORT: RURAL CHARACTER COMMUNITY MEETINGS COMMENTS
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING:
_YES R NO
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
• Meeting notice, agenda/format Dave Stancil, Extension 2590
• Meeting handouts
• Memo: summary of meeting comments TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
• List of meeting comments
• Letter from citizen Hillsborough - 732-8181
• Followup letter - New Hope meeting Chapel Hill - 967-9251
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
PURPOSE: To report on comments received at the three Rural Character Study
community meetings held in January 1994.
BACKGROUND: In March 1993, the County Commissioners and Planning Board
instructed staff to conduct meetings with rural citizens on the
specifics of development options for rural character protection.
Specifically, citizens were to be asked to compare the Rural
Character Study Committee's (RCSC) development options of
January 21, 1993 with a Planning Staff Alternative of March 10,
1993 which addressed Planning Board concerns.
During meeting design in July 1993, Planning and Dispute
Settlement Center staff noted the potential for substantial confusion
about ongoing watershed rezoning and its impact on development
options, and recommended that the meetings be delayed until
watershed zoning issues were resolved. Watershed zoning was
enacted December 21, 1993.
On January 18, 25 and 27, community meetings were held at three
locations in the rural portions of the County. The January 18
meeting was held at Walnut Grove Methodist Church Fellowship
Hall in northern Orange, while the January 25 meeting was held
2
in central Orange at New Hope Elementary School. The January
27 meeting was held at the Orange Grove Community Building in
southwest Orange.
A total of 261 notices were mailed to citizens on a variety of
committees/mailing lists, and the local media. In addition, 200
flyers were distributed at convenience stores and other locations in
the rural areas. Citizens were invited to attend any of the three
meetings.
A total of 53 persons attended the meetings. A listing of
their comments, and a summary by staff is provided as an
attachment to this item. While there were a number of different
comments received, a few common themes were sounded at all
three meetings:
o None of the citizens could select one alternative over the other -
finding likes and dislikes with both.
o Two-acre lot conventional development was clearly preferred over
one-acre lots, for a number of different reasons (see summary).
o Five-acre lots with incentives were universally popular.
o Citizens felt that open-space development (OSD) densities were
too high. Several recommended lowering the top-end density to
one unit per gross acre.
o Many citizens were concerned about the use of alternative
wastewater systems for open-space developments.
o Many area of rural orange County are unique, and different
development standards in different areas might be appropriate.
RECONE4iFNDATION: Receive as information.
' - J
• I OR.titiGE COU TY PLAINNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
January 5, 1994
A letter to: Residents of rural Orange County,
Orange County Commissioners,
Orange County Planning Board,
Orange County Township Advisory Councils,
Orange County Rural Character Study Committee,
Other Orange County Boards, and
Supplementary Mailing List
Dear fellow county citizen:
You are cordially invited to attend one of three meetings in late
January on the subject of future rural development patterns.
These meetings are being held at the request of the Orange County
Commissioners, who are considering recommendations from the Rural
Character Study Committee on ways to protect the agricultural,
natural and visual character of the County's rural areas. Many of
you have attended meetings along similar lines over the past
several years, and we thank you for your participation.
At previous meetings, input was solicited on a wide variety of
subjects affecting the rural areas and their citizens. This input
was used by the Rural Character Study Committee in developing their
recommendations ( "Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange" ) ,
recommended by the Committee in January 1993.
The meetings planned for this month will be focused on one issue
only -. rural land development options. This issue is a result of
the Orange County Planning Board's review of the "Conceptual
Guidelines" recommendations. The Planning Board agreed with the
vast majority of the Rural Character Study Committee's
recommendations on protecting rural character. However, the
Planning Board suggested some changes to proposed rural development
options. As a result, County staff has prepared an alternative, but
similar, package of development options based on the Planning
Board's ideas.
The County Commissioners have asked that these two alternative
"packages" of development' options be presented at community
meetings. We hope to solicit a preference from citizens on which
4
alternative "accompli=hes the. Rural Character Study goals in the
most balanced fashion" . These development options would be
applicable only in the rural areas of the County - excluding the
Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro .Joint Planning Area, the Towns
of Hillsborough and Mebane, and " 10/20-Year Transition Areas" as
shown in the Land Use Element of the Plan currently in existence.
These areas are shaded on the attached map.
Three meetings are scheduled for January 20 , 25 and 27 . Citizens
are invited to attend any of the three meetings . However, for
convenience, the table below offers suggestions for which areas
nigh_ find the location most convenient (see map) . All meetings
will start at 7 : 00 p.m.
LD
EAST-CENTRAL NORTHERN SOUTFia1`ESTE3N
ORANGE ORANGE ORANGE
DATE1TIlvIE ( Thursday, January 20 Tuesday, January 25 Thursday, January 27
7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m.
PLACE :i Walnut Grove New Hope Elementary Orange Grove Community
Methodist Church School Studio Building
Fellowship Hall
LOCATION. Walnut Grove Church NC 86 at New Hope Orange Grove Road,
Road at Hawkins Church Road adjacent to Volunteer
Road Fire Department
CO.NVEN`F.ENT See map (Residents of See Map (Residents in See map (Residents of
'TO: Cedar Grove and southern Eno Township, Bingham Township, and
Little River southern Hillsborough southern Cheeks
Townships, northern Township, and northern Township - south of I-85).
Eno, and Cheeks and Chapel Hill Township).
Hillsborough north of
I hope you will be able to attend one of these three meetings and
provide us with your thoughts on the two alternatives. The meeting
format will be similar to that of the 1991 Countywide Information
Session, which consisted of a presentation, followed by small group
discussion, and a large group summary and conclusion.
If you have any questions about the meetings, please feel free to
contact Dave Stancil at 732-8181, 967-9251, 688-7331 or 227-2031
(extension 2590 ) . I look forward to seeing you at the meetings.
S ' ncerely,
Marvin Collins
Planning Director
Attachment
' •
IWO
Ilk ut,
`1 r.�
6
W
J F-
Wm C/) Q z LLJ
:2occ _
_ Q �
amp w
Z Q < `n
= �5 L.LZ o4 CC 0E-"
2zQ -
o Cn
CD x
0
CO 0CUO � wz ? w
F- 00 Q LL z r-
Z Qz0 � U � Qo
0 cr
o w e >- co o � _ �'
Z MCC J O> > F-- a ti
Z 65 w � WY < r = } N
O W � z = - 0 C)
� i-- ° � JO N Q Zcc
F- p Q �- 1100 >- co0 OO
Z W -- p0 � � a0 = Uc�
F- p �- 0 = w �
W � wzQ � CO Q � � = ,�
LU wwv) w -� W = ~ o
W z � Qw � >= WU Jcfl
Q H w 0 z z o > w U LO
Z CC W °C - ° c ° > z �
J � wZ � _ err Or`
Q �. 00 :2 � ? O QCC)
z < va0
w Q ca O c- Zz
CC 00
0 � � U LLJ waz Ocp
w � 02 � � Q zN
C/) U f- Cl- - CY)
w : � cr �
cc U 1- w 0
Q L/) Z >_
Joo
QoC) O
I 7
r
Meeting Plan
Public Meetings on Preserving Rural Character
Dates and Locations :
January 20 Walnut Grove Methodist Church (at Hawkins Rd)
January 25 New Hope Elementary School (New Hope Church
Road near NC 86 )
January 27 Orange Grove Community Building (near
Buckhorn Rd. )
Meeting Purposes :
For citizens to understand the current County proposals for
preserving rural character.
For citizens to express their viewpoints on the proposals ,
especially how well the proposals balance multiple interests
in preserving rural character.
For county planners to understand the citizen viewpoints in
order to communicate them to the Board of County
Commissioners .
Detailed Planning Agenda
7:00 PM Convene/Meeting Overview
Clint settles everybody down, welcomes them. Explains that
this public meeting, one of three, have been authorized by
the County Commissioners to gather information about the
latest rural character proposals ( " . . .more background on
what we' ll be doing tonight will be provided once we get
underway. " ) . If there are only a few people, asks for
names/where people are from. If lots of people are there,
ask for show of hands for how many people are from ( this
Township or that, this crossroads community or that . ) .
Recognize members of Board of Commissioners , Planning Board,
RCSC. Identify who the Planning Department staff and
interns are.
Introduce the lead facilitator ( from the Orange County
Dispute Settlement Center) . They will be:
Walnut Grove meeting: Andy Sachs
New Hope: Sue Harvin
Orange Grove: Sue Harvin
Facilitator explains his/her role, presents meeting
objectives , meeting agenda, and meeting groundrules .
Answers any questions about tonight' s process . Gets
consensus to proceed.
7 :30 Presentation (20 minutes )
County staff explains the rural character study process and
outcomes thus far. Distinguishes between the issues on
which the RCSC, staff, and the Planning Board appear to be
in agreement (and so are less interested in hearing about
tonight ) and the open questions/difficult tradeoffs
remaining ( the substantive focus for tonight) . Emphasis
tonight is on "two roads to the same end. " Overriding
question is , Which Option is Most Balanced? Staff is trying
to determine a) are subdivisions with one-acre lots and no
open space. . . and b ) are the tradeoffs between open space
and density bonuses . . . <middle 2 bulleted items from first
cut> .
Facilitator will serve as moderator for question/answer
period ( 40 minutes ) .
8:30 Discussion Groups: "Which alternative accomplishes
the Rural Character Study goals in the most
balanced fashion?"
I
Facilitator gives instructions : The task for each group is
determine whether and to what extent its members think one
option better balances the different county interests in
rural character over the other option. To do this, group
members should make sure they understand the two options (a
staff resource person will be in each group to respond to
questions and clarify facts ) , raise and discuss concerns
about and any positive expectations for each option, and if
possible get a sense of the group with respect to which
option people think strike the best balance. Each small
group should choose someone (facilitator or group member) to
give a brief and accurate report of the key points from the
discussion. Any questions about the task?
Groups will have 45 minutes to accomplish their task. You
will here each other' s reports starting at <9:30> . We' ll
count off: 1-2-3 . All the 1 ' s go to ( ) , all the 2' s go to
( ) , all the 3 ' s go to ( ) . OK? (Count. . .remind people
where rooms are) .
Discussion Groups Meet
(Small group facilitators : remember to review your role
with the group, review the task, review the ground rules ,
get people to introduce themselves, identify Planning staff
resource people, and then help the group accomplish its
task) . A Planning Department intern will be in your group
and available to assist you with recording and flip charts .
�q;ooj 9 : 30 Discussion Groups Report Back.
10:00 Staff Tests its Understanding.
Staff person summarizes what participants have said are the
key considerations regarding each alternative (things they
like, don' t like, worry about, wonder about, hope for, etc . )
"Given these considerations, let' s see if people have strong
preferences for one option over the other. How many people
. 9
have a strong preference, one way or the other? Everyone
with a strong preference raise your hand. ( count or get a
sense of proportion) .
"OK, how many people who have a preference - strong or mild
- prefer option A? (Count hands or get a sense of
proportion) . How many prefer option B? ( Count hands or get
a sense of proportion) .
"Thanks . I 'm seeing ( that most people here tonight <don' t>
have a strong preference, and if asked most people here
tonight prefer option fl . Is that right? ( take a few
participant observations ) .
"OK, let me tell what I 'm going to do with this information:
(explain next steps , answer questions , tell people how to
get more information) . Thanks for helping me understand
where your thinking is on this issue. "
10: 20 Meeting Evaluation
Facilitator asks all attendees to evaluate the meeting: What
worked well, what suggestions do they have for improving
public meetings? Record comments .
(gaoc) 10:30 Facilitator adjourns the meeting.
10
"TWO ROACS TO RURAL CHARACTER" - Community Meetings, January 1994
RURAL CHARACTER STUDY GOALS
Agricultural Preservation
Natural Resource Protection
Visual Resource Protection
Management of Quality Growth
Flexibility for Rural Residents
Rural Character Planning Staff
Study Alternative
Combination open-space and Allows one-acre lot where
conventional dgvelopment site constraints allow (as now)
Incentives for open-space and Open-space deveeopment ents with 40%
large-lot development open-space
No one-acre conventional Open-space deve density
subdivisions (as allowed now) bonuses of 220%
One-acre lots allowed on Open- Bonuses based on Design Guidebook
Space subdivisions (also five adherence and open-space quality
one-acre lots per lot of record)
Design Guidebook voluntary for
conventional development
X
We Are Here
January 1994
GOALS OF THE
RURAL CHARACTER
STUDY
PRESERVE AGRICULTURE
PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES
PROTECT VISUAL RESOURCES
MANAGE QUALITY GROWTH
FLEXIBILITY FOR RURAL RESIDENTS
12
RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE
RECON11NZENDED DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
JANUARY 21, 1993
OPTION 1 ■CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - 4.6-ACRE LOTS
(UP TO 21 LOTS ON A 100-ACRE TRACT)
■0% OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
■INCENTIVES: PRIVATE ROADS, EXPEDITED
REVIEW, LOWER FEES
OPTION 2 ■CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - 1.8-ACRE LOTS
(UP TO 51 LOTS ON A 100-ACRE TRACT)
00% OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
■INCENTIVES: PRIVATE ROADS
OPTION 3 ■OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENTS (6 LEVELS/SCALED)
(80 TO 130 LOTS ON A 100-ACRE TRACT)
(LOTS 1-ACRE TO 1/4-ACRE - SEE TABLE BELOW)
020-70% OPEN SPACE REQUIRED (DENSITY/OS SCALE)
■INCENTIVES: DENSITY BONUS, PRIVATE ROADS,
OPEN SPACE TAX BREAKS.
OPTION B: OPEN SPACE REQUIRED OPTION B: LOT YIELD ON 100-ACRE TRACT
(-AVERAGE LOT SIZING-)
20% OPEN SPACE 80 LOTS (0.8/ACRE)
AVERAGE LOT SIZE (APP): 1-ACRE
30% OPEN SPACE. 90 LOTS (0.9/ACRE)
AVERAGE LOT SIZE (APP): 3/4-ACRE
40% OPEN SPACE 100 LOTS (1.0/ACRE)
AVERAGE LOT SIZE (APP): 6/10-ACRE
50% OPEN SPACE 110 LOTS (1.1/ACRE)
AVERAGE LOT SIZE (APP): 1/2-ACRE
60% OPEN SPACE 120 LOTS (1.2/ACRE)
AVERAGE LOT SIZE (APP): 1/3-ACRE
70% OPEN SPACE 130 LOTS (1.3/ACRE)
AVERAGE LOT SIZE (APP): 1/4-ACRE
OPTION 4 ■UP TO FIVE "ONE-ACRE" LOTS (40, 0 SQUARE FEET)
FOR EACH LOT OF RECORD AS OF 1-21-93.
OTHER ■RURAL CROSSROAD/RURAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT - VIA SMALL AREA PLANS.
� 3
PLANNING STAFF ALTERNATIVE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
MARCH 10, 1993
OPTION A ■CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - 0.92-ACRE LOTS
(UP TO 101 LOTS ON 100-ACRE TRACT. DENSITY
BASED ON SITE CONSTRAINTS ONLY.)
■NO OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
■DESIGN GUIDELINES: NONE
■OPEN SPACE QUALITY: N/A
OPTION B ■OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENT (3 LEVELS)
(DENSITY BONUS BEGINS AT CONVENTIONAL
DENSITY OF SITE. BONUS IS BASED ON SITE
CONSTRAINTS, DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
AND OPEN SPACE QUALITY - SEE TABLE BELOW)
■OPEN SPACE: 40% FOR ALL
STANDARDS' EXAMPLE: 100-ACRE EXAMPLE: 100-ACRE EXAMPLE- 100-
TRACT W/SEVERE TRACT W/MEDIUM ACRE TRACT WITH
CONSTRAINTS CONSTRAINTS FEW CONSTRAINTS
OPTION A (BASE) 26 lots on 100 acres 50 lots on 100 acres 101 lots on 100 acres
OPTION B 30 lots(0.3 lots/acre) 60 lots (0.6 lots/acre) 120 lots (1.2/acre)
20% DENSITY
BONUS (5096
DESIGN, FAIR OS
QUALITY)
25% DENSITY 32 lots(0.313 lots/acre) 63 lots (0.63/acre) 126 lots (1.25/acre)
BONUS (75% .
DESIGN, ..:
MODERATE OS:.
QUAI-ITY)
30% DENSITY 32 lots(0.325/acre) 65 lots (0.65/acre) 130 lots(1.3/acre)
BONUS (100%
DESIGN
GUIDELINES,
GOOD OS QUALITY
N IS MATURES SAM MAXIMUM DENSITY AS RURAL-CHARACTER OPTIONS (130
PER 100 ACRE TRACT). HOWEVER, THE STARTING DENSITY FOR OPEN-SPACE
DEVELOPMENT IS BASED ON SITE CONSTRAINTS/CONVENTIONAL LOT YIELD.
4
1�+
CEDAR GROVE PARCEL - ALL DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
139.26 ACRES
Conventional one-acre yield: 69 lots
Bold/shaded options have been designed.
RURAL CHARACTER OPTIONS # LOTS PLN STAFF ALT OPTIONS # LOTS
Option 1 (5-ac lots) 28 ------------------------------------- -------------
------------------------------------- -------------
Option 2 (2-ac lots) 47 design, --------------- --------------------- .............
(71 max) ------------------------------------- -------------
Option 3-a 1 1 1 Option A - 69 lots
(20% OS, 0.8 lots/acre) Conventional 1-acre lots possible
Option 3-b 125 Option B-1 82
(30% OS, 0.9 lots/acre) (40% OS, 20% density +
Option 3-c 139 design Option B-2 86
(40% OS, 1.0 lots/acre) (139 max) (40% OS, 25% density +
Option 3-d 153 Option B-3 90 design
(50% OS, 1.1 lots/acre) (40% OS, 30% density + (90 max)
Option3-e 167 --------•---------------------------- -------------
(60% OS, 1.2 lots/acre) ------------------------------------- -------------
Option 3-f. 164 design
170% OS; 1.3 lots/acre) 1181 max) ------------------------------------- -------------
CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP PARCEL - DESIGNED "ILLUSTRATION" OPTIONS (SITE DESIGNS)
139.26 Acres
# Lots Maximum Acreage Acreage
SUBDIVISION OPTIONS Designed # lots - no in in Open
constraints R/W Space
"A": 1 Acre conventional with individual 69 141 8.26 42.54•
wells & septic systems (5.9%) (30.5%)
"2":-2 Acre conventional with individual 47 71 7.54 26.84•
wells and septic systems (5.4%) (19.3%)
"B-3": 1 Acre Open-Space Development 90 90 N/A 55.86
with alternative system (40.1%)
"3-c": 1/2 Acre Open-Space 139 139 N/A 68.88
Development with alternative system (49.5%)
"3-f 1/4 Acre Open-Space 164 181 N/A 97.48
Development with alternative system (70%)
*Not required. Remaining acreage undeveloped due to soil condition.
5
1�
n
s
c
N
R e f
9L
♦
♦
♦ ar
loo
1
♦ • r • 1
♦ � N
Or
cn
pp
o
ce �.
♦
♦
� o
Q a�w
_ Q�o�
N
Vf
co
X'
pr
N
N
SSW
'o.-O��°
`% T
yp �N
A
1�
I
AAte►
CA
ca
CD CO� t n O
etii O H
A
CA Ire
co
Q o�
♦ ;
PwA
r�r• r'r r
r
\ a
\
\
tQt��
r
19
n
N !�
co
N F N
A
r .yr
•
Q�o�w
�r
Q
r
.o
ca
�n
\
1
♦ ♦ � ■ ���■ =� ■mot=
'!I
Z
BINGHAM PARCEL - ALL DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
40.03 ACRES
Conventional one-acre yield: 34 lots
Bold/shaded options have been designed.
RURAL CHARACTER OPTIONS # LOTS PLN STAFF ALT OPTIONS # LOTS
Option 1 (5-ac lots) 8 ------------------------------------- -------------
-- -------------------------------- -------------
Option 2 (2-ac lots) 19 design --------------- --------------------- -------------
(20 max) ------------------------------------- -------------
Option 3-a 32 design, Option A - 34 lots
(20% OS, 0.8 lots/acre) (32 max) Conventional 1-acre lots possible
Option 3-b 36 Option B-1 41
(30% OS, 0.9 lots/acre) (40% OS, 20% density +
Option 3-c 40 design, Option B-2 42
(40% OS, 1.0 lots/acre) (40 maxi (40% OS, 25% density +
Option 3-d 44 Option B-3 44 design
(50% OS, 1.1 lots/acre) (40% OS, 30% density + (44 max)
Option3-e 48 ------------------------------------- -------------
(60% OS, 1.2 lots/acre) ------------------------------------- -------------
Option 34 52 design, ------------------------------------- -------------
(70% OS. 1.3 lots/acre) (52 max) ------------------------------------- .............
BINGHAM TOWNSHIP PARCEL - DESIGNED "ILLUSTRATION" OPTIONS (SITE DESIGNS)
40.03 Acres
# of lots Maximum Acreage Acreage
Subdivision Options Designed # lots - no in in Open
constraints R/W Space
"A": 1-Acre conventional with individual 34 38 4.61 0
wells & septic systems (11.5%)
"2": 2-Acre conventional with individual 19 19 3.77 0
wells and septic systems (9.4%)
"3-a": 1-Acre Open-Space Development 32 32 N/A 9.24
with individual wells/septic systems (23.1%)
"3-c": 1/2 Acre Open-Space 40 40 N/A 18.73
Development with alternative system (46.8%)
"B-3": 1/3 Acre Open-Space 44 44 N/A 24.62
Development with alternative system (61.5%)
"34": 1/4 Acre Open-Space 52 52 N/A 29.9
Development with alternative system (74.7%)
17
22
BTNGHAM PARCEL
Site Analysis
0 ORANGE GROVE
ROAD
Y
a
w�
sr
Go,
o
u .
w
L E G E N D
Collins Creek
r 100-yeor Floodplain
0
NParcel boundary
Forest
Nlopo g raphy
1 '
. ntervols � D
Unsu , toble Soil i
7 . S- 1 S% S 1 ope
` NAP NOT TO SCALE
> 15% Slope
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT
INFOR"AiION SERVICES
JANUARY 1994
HOC
1�
23
B ► NCHAN PqR CEL
1 Acre Ccrnven t l crna l Subd v l s l on
I
4,
C ORANGE GROVE i
y w ROAD
Y
s I
t
ip
Sr I
I
I
I
I
• I
Y f
W f
I
r1
f
V
f
f
f I
I
I
I
MW TN
MAP NOT TO SCALE
DRAMBE COUNTY' PLANNING DEPT
2NRORMATION sERVICES
JANUARY I994
NBC
L E G E N D Total acreage 40 . 03 acres
Acreage in r%., 4 . 61 acres
Pr000sed lot lines Net acreage 35 42 acres
and r/w Density allowed 1 unit / acre
N Parcel boundary Max mum number of lots 38
Total lots proposed 34
♦♦� Collins Creek 3 3 acres with historic house site
/y Minimum lot size 0 92 acres
14
BINGHAN PARCEL
2 Acre Conventional Subdivision
C.
ORANGE GROVE
b y, ROAD
Y
sr
.!
R• •
•
•
I WAlk
MAP N07 70 SCALE
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING 001
INRORIIATIOM SCR ACES
JANUARY 1924
MGC
L E G E N D
Total acreage 40 . 03 acres
NProposed lot lines Acreage in r/u 3 . 77 acres
and r/w Net acreagge 35 . 27 acres
Density allowed 1 unit / 2 acres
N Parcel boundary Maximum number of lots 19
Total lots Proposed 19
/y Collins Creek Minimum Iot s .* ze 1 . 84 acres
� r_
Z 1
3 ► NGHAM FARCE
1 Acre Open Space Develcpment
i
\ ORANGE GROVE
b y ROAD
s I
t I
4t
r
"weft ..
°a
e
O
0
y I
a I
� y
a
v 1 Q1 SA°c
� Q e
� o I
' I
I
I
I
WMTN
I
I
MAP NOT TO SCALE
OltANYE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT
ORMATTOM SERVICES
JANUARY 1994
NBC
L E G E N D
Total acreage . 40 . 03 acres
Proposed lot Ines Density allowed - 0 . 3 unit % acre
and r/w Max ! mum number of lots 32
N Parcel boundary Total lots proposed 32
Average lot size . 0 . 92 acres
/r e Collins Creek Open space 23 10% 9 ,24 acres
-z�
B _INGHAM ? ARCF- L
1 % % Acre Open Space Development
ORANGE GROVE
ROAD
y
d'
�F
open
space S T
HWNWW
---------------
,�� ` on {
c.
0
r
C i r
d1 14 r -
t nitrification field
cl y
v
CL
O '
MOTH
Q
MAP NOT TO SLATE
ORA1460- COUNTY PLANNIN6 DEPT
1WO111HA7I0N SEWIE!
JANUARY t604
MBC
L E G E N D Total acreage 40 . 03 acres
Density allowed - 1 unit / acre
Maximum number of lots - 40
NProposed lot lines Total lots proosed 40
and r/w Average lot size 0 5 acres
N Parcel boundary Open soace . 46 8% 18 73 acres
Community sewage disposal system
`146 Collins Creek includ , ng repair area 9 18 acres
21
BINGHAM PARCEL
1 / 4 Acre Open Space Development
ORANGE GROVE
ROAD
Y
6
t
OP
open space
I
"howls 11ww
--------------------
---------------- - I
/
s a
d '
pce fey
.•' open ; .1 on ,
• c 1 ,
a ,
r �
• nitrif + cation field �N
C
m I `
Q ,
d
U
9
NAP NOT TO SOLE [
Q
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT O
IWORNATiON SERVICES
JAW AR`CIGM
L E G E N D
Total acreage : 40. 03 acres
Density allowed - 1 unit/acre + 30%
N Proposed lot lines Maximum number of lots ; 44
and r/w Total lots proposed 44
N Parcel boundary Average lot size : 0 .30 acres
Cpen space . 61 . 5/. 24 .62 acres
`• Collins Creek Community sewage disposal system
1r including repair area . 10 . 10 ocres
�R
Q
219
BT_ NGHAM PARCEL
1 / 4 Acre Open Space Development
ti C.
ORANGE GROVE
ti w ROAD
r
s
r
�E
er sp°
ce
op
V
MYAa� Ma�wR
--- ---------------------
1
r
f ' n { ie 1d -
io �
• co , itri{ �
� I a
O ----------------------
'MTM �
MAP NOT TO StALE
ORANGE COUNT, PLANNINQ DEPT
SNFORMATSON SEiYICES
JANUARY I994
Mac
L E G E N D Total acreage 40 . 03 acres
Density allowed - 1 . 3 units / acre
Maximum number of units . 52
NProposed lot Ines Total units proposed 26 lots
and r/w 26 townhouses
N PorceI boundary Average lot size 0 . 30 acres
Open space 74 . 70% 29 90 acres
/r Collins Creek Community sewage disposal system
� nclud , ng repair area 11 . 94 acres
1°
z :
KEY QUESTIONS
FOR TONIGHT
Are the tradeoffs between
open space and density
appropriate? Too much?
Too little ?
Should conventional one -acre
subdivisions with no open
space be part of a rural
character strategy?
Which set of development
options get us to the Rural
Character goals in the
most balanced way ?
RURAL CHARACTER COMMUNITY MEETINGS - JANUARY 1994
HANDOUT ADDENDUM
ADDITIONAL NOTES ABOUT THE "STAFF ALTERNATIVE" DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
(page 4 of handout)
• The Staff Alternative development options would also allow
4 .6-acre lot development (see Option 1 in the Rural Character
Study Committee development options on page 3) . Two-acre lot
development could be created through the conventional one-acre
lot option (Option A on page 4 ) .
• In the Hillsborough Open Space Area, water and sewer may be
available for development. Therefore, density bonuses for
open-space developments (page 4 - bottom table) begin at one
unit per acre ( 100 units per 100 acres) - with a maximum of a
30% density bonus ( 130 lots per 100 acres) - in this area
under the Staff Alternative.
Orange County Planning Department January, 27, 1994
3i
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORANGE COUNTY COMIVIISSIONERS
FROM: DAVE STANCIL, AICP Z
Planner II/Land Use and Environment
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1994
SUBJECT: MEETING SUMMARIES FROM JANUARY
RURAL CHARACTER COMMUNITY MEETINGS
COPIES: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MARVIN COLLINS, AICP, PLANNING DIRECTOR
GENE BELL, AICP, PLANNER III
This memo serves to supplement information in the March 1, 1994 agenda abstract on the results
of the three rural character development options meetings in rural Orange County.
As you know, the County Commissioners and Planning Board Commissioners asked staff in
March 1993 to conduct meetings with the rural Township Advisory Councils to solicit further
input on the specifics of recommended development options to help protect the rural character
of "Rural Orange", as defined by the Rural Character Study Committee (RCSC). Specifically,
citizens were to be asked to compare the Committee's development options of January 21, 1993
with a Planning Staff Alternative of March 10, 1993 - which addressed Planning Board
concerns. Staff suggested using facilitated meetings to enhance input from residents, and Andy
Sachs of the Dispute Settlement Center agreed to help design the meetings for optimum input.
Originally planned for May 1993, the community meetings were postponed to allow for adequate
notification and further work on meeting design. In July 1993, Planning and Dispute Settlement
Center staff noted the potential for substantial confusion about the ongoing watershed zoning and
its impact on development options, and recommended that the meetings be delayed until
watershed zoning issues were resolved in the rural areas. This was anticipated to occur in
October 1993. However, deliberations on watershed standards required further time, and the
watershed zoning was not adopted until December 21, 1993. During the interim, staff had
designed three facilitated, small-group based community meetings to be held in Northern, East-
Central and Southwest Orange. These meetings would be the fifth round of community/township
meetings held on the Rural Character Study since 1990, and were built around the basic format
of the successful 1991 facilitated, small-group Community Information Meeting at the
Hillsborough Exchange Club.
On January 18, 25 and 27, community meetings were held at three locations in the rural portions
of the County. The January 18 meeting was held at Walnut Grove Methodist Church Fellowship
Hall in northern Orange, while the January 25 meeting was held at New Hope Elementary
School. The January 27 meeting was held at the Orange Grove Community Building in
32
southwest Orange. A total of 261 notices were mailed to citizens on a number of
committees/mailing lists and the local media. In addition, 200 flyers were distributed at
convenience stores and other locations in the rural areas. Citizens were invited to attend any of
the three meetings.
Meeting #1 (Northern Orange). Walnut Grove Church, January 18 1994
At the Northern Orange meeting on January 18, 15 citizens braved temperatures in the teens to
attend. Despite the size of the group, attendees agreed that it represented a cross-section of the
community - containing five farmers and several other longtime residents, as well as a three to
four new residents in the area. (All comments from this and the other meetings are an agenda
attachment). There were a variety of comments received from the citizens at the meeting, but
a few common themes did emerge.
None of the citizens recommended one-acre conventional development without open space. A
number of reasons were given for this, including farm nuisance suits, traffic, less newcomers
in the area, and loss of community character. Conversely, there seemed to be consensus that
two-acre lots were more in keeping with community character and represented a good
compromise. Several noted that most of Northern Orange was zoned for two-acre lots anyway.
The group was unable to select either the RCSC or Planning Staff Alternative development
options, finding positive and negative components with both. A slight preference for a modified
Committee version, with lower density open-space developments, was noted in the meeting
summary. Several residents did not like the "clustered" effect of the higher-density open-space
developments, recommended capping cluster density at one unit per acre, and were concerned
about alternative wastewater systems. Several citizens noted the unique community character of
northern Orange and suggested that some development options be different in different areas of
the County.
Meeting #2 (East-Central Orange) New Hope Elementary School January 25, 1994
24 persons, including one County Commissioner and two Planning Board members, attended this
meeting. The majority of attendees were residents of nearby communities in the New Hope
community, although several citizens from other area around Hillsborough, Durham and
Caldwell were also present. This group broke into two small groups and provided input on the
development options (see attached summary). Again, there were a number of different comments
on a variety of subjects, but the following were consistent themes.
Both groups indicated that one-acre conventional development was not appropriate as part of a
rural character package. Open-space developments were generally preferred, but the groups
recommended that open space uses be "tightened up" to restrict some uses (recreational uses,
golf courses, et al). Additionally, the groups seemed unanimous in indicating that the open-space
developments (OSD's) should be less dense - on the order of one unit per acre overall. Like the
Northern Orange group, citizens universally liked the five-acre lot option with incentives - and
were unable to select one package over the other. There were a number of other comments about
considering yield plans (at two-are lot minimum) and carrying capacity/sustainable development
in crafting new development options.
33
Meeting #3 (Southwest Orange) Orange Grove Community Center Tanuary 27 1994
On January 25, 15 citizens attended the meeting at Orange Grove. This group was almost
exclusively longtime residents, with several farmers and large property owners from Bingham,
the Efland-Cheeks area, and Cedar Grove Township. Comments at this meeting were similar to
those at Walnut Grove. Citizens expressed confusion with the Rural Buffer mandating two-acre
lots while higher density (one-acre) was allowed in the more rural areas further removed from
the towns. Several citizens thought this density should be reversed.
The five-acre lot option was widely-supported as a way to provide lots for family members. The
future of farm activities and the need for buffers from open-space development were mentioned.
Putting the denser development in urban areas and along a potential mass transit corridor was
mentioned as well. Flexibility was recommended for the placement of open-space within OSD's-
although several persons expressed worries about alternative wastewater systems. Finally, the
idea of different development options for different areas was suggested.
Summary
The comments received at the community meetings were remarkably similar in scope. At each
meeting, the facilitator conducted a meeting evaluation - and asked about the relatively-low level
of turnout. Responses to this question were 1) the weather (at Walnut Grove), and 2) the fact
that there had been four previous meetings in the past three years soliciting input on the same
study. More than one person suggested we "just do it."
Along with the preference for two-acre conventional lots and lower open-space development
densities, a third consistent theme was heard at all three meetings: that there were distinct,
unique areas within rural Orange County with different land constraints, character and thus, the
need for one or two different development options than those in other areas. ('This idea of
different options in different area was considered by the Rural Character Study Committee in
early 1991. The Committee eventually opted for a consistent set of options for all rural areas).
There was no opposition stated to either the proposed design guidebook, or the goals, objectives/
action strategies of the Rural Character Study Committee recommendations.
Staff met with the RCSC chair on February 15 regarding the compilation of a recommended set
of development options, based on the comments received. It is our plan to bring the Planning
Board a "hybrid" package of development options that consider the RCSC and staff alternative
packages in light of the comments received from citizens in March. as stated in the abstract, this
package will attempt to incorporate concepts such as two-acre conventional development, "yield
plans", lower-density OSD's, water/sewer compatible development, and impervious surface
bonuses in watersheds.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the meetings or comments
received (732-8181, 967-9251, 688-7331, 227-2031 - extension 2590).
34
WALNUT GROVE (NORTH ORANGE) RURAL CHARACTER MEETING:
GROUP COMMENTS - FROM FACILITATOR RECORD
(With staff/facilitator notes)
January 20, 1994
* - Indicates more than one person agreed with the comment
# - Indicates majority (or unanimous) agreement with the comment
• Concerns with density included need for electricity,
increased traffic, needed facilities (shops, etc. ) .
• Should density be contained in one area or scattered with open
areas in-between?
*• The one-acre lot option will be far too dense to preserve
rural character.
*• Concerns with the landowners right to develop land - a balance
should be reached that allows development but provides
guidelines.
• Low density raises land owners tax base.
*• The sample of cluster houses shown looks like suburbia because
they are so close together.
• Which option allows special family farm allowances - is it
option #4?
*• Cedar Grove area probably wouldn't pass the Health Department
for some of the cluster designs.
• Because the Cedar Grove Efland Road is planning to be widened
and possible reservoir - so some of the cluster may be too
dense.
•* Do not want to accommodate something out of character (e.g.
beyond the one acre average) .
• Likes limited access.
•* Concerns over how to protect farmers activities (e.g. pig/egg
farms that are already operating) when development moves in.
• Will the performance standards to happen next take care of
these questions?
• How to protect people moving into a rural area to be informed
of rural farm operations that may affect their life-style
(e.g. smell, etc. ) ?
• Farmland preservation guidelines to help protect farmers from
suits.
�5
• Question: Which option allows for least density?
Answer: All things considered, about equal.
• If this plan is adopted, how long would it last?
Answer: Recommendations provide for incremental, five year
review.
• For the long range future, septic system should not decide lot
size as technology may solve this.
• (Aside - development tends to follow highways)
#• Likes two acre minimum, but doesn't like impervious surface
regulation as it does not allow you to build a big house with
six percent limit. (Go up to 12%) Two acres is a good trade
Off / compromise.
• Question: What is the usual desire of farmers for development?
Answer: In Cedar Grove, it is about 2 . 5 (acres per lot) . In
Little River, it is about 1. 5 acres. Seems to be a mixed bag.
*• Do not want to make it too restrictive as you want to improve
the tax base, but do not want overly transient population.
#• Local Orange County folks cannot afford four acres. Two acres
is enough to restrict the area of Little River from over-
development.
• Business and industry is thriving south of Roxboro and those
folks are often moving into North Orange.
• Clint asked the group for input - two acre as a calculation
tool to allow one acre if some cluster and open space.
• Numbers of people increase costs to residents, schools, impact
fees - taxes.
• Why reduce from two acre to one acre for open space? Why not
two acre average and open space?
• Affordable housing in subdivisions increases tax burdens on
citizens, e.g. schools - septic fields.
• If one child average household - if subdivision does not
provide 175, 000 taxable then citizens end up subsidizing
subdivisions. So add this consideration to the size allowed.
#• Do not maximize cluster density in such areas as Cedar Grove
and Little River.
• Question: Where is commercial allowed (not shown on maps) ?
#• Two acres sounds more reasonable to the majority of people -
cluster options do not sound "rural" - what is "rural?"
3�7
• Question: There is a big difference between Bingham and Cedar
Grove. Are the options going to be the same overall or will
they be different for different areas?
Answer: So far, the decision has been to apply the same rules
for everyone, but some have argued for differences that need
to be considered. Perhaps bring up to Commissioners that
there are differences, (e.g. allow cluster in the mid-section
of the county but not up in the northern area) .
• When people move in next to farmers with cattle there is often
incompatibility, (e.g. dogs running cattle) .
Summary (group recommendations) :
#• Most people agree that two-acre minimum lot size is
preferable.
#• No one prefers one plan over the other.
#• No one even has a "light" preference of RCA over the planning
staff alternative.
#• Rural character study: seems the group is O.K. with options
one and two, but not density allowed by option 3 . Do not
average less than one acre lots in clusters.
*• But concerned about the density allowed by option 3 .
'37
NEW HOPE RURAL CHARACTER MEETING:
GROUP COMMENTS FROM FACILITATOR RECORD
(With staff/faciliator notes)
January 25, 1994
* - Indicates more than one person agreed with the comment
# - Indicates majority (or unanimous) agreement with the comment
GROUP A
• Developer will not pay for extending water and sewer below
certain density thresholds (@ 1. 3/acre) .
• 1. 2 million people will be coming into the Triangle area in
the next 20 years.
• Build now into this game the ability to deal with water and
sewer extensions.
• Options allow for 1-acre lots with open space: not too dense
in rural areas? A person who wants to do five 1-acre lots
cannot do or will not do quality open space (so don't mandate
it) . And, who could maintain five lots well?
• Allow for payment in-lieu to go from small (5-10 acre)
subdivisions.
• Staff build-out analysis: 2010 = 140, 000 population.
#• Strong objection to tennis courts, swimming pools,
nitrification fields (could sometimes be natural areas) , and
golf courses as open space. (Others agree) .
*• Group members appreciate the committee's work and their taking
other's views into consideration.
*• Concerned with development options and "too many/too much. "
• We cannot have too much open space. Look at Arendt's ideas
for cluster development.
*• Clustering is a good idea.
• Active owner's association. Builds community. Makes lots
affordable.
*• How best to balance density and cluster? This is hard to tie
down. Quality is most important - trees, paths, networks. It
is hard to compare the packages.
• Prefer the package that designates the most open space - which
is that? Like the idea of yield. The staff alternative looks
at the land and asks: what can be supported?
3$
• A spreadsheet analysis concluded that the rural character
options might result in more units - but more open space.
Also higher density and smaller lots. Neither package
constrains the population buildout by "2030" (way out in the
future) .
• Rural character option: more open space and a denser
population. Staff alternative: fewer units in a given time and
less open space.
• Question: Should we restrict growth? Answers: 1) No, give me
balance, not caps. 2) Give me sustainable growth, not sprawl
(as in other areas) . 3) Don't want development everywhere.
Identify places for agriculture, low density.
• Diversity in housing values? It was suggested that open space
will lead to higher densities which will in turn lead to
affordability. But, truly affordable housing is located in
urban areas where infrastructure is in place.
*• I don't know how to read actuality into these options. We
don't want surprises, like University Station.
• We are looking to design guidelines for real protection.
Design guidelines exist for both.
#• Concern was expressed over the staff alternative allowing 130
units on 100 acres.
*• Make design guidelines good for conventional as well as open
space.
• Agriculture is permitted in open space. Expressed interest in
Transfer of Development Rights. Cluster. "Action Strategies. "
*• Public wastewater systems need to be carefully designed,
monitored and controlled to protect users.
• Trailers with aprons are o.k.
Summary (group recommendations) :
#• Strong consensus about allowed uses in open space.
• Ideas about restraining growth included balance and
sustainability.
#• The trade-offs between density and open space are difficult to
say in general. One-acre conventional lots not good idea.
*• Cluster development: lots of open space should be pursued.
*• Diversity in housing values should not be discouraged but goes
against the idea of large open space.
39
Group B
• A maximum of fifty percent of a nitrification field can be set
aside as open space, unless the design guidelines change this.
Fifty percent of a golf course can count as open space. The
justification for this is that if a person can farm an open
space for income than a golf course should also count towards
open space.
• A counter-point was raised regarding the preservation of
agriculture and separating farming value from development
value.
• Transfer of development rights is being considered by a
separate group from the RCSC.
• Apparent inconsistencies in the treatment of water and sewer -
"yellow areas" are candidates for RCSC, but it seems that
these plans allow for the extension of water and sewer into
areas large enough. The staff recently issued a report
equating water and sewer to urban development.
*• A clustering plan that calls for water and sewer probably will
not happen because you need the town and the County to make it
happen.
• Community sewer systems provide a cap on the size of
development.
*• Current cluster development would possibly allow for
urban/town size growth.
• We do need places near towns for density because if we don't,
development will be scattered all over - e.g. the Hogan Farm
development is probably good for everyone.
*• Five acre lots are necessary to preserve rural character. It
should be made easier for a rural person to do small
developments.
#• No one likes the one acre lots. All support the five 1-
acre lot RCSC - "lots on record" - describing "family" option.
*• The staff's alternative yield plan is a positive option.
We do not want to exceed the county's carrying capacity..
• Question: Can five 1-acre "lot of record" be done again later?
Answer: No. Question: Is there a limit to this? Answer: Yes,
the total limit is a minimum of five acres per lot of record
or five 2-acres per lot of record.
• For a yield plan, how would do you define "severe restraints?"
Is just a characterization term for low level development
allowed?
40
• Should look at issues such as transfer of development rights
to help landowners keep the rural nature of their farms.
• Question: Where will you allow density? Answer: Near towns.
Do not allow urban in rural areas.
*• Should have tax breaks for agricultural uses. Make it
affordable for rural residents to keep their land.
*• It seems like the planning staff alternative has less open
space overall.
*• The RCSC option allows for higher density bonuses.
#• The group has trouble choosing one option over the other, but
would rather pick out the positive and negative parts of each
plan.
#• There is more room to be creative in balancing density and
development. Would like less density than is in these
proposals.
• Need to address development by landowners who are not original
rural landowners. How to keep these original rural landowners
in control of their land? Financial incentives are necessary.
*• Those of us who have been here a long time feel differently
about balancing future growth than those who have moved here
more recently.
• Discussed what was going to happen next. A group of people
are trying to address some issues not necessarily covered by
the RCSC. This came out of the John DeGrove conference and
covers the planning of county-wide, broader issues and
conflicts. Need a vision for twenty years later. What comes
after RCSC? A furthering of RCSC.
• What do farmers need to protect agriculture and continue
farming? Young farmers are interested in a re-activation of
the Farm Bureau. It is hard to farm and make a living in the
Triangle. All the land is not prime agricultural land. We
have to Compete with other areas. Tobacco farmers, (our
biggest $) , are in trouble. Try to find some industry in -
need employment - work part-time.
Summary (group recommendations) None recorded, but as part of
report to combined groups the following were identified:
• Clusters may be too dense for a rural area - and water/sewer
provision is a concern.
• Five-acre lots are a good idea - provide incentives.
• One-acre lots without open space a bad idea - but allow five
1-acre lots for lot of record as in RCSC.
• Cannot select one plan over the other.
4�
BINGHAM/SOUTHERN CHEERS RURAL CHARACTER MEETING
GROUP COMMENTS - FROM FACILITATOR RECORD
(With staff/facilitator notes)
January 27, 1994
* - Indicates more than one person agreed with the comment
# - Indicates majority (or unanimous agreement) with the comment
• Concerns regarding the right to sell "lots of record" to
anyone.
• The amount of percable land determines which option to choose.
This is especially true in the RCSC option.
• Question: Would these open space options affect the current
requirement to pay money for recreation or donate land to
avoid open space? (This is currently up to the Recreation
Department) .
*• A recommendation was made to combine some incentives of the
RCSC with the planning staff alternatives - e.g. five acre lot
incentives.
#• Two acre lots look good as a minimum to protect rural
character. If you do this for one section of the county, you
should do it for the entire county.
• Open space options do not seem in keeping with rural
character. If you develop a "hamlet" it would seem almost as
congested as if you were in a town.
*• How do we guarantee that package sewers will work? e.g. the
Piney Mountain problem that occurred before county guidelines
(no environmental management) .
#• Many medium and large size land owners would do better with
large-lot options because so much of the land will not perk or
is in a floodplain.
*• But, cluster development may work if you run city water and
sewer and do not depend on private co-op systems. For
instance, the Hogan Farm area will get water and sewer. But,
a little north of there is land that will not perk, leaving
the landowner dead in the water. They have invested in the
land and cannot do anything with it. Take interstate
corridors - two or three miles on each side water and sewer
along corridors.
• Agriculture is already endangered by taxes and tobacco is
being threatened. The land is here, if you cannot do anything
with it without spending a great deal of money, then the
county should do a detailed survey of all the land and make
recommendations as the best economic use of each piece. Spend
money to put in water and sewer so the land can be put to its
42
"highest and best use The use of tax revenues is for
everyone in the county, so it should be used to do this
overall study.
• Capture all streams, develop potential reservoirs -
recreation around lakes. This will produce revenue/tax
base.
• Look at the difference between the development in Orange and
Alamance Counties over the past twenty years. Take advantage
of our weather (beautiful climate) and land - great potential
for development.
• Question: Which watersheds allow for water and sewer? Answer:
It is only permitted in the Transition areas. Water and sewer
is not permitted in clusters.
*• How realistic are the cluster options for developers? We need
County Health involved in private sewer systems because
alternative systems will eventually fail. How do developers
look at this? They are cheaper than tying into public
systems. The larger subdivisions (i.e. 100 lots) may make it
economically feasible.
• There is so much land in watershed areas and you cannot go
below two-acres - so other areas should not take away
development rights.
• It seems like it will get as restrictive in Cane Creek as it
is in University Lake.
#• Currently, people are going outside of the rural buffer (with
a two acre minimum) , so they can develop on one-acre lots.
This creates sprawl and traffic.
#• The so-called rural buffer was created for a particular group
of people. It limits development but is next to two major
interstates. The rural buffer should actually be in rural
areas and the rural buffer, as it is now defined, should allow
for denser development which would protect the rest of the
rural areas from such development.
*• Whose benefit is this rural protection for? These plans
restrict the former or long-term land owners from doing what
they want to do with their land.
• We will always have open space because so much of the land in
non-perkable.
• The rate of Orange County growth is very fast. Will this plan
have to be redone in ten years or are we planning for the
future generations and what they can do with the land?
43
*• Like the RCSC page 18-19 where development is off the highway
(i.e. buffered) . This solves the issue of aesthetics.
Development should be buffered wherever possible.
• Because each tract is different, each area will require
special study as to where and how much open space and
development will occur. The current plan does not try to
designate where open space should be.
*• Where are the population centers going to be to support the
mass transit for which we now pay $5 per car to support?
There are no park and rides and no buses - except in Chapel
Hill and Carrboro.
*• Farmers in South Orange feel like their days are numbered.
They feel like Chapel Hill residents do not want us to have
cows here.
*• No one option works well throughout the entire county.
Different areas need varied options. Small area planning
development.
*• In regards to the landfill issue, some areas feel they have
"been done to. " We are sensitive about this and the RCSC may
be just one more thing to worry about. We have lost so much
flexibility in this area (particularly Bingham and the
watershed area) .
Summary (group recommendations)
• None recorded.
44
1-27-94- -
Peter M. Pickens
3004 Cool Spring Drive
Chapel Hill , NC 27514
January 26 . 1994
Rural Character Study Committee
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Rural Character Study Committee Members :
I was at the meeting of the Rural Character Study
Committee at New Hope School last night and left when we were
about to divide into small groups . I left because the issues
that you wanted imput from us were not the issues that I
came to address . It seemed to me that all you were concerned
with was how to carve up subdivisions and somehow still
maintain some semblance of rural character .
While lot and open Space size are important , what really
is critical for preserving Orange County' s rural character is
first to decide the amount of land that is going to be set
aside for housing developments and still maintain the rural
character of the county and then decide just what kind of
developments are acceptable , including their facilities and
restrictive covenants - not just lot size and open space .
And we all need to know who is making these decisions , when,
how, and why - in fact, we the residents of Orange County
included in the Rural Character Committee ' s jurisdiction
should not just supply imput but help make the actual
decisions too because we are the ones who are going to be
most affected by them.
Sincerely,
Rti—L rt
• 45
re �Sq C
c
U Peter M. Pickens
M4 17f A Cool Spring Drive
lapel Hill , NC 27514
December 23 , 1992
/v n rur� ng Board
c nA1C 78
lanning Board:
On December 14 at the Open Hearing I spoke before you and the
County Commissioners concerning the proposed rezoning of 620
acres for University Station. One of my main points was that
we can ' t save the rural character of Orange County lust by
protecting farms and preserving open space . The developments
we build in our rural areas should themselves have rural
character with rural , as opposed to urban restrictive
covenants , which would give residents the option , the
alternative, the freedom to live and pursue a country life in
the country. Where else? - Certainly not in town or even in
a village like University Station.
I hope that you will give my comments some serious thought
and not just in relation to University Station but to all
future subdivisions proposed for Orange County. If you take
620 acres of our countryside , build a village on it with
condos , shops , an inn, office buildings , etc . ; give it urban
restrictive covenants that rule out, for example, any kind of
livestock; supply it with city water and sewer; and zone it
with the potential for incorporation, where is the rural
character of that land going to be? It ' s going to be gone .
long gone , in one big bite.
I just don' t know how you would even consider allowing
residential units in the countryside that have absolutely no
land around them where the residents could at least grow
vegetables and have some inkling of what living in the
country is all about . Condos , apartments , townhouses - they
don ' t belong in the country - that is , if you are serious
about preserving rural character. Now I can see how you
would consider houses with 1 or more acres around them. Now
the homeowner has some land to do something with - a
necessity for any semblance of country living I think you
would agree; however, if his restrictive covenants won' t let
him do anything on that land other than, say, ride the
lawnmower , then he ' s stymied: He might as well be living in
town . Of course, one might argue that a lot of people who
are moving out into our rural areas these days don' t want to
grow vegetables and don' t want to have chickens in their
backyard or perhaps a goat or a cow or a horse , but someday
they might, or if not them, then someone later on like their
children, or children' s children. The land we have left in
rural areas , on which houses are going to be built, has to be
4�
reserved for country living now and for the future , if we are
going to maintain its rural character and preserve its
southern heritage .
I grew up in Charlotte , then moved to Chapel Hill and lived
in an apartment within walking distance of downtown and work .
and I was very content . However, my wife wanted to live out
in the country, so I gave in and we moved here in the
University Acres subdivision . At first I missed living in
town, but then - from reading back to the land homesteading
self-sufficiency books - I realized the possibilities which
fortunately I had, because our developer had allowed
livestock on the 2 acre and larger lots . we ' ve raised
chickens for eggs , had a milk cow and calves , pigs , goats ,
donkeys , guineas , grown vegetables , and so forth. So what
we ' ve had is a real and wonderful alternative to living in
town, a real taste of country living even though we are in a
development, and this option, this freedom should be
available to everyone who moves out of town. It not only
saves the rural character of the land, but also brings out
the often unrealized rural character of the people living on
that land like myself .
so, save the dairies on Dairyland Road? Yes ! Save Duke
Forest? Yes ! please, do save as many farms and as much open
space in Orange County as you can, but also save the rest of
our rural areas as well with developments that have rural
character in and of themselves with rural covenants to keep
them that way. And please leave the shops , inns , and offices
out of the picture : They belong in the surrounding towns
where they are now in abundance. This whole rural village
concept being heralded by developers, with its high densities
balanced by so-called open spaces like golf courses , is
seriously flawed. Surely you realize that developments like
these and zoning for them will just end up urbanizing the
countryside . And why does everyone have to live in
subdivisions nowadays? More land needs to be available for
people to live on that is not part of any development, where
true Independence remains possible .
Thank you,
Peter M. Pickens
�-7
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
c
January 26, 1994
To: Citizens at the January 25, 1994 East-Central Orange
Community Meeting (Rural Character Development Options)
Dear Citizen:
Let me again express my thanks to you for attending our community
meeting on January 25. Your input and feedback is greatly valued,
and I appreciate your candor and thoughtful responses. I am writing
to clarify my response to a question during the meeting. Upon
review, my response did not completely answer the question.
The question related specifically to the "Staff Alternative,,
development options, and the fact that density bonuses for open-
space development options (Options Bl-B3) were based on "lot yield"
under one-acre lot zoning. For example, you may remember the 100-
acre tract in the handout table (bottom of page 4) - with three
examples of a 100-acre tract with different site constraints. These
tracts had 26, 50 and 101 septic tank "perc" sites, and would
receive density bonuses of 20, 25 or 30% dependent on the design
guidelines met and the quality of open space.
A question was asked about whether the septic tank "lot yield"
would apply if the site had water and sewer service - i.e. , if the
starting point for density bonuses in the Staff Alternative would
still be the site constraint-based lot yield with water and sewer
service. I responded that, except in the Hillsborough Cooperative
Planning Area "Open Space Area", the lot yield would still be the
starting point for open-space development density bonuses (in the
Staff Alternative only) . I further noted that in the Hillsborough
"Open Space Area", however, these standards and densities would
likely be modified as part of a future joint land use plan.
I should have noted that the "Staff Alternative" already addresses
this issue. As a part of the footnotes of the Staff Alternative
from March 10, 1993, the following statement is found:
114 . In the Hillsborough Open Space Area, property owners, because
of the availability of public water and sewer, would start at
or u1E;t ';pzt` ae, since densities of less than that would
make. .it difficult to justify the cost of public utility
extension.
Therefore in the Hillsborough "Open Space Area"*, the septic-tank
based lot yield would not be the starting point for density bonuses
in the Staff Alternative. Properties in this area developed under
the Staff Alternative would start open space density bonuses at 101
lots per 100 acres (1.01 lots/acre) . In other words, all tracts in
the "Open Space Area" would function as the last column in the
bottom table on page 4 of the handout - as a tract with few
constraints. A 100-acre tract in the "Open Space Area" would yield
the following density bonuses for open-space development options:
Staff Alternative - Hillsborough Open Space Area only.
Option A: Conventional 101 lots on 100 acres
Option B-1: 40% Open Space = 120 lots on 100 acres
20% Density Bonus (50% of (1. 2 lots/acre)
design guidelines, "Fair" open
space quality)
Option B-2: 40% Open Space = 126 lots on 100 acres
25% Density Bonus (75% of (1.25 lots/acre)
design guidelines, "Moderate"
open space quality)
Option B-3: 40% Open Space = 130 lots on 100 acres
30% Density Bonus (100% of (1. 3 lots/acre)
design guidelines, "Good" open
space quality)
Since this was a question several citizens seemed interested in, I
thought it best to followup with a clarifying letter. I hope that
this letter has not created more confusion than it was meant to
resolve.
Again, it is important to note that the clarification provided here
pertains only to the Planning Staff Alternative development options
(page 4 of the handout) . It does not apply to the Rural Character
development options - since they do not use septic tank lot yield
to determine density.
Thank you again for your input, and I apologize for not remembering
this important point at the meeting. If I can provide any further
information or- clarification, feel free to call me at 732-8181,
967-9251, 688-7331 or 227-2031 (extension 2590) .
Sincere�ly_,I
;�`
Dave Stancil
Planner II-Land Use/Environment
* Please see attached map of "Open Space Area" .