Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-12-2015 APPROVED 9/1/2015 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Work Session May 12, 2015 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Mia Burroughs and Bernadette Pelissier COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager Cheryl Young and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Chair McKee said that Commissioner Burroughs and Commissioner Pelissier would be absent tonight, due to prior commitments. Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places: - PowerPoint slides for item 1- Presentation on Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness 2015 Plan to End Homelessness - White Sheet— Orange County Point-in-Time Counts, for Item 1 - PowerPoint slides for item 2-Potential Revisions to the Existing Public Hearing Process - PowerPoint slides for item 2-Private Road and Access Standards - White Sheet— Fire Service Features, for item 3 - Blue Sheet-Excerpt from the Approved January 30, 2015 Board of County Commissioners' Retreat Minutes 1. Presentation on Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness 2015 Plan to End Homelessness Jamie Rohe said she spoke to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) a few months ago about the new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the four local governmental jurisdictions and the Partnership to End Homelessness. She said the first part of the MOU was about the new supervisory structure of the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness (OCPTEH), and the other main part of the MOU related to a significant change in the Partnership and their plan to end homelessness. She said in 2008, a ten year plan to end chronic homelessness was established between the four local governments. She said the MOU changed the ten year plan to end chronic homelessness to a plan to end homelessness. She said the abstract contains the OCPTEH 2015 Plan to End Homelessness, the 2015 Calculation of Unmet Need for Housing for People Experiencing Homelessness, the Point in Time Count Data, and a copy of her PowerPoint presentation. Jamie Rohe said she welcomed interruptions and questions throughout the presentation. Jamie Rohe presented the following PowerPoint slides: Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness 2015 Plan to End Homelessness Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness • Orange County Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness (2007) • Coalition of housing and service providers, local government and community members working together to end and prevent homelessness in Orange County • Leadership Team and workgroups • Housing • Employment • Services Overarching Goals Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness (2010): 1. Set a path to ending all types of homelessness; 2. Finish the job of ending chronic homelessness by 2017; 3. Prevent and end homelessness among veterans by 2015 (2016 in NC); 4. Prevent and end homelessness for families, youth and children by 2020. Best Practices • 2009 HEARTH Act: Homeless Emergency Assistance & Rapid Transition to Housing • Homelessness System: 1. Emergency Shelter 2. Rapid Re-Housing (including services) 3. Permanent Supportive Housing (for disabled, including services) • Housing First: housing is health care • ENDING vs. MANAGING homelessness: trampoline vs. sticky safety net Chair McKee asked if there is an alternative for when residents are unable to comply with facility rules and regulations, or their own treatment plan. Jamie Rohe said people are not required to follow treatment plans, but treatment plans are available to them. She said there may be a disabled person with a mental health diagnosis plus a drug and alcohol addiction. She said previous thinking followed a "carrot and stick" approach; where the carrot was the housing and the stick was the treatment plan. She said it has been found that when people are in permanent housing, and are offered the option to choose or deny services, they are more likely to accept services offered. She said not everyone takes advantage of such treatment; however, the vast majority show improvements, such as drinking less. She added that there are other societal benefits, such as a reduction in trips to the Emergency room, the involvement of Police, the use of emergency shelters, etc. Chair McKee asked if the behavior of a small subset, that does not take advantage of the treatment offered, is being enabling by the removal of a consequence; such as the loss of housing. Jamie Rohe said she is not a Social Worker, and cannot speak with the authority of a front line case worker. She said it is her understanding from those who are experts in the field, that a person who resists treatment would be more likely to continue abuse drugs and alcohol, and not seek mental health treatment, while living on the streets; and therefore at much greater risk of death, than if they were to continue to receive housing. Funding and Data HUD funding (grants) • Continuum of Care = $550,000/year o Permanent Supportive Housing (Cardinal Innovations & UNC) • Emergency Solutions Grant= $190,000/year • Emergency Shelter (IFC) • Rapid Re-Housing (DSS) Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) • All grantees required to enter data in HMIS • 2015 new NC HMIS administrator = reliable data Performance Indicators 1. Reduce the length of time people are homeless (target < 30 days). 2. Reduce returns to homelessness. 3. Reduce the overall number of persons who experience homelessness. 4. Increase job and income growth for persons who are homeless. OCPEH 2015 Plan to End Homelessness HOUSING 1. Increase housing opportunities. • Rapid Re-Housing • Permanent Supportive Housing • Affordable rental housing (esp. < 30% AMI) 2. Increase number of landlords that will rent to people experiencing/at risk of homelessness. 3. Increase Town of Chapel Hill public housing units and Orange County Housing Choice Vouchers available to homeless. 4. Implement Coordinated Entry System Commissioner Rich asked if she understood correctly that the Housing Choice Voucher Program has been closed for five years, and no one is on the list. Jamie Rohe said it is actually a very full list, but it is a waiting list that is closed. She said the list has about 1,600 people on it, and it takes about ten years to receive a voucher due to very slow turn over. Commissioner Rich asked if the 1,600 people are still in Orange County. Jamie Rohe says the list is purged and updated on a regular basis. Commissioner Rich asked if the list were to be reopened, to whom it would be targeted. Jamie Rohe said neither the County nor the Town of Chapel Hill have been approached about a collaboration. She said there is a lot of guidance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) about how local housing authorities and partnerships to end homelessness can work together. She said she has only just begun to look into this potential collaboration and the best practices by which to achieve it. She said one possibility, that caught her attention, was the option of opening an additional waiting list that is targeted at a particular group, such as those experiencing homelessness. Chair McKee said he does not understand how starting a new waiting list offers much help, when there is no housing available for the people on the existing waiting list. Jamie Rohe said this is the very reason there must be a Community dialogue between all stakeholders. She said if a preference were to be given to those experiencing homelessness, it may change their rank on the waiting list. Commissioner Dorosin said this conversation highlights a more fundamental issue, which is the need to prioritize more affordable housing units. He said the prospect of getting the private market to be more amenable to renting to those at risk of homelessness is a losing battle. He said it would be ideal to have low income housing integrated into regular market housing, but that goal may have to be sacrificed in order to simply increase the amount of low income housing available. Jamie Rohe said the past Housing Director, Tara Fikes, said if the apartment complexes are no longer taking vouchers, then individual landlords need to be approached. She said she has heard many people say this same message. Jamie Rohe said more affordable rental housing must be built, as the current housing status is in crisis mode. She said the battle has to be fought on several fronts: increasing housing, recruiting more landlords, etc. She said the creation of a Housing Locator Specialist Position would help greatly. She said there is a duplication of efforts across the County to find affordable housing for their clients; and a housing locator position would be able to recruit landlords, and maintain good relationships with them. She said this position would help reduce duplication efforts and would maintain relationships with providers and clients, as they provide housing for the homeless. Commissioner Price asked if Jamie Rohe's role in this plan could be explained. Jamie Rohe said she is not a service provider or a housing provider, but rather she is the Homeless Programs Coordinator. She said she is responsible for applying for the funds, writing the grants, staffing all the work groups, collecting data, and using that data effectively. She said she brings groups together to work collaboratively, and to implement best practices. Commissioner Price asked if homelessness has been reduced. Jamie Rohe said that no, homelessness has not been reduced. She said their data has not been good enough to know how homelessness is changing in the area. Jamie Rohe said the numbers of unsheltered homeless has dropped significantly in the past several years, due to people getting into permanent supportive housing. She said the overall numbers for homelessness have not gone down, and that homelessness is an indicator of extreme poverty. Commissioner Price said the information in the abstract did not mention much about training and employment. Jamie Rohe said the Plan to End Homelessness has three parts to it, and her presentation this evening is only focusing on the housing component. She said she would welcome the opportunity to return and talk about the other parts. Bonnie Hammersley said Jamie Rohe's position is funded by all four government entities. She said there is a lot of overlap between governmental entities, and that is why Jamie's position was moved from the Housing Department to the Manager's office. Bonnie Hammersley said she has some responses to share in the Budget discussion next week. Commissioner Jacobs said there was a presentation from Affordable Housing Advisory Board, about a year ago. He said this Board asked for funding for one of its members to act as a clearinghouse for affordable housing opportunities in Orange County. He asked if there was an update on this topic. Jamie Rohe said the proposal for the Orange County Clearinghouse Network has some good elements to it; however, clearinghouse networks are notoriously hard to maintain. She said this process did not work well at the Federal level. She said it must be considered why these are not working, and what is needed in order to succeed. She said there must be a deliberative process of engaging partners; including relationships with providers, ideally with the clients themselves and also with the landlords. Bonnie Hammersley said she would provide additional information to the BOCC on this issue. Commissioner Jacobs said more rental units are being built in Chapel Hill. He asked if there is any strategy for providing more affordable housing rentals, versus affordable units for ownership. Jamie Rohe said there is an inclusionary zoning ordinance for home ownership. She said the Affordable Housing Commission, which is all of the main affordable housing stakeholders in the County, is focusing on how to encourage private developers to give affordable rentals in their developments. Commissioner Rich said the Town of Chapel Hill is working with a developer on Legion Road; but the process has been delayed, due to paperwork not being filed in a timely manner. She said the development is supposed to be largely made up of affordable housing. She said she is unsure if this development will include any priority for those who are homeless, or at risk of being so. Commissioner Jacobs said he was thinking more about the Ephesus Fordham area, and downtown on Rosemary Street. Commissioner Rich said the Exchange was at Ephesus Fordham, and it was put on Legion Road instead. Bonnie Hammersley said she will find out the strategy information from the Towns of Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, and will forward it to the Board. Commissioner Jacobs said he agreed with Commissioner Dorosin about incentivizing the private sector to interface with government, to provide affordable units. He said an incentive per unit may not be a financially viable option with a large apartment complex; but it may be a viable option with an owner of a private home, which is rented out. He said he would not want to give up this option entirely. Commissioner Rich said the density bonus strategy is not working for the Town of Chapel Hill. Commissioner Rich said her concern is, as transitional housing is built with Inter-Faith Council Social Services (IFC), there are still homeless on the street, and there are no emergency shelters available to them. She said the option of building a shelter must be considered, as the transitional housing is a non-emergency shelter. She said there must be a discussion about what to do when IFC moves out of their current shelter. Jamie Rohe continued with the PowerPoint presentation: Calculation of Unmet Need for Housing Homeless street outreach workers and shelter/transitional housing staff estimate that Orange County's unmet need for housing to ultimately resolve the homelessness of their clients is (after new Community House opens): • Emergency Shelter: 0 18 beds for men o (surplus of 10 for women) • Transitional Housing: • (surplus of 60 beds for men) • (surplus of 8 beds for women & children) • Rapid Re-Housing: 49 beds • Permanent Supportive Housing: 29 beds John Dorward, Executive Director of the Community House in Chapel Hill, reviewed the new Community House, saying care will be provided to the same homeless people. He said Community House will not be an emergency shelter, and will only be able to take in 17 extra people on white flag nights. He added that there are people who do not want to come into housing. John Dorward said the program will be more of an interim program, as opposed to transitional housing. He said the program believes strongly in rapid re-housing. He said there is not a lot of rapid re-housing, and few people get placed within a year. He said more affordable housing options would lead to greater success rates. John Dorward said there has been a waiting list at both shelters for over a year, even at the men's shelter. He said both shelters have been full for ages. He said the new facility will only have two more beds than the older facility; 52 beds instead of 50. John Dorward said having an emergency shelter would be great; however, there is not one. He said as a result, these homeless people will still come into their program. He said if someone comes into the shelter, there is a chance to get that person into their program and eventually into permanent housing. Commissioner Rich asked if there is any way to pursue an emergency shelter for Orange County. Chair McKee asked John Roberts if he would research any options for affordable rental properties, outside of rental control. He said he understands rent control is illegal in North Carolina. Chair McKee said he is not sure that all of the providers in Orange County have been invited to the table to talk about affordable housing. He said this conversation must take place in conjunction with all four Towns and all the providers, from small to large. He said everyone needs to be in the same room, on the same page; and he has seen a lack of coordination in some of the areas. Bonnie Hammersley said collaboration and cooperation is the direction that this conversation is going; and all updates will be shared with the BOCC, as available. She said the new Housing Director has some ideas on how to expedite this process with some resources. She said she will speak further on this topic during budget discussions. Commissioner Jacobs said if there was a bond for affordable housing, it would be a great incentive for all parties to come together to discuss this issue. Commissioner Rich said that the Partnership to End Homelessness does have a seat at the table for all the partners mentioned. She said it is a well attended group from throughout the County. Jamie Rohe said there is a big overlap between homelessness and housing, and the Orange County Affordable Housing Coalition is the body that is bringing everyone together. She said this coalition has been in existence for about two years, and has about 20 stakeholders involved. Chair McKee asked if the Manager would please schedule another update in the fall. Commissioner Price said as development continues in Chapel Hill, more and more wooded areas are being cut down. She said she is aware of many homeless people, who live in the wooded areas, and are now displaced, as the woods are removed. She said this only increases the need for more housing. 2. Potential Revisions to the Existing Public Hearing Process Perdita Holtz, Orange County Planning Department, made the following PowerPoint presentation: Potential Revisions to the Existing Public Hearing Process (for Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)/Zoning Matters) Purpose of Work Session • To discuss whether the existing public hearing process for UDO/Zoning matters should be revised • If so, give staff direction on what the process should be • Any revisions must be brought forward as a UDO text amendment at a quarterly public hearing Recent History • Reviewed in last half of 2014 and discussed extensively by Planning Board and BOCC • Original impetus: • Remove the Planning Board as an official board at the public hearing (e.g., do not require a quorum of Planning Board members) • Increase the frequency of public hearings (currently held 4 times per year on dates specifically set aside only for public hearings) • Other discussion through process: o Allow the public to make comments at the end of the process, not just at the formal public hearing ➢ Will require a text amendment to the UDO which stipulates only written comments can be made after the formal public hearing ➢ If pursued, should be allowed only for legislative items, not quasi-judicial items (e.g., Special Use Permits) Legislative vs. Quasi-Judicial • If revisions are made, staff recommends two slightly different processes given the different legal requirements • Legislative decisions can be discussed by decision makers outside of the formal public hearing with anyone who has an opinion • Quasi-judicial decisions are not to be discussed outside of the formal hearing (ex parte communication) and sworn testimony by experts is required ➢ Non-expert opinions are considered hearsay and cannot be the basis of a decision Possible Process Flow Charts • Included in agenda materials along with remarks regarding each possible process • Primary differences from existing process: Differences from Existing Process • Planning Board would make a recommendation prior to the public hearing • Planning Board could request BOCC send item back to the Planning Board after the public hearing • BOCC could choose to send an item back to the Planning Board after the public hearing • Public hearing would be closed the night of the hearing o Written comments after the hearing would no longer be required o At conclusion of hearing BOCC could: ➢ Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date (items would no longer be listed on the public hearing portion of the later BOCC agenda and the public could make oral comments) ➢ Refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review ➢ Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing (this would allow the process to move more quickly for items that are not particularly controversial) • Planning Board quorum not required to hold public hearing o Planning Board encouraged to attend public hearings • More opportunities for public comment and earlier in the process • Comment at both Planning Board meeting and formal public hearing • Nearby property owners would receive letter about the Planning Board meeting and signs would be posted on the property • For quasi-judicial matters, Planning Board meeting could be considered a "dry run" for the formal public hearing BOCC Discussion • Should existing process be revised? • If so, how? • When Planning Board's recommendation occurs ➢ Before or after public hearing • Require Planning Board quorum in order to hold public hearing? • Number of public hearings per year ➢ Could be different for legislative vs. quasi-judicial • Closure of public hearings so items would no longer appear on the "Public Hearing" portion of BOCC agendas with no additional comment accepted ➢ Removal of requirement for written comments will be necessary OR change heading on BOCC agendas Commissioner Price said is the option of keeping or removing the planning board from the process at the sole discretion of the BOCC. John Roberts said the Planning Board can be given any authority that the BOCC sees fit. He said currently the Planning Board is primarily an advisory board. He said the BOCC can delegate more or less responsibilities, as it so chooses. He said the BOCC can remove the Planning Board from the Quarterly Public Hearing process. Chair McKee asked if the requirement of having the Planning Board members to be present in a quorum at Quarterly Public Hearings was made during Commissioner Jacobs' tenure. Commissioner Jacobs said this decision predates his tenure. He said when he was Planning Board Chair, 30 years ago, it was a requirement to have a quorum and to make a recommendation after the Public Hearings. Commissioner Price referred to the slide titled Differences from Existing Process, asking if the public would be able to make only oral comments; or would written comments also be allowed. Perdita Holtz said for legislative items, residents can make oral and written comments. She said for legislative items, the State requires that at least one Public Hearing be held. She said there are no constraints on the public's involvement in such meetings. She said restraints on the public's involvement only exist in quasi-judicial matters. She said the current Public Hearing process in Orange County blended the two processes together leaving only one Public Hearing for both legislative and quasi-judicial matters. She said this blending of matters into one meeting can be difficult, as there are times when people are unable to speak at later meetings. Commissioner Price referred to the second bullet point on the same slide that stated: "refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review." She asked if further comment would be allowed by the BOCC. Perdita Holtz said the Public Hearing would be closed at the hearing. She said the three bullet points on this slide are not mutually exclusive, and the Board could choose any of the three options. She said the BOCC would be allowed further comment as a regular agenda item at a BOCC meeting. Commissioner Dorosin asked if it comes back as a regular agenda item on the BOCC's agenda, can anyone speak on it. Perdita Holtz said that is correct. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the only reason it is not currently done this way is because the legislative and quasi-judicial processes are melded together. Perdita Holtz said the language in the UDO does not allow for oral comments at a later stage. Commissioner Dorosin said the current problem is that comments are returned the BOCC, and no one is allowed to comment on them. He said the goal is not to remove the Planning Board from the process, but rather to get the public more involved in a smoother and efficient process. Commissioner Dorosin said the process can remain as it is, but add that additional comment will be welcomed upon the return of the Planning Board's recommendations. He said he likes the idea of what is in the recommendations, to encourage the public to be involved earlier in the process. Commissioner Dorosin said waiving the no comment clause would address a lot of the concerns he has. He said it does not remove the Planning Board from the process; but it allows the public and the Planning Board to be in communication much earlier in the process. He said the process for the legislative items, including the ability for further comment, are a good step forward, and he would endorse it wholeheartedly. Commissioner Rich said a public hearing where people are told they cannot comment is not a public hearing. She said it would be nice to have members from the Planning Board in attendance at the end of the Public Hearing, when public comments are going to be allowed. She said if the Planning Board makes a recommendation and the BOCC discusses it at a meeting, there needs to be a representative from the Planning Board in attendance in order to explain why the Planning Board made the recommendation it did. She asked how comments from the public to the Planning Board will be evened out at that point. Perdita Holtz said one of the duties of the Planning Board Chair/Vice Chair would be to attend the Board of County Commissioners' meeting where these legislative items are on the agenda. Commissioner Jacobs agreed that attendance at the BOCC meeting should be a requirement of the Planning Board Chair/Vice Chair. He said this is a good compromise, and he is willing to change the process but would like to re-visit the process in a year to see how this is working. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Planning Board seems more passive in the last few years. He said this may be due to the thorough work of the planning staff. He said he sees the Planning Board as a fairly inactive group; and there is disconnect between the two Boards. Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 4 of the PowerPoint presentation that states "for quasi-judicial matters, Planning Board meeting could be considered a `dry run' for the formal public hearing." He said it is important that the public know what admissible testimony in a quasi-judicial hearing is. John Roberts said there are occasions where the public does not understand what admissible evidence is. He said it may be helpful to send in advance the definition of what a quasi-judicial hearing is. Craig Benedict said a brochure has been created, with the Attorney's office, which explains the differences between legislative and quasi-judicial hearings. He said it also explains the process of a quasi-judicial hearing. Commissioner Jacobs said it would be nice to put an explanation of the difference between the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board on the website. Chair McKee said a brochure will likely not be enough to educate the public on this issue and process. Commissioner Price said she is reticent to remove the Planning Board as an official Board at the Public Hearings. She said the BOCC and the Planning Board may not always agree, but having both present helps to flush out the issue. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with her, and that is why he would want to re-visit this in a year. He said the fact the Planning Board voted to take themselves out of the process, as part of the Public Hearings, reflects their aforementioned passivity. Perdita Holtz said the Planning Board recommended this option IF the Board of County Commissioners wanted to change the current Public Hearing process. Commissioner Rich said all the more reason to include the recommendation to evaluate the new process after a year. She said it would send the message to the Planning Board that the decision is not irreversible, and their input on the changes would be welcomed. John Roberts said if the BOCC felt that the Planning Board was not engaged, the BOCC could designate more responsibility to the Planning Board, in order to get them more involved. Commissioner Jacobs said to also make it a requirement for the Chair or Vice Chair of the Planning Board to attend the public hearings and the Board of County Commissioners meetings. Perdita Holtz asked if the Planning Board Chair or Vice Chair would be required to attend both the Public Hearing and the BOCC decision meeting. Chair McKee said when he served on the Planning Board it was his understanding that attendance at Public Hearings was mandatory. He said he supports continuing the requirement for the Planning Board attend Public Hearings. He said if there is not a quorum, then appointments should be made. He said the privilege of serving on the Planning Board carries with it responsibilities. Commissioner Jacobs said three of the five BOCC members in attendance tonight want the Planning Board to attend the Public Hearings, as well as the Board of County Commissioners' meetings and to require the Chair/Vice Chair of the Planning Board to attend. He said that sometimes life issues may interfere with attendance but, in general, attendance should be expected. Chair McKee said he understands that life issues come up, but he senses an overall attitude of apathy. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the requirement of a quorum, for a meeting to proceed, would still be in place; or if the process could continue, and necessary follow up could be done with the Planning Board after the fact. He said his main concern is not holding up the process. He said he would not oppose a general attendance requirement but struggles with any requirement that would cause the process to halt; especially when the public has been notified and has shown up. Commissioner Jacobs said perhaps staff could come up with a process of how to hold Planning Board members accountable, while allowing for the issues of life that come up, and keeps the process moving forward. Chair McKee said that sounds like a good compromise. Perdita Holtz said there is a difference between saying you have to be there and requiring a quorum to move forward. Chair McKee agreed when the public, Commissioners, and staff are all present and ready to proceed, it is frustrating to cancel a meeting simply due to the lack of a quorum. 3. Private Road and Access Standards Abigaile Pittman, Transportation and Land Use Planner, made the following PowerPoint presentation Private Road and Access Standards Purpose: To receive an update and provide guidance on options for addressing various private road access concerns. Background Addressing Private Road Access Concerns • Included in 2014 Work Plans • OUTBoard • Planning Board • 05/20/2014 — BOCC authorization to proceed • 12/09/2014 —BOCC Info Item summary of input and received approval to return with possible actions. Abstract Includes: • A review of existing private road standards; and • A grouping of possible options or action that could be pursued, grouped as follows: • Possible amendments to the UDO, including some from the Fire Council. • A report/list of items that cannot be addressed through amendments to the UDO; and • Options for addressing emergency access for trail systems, either in or outside the UDO. Current UDO Regulations- Road Development 1) Class A • Serves 6-12 lots or dwelling units • 50 ft. right-of-way • 18 ft. travel-way • Road maintenance agreement • Property owners responsible Class B • Serves 1-5 lots or dwelling units • 50 ft. right-of-way • No standard travel-way width • Road maintenance agreement • Property owners responsible >13 lots or dwelling units • Exempt Subdivisions per NC General Statutes • Required to be constructed to NCDOT Standards for Subdivision Roads. • Division of land into parcels > than 10 acres if no street right-of-way dedication. • Combination/recombination of lots if total number not increased. • Public acquisition of land for widening streets. • Lot division < 2 acres and > 3 lots if no right-of-way dedication. Primary Concerns • Vehicle access on private roads and driveways for emergency response. • Conversion to public road standards and acceptance into the State-maintained system at some point in future. • Currently no standards for emergency access for trail systems at Orange County parks administered by DEAPR. Possible Options/Actions within the UDO 1. Do away with Class B private roads and allow only Class A private roads, which requires a minimum 18-ft. travel-way. 2. Allow subdivisions with < 3 lots or dwelling units to be served by a shared driveway, subject to standards to accommodate emergency services vehicles. (UDO currently allows 2 lots or dwelling units to share a driveway.) 3. Develop a requirement that all newly created lots have access to a complying road (either private or public). 4. Cul-de-sacs: Increase clearing width to accommodate emergency vehicle access/staging. There is currently no minimum width. 5. Drainage pipes under driveways: Establish a minimum width for all drain pipes of 16 feet, to address concern of trucks being `hung up' when accessing property. 6. Gates/Walls: Require minimum travel widths and stacking areas to accommodate access concerns. 7. Pull-over Areas: Standards for requiring pull-over areas to allow two trucks to pass on a road. 8. Private Bridges: There are currently no existing weight specifications governing the development of a bridge over a stream crossing. 9. Tree Clearance on Driveways: A reference to a tree clearing requirement for subdivision projects may be needed to ensure emergency vehicular access, with a reference to such a requirement in recorded road maintenance agreements. However, the UDO may not be the most appropriate location for this County standard. Staff Comments All the aforementioned options for amending the UDO are viable except for option no. 3: Develop a requirement that all newly created lots have access to a complying road (either private or public). Possible options/actions Outside the UDO 1. Locked gates 2. Tree clearance on driveways 3. Road identification 4. District issues with road conditions Possible Options/Actions for Addressing Emergency Access for Trail Systems — In or Outside UDO • There are currently no standards for emergency access for trail systems in the UDO. • Draft goal and objectives (Attachment 1) could be implemented as a matter of County policy for the planning and development of future parks or for incorporation into the UDO. Recommendations The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Accept the update; 2. Discuss any concerns or preferences on options; and 3. With feedback, authorize staff to proceed with potential regulatory amendments Chair McKee asked if Emergency Services Director Jim Groves could address the concerns of the fire departments, with the existing road standards. Jim Groves said when they met with the Fire Chiefs Council, getting down the private roads in a safe manner was one of the main concerns. He said there has been the same issue with ambulances, if a road has low hanging trees. Jason Shepherd, Orange County Fire Marshal, made reference to Class 10 properties. He said he attended a community meeting with a development, which ended up making a road name change, doing maintenance on the road and surrounding trees, making it easier to ingress and egress. He said it is difficult to meet with all communities and encourage them to make the necessary changes. Chair McKee asked if there is a definition of a driveway. He said homes must be accessible. Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, said the recommendation would involve a driveway standard being adopted; to provide access, a staging area, and to guarantee a turn around. He said to achieve this; a text amendment would have to be done. Michael Harvey said any subdivision project, reviewed by staff, must demonstrate compliance with code. He said all shared driveway agreements are also reviewed. Chair McKee said it would technically be the same as what he dealt with, but with the cul- de-sacs it says there is no current minimum width. He said he believed a 60-foot radius to be required. Michael Harvey said there is currently a minimum width; however, there is not a minimum clearing outside of the travel way, and often vegetation gets in the way of the turn radius. He said twelve feet is not acceptable, and the goal is to come up with a standard that is acceptable. Commissioner Price asked if there is an advantage of three lots as opposed to two lots, and what a shared driveway would be like, since it must be wide enough for vehicles to pass on. Abigaile Pittman said the original purpose of the standard was to call for an affordable option before people spend monies on a Class A Road, and that is how the number of three lots was determined. Commissioner Price asked how the driveway is built and maintained. Chair McKee said in his case he built the road, and when the homeowners bought the lots they took responsibility for the maintenance. He said it was a Class B road. Commissioner Price asked if there is a difference between a really wide driveway and a Class B road. Michael Harvey said a Class B road must have a minimum travel width of twelve feet. Commissioner Price asked if this road would be twelve feet. Michael Harvey said a larger road will likely be recommended, based on the recommendation of First Responders; who say twelve feet is not viable for their needs. He said the recommendation will suggest a shared driveway with a larger cul de sac, than is required, so that emergency vehicles will be able to operate properly. He said this would allow smaller properties seeking a three lot subdivision to avoid the need for a Class A road, but allow access for emergency vehicles. He said the recommendation will require larger developers to comply with the Class A road standards. Abigaile Pittman said a Class B road has 15 foot right of way, while a driveway would not. Commissioner Price asked if such a right of way sacrifices clearance area. Abigaile Pittman said not necessarily as there are standards to accommodate Emergency Vehicles. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the intention is to apply the recommendation to roads from this point forward, or if it is to retrofit existing roads. He asked if there was any sense of the scope of the problem. Abigaile Pittman said if there is an amendment to the UDO, it would be only going forward; but if the County adopts other policies, then it could affect whatever the BOCC decided. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are three lots cut out along the road way, must they all connect on one driveway. Michael Harvey said typically joint driveways and shared access roads are required to avoid multiple curb cuts on the roadway; and thereby lesson traffic congestion. Commissioner Jacobs said he understood the sense in two lots sharing a driveway, but he is specifically asking if three lots must always share a driveway. He said it makes no sense to him to cut across three lots, just so there can be a shared driveway. Michael Harvey said no. He said it is incumbent upon the developer to come up with a solution that avoids that scenario. Chair McKee said that current regulations state that one cannot have multiple access points into a minor subdivision. He added that a minor subdivision is considered one to five lots. Commissioner Jacobs asked if anyone has spoken to local realtors or members of the local development community regarding this topic. Michael Harvey said no. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the 16 foot pipe was 16 feet in length or diameter. Abigaile Pittman referred to the drawing graphic that outlined these measurements. Jason Shepherd said there is an apron entrance off of the road, and the length of the pipe would have to be the width of the apron. He said the length would be 16 feet long, lying across the width of the driveway. Commissioner Jacobs asked David Stancil if he could give some background on the rural character study. He said a mixed group of stakeholders came together to discuss ways to preserve rural character. David Stancil said the study was done 22 years ago. He said the study was done prior to the existence of cluster subdivisions and open space developments. He said there was a lot of emphasis, at that time, on the environment, and the ability of constructing narrower lanes. He said there were concerns about fire and safety, which were addressed by the placement of regular pull out areas; allowing drivers room to pull over to let emergency vehicles pass. He said the idea of protecting rural character included making sure that roads were not overdesigned. Commissioner Jacobs said there was a great deal of work done to encourage people to work within the existing landscape, as opposed to changing it. He said he would like the BOCC to consider that there may be other possibilities. He said he understands the issues of safety but he would like to pursue the idea of preserving rural character. He said as most of the jurisdiction is rural, those would be exceptions, not the rule. Commissioner Jacobs said the Department of Transportation's standards are not universal, but rather they are North Carolina standards; and he argued that there may be some middle ground in exceptional cases. Commissioner Jacobs said there should be differentiation between natural areas and parks. He said he would like to see some sensitivity to the natural environment; all the while knowing that Emergency Services and Fire Departments know what is in their jurisdictions, and will respond accordingly. Commissioner Rich said she is interested in seeing the old rural character study. She said she is concerned that the burden is being put on the landowner or developer, and it is expensive. She said the great cost of the roads and driveways may be passed to homeowners. Commissioner Dorosin said there is competing interests: cost for home owners or developers, versus the obligation to help constituents during emergencies. He asked if homeowners with unacceptably small driveways or tree limbs, that bar access, could be reported to their insurance carrier; as they have an obligation to make the roads function for public safety. Chair McKee asked John Roberts if County services could refuse to approach an emergency due to inaccessibility. John Roberts said Emergency Services would have to find a way to get down the driveway. He said he does not know a solution to the problem but there is a reasonable expectation among citizens that the fire department, funded by their tax dollars, will reach their house in a time of crisis. Commissioner Rich asked if there is an emergency and the roads are inaccessible how does Emergency Services currently respond. Jason Shepherd said each situation is unique and is addressed one case at a time. He said each response is created in the moment, often sacrificing precious time that would be better used fighting the fire. Commissioner Dorosin asked if property owners and realtors are required to disclose the fact that a fire truck cannot get down the driveway. Jason Shepherd said no, there is no type of disclosure requirement. He said in regards to insurance providers, policy writers should create policies in the field after seeing a property rather than at their desks. Jim Groves said some of the stakeholders are worried about their vehicles, and potential damage they may incur on unsafe or unstable roadways and bridges. Commissioner Dorosin said if people knew of the hazards, like low hanging branches; they may be more receptive to making the safety changes. He said many people may be unaware of their property's inaccessibility, until it is too late. Commissioner Price said firefighters are being put at risk, not just the vehicles. She said it is not fair to come up with policies for nice country roads, and not consider the people doing the work. She said she will side with the recommendations of the Sheriff, Emergency Services and the Fire Departments. Commissioner Jacobs said information, regarding Emergency Services accessibility, could be included with the tax notice, in a similar manner to information about pumping septic tanks. Commissioner Jacobs said for the most part the intentions are all good and make sense to him. He said part of being in the post 911 world is that there are so many sacrifices of personal character, versus the greatest possible safety. He said it is reasonable to educate people and to suggest that they clear their driveways but to make it a County ordinance takes it too far. Commissioner Jacobs said there should be some cost benefit analysis. He said his own cost analysis tends to be the natural environment versus standards; but others compare their bottom line to standards. He said the Development Community, as well as the public, should be included in the discussion. Chair McKee said there is a road off of Route 70, called Poplar Ridge, which fits the definition of what is being discussed here tonight. He said driving this road may be helpful in visualizing the types of issues that fire trucks face. He said access is the key; if services cannot get to the fire, houses and people cannot be saved. Commissioner Price said she is not in favor of increasing the cost to the developer but she feels that the safety of the responders must be heavily weighed. She said a price cannot be placed on a person's life. Jason Shepherd said Chapter 5 of the fire code allows him to require fire apparatus access. He said a solution may be as simple as reviewing development plans prior to construction, to see if access is possible. He said there may be many cases where a 12 foot driveway would allow access, and exorbitant changes and cost would not be necessary. Chair McKee said Class B roads could remain available for minor subdivisions. Commissioner Jacobs said when this item comes back to change it from standards to guidelines subject to approval by the Fire Marshal's office. Commissioner Jacobs said he is more in favor of flexibility and would trust the Fire Marshal to give an honest review. Chair McKee said he is not sure the BOCC has given any clear direction with which staff can proceed. Abigaile Pittman said perhaps the Board could authorize staff to outline some amendment options, and return to the Board for their consideration. Chair McKee said this may be the best course of action, as summarizing the evening's conversation may prove difficult. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the idea of some type of public awareness campaign could be pursued. Commissioner Rich asked if the properties that are already known to be difficult to access, have been notified of this information. Jim Groves said the Fire Marshal has done this on one occasion, and that response was favorable, and the problem corrected. Commissioner Rich said arming people with knowledge about their property may be a really good place to start. Chair McKee said fire departments do proactively engage the public with troublesome roads. 4. Educational Facility Impact Fee Ordinance and Age-Restricted Housing Craig Benedict said there was a request from a developer in Chapel Hill for Orange County to review the County's ordinance and to have an age restrictive housing exception. He said this developer asked for age restrictive housing to be categorized into a multi-family impact fee category. He said the assumption, that the age restrictions for development would be similar to that of multi-family, may be a lot to ask. He said the approved age restrictions for 90 percent of the development state that one person within the household must be over the age of 55. He said this age restriction does not exclude people under the age of 55 also living in the properties. He said the remaining 10 percent of the development does not have age restrictions. He said in the abstract is some background information (below) and some possible options for the Board's consideration. He said they looked at some projects throughout the United States which gave them enough information to do some research in Orange County and maybe surrounding counties. BACKGROUND: Orange County is one of the few counties in North Carolina that can impose school impact fees because the County obtained special local enabling legislation from the State in 1987. In 1993, the County acted upon this authority and, in collaboration with the Towns and School Districts, began the fee assessment. Since then, the County has occasionally (every few years) updated the fees based on school costs, categories of housing, etc. Findings of impact, benefit, and proportionality must be shown to form a good methodology and legal basis. The Ordinance requires impact fees be paid for new residential construction in order to assist with educational impact costs associated with new students. A developer has recently approached staff to request that an exception be created for age-restricted housing, i.e. housing that would be limited by deed or covenant restrictions to housing for persons over a minimum age (see attached letter). The developer prefers the exception be created as quickly as possible. If the Board is interested in pursuing an amendment to the Ordinance, Planning staff recommends that the decision be based on relevant data because of the requirements necessary to set impact fee levels. There are two possible methods to achieve data needs: 1. Require the developer requesting this exception provide information about other age restricted projects in a specific geographic area (to be determined) and have staff evaluate the data to determine probable impacts. 2. Conduct a student generation rate study specifically for age-restricted housing and assess the fee accordingly. Historically, such studies have been completed by a consultant with data supplied by the local governments. (This method is preferable due to the enhanced ability to defend the outcome of the study). It should be noted that a new impact fee study (which includes the accompanying student generation rate analysis) has been requested by Planning in the department's FY 2015-16 Budget (approximately $70,000) since the last study was completed in 2007. If recommended by the Manager and approved by the Board, the new impact fee study would disaggregate housing types by number of bedrooms (similar to the 2014 study which evaluated only housing that had been constructed in the past 10 years; impact fees must be based on the entire housing stock). It would be possible to include age-restricted housing as a housing type in this new study, but the results of the study would likely not be available until early 2016 and would then have to be adopted. This timeframe may be longer than the developer would prefer. It should be noted that the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance (EFIFO) is independent from the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) with only the student generation rates having a common data ingredient. Because the special local enabling legislation for the EFIFO is grounded in land use and zoning authority, any changes to the Ordinance must be advertised in accordance with statute requirements and must be heard at a public hearing. The public hearing can be on a regular BOCC meeting agenda (e.g., it is not restricted to only the quarterly public hearings). A student generation rate study specifically for age-restricted housing (Option #2 above) would likely cost approximately $15,000 and would require staff time from all of the local governments within Orange County and the school districts to compile raw data. Option #1 would require County staff time to evaluate the information provided by the developer. If the ordinance is amended, there would likely be a reduction in impact fees collected (presuming age-restricted housing generates fewer students). The decrease would correspond to the amount of new housing that qualifies as age restricted housing under that amendment. Other housing type categories may increase if this type of housing is removed from the previous aggregated housing totals. Craig Benedict said in the upcoming budget, there is a request to review the student generation rates based on the previous study, along with a bit of an expansion of that study. He said an impact fee schedule would be created. He said the school impact fees do not cover 100 percent of the cost of putting a student in a seat in a public school. He said the school impact fee was anticipated to cover about sixty percent of the cost. He said he anticipates that these fees could climb again. Craig Benedict said if the Board would like an analysis of age restrictive housing to be done in the short term, and information came out of that analysis, then it could be wrapped into the school impact fee connection that will updated as soon as there is budget approval. He said the developer is present at the meeting this evening and can answer any questions about their proposal. He said approval from Chapel Hill has already been given, and time is of the essence. He said the payment of impact fees is usually done in the Certificate of Occupancy phase in Orange County. Chair McKee said it is not typical policy to allow anyone but staff to speak at a work session, but suggested allowing the developer permission to speak, in order to answer questions. Commissioner Rich asked if only age restrictive housing is being discussed tonight; as she brought up the issue of tiny houses before. Craig Benedict said age restrictive housing is the focus of tonight's discussion, and what is being proposed, with the reanalysis of the school impact fees, would capture one bedroom single family homes, which could include tiny houses. He said in the proposal for next year's reanalysis, the single family will be broken down by bedroom number; and there would likely be a lower fee for smaller houses. Commissioner Price asked if the BOCC is meant to make a decision at the next regular meeting about the proposed project. Craig Benedict said the project is not within Orange County's jurisdiction. He said it was approved by the Town of Chapel Hill in the fall of 2014. He said the product of the impact fee ordinances, throughout the County, are single family dwellings, and the developer would be paying about $11,000 per unit. He said the developer is asking the County to re-categorize age restrictive housing so that a different fee may be assessed. Commissioner Price asked if there is a time line for this to happen. Craig Benedict said the proposal to analyze, that he just reviewed, would not get results until October or November of this year. Commissioner Price asked if the developer's time line would be affected. Steve George, EpCon Communities developer and Attorney, said the plan is to break ground in the next few weeks but they would not have their Certificates of Occupancy (CO) until the first quarter of 2016. Craig Benedict said the Town of Chapel Hill collects at the permit stage, but perhaps the Town may delay to the time of the CO, which would be consistent with the overall County Ordinance. Steve George said if the impact fees could be collected at the CO, then there would be time for the study to be conducted. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that Bonnie Hammersley speak to the Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill or ask Chair McKee to send letter to the Mayor, suggesting the delay of the fee collection. He said if the development warrants a different fee, then this study is overdue, as the fee is based on the student generation rates. Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification regarding the impact fee, and if it is meant to be tied to actual student generation numbers, or if it is philosophically based in the value placed on education in this County. He said is there an exemption when building a residential nursing facility. John Roberts said there have been several exceptions to the impact fee ordinance and it is entirely appropriate for the Board to consider school generation information for educational impact facility fees. Craig Benedict said there is a proportionality connection to this, and Orange County is one of the few counties in the State that has impact fees. He said staff would suggest having data to back decisions. He said as new housing types come forward, new analysis should be done. Commissioner Dorosin said Orange County is not the only county to have impact fees, and questioned if other counties are further along in this process. Craig Benedict said Orange County is much farther ahead than the other counties, and the leading edge in analyzing to this level. Commissioner Jacobs said the other component to consider, besides legal and philosophical, is political. He said what can be charged versus what is charged can be two different things. He said the full freight of a public school seat is not charged. Chair McKee asked the Developer if he could share the anticipated total cost of the impact fees for all units. The Developer said roughly $700,000. Chair McKee asked the Board if this, or any other, exemption is made, and the pool of money is reduced will the Board in turn increase the fees to cover the loss, putting the burden on those who are not exempt. Chair McKee said if this project receives an exemption due to being age-restrictive housing then why not exempt couples or a single person that have no children and, therefore, do not impact the schools. Craig Benedict said the exception process of alleviating all fees is not being suggested. He said the suggested route is not for this developer's project but for age-restricted housing. He said it cannot be reviewed on a case by case basis, but rather a general category is being considered. Commissioner Rich said if a development project is not generating students it should not be exempt from fees and the fees should be much lower. Commissioner Rich asked if the developers have any affordable housing in the current project. The developer said they chose the payment in lieu option. Commissioner Price asked if the price range for the homes is known, and if there is an effort to make it affordable to seniors. The developer said keeping the housing affordable would be desirable, but it is difficult to achieve in Chapel Hill. He said the goal is to keep costs as low as possible, likely in the $300,OOOs. Commissioner Jacobs said this is age restrictive housing, which will likely not have children, versus a single family home that can be sold to those who may have children. He said that the label of age restriction does not mean that there will not be any children, noting that there is an increasing trend of grandparents raising grandchildren. Chair McKee said he is opposed to impact fees, period. He said they adversely affect the affordability of all housing and that with lower-cost housing, the fees can total 10 to 20 percent of the cost of the house. Commissioner Rich said it is time to gather data again and see what happens with the non-generation of students. Commissioner Jacobs said Orange County's payment in lieu policy for Parks and Recreation needs to be reviewed. The developer said he is confident of what the data will report. He said the only concern for them is the timing. He said he understands from the discussion that Orange County will help them work with Chapel Hill to allow construction to begin and act on the results of the data as they are obtained. Chair McKee said the Board can indicate to staff to start the study. Craig Benedict said the study can be paid for either by the County or the developer. Chair McKee said for Orange County to pay for this study. Commissioner Rich said the study should be broad. Chair McKee said to move forward with the study, to work with Chapel Hill to allow the project to move forward, and to assess fees at the CO stage versus the permit stage. 5. Follow-up Discussion on Board Rules of Procedures - Petitions Process Chair McKee said that Commissioner Jacobs petitioned the Board to review the petition process. He said at their places is an excerpt from the January 30, 2015 Retreat Minutes. Chair McKee said there have been more petitions in the past 6 to 12 months, and some of these are requests for information and not petitions, and these should be sent to the Manager to distribute to staff for responses. He gave some examples of petitions from Board members from past meetings in order to see the difference between information requests versus policy information/requests. Chair McKee said he does not know if he, as Chair, or the Manager needed to address these information requests more proactively at meetings. Commissioner Jacobs said having a trusted Manager, who will do what the Board asks, should be enough. He suggested Board members still be able to petition for all types of information, but it should be Manager's responsibility to determine what she can simply have staff answer versus what needs to go through the Chair and Vice Chair. He said it takes the burden off the Chair of having to respond to so many requests while also relieving Board members from worrying about the phrasing of their petitions, and allowing each member to know what the others are considering. Commissioner Rich said this process is a good idea but sometimes petitions come to her while she is talking to others and she adds it to her petition list. She said, however, most are not petitions, but rather information requests. Bonnie Hammersley said she liked this idea and it would not be a burden as she keeps notes throughout the meetings of all these requests. She said she often already has staff working on many of the requests prior to the Chair/Vice Chair agenda review. She said there are sometimes items that require the authority of the Board, and she cannot act without further communication with the Board. She said the outcome of all requests, whether true petitions or just request for information, will always be presented with full responses to the Board. Chair McKee said Bonnie Hammersley often takes the lead on petition responses during the agenda review. Bonnie Hammersley said some petitions are complicated and will take more time but she will make every effort to keep the petitioner updated from here forward. Commissioner Rich said it is important to know that a petition is not lost, but is being worked on, and for the Board to be updated. Chair McKee said Board members do not have to wait until a meeting to make a petition or information request. He said there is always the option of sending an email to the Manager and copying the Board, but not engaging in conversation with the Board members. He suggested adding John Roberts to the Board's single email address, to ensure that the Board is following the open meetings law at all times. Bonnie Hammersley said she is open to receiving phone calls as well. Commissioner Jacobs said he hoped this tweak will cause less work for the Chair. He said the Manager is knowledgeable and competent enough to navigate what she can handle, and what may need to follow a different route. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a way for the Board to act expeditiously on certain petitions that are time sensitive. He said he is in favor of establishing a process. He said he would support authorizing the Chair to act on the Board's behalf in those types of situations. John Roberts said a sentence could be included on all abstracts/agendas that, though decisions are not usually made at work sessions, a decision (s) may be made in special circumstances. Commissioner Dorosin concurs with John Roberts. He said making decisions at public meetings, that have been properly noticed, should be allowed. He said not doing so unnecessarily hamstrings the Board. He said there are times when special circumstances or emergencies arise. He said the high standards of transparency are not compromised by making decisions at work sessions, as they are not secret meetings. Commissioner Dorosin said he would also like for the Board to be able to act by consensus by email as long as the open meetings law is not violated. Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Dorosin. She said the Board can vote to suspend any existing rules at any time. Commissioner Dorosin said the Board stands too much on ceremony and process. He said he favors action in a timely fashion. He said there may not always be consensus and that is alright. Chair McKee said there is a place for policies and procedures. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn the meeting at 10:56 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board