Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-18-2016 1 APPROVED 3/22/2016 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING February 18, 2016 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on February 18, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs, Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney) COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley 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 7:04 p.m. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR None. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding mailed notification requirements. Perdita Holtz, Orange County Planning Department, presented the following PowerPoint slides: Mailed Notifications Quarterly Public Hearing February 18, 2016 Item C.1 Purpose of Amendment • Correct omissions to the public hearing process amendments that were adopted in November 2015. • Update mailed notice requirements in two sections that were not contemplated for amendments last year. Correct Omissions • Three sections related to required Neighborhood Information Meeting for Special Use Permits, Conditional Use Districts, and Conditional Zoning Districts. 2 o Notification boundary was increased from 500 feet to 1,000 feet and the intention was to use first class mail for the notifications but the adopted materials accidently retained the use of certified mail. Current proposal fixes this oversight and notifications would be mailed using first class mail. Update Two Sections • Two sections of the UDO that contain requirements for Neighborhood Information Meetings were not contemplated for amendments last year. o Major Subdivisions (Section 2.15) o Governmental Use (Section 2.24) • Propose to increase the notification distance from 500 feet to 1,000 feet and use first class mail. o Keep notification requirements consistent within the UDO. Planning Board Recommendation • Recommended approval at its January 6, 2016 meeting. Planning Director Recommendation • Recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and the Ordinance/amendment package (Attachment 3). Recommendation 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO. 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments. 3. Close the public hearing. 4. Decide on one of the following options: a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3). b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date. c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose. Chair McKee asked if the Board had any questions, as no one from the public had signed up to speak. Commissioner Jacobs said some citizens have had concerns about notification and this is responsive to those concerns. He thanked the staff for addressing this issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 2 as revised and Ordinance in Attachment 3. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding temporary custodial care units. 3 PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendments regarding temporary custodial care units, receive the Planning Board's recommendation, and consider the course of action on the proposed amendments. Ashley Moncado, Orange County Planning Inspections, presented the following PowerPoint slides: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Temporary Custodial Care units Quarterly Public Hearing February 18, 2016 Item C.2 Purpose To hold a public hearing on Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment regarding proposed standards for temporary custodial care units, receive the Planning Board's recommendation, and consider the course of action on the proposed amendments. Background • August 1, 2014—Session Law 2014-94 adopted • May 26, 2015— Quarterly Public Hearing • September 1, 2015— BOCC adoption consideration o Motion to refer the item back to the Planning Board and staff to include comments received at the May 26 Quarterly Public Hearing and September 1 BOCC meeting. • November 4, 2015—Ordinance Review Committee • January 6, 2016 — Planning Board recommendation Proposed Amendments • Proposed Revisions to: o Section 5.2, Table of Permitted Uses o Section 5.4, Standards for Temporary Uses o Section 5.5, Standards for Residential Uses o Section 10.1, Definitions • Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format. • Renumbering and reformatting of identified Sections. Proposed Amendments • Creates an entirely new land use, temporary custodial care units. o Combines temporary health care structure standards outlined in Session Law 2014- 94 and existing standards related to temporary mobile home units (custodial care) contained in Section 5.4.4 of the UDO. • Allows for temporary health care structures and temporary mobile homes up to 1,000 square feet in size to be placed as an accessory use to an existing single family dwelling unit. • Removes the required Class B Special Use Permit for temporary mobile homes currently contained in the UDO. 4 • Addresses items of concern identified by the BOCC at the May and September meetings. o Removes the relative or legal guardian requirement o Removes the state residency requirement o Allows for a unit to remain on the property for up to 180 days after the mentally or physically impaired person is no longer receiving care. o Allows for more than one individual to reside in the unit. o Increases the number of unrelated persons that can live in a dwelling unit from three to five based on the North Carolina Residential State Building Code. Public Notification • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO o Newspaper legal ads for two successive weeks Joint Planning Area Partners • Proposed amendments provided on December 22, 2015 o No Comments have been received. Recommendation • The Administration recommends the Board: o Receive the proposed amendments. o Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments. o Close the public hearing. o Decide on one of the following options: • Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency and Ordinance. • Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date. • Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose. Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated the work that has gone into this item. He clarified that the unit can stay on the property up to 180 days after the person is no longer receiving care. Ashley Moncado said correct. Commissioner Dorosin asked if it is no longer a requirement that a person be related. He said if one builds one of these structures and the person needing care improved, the facility can still be used if another person needing care utilizes the structure within 180 days. Ashley Moncado said yes. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the structure stays within its envisioned use, it does not necessarily have to be temporary, even though it is called temporary. Ashley Moncado said the main thing that makes it temporary is that it is required to be on a trailer. Commissioner Dorosin said it is temporary in that it is not attached to the ground. He said he would like clarification regarding the number of unrelated persons being able to reside together. Ashley Moncado said the change in this number relates to any single-family structure not just to a temporary one. She said this change was necessary in general but fits in well within this text amendment. Commissioner Dorosin said the temporary health care unit would have no effect as they would be living in a separate dwelling. He asked if four people lived in a house and two people lived in a temporary custodial care unit, all would still be in compliance with the amended UDO. 5 Ashley Moncado said yes, noting one must meet zoning requirements, as well as any environmental health issues regarding water and septic. Commissioner Dorosin asked if he could have clarification regarding the reference to the building code. Ashley Moncado said North Carolina State building code states only up to five unrelated persons can live within a residential structure. She said when there are six or more unrelated people, the structure is then considered a boarding or rooming house and this has different building code standards. Commissioner Dorosin said this could lead to some interesting dilemmas but he will leave it for the State to work out. He asked if the County could increase the number to greater than five in a residential setting. Ashley Moncado said it would be named a rooming house in UDO and this is a use that is already allowed for. She said the number cannot go above five unrelated persons but she understands potential complications, such as a family with 15 related members. Commissioner Dorosin said the question of how much a septic system can accommodate is not really being considered but rather whether or not people are related. Commissioner Rich said after 180 days the structure needs to come down or a different impaired person needs to assume occupancy. She asked if there is any provision to prevent a person from turning this temporary structure into a business. Ashley Moncado said she reached out to the Department of Aging and there is no such provision. She thought there may be a State law but there is not. Commissioner Rich said one could set up a business offering this new accommodation forever. Ashley Moncado said the Planning Board discussed possible language that would restrict the exchange of money. Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said someone could rent a room out within their home for this type of care. He said the question of ADA access comes into play when the building moves to boarding house status and it is not easy to convert a house. Commissioner Rich asked if the intention of the State is known. Craig Benedict said the goal was to have a temporary freestanding structure that a house may not be able to accommodate due to needed ramps or wide doorways. He said it was an option for temporary independent units as opposed to the conversion of a house. Commissioner Price clarified that the caregiver is the person that permanently resides in main house. Ashley Moncado said yes. Commissioner Price asked if the homeowner was the one in need of the temporary structure, could a caregiver live there as well. Ashley Moncado yes, a temporary caregiver could live in both the permanent dwelling, or in the temporary structure, alongside the person needing care. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency and the Ordinance. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. E. WORK SESSION 1. Review of Minimum Lot Size and Density Allowances for Subdivisions —To review and discuss the County's subdivision development and review processes focusing primarily on minimum lot size and density limitations as they relate to the clustering of proposed subdivision lots. David Stancil, Department of the Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) Director provided background regarding the Rural Character Study. He said in 1987, the BOCC created a Joint Planning Area with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He said part of this Joint Planning Area was the designation of the Rural Buffer. He said the mechanism to implement this rural buffer was the implementation of the two-acre minimum lot size. He said a study committee was created to consider how best to protect the rural integrity of the land. He said the first area focused on the rural buffer, and the second area focused on the remaining rural areas of the County. He said, simply put, the conclusion was to create a sliding scale between open space and the ability to achieve a smaller lot size. He said a great deal of thought went into the decisions and the process was a high point in his time in Orange County. Craig Benedict said Orange County's population has increased by about 50,000 people since the rural character study was completed. He said the majority of these people went into the cities but about 45% went into the unincorporated area. He said the original goals of the study started out as an open space preservation plan, balancing agricultural protection. He said the interesting part of this report is that, in large part, cooperation with the plan was voluntary. He said developers would submit two plans: a conventional one (10 acres, divided into five 2- acre lots), and a flexible plan (10 acres, with five 1-acre lots, and five acres of open space). He said the plans were reviewed, and the decision of which plan to use was placed on the developer. He said initially the majority of developers chose the conventional plans but slowly moved towards flexible plans. He said the process moved from voluntary to being a bit more direct, in order to achieve the outlined goals. Craig Benedict said the conversation now shifts to the next 50,000 people moving into Orange County and considering where they will live. He said projections are for lots of single- family development to occur in the rural buffer due to demand. He said one of the goals from the rural character study that remains in place today is the growth management goal: to have urban growth boundaries; to have efficient forms of development; balance the natural resource goals with pattern development and growth management. Commissioner Rich said there was previous discussion about the gross overstatement of projected population growth. She asked if there was an update on these numbers. Craig Benedict said the original numbers were done for the entire triangle region. He said he will give a presentation on March 2 to Planning Board about how these numbers were developed for the 2040 plan. He said the 2045 plan is currently being worked on and it is hoped that the control totals, which are provided to the County, can be reviewed and more appropriate estimates garnered. He said the formula for the projections (one house per every two acres), cannot be altered, but the numbers can be reviewed for realistic estimates. Michael Harvey, Orange County Current Planning, reviewed the following background and PowerPoint slides: PURPOSE: To review and discuss the County's subdivision development and review processes focusing primarily on minimum lot size and density limitations as they relate to the clustering of subdivision lots. This item was developed to address a petition submitted by 7 Commissioner Pelissier to identify opportunities and constraints within current regulations associated with the clustering subdivision lots. This represents one component of a larger discussion related to reducing development costs in an effort to promote affordable housing development. February 18, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: E-1 WORK SESSION: Review of Minimum Lot Size and Density Allowances for Subdivisions What is a Subdivision: • All divisions of a parcel of land into two or more lots for immediate or future sale/development, • Includes division of land involving dedication/change in existing streets. • Terms `subdivision' (i.e. process of creating lots) and `development' have become synonymous. They do not necessarily mean the same thing (i.e. just because you are subdividing does not mean you are engaged in development). Subdivision Classification(s) • Exempt (i.e. State law indicates not a regulated activity) includes: — Recombination of previously subdivided property (number of lots are not increased), — Creation of parcels in excess of 10 acres in area, o STAFF NOTE: there have been issues with property owners coming back to subdivide these 10 acre parcels as they have to bring lots/roadways into compliance with UDO. — Public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for widening or opening streets, — Division of a tract of land in single ownership where the property is no greater than 2 acres in area into not more than 3 lots if no street right-of-way dedication is involved and resultant lots are equal to or exceed County regulations (i.e. minimum lot area and width, etc.). Commissioner Dorosin asked if subdivision regulations apply, even when it is less than three lots in the subdivision. Michael Harvey said no, the property can be no greater than two acres for the last exemption. Michael Harvey resumed the presentation: • Minor: — Division proposing 1 to 5 individual parcels, — Reviewed and acted upon by staff. No board review (i.e. BOCC or Planning Board) required. • Major: — Division proposing 6 or more individual parcels, — Typically Planning Board approves a concept plan/makes recommendation on preliminary plat application. BOCC makes final decision, — Required review process related to number of proposed lots. Major Subdivision can be processed as Class A Special Use Permit or Conditional Use Rezoning based on number of proposed lots and location in County (i.e. rural versus urban areas). 8 Subdivision Types: • Standard Subdivision: Lots comply with established dimensional requirements for the general use zoning district in which the property is located as well as the standards detailed within Article 7 of the UDO. • Cluster Subdivision: Required lot sizes, area, and setbacks can be reduced if at least 20% of the gross land area designated as common open space; and • Flexible Development: Required lot sizes, area, and setbacks can be varied to accommodate on-site features. Three types: — Estate Lot (min. 4 acre lot size - only 2 acres developable) — Flexible Development (33% open space required) — Village (mixed use project— multiple housing types and land uses allowable) Example: Henderson Woods • Located in Rural Buffer Land Use Category (Comprehensive Plan) and Rural area per Growth Management System Map, • Density limited to 1 unit for every 2 acres per Joint Planning Land Use Plan/Agreement, • Property was 48 acres in size resulting in 24 lots potentially available for development based on density (48 acres /2 = 24 lots), • Minimum required lot size is 1 acre based on Joint Planning Land Use Plan/Agreement. — STAFF COMMENT: Per existing subdivision regulations lot size, in certain circumstances, can be reduced to as much as 65% of required area outside of protected watersheds. EXAMPLES (graphic) EXAMPLES (graphic) DIFFERENCES — CONVENTIONAL VERSUS FLEXIBLE (CONSERVATION CLUSTER) Conventional subdivision: • Open space part of individual lots. Can be disturbed, • Subdivision encompasses entire parcel, • More impervious surface area /land clearing/grading required (i.e. longer roads and driveways), • Greater impact to existing foliage and more acres `developed' under conventional subdivision design. Flexible (Conservation-cluster): • Smaller lots and separate open space (less likely to be disturbed), • Open space is now `shared common area', • Subdivision is condensed requiring less land clearing and grading, • Less impervious surface area required, • Greater protection for existing foliage and less overall `development' on property. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the conventional model and asked if the open space requirement only has to be met during construction. Michael Harvey said there is no open space requirement in the conventional model. He said the track is developed to the fullest extent. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the flexible model and asked if the separate open space must be maintained and undisturbed. Michael Harvey said yes. Commissioner Rich asked if Henderson Woods is conventional or flexible. Michael Harvey said flexible, but construction has not yet begun. Commissioner Dorosin asked if either model could have been approved. 9 Michael Harvey said developers have the right to bring forth a conventional subdivision design but it may not successfully obtain a staff or Planning Board recommendation. Commissioner Jacobs said the County can state its design preference and the flexible model was promoted and encouraged in the rural character study. Michael Harvey said in his tenure at Orange County, he has mostly seen either flexible development subdivisions with open space or the conservation subdivision. He said until 2013, the Joint Planning Agreement did not allow clustering in the northern portion of the rural buffer. Chair McKee said historically, the buyer's preference was for a large lot configuration with clearly identified corners. He asked if there has been a transition in what buyers are wanting. Michael Harvey said possibly but he believes the biggest issue is cost. He said the conventional model requires greater expense by the developer and greater adherence to separate development regulatory standards. Commissioner Rich asked if the open space needs to be maintained. Michael Harvey said yes. He said if a storm comes through and knocks down trees there is an obligation to reestablish the required buffers and open space. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is a density bonus. Michael Harvey said the only recognized density options are for affordable housing or if a greater area of open space if preserved. He said density bumps are not allowed in protected watershed areas as density is already set. He said density bumps are also not allowed in the northern part of the rural buffer as density is set by the joint planning land use plan and agreement. Commissioner Dorosin asked if density bumps are not allowed anywhere in the rural buffer. Michael Harvey said correct. Commissioner Dorosin said it is cheaper for developers to do this but the end result is very expensive housing. Commissioner Jacobs said there are different kinds of open space. He said the rural character study recommended 1.94 acre zoning throughout the County, which is the average lot size in Orange County. Commissioner Jacobs said water and sewer management can be tricky but there are some ideas about this in the rural character study. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are consequences when a homeowners' association fails to maintain the open space, a stormwater system, etc. Commissioner Jacobs said to call Michael Harvey. He added that he wanted the County to review homeowners' agreements to insure that such problems are avoided. Commissioner Rich said she lives in a neighborhood with dedicated open space which the entire community commits to maintain with twice annual workdays. She asked if farms can be counted as open space. Michael Harvey said farms can be counted as part of secondary open space in flexible development projects. Commissioner Jacobs said it may be something as simple as hay fields but it can lead to potential revenue. Commissioner Price referred to the discussion between conventional and flexible models. She said there are developers that are happy with the flexible model and others that were not, as it reduced the number of homes they could build in the development due to septic issues. Commissioner Jacobs said some subdivisions use the open space as secondary septic areas which allows for no loss in density. Commissioner Pelissier asked if any changes were made to septic rules, would there be any benefit to changing the rule for minor subdivision with five lots or less. 10 Michael Harvey said globally there will be staff recommendations that will change everything. Chair McKee instructed the Manager to have John Roberts send a memo to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding the court case in which the affect of septic on community systems was litigated. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a percentage break down for the type of subdivisions being built. Michael Harvey said there is 30% major subdivision, 40% minor, and the rest are exempt. He said of the 40% minor, most are three lots or less, whether due to density, cost or code requirements. Potential Constraints • Within Watershed Protection Overlay Districts, parcels being subdivided cannot be reduced below 40,000 sq.ft. of land area if served by individual septic systems. — There is currently no allowance for off-site septic systems to be considered with respect to allowing for further reduction in required lot sizes. — Please note off-site well and septic systems are specifically prohibited within the University Lake Protected and Critical Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. • Current private road justification standards only allows for a minimal reduction of required lot size with open space reservation. Smallest allowable lot, after process is completed, is 60,000 sq.ft. (minimum 50% of parcel being subdivided has to be designated as open space) Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are incentives to do it that way. Michael Harvey said a subdivision is a subdivision and there are no incentives currently. He said if any expedited permit reviews were to be offered, he would personally suggest it being done for flexible development options. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the point about roads could be clarified. Michael Harvey said if there are between four and twelve lots, design elements must be adhered to. He said the rationale is to preserve the existing rural aesthetic as much as possible. He said there are options that allow for the dedication of open space through the private road justification process, and reduced lot size. He said if a subdivision has 13 or more lots, a public road must be made that meets the Department of Transportation standards. Commissioner Rich asked if there is a difference between a private road and a long driveway. Michael Harvey said the number of lots that the road serves. Commissioner Rich asked if a long driveway serves two lots, would it be considered a private road. Michael Harvey said no, joint driveways are permissible. He said if there are three lots or more, then it becomes a roadway. Chair McKee asked if Michael Harvey could speak to Class B roads, in that context. Michael Harvey said a Class B road is a 50-foot right of way, with 12 feet wide of improved travel way, which could be gravel, pavement, concrete, etc. He said this road serves 1 to 5 lots. He said 6 to 12 lots would be served by a Class A road, which is 18 feet of improved travel way with any 50-foot right of way. Chair McKee asked if Michael Harvey could speak to a 10-acre lots and the requirement of a driveway. Michael Harvey said if one has a 200 acre tract of land and creates 20 10-acre lots, one is exempt from the provisions of the subdivision regulation. He said the County cannot compel the installation of any type of roadway. 11 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are specific dimensions for a public road. Michael Harvey said 22 feet wide of pavement and a 50-foot right of way. He said curb gutter and stormwater systems may change this slightly. Commissioner Jacobs said it is cheaper to do a private road and such roads also provide for the least rural impact. He said as the County moves forward, it is good to consider how to balance adequate public safety with minimizing environmental impact. He said the idea of density bonuses and expedited reviews should be reviewed in the future. He referred to page 22, noting the suggestion of possible open space tax breaks. Craig Benedict said there has been previous discussion about how open spaces are taxed. He said the tax assessor does not tax the open space but transfers some of that value onto the individual lots. Commissioner Jacobs said it might be interesting to monitor this process during the revaluation. Michael Harvey resumed the power point presentation: • Within the Cluster Subdivision type lots can only be reduced to 40,000 sq.ft. in size with the reservation of a minimum of 20% Open Space. — This Subdivision Type has applicability within the Rural Buffer(RB) general use zoning category but nowhere else. — Staff has been successful in encouraging the Flexible Development— Conservation Cluster model where lots can be reduced to 40,000 sq.ft. with the reservation of 33% open space (i.e. Henderson Woods, Annandale at Creek Wood, etc.). OPTIONS • Eliminate the Cluster Development subdivision type and promote the Conservation- cluster Flexible Development subdivision option. • Allow for greater reduction of lot sizes through the Flexible Development design process thereby increasing potential for additional open space. • Allow/recognize the use of off-site septic for wastewater processing, which could allow for further reduction of lot sizes— including within watershed protection overlay districts. • Re-assess private road development standards. • Review potential for creation/adoption of a Rural Master Plan Conditional Zoning district. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are advantages and disadvantages to the County regarding private roads. Craig Benedict said under the new storm water controls, it will behoove the developer to have the road drain to a certain location and have a master stormwater system. He said new regulations are being reviewed, and considering whether each lot should have its own stormwater controls, or if a master system can control both the roadway disturbance, and that on the individual lots. He said there is new technology and new regulations which are favoring the master system level. Michael Harvey said staff will be developing and reviewing a rural master plan conditional zoning district with the BOCC. Remember • Staff is not recommending changing established density standards. There will need to be additional discussion of this topic before action is taken. • Proposed modifications cannot impact property in the Rural Buffer. In order to change density or minimum lot sizes for this area the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and 12 Agreement will have to be amended, requiring approval of all participating entities (i.e. Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro) after a joint public hearing. • While this may promote development of `affordable housing' these issues represent only 1 small component of housing costs. This issue transcends Planning and will not be resolved solely through altering existing land use regulations. Recommendation The Manager recommends that the Board receive the information and provide comments/direction on potential subdivision amendment(s). Chair McKee said he appreciated the presentation, but he is not sure that the changes being discussed will affect the affordability of the lots. He said he understands that affordable housing will not be developed in the northern part of the County as it is away from water and sewer. Michael Harvey said this is just one aspect of a global issue that warrants discussion. He said if there is significant reduction in lots sizes with the implementation of innovative, off-site septic with increased density allowances and with incentives for developers, there may be an improvement with respect to the cost of the lot. He said the value of land in a protected area versus an unprotected area versus the rural buffer will all be different. Commissioner Pelissier said this has been a great presentation and it was done in response to her petition. She said the original intent of her petition was not so much affordable housing but rather preservation of rural character. She said the hope of an affordable housing byproduct was secondary. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are any successful examples of the options outlined this evening from other locations. Craig Benedict said several examples have been received that included a variety of the options. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is anything that could be developed to differentiate the size of a development. Michael Harvey said there is some viability with this idea. He said further discussion is needed regarding incentivizing developers. Commissioner Pelissier said in her tenure on the BOCC, every major subdivision has been high-end housing. She asked if mixed housing could be incentivized to allow for greater diversity of price points. She asked if this idea is even realistic. Michael Harvey said there is probably no incentive that can be offered unless the County is purchasing the property. He said the value of land is the value of land. Commissioner Jacobs asked if permanent protected open space is valued by Orange County, could the BOCC direct the appraiser to appraise at a reduced value for permanently protected open space in a subdivision. Commissioner Price said conservation easements could perhaps reduce costs. She said the Community Home Trust has several homes that are mixed into the high-end subdivisions. She said she does not promote the idea but noted it points to an example. Commissioner Dorosin referred to Commissioner Jacobs' point about incentivizing. He said it is important to determine what the County wants to incentivize. He said he would like to address the question of affordable housing. He said if the main concern is environmental preservation then it is not practically possible to have affordable housing in these areas. He said it may be worth exploring how development in the environmentally sensitive areas can subsidize the building of affordable housing elsewhere. He said it may be an impact fee or a cost in exchange for the incentives. He said he is very excited about the concept of off-site septic. Craig Benedict said there is currently a multi-department effort on affordable housing. 13 He said the ingredients of housing costs are: land, public or private infrastructure, entitlements in permit fees, cost of housing, cost of labor, profit margins, and market aspects. He said the areas, which can be affected and changed, are being considered. Commissioner Dorosin said he would love to hear on going updates from the multi- department effort. Commissioner Rich said when the BOCC approved the development of Whitfield the developer made voluntary contributions to affordable housing. She said the idea of affordable housing in the rural part of the County should be considered as well as who is being served by the affordable housing. Craig Benedict said staff has reviewed the inventory of affordable housing in the rural parts of the County. He said a comprehensive picture will be presented to the BOCC. Chair McKee suggested breaking affordable housing into two sections: low income affordable housing (Community Home Trust, Habitat, etc.); and work force affordable housing ($125,000 to $150,000 homes). Michael Harvey said looking at the comprehensive plan and the land use map, high intensity housing, in the 10 to 20 year transitions, is the highway 70 corridor, certain areas near Hillsborough and Durham, and some areas of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He said it is clustered in these areas as the services are located there as well. Chair McKee asked if alternative water and sewer systems are being considered, can work force affordable housing be offered outside these high dollar areas just mentioned by Michael Harvey. Michael Harvey said one of the rationales for recommending a rural residential master plan development process is to allow that type of dialogue to occur. He said it is important to remember that there are some intrinsic limits to such a dialogue, based on a density discussion that must occur at another work session. He said the village concept is a possibility if the infrastructure obstacles can be overcome. Chair McKee said some smaller local builders may be attracted to these options. Commissioner Jacobs said this discussion occurred at the BOCC retreat three years ago and the idea of clustered development with on-site community systems was considered. He said it is time to move past discussion and to try something. Commissioner Price said she would like to try the cluster developments with a small number of homes. She said those of modest income, who wish to live in a rural setting, should be able to do so. Commissioner Rich referred to the map on page 77 and asked if Michael Harvey could clarify the dark grey areas. Michael Harvey said these are transition areas that are managed, from a zoning standpoint, by either Chapel Hill or Carrboro. He said the County has granted authority for those areas to be developed in accordance with the joint planning land use planning agreement. Commissioner Rich referred to the triangle on the bottom of the map, which is identified as rural buffer. She asked if there is a reason this portion of land is considered as such. Michael Harvey said that goes back to the joint planning land use planning agreement. He said the area was rural in nature, with lots of farms. Chair McKee recalled the discussion about the extension of the water line for fire protection in that area. Commissioner Rich said this triangular area seems out of character given that Chatham County is developing right up to the edge of it. Craig Benedict said it is known as the "lost triangle". Michael Harvey said based on this work session, the BOCC desires a presentation regarding how the options discussed this evening will look and a future work session on density. Commissioner Jacobs said he hoped this discussion would include tax implications of the various possibilities. 14 Commissioner Price said she would like to hear more about the cluster development of affordable homes. Craig Benedict said tonight's meeting was productive. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to adjourn the work session at 9:00 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair David Hunt, Deputy Clerk to the Board