HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-20-2007-9aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 20, 2007
Action Agenda
Item No. q ?Q
SUBJECT: Hillsborough Area-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan: Phase One
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution Accepting Strategic Growth
Plan and Calling for Preparation of
Interlocal Agreement
2. Proposed Hillsborough-Orange County
Coordinated Planning Area Map
3. Strategic Growth Plan Timeline
4. November 20, 2006 Quarterly Public
Hearing Draft minutes and Clarion
response
5. 12-6-06 Planning Board Minutes
6. DRAFT 2-7-07 Planning Board Minutes
7. Coordinated Planning Area
Justification Staff Report
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Planning Director
245-2592
PURPOSE: To consider adoption of a resolution and concept map accepting the Hillsborough
Area-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan: Phase One and calling for preparation of an
Interlocal Agreement.
BACKGROUND: : Phase One includes the `Small Area Plan Report' which was prepared by
Clarion and Associates, a joint funded project. Small area plans set the:
• General purpose of the planning study area;
• Examine the present conditions of planning issues such as land use patterns, utility and
roadway infrastructure, etc. and trend future conditions;
• Plan for the future within the sustainability constraints of resources (natural, fiscal, and
public service) which are then programmed for location and intensity;
• Jurisdictional planning review guidelines to promote an efficient and coordinated orderly
pattern of growth - in this case, a cooperative planning agreement between the Town of
Hillsborough and Orange County; and
• Implementation strategy, but not the actual regulatory land use and zoning changes or
interlocal agreements which are the next formal stage (i.e., Phase Two).
Overall, Phase One is the master concept plan for urban and surrounding rural areas, as now
further clarified by the attached resolution.
Growth pressures within the Town of Hillsborough, as well as in adjacent areas of Orange
County jurisdiction where the Town provides water and sewer services, prompted the Town and
County to enter into a joint planning process to develop a `Small Area Plan' (SAP). There are
limitations to water resources, so the efficient and locational allocation of these and other
resources are paramount. A Town of Hillsborough and Orange County Steering Committee
has worked for the past year with the assistance of planning consultants (Clarion) to prepare the
Strategic Growth Plan. The Plan, eventually thru Phase I and Phase II, is intended to clarify the
most desirable rate, timing, intensity and location for growth occurring over the next 20 years
within and around the Town of Hillsborough.
An executive summary is on page one of the report. (Original copies were part of the December
12, 2006 agenda. Additional copies available upon request.)
The Plan is divided into two phases and intended for presentation over two quarterly public
hearing cycles. Phase One of the Plan was presented at the November 20, 2006 Quarterly
Public Hearing in Orange County and on November 27 in the Town of Hillsborough. It involves a
"big picture" view and generally illustrates four key areas. The November 20,2006 versions
originally had numbered areas but has now been made less specific by the Steering Committee
resolution and map dated January 17, 2007, based on public and Planning Board input. The
specifics will be part of a future Phase Two Cooperative Planning Area Agreement. These
generalized areas are noted below with brief comments as to possible changes and are
identified on the attached map of the resolution.
Conceptual Areas and Ideas
Town limits: (Gray) No changes.
Town Extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) (Orange)
• Minor chances - Hillsborough to divest itself of some ETJ (i.e., return to Orange
County Planning jurisdiction) to west for additional ETJ to east and south of town.
• County has basic courtesy review in area.
Hillsborough Urbanizing (Orange)
• Part of Coordinated Planning Area.
• New Coordinated Land Use Plan (previously Orange County's10 and 20 Year
Transition Areas and EDD).
• Substantial changes - County to transfer of day-to-day administration of zoning and
subdivision activity to Town; County approval required for land use plan amendments
and zoning changes.
• County has detailed courtesy review of projects in area.
• Possible area for Transfer of Development Rights.
Orange County Urbanizing (Orange)
• Part of Coordinated Planning Area.
• New Coordinated Land Use Plan (previously Orange County's 10 and 20 Year
Transition and EDD on the outer edge of Hillsborough Urbanizing).
• Moderate changes - County retains day-to-day administration of zoning and
subdivision activity in area, but Town approval required for land use plan
amendments; outer boundary of area will become annexation boundary.
• Town has detailed courtesy review of projects in area.
• Possible area for TDR.
Rural Peripheral Area (White and Green)
• Part of Coordinated Planning Area.
• New Coordinated Land Use Plan (primarily areas identified as Orange County
Agricultural Residential and Rural Residential bordering Orange County Urbanizing).
• Minor changes - County presently responsible for day-to-day administration.
• Town has basic courtesy review in parts of this area at this time.
• No annexation possible.
Comments were received from the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board, and public at the
November 20, 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing, especially as it relates to the content of Phase
One versus Phase Two issues. Draft minutes of the hearing are included as Attachment 4
including a response by the consultant, Clarion.
Following the presentation of the Phase I Town of Hillsborough-Orange County Area Strategic
Growth Plan at the November 20, 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing, the Planning Board discussed
Phase One of the Strategic Growth Plan at their meeting on December 6, 2006 and adopted the
following (see also minutes, Attachment 5):
Motion: (December 6, 2006) Judith Wegner made a motion containing the following steps:
1. Recommend in concept, Phase One;
2. That we specifically go on record that we have not had the opportunity to view the details
to where any lines on the illustrative map might finally be situated nor have citizens in the
areas really had an opportunity to look at that fully so that we want the record to show
that we are not buying into the details of the map at this point to be binding on us or
anybody else in the future;
3. That we understand that In Phase Two there would be extensive outreach to people in
those communities with ample opportunities informally and formally to ask questions and
find out more about densities or other factors, about how this might in fact be
implemented and direct that the Planning staff bring back to us specifics on how this
might be done effectively; and
4. Finally, that the details of the conversation and questions and comments from the Board
be submitted along with this motion to the Board of Commissioners.
Second: Craufurd Goodwin
Vote: UNANIMOUS
The Planning Board's unanimous recommendation was an item for decision on the December
12 BOCC agenda, but time constraints prevented consideration of it.
January 2007 Discussions
Phase One recommendations are primarily conceptual boundaries illustrating areas of planning
process and government planning jurisdiction. That is, what areas will be urbanizing and what
areas are rural to protect against sprawl and under whose regulatory authority. These
conceptual areas do not change land use, but are a precursor to discussion during upcoming
public outreach as Phase Two is considered. Phase Two does become more than conceptual
by addressing a formal interlocal agreement and land uses through a series of outreach
activities and public hearings.
The Strategic Growth Plan Steering Committee comprised of Hillsborough and Orange
County Commissioners, Planning Board members and other appointed stake holders met on
January 11, 2007 to review comments from the County and Town public hearings and board
discussions. They recommended preparation of a resolution calling for an interlocal agreement
and "bubble map" based on Phase One of the Strategic Growth Plan. (see attachment 1 and 2)
The Hillsborough Planning Board met on January 18 and adopted the resolution and map as
referenced above.
The Orange County Planning Board received an update on the Strategic Growth Plan -
Phase I at their meeting on February 7, 2007. They "voted' (even though this was an
informational update) to re-support their earlier (December 2006) unanimous decision and saw
the new resolution as confirming the direction they stated previously. Craufurd Goodwin,
Planning Board member liaison to the Strategic Growth Plan Steering Committee, stated that
the November 2006 Report and the subsequent Steering Committee Resolution reflected his
understanding and support and the consensus of the Steering Committee Task Force.
There was a good degree of discussion amongst Planning Board members about the genesis of
the rural area periphery. The Planning Director verbally explained the 2005 origin and rationale
of the Strategic Growth Plan affecting a central Orange area (see staff report providing a written
summary entitled Coordinated Planning Area). The Planning Board also re-accented the need
for important outreach in Phase II endeavors. Their'vote' was 8-1 in support of previous
recommendations and extensive outreach in Phase II.
The Hillsborough Town Board of Commissioners unanimously adopted the resolution
and map at their meeting on February 12, 2007.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Adoption of the resolution and map will signify willingness to proceed
with Phase Two of the Strategic Growth Plan process and require that additional funds for a
consultant be budgeted in the upcoming fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends adoption of the resolution and map
indicating:
Acceptance of the November 2006 Town of Hillsborough-Orange County Area Strategic
Growth Plan booklet and January 17, 2007 Phase One Resolution and associated
Concept Map.
Post Note: The map acts "as a conceptual starting point for subsequent
discussions about jurisdictional patterns"; and the Agreement purports "to initiate
discussions intended to develop, for execution, an Interlocal Agreement."
Attachment 1
As Recommended by Hillsborough Planning Board 1/18/07
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A STRATEGIC GROWTH PLAN AND CALLING FOR
PREPARATION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough have worked
cooperatively to prepare a Strategic Growth Plan for areas surrounding
the Town of Hillsborough; and
WHEREAS a Strategic Growth Plan Report (dated November, 2006) has
been produced as a result of this initiative, documenting existing
conditions, constraints, and opportunities, and suggesting patterns for
jurisdiction over land management policies and regulations; and
WHEREAS the Report provides a framework for additional discussions
regarding jurisdiction and land use patterns; and
5
WHEREAS a map has been prepared, attached to this Resolution,
suggesting general areas where low-density development and/or
conservation should be given priority, and suggesting a conceptual area
for consideration as Hillsborough's future limits for services and annexation;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the
[ Orange County Board of Commissioners ] or
[ Hillsborough Town Board of Commissioners ]
that the November Strategic Growth Plan is hereby accepted as
statement of conditions and source of policy recommendations for
consideration and continued discussion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the attached map, "Proposed Hillsborough
Services / Annexation Area, Orange County/Town of Hillsborough
Coordinated Planning Area" dated January 16, 2007, is accepted as a
conceptual starting point for subsequent discussions about jurisdictional
patterns.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
and the Hillsborough Town Board of Commissioners agree to initiate
discussions intended to develop, for execution, an Interlocal Agreement.
5
Attachment 1
6
The provisions to be covered by this Interlocal Agreement shall include but
not be limited to the following:
a. Preparation of a map indicating formal and legally-binding
changes to Hillsborough's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The
starting point for discussion about these changes shall be
recommendations in the November 2006 Strategic Growth Plan
Report.
b. Preparation of a map indicating a jointly agreed-upon boundary for
land that can be considered for future annexation by the Town of
Hillsborough. The starting point for discussion about this boundary
shall be the Annexation Boundary recommended in the November
2006 Strategic Growth Plan Report.
c. Preparation of a map indicating, for areas outside Hillsborough's
new ETJ boundary but within the newly defined Future Annexation
Boundary, areas called "Proposed Hillsborough Services/Future
Annexation Area" in which Hillsborough's municipal land use
regulations as they may be jointly agreed upon, should be applied,
to two specific interest areas with delegation of authority to the
Town of Hillsborough for administering regulations in one area and
Orange County, the other..
d. Preparation of a map indicating areas that are outside of
Hillsborough's jurisdictional interest (i.e., Town Limits, ETJ, "Proposed
Hillsborough Services/Future Annexation Area"), which are part of
the Orange County/Town of Hillsborough peripheral Coordinated
Planning Area, where mechanisms will be established for courtesy
review and information-sharing as development proposals are
considered.
e. Provisions specifying that, for areas identified as called for in item (c)
above, Orange County shall retain jurisdiction for land use
management and regulation, but shall enact Hillsborough's zoning
regulations for application to those areas.
f. Provisions for courtesy review and information-sharing between
Hillsborough and Orange County for areas that are designated as
described in items (c) and (d) above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as
[ the Orange County Board of Commissioners ] or
6
Attachment 1 7
the Hillsborough Town Board of Commissioners ]
is updating its Land Use Plan, the [ County or Town ] will consider the ideas
and recommendations included in the November, 2006 Strategic Growth
Plan Report and invite comments from the [ Town or County ] for
consideration.
7
Proposed Hillsborough Services/Annexation Area, Orange DRAFT
DRAFT County/Town of Hillsborough Coordinated Planning Area
N Mites Hillsborough Strategic Growth Plan
0 0.25 0.5 1
C L A R I O N Existing Hillsborough Town Limits Boundary of Existing Water/Sewer Agreement
Praparad Jsnusry 17.2007
Source Data Provided by Oran0e County proposed Hillsborough Services/ Future Annexation Area Watershed and Rural Buffer Areas
Planning and inspections Depart-nut
Ad" V ? 3 q
HILLSBOROUGH-ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC GROWTH PLAN
Date Board Action
Dec 6, 2006 County Planning Board Recommend in concept, Phase One; not buying
into details of map at this point; extensive public
outreach in Phase Two with opportunities to
learn more about proposed densities and
implementation strategies.
Jan 11, 2007 SGP Steering Review of hearings and board discussions;
Committee recommendations on bringing back "bubble
map" and draft resolution calling for preparation
of an interlocal agreement.
Jan 18, 2007 Town Planning Board Adoption of Resolution* (Accepting a Strategic
Growth Plan and Calling Preparation of an
Interlocal Agreement) and Map* (Proposed
Hillsborough Services/Annexation Area)
Feb 12, 2007 Town Commissioners Phase One approval
Feb 20, 2007 County Commissioners Phase One Approval
Upcoming Town Commissioners Phase Two implementation by consultant
Budgets
County Commissioners Phase Two implementation by consultant
*See attached Resolution and Phase One Map
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
DRAFT MINUTES
DRAFT
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
November 20, 2006
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the F.
Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C.
io
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Valerie
Foushee, Moses Carey, Jr., and Alice M. Gordon
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Stephen H. Halkiotis
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Rod Visser, and Deputy Clerk to
the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Crauford
Goodwin, Michelle Kempinski, Sam Lasris, Renee Price-Saunders, Judith Wegner, and Jeffrey
Schmitt
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Dobyns, Bernadette Pelissier, Joel
Knight, Sandra Johnson-Quinn, Brian Crawford
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Jacobs called.the meeting to order. He asked Planning Board Chair Jay Bryan to
preside over the public hearing.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Planning Board Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Director Craig Benedict said that there will be six public hearing items on this
agenda. There are also four informational items.
Craig Benedict introduced Planner Michael Harvey to address the first item.
1. Zoning Atlas Amendment: Request by Brian and Lydia Gilmour to rezone a portion of
their property at 6500 Yarborough Road (TMBL 3.54.2A) from Existing Commercial-V (EC-
5) to Agricultural Residential (AR).
Planner Michael Harvey introduced this item. He said that EC-5 was created at the advent
of comprehensive Countywide zoning in an effort to make existing commercial operations conform
to ordinance requirements. Mr. Gilmour approached staff about the possibility of subdividing his
Attachment 4'
DRAFT MINUTES 2
1 property, and it was discovered that a portion of the property was zoned EC-5. Mr. Gilmour
2 expressed concern and shock since there is no commercial operation on the property. Staff did
3 research and could not determine why a portion of this property was ever zoned EC-5, as there
4 has never been a commercial operation to begin with. In talking with a neighbor, staff was
5 informed today that she believes that the previous owner in the early `80's had requested to
6 operate a gunsmith and gun shop operation on the property. Staff believes that an EC-5 was
7 designed in order to allow that business to develop, and it was not developed. Staff
8 recommended that Mr. Gilmour submit a zoning atlas amendment to correct the problem.
9. Staff is recommending that this property be rezoned to AR.
10 Chair Jacobs argued that a pasture is not vacant property. He suggested saying that it is
11 undeveloped instead of vacant because "vacant" is a real estate term.
12 There was no public comment.
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
14 refer the proposed rezoning request to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to
15 the Board of Commissioners no sooner than February 6, 2007.
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18
19 2. Hillsborough and Orange County Strategic Growth Plan Report: A Town of
20 Hillsborough and Orange County Steering Committee has worked for the past year with
21 the assistance of planning consultants to prepare the Strategic Growth Plan. The Plan is
22 intended to clarify the most desirable rate, timing, and location for growth occurring over
23 the next 20 years within and around the Town of Hillsborough.
24
25 Jay Bryan recognized Hillsborough Town Commissioner Mike Gering, who was in
26 attendance.
27 Craig Benedict recognized Clarion Associates, who will do a PowerPoint presentation.
28 Also, Hillsborough Planning Director Margaret Hauth was in attendance. This is a joint project
29 with the Town of Hillsborough that was partially funded by Orange County and Hillsborough about
30 a year ago. A steering committee was formed to develop recommendations, which are included.
31 The Town of Hillsborough will be having a public hearing a week from this meeting starting
32 at 6:30 p.m. at the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom.
33 Roger Walden from Clarion Associates gave a PowerPoint presentation.
34
35 HILLSBOROUGH-ORANGE COUNTY
36 STRATEGIC GROWTH PLAN
37
38 Building on Past and Current Work
39 - Orange and Hillsborough Land Use Plans
40 - 2001 Water-Sewer Boundary Agreement
41 - Hillsborough Vision 2010
42 - 2005 Urban Transition Task Force
43 - Existing Interlocal Agreement
44 - Churton Street Corridor Study
45 - TDR Study
46
47 Goals of the Plan
48 - Preserve and Enhance Core Areas
49 - Preserve Cultural and Natural Resources
50 - Coordinate Growth with Water/Sewer
51 - Grow in a Fiscally Responsible Way
DRAFT MINUTES 3
1 - Keep Businesses Healthy
2 - Assure Continuity in Public Services
3
4 Maps - Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement, Planning Area,
5 Regional Context
6
7 Water Constraints
8 - 3 MGD Now, Can Increase to 4.5 MGD
9 - Current Demand, 1.9 MGD
10 - Demand Will Reach 3.0 MGD in 2009
11 - With Expanded Capacity, Can Accommodate Additional Development Equivalent to 1,900
12 Dwellings and 1.65 Million Square Feet Non-Residential
13
14 Transportation Constraints
15 - Limited Opportunity for New Roads
16 - Churton Street Over-Capacity
17 - Destinations are South and East
18 - Any Additional Residential Development North of Downtown Makes Problem Worse
19
20 Map - Developable Land
21
22 Alternative Scenarios
23 - Status Quo
24 - Planning Emphasis
25 - Market Realities
26 - Unconstrained Growth
27
28 Public Comment
29 There were informal opportunities for public comment at Hillsborough Hog Day and a Last Friday
30 event. The two formal public hearings are tonight and next week.
31
32 Main, Conclusions
33 - Focus Residential Growth to the South
34 - Pull in Utility Service/Annexation Areas
35 - Take Advantage of Interstate Access
36 - Consider Growth Drivers to the South
37 - Encourage Mixed-Use Development.
38 - Coordinate with Existing SE Rural Buffer
39
40 Map - Chapel Hill/Carrboro Rural Buffer
41
42 Roger Waldon said that one of the key things to make this happen is to rethink the
43 interlocal agreements - how Hillsborough and Orange County are sharing interests in jurisdiction
44 in these areas.
45 Craig Benedict took over the presentation at this point. He pointed out a map of the new
46 annexation boundary (shown in purple). Hillsborough is considering either abandoning or
47 exchanging some of the extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is in the Eno River Critical Area for new
48 extraterritorial jurisdiction in various sections within its existing limits. The orange area is a
49 Hillsborough transition area. He pointed out other parts of the map that would be part of the
50 interlocal agreement.
JA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
DRAFT MINUTES
4
Craig Benedict said that this plan is in two phases. The first phase is the master plan on
jurisdictional issues. Phase two would be the different planning areas around Hillsborough and
what would be the exact use.
Summary
- Stay Within Water Constraints
Define a Firm Service Area/Annexation Line
Minimize Residential Growth to the North
Adjust Land Use Plans
Execute Interlocal Agreement
Commissioner Gordon asked if the Planning Board has looked at this and Craig Benedict
said yes, that at every meeting of the Planning Board, there are reports on the various advisory
boards.
Commissioner Carey asked some clarifying questions about the map with interlocal
agreement recommendations and Craig Benedict answered. .
Judith Wegner asked about the characteristics of the land (could not hear her). Craig
Benedict repeated her question: What is the rationale for the urban service line within which
occurs the likelihood of public water and sewer and are there characteristics of the central Orange
rural buffer that would lead it not to be serviced by public water and sewer? He said that the
urban service line is all that could be serviced by existing public water supplies that Hillsborough
has at this point. There are a lot of critical watershed areas along the western portion - Upper
Eno,.Seven Mile Creek - and there are a lot of holdings of environmental lands to the south.
These areas have less development potential and would be of lower density.
Renee Price-Saunders asked about the possibility of increasing the capacity from 3 million
gallons a day to 4.5 million gallons a day. Margaret Hauth said that the Town owns additional
land around the existing West Fork reservoir, and if the spillway is raised, along with other
improvements, the capacity can be increased. This is a capital expense that the Town has
planned for.
Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about the urbanizing areas and Craig
Benedict answered. In general, the areas that will be developed first are the ones closer in to the
urban area.
Michelle Kempinski asked for clarification on what is coming back to the Planning Board.
Craig Benedict said that tonight's item is the booklet with statistics, etc. and boundary lines. What
will not be part of the determining factor in the next couple of months is land uses in the area. He
said that the areas noted as Hillsborough Urbanizing and Orange County Urbanizing are also
potential areas for transfer of development rights (TDR).
Several other clarifying questions were asked by the Planning Board members and
answered by Craig Benedict.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to phase 1 and 2 and said that she did not see
anything about phases in the materials. Craig Benedict said that the abstract has a disclaimer
that it is packaged less any specific land uses within the area. Phase 1 will be the boundaries of
the different jurisdictions and who has planning authority over each one.
Commissioner Gordon verified with Craig Benedict that the approval for this meeting is
only conceptual approval of the boundaries. She would like the Planning Board to mull this over
in a thorough way.
Public Comment
Chris Borst said that some of these boundary lines need tweaking, especially on the north
side.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
DRAFT MINUTES 5
Steve Yuhasz is a land surveyor and attorney in Hillsborough. He asked about the overall
density of development in the undeveloped parts of Hillsborough that will populate this area. He
verified that the plan would be to use water from existing reservoirs. He asked if there would be
any plan to develop additional water supply reservoirs. Craig Benedict said that this plan would
support Hillsborough's interest to stay within its reservoir ideas. Part of the area has to do with
Orange-Alamance Water System and he does not know what it will do in the future.
Margaret Hauth said that the density will be different in different areas. This will be
decided in the second phase.
Commissioner Gordon said that if there is consideration given to going beyond the 4.5
million gallons per day, then this would be putting pressure on the rural buffer.
John Macaulay lives on Queen St. in Hillsborough. He is thrilled with the cooperative
planning between Hillsborough and Orange County. He is concerned about what appears to be a
disconnect between the statement of common goals. He has seen very little information about
goals one and two. The first goal is to preserve and enhance the core area of Hillsborough. He
said that one of the primary detriments to the quality of life in Hillsborough is the high volume of
traffic on Churton Street. He found it interesting that one of the logical reasons for emphasizing
residential growth to the south was the fact that this problem is not going to get solved. He said
that the Town of Hillsborough and the County have the power to solve this problem and it is a
shame that the strategic plan is being run on the inability to solve the problem. He is also
concerned about residential development to the north because 1-85 and 1-40 are south of
Hillsborough. If there is no residential in the north, industrial development will move up there and
the traffic from there will have to drive through Hillsborough to get to the interstate. He said that
this is a great deficiency in the plan. The second goal is to preserve significant cultural and
natural resources. He said that he not seen a clear statement in the plan of a commitment to
preservation of natural resources. He would like to see this plan aggressively set out natural
resource areas. He said that this plan will sell Hillsborough out to suburbia and it will turn into
Chapel Hill.
Chair Jacobs said that part of the derivation of the interest in working together was halfway
to preserve and the confusion that arose over where and how Hillsborough could serve the 50-
year circle that surrounds it. He said that this is a good.attempt to try and bring some order and
predictability for the way in which Hillsborough will grow. Some of this, because it is in
Hillsborough's jurisdictions, is not within the County's purview to discuss as part of the public
hearing. He said that some of the items on the maps, such as the Durham Urban Growth Area, .
have been on the maps for 20 years, and some things are new, such as Carolina North. He said
that he thinks that the plan is highly successful in preserving cultural and natural areas in ways
that have not been done before. He said that this does mean that there are going to be no more
water supply reservoirs built in Orange County. He said that this has been generally assumed
without being explicitly stated. He said that he cannot see, as long as he is on the Board, that
there will be any more water supply reservoirs.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey that
the proposed Phase One (as defined above) recommendations be referred to the Planning Board
for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board of Commissioners no sooner than
December 12, 2006.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: Text Amendment to Section 6.23 entitled 'Extra
Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts' to align the text with the
Zoning Atlas boundaries for the Upper Eno Watershed.
15
C L 9
Clarion Associates
1526 East Franklin Street, S-L to 102
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919.967.9188 phone
919.967.9077 fax
m orandum
To: Margaret Hauth, Hillsborough Planning Director
Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director
From: Roger Waldon
Date: December 1, 2006
Re: Post-Hearing Revisions to Strategic Growth Plan
This memorandum responds to questions, comments, and discussion at two recent Public Hearings on the
November draft of a Hillsborough-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan. We offer comments and suggested
revisions in response. The hearings were held on November 20, 2006 (Orange County Board of
Commissioners) and November 27, 2006 (Hillsborough Town Board).
The draft Strategic Growth Plan recommends revision of jurisdictional boundaries and designations in the areas
surrounding the Town of Hillsborough, and preparation of an Interlocal Agreement to implement the
recommendations. Work on the Plan is jointly sponsored by the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County.
Summary of Comments
Citizens attended and spoke at both Public Hearings. Following is a summary of key comments:
® Support for the concept of designating a firm annexation boundary for Hillsborough, surrounded by a
low-density Rural Buffer.
® Support for the boundaries suggested to delineate growth areas from low-density Rural Buffer areas.
® Support for cooperative action between Hillsborough and Orange County.
® Concern about land use designations contained in the draft Plan, suggesting uses and densities for
individual parcels of land.
® Concern that the proposed boundaries are not restrictive enough.
® Concern that the proposed boundaries are too restrictive.
® Concern about potential negative impacts of building Elizabeth Brady Extension.
® Concern that Elizabeth Brady Extension is needed but might not get built.
® Request that some area shown as Joint Interest on the map, to the south of Town limits, be designated
as Extraterritorial Jurisdiction instead.
This memorandum offers comments and revisions in response to these concerns and discussions.
Recommended changes are described below, and in key areas replacement pages for the Plan are attached.
Phasing of the Plan
The key issue that resulted in consensus direction at both public hearings is that the designation of specific land
uses for individual parcels within the Plan area needs more study and discussion. It was suggested that this
initiative be split into two phases. Phase I will be establishing boundaries (annexation boundary, Rural Buffer,
areas of joint concern), with general land use principles (e.g., mixed use in the areas south and southeast of
Hillsborough), and the construction of a framework for Interlocal Agreements. With adoption of the Strategic
Growth Plan by both Hillsborough and Orange County, there would be clear policy guidance on these
boundaries and the means to implement them.
Phase II would move to implementation of the Plan, and preparation of parcel-specific Land Use designations.
Included in Phase II would be work to prepare and adopt a Land Use Plan for Hillsborough (a Town
responsibility), and a Land Use Plan for the transition areas outside Hillsborough (a Joint responsibility). This
Phase II work would include negotiation and execution of an Interlocal Agreement as suggested in the Plan,
specifying jurisdiction and procedures for land use planning, zoning, and development review. Phase 11 work
would also include examination of priorities for transportation improvements within the Plan area (e.g., Elizabeth
Brady Extension, Western Bypass), and identifying key implementation strategies.
Several adjustments to the Plan document are necessary in order to clarify this Phase I - Phase II approach.
Additional language is needed in the Executive Summary (page 1) to explain the phasing concept. And the
Implementation section beginning on page 19 needs adjustment. In particular, the Proposed Land Use Plan on
page 12 needs to be removed, and replaced with a map that shows the jurisdictional changes that will take
place (e.g., swap of ETJ areas so that Hillsborough will have jurisdiction over areas most imminently to be
developed and annexed.)
Accordingly, new replacement pages are attached to this memorandum as follows:
® Revised Executive Summary (page 1); and
® Changed Land Use section to eliminate Land Use Map, replaced with jurisdictional map, along with
narrative describing a phased approach to developing specific Land Use designations (pages 11-14);
and
® Adjustment to Implementation section (pages 19 to 22 and 24) to reflect this approach.
Adoption of this Strategic Growth Plan with these adjustments will result in a clear set of policies regarding the
limits and future locations of Hillsborough growth, annexation, and utility extension, and regarding establishment
of a rural buffer outside this boundary. Adoption will establish a policy that an Interlocal Agreement be executed
that results in shared jurisdiction of key transition areas. This adopted Plan will set the foundation for this
Interlocal Agreement by indicating the locations and nature of areas for which jurisdiction is to be shared.
Land Use Plan
As indicated above, this Phase I of the Strategic Growth Plan does not recommend specific land uses (type and
intensity of use) for specific parcels of land; but Phase 1 does identify the areas for which growth will be
targeted, and into which public services are intended to be extended. Further, this Phase I document includes,
as a starting point and foundation, a list of the categories of land use that are to be considered for these targeted
growth areas. Those categories of land use are to be included on page 13 of the Plan, attached here as a
replacement page.
2
I?
It is expected that, as this Phase I document is adopted, Hillsborough will undertake preparation of a parcel-
specific Land Use Plan for areas shown as gray on page 23 of this document (existing Town limits and newly
adjusted Extraterritorial Area). Hillsborough and Orange County will jointly prepare a parcel-specific Land Use
Plan for the area shown in orange and blue on this same map, areas of joint interest. The policies contained in
this Phase I document will serve as a starting point and foundation for designation of parcel-specific land use.
Water Consumption
It was pointed out at the November 27 Public Hearing that a recent report presented to the Hillsborough Town
Board contained information about present water consumption that is different from the information contained in
the Strategic Growth Plan document. The Strategic Growth Plan describes a current peak daily consumption
rate for Hillsborough of 1.9 million gallons per day. The recent report (dated November 17, 2006) describes a
current average daily use of 1.195 million gallons per day.
The main reason for difference between these numbers is the difference between average use and peak daily
use. Peak daily use is higher than average use. Both numbers are important for planning purposes. The peak
number is the one to use in calculating needs for additional facility capacity. The November 17 report describes
current peak use as 1.77 million gallons per day, a more current figure than (but close to) the 1.9 figure referred
to in the Strategic Growth Plan report. Accordingly, we have adjusted the text of the Plan to use this most
current 1.77 figure. The slight difference between the 1.77 and 1.9 figures does not alter the Plan's policy
conclusions nor recommendations.
Process for Approvals
The recommended process for review and approval of development applications is described in the
Implementation section of the Strategic Growth Plan report (pages 19-22) and also in the Summary (page 14).
It was pointed out that, in several paragraphs of those pages, approval authority was described in different
ways.
We have corrected the text of those pages of the report to achieve consistency in the language. The key
concepts are as follows, with reference to the map on page 23 of the Plan:
Gray areas: Unilateral Town jurisdiction over zoning and approvals (existing Town limits and ETJ).
Orange area Joint interest. Legal authority for zoning will remain with the County. Following joint
adoption of a land use plan for those areas, the County will (through the Interlocal Agreement)
delegate authority for administration of zoning to the Town. Accordingly, for review and processing
of development applications in these areas, the process will be the same as if the area were in the
Town's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. For proposed rezonings in these areas, joint approval by both
the Town and the County would be required.
Blue areas: Joint interest. Legal authority for zoning will remain with the County. Following joint
adoption of a land use plan for those areas, the County will (through the Interlocal Agreement)
agree to joint review of development and rezoning applications. Approval of such applications
would remain a County function.
Yellow areas: Rural Buffer. Unilateral County jurisdiction of zoning and approvals, with information
exchange procedures established with the Town through the Interlocal Agreement.
The final adopted Plan will consistently reflect this approach, and an executed Interlocal Agreement will be the
instrument that formally and legally puts the approval process in place.
ig
Requested Change of Designation for Specific Properties
One request was made, at the November 27 Hearing, for a change to the map on page 23 of the Strategic
Growth Plan. An area currently shown in orange (meaning joint interest with development approval authority
delegated to the Town but rezoning authority remaining with the County) was requested to be changed to
Hillsborough ETJ (gray). The area in question is shown below.
}}} t ? II
lz; ?f1 V? ? ? r 1 ? f -
?1 F
t ? ?n
PEY
An argument in favor of the request is that the area in question would be surrounded almost completely by ETJ
area, and that it has characteristics most similar to that adjacent ETJ-designated area. An argument against is
that this Plan has attempted to keep the area of Hillsborough ETJ approximately equivalent to present-day
levels, by giving up ETJ in areas where it is not appropriate and extending ETJ in areas most ready for
development and potential annexation; adding this area as additional ETJ would shift that balance slightly.
This is a policy-decision and arguments both in favor of adjustment and leaving as-is have merit. It is critical
that both the County and the Town refer to identical maps as each acts to approve the Strategic Growth Plan,
and any changes to the recommended map should be approved by both bodies.
Summary
The attached replacement pages, along with revisions to the text of the Strategic Growth Plan, as described in
this memorandum, respond to comments and discussions at the November 20 and November 27 Public
Hearings. If the Hillsborough Town Board and the Orange County Board of Commissioners agree with the
adjustments outlined in this memorandum, it would be appropriate for the action of these two bodies to be
adoption of the November draft of the Strategic Growth Plan, as presented at the November 20 and 27 Public
Hearings, modified as described in this memorandum.
Attachment
Suggested Replacement Pages for pages 1, 11-14, 19-22, and 24 of the November Strategic Growth Plan draft
4
Approved 113107
Q jq
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 6, 2006
REGULAR MEETING 7:30 p.m: 10:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Crawford, Eno
Township At-Large; Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township Representative; Craufiard Goodwin, Hillsborough
Representative; Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At-Large;
Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee Price-Saunders, Hillsborough Township At-Large (Vice-
Chair); Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Judith
Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large (arrived at 8:23 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township At-Large
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor; Gene Bell, Planning Systems Coordinator; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Eddie
Kirk, Planner II; Michael Harvey, Planner 11; Jennifer Leaf, Planner I; Debra Graham, Administrative
Assistant.
AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
AGENDA ITEM #2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Next Regular Planning Board Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 3, 2007 (See
Item 8)
b. Planning Calendar for December and January
AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. November 1, 2006
b. November 15, 2006 (Special Meeting)
Renee Price-Saunders made a change online 210 from unyieldy to unwieldy.
Jay Bryan's changes were, on line 237, to add, "present her a gift and card of appreciation from the
Planning Board." He would also like the language of the resolution to be placed in the minutes.
MOTION made by Jeff Schmitt, seconded by ??(Mr. Speaker) to approve the minutes of November 1,
2006, with changes as stated above.
VOTE: Unanimous
(These changes have been made)
Jay Bryan asked for discussion on the minutes of November 15th. Craufurd Goodwin pointed out line 241
and said that he said that it was a mistake to hire "two consultants". Secondly, he was uneasy about the
cozy nature "of this process."
Sam Lasris pointed out that he was not present at this meeting, but was listed as such.
Approved 113107
Also, it was pointed out that Judith Wegner was present, but she was not listed as such. The members
absent were not indicated.
Renee Price-Saunders pointed out line 84, and asked that the first sentence be changed to "The schedule is
quite probably political."
It was pointed out that ".Andy Visser" should be "Andy Sachs."
Renee Price-Saunders pointed out that Andy Sachs was requested to leave before the motion was made on
page 21.
Jay Bryan pointed out line 200 and said that there should be a question mark after proposing.
MOTION made by Renee Price-Saunders, seconded by ?? (Mr. Speaker) to approve the minutes from
November 15, 2006, with changes as stated above.
VOTE: Unanimous
(These changes have been made)
Discussion ensued about the names that were left out of the minutes (e.g., Female). Craig Benedict
suggested that everyone introduce themselves before they speak for the benefit of the Minutes Preparer,
since not all of the minutes are done in-house.
AGENDA ITEM #4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
None.
AGENDA ITEM #5: PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
AGENDA ITEM #6: CHAIR COMMENTS
None.
OQO
AGENDA ITEM #7: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment - no meeting
b. Historic Preservation Commission - Renee Price-Saunders reported that the
November/December meeting will be on December 13th. The archaeology issue that was
presented to the Planning Board at the public hearing is on the agenda.
c. Hillsborough=Orange County Strategic Growth Steering Committee - Craufurd Goodwin
reported that there were two public hearings, which will be referred to the two Planning
Boards.
d. Eno EDD Small Area Plan Task Force - Brian Crawford reported that Commissioner
Jacobs and Commissioner Foushee joined this meeting. There was discussion about working
on the small area along US 70 and Pleasant Green Road. Durham County was present to talk
about providing services to this area. The task force will be meeting frequently until July
2007. There were at least 10 members present. Craig Benedict reported that there are a few
vacancies on this task force. Jay Bryan asked that the charge be emailed.
e. Orange Unified Transportation Board - Sam Lasris reported that the board discussed the
goals that would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The goals were
discussed in the context of the land use plan update.
L New Hope Park at Blackwood Farm - Joel Knight was not in attendance.
2
Approved 113107
0
AGENDA ITEM #8: PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATE FOR JANUARY 2007
Jay Bryan said that there is a request to change the date of the January meeting from the 3rd to the lOd'.
Bernadette Pelissier would like to keep it the 3rd. Sam Lasris would also like to keep it the P. A third
person also asked for it to be kept at the 3rd
Jay Bryan said that he could not attend on the 10d'.
Debra Graham pointed out that this room would not be available on the 3rd
Craig Benedict said that it could probably be held at the courthouse. Jay Bryan asked that this be
emboldened.on the agenda.
AGENDA ITEM #9: RECONEIAENDATIONS TO BOCC ON ITEMS PRESENTED AT
NOVEMBER 20, 2006 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING (VOTING ITEMS)
a. Gilmour Rezoning (Presenter: Michael Harvey, Planner TI)
Michael Harvey made this presentation. This is a request submitted by the Gilmour family at 6500
Yarborough Road, to rezone .9 acres of their property from Existing Commercial-V to Agricultural
Residential. There was a November 20'h public hearing on this, where it was explained that EC-5 is a
district created in order to allow existing commercial developments that were in operation at the time
comprehensive zoning was instituted throughout the County to be considered conforming uses of
property. In this instance, there is an EC-5 zoning designation on a portion of property that does not or
never has had a commercial operation located upon it. The only plausible explanation given to staff was
that many years ago when the area was zoned, the owner of the property at the time indicated that he
wanted to open a gun shop. It would appear that the EC-5 designation was assigned to allow this to
occur, and it never did. The current owners do not want the EC-5 designation, and have no intention of
developing a commercial land use on the property, and they want to get rid of it. Staff concurs with this
recommendation, and supports the application. Staff informed both the County Commissioners and the
Planning Board at the November 20th public hearing that the existing EC-5 designation on this property is
inconsistent with the intent of the EC-5 district as defined within the zoning ordinance. This proposed
rezoning is consistent with the plans and policies outlined within the land use element of the
comprehensive plan, and is consistent with current staff policy regarding commercial land uses within this
area. Staff and Administration have both recommended that this rezoning request be approved. There
has not been any opposition - neither at the public hearing, nor any submitted to staff.
There were no questions and there was no public comment.
Motion made by Sam Lasris, seconded by Jeff Schmitt to approve the Gilmour rezoning request.
VOTE: Unanimous
b. Hillsborough and Orange County Strategic Growth Plan - Phase 1 (Presenter: Craig
N. Benedict, Planning Director)
Craig Benedict said that this item also appeared at the November 20"' public hearing for public comment.
There was one email sent for comment in addition to the comments made by the public on November
20th. The two questions asked during the public hearing were requests to be more specific about what
Phase I and Phase II were in the growth plan. He made reference to the abstract, which was on page 33,
and reinforced what the Phase I plan would entail, as follows: A small area plan sets the:
- General purpose of the planning study area. The reason in this case is that Hillsborough has
limited water supplies, taking into consideration Lake Orange and the West Fork of the Eno.
Knowing that growth was occurring on the fringe of Hillsborough, sometimes within the
3
Approved 113107
as
planning jurisdiction and sometimes within the County's jurisdiction, there was interest in
coordinating activity. Also, there was an Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Urban Area
Transition Task Force that met through 2005 and came up with some principles of agreement.
This spawned the small area plan.
Examine the present conditions of planning issues such as land use patterns, utility, roadway
infrastructure, etc., and trend future conditions.
Planning for the future within the sustainability constraints of resources (natural, fiscal, and
public service) are then programmed for location and intensity.
Jurisdictional planning review guidelines to promote an efficient and coordinated orderly
pattern of growth - in this case, a cooperative planning agreement between the Town of
Hillsborough and Orange County.
Implementation strategy, but not the actual regulatory land use and zoning changes or
interlocal agreements that are the next formal stage (i.e., Phase 11).
Also, Phase I involves a "big picture" view and defines five key areas:
1. Town of Hillsborough limits. There are no changes within the limits. Hillsborough will be
hiring the consultant for part of its Phase H to examine some undeveloped properties and what
land use is best for these areas.
2. Town Extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETT). This is authority given by the State to plan within
the area, even without annexation. Hillsborough is interested in removing ED from the critical
area western boundary where development potential is limited and adding some ED to other
areas with present water and sewer systems with undeveloped property. The County has basic
courtesy review in the area.
3. Hillsborough Urbanizing. Part of Cooperative Planning Area. New Cooperative Land Use Plan
(previously Orange County's 10- and 20-year Transition Areas and EDD). A substantial change
includes the County transferring the day-to-day administration of zoning and subdivision activity
to the Town and that County approval is required for land use plan amendments and zoning
changes. The County has detailed courtesy review of project in this area. This is a possible area
for TDR.
4. Orange County Urbanizing. Part of Cooperative Planning Area. New Cooperative Land Use
Plan (previously Orange County's 10- and 20-year Transition and EDD on the outer edge of
Hillsborough Urbanizing). A moderate change includes the County retaining day-to-day
administration of zoning and subdivision activity in area, but Town approval is required for land
use plan amendments. The outer boundary of area will become annexation boundary. The Town
has detailed courtesy review of projects in the area. This is also a possible area for TDR.
5. Central Orange Rural Buffer. Part of Cooperative Planning Area. New Cooperative Land Use
Plan (primarily areas identified as Orange County Agricultural Residential and Rural Residential
bordering Orange County Urbanizing). Contains three sub-areas:
5a - outside Orange County Urbanizing and inside Water and Sewer Management, Planning and
Boundary Agreement (WSMPBA) boundaries;
5b - area southeast of Town outside Orange County Urbanizing and inside WSMPBA served
with Town water, but annexation not proposed; and
5c - areas to east and west in Lower Eno and Upper Eno Watersheds, respectively outside
WSMPBA.
Minor changes include the County being responsible for day-to-day administration. The Town
has basic courtesy review in the area.
Craig Benedict referred to a map during this presentation.
4
Approved 113107 93
Jeff Schmitt asked if the area in the beige was consistent with the rural buffer in Carrboro and Chapel
Hill. Craig Benedict said yes and explained the consistencies between the beige area and the rural buffer.
Jeff Schmitt asked if something that was on the I-85/40/ JS 70 corridor going west towards Mebane that
may be zoned AR and the fact that it winds up in the rural buffer would absolutely keep any commercial
development from happening in this area. Craig Benedict said that this has not been set yet. The uses are
typically based on whether it is a critical watershed or not. The boundaries to the critical area watershed
will be refined.
Craig Benedict reiterated that Phase I has to do with jurisdictional issues and the background of the
report. There are changes within the report to more clearly differentiate that it is the Phase I report.
Jay Bryan made reference to the memo to Hillsborough Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Orange
County Planning Director Craig Benedict from Roger Waldon of Clarion Associates, which was in the
packet. This memo was in response to the issues brought up at the public hearing. He asked what the
Planning Board was to do with this information. Craig Benedict said that this answers questions brought
forward by the Planning Board to be more specific about the different phases.
Jay Bryan made reference to the end of the memo where it says that it might be appropriate if the boards
agree with the adjustment to modify the plan with the responses. Craig Benedict said that the replacement
pages have been added.
Renee Price-Saunders asked for clarification on areas 3 and 4 and if they would be annexed into the Town
of Hillsborough and not be incorporated into ETJ. Craig Benedict said that these have potential for
annexation by virtue of the report. However, it would not cause annexation to occur. They could be
annexed.
Renee Price-Saunders asked about the "substantial changes" and the "moderate changes" and how this
would work with the day-to-day administration. Craig Benedict said that areas 3, 4, and 5 would be part
of a cooperative planning agreement. This means that there is an agreed upon land use plan for how the
areas develop. If Hillsborough is consistent with the land use plan and rezoning, then it is under its
authority. The County reviews it as a courtesy review. If Hillsborough wants to rezone something, then
there is an ability for a joint approval of the rezoning. If it is annexed, then it does not apply. The intent
of the agreement is for development to occur prior to annexation so that the County has input.
Renee Price-Saunders made reference to the fiscal impact of these areas and who would pay for the
additional services (i.e., sewer, etc.).
Sam Lasris asked who has jurisdiction over areas 3, 4, and 5 now. Craig Benedict answered Orange
County. Hillsborough has the right to annex in these areas, and this automatically takes Orange County
planning jurisdiction out of the process.
Sam Lasris asked about the implication for people living in area 5a, who thought they were in the water
and sewer boundary, but they are not. Craig Benedict said that there have been people who have
requested water and sewer in this area - developers and large property owners - and Hillsborough has
denied them. This is what has prompted all of the planning to go on. It was somewhat misleading to
have the whole 5a area in a primary service area when Hillsborough has admitted that they do not have
the water supply to service that. Hillsborough is contracting its boundaries consciously, knowing that it is
infeasible to service that area based on the water resources available.
Approved 113107
oQ4
Sam Lasris asked about the difference between areas 3 and 4 and if area 4 would maybe get water and
sewer extended someday and if area 3 would definitely get water and sewer extended. Craig Benedict
said yes and that the water supplies available in the near future would be enough to service undeveloped
areas in 1, 2, and 3. Another reason to have area 3 outside of the ED is that it may be a future transfer of
development rights receiving area.
Bernadette Pellisier asked how it was decided which areas went to whom. Craig Benedict said that there
was a micro-scale analysis of the existing water lines and sewer systems with the consultant and the Town
of Hillsborough to examine the most efficiently serviced areas.
Brian Dobyns (?) made reference to the portion related to Hillsborough's boundaries and said that it looks
very well planned out. He was stunned when he saw the rural buffer because he had no idea that a rural
buffer was ever intended as part of this plan. He was unable to come to the November 20"' public
hearing, but he looked at the draft minutes, and after the presentation, (and he read), "Commissioner
Gordon asked if the Planning Board had looked at this, and Craig Benedict said yes, that at every meeting
of the Planning Board there are reports on various advisory boards." He said that he then looked at the
November 1" advisory board report from Craufurd Goodwin and it said that they met and reviewed the
task force report and there will be one more public hearing. Later in the same minutes, on page 13, Craig
Benedict says that the Hillsborough-Orange County Strategic Growth Committee did an elaborate study
that will be presented on the 20th. He said that, in his reading of Commissioner Gordon's request, the
Planning Board had looked at this more extensively. He asked if other members of the Planning Board
felt this same way.
Brian Dobyns made reference to the Executive Summary about the rural buffer, (and he read) "this area
was formally identified as Town primary service area in the Water Sewer Management Plan Boundary
Agreement." He said that this is not accurate, but only a portion of that area was part of Hillsborough's
strategic service area. Much of the land to the west and some to the east of the Eno was not part of the
primary service area. As a landowner within area 5c, he got a packet in the mail prior to the November
20th public hearing (four days prior). Only at that time did he have any idea that there was a rural buffer.
He said that the speed at which this is moving forward is astounding to him. He questions the need for a
rural buffer. He cannot possibly support this at the speed with which it is being requested. He also has
questions about what would go past the rural buffer.
Craig Benedict said that the discussion of the Hillsborough sphere of influence went beyond
Hillsborough's primary service area. He said that Craufurd Goodwin has been on both task forces
concerning Hillsborough, and he could attest that conversations happened over the last two years. Three
of the lines had been discussed and agreed to as part of the Principles of Agreement.
Brian Crawford said that he was never aware of these discussions.
Craufurd Goodwin said that he thinks that all Commissioner Gordon was asking was if the meeting that
they are having now happened yet, as the Planning Board.
Jeff Schmitt said that he presumes that the Phase I context means that any of the lines are still proposals
and are not definitive.
Craig Benedict verified that the lines were conceptual. The intensities and densities have not been
established yet. When the lines are defined, then there will be land use plan changes.
6
Approved 113107
1
Sam Lasris asked if there would be any more public comment. Craig Benedict said that the Phase I stage
is complete for public comment. There will be a completely new process with liberal public input as this
moves forward with land use plan amendment stages, interlocal agreement stages, zoning changes, etc.
In answer to questions about involvement of County residents, Craig Benedict said that there was a public
hearing for County purposes on November 20"', and Hillsborough had one on November 27"'. The
Hillsborough Planning Board had a meeting last night, and this meeting is to make a recommendation to
the County Commissioners on the Phase I plan.
Renee Price-Saunders said that she lives in area 3 and the only notice she received was because she was a
member of the Planning Board.
Judith Wegner said that having hearings is not the same as having community outreach meetings. She is
afraid that the outreach has not been effective.
Joel Knight said that he finds it interesting that within the rural buffer zone, there are some areas within
the Town limits on NC 57. He thinks that the rural buffer is an illusion.
Craig Benedict said that there would be an interlocal agreement to say that Hillsborough could not annex
beyond the urban service and annexation line. In Chapel Hill and Carrboro, the agreement has been
longstanding since 1987 and has been extended for the next 20 years.
Craufurd Goodwin said that it should be pointed out that Hillsborough had a community outreach hour
before the public hearing with the Town Commissioners and the committee members. The committee
also had a table at Hog Day and Last Fridays.
Jay Bryan asked for clarification on the jurisdictional changes and Craig Benedict showed areas on the
map.
Jay Bryan made reference to an issue that Renee Price-Saunders mentioned concerning annexation. In
terms of the Northern Transition Area, this result occurred without an understanding about the effect of
that. He asked if it was possible that part of the interlocal agreement would be that any proposed
annexation would come before the Planning Board and the County Commissioners before it was annexed.
Craig Benedict said that they would pursue this. Even after an agreement, the Town will have the ability
to annex an area because authority has been given by the State to do this.
Jay Bryan asked for any further written material for public comment.
Craig Benedict read an email from Noah Ranells into the record, as follows:
"This note is to provide public comment and input to the Hillsborough (-Efland) Buffer discussion at the
6 Dec 2007 Planning Board meeting.
Greetings,
I write this note from the perspective of a resident of Bingham Township and the thoughts herein
represent my personal comments on the Hillsborough (-Efland) buffer.
At a recent Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Group meeting, the proposed Hillsborough
Buffer was discussed. I was unable to attend the first part of the meeting, but inquired before the close of
the meeting about this issue. I became aware that this was discussed but the group did not provide any
7
Approved 113107
D(O
formal comment on this issue. I was also informed that I could make comments to the Planning Board
and the BOCC at their upcoming meetings that will address this topic. My comments are below.
1. It appears that this is in actuality a Hillsborough-Efland Buffer and additional
consideration to the deliberations of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan may be
appropriate.
2. The western boundary of the proposed buffer seems arbitrarily drawn at the I-85-70
connector. This 44ane road offers great opportunity to the county as a potential
mixed use development that could attract commercial development and contribute to
county revenue. Without the ability to determine the "developable area" in the
parcel(s) immediately east of the connector after consideration is given to current
county ordinances related to open space and buffers, a decision regarding this border
of the buffer does not appear to be in the best interests of the county.
3. Without additional information, I am concerned about the buffer boundary south of I-
85.
Sincerely,
Noah Ranells
4122 Buckhorn Road
Efland, NC 27243
Craig Benedict said that the line is drawn farther south than presently exists, and this is consistent with
what the Efland-Mebane Task Force said, to move this line out of a portion of downtown Efland that has
more development potential.
Brian Crawford said that he has been part of the Efland-Mebane Task Force, and all of the comments
were related to the water quality critical area that still remain in that location. He said that there was
never any discussion about this being removed and another type of buffer coming in. He said that these
questions are related to a buffer around Hillsborough. He said that the Efland-Mebane Task Force, when
talking about pushing the line south, was talking about leaving the remainder of it in water quality critical
area, with the idea that it was still a possible reservoir. If it is not a reservoir, then the critical area lines
would disappear. He thinks that it is the location of the lines for the rural buffer that are being questioned,
not the critical area.
Ben Lloyd asked if there were any public comments allowed.
Jay Bryan said that he understands that the public hearing was closed at the end of the November 20th
meeting, but that people were allowed to submit written comments for consideration. There will be no
further public comment.
Craig Benedict said that written comments can come forward.
Jeff Schmitt said that if there are additional citizen comments relating to the lines, he thinks that the
Planning Board should be able to review these comments.
Motion made by Sam Lasris, seconded by Jeff Schmitt to continue this discussion to the January 3rd
meeting to allow for written comments.
Craig Benedict said that at the November 20th meeting, there were instructions to the public to provide
comments to the Planning Board for review, to be returned back to the Board of County Commissioners
Approved 113107
no sooner than December 12"'. The expectation was that written comments would be coming to this
meeting or any time before this meeting.
Judith Wegner asked if there was a reason that this had to be taken up by the County Commissioners so
quickly. Craig Benedict said that the reason, as he understands it, is that the Hillsborough Town
Commissioners will be reviewing this on December 11t". In February, Phase II is expected to come
forward. This is a small area plan report with very little implementation actions at this time.
Brian Crawford said that he keeps hearing questions about the lines and the effect of the rural buffer. He
did not think that the Planning Board was voting on this specific map as it is outlined today (map
presented by Clarion). He said that the Planning Board was supposed to review the recommendations
from staff on Hillsborough areas 1 and 2. As far as 3, 4, and 5, there is still work to be done on these
areas regarding density and land use. This is in phase H. Craig Benedict said yes. Brian Crawford said
that he still is not sure what the concerns are because the Planning Board is not making any decisions on
these areas. He thinks that there will be time to have more discussion and public input on this. He is
convinced that some of the boundaries and areas that were drawn had to do more with the water and
sewer capacity of Hillsborough rather than some sort of arbitrary lines that were drawn.
Judith Wegner asked if there would be any feasibility of approving items 1-4 and not approving the rural
buffer. She asked if the map was being approved tonight.
Craig Benedict said yes, that the Planning Board would be approving the map as jurisdictional
suggestions for the future.
Discussion ensued about the lines not being locked in at this meeting.
Renee Price-Saunders said that she is concerned because there are questions about the lines of the rural
buffer. She has questions about the annexation. She thinks that the concerns should be given to the
Board of County Commissioners because once the ball gets rolling, it will be more difficult to start
changing things. She said that the concept of having lines drawn without enough citizen input is scary.
Craufurd Goodwin said that he thinks of Phase I as a vision and a way of doing this and Phase Il is the
implementation of the vision. He said that all of the questions of lines and densities are all in the future.
He said that it would be useful to submit a set of comments and concerns to the Board of County
Commissioners and questions to the consultant.
Sam Lasris withdrew his motion.
Brian Dobyns supported Craufurd Goodwin's comments. He wants to move forward, and provide
comments and concerns and let them be addressed.
Motion: Judith Wegner made a motion containing the following steps:
,;? I
1. Recommend in concept, Phase One;
2. That we specifically go on record that we have not had the opportunity to view the
details to where any lines on the illustrative map might finally be situated nor have
citizens in the areas really had an opportunity to look at that fully so that we want the.
record to show that we are not buying into the details of the map at this point to be
binding on us or anybody else in the future;
3. That we understand that in Phase Two there would be extensive outreach to people in
those communities with ample opportunities informally and formally to ask questions
9
Approved 113107
and find out more about densities or other factors, about how this might in fact be
implemented and direct that the Planning staff bring back to us specifics on how this
might be done effectively; and
4. Finally, that the details of the conversation and questions and comments from the
Board be submitted along with this motion to the Board of Commissioners.
Second: Craufurd Goodwin
as
VOTE: Unanimous
AGENDA ITEM #10: SUBDIVISION OF LOT A-9-C UNION GROVE UNITED METHODIST
CHURCH - CONCEPT PLAN (VOTING ITEM)
Presenter: Jennifer Leaf, Planner I
Planning Board will consider recommendations on the Concept Plan for Lot A-9-C Union Grove United
Methodist Church.
Jennifer Leaf made a correction to the agenda. The lot is A-9-C and not A-9-6. This property is on
Union Grove Church Road, just south of the intersection with Arthur Minnis Road, and is roughly across
the street from the church. This is a concept plan for a major subdivision. It is a 20-acre tract of land.
The proposal is for it to be divided into five lots. The reason that this is a major subdivision is because
the applicant is proposing a public roadway. Steve Yuhasz is acting as the surveyor. The five lots are
each two acres, which is consistent with the rural buffer requirements in zoning. This subdivision has
42.38% open space, which goes along with the flexible development conservation cluster option being
utilized in this subdivision. There was a public information meeting held on November 215`, and five
residents attended. The comments are at the back of the agenda packet. There are two streams running
through the property. The joint planning agreement in place with Carrboro and Chapel Hill calls for a
greenway system along the major creeks within the joint planning area. This has been sent to the
Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee for review and recommendation. It is possible that the County
will request a dedication to the County of some of the open space for a future greenway system. The
homeowner's association will maintain all of the open space and will maintain any signage proposed with
the project. Water and sewer will be individual well and septic systems. Staff has received a comment by
ERCD, who reviewed this and suggested dedicating some property for the greenway.
Renee Price-Saunders made reference to page 41 and asked for clarification on the bottom, where it says,
"which is for less than 21 lots follows the normal subdivision process." Jennifer Leaf said that if there are
more than 21 lots, it would have to go through the SUP, Class A, public hearing process.
Brian Dobyns made reference to the new public roadway and if there was an intention that it would
connect with any future subdivision. Jennifer Leaf said that this (future connectivity) is the intention,
even though the owners of the farm have no intentions to sell the land and subdivide.
Brian Dobyns said that a number of times when this has been the case, there has been landowner concern
about this occurring. He asked if there was anything in the deeds to the landowners that says that this is
the intention. It was answered that it is stated on the final plat and a sign could be placed at the end of the
stub our in question.
Brian Dobyns made reference to page 48 at the bottom and a comment made at the neighborhood
information meeting, as follows: "A concern was expressed that the people moving into the new homes
may be critical of their neighboring landowners." He asked for an explanation of this. Jennifer Leaf said
10
Attachment 6
DRAFT
EXCERPT OF MEETING MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 7, 2007
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-
Large; Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township Representative; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough
Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham
Township, Renee Price, Hillsborough Township At Large (Vice-Chair), Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno
Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At
Large; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at Large
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor;
Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Karen Markovics, Planner II; Donna Davenport,
Administrative Assistant II; Eddie Kirk, Planner II, Michael Harvey
PUBLIC PRESENT: Ben Lloyd, Robert Nichols, Joe Phelps, Max Kennedy, Dennis Brooks
AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
AGENDA ITEM #2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (PLEASE BRING WORKBOOKS)
AGENDA ITEM #11: TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY AREA STRATEGIC GROWTH
PLAN UPDATE
PRESENTER: Craig N. Benedict, Planning Director
Craig Benedict: I will give you and update now as to where we are. The Steering committed reconvened
on January 110' and addressed comments from the Public Hearing from Orange County and Hillsborough.
They thought it was best to clarify the difference between Phase I and Phase II. The consultant was asked
to put together a resolution that describes the sentiment of the Steering Committee and forward the
resolution entitled "Resolution Accepting Strategic Growth Plan and Calling for Preparation of Inter local
Agreement" and attaching a conceptual map. The resolution was forwarded to the Hillsborough Planning
Board on January 18fl' and it was approved. The attached map changed by not giving outer definitive
boundaries. The resolution also states there is more work to be done. The Phase II Implementation will
be pursued with consultant help and staff will try to.program additional money in next year's budget for
the Phase 11 process.
Craufurd Goodwin: The phrase rural buffer was a mistake and should be banned.
Craig Benedict: The phrase now being used is the Town of Hillsborough Orange County Area
Coordinated Planning Area. On page 069, the time frames are listed. On February 12, the Town of
Hillsborough will review it and on February 20'h, the Board of County Commissioners will review.
Judith Wegner: What is the intent of the boundaries on page 067?
as
Craig Benedict: The black line?... relates to present Water and Sewer areas
DRAFT
Judith Wegner: I think there hasn't been adequate chance for the public to if they are affected. I would
like to suggest that we consider the Board of County Commissioners for another public hearing on this so
we won't have a backlog for sufficient public opportunity to speak out. We need to find a way to
articulate what the significance of Phase I decision is.
Michelle Kempinski: Regarding the black line on the map, does that represent the existing water and
sewer management planning boundary agreement? The green is considered the watershed and rural
buffer area; will that be changing to watershed and coordinated planning area?
Craig Benedict: There is an existing Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) rural buffer to the south. We could
suggest that you subdivide the area to the south as existing rural buffer and identify the other sides as
watershed and rural areas.
Renee Price: Is the consultant being used differently now?
Craig Benedict: The consultant monies were for Phase I so we would look for the same consultant for the
implementation. The process before this was a staff supported elected official and appointed citizen task
force known as the Town of Hillsborough Orange County Urban Area Transition Task force which
compiled 10 Principals of Agreement as a basis more implementation work. Phase I is a conceptional
area of agreement as noted in the agreement.
Renee Price: Will it be the same consultant?
Craig Benedict: Yes, likely.
Renee Price: The orange area, is Hillsborough thinking of annexing the entire orange area?
Craig Benedict: Not at this time, but there will be an opportunity to annex that area in the future.
Renee Price: (to Jay Bryan) how do the people of Carrboro feel about this?[ie Annexation Agreement]
Jay Bryan: Not a good situation.
Brian Dobyns: My concerns begin on October 260' and go to November 20". SGP maps are the same on
the cover and planning area. That is the water/sewer boundary agreement maps. At this meeting, the
committee asked for an additional map is prepared showing additional lands around Hillsborough as part
of the area to be reviewed. The public advertisement that was issued on November 2, under purpose, it
refers to future actions. The planning department added the area in red after that. It was made available
on November 140'. If you reviewed it online it would be very confusing because it goes back and forth
between two different boundaries. On page 12 you see the original map. On pages 16, 17 and 18, you
see the new map. Later in the report it changes back. At the Public Hearing, we distributed one map
which shows the original area in red and the larger area in red. Phase I was introduced at the Public
Hearing. The way the information was presented, the public would not be able made sense of it and
commented it. I would like to take back my approval for this plan. As I look at the resolution, if you read
it, it accepts the November plan as policy guidelines. The process failed the citizens and I would like to
make a recommendation to hold an additional public hearing or take back our approval of that plan.
Craufurd Goodwin: It seems the two portions in red were included but there was no proposal to change
the circumstances or zoning of the individuals in that area.
as
2
DRAFT
Brian Dobyns: The resolution given out most recently refers specifically to the November plan as being
policy guidelines. The proposal was for a lower density. The actually decisions have not been made yet.
These lines were created six days before the Public Hearing.
Michelle Kempinski: There were two drafts published in November.
Brian Dobyns: November 14'1' and November 30'1'.
Craig Benedict: In 2004, the Board of County Commissioners formed an Urban Area Transition Task
force between the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County. The discussion of the 10 different
principals of agreements included looking at the areas, not just within the water/sewer boundaries of
Hillsborough but the larger area surrounding it. That task force report was approved. These maps are the
starting point for discussion, not a definitive line. The process with the consultant has been valid.
Renee Price: Is the concern about the map itself or the process?
Brian Dobyns: My vote would have changed if I knew the new areas were put there six days before the
Public Hearing. If you were living in one of those red areas, you had six days to get that information.
Ben Lloyd: Which map are we going forward with?
Craig Benedict: The resolution and map in the agenda packet as additional Strategic Growth Plan
clarification.
Robert Nichols: I live on Highway 86 North of Hillsborough. We gave Lake Orange to Orange County.
We gave 205 acres of land. We have to have 1/3 of a house on 1 acre of land. The fire protection would
be from the rural fire department. This states we will not have any water or sewer in the area we live.
We are being discriminating against. The development rights are being taken by the rural buffer. If we
have a rural buffer it should be the County line.
Joe Phelps: I am a member of the Hillsborough Water and Sewer Advisory Board. We passed a
recommendation to the Hillsborough Planning Board that we were in favor of the concept of the Strategic
Growth Plan but there were concerns about the draft. We didn't want to say that you could not be outside
the lines of the water and sewer plan.
Jay Bryan: Was that resolution given to the Planning Board prior to their passing this resolution?
Joe Phelps: They had 30 seconds to look at it before they voted.
Max Kennedy: I have not been adequately informed about this. I would like to feel I have been informed
about what is taking place. Has there been a County Public Hearing on this?
Brian Dobyns: November 20'11.
Max Kennedy: If the rural buffer is extended it will devalue my property. I don't want to develop it.
Dennis Brooks: We own a farm and we were informed earlier than most. I don't understand voting on a
work in progress.
MOTION made by Judith Wegner 1) the Planning Board has spent considerable time discussing the
proposal; 2) we continue to support the concept of having strategic planning in this area; 3) we believe
3(
DRAFT
that the introduction of various maps during this process has proven to be confusing; 4) we believe that
the public have not received adequate information about the maps; 5) we believe there was inadequate
notice about the November 20 Public Hearing; 6) we recognize efforts by the committee overseeing this
process to accommodate concerns by changing terminology and depiction of map boundaries; 7) we
recommend no approval and an additional public hearing and prior to the hearing a clearer, more explicit
notice be given to the public. [not seconded]
Michelle Kempinski: From a task force perspective, [directed to Craufurd Goodwin, Planning Board
Liaison to Steering Committee for the Town of Hillsborough-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan] does
the report adequately reflect the work done on the task force and does the task force need to review the
report.
Craufurd Goodwin: I think it does reflect the consensus of the task force and report. This board has
repeatedly expressed its concern to respond to the public as the process continues.
Renee Price: As a matter of procedure, we have already given our recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Craig Benedict: With reservation.
Renee Price: That is a done deal, you can't take that back. As we move forward, we need to look at more
citizen participation. My neighbors are not informed.
Judith Wegner: It is not taking back, it is bringing another resolution.
Brian Crawford: I am still back a couple of months ago. We are still going into discussion to see where
the boundaries on that map will be.
Brian Dobyns: There is only one place which is, the November Strategic Growth Plan is hereby accepted
as statement of conditions and source of policy recommendation for consideration . and continued
discussion.
Brian Crawford: It states continued discussion.
Brian Dobyns: If this is adopted it goes back and says that the maps that were generated are now part of
the discussion.
Brian Crawford: We had the understanding that the map would not be fixed. It would not be appropriate
for the board members to rethink the decision. We can use the process later to change the map.
Brian Dobyns: I have brought forward information that substantial change was made six days before the
Public Hearing.
Judith Wegner: I am concerned about the fact that we didn't have a meaningful Public Hearing. I want to
do justice to the Board of County Commissioners and tell them where we are and what this means to the
public.
Craufurd Goodwin: I went to both public hearings and I thought they were both meaningful.
Judith Wegner: If I were a citizen, I would not have known what was being discussed or the
consequences. There were also a lot of people that didn't understand.
3a
4
DRAFT
Brian Crawford: We can't belittle this point. All the maps, someone can have a problem with but there is
no permanent map being considered. We need to make sure there is more than adequate opportunity for
the map to be displayed to citizens of the County.
Bernadette Pelissier: If there were another Public Hearing on Phase I, nothing would be solved. We are
better off beginning with Phase II and getting the public involved.
Renee Price: Would it be appropriate to make a recommendation to the task force that the Planning
Board feels there needs to be a community outreach plan tied to other public hearing.
Brian Crawford: At least to illuminate what we have said today.
Judith Wegner: My motion needs a second.
No second made.
MOTION made by Renee Price to recommend to the steering committee for a community outreach
process `in Phase II'. Brian Crawford seconded.
VOTE: 8-1 (Brian Dobyns dissented)
Brian Crawford: When we transmitted the information to the Board of County Commissioners there were
reservations. What were they?
Craig Benedict: To be sure of the motion first, part of the recommendation was that outreach must
happen in Phase II.
Renee Price, Brian Crawford and Planning Board members agreed.
Craig Benedict: Back to your question, on December 12, 2006 BOCC agenda the Planning Board
recommendation included a four part motion that approved Phase I, details of the map are not binding,
extensive outreach in Phase II including implementation specifies and that the discussion of the Planning
Board be part of the agenda.
Brian Crawford: Retransmit, in addition, right
Jay Bryan: I am confused about which map we are proceeding with. We can't go back on our current
motion. Six days is not sufficient time.
Judith Wegner: We have a different map tonight. If it comes back, will there be changes. This should be
a process in which people should know about before hand and be able to comment.
Michelle Kempinski: Related to the map, does this map replace all the maps in the Strategic Plan?
Craufurd Goodwin: We had a Public Hearing, there were additional changes made and this is the result
of the Steering Committee's concerns.
Michelle Kempinski: I need to be able to answer a question about the map if someone asks.
Craig Benedict: Resolution and map is a clarification of what Phase I means and the report and maps are
still valid to give the analysis of how we got there.
33
5
DRAFT
Renee Price: This map we received tonight
Craufurd Goodwin: The map has no legal
Jay Bryan: Just a concept
Ben Lloyd: Is this the proposed map?
Craig Benedict: Yes, that goes with the Resolution.
Ben Lloyd: Thank you.
Jay Bryan: Any other comments. Alice Gordon has asked that we nominate one or two people to serve
on a special advisory commission on transit. Donna Davenport can send out an email.
AGENDA ITEM #12: ADJOURNMENT
MOTION made by Michelle Kempinski to adjourn. Renee Price seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
Jay Bryan, Chair
Tina L. Owen, Minutes Preparer
3+
6
r?CcCl?W?e?'
?S
Town of Hillsborough-Orange County
Coordinated Planning Area Report
Excerpt
The Orange County/ Town of Hillsborough
Urban Transition Area Task Force Report
Published/approved in February of 2005
Reference made in several locations to the idea of a coordinated planning area
around Hillsborough. Below are excerpts from the Report that support the rural
perimeter.
6. Task Force Products, Recommendations, and Implementation
1. De Facto Principles of Agreement and Map, including implementation
strategies, is intended to serve as the basis for future planning efforts
in the Hillsborough ETJ and Orange County Urban Transition Areas
and other adjacent 'rural' areas.
6.1 De Facto Principles of Agreement
2. The ultimate extent of Hillsborough's Urban Service Area (USA) for
public water and sewer shall respect the boundary established by the
Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement and
map. (See Appendix C) This boundary respects the area designated
as Rural Buffer to the south, Eno River Critical Area to the west, and
sensitive environmental lands of the Eno River State Park and
Stoney Creek Basin to the east.
4. Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough shall protect the
surface and groundwater resources of the Upper Eno/Neuse River
Watersheds, both in designated critical and protected areas, through
responsible land use planning. (Map provides the full extent of the Upper
Eno Watershed) Lower density and lower impervious regulations
improve the Town of Hillsborough's surface water supply.
11. Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough do not promote
development patterns that can be characterized as urban sprawl and
will avoid it through independent and coordinated land use planning.
6.2 Implementation
11. Limit Rural Sprawl: The Town of Hillsborough and Orange County
shall work together to limit urban sprawl through the establishment of
Intermediate and Ultimate Urban Service Areas that shall be established
through and inter-local agreement following completion of an Orange
County/Town of Hillsborough Joint Strategic Growth Plan. Annexation
boundary agreements can assist in this goal achievement.
6.3 Joint Strategic Growth Plan - Scope of Work: Possibilities for Consultant
5. Demarcate a boundary between urban and rural developments with
recommendations for maintaining desired character in both areas.
Page 1 of 3
_; (0
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH-ORANGE COUNTY AREA
COORDINATED PLANNING AREA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS (2007)
Introduction
Preparation of the Town of Hillsborough-Orange County Area Strategic Growth Plan
has been underway for the past year and is nearing completion. Defining an urban
growth boundary for the Town has been paramount, but future development in the
abutting areas where water and sewer will not be extended has been discussed
extensively too. Creation of a Coordinated Planning Area for these peripheral areas
has been recommended.
Town of Hillsborough-Orange County Coordinated Planning Area
Atown 'and county can set the limits of expansion of an urban area that match existing
resources and proposed infrastructure such as water, sewer, and roads while balancing tho
quality of life sought by area residents, whether it be preservation of historic character, small
town charm or other attributes.
Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement
Adoption of the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement
(WSMPBA) by Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and OWASA on
December 3, 2001 further strengthened the `rural perimeter' concept by designating
these peripheral areas and watershed areas around urban areas as Long-Term
Interest Area. The agreement goes on to state, "The development of land within
interest areas is not projected to occur at urban densities, and therefore, public
water and sewer service shall be prohibited in these areas, except as provided in
this agreement."
Preparation of the Hillsborough-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan provides an
opportunity to test the concept of a Coordinated Planning Area. The study area for
the Strategic Growth Plan in part seeks to redefine the Hillsborough Primary Service
Area as defined in the WSMPBA to match it's resources and to also control
peripheral growth beyond that public water sewer area.'
Criteria for Coordinated Planning Area
Possible criteria for defining a Coordinated Planning Area include:
1. Areas not served by water and sewer.
2. Outside Hillsborough urban and urbanizing area (i.e., town limits, ETJ, and
transition areas).
3. Coterminous with Rural Buffer (Joint Planning Area) to the south.
4. Contained within the Eno watershed.
5. Includes major Public Interest District areas (Eno River State Park and Duke
Forest holdings) and high priority County environmental holdings.*
6. Eastern boundary from recommendations in Stoney Creek Small Area Plan.*
7. Environmental features such as ridge lines, water bodies used where
possible; also roads used in some areas.*
8. Wildlife corridors identified in Land Use Element used in some areas.
Page 2of3
3-f
Benefits Expected from Creation of a Coordinated Planning Area
1. A reduction in sprawl that adds an urban pattern of development
overburdening the town with more people and traffic issues even though
outside the urban area.
2. Coordinated Town and County decisions in an area of joint interest.
3. Increased protection for the existing system of open space including Duke
Forest lands and Resource Protection Areas.
4. The rural residential and agricultural character outside the urbanizing areas
would be maintained.
5. A compact form of urban development would be achieved avoiding spillover
growth outside the urbanizing area boundaries.
6. Lower densities and limited non-residential uses in the rural periphery would
result in reduced demand for extension of urban services and more efficient
fiscal utilization of those limited urban services.
7. The area would contain a smaller, sustainable population at buildout.
8. A reduction in air pollution associated with fewer vehicle miles traveled.
*Portions of these areas extend outside the Hillsborough WSMPBA Primary Service Area.
Page 3 of 3