HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-12-2016 - D.1 - Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan Map Amendment 232
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 12, 2016
Action Agenda
Item No. D.1
SUBJECT: Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land
Use Plan Map Amendment
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: (919)
1. Amendment Outline Form — Tom Altieri, Planner III, 245-2579
Hillsborough/Orange County Joint Land Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2575
Use Plan Amendments
2. Resolution Amending the Hillsborough/
Orange County Joint Land Use Plan
3. Excerpt of Approved July 6, 2016
Ordinance Review Committee Notes
4. Excerpt of Draft August 3, 2016 Planning
Board Minutes
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on a Town of Hillsborough and Orange County initiated
map amendment to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area
Land Use Plan (a.k.a. Joint Land Use Plan). This amendment involves five parcels (200.8 total
acres) south of Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Old Highway 86.
BACKGROUND: The County is currently working on plans to invest approximately $1.5 million
to extend water and sewer infrastructure within the Hillsborough Economic Development District
(EDD). Amendments to the Joint Land Use Plan (JLUP) map are proposed to better promote
economic development opportunities in the area and help preserve planned sewer capacities for
non-single-family residential uses. The amendments clarify the intent for primarily non-
residential mixtures of uses within this EDD. Amendments to the JLUP need to be approved by
the Town and County governing boards and the processes are running concurrently. An
interlocal utility service agreement between Orange County and Hillsborough is also being
prepared for the October 2016 regular Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meeting that
will have linkage to the JLUP and further describe desired land uses within the Hillsborough
EDD.
The Amendment Outline Form in Attachment 1 provides additional information, including the
details of the proposed map amendment.
County Planning staff held a Public Information Meeting on July 26 to explain the proposed
amendments affecting the Hillsborough EDD. Five interested persons attended the meeting.
233
On July 21, 2016, the Town of Hillsborough Planning Board unanimously recommended
approval of the proposed amendment to the Town Board of Commissioners. The Town Board is
expected to take action on September 12.
Summary of Amendment Process:
County Amendment Outline Form Approved April 19
Hillsborough Planning Board voted to schedule hearing June 16
County Planning Board info item July 6
Hillsborough Town Board public hearing July 21
County Public Information Meeting July 26
County Planning Board recommendation August 3
Hillsborough Planning Board recommendation August 18
Hillsborough Town Board action September 12
County BOCC public hearing (possible action) September 12
Orange County is also proposing amendments to its Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
which is not part of the joint planning construct, that pertain to the Hillsborough Economic
Development District. These UDO text amendments, as well as related Zoning Atlas (map)
amendments, are also on tonight's September 12 public hearing agenda.
Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
proposed Town of Hillsborough/Orange County JLUP map amendment.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 3, 2016 meeting, the Board voted 7-1 to
recommend approval of the proposed amendment. Draft minutes from this meeting are
included in Attachment 4. Agenda materials from the August 3, 2016 Planning Board meeting
can be viewed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/8.3.16PIanningBoardAgendaPacket.pdf.
Additionally, the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC), a subcommittee of the Planning Board,
reviewed the proposed amendment at its July 6 meeting and approved notes from this meeting
are included in Attachment 3.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving this information.
Processing of the amendment will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of
County services. Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will
accomplish the work required.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to
this agenda item:
GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary
for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their
dependents.
234
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends the Board:
1. Receive the proposed amendment to the Joint Land Use Plan map and Planning
Board recommendation as detailed in this abstract and attachments.
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendment.
3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
comments at a later date are permitted).
4. Decide on one of the following options:
a. Adopt the proposed amendment by approving the Resolution (Attachment 2).
b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date.
c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
d. Deny the proposed amendment.
Attachment 1 235
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
Other-2016-01
Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area
Land Use Plan Amendments, South of Interstate 40 in the Vicinity of Old
Highway 86
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
n Future Land Use Map:
From:
To:
n Zoning Map:
From:
To:
M Other: Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area
Land Use Plan (a.k.a. Joint Land Use Plan) Amendments - This
amendment consists of map changes to five parcels south of Interstate
40 in the vicinity of Old Highway 86.
Text Amendments
n Comprehensive Plan Text:
Section(s):
n UDO Text:
fUDO General Text Changes
fUDO Development Standards
fUDO Development Approval Processes
Section(s):
n Other:
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose/Mission
The County is currently working on plans to invest approximately $1.5 million to
1
236
extend water and sewer infrastructure within the Hillsborough Economic
Development District (EDD). Amendments to the Joint Land Use Plan are proposed
to better promote economic development opportunities in the area and help preserve
planned sewer capacities for non-single-family residential uses. Amendments to the
Joint Land Use Plan need to be approved by the Town and County governing
boards. Orange County is also proposing amendments to its Unified Development
Ordinance, which is not part of the joint planning construct, that pertain to the
Hillsborough Economic Development District.
2. Analysis
Proposed Changes
This amendment consists of map changes (See Attachment 1.1) to five parcels as
follows:
Parcel Pin # Acres From To
9863936843 4.15 Suburban Office Employment
Complex
9863718857 88.52 Suburban Office Employment
Complex
9863916573 59.53 Suburban Office Employment
Complex
9873014031 14.0 Suburban Office Employment
Complex
Sub-Total 166.2
9873202388 34.6 Mixed Residential Suburban Office
Neighborhood Complex
Total 200.8
Following are the definitions of the respective joint Land Use Plan Future Land Use
Classifications:
Suburban Office Complex - These areas provide opportunities to for office and
employment enterprises which do not rely on walk-in customers or have a
manufacturing component. Businesses may be large or small but will generally
arrange themselves in a campus setting with limited walkability and supporting
services. Developments of this type should be kept small in nature to limit the peak
transportation impact and limited vitality.
Employment- These areas include a wide range of business, light industrial, office,
research and development, along with related/support services uses including
restaurants, small scale retail and convenience shopping/services. Buildings and
uses will be sited to limit the visual impact of service and warehousing operations,
while still providing convenience for business functionality. These areas are in prime
locations with good access to major road networks (where capacity exists or is
planned) and rail if needed and should be reserved for high return employment
generating uses.
2
237
Mixed Residential Neighborhood- The dominant land use in any proposed
development is expected to be residential based on square footage of proposed
structures. Developments may contain a single or variety of dwelling types and
densities or may integrate a variety of supportive commercial, public and semi-public
uses and open or public space. Small developments that provide only supportive
non-residential land uses in an infill arrangement serving more than 50 dwelling units
in a walkable manner may also be considered.
Background
The Joint Land Use Plan (See Attachment 1.2) was adopted by the Town and County
Boards in 2013. This is the first amendment proposal that has been brought forward
since that time.
Links to Additional Background Documents:
Hillsborough and Orange County Strategic Growth Plan (2006)-
http://www.orangecountync.gov/document center/Planninglnspections/Hillsborough
and Orancie County Strategic Growth Plan.pdf
Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement (2009)-
http://www.orangecountync.gov/document center/PlanningInspections/Hillsborough
Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement.pdf
Joint Resolution Amending the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management
Agreement (2014)-
http://www.orangecountync.gov/document center/Planninglnspections/Joint Resol
ution Amending the Hillsborough Orancie Interlocal Land Management Acireeme
ntl.pdf
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Objective ED-1.5:
Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local businesses, and
mitigate these barriers.
Objective ED-2.1:
Encourage compact and higher density development in areas served by water and
sewer. (See also Land Use Objective LU-1.1 and Water and Wastewater Objective
WW-5.)
Objective ED-2.5:
Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion and growth of commercial and
industrial uses in the County.
Objective ED-2.7:
Select industrial sites in Economic Development Areas based on present and
planned supporting systems, such as public water and sewer, access to adequate
highway, rail, or public transportation infrastructures, and minimize detrimental
environmental or negative social outcomes. (See also Water and Wastewater
3
238
Objective WW-15.)
Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth,
consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of
life.
Objective LU-1.1:
Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-
residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation,
commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e.,
water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding
areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by
increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where
adequate public services are available. (See also Economic Development
Objectives ED-2.1, ED-2.3, ED-2.10, and Water and Wastewater Objective WW-2.)
Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques and/or
incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals.
4. New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
April 19, 2016
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
September 12, 2016
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
July 6, 2016 — Planning Board ORC (Ordinance Review Committee)(BOCC
receives agenda)
August 3, 2016 — Planning Board Meeting for Recommendation (BOCC receives
agenda)
d. Other
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements. Additionally, a public information meeting
was held on July 26 and covered all three related potential items (modifications to the
Joint Land Use Plan, a related rezoning action, and the proposed text amendments).
4
239
a. Planning Board Review:
July 6, 2016 — Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) Approved notes are
included in Attachment 3.
August 3, 2016 — Recommended approval - Substantial discussion, including
public comment that encompassed all three related items but was related
primarily to the proposed rezoning action, occurred at the Planning Board
meeting. Interested persons are encouraged to read the draft Planning Board
Minutes in Attachment 4. Six people attended the Planning Board meeting for the
three related Hillsborough EDD items.
b. Advisory Boards:
Economic Development Advisory Board
(Sent via e-mail on July 11 because the
EDAB does not meet again until
September. To date, no questions or
comments pertaining to the Joint Land
Use Plan map amendment received)
c. Local Government Review:
Orange County and Town of Hillsborough staffs have
coordinated to prepare and recommend the amendments
contained herein.
July 21, 2016 — Town of Hillsborough Public Hearing — No
residents spoke or submitted comments
August 18, 2016 — Town Planning Board unanimously
recommended approval
September 12, 2016 —Town Board of Commissioners Action
d. Notice Requirements
Consistent with NC State Statutes and Orange County requirements.
e. Outreach:
M General Public: A public information meeting (PIM) that covered all three
related items (modifications to the joint Land Use Plan with
the Town of Hillsborough, a related rezoning action, and the
proposed text amendments) was held on July 26, 2016.
Notices regarding the PIM and Planning Board meetings
were mailed to affected and adjacent (1,000-foot boundary)
property owners on July 11. Five people attended the PIM.
Signs for the related rezoning advertising the Planning
Board meeting were posted in the area affected by the
proposed amendments on July 21.
Notices regarding the Public Hearing for the related rezoning
action were mailed to affected and adjacent (1,000-foot
boundary) property owners on August 26. Signs for the
related rezoning advertising the Public Hearing were posted
5
240
in the area affected by the proposed amendments on August
30.
n Small Area Plan Workgroup:
❑ Other:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the
provision of County services. Costs for the mailings and required legal advertisement
will be paid from FY2016-17 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing
Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work
required to process this amendment.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
Staff is proposing to amend future land uses to allow for a broader range of uses and
higher intensities so that the County can better promote this area to economic
development prospects and help preserve planned sewer capacities for non-single-
family residential uses. Also See Sections B.1 and C.2 of this Amendment Outline.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
N/A
Primary Staff Contact:
Tom Altieri and Craig Benedict
Planning & Inspections Department
919-245-2575
taltieri @orangecountync.gov
or cbenedict @orangecountync.gov
6
Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area
Attachment 1 .1 Land Use Plan Proposed Amendments Attachment 1 .1
Proposed Amendments 6 City Limit Medium Density Neighborhood Retail Service
From Mixed Res. Mixed Use
ETJ Small Lot Res.
Residential Mixed Res. - Permanent Open
►_:. Neighborhood to Attached Res. Neighborhood Space Suburban Office
Suburban Office
Complex [ Employment Mixed Use — 1 Rural Living ' Working Farm
From Suburban
►�- -- Office Complex to
Employment
ix 0
% m ' 1 -4. w• O�G� ONE G1 1.1% II'II i A
ii .♦/ �,z � Pay ��111!, GN ��_�. , �°� •' - J�<O® _ _cow.
oP� HgMProN r
pOIN_
ross
���R 1 SPY-c
49 II Vim O Auw T
� PIP1,911 '116Illig' `,��a� �: o i i �C:= IIIIIII :Alc�0.
VI.Q co 11 Ari w i�G ♦ Q� �� ►00 ■ �/
j O uuw� , 0 e .�I:I .p 1 �Q�pp r.► Ip ■•��o v Ir....
i `' , ,O4.0-
E `� v� IIIIIv �,c �0�=LI, p='ws WOR
taw
1 iiiiri ,
••••, a�A III'► 2 I s' ,outt,,N •• re
■
m o /LIAM ♦ RG 9=�I° P .,.��. •NI. Aso
OS F w
��1i �� Al�� / -2 2 es
11 I 0�� nn �w v�11111111 GATES, k o t-., ,PI-id► o ►I polo ° z u
■�'�� . O C e� 012 5 I t ♦ I sim gQ z 1
mi O inup<-9)c vaNil∎O�i L 'QEE. ' ;�� = 1 ����Q art GASPER
11�� O Ag1�� q�'ETPE ♦��I�� 70 :: �I �i/ , z
ow.wow ■ t fitruil a , ►11► 111 • • ow:t0;; 1) ••q o IIIIIIIIIIIh,/ I�����I
s L-D-SOUTH 1 i-1'j, <tr, . A to mob&2 2 d • % ,,,1!IVi
go. 11�nl►/�1 in �`ik
1
a + 11
tiftlil _________ _ `.s.P'4) 111
I sr I 111
lilt, ' III
SERVIC Mixed Residential Neighborhood—.41m:„ w ��•• ' to Suburban Office Complex
�� �\ 107, (1 parcel, 3416 acres)
'.G sr ��
s..._ / ■� �- .
4011,
■T c
..,
,E Sr, __ ,
.
■ MIN . ..ili mon mom
G
Mili
.� L •O Uit1VIS=RD _� ♦ .
Iiii,A
1 \ 13- _II ODE-TURNER: Suburban Office Complex -��
�' to Employment ftW _ ;_ I�ESr►Ny_o�r 40�I f t m=1,800 feet 1 1,1 acres)`I!IPLi . --1�- 1
1 1 1 rql 'P/y /.
Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan
Areas Within the Town's Urban Service Boundary
Si. ,,uu,CREEK
P'
Attachment 1.2 o
1 1,/
, IIt�,' I 'O,
__� fj� Attachment 1.2 WAGNER
[!e J
o �_, -_� l' • _ y
■er_ '�, vq TA o`z ' 1
�� �,r POCKY .j._� 0 II t is
!� GOVERNOR B • •/j, Z
O s,
SHAWNEE `� '� t<�, 0 7 1� LE LEAF
a - p.�i v PAW -- '�
k pi�u��p ORANGE HIGH SCHOOL NIINNICK �/��` t'
z ° D WOODLAWN �:: �� EA`,._ S `
O i
Z REACHER Si a CS.,.., c '�
ANN m 0 p Z 'i soU„.
O w E 3 00, Hk'/
\ ? Q 51CJ /p9 HOLMAN r 3 AR 02 .. �It NO's e z sr M
�_ �"I' 9y s o -ow ��OL6 �1
0 CORNELIU i C o a�!
1 c OO GO 4�RF �9c 090 ' n go., �1 Nom.„,
JJ m US w Q ALMA 9 [ E KIRKLAND
w CO RAIN �SiRBIN , I N\1190 `�
�O ~ G. 5
O 9CF 5 ORANGE CHINE l� - o j
o Si Si = T x ... UNION e.ii '•1e�r'.•.. 0,,7%1. 4? `".I� ,,,,,,,„;=,„ KL
= z z QUEEN S c 3 • - -¢ ,, l'
IATIMER o Si TRYON '' p / \� v , 000a �I '2 ti LL P
- z KING a /' "% 9 - v K'¢ 5 7,4
�,; .8 m O T,. l'' MARGARET <1:1; F�p W G
r .mrIII o : k ;Y m�, - v 3 „. ,,, CALVIN /� URN5IDE '// 3 ..� ARMFIE i c n x ENO - r ®�ARIBHUIL _ �� o /.. / '; S
s �, �� 99 + Ij� ll�, 4( )/
*.t.//,/..fd, HEx ENO D � _ ¢ , y�y �o 0� RANKUN
.AI/L .• o l TUSCARORA �/`� �0' FTRE LY
�L F
r"� �I Z 1 ¢ `J --- ��
II� I -i.Jis MON 'i�um H
49 o o
1111II � ;
4y.- � �P 3 USDA
It NH3 VIRGINIA CATER `ADS ���, _
Akii
—_:_.• ' F. N WASHING \�-
�C pip, Ex,265 r TO" �r�
�oOpEFI:,� /e,FjT ts3 „A GO'p�P�G� BS N e4/. ce
2 -�IEPN nGHp r NEW GRADYBRO SCHOOL z s- t �� W 5o 14'.p?-. \ - 'a =Immo 111MIi.1i 0 5 QA 50G W r k aN ,,,Cr'''w NiE •
1�51■y A Ste p i O/O v o
z 2 �.:
o z .�`— 0 0 \414:PD
11� V o (/iVAHE P �jy Q o _ ,,a
=I t`4,,� i� COONry SEAT 2,,;� m. o E i.•••C
YE FLETCHER
ira•iell* V�lil�•• r - •: Ab
►.Y��: � E it OO
Legend .,/.7� ��” ti a
-6-m! -7111 ' Z 4 2
QUrban Service Boundary / V �� _ °' ��I
. ' n- �m rM1 `i4.fs 10
ZZ
Natural Resource A �: �_ �NF 0 N
1 sl = IR dig ,scco
�-- OAKRI�E OESl7Ny �•
I' dr A
-Attached Residential Jf� OLD HERI E SEMINOLE �Z
Employment �' _ 1 inch equals 0.5 miles
0 Future Land Use Plan
MilGovernment <,G�
Mil wooDR,OG, Adopted
Light Industry
MI Medium Density Residential March 11, 2013
RIAGE STb } `1
-Mixed Resid.Neighborhood
-Mixed Use The Urban Services Boundary indicates the limits of Hillsborough water and sewer service consistent with an
I� Inter-local Agreement with Orange County,OWASA,Chapel Hill,Carrboro,and Hillsborough. Future Land Uses
Neighborhood Mixed Use would be used by Hillsborough and Orange County as the basis for approving zoning designations on colored
-Permanent Open Space parcels and those within the boundary,consistent with the Inter-local Agreement between Orange County and
Rural Living Hillsborough.
_Retail Service
I Small Lot Residential Areas outside the Urban Services Boundary with a Future Land Use designation are due
-Suburban Office to the boundary crossing a parcel. Areas outside the Urban Services Boundary with current utility service from
-Town Center the Town of Hillsborough will retain service.
-Urban Neighborhood
-WorkingFarm Approved by the BOCC 11-5-13
Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan
Staff Note: When this Land Use Plan is implemented through Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan
amendments, staff will add an introductory section to replace the first two paragraphs below that describes
the joint planning construct and linkage to the Hillsborough/Orange Interlocal Agreement.
Hillsborough, NC Future Land Use Plan
The Future Land Use Plan is composed of a map showing Future Land Use Designations and a brief text
detailing those designations and how they align with zoning districts listed in the Hillsborough Unified
Development Ordinance. Together, the map and text constitute the Future Land Use Plan for the Town of
Hillsborough and lands within its jurisdiction. The Plan is adopted as a component of the Hillsborough
Comprehensive Plan and is subject to amendments following the procedure established in the Unified
Development Ordinance.
Nothing in this document limits the Hillsborough Town Board of Commissioners authority to regulate
land use within its jurisdiction. Future Land Use Designations are not a guarantee that land will remain
zoned in any particular use district, and are subject to the availability of infrastructure, including but not
limited to water, sanitary sewer, and streets necessary to support designated or proposed uses.
Future Land Use Classifications
Natural Resource. These areas are unique natural areas or environmental sensitive areas. The primary
designation is for the 100-year flood zones along the Eno River and Cates Creek. The Eno River
floodplain is a natural area of national significance. This designation does not follow parcel boundaries
and overlays other designations listed here.
Permanent Open Space. These areas are intended for long-term use as open space, parks, or natural
areas that protect scenic, historic, cultural, and environmentally valued lands. They include lands that are
permanently protected, though not necessarily publicly owned or accessible, through private conservation
easements or other private conservation measures, and publicly held park or conservation lands. Zoning
Districts: Agricultural-Residential; Protected Watershed& Protected Watershed Critical Area
Working Farm. These areas reflect existing agricultural use in locations where continued agricultural use
is desirable for the foreseeable future. Zoning Districts: Agricultural-Residential; R-40
Rural Living. These areas reflect existing very-low density residential uses with densities below 0.5
dwelling units per acre(at least a 2 acre minimum lot size) that occurs in areas without public water and
sewer service, in locations where continued low-intensity use without public water and sewer is desirable
for the foreseeable future. Zoning Districts: Agricultural-Residential; Protected Watershed &
Protected Watershed Critical Area; R-40
Small Lot Residential Neighborhood. These areas provide opportunities for a lower density than pre-
WWII or neo-traditional neighborhood living. These areas include detached single-family residential
uses in post-WWII subdivision developments which range in density from 0.5 dwelling units per acre to 3
dwelling units per acre. Zoning Districts: R-10; R-15; R-20; Entranceway Special Use; Mixed
Residential Special Use; Residential Special Use
Medium-Density Residential. These areas include existing and future areas for development of more
dense residential neighborhoods that provide a diversity of housing types and housing options. Areas
include single-family detached units, mobile homes, townhouses, duplexes, condominiums, apartments,
senior housing, and other multi-family dwelling units. Housing densities should range from 3-8 dwelling
units per acre. Other types of uses that may occur are schools, parks, and other public facilities. Zoning
Districts: R-10; R-15; R-20; Multi-Family; Mobile Home Park; Entranceway Special Use; Mixed
Residential Special Use; Multi-Family Special Use; Residential Special Use
1 Approved by the BOCC 11-5-13
244
Attached Residential Neighborhoods. These areas include existing and future areas for the
development of dwelling units at more than 8 units per acre, which generally implies attached dwelling
units. This designation may also be used for unique residential settings like retirement villages or nursing
homes. Zoning Districts: Multi-Family; Multi-family Special Use; Entranceway Special Use; Mixed
Residential Special Use; Residential Special Use
Mixed Residential. The dominant land use in any proposed development is expected to be residential
based on square footage of proposed structures. Developments may contain a single or variety of
dwelling types and densities or may integrate a variety of supportive commercial,public and semi-public
uses and open or public space. Small developments that provide only supportive non-residential land
uses in an infill arrangement serving more than 50 dwelling units in a walkable manner may also be
considered. Zoning Districts: R-10; R-15; R-20; Neighborhood Business; Multi-Family; Multi-
family Special Use; Entranceway Special Use; Mixed Residential Special Use; Residential Special
Use; Special Design Special Use
Urban Nei2hborhood Established residential neighborhoods that pre-date traditional zoning and land
use regulation. Lot sizes and building types are varied and generally developed on a grid street pattern.
The predominant type is generally low density single family housing with occasional business,
government, park, church or school uses. Infill and redevelopment projects should enhance the unique
character of the surrounding neighborhood and be of consistent scale and appearance. The opportunity to
increase the residential density in a compatible manner is encouraged. Zoning Districts: R-10; R-15;
R-20; Neighborhood Business Special Use; Residential Special Use
Education. These areas are currently developed as public schools and their use is not anticipated to
change. Zoning Districts: Office Institutional
Employment areas. These areas include a wide range of business, light industrial, office, research and
development, along with related/support services uses including restaurants, small scale retail and
convenience shopping/services. Buildings and uses will be sited to limit the visual impact of service and
warehousing operations, while still providing convenience for business functionality. These areas are in
prime locations with good access to major road networks (where capacity exists or is planned) and rail if
needed and should be reserved for high return employment generating uses. Zoning Districts: High
Intensity Commercial; Business Park; Economic Development District; Light Industrial, General
Industrial; Entranceway Special Use; Special Design Special Use
Light Industrial. The Industrial classification is applied to areas that currently support industrial uses or
lands that could accommodate a variety of industrial establishments which employ high environmental
quality standards and have minimal impacts on adjacent uses. These areas incorporate larger tracts of
land because of their nature and function. Industrial developments should provide shared access, and
have a coordinated design and a planned layout. Zoning Districts: High Intensity Commercial;
Business Park; Economic Development District; Light Industrial, General Industrial
Mixed Use. These areas a full range of uses well mixed, both vertically and horizontally, much like a
downtown or village center. Multi-story buildings are the norm and will generally contain a vertical mix
of uses. Uses are expected to be roughly balanced between residential, retail, office, service, public and
semi-public uses. Public open space of both urban and green space is also expected to off-set the
intensity of development. Zoning Districts: R-10; Multi-family; Office Institutional; High Intensity
Commercial; Multi-family Special Use; Residential Special Use; Special Design Special Use
Nei2hborhood Mixed Use. These areas provide opportunities for goods and services that residents of the
district and surrounding neighborhoods need on a daily basis. Lots with this designation will front on an
2 Approved by the BOCC 11-5-13
245
arterial or collector street and back up to single family neighborhoods. Buildings and uses will generally
be in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods and be walkable as well as providing vehicular access.
Sites may be single use or, mixed use, may incorporate residential uses or may be solely residential at a
higher density than the adjacent neighborhood. Zoning Districts: R-10; Multi-family; Neighborhood
Business; Neighborhood Business Special Use; Central Commercial; Central Commercial Special
Use; Multi-Family Special Use; Residential Special Use
Retail Services. These areas focus on retail and commercial uses. They should be located near
residential and employment areas to provide good access to commerce and personal services. Retail areas
can have a range of characteristics depending on their primary markets. The larger scale regional draws
are more automobile-oriented and draw people from throughout the region. These areas should be located
near interstate access, and they may include larger scale stores like "big boxes", warehouse clubs, and
large specialty retailers. Smaller, accessory uses can also locate in these areas to provide convenience
shopping and include restaurants and smaller specialty retailers; often located on out-parcels or in smaller
shopping centers. Zoning Districts: Neighborhood Business; Neighborhood Business Special Use;
Central Commercial; Central Commercial Special Use; General Commercial; High Intensity
Commercial; Entranceway Special Use; Special Design Special Use
Suburban Office Complex. These areas provide opportunities to for office and employment enterprises
which do not rely on walk-in customers or have a manufacturing component. Businesses may be large or
small but will generally arrange themselves in a campus setting with limited walkability and supporting
services. Developments of this type should be kept small in nature to limit the peak transportation impact
and limited vitality. Zoning Districts: Limited Office; Office Institutional; Business Park; Economic
Development District; Entranceway Special Use; Special Design Special Use
Town Center. This area incorporates the historic structures, civic uses, commercial opportunities, and
the active pedestrian environment that is the downtown core of Hillsborough. The core commercial areas
are to be preserved and enhanced over the long-term and should provide mixed-use opportunities that
combine second-floor residential units with ground floor commercial, office, or institutional uses.
Zoning Districts: R-20; Office Institutional; Central Commercial; Central Commercial Special Use
3 Approved by the BOCC 11-5-13
Attachment 2 246
RESOLUTION # RES-2016-056
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY
CENTRAL ORANGE COORDINATED AREA LAND USE PLAN
WHEREAS, Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough worked cooperatively to
prepare a Strategic Growth Plan Report (dated November 2006) that
called for preparation of an Interlocal Agreement for areas surrounding the
Town of Hillsborough; and
WHEREAS, a Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement was
approved (dated June 2009 and amended May 2014) and called for
preparation of a joint land use plan; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina Session Law 1987-233 authorizes Orange County and its
municipalities to engage in joint planning programs; and
WHEREAS, the joint Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan for
areas within the Town's Urban Service Area was approved by the Town of
Hillsborough and Orange County (March and November 2013,
respectively); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal
Land Management Agreement, the joint COCA Land Use Plan may be
amended when agreed to by both parties; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Planning Board has reviewed the proposed
amendment to the joint COCA Land Use Plan and recommended
approval; and
WHEREAS, the amendment to the joint COCA Land Use Plan was heard at the
September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the amendment to the joint COCA Land Use Plan will
further carry out the intent and purpose of joint planning and is consistent
with the goals and objectives of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive
Plan;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners
that the amendment to the joint Town of Hillsborough-Orange County Central Orange
Coordinated Area Land Use Plan is hereby approved as provided in the attached
document.
Adopted by Orange County:
This the day of , 2016.
1
247
Earl McKee, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Donna Baker County Seal:
Clerk to the Orange County Board of
Commissioners
2
Attachment 2
Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area
Land Use Plan Proposed Amendments
Proposed Amendments 6 City Limit Medium Density Neighborhood Retail Service
From Mixed Res. Mixed Use
ETJ Small Lot Res.
Residential Mixed Res. - Permanent Open
►_:. Neighborhood to Attached Res. Neighborhood Space Suburban Office
Suburban Office
Complex [ Employment Mixed Use — 1 Rural Living ' Working Farm
From Suburban
►�- -- Office Complex to
Employment
ft 0
% m '"VI 1 ���'f o�G� oNE Gl �� II'II�p�D { Pay ����_t , o°�1iii'! 4 \
— J <O® _ �_ MEADOWLAN�y iii 1
p.
0., oP HgMProN r
!,._.: * cgRO/: \ , 85 , ecvo,���R 1 SPY-c
' - --Dck ijr..0.. • ' :-is p ‘ I
�'II >����J�o ' . �a� �: o i i �C:= IIIINc 10.��Q 11 Sri w i�G o ♦ Q� t�:p ►00 ■ N o u,\�rI :II‘R-11.-
w v� � �� Q Ip ■� i ` ,ON � 0 tit 13 tn�= O* WOR
1 ,
■ •••.� • Q1p Iq�► 2 I• s' 11111/•,4 1 2
li
m o / •iii•%� ♦ R4, 9= 10 ? 0j*4 �� 's F w c,La 0 or NI
��1 i ∎� � %ip �� K 8 es
i I 0��muff 'mew,1111111111 GATES- ptea ,PL 10► o ►I polo J7 z w
mn� O�.�I.D<qF r►lN�•O�i L QEE-`�' NY ����Q�I �i/►11► 111 • • Or
:1��i��,4j IU •q o � �IIIIIIIIIIIh,/ I����I
s L-D-soUTH ■ -7,. <tr, ,, A p,v4bik 2 2 8 • ,,,1!IVi
s?w 11�nl►40,4/....L in �`
1 a + 11
I ri I I 4 0 t h i \__ 0;4;4,1 1 3 I sr
la
°" l
SEi q Mixed Residential Neighborhood
■ w Ems, to Suburban Office Complex
lig �� �\ 707 (1 parcel, 3416 acres)II'„c' sr ��
sot- / ■� , �- .lip ��E sr, __ ,
r INIF
�
AMA �.■
rWINN ■- ■P', , , ■ G .� O Uit1VIS=RD .� ♦
111101111, '
A
ODETuRNER_�tD��� Suburban Office Complex
�' to Employment ftW _ ;_ I�FSr►Ny_o�airIWIM11%-----1111161111°M1
f tm=,,aoote
acres)`I!IPLi . --1�-
Attachment 3 249
1 Excerpt of Notes SUMMARY NOTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 Jun(6,2016
4 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
5
6 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings.
7
8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township(Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township
9 Representative (Vice-Chair); Paul Guthrie,At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell,At-Large Bingham
10 Township; Kim Piracci,At-Large; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative;
11
12 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director;Tom Altieri, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning
13 Systems Supervisor;Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Meredith Pucci Administrative Assistant;
14
15 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER
16
17 Lydia Wegman called meeting to order.
18
19 ****************************
20
21 AGENDA ITEM 4: TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL ORANGE COORDINATED AREA LAND USE
22 PLAN AMENDMENT
23
24 To receive information about an upcoming Land Use Plan amendment involving five parcels
25 south of Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Old Highway 86. Amendments are proposed to better
26 promote economic development opportunities in the area and help preserve planned sewer
27 capacities for non-single-family residential uses.
28
29 Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor
30
31 Tom Altieri delivered presentation.
32
33 Tony Blake: Is this change being driven by the landowners or by the County or by the town?
34
35 Craig Benedict:There will be an interlocal agreement that will probably refer to these changes that occur here that
36 says,"As long as you redevelop consistent with this joint land use plan then please feel free to use this public water
37 and sewer system."So the commissioners, probably in September,will be seeing a draft of this interlocal agreement
38 that if the County puts"x"amount of dollars into public water and sewer that they'll use it for, primarily, non-residential
39 economic development purposes.This is kind of a pre-requisite to that impending public water and sewer extension.
40
41 Lydia Wegman: So they're not disturbed at losing the mixed residential...
42
43 Craig Benedict: No, because along the frontage of South Churton and Old 86 it's still there.
44
45 Tom Altieri: So I'll just add that the agreement that Craig mentioned, that is the last bullet in the PowerPoint here, and
46 it is an important component.The group mentioned"annexation"and the text and zoning amendments that are being
47 made to the UDO, those are within the County's UDO. In the case of an annexation, a development would occur
48 under the town's land develop ordinance. So it is that type of an agreement that would outline under what conditions
49 annexation might occur, its timing, if there were a component of, let's say, this entire Hillsborough economic
50 development district is approximately 500 acres, potentially what percentage of that might be developed for non-
51 residential uses versus residential? An agreement could address. So that's where the County could receive that
52 official handshake from the town on the ratio between residential and non-residential development in the area.
53
1
250
54 Craig Benedict:Orange County has met with Hillsborough Staff, both engineering division and planning division, to
55 discuss this over the last six months or so,so they're in line with what's suggested.We put a lot of these things on
56 the map just three years ago or so, and we're learning. So here is our first amendment coming forward.They're
57 working on some interchange improvements on 1-85 and South Churton so that's a few years from now.And that will
58 be a dramatic design.
59
60 Tony Blake: By the way, I always saw in the plan for Orange Grove Road to not stop at Churton Street and go
61 straight across. Is that ever going to happen?
62
63 Craig Benedict:Yes.We're moving that forward through the prioritization process,and it's probably just off this map.
64
65 Craig Benedict explained where it was on the map and the details of the proposed transportation improvement.
66
67 *************************************
2
Attachment 4 z
Draft
Excerpt of Draft Minutes for MINUTES
the three related Hillsborough ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AUGUST 3,2016
EDD items REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill
Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township
Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township
Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Kim Piracci,At-Large;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham
Township;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz,
Planning Systems Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; Rachel
McCook, Planner I; Molly Boyle, Planning Technician; Meredith Pucci,Administrative Assistant II.
OTHERS PRESENT: Sharon Mace; Dan Way; Austin Seifts; Annie Seifts; Nathan Robinson; Chris Cole; Franklin
Garland; Jimmy Garland;Javier Latre Gorbe; George Horton; Jim Parker.
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Tony Blake called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a) Planning Calendar for August and September
Lydia Wegman arrived and assumed chair duties.
*********************************
Agenda Item 8: Town of Hillsborough/ Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use
Plan Amendment To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Land Use Plan
amendment involving five parcels south of Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Old Highway 86.
• Four parcels totaling approximately 166.2 acres are proposed to be changed from
"Suburban Office Complex"to"Employment".
• One parcel totaling 34.58 acres is proposed to be changed from"Mixed
Residential Neighborhood"to"Suburban Office Complex".
This item is scheduled for the September 12, 2016 quarterly public hearing.
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator
Perdita Holtz presented.
Lisa Stuckey:What is on these parcels now?
Perdita Holtz:They're undeveloped.
Patricia Roberts:As an interstate exit, is there any plan for gas stations?
1
252
Draft
Perdita Holtz: That's not really envisioned with these parcels. That's not to say in the future something couldn't
happen on other parcels.
Craig Benedict: If you could show the map, there's some areas that were not effecting change that would allow
those types is uses.
Patricia Roberts:What is the pink on the map?
Perdita Holtz: It's neighborhood mixed use.
Patricia Roberts: So if somebody wanted to put a gas station they would have to get a SUP?
Perdita Holtz: It would depend on the zoning and the zoning of those parcels are EDH-2. So I would need to look up
and see.
Lisa Stuckey:Would it be allowed in employment?
Perdita Holtz: Well the land use classification is just the general thing; it's the zoning that's going to allow or
disallow a particular use.
Paul Guthrie:Where is the water line going?
Perdita Holtz: The sewer line is currently in the vicinity of Cornwallis Hills and it would be coming down through
here, under the interstate where the sewer line is.The water line actually exists on Old 86 right now.
Paul Guthrie:And the sewer line, I assume,will be using the outflow structure that serves the hospital as well?
Craig Benedict: That's correct. When the hospital was built the sewer came closer to the parcels to the south. Part
of our capital improvement initiative is to assist in economic development in this area by bringing it underneath the
interstate, which is a high-end effort. We want to ensure that before we bring utilities to the south we'll be in
agreement with Hillsborough that says we provide these economic development infrastructure incentives that we
will have primarily non-residential uses that have tax based employment.
Paul Guthrie:And if I remember correct, the elevations are such that at least until you get to Old 86 you would have
flow into the Hillsborough system for sewers,correct?
Craig Benedict: That's correct. The sewer shed is where it flows downhill and there's a ridgeline roughly at Davis
Road that flows north all the way into their system. So there's a water and sewer boundary map that guides a lot of
our decisions about where you can more easily put public water/sewer versus not, and it shows this area as going
towards Hillsborough.
Paul Guthrie: I assume that Hillsborough has the water pumping capacity for drinking water to also go to that same
area?
Craig Benedict: Yes, they do.And part of the inter-local agreement will be somewhat of a reservation of water and
sewer capacity for this area, to ensure that if we escorted economic development and they'll say"how much water
does the water and sewer purveyor treatment operate?" and we have to have a good idea of what it is. Even with
Hillsborough there are limitations. There's sometimes users that have a very large amount of water usage and
sewage and we have to gauge. So we do have that in mind, that there is capacity for treatment and water.
Paul Guthrie: One last question. Existing owners of residential properties- when and if those water systems are in
place would they be eligible to connect?
2
253
Draft
Craig Benedict:They would be able to.The design for the system to bring it south of the interstate would be enough
to accommodate all the growth in that area.
Lydia Wegman: Okay, let me turn to the public.
Chris Cole (member of the public): My name's Chris Cole, I live right about there. A couple of things; First of all, I
wanted to make you aware that according to the town officials there is no plan to extend water and sewer south of
40 at this point. Of course, everything's subject to change but there is no plan in place. Second, if you could back
up one slide... Employment, and this is in your packets, includes manufacturing. I just wanted to point out a couple
of items that would be considered permissible, if this were zoned for manufacturing. Rendering a new by-product
processing, poultry processing, seafood product, preparation and packaging, leather and hide tanning and finishing,
asphalt paving mixture and block manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, explosives manufacturing, fertilizer
manufacturing. That's all the kinds of things that would be permissible changing this zoning to employment.And, a
lot of stuff that would be really good but, as a person who lives here I'm worried about my water and I'm worried
about my air.Thank you.
Franklin Garland - Garland Truffles (member of the public): I pretty much expressed my opinion last week when I
was here. I have a worse problem than him. I received a letter from you guys that said that I wasn't going to be
affected somehow.And I was told that's a legal term. How am I not going to be affected? Now, when Cedar Ridge
High School went in there I was told I'm not going to be affected. I'm affected.You should see the traffic on Orange
Grove now. When 1-40 was put in there, I was told I'm not going to be affected. I have trucks rolling down there all
night long, motorcycles and everything. So there's not such thing as not being affected. It's a legal term, so I don't
understand how I'm not going to be affected in this. I don't particularly want--- plant down there. I mean someone
can do that. Who exactly wants this property? There's wet lines down there. A good portion of this is in a flood
plain. So somebody's influencing somebody in this planning commission out here, to say we want to put something
in that place. Somebody has something in mind. I don't know who it is. I know when the transfer facility was being
placed out there the study that was done at the time said the number one prime location for the transfer facility,
right here, that was the number one site until we spoke up and said that's in the flood plain. I mean how can
somebody who got paid 5 million dollars to do research on this and find this a number one site for this. That's
possibly the worst environmental site to put a garbage facility. Because somebody put a garbage dump next to my
property. On top of it, it's in the flood plain. That's the first thing I want to say, is this even suitable? So someone
obviously wants this property for commercial development. Now, let me clarify something; I have mixed feelings
about this. I live next door. I'm a farmer. I have an orchard, a successful nursery out there. I'm a resident. It's going
to affect this residence, a lot. At the same time you guys decide to approve this, my land value goes up. I'm on
prime land.The whole property... if I want to get out of here. I've built my own house, I live there, I put up the whole
farm and a whole industry in this country. That gets affected by turning this into a manufacturing facility. Which is
exactly where it's going, it's not offices that are going to go there. There's somebody that wants to put
manufacturing in there. Otherwise, they wouldn't change it. And I would really like to know who it is. I find it very
disturbing. That's going to change my taxes, there's going to be water and sewer there, which I could care less. I
don't want city water. There are a lot of people on the opposite side of this out here. And again, mixed feelings.
You're going to run a water line there because it's going to have to go up 1-40 and I'm going to have to be paying
city taxes,which you guys want that. I'm on the outskirts of the city; I don't want to do that.That's why I live there to
begin with. That's why I bought rural property when I did, back in 1975. I like my privacy. I don't want some plant or
some office building next to me. Now, offer me the right amount of money then go right to it. So, I'm not saying
but... this is something you guys need to take into consideration. Somebody is pushing for this, and who is that?
This doesn't just happen. It's not a convenient place to develop. It doesn't have water, it doesn't have sewer, it has
to go through the interstate to do that, it's limited capacity to get to that point, it's not going to come for free, and on
top of that a good deal of it is wetland. It's on a flood plain. To me that's saying something else is going on around
here.And somebody has self-interest in this. There's really no need for it out there. There's better use to it. Make it
protected wilderness. Because that's what it is right now. There could be a better application. Or a little park or
something.And I know that there's good economic development out there but it's really poor land.
Nathan Robinson- (member of the pubic): My name's Nathan Robinson, and we have a property that's located just
here on the south, right by Davis Road. So it's about a 13-acre parcel and I understand the purpose of what this
3
254
Draft
proposed amendment is intended to do if they extend the sewer and water down there. I recognize that the bigger
picture is really to make these southern quadrants on the south of 40 generate more capacity and make sure
there's a water tap. I think it's a good idea. I don't know if you have a map anywhere where the rural buffer zone is;
do you have that map?... So if you come off of 40, obviously those are the parcels you're talking about, this is the
Davis Road and, I think you two gentlemen were speaking back and forth, the flow of the watershed this way goes
south and this way goes north. These properties right here.The conversations about the gas stations were relevant
because I think it seems if there was a 10-year transition zone the use of these properties is intended not to be
residential anymore. I think that was said in the beginning, that there are parts of this area that are envisioned to be
non-residential.As a result what's going to happen, and what I would really encourage you guys to participate in, is
you're going to be left with some orphaned properties along the bottom here. And these orphaned properties,
currently, are zoned R1. And those R1 properties have water coming already and it makes sense to fill out this
quadrant to encompass those types of uses. It makes sense from the watershed area to include those into the
zoning amendment. If that was to be the purpose... I did a little bit of learning about this and the learning I
understood is it typically when you have these type of zonings and bunt up against a rural buffer zone that they are
all included in one same use that was your solution for --- otherwise you'd have a manufacturing type usage that
bunts in ---residential, and it just messes up uses of property. So, I think my objective is to make sure that the uses
of these properties down here, I know that we have other neighbors who are along here and I know they've been
approached for their property to be purchased for a large roadway to come through here. So I know there is the
development of these properties and it isn't going to be without some flow of traffic for commercial uses. I think if
you do look down the road 10 years from now, I think then you guys are thinking right but this area and these
quadrants are going to be commercial and so I request to you guys to include these properties here and don't
orphan these off. Particularly as they naturally flow into the economic development zone that you guys are
intending to create here.
Lydia Wegman: So you're asking for an expansion?
Nathan Robinson: I would say to extend it down here, naturally. So that as the rural buffer doesn't end, that the use
of this property flows through without creating these little R1's right in the middle.
Lydia Wegman: Ok, thank you.
Perdita Holtz: Including the area between the EDD and Rural Buffer wouldn't be possible with this amendment
because the Water and Sewer Planning, Boundary, and Management Agreement would have to be amended to
designate the area as primary service area, but it's something we can keep in mind for the future.
Craig Benedict: Chair,just what we can do for the audience and for the Board, all these questions are being written
down and we'll have our thoughts moving forward to both the Commissioners for something such as suggested we
would engage Hillsborough. It's part of their growth area.And as Perdita mentioned, the transition area that we are
talking about; the transition means going from a rural to an urban transition. Where the public water and sewer go
and where it cannot go. So, we'll make recommendations as we are starting to see the growth potential with the
hospital, bringing sewer closer to this area. Maybe it is time to re-engage with Hillsborough again. It's been 12 plus
years since we designated development to say what's happening to the south and our uses and areas. So we will
be answering all the questions that are coming up tonight.... We can give some brief answers tonight but as an
outcome of what we're hearing tonight if it directly affects the amendments we'll of course make some
recommendations. Some may come back to you; some may be for future projects.
Lydia Wegman: Well, that's what I'm wondering. In light of what we've heard, you're still asking for us to make a
recommendation to the BOCC tonight even though we wont have the answers to some of these questions?
Craig Benedict:Once we've gone through all of them I can give you the ones that we can answer now.
Lydia Wegman: Does anyone else from the public want to speak this evening?
4
255
Draft
Tony Blake: I have some more questions... Who is driving the rezoning here? Is this a joint effort by Hillsborough
and the County?
Perdita Holtz:The Land Use plan is a joint Hillsborough-Orange County plan.
Tony Blake: But there's no specific property owner that's saying, I want this re-zoning?
Perdita Holtz: Right, this is a County initiated rezoning.
Tony Blake:And Brantley doesn't have anybody in the hopper for development or anything like that?
Perdita Holtz: We have been talking about rezoning these parcels for many months. As you know this isn't
something that just happens in a month in Orange County.And I do believe that once people found out that land is
available and the County might be interested that that has generated interest among people.And people are going
out and seeing what's possible.
Tony Blake: I agree, I just wanted to clear the air and make sure there wasn't a horse or a cart that was out of place
here. I just wanted to make sure that we fully understood from the Planning Board perspective.
Perdita Holtz: Our Economic Development staff has interest in marketing this property.
Franklin Garland: It's a really odd place.. Like, why this? I can't understand it. I'm just curious what initiated this
particular parcel?
Tony Blake: Well I spoke to Steve Brantley about this sort of thing a year or two ago, back when the tax was put in
for economic development and asked him what were the attractive places, and he mentioned these places, a while
ago. I just wanted to make sure that my understanding hadn't changed.
Chris Cole:So no one has expressed interest in having these rezoned, outside the County? Has anyone expressed
an interest in having these rezoned outside the County staff?
Perdita Holtz: Not that I'm aware of.
Lisa Stuckey: I have a question. Would you take the little light and show us where the Hillsborough EDD is, and it's
my understanding it's been there since at least the early 80's. I mean this is not a new initiative, this is something
that's been designated for a while.
Perdita Holtz: The Hillsborough EDD, it's kind of a scattered thing. It's not as cohesive as the other two that are all
contiguous but it's along Old 86 here, it's all the purple lands. Waterstone used to be County EDD land, and then
Hillsborough annexed it so now it's part of Hillsborough and it's shown as gray. And then there's some parcels up
here near the Wal-Mart, and there's a couple parcels here zoned EDH2 and then also along New 86, in the vicinity
of Waterstone.
Lisa Stuckey: So since at least 1994 this has been clearly identified as economic development land, prior to that it
was Commercial Transition.
Perdita Holtz:Yes, there have been no changes in the boundaries of the EDDs.
Lisa Stuckey: So if people had investigated they would have known that Hillsborough and the County have been
envisioning this land for economic development sometime in the future.
Perdita Holtz:That would be correct.
5
256
Draft
Franklin Garland: The question here is if people had investigated, not if they would have been notified. No one was
notified. I've been there since 1975. No one was notified. And that would make more sense. Let me explain
something, you say I'm not affected because --- and I got notified because I'm within 1,000 feet. Well 1,000 feet I
can walk back and forth ten times in this room and that's 1,000 feet. So I am affected. But I wasn't notified.
Lisa Stuckey: My question was simply whether this land had been identified for Economic Development for many
decades.
Craig Benedict: On both the Orange County land use map and on our zoning map and also on the Hillsborough-
County joint land use map we do note where there are flood zones and we restrict development in there. So you
can see that, so yes, part of that 160 acres is encumbered by a flood plain and we recognize that and no
development can occur there. But there are other lands that would be available.
Perdita Holtz: I'm wondering if it might be helpful since these 3 items are inter-related to go on and do the
presentation on the second and third items because it might answer some of the questions and then we'll wait to
act on each of them until after the presentations.Would that be helpful?
Lydia Wegman:Yes, I do.Thank you.
MOTION[later in the evening, after all three related items had been presented]by Lydia Wegman. Seconded by Lisa
Stuckey.
VOTE: 7-1 OPPOSED-GUTHRIE
Paul Guthrie: I am uncertain,which is why I voted no.
Lydia Wegman: I am voting in favor because I think there is a benefit to diversify land use.
Agenda Item 9: Unified Development Ordinance(UDO)Text Amendment: To make a recommendation to
the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that would modify
existing regulations that pertain to the Hillsborough Economic Development District. This
item is scheduled for the September 12, 2016 quarterly public hearing
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator
Perdita Holtz presented item.
Lisa Stuckey: So you're going to allow apartments but not single family or duplexes?Why?
Perdita Holtz: Well because the purpose of the EDDs is to promote non-residential uses. Multi family, although it is
residential, it is actually taxed differently than single family residential. It's considered more of a commercial use so
there is some diversification of the tax base that occurs with multi family.
Lisa Stuckey: I think I read some place that there is a worry that if you permit single family that the land will actually
get eaten up by that.That there's a tendency for subdivisions.
Craig Benedict: Part of the Waterstone development, it's called planned development, part of the County plan was
more non-residential and over the years the market, because of the recession, the non-residential component was
more muted and after the recession faster residential growth comes back so some conversions were made there.
So residential is easier and so it's good that these areas were preserved. EDH3 now allows single family.We had a
proposal, some of the Board members may remember, that some of these lands were going to be part of
Hillsborough's extra territorial jurisdiction. Mainly the ones north of 1-40. And they were going to affix their zoning
category to it and they were going to consciously say which areas were going to be residential and non-residential.
They didn't do that because part of the cooperative agreement didn't go forward. That's why we're here 2 years
later saying, well we need to put a zoning category on it that fits exactly, as close to possible, what the intent of our
6
257
Draft
Economic Development District. Mixed use as we mentioned is supportive of non-residential, jobs, employment,
multi-family does have a good mix. But it's true, single family chews up more land and creates more fiscal impacts
and costs than the non-residential.
Lisa Stuckey:And I think the sort of philosophical thing about this sort of siloing residential versus non, that people
are separated from their jobs and they have to commute and that has a bad impact on our quality of life when you
pull things apart like that.That comes with it's own set of problems.
Craig Benedict: One other thing that was mentioned a little bit earlier was how these categories and things evolve
over time about how you use zoning.And zoning 10, 20, 30 years ago was very siloed. This is manufacturing. This
is retail. This is office. And you saw from our amendments that went through the last 3 or 4 months that we have
these categories such as office, research, and manufacturing. They put them all in one building. This EDH4 and
EDH5 that we're looking at is one of those combined districts where somebody can come in and do office and some
assembly and some R&D and we're also suggesting some retail so that if you have the jobs they don't have to go
too far to go to a restaurant or bank. And really even thought this will probably be developed in these little zones,
this whole area of all 4 quadrants of the interchange is going to be mixed use. We don't need to mix it completely
on every parcel but somebody living in a multi family on the south side can easily get over to the hospital if they
were working there.
Tony Blake:This is why RTP's putting in all the residential.
Craig Benedict:That's correct.
Lisa Stuckey:That's the flip of it.
Craig Benedict:That's the conventional zoning ideas back in the 60s.
Tony Blake: So just to talk directly to the first gentleman's concerns, this would not preclude a Gorilla Manufacturing
or an asphalt plant or anything like that. There are other components to the UDO that would address those. But this
particular zone would not prevent it.
Perdita Holtz:You mean the EDH5 zone?
Tony Blake:Yes.
Perdita Holtz: They could theoretically be located in EDH5, but practically, with all the development standards that
the UDO contains, it's not likely.
Craig Benedict: This isn't in the UDO but this is in the practice that all cities and counties are doing in the region.
There's demand for quality growth and our Commissioners and Economic Development Department targets
industries and if it's the appropriate industries that give us the tax base and the high paying jobs, there's incentives.
Jobs or businesses that are not fulfilling that targeted market are not likely to get incentives and therefore the
pressure for them to locate here is lessened. Meaning that some of those higher intensity uses that are listed in that
manufacturing category,we're not going to be escorting those in with incentive packages.
Lisa Stuckey: There's also small businesses that it seems to me that some of what you were just talking about
would really... that there's not much land that's available right now to do this kind of construction in Orange County,
really.
Craig Benedict:That's correct.There are not too many interchanges and everyone that we have, besides the one in
North Chapel Hill, New Hope Church interchange- nothing can happen there. And this is within proximity of our
University even. And there are other Economic Development zones in Efland and Buckhorn. Very prime. The
developers and businesses that are looking for properties in Orange County, they are surprised that there's still
available land at some of these interchanges. Why hasn't it developed in the past? There hasn't been good zoning
7
258
Draft
there or infrastructure. And so we are trying to prepare the appropriate places where there's good transportation
access also.
Chris Cole: Can I make one comment? Lisa... She raises the fact that there are not many opportunities to put a
manufacturing facility in Orange County, and that's true. And I'd like to point out that businesses are aware of that
too and sometimes they go out and pay a premium... 12 years ago, maybe, next to Euro Sport, someone
purchased an option on land to put an asphalt plant next door to them. It cost the town of Hillsborough $300,000 to
make them go away.They supposedly weren't allowed to do that there either.
Craig Benedict:We're familiar with the lawsuit.
Tony Blake: But that, I believe, was addressed in the zoning. There was a hole in the zoning that allowed that to
happen. If my understanding... But I believe that's been closed since.
Perdita Holtz continued presentation.
MOTION [later in the evening, after all three related items had been presented] by Buddy Hartley to approve the
Statement of Consistency. Seconded by Tony Blake.
VOTE: 7-1 OPPOSED-GUTHRIE
MOTION [later in the evening, after all three related items had been presented] by Buddy Hartley to approve the
amendment package. Seconded by Laura Nicholson.
VOTE: 7-1 OPPOSED-GUTHRIE
Paul Guthrie opposed because he is uncertain.
Agenda Item 10: Zoning Atlas Amendment- To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-
initiated amendments to the Zoning Atlas that would rezone:
• Four parcels totaling approximately 166.2 acres and 17.05 acres of Interstate right-of-way
from EDH-3 (Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office with Residential [current
name]) to EDH-5 (Economic Development Hillsborough Research and manufacturing
[proposed name]). The parcels are located immediately south of Interstate 40 and west of
Old Highway 86.
• One parcel totaling 34.58 acres and 8.92 acres of Interstate right-of-way from EDH-2
(Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office) to EDH-4 (Economic Development
Hillsborough Office / Retail [proposed name]). The parcel is located immediately south of
Interstate 40 and east of Old Highway 86.
This item is scheduled for the September 12, 2016 quarterly public hearing.
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator
Perdita Holtz presented.
Nathan Robinson (member of the public): In terms of the recognition that's coming for those areas, they're existing
residential now, they come down just south on Old 86; would there be a way to include the zoning that needs to be
consistent with this action so that this process doesn't have to be repeated in the future?
Perdita Holtz: There is not a way to include it at this time.And we've mentioned to you about the water and sewer
boundary agreement that in order to be 10 year transition area the water and sewer boundary agreement would
need to be revised, the County's land use plan would need to be revised, and then ultimately zoning would need to
be applied. And the thing that would need to happen first would be water and sewer management boundary
agreement adjustments.And that requires the approval of the five signatory parties.
Craig Benedict: And what we do if there's comments that come from the public, in the future public hearing on
September 12th the Commissioners can say, " Craig and Staff, can you provide a report about how this would be
8
259
Draft
accomplished". It doesn't mean they'd want us to proceed or not, and to come up with what departments are
involved, what maps have to change, and we give that back to them on what we call a future amendment outline.
An outline of how'd we'd get it done and that we involved Hillsborough, etcetera. And then we bring that back to
them and the public's available to talk at those meetings, also.And they say please proceed or not proceed. It is an
overlapping, multi layer process, as Perdita said.
Perdita Holtz: What happens here does get presented at the public hearing, and the Minutes for this meeting are
included, so the BOCC will be aware that that's something that you brought up.
Nathan Robinson: Okay, because we literally just bought the property 6 months ago. We literally were playing with
the plans to put single-family residences here.And just for the sake of everyone else, we have spoken with Perdita
and Craig. So we had to modify our plans based on what the wave of the future is. We get that, and that's cool but
as we modify we don't want to get stuck between a hard decisions if say this is going to stay R1 forever. Because
then we feel like we're going to get stuck with our only use being our one usage, but that's not what the whole
quadrant is tending toward.
Lydia Wegman:Thank you.
Franklin Garland: I have a quick question. How hard is it to get land use changed? I mean, my farm is for sale. But
I've been approached by people that want it for commercial property.
Perdita Holtz: It requires the same type of process that we're going through now. If you wanted to do it as an
individual...
Franklin Garland: But the same thing as Nathan's, it's like being between a rock and a hard place.
Perdita Holtz:Any property owner can apply to amend any of these documents.The land use plan, the zoning map,
the UDO. In order to have the County do a County initiated action it's something that we can potentially talk about. I
can tell you that a County initiated amendment will take more than a year.
Lydia Wegman:Thank you. Do you have any discussion?
Paul Guthrie: I'm still unsure exactly. I would comment that I think if we can avoid stacking so many of these things
on a meeting at one time, I understand there were reasons for that, it would be helpful.After 200 pages of material
of which was changed at least twice and reading it, coming here and then having 2 hours of discussion, I still feel
uncomfortable. And I'm not sure exactly, when you ask for my vote, I'm not sure what I'm going to do. It's not that
I'm for or against, I'm just not sure in my own mind exactly what the best option is given all of the variables that are
involved. So I just want to state that.
Kim Piracci: I'm just clarifying a question, all these changes are being driven by the desire to increase the tax base;
is that correct?
Perdita Holtz: They're being pursued to diversify the tax base, not necessarily increase it.
Tony Blake: In other words, to have the County less reliant on residential housing taxes, and have a little more
diversity in the base. In case there's changes in the economy you have less of an impact.
Craig Benedict:And the underlying analysis is non-residential property pays more taxes than it costs in services. So
there's a little bonus there. And residential, in most cases, costs more than what we get in tax, unless it's a real
expensive house. So Orange County is overly reliant on their residential property owners to provide those services
that everybody loves. And that's for schools, that's for social services and health services. So our comprehensive
plan which is how to promote growth in the right areas and match the uses to their locations. This has been for 40
years, an area at an interchange. We knew that it was coming that we needed to preserve and promote it for
primarily non-residential uses. That's why one of the recommendations here was to bring down the single family
9
260
Draft
potential since it's happening everywhere else, that there are limited areas that are prime, and interest from the
non-residential development sector that they're looking for. And they've looked at interchanges. They look at
visibility on the interstate and interchange and infrastructure. It wasn't until we got that quarter sales tax, part of it
going to schools, part of it going to promote economic development, that we start putting infrastructure out there, so
what prompts this whole process is there's been a lot of work done from Efland back to Mebane with infrastructure,
we have something on the edge of Durham that's underway, and this has been the last area.And what has slowed
us down a little bit was not wanting to put a million dollars of infrastructure in and have it turn to residential.
Residential now is in EDH3 is by right. There's been some interest in the development community to do something
out there. They may use EDH3 or 4 or 5, or they may come in with a master plan development which would be an
additional zoning and they might have to go through this process again. But at least this will be a guide of what can
be done out there.And if they go through that conditional zoning district process there's public meetings, what uses
exactly go out there, so the 41 pages that Perdita listed will be there.
Lydia Wegman: Are there comments? I'll just say with Paul, I'm a little uncertain about how exactly to proceed, as
well but you're recommendation is important.
MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the Statement of Consistency. Seconded by Tony Blake.
VOTE: 7-1 OPPOSED-GUTHRIE
MOTION by Laura Nicholson to recommend approval of the amendments to the Orange County zoning atlas.
Seconded by Buddy Hartley.
VOTE: 7-1 OPPOSED-GUTHRIE
Paul Guthrie opposed because he was uncertain.
*********************************
10