Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 06-04-1981
AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1981 SUPERIOR COURTROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 7:30 P.M. 1. A Public Hearing on the Land Use Plan now before the County. / A 3 ,72, 'THE GROWTH THAT THE COUNTY HAS EXPERIENCED OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS AND THE EXPECTED FUTURE GROWTH IS CNE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY A PLAN IS NEEDED. ACCORDING au THE FINAL 1980 CENSUS FIGURES THE POPULATION OF ORANGE COUNTY IS 77,055 PERSONS, AN INCREASE OF ABOUT 20,000 PERSONS SINCE 1970. THIS IS A 34% GROWTH RATE OVER THE TEN YEAR PERIOD, MING ORANGE COUNTY THE 7TH FASTEST GROWING COUNTY AMONG NORTH CAROLINAS 100 COUNTIES. THAT GROWTH IS NOT ALL IN CHAPEL HILL. ENO TOWNSHIP;IN FACT HAS THE HIGHEST GROWTH RATE, 75%. BINGHAM TOWNSHIp/HAD A 62% GROWTH RATE. HILLSBOROUGH A 47% RATE. CHAPEL HILL WAS IN FACT 4TH WITH A 30% GROWTH. PART PAST GROWTH IN POPULATION HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE AT LEAST INItIE--F-A&T FOR A NUMBER OF PLANNING ISSUES WHICH AROSE IN THE COUNTY: THESE INCLUDE THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL WATER FOR SOUTHERN ORANGE COUNTY AND THE CANE CREEK RESERVOIR CONTROVERSY, THE LOSS OF FARMS AND FARM-LANDS, THE PROPOSED ROUTE OF 1-40 THROUGH THE COUNTY, THE SOUTHERN BY-PASS AROUND CHAPEL HILL TO BINGHAM TOWNSHIP, AND THE ENO STATE PARK. TH POPULATION OF THE COUNTY WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY INCREASE GREATLY IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS. WE DO NEED AN EXPRESSION OF HOW THE COUNTY WOULD LIKE TO GROW - THE PLAN - SO THAT WE CAN BE PREPARED TO DEAL WITH FUTURE PLANNING RELATED QUESTIONS. SINCE THE FED 1970'S, ORANGE COUNTY HAS BEEN IN THE'PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A LAND-USE PLAN, Al' THE BEGINNING OF 1975, THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTHINT WAS 79R?'M IC HANDLE SEVERAL COUNTY ORDINANCES RELATED 'ID LAND USE. THESE INCLUDED A ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN ADOPTED FOR CHAPEL HILL TU/NSHIP IN 1967 AND FOR ENO TOWNSHIP IN 1970. IN 1975, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BEGAN WORK ON A GENERAL PLANNING SCHEME FOR THE COUNTY AM A MORE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP. THE PLANNING STAFF SOUr3117 TO INVOLVE COUNTY PEOPLE IN THIS PLANNING PROCESS. A LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS A!ID LEADERS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTY WAS DEVELOPED AND MEETINGS HELD TO ACQUAINT CITIZENS WITH THE PLANNING STAFF AND,,FORE IMPORTANTLY, FAMILIARIZE STAFF WITH LOCAL ISSUES AND POINTS OF VIEW. A SERIES OF FURTHER MEETINGS WERE HELD IN CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS OF A PLAN FOR THAT TOWNSHIP. IN JUNE 1976, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRODUCED A REPORT ENTITLED A PLANNING/ MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR ORANGE COUNTY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOUND LAND DEVEIDPMENT,. THE REPORT CONTAINED A LAND CLASELFICATION SYSTEM FORUM COUNTY AND A SKETCH DEVE- . OPMENT PLAN FOR CHAPEL HILI, TOWNSHIP. THE CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP PLAN INCLUDED A TEMP AND A MAP. BOTH WERE ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 1 IN THE FALL OF 1977, TOWNSHIP ADVISORY COUNCILS WERE ORGANIZED IN ALL SEVEN TOWNSHIPS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOLVING PEOPLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COUNTY-WIDE LAND USE PLAN. AS THEIR NAME INDICATES, THESE GROUPS WERE ADVISORY TO THE PLANNING BOARD ON PLANNING MATTERS. MEMBERSHIP WAS OPEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS. THE ADVISORY COUNCILS , Y. WERE INVOLVED IN REVIEWING THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WHICH WERE TO BE EXTENDED COUNTY-WIDE. THE ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED FOR THE COUNTY IN MARCH 1978, BUT THE PROCESS OF ADOPTION AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS FULLY fi INVOLVED THE ADVISORY COUNCILS UNTIL JANUARY 1979 WHEN AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE WERE ADOPTED. IN THAT SANE MONTH, JANUARY 1979, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADOPTED A WORK PROGRAM FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHICH INCLUDED AS AN OPJEC'TTVE ADOPTION OF LAND USE PLANS FOR BINGHAM, HTTLSBOROUGH AND CHEEKS TOWNSHIP. THAT OBJECTIVE WAS SUBSE- QUENTLY EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ADOPTION OF A LAND USE PLAN COUNTY-WIDE. BETWEEN JANUARY 1979 AND FEBRUARY 1981 EACH OF THE ADVISORY COUNCILS HELD REGULAR 40 MEETINGS, STAFFED BY THE PLANNING DEPARITENT. OVER SUCH MEETINGS WERE HELD, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS FIRST DISCUSSED PLANNING ISSUES AND OUT OF THE ISSUES DEFINED A SERIES OF SEVENTEEN GENERAL PLANNING GOALS. THESE GOALS WERE REVIEWED BY THE r.! 12-U V„-z.' D PLANNING BOARD AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN FEBRUARY 1980. THEY ARE CONTAINED' AIDES PLAN. DURING THIS TIME THE PLANNING STAFF PREPARED BASE MAPS AND CARRIED OUT TECHNICAL STUDIES SUCH AS POPULATION PROJECTIONS ON WHICH THE PLAN WOULD BE DEVELOPED. THE PLANNING STAFF, WORKING WITH EACH ADVISORY COUNCIL, DEVELOPED PRELIMINARY TOWNSHIP PLANS, A JOINT PUBLIC MEETING WAS HELD IN AUGUST, 1979 TO ALLOW THE PLANNING BOARD AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THESE TOWNSHIP PLANS. AFTER THAT MEETING, PLANNING STAFF AND THE ADVISORY COUNCILS WENT BACK. TO FURTHER REVISE THE PLANS. THIS WORK WAS COMPLETED IN FEBRUARY, 1981 AND ALL FIVE ADVISORY COUNCILS STILL ACTIVE VOTED TO APPROVE THE PLANS,SUBJECT IN SOME CASES TO MINOR REVISIONS BEING MADE. IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH, THE PLANNING BOARD HELD A NUMBER. OF WORK SESSIONS WITH PLANNING STAFF TO REVIEW THE PLAN. THEY ADOPTED ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY COUNCTTS AND THE PLAN THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING TONIGHT IS THE PLANNING BOARD RECOWENDED PLAN TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. TWO AREAS OF LAND USE PLANNING WERE OF SPECIAL CONCERN TO THE BOARD OF COMMISS- IONERS IN 1979 - AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION. ACTING ON THAT CONCERN, THE BOARD CREATED TWO SPECIAL TASK FORCES TO STUDY THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND REPORT THEIR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD. THE REPORTS OF THESE TWO GROUPS ARE NOW COMPLETED AND WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH. I HAVE EMPHASIZED THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE PLAN REACHED ITS PRESENT FORM BECAUS. THE PROCESS IS AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT AS THE PRODUCED DOCUMENT. PLANNERS LIKE TI) POINT OUT THAT PLANNING IS A PROCESS. BY THAT WE MEAN TI-EAT IT IS NAIVE TO ASSUME THAT YOU CAM PUBLISH A SINGLE DOCUMENT THAT ANSWERS ALL THE QUESTIONS AND SOLVES ALL THE PROBLEMS. CONDITIONS CHANGE, RESOURCES ARE SHIFTED,00ATS ARE ALTERED, MAKING TT NECESSARY TO REVISE, ADAPT AND UPDATE TEE PLAN. THE POINT OF THE PLAN IS TO FOCUS A`T'PENi2ON ON THE PROCESS •- TO CREATE A BASIS FOR DEBATE, DISCUSSION AND GOOD CONCRETE.. DECISION-MMAIKING ON PLANNING-RELATED QUESTIONS. IRIS PLAN IS NOT SET IN Cam. A PROCEDURE IS SET OUT IN THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE FOR AMENDING THE PLAN. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN CAN BE INI4'IED BY THE PLANNING BOARD OR BY A PlrJ..L J.ON OF A CITIZEN TO THE BOARD OF COISSIONERS WHO WOULD REFER IT TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION. ADOPTION OF ALL AMENDMENTS REQUIRES FIRST A PUBLIC HEARING WITH LEGAL NOTICE BEFORE FINAL ACTION BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERRS. PLANNING STAFF WOULD ALSO TIKE TO SEE A GENERAL REVIEW AND REVISION OF THE PLAN AT LEAST EVERY TWO YEARS. THE BASIC CONCEPT OF THE PLAN IS THE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS IN THE COUNTY INTO APPROPRIATE USE TYPES. LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES; URBAN - LAND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE TOWN. TRANSITION - LAND LOCATED IN AREAS THAT WILL CHANGE FROM RURAL TO URBAN IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS. RURAL RESIDENTIAL - LAND IN RURAL AREAS APPROPRIATE FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL - LAND IN AREAS WHERE THE PREVAILING USE OF THE LAND IS RELATED TO AGRICULTURE. PUBLIC INTEREST AREA - LAND WHICH CONTAINS PUBLIC OR QUASI-PUBLIC USES, WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS -- WATERSHEDS WHICH SUPPLY COUNTY RESERVOIRS, RURAL BUFFER - LAND ADJACENT TO CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO WHICH SHOULD REMAIN RURAL IN CHARACTER AND CONTAIN DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA. ACTIVITY NODES: PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES AND TO MINIMIZE THE LAND CONSUMING PATTERN OF SPRAWL RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY NODES - LAND FOCUSED ON CERTAIN ROAD INTERSECTIONS APPROPRIATE FOR SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL USES - 18 140 , RURAL COMMUNITY ACTIVITY NODES - LAND FOCUSED ON CERTAIN ROAD INTERSECTIONS WHICH HAS TRADITIONALLY SERVED AS A FOCUS OF ACTIVITY FOR THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY - 5. RURAL INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY NODES - LAND FOCUSED ON ROAD INTERSECTIONS THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL USES - 2. COMMERCIAL TRANSITION ACTIVITY NODES - LAND FOCUSED ON ROAD INTERSECTIONS IN AREAS AROUND TOWNS THAT WILL BECOME URBAN AND SUITABLE FOR URBAN COMMERCIAL USES - 11. INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY NODES - LAND IN AREAS THAT WILL BECOME URBAN AND SUITABLE FOR MANUFACTURING AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL USES - 4. THE LAND USE PLAN IS MEANT TO SERVE AS A GUIDE FOR. THE APPLICATION OF ZONING DIS- TRICTS IN THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE COUNTY. EACH PLAN CATEGORY AND TYPE OF ACTIVITY NODE HAS ASSOCIATED WITH IT CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS WHICH WOULD APPLY TO IT THESE ARE SHOWN ON THE MATRIX ON THE WALL. Presentation at Joint Public Hearing on Land Use Plan 6/4/81, Fred Luce, Planner Orange County. PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING OEPARTIVIENT MAY 19E31 . , PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN BUR ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARIVIENT MAY 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES TABLES PREFACE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 OranRp County Land Use Plaming Process 2.0 COUNTY-WIDE PROFILE 5 2.1 Purpose 5 2.2 Natural Envdronment 7 o %be Physical Environmental Framework 7 0 Analysis of Environmental Elements and Constraints 8 geology 8 natural resources 9 topography 9 hydrology 9 soil conditions unique natural areas 12 historic sites 13 o Plan Interpretation 13 2.3 Water Resources 15 o Water Supply 15 orange water and sewer authority 16 town of hillsborouga 16 orange-alamance water systems incorporated 18 potential water supply sources for orange county 18 o Water Quality 24 o Recommendations of the Water Resources Task Fbrce 27 2.4 Existing Land Use and Inftestructure 31 o General Framework 31 o Township Planning Areas 31 --------=gtgxwaommguaamnn"- 2.5 Agriculture in Orange County 35 0 Background 35 o Proposed Orange County Farm Program 37 voluntary classes of participation 37 benefits of participation 38 requirements of participation 39 voluntary agricultural districts 39 the agricultural advisory board 40 2.6 Transportation 41 o General Framework 41 o Description of the Road Network in Orange County 41 o Orange County Highway Classification System 44 O Other Significant Transportation Elements 46 2.7 Energy 47 o Description of Trends in Energy Use 47 ° Plan Interpretation 48 - - 2.8 Population 49 o Description and Analysis of Changes in Demographic 49 Characteristics past and present trends 49 migration 53 demographic characteristics 55 distribution and patterns of settlement 56 o Population Projections 58 methodology 58 projections 59 plan interpretation 62 2.9 EMployment 65 0 Economic Framework 65 description and analysis of economic trends in 65 orange county „..,„.., F, , 0 Etployment Profile 70 `:- labor force characteristics 70 unemployment trends 71 sectoral analysis 71 1, government employment 72 per capita income 3.0 LAND USE PLAN' 75 3.1 Purpose and Structure of the Plan 75 3.2 Basic Concepts 77 3.3 Land Use Plan Categories 79 o Land Use Plan Category Descriptions 79 3.4 Docational Criteria 81 o Location al Criteria and Evaluation by Land Use Plan Category 81 3.5 Land Use Goals and Policies 92 3.6 Cedar Grove Township Plan 105 _ co Township Profile: sumthary and Analysis 105 , L socio-economic features 105 existing land use and infrastructure 105 transportation 106 agriculture 107 natural environmental constraints 107 0 Planning Framework and Application 107 organizing concepts 107 population projections and land requirements: 1980-2000 108 allocation of growth 108 distribution of land use plan categories 108 3.7 Little River Township Plan 113 o Township Profile Summary and Analysis 113 socio-economic features 113 existing land use and infrastructure 113 transportation 113 agriculture 114 natural environmental constraints 115 Planning Framework and Application 115 organizing concepts 115 population projections and land requirements: 1980-2000 115 allocation of growth 117 distribution of land use plan categories 117 3.8 Cheeks Township Plan 121 O Township Profile: Summary and Analysis 121 saio-economic features 121 existing land use and infrastructure 121 transportation 122 agriculture 123 natural environmental constraints 124 0 Planning Framework and Application 124 organizing concepts 124 population projections and land requirements: 1980-2000 125 allocation of growth 126 distribution of land use plan categories 127 . _ 3.9 HillsEorough Township P]an 131 0 Township Profile: Summary and Analysis 131 socio-economic features 131 existing land use and infrastructure 132 transportation 132 agriculture 132 natural environmental constraints 133 ° planning Framework and Application 134 organizing concepts 134 population projections and land requirements: 1980-2000 136 allocation of growth 136 distribution of land use plan categories 137 Enb Township Plan 141 ° Township Profile: Summary and Analysis 141 socio-economic features 141 existing land use and infrastructure 141 transportation 142 agriculture 143 natural environmental constraints 144 eno state park: a special township issue 144 0 Planning Framework and Application 145 organizing concepts 145 population projections and land requirements: 1980-2000 145 allocation of growth 147 distribution of land use plan categories 147 3.11 Bingham Township Plan o 151 Township Profile: Summary and Analysis 151 socio-economic features 151 existing land use and infrastructure 151 transportation 151 agriculture 151 natural environmental constraints 151 o planning Framework and Application 154 organizing concepts 154 population projections and land requirements: 1980-2000 154 allocation of growth 156 distribution of land use plan categories 156 3.12- Chapel Hill Township-Plan 159 o Township Profile: Summary and Analysis 159 socio-economic eatures 159 existing land use and infrastructure 159 transportation 159 agriculture 160 natural environmental constraints 161 o Plan Framework and Analysis 163 organizing concepts 163 population projections and land requirements: 1980-2000 163 allocation of growth 167 distribution of land use plan categories 168 3.13 Iffiplementation and Evaluation 173 o Overview of Implementation Strategies 173 zoning ordinance 173 subdivision regulations 174 erosion and sedimentation controls 174 flood damage prevention ordinance 175 codes 175 sewer and water extension policy thoroughfare plan 175 economic development plan 175 public investments 175 community development projects 176 coordination with other plans 176 public education and awareness 176 176 o Relationship of the Land Use Plan to the Zoning Ordinance Odi 177 0 Plan Adoption, Evaluation and Review 180 plan adoption plan evaluation 180 plan review 180 180 APPENDICES A. Population Projections: Explanation of Methodology 183 Be Chapel Hill Activity Centers 184 C. Carrboro Activity Centers 187 Lisr OF FIGURES ?age. 1-3 Planning Process Chart 3 2-17 Water Lemand Projections: OWASA System 17 2-19 Water Demand Projections: Town of Hillsborough 19 2-20 Water Demand Projections: Oranga-Alamance System 20 2-47 Energy Use by Sector in Orange County 47 2-57 Rural-Urban Population Distribution in Orange County: 57 1960, 1970 and 1980 LIST OF TAMES 2-22 Existing and Potential Reservoir Sites - Orange County 22 2-35 Orange County Fann Commodity Revenue for Leading Commodities, 1978 35 2,36 Constraints on Future Farming in Orange County 36 2-50 Comparative Population Growth 1Yends: 1960-1980 50 2-51 Population Growth by Township: 1960-1980 51 2-52 Municipal Population and Contribution to County Growth: 1970-1980 52 2-54 Migration and Natural Increase: 1960-1970 54 2-55a County and Township Population by Rate 55 2-55b Orange County Population by Sex 55 2-56 Orange County Population by Age 56 2-60 County and Township Population Projections: 1980-2000 60 2-61 Average Household Size by County and Township: 19701,and 1980 61 2-62 Additional Dwelling Units Required by County and Township: 1980-2000 62 2-68 Commuting Patterns for Orange County: 1960-1970 68 rage 2-70 Orange County Labor Force by Sex and Rftmority Status 70 2-71 Orange County Employment by Sector: 1970 and 2,979 71 2-72 Total Goveinnen.; Employment by County: 1978 72 2-73 Per Capita Income Comparisons: 1970-1978 73 3-106 Cedar Grove Township Farmland Trends 106 3-108 Cedar Grove Population Projections: 1980-2000 108 3-114 Little River Township Farmland Trends 114 3-116a Little River Population Projections: 1980-2000 116 3-116b Little River Land'Retairenents: 1980-2000 116 3-123 Cheeks Tbwnship Farmland Trends 123 3-125 Cheeks Township Population Projections: 1980-2000 125 3-126 Cheeks Land Requirements: 1980-2000 126 3-133 Hillsborough Township Farmland Trends 133 3-135a Hillsborough Population Projections: 1980-20000 135 3-135b Hillsborough Land Requirements: 1980-2000 135 3-143 Eno Tbwnship Farmland Trends 143 3-146a Eno Township Population Projections: 1980-2000 146 3-146b Eno Land Requirements: 1980-2000 146 3-153 BingbamTownship Farmland Trends 153 3-155a Bingham Population Projections: 1980-2000 155 3-155b Bingham Land Requirements: 1980-2000 155 37.161 Chapel Hill Township Farmland Trends 161 3-165 Fbpulation Accomodated in Chapel Hill-Carrboro by 75% infill: 1980-2000 165 3-156a Chapel Hill Township Population Projections: 1980-2000 166 3-166b Scattered Development Land. Requirements: 1980-2000 166 3r167 Chapel Hill Township Land Requirements: 1980-2000 167 LIST OF MAPS ENVIRON/E111TAL CONSTRAINTS EXISTING AND PODINEUE, EXISTING LAND USE PLANNING JURISDICTION MAP ORANGE COUNTY HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEivi TRIANGIE 3 REGION PFX)POSED LAND USE MAP PREFACE It is the particular nature of a market economy, in as well as in other commodities, that decisions about land aresources s should be used are made for one piece of property at a time and by in- dividuals who base their decisions on the pattern of land use known to them at that particular point in time. maker is free to The individual decision- ignore the effect of his decision on other people and other properties not involved. The pattern of land use in Orange County is the result of the cumu- lative impacts of individual decisions re past. The land use per regarding the use of land in the which emerged ; process and the Orange County Land Use Plan ged from the process seek to coordinate the individual, de- cisions impacting on the land into a County-wide perspective as to the desired and appropriate patterns of land use and development in Orange County. The perception that the land use planning activity is both and necessary is not a false or unfounded perception. The magnitude and direction of change p p magnitude and thought-out h`nge in Orange County requires an appropriate and ught-out response regarding the future pattern of land use and development in the County or the end-result may as development patterns in the past, not be as desirable The Orange County Land Use Plan seeks to manage the forces of change to insure an appropriate and desired pattern of land use. It is not the result of an arbitrary set of decisions, but is based on an analysis of economic and demographic forces contributing pattern. It presumes that the County can rt some measure of on use of over the future character of the County through factors which defined its past and present character and understanding m the conscious decisions about what is desireable and the management, growth and development of Orange Counoyrin the concerning ange County in the future. Essential to this decision r? g process about the future character of the County is the participation of County citizens in the land use plan- ning activity. The citizen participation strategy adopted by Orange County considers the citizen ihvol.vemenit experience as one that provides the opportunity for achieving a more responsive and effective public decision-nom ng process. It is through parti- cipation of County residents that brod the open and inclusive parti- Land Use Plan and process and its effective pimplemen implementation an County assured. ' v --....==sonalmenzameminammi INTRODUCTION oRANTGazouNTy- wiyua PLANNING pROCESS Since the mid 19701s„Orange County has been in the process of developing a land use plan for the County and upgrading its land use ordinances. By July of 1975, Orange County was enforcing several land use related codes and ordinances. On February 6, 1967 a Zoning Ordinance was adop- ted for Chapel Hill Township. On December 4, 1967 Subdivision Regula- tions were adopted for this same township. Both of these ordinances were written by the Triangle J Council of Governments planners. One enforcement officer, together witli a Planning Board and Board of Adjust- ' merit, had the responsibility to see the regulations carried out. On March 2, 1970 the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations became effective in Eno Township. In September of 1974, the County began to enforce the North Carolina State Building Code. This code is enforced by the County in all Townships and in Hillsborough. At the beginning of 1975, the Orange County Planning and Inspections De- partment was formed to handle these various codes and ordinances under one director. In June 1976, the Department produced a report entitled A . Pl. • .:ement Process for Orange County with Recommendations for Sound . • D-ve opment. Ne repo cont. -• a _ silica ion ys em or he y an. a Sketch Development Plan for Chapel Hill Township. Both were adopted by the County Cammissioners, The Sketch Plan for Chapel Hill Township contained policies related to land use and general guidelines for growth and development in that area of the County. The Planning and Inspections Department sought to involve citizens in the development of the plan. A list of County organizations and leaders was developed and meetings held to acquaint citizens with Planning Department staff and to familiarize the staff with local planning issues. A questionnaire on land use was developed and a series of further meet- ings were held in Chapel Hill Township at which citizens answered the questionnaire indicating their views on a broad range of issues. In the fall of 1977, Township Advisory Councils were organized in all seven Townships for the purpose of involving people in the development of a County-wide Land Use Plan. The membership on these Councils is open to all interested people and they advise the Planning Board on planning issues, especially as they relate to individual Townships. The Advisory Councils immediately became involved in reviewing revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance in preparation for extension of the ordin- ance to all areas of the County. The ordinance was extended County- wide in March, 1978 but the process of adoption and subsequent amend- ments fully involved the Advisory Councils for two years until January, 1979 when further amendments to the ordinance were adopted. In that same month, January 1979, the Board of Commissioners adopted a work program for the Planning Department which included as an objective 1 '... ...n'g".°121030351111=galnagalEZEINSMIEBEI "" r' 4 F-, L -' :',- r7' adoption of land use plans for Bingham, Hillsborough and Cheeks Townships. That objective was subsequently expanded to include adoption of a Land Use Plan County-wide. co areas of land use planning were f special concern to the Board of Commissioners - agricultural preservation and water resources protection. ' The Commissioners created two task forces composed of people from across the County, , .2. with expertise or special interest in these areas, to study the issues involved and report to the Board on their findings and recommendations. The results of their work was to feed into the Land Use Plan. Between January 1979 and February 1981 each of the Advisory Councils held regular meetings, staffed by the Planning Departmnt. Over 75 such meet- ' ings were held. The Council members discussed planning issues and out of the issues defined a series of seventeen goals were eventually drafted. These goals were reviewed by the Planning Board and adopted by the Board of Canmissioners in February, 1980. During this same time, the Planning Department developed base maps and .' carried out the necessary technical studies on population, existing land use, natural conditions,etc. The Advisory Councils developed preliminary or sketch land use plans for their individual Townships based on the in- : formation the planning staff had gathered and their own knowledge of their Tkownship. These plans were reviewed by the Planning Board and a Joint Public Meeting of the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners was held in August, 1979 to receive public input on these plans. After the Joint Public Meeting, the Advisory Councils worked at further refining the individual Township plans. This work was completed in February of 1981 at which time the Planning Board began review of the Plan. The Board of Commissioners also held several work sessions at which planning staff explained the details of the Plan. During the last two years the task forces on agriculture preservation and water resources protectionhave been meeting and the reports of both of these groups are now ready to be submitted to the Board of Commissioners. , The Planning Process Chart which follows shows visually the course the preparation of the Land Use Plan has taken since the beginning of 1979. It also indicates that the most important part of the planning process , implementation, lies ahead. 2 -...- FIGURE 1-3 PLANNING PROCESS CHART , 1 VIIIM.Yrrypeaaaanyl.....la, .. 4 WATE*R7RE*707;---)RCE PLANNING BEGIN . ... ' .. TASK FORCZ ISSUES SKETCH PLAN k''.•:... FORMED IDENTIFICATION DEVELOPMENT -...................-.7 --, ..- '.._ . IA? P LANNING STAFF AGRICULTURAL CONDUCTS TASK FORCE BACKGROUND FORMED S TUDIES 1 31. GOALS SKETCH PLAN ,-.'. FORMATION PUBLIC MEETING . . .--.-r-.--....., AUGUST 1979 40 !:'•:. REV BEGIN , REVIEW BY PLAN 19: !L. BOARDS REFINEMENT 4J; - GOALS ____ BACKGROUND .:-. .... .. _.. '. ADOPTED S TUDIES 4 APT FEBRUARY 1980 CONTINUE ...............--..„-......-........ POLICIES 4 JUL DEVELOPMENT , 1 GC'. BOARDS DRAFT REVIEW ...-10. PLAN POLICIES COMPLETE 198.r._.....__._.....-_ 1 .371Z BOARDS REVIEW PLAN .4 AP RIL ATER RESOURCES P UBLIC REARING AGRICULTURE TASK FORCE ON PROPOSED TASK FORCE 4 juLy REPORT COMPLETE LAND USE PLAN REPORT COMPLE 0 4.1...../i ./....* .1.4.... a. ammo* W1.1.10.1 ••••••••■ ....... mow.. m...ma ........ REPORT LAND USE REPORT ADOPTED PLAN ADOPTED „-- ,.....„ .„„,.. - 4... ...... ... ADOPTED .........-...-............--....-...4 COUNTY-WIDE PROFILE The primary requirement for effective planning is the availability and adequacy of data and .information about existing patterns and trends in the planning environment. This necessitates the examination of demo- graphic, economic, physical environmental and existing land use features in the County. The value of this basic information and data cannot be overestimated. It provides the framework fardeterminirgthe magnitude, type and directlon of future development, both expected and desired, in Orange County. 5 2.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK The natural environment is an integral component of the planning process. Planning directed at the form and intensity of land use must recognize that the natural environment provides the physical context within which land use activities occur. Relationships between the various elements of the environment constitute the natural systems which, under certain circumstances, create constraints on the development potential of the land. Often these constraints do not absolutely prohibit development; rather, they necessitate the consideration of certain factors which will impact upon the form, design or pattern of the proposed development. The basic environmental goal incorporated into this plan is the min- : imizatiaa or elimination of the negative impacts certain development activities would have on a particular natural, system. Ignoring such potential impacts will inevitably lead to negative consequences. Due to the interrelatedness of our natural systems, such consequences would not stop at an individual's property boundary, but will affect the general public. This fundamental factor requires an awareness that the natural environment is a precious resource and that respon- sibility for its protection and appropriate use is everyone's respon- sibility and the result of the combined impacts of a multitude of individual actions. The primary elements of the natural environment which are incorporated in the formulation of the land use plan include: GEOLOGY o mineral resources (sand, gravel, crushed stone; other metallic and non-metallic minerals). o unique geologic features (manadnock; stream valleys;) o ground water yield TOPOGRAPHY o physiographic features o slope HYDROLOGY o drainage patterns o water resources (surface and subsurface) o flood plains o water supply watersheds 7 t - SOIL CONDITIONS o suitability for various uses (construction, ag- riculture; sewage disposal) . UNIQUE NATURAL AND CUDTURAL FACTORS o natural areas o historic sites The interaction between these elements forms the basis of the life- supporting characteristics of the natural, system. Certain natural systems or combinations of natural systems place constraints on the capacity of the land to contain development and land use. Each loca- tion's natural environmental characteristics vary. Sane environ- mental characteristics can be found throughout Orange County; others pose significant constraints at the Township level. Others are even more site specific. Where constraining environmental features or conditions overlap, the result may be an additive effect. In many cases, the existance of a particular environmental feature or combination of features will lead to the designation of a critical or environmentally sensitive area. This type of environmental information is used, along with other lo- cational criteria to suggest where and what type of development is appropriate for the County. It is particularly important to identify the level of constraint in the area most likely to be developed in the plan period. ANALYSTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS Geology Geology refers to the physical history of the earth, the materials of which the earth is composed and the processes by which its features undergo change. The bedrock geology of Orange County is fairly complex, but can gen- erally be discussed in terms of three major rock types: (1) low grade metamorphic rocks of predominantly volcanic-sedimentary origin which are part of a large, distinctive rock unit that extends fram central Georgia to southeastern Virginia, and is known locally as the Carolina State Belt; (2) intrusive rocks of genetic composition that occur in the northwestern corner of Orange County and can also be found scattered in the State Belt rocks; and (3) Triassic rocks found in a small area in south-eastern Chapel Hill Township which are sedimentary in origin, having been formed by erosion of material from the upland State Belt. The geologic inheritance of Orange County is responsible directly or in combination with other factors for a number of features which can be environmentally constraining to the development of the land. These include rock characteristics for ground water yield and found- ation support, topography, slope, soils and earth resources. Natural Resources Certain lands are capable of producing valuable products. Prime ag- - riculture land, forestry land, mineral deposit sites and other natural resource land sites comprise major natural resource areas. These are areas which are or could be productive because of specific natural characteristics such as soil conditions, vegetation, economically valuable topography or mineral deposits. They present a level of constraint to development relative to the value assigned to the pro- ' tection or use of each resource. Topo§graphy PHYSIOGRAPHIC FENTURES. Orange County is located in the geographic province of North Carolina known as the Piedmont. This area is characterized by gently rolling topography drained by small streams which have cut V-shaped valleys. Elevation ranges generally from 700-800 feet in the northern part of the County to 200 feet in the extreme southern portions. The highest point in the County is Occoneechee Mountain with an elevation of 859 feet. SLOPES. Another Landform element which impacts on the suitability of land for various uses is the slope of the land.* Slope indicates the relative suitability or vacant land for future development by in- dicating land physically capable of development. Excessive on steep slopes are a factor in many environmental problems and can signifi- cantly increase the vulnerability of land to damage from human ac- . tivities. The potential for erosion and resulting sedimentation fran areas laid bare by construction activities increases as the slope of the land increases. Steep slopes also pose a problem for septic tank filtration systems. Effluent traveling down slope which hits an im- permeable layer or shallow depth to bedrock can travel laterally and emerge at the surface causing health and aesthetic problems. Land with a slope of 0-5% is moderately sloping land capable of accomodating most types of development. Land with a slope of 6-15% could be used for development activities not requiring extensive tracts of level land. Slopes exceeding 15% (15 feet of vertical change per 100 feet of horizontal distance) offers some degree of constraint to the potential use of that land and is generally con- sidered unsuitable for intensive development and economically in- feasible for utility facilities. The presence of steep slopes does not in itself prohibit land use, but when it coincides with other constraining features, future growth should be directed to other less sensitive areas. This action will also serve to direct development away from areas with generally higher development costs. Hydrology Hydrology deals with the occurence and distribution of water. More specifically it includes consideration of precipitation, stream drain- age systems, surface and subsurface water resources and potentials for flooding. *NOTE. SEE Environmental Constraints Map. 9 Orange County received about 43 inches of precipitation a year. The precipitation is normally fairly evenly distributed throughout the year. The driest season is the fall when rainfall averages a little less than three inches per month. The wettest months are July and August when the precipitation total is augmented by thundershowers. DRAINAGE PATTERNS. it is fortunate that Orange County receives sub- stantial precipitation because it is in the headwaters of three ma- jor watersheds. A small portion of Cedar Grove Township drains north into the Roanoke Basin. Much of northern Orange County is part of the Neuse Basin. The main streams in this drainage basin are the north and south forks of the Little River and the Eno River both of which drain to the Flat River in Durham County. The Flat River flows to the Meuse River which empties into Pamlico Sound at New Bern. The southern and extreme western portions of the County are part of the Cape Fear Basin. Major streams are the New Hope River, Morgan Creek and Cane Creek all of which became part of the Cape Fear River in Chatham County. The Cape Fear flows until it empties into the Atlantic Ocean at Wilmington. The fact that Orange County lies in the headwaters of these three river basins means that in general the only water it receives is due to precipitation. The one exception to this statement is the Haw River which forms the southwestern boundary of the County. The Haw River drains Alamance and Guilford Counties before flowing past Orange County and thus has the most substantial flow of any stream in the County. WATER RESOURCES. Certain sub-basins within the Neuse and Cape Fear Basins in Orange County are water supply watersheds. These in- clude the upper Eno sub-basin which supplies water to Lake Orange, Corporation Lake and Lake Ben Johnson, and the Morgan Creek sub- , basin which drains to University Lakeas , theseareas contribute to the public water supply system special land use protection measures to preserve the quality of water are required, and will be discussed in further detail in the water resources section. STREAM SYSTEMS. The stream system which feeds the watershed, and sub- basins is defined by the draining characteristics of the area's land form. If a stream is within a water supply watershed, its im- portance is compounded as pollution or sedimentation of the streams could result in eventual damage to the water supply source. Land uses adjacent to the streams require management in ways which will minimize the potential for damage such as loss of dissolved oxygen, pathogenic contarrdnation, presence of nutrient salts, and damaging chemicals, heat and turbidity. Additional forms of pollution to be minimized include such aesthetic insults as the dumping of trash and garbage into streams. FLOODPLAINS. Floodplains are those areas which will be inundated by water in a specific storm event, normally defined as that storm whose probability for occurring is once every one hundred years.* The flood- plain can be further subdivided into two sub-areas on the basis of *NOTE. See Environmental Constraints Map. r2 ..,,, hazard potential. The floodway is that area within the stream bunks and adjacent to it required in order to discharge the 100-year flood , - without raising the water surface elevation more than one foot above : be flood level at any point. It is cruc3a1 that the floodway be kept free of obstacles so that this fUnction will not be disrupted. The floodway fringe is the area bordering the floodway which will be inundated during a flood and which serves to hold the floodwaters until it can be carried away in the floodway channel. In addition to the 100-year flood prone area, consideration is also given to the 500-year flood prone area, the area of land susceptible to inundation duzaIng a storm which would occur on the average once every 500 years. The relative probability of these two storm events suggests fewer constraints and, therefore, minimal land use regu- lations in the 500-year flood prone area as opposed to the 100-year flood prone area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared maps at a scale of 1" = 1000' for Orange County showing the floodway, the 100-year floodway fringe and the 500-year floodway fringe for all streams draining more than one square mile of watershed. Orange County applied and was admitted to the Flood Insurance Program, and has consequently adopted a Flood Prevention Ordinance. This ordinance constitutes a major regulatory tool affect- ing the use of lands constrained by flood hazards. Soil Conditions ... The interaction of different rock types, local topography, temperature 1 changes, rain, flora and fauna has produced soils which reflect the geological and dramatic Conditions of Orange County. Soils on the County range from well drained, gently sloping uplands to steeply sloped, shallow to bedrock soils, to flat soils subject to flooding along , ' streams. Perhaps no other natural environmental factor has as much influence on land use and land development as soil conditions. Regardless of the particular land use, soils are the most important factor determining the suitability of the land for that use. Soil characteristics such as depth to bedrock, permeability, shrink-swell potential, erodibility and drainage are important factors influencing land use soils present constraints to development ranging from slight limitations to severe limitations. In general, the costs of site preparation and construction will increase as the severity of soil limitations in an area increases. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) completed a soil survey of Orange County in 1976. Each soil type in Orange County has been described in terms of these characteristics and their potential use and management requirements. The Orange County Planning Department in conjunction with Mr. Robert Kirby, an SCS scientist, combined the 38 soil types identi- fied in the soil survey into ten suitability categories based on simi- lar characteristics as described in the report, A Pl- : Guide to the Orange County, North Carolina This allows the general public to 'mow- in a broad manner what types of development are suitable for certain uses, including septic tanks, foun- dations, roads and prime agricultural land. The soil suitability classi- fication system identifies the constraints posed by the various categories: Group la and lc - well suited for most urban uses Group 2a and 2c - suited for most urban uses with precautions Group 3 - erosion potential Group 4 and 5 - plastic subsoil Group 8 - shallowness to bedrock Group 9 - steep slopes Iij Group 10 - flooding Unique Natural Areas Certain areas possess unique natural characteristics which are con- - sidered valuable, although not necessarily in an economic sense. Data on natural areas gathered by The Triangle J Council of Governments as part of the 201 study for the region defined a natural area as any space containing an unusual or exemplary biological habitat, geologic feature or hydrologic location:11 In Orange County the following unique natural areas have been iden- tified by the Triangle J study: -Bald Mountain - located between SR I009 and SR 1111 in Chapel Hill Township. The site is located in Duke Forest. -Blackwood Mountain - located in Chapel Hill Township east of SR 1009 within Duke Forest. -Duke Forest Natural Area - this is a 151 acre site within the Korstion Division of Duke Forest located on N.C. 86 north of SR 1730 in Chapel Bill Township. -Morgan Creek Bluff - this site near University Lake Dam in Chapel Hill Township contains two north facing bluffs as well as interesting flora. -Occoneechee Mountain - the mountain is located in Hillsborough Township between 1-85 and the Eno River. The section known as Panthers Den is of special geologic and botanical importance. -Bernheim Tract - this 90 acre tract is part of the Eno River State Park and is located between 1-85 and SR 1568 in Eno Township 1 Source: Southern Highlands, Mountain Resources Management.-Plan • Vol. 2, 1974. North Carolina -p. PI .en and 'a - an. Economic Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation Areawide Water Quell .:ement Planning. 208 Project Inventory of Existing Uses. P. IV Ga. 197.. Triangle Council of Governments. F _ -University Lake - the Lake and land immediately surrounding it are owned by the University of North Carolina. It is a rela- tively undisturbed area that contains interesting flora. This area is in Chapel Hill Township. These unique natural features suggest that special efforts should be made to manage these areas to conserve and portect their natural characteristics. Historic Sites Although historic sites are part of theman-made environment and not natural features, they require similar treatment to the unique nat- ural features and deserve consideration in this section. Orange County is an area rich in history. The Chapel Hill Historic District and the Hillsborough Historic District are both on the National Register of Historic Places. Outside of these built-up areas the County contains one home owned privately which is on the National Register. It is Moorefields, the former home of Alfred Moore, U.S. Supreme Court Justice. It was buJlt in 1785 as his summer house and is located in Cheeks Township on SR 1134. In addition there are over a dozen sites in the County which have been identified by the State of North Carolina as places of historic interest but which are not as yet on the National Historic Register. - PLAN-INTERPRETATION To facilitate the land use decisions into which environmental features come into play, it is useful to divide such features into two cate- gories: critical features and sensitive features. Critical features are those which can tolerate only minimal intrusion by man's activities either because of their fragile nature or because they are hazardous to people and development. Of the environmental features discussed, the 100-year floodway, the unique natural areas and the historic sites seem to meet this criteria. Sensitive features are somewhat more tolerant of intrusion and alter- ation. They may require special development restrictions or design standards to insure that the detrimental effects of development are minimized or vice versa. This category covers most of the environ- mental features. Combinations of sensitive features may warrant designation as a crit- ical feature. Decisions are necessary to determine if such features combine in an additive manner which significantly compounds the neg- ative impacts of improper development activities. Such gray areas require careful examination and analysis. 13 v." e The strategy by which the Land Use Plan examines the natural environ mental features and their potential constraints on development ac ': tivity is incorporated in a set of locational criteria. Land in the County is filtered through, these locational criteria which are de- signed to facilitate the evaluation of certain locations for they suitability to contain the various land uses. The set of locational criteria includes: land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil con- ditions, public services/utilities, transportation system, energy use, existing land use, agriculture and forestry, population density, and historic and cultural features. 14 I: 2.3 WATER. RESOURCES WATER SUPPLY Orange County is one of the fastest growing counties in North Carolina. Preliminary figures from the 1980 Census show a 32 percent growth rate for the County over the past ten years. The County's location within the Research Triangle area and in the developing Piedmont Cresent indi- cates that the high growth rate experienced over the past ten years will likely continue in the future. While this growth will present many opportunities for the people of Orange County, planning must be- gin now to ensure that the expected growth is orderI,V and that pub- lic facilities and services, like adequate supplies of water, can be made available as they are needed. An adequate supply of drinking water is one resource often taken for granted by people. However, a sufficient supply of good quality is not available automatically. With the exception of the Haw River which forms the southwestern boundary of the County, no major streams through_ Orange County. The streams in the County carry only water flow that falls locally and are,therefore,small. There are no natural lakes of any size in the County. Ground water is the only supply available to persons in the rural areas of the County. Approximately 20 percent of the County's population or some 15,000 people are currently supplied with water from ground water resources. These people generally reside outside the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and the Efland community which are served by surface water supplies. In the rural, areas, home and farm needs can adequately be met by flows of as little as two or three gallons per minute. Data from wells drilled in the County show that nine out of ten wells drilled yield at least 2 gallons per minute. Sane wells yield 50 gallons per minute or more. Thus ground water conditions in Orange County are generally adequate to meet the needs of single house- holds and farm use in rural areas. While ground water reserves are estimated to be quite large, local geo- logy is such that locating and tapping this resource for use as a muni- cipal supply probably is not practical. This is the situation through- out the Piedmont of North Carolina and as a result urban areas in the Piedmont rely almost exclusively on surface reservoirs for public water supply. The majority of Orange County residents are supplied by water from two publicly owned water systems and one privately owned system. They are the Orange Water and Sewer Authority which serves Carrboro, Chapel Hill and surrounding areas, the Town of Hillsborough System and the privately owned Orange-Alamance water system,a non- profit association. Information on water resources is taken from Report of the Water Re- sources Task Force, Draft, May, 1981. Orang_e Water And Sewer Authority The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) was created in 1976 by Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill to purchase and operate the water system then owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. OWASA is authorized by law to operate and maintain water and sewer systems located in southern Orange County, to issue revenue bonds to pay for such operation and maintenance and to set fees for the pro- vision of sewer and water service. OWASA has no taxing power. It is administered by a board of nine members appointed by the boards of aldermen of the Towns of Carrboro (two members), Chapel Hill (five members) and the Board of County Comissioners (two members) . OWASA estimates that it serves about 54,000 customers and pumps an average of slightly over five million gallons per day (mgd) . The OWASA system draws raw water fran University Lake which lies just west of Carrboro-Chapel Hill. It has a capacity of approximately 3.0 mgd. The University Lake supply is supplemented by raw-water storage in the form- er American Stone Company Quarry site on N. C. 54 just west of Carrboro. The storage capacity of the quarry is 2.0 mgd giving a yield for the OWASA system of 5.0 mgd. OWASA is interconnected to both the Durham and Hillsborough water sys- tem. The Durham connection is by an 8 inch and a 12 inch pipeline. The two lines can supply up to 3.9 mgd to OWASA. In 1977 OAWSA con- , structed a 16 inch pipeline connection to Hillsborough. Under the agreement between the two systems OWASA can receive up to 2.0 mgd. This pipeline was used for the first time during the summer of 1979. Water demand projections for the OWASA system are shown in Figure2- 1. They are based on several independent population projections made for Orange County. The current estimated dependable safe yield of the OWASA raw water supply is also shown in the figure. The safe yield figure of 5 mgd is based on the ability of the reservoir to meet de- mand in a dry year and the figure shows graphically the inadequacy of the OWASA supply under those conditions. OWASA is Pursuing the de- velopment of the reservoir on Cane Creek in Bingham Township just north of N. C. 54 which will boost its dependable supply by 10 mgd. Town of il1sbbróugh- The Town of Hillsborough has a municipally awned water system. The service area includes all of the corporate city limits with addition- al service to portions of Orange County. The system currently serves 6,000 persons through 2,300 metered connections. Water consumption within the Hillsborough water service area averages about 1.1 mgd. Hillsborough gets its water from Lake Ben Johnson, an impoundment on the Eno River at Hillsborough. Lake Ben Johnson has a current safe yield of approximately 1.25 mgd. Its available supply is affected by withdrawals upstream at Corporation Lake and will be reduced in future 16 - -, ,I. !:1---f ;, ,.;,,ti 44:-:-. Aw ii FIGURE 2-17 ref WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS g OWASA SYSTEM it 12 . H a _ F'... oc,IC) , !.: 1 0 a ... ,,. , 9 ° a \--G. ,G ... 14 G- r ir- ci) 8 • V Z osOs • - , 0 P; ......1 a _ ,-- , o ,_, __ _, -, -, c• (I) '4, OWASA ESTIMATED DEPENDABLE YIELD (f Z 5 0 ri '.:' ......i — 4 :E - 3 _ 2 1 - --) 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR 17 years as withdrawals increase from Corporation Lake. An additional supply of 2.5 mgd is available from Lake Orange located upstream on the Fno River. This reservoir is owned and controlled by Orange County. The County, however, has not assigned the supply from this reservoir to any specific area. , Hillsborough is interconnected with both the Orange-Alamance Water System and OWASA. Hillsborough can receive up to 0.7 mgd from the Orange-Alamance system through a 6 inch pipeline. As noted earlier they can supply up to 2.0 mgd to OWASA during dry periods. Water demand projections for the Town of Hillsborough system are shown in Bigure 2-19. The Figure indicates that the system's current water supply source will be adequate to meet the highest projected demand only through the year 1983. It will need an additional, supply of 1.2 mgd to meet projected needs through the year 2000. Orange-AlamanCe Water Systems Incorporated Orange-Alamance Water Systems (CAWS) is a nonprofit association formed in 1969. Its service area is along the U.S. 70 corridor west of Hillsborough through the Efland community and on into Alamance County. In Alamance County the system serves rural, areas around the Town of Mebane. About one-quarter of OAWS customers are in Orange County. OAWS gets its raw water from Corporation Lake, an impoundment on the Eno River just north of U.S. 70. This source has a safe yield of approx- imately 1.3 mgd. QAWS is currently serving about 4800 persons on 1600 metered connections. Based on records for 1979, the system pumped an average of 0.34 mgd. In an emergency situation, OAWS can pump 0.7 mgd of water to the Hills- borough system. The OAWS system is also interconnected with the Graham-Mebane water system. The Graham-Mebane system in turn is conn- ected to the Gity of Burlington's system. Projected water demand for the OAWS system is shown on Figure 2-20.The Figure shows that,even for the highest water demand curve, the OAWS sys- tem has adequate supply to meet water demand to and beyond the year 2000. Potential Water S .. Sources For Or :- County The water demand projections developed for the OWASA system show an imme- diate need in southern Orange County for an additional source of supply. While the two water suppliers in central Orange County have ad- equate supplies to meet near-term needs, in the long term they will have to find additional, sources of water to supply a growing population in Orange County. A number of potential Impoundment sites have been identified in struc- ture site studies carried out in the past. Because the physical charac- teristics which are necessary for a good reservoir site (sufficient stream 18 F FIGURE 2-19 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH 2.6 2.4 2.2 z 1.8 is J ::p ‹ 1.8 N e°-p, - - TJCOG LL 1.4 ° o----- °""" to 4.4ke a 0 L2 M 1.0 r� La a 0.8 04 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR P;..„ - FIGURE 2-20 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS ORANGE-.ALAMANCE SYSTEM 24 22 2.0 1.8 1.6 cn L4 CORPORATION LAKE SAFE YIELD 20 1.2 0 1.0 (r) 1 0 ocF0 ocooP6 Q6 0 ioBERs 0.4 02 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR 20 flow, site with adequate storage) are well known, it is unlikely that TA' any major sites have been overlocked by the several reservoir site studies which have been done in the region. Twenty-eight potential reservoir sites have been identified by gather- ing information from these previous studies. It should be noted that only a few of these sites have ever seriously been considered, for water supply use. Table2-.E2 lists potential sites identified in the County as well as existing impoundments by major drainage basin. Information on location, drainage area and storage volume have been given where available. Twenty-year safe yield data have been taken from other sources or calculated for this report . ee Existing and. Potential Reservoir Sites and: Watersheds). In looking at the potential supply available from any of these sites, it does become clear that Orange County does not have any sites that , have the potential for supplying large amounts of water. At some point in the future the County and individual water suppliers will need to think in regional terms for developing new supply sources. Surrounding counties do have sites that are large in comparison to those available within Orange County. The largest of these is Jordan Lake, located in northern Jhatham County. This reservoir will be filled sometime in the fall, of 1981 and has 100 mgd of water avail- able as drinking water. The city of Durham is currently planning for the construction of the Orange Factory Reservoir on the Little River in northern Durham County._ The_project is scheduled to be completed by 1983 and will add an additional 25 mgd of water supply to the Durham system. After this reservoir is filled, Durham will have an excess of water beyond the year 2000. The water from the Durham system is from up- land watersheds and is of high quality. In Alamance County, both Graham-Mebane and the city of Burlington have identified large reservoir sites which they are planning to develop in the future. The Graham-Mebane system has in the planning stages a large new reservoir to be bulJt on Back Creek. This reservoir will be constructed when it is needed and have an estimated safe yield of 17.4 mgd. A large part of the watershed for this reservoir is in northwestern Orange County. The city of Burlington is in the land acquisition stage for the construction of a new reservoir on Greater Alamance Creek one mile west of the Town of Alamance. This reservoir will be built in two stages with a final capacity of 34 mgd. The public water supply systems in Orange County are interconnected with each other and with the municipal systems of Graham-Mebane, Bur- lington and the city of Durham. While these interconnections have been constructed to supply water in emergency situations, they prob- ably are the forerunners of a more regional approach to water supply. Good reservoir sites are not distributed equally among counties in the Piedmont, and counties such as Orange will need to look beyond their borders for water in the future. 21 MI V T3 Ti •C7 'G7 ' ' ' ' 4-i 4.4 vUcdcdUS] ,C1cticd v..v ....vv...-....rv.....vv c� A _ .!J g r id e•N •-a" m tom-© ,-i W � H l rl a H Cr)<C rn <C‹L �In m0 C�i can--`t CCr H H U Z • MmZ<. 0 cil tra I Q r--, En :.4 6 VI j ,Q3 `, Ul�• t`- kR!Sl C3 • + j CD Lfl CV H CO C^J H •'.0 0 N F,y, • • <'00 . . "�' rC H� . • • •C1,' • • v mZN mei°1z `� `'� MNNrl CD. Q zZ HCVNHZ H g i Q H 0 N 2 0 'C7 v Q © LC\ 7 O 0 Q Li1C0 © C.-a • • •M N a N N r r-1 O O 4.(1%.0 f)1 C'1 N r CV 01 C1 M N rl ri 9 a•a• cr)N N N ig a a) in g a) v r 1 8 ,~ ai I dQW m 02 M > > > F4 a) . Z 43 (1) x +-1 r�i r-i. c . a,ti) A 0 Q © UC) 0004-) 00)- n N � 0Ci sii C w Vz .4-)EU � p © cd> x v r' 0 u c .0 .0 .4> as o .-� '� w a, o. ° r88 ? o-' a ? tri „ s� w } o � N- n i b .-,....�. o, 5 v __ ,_ 'i3 l7 c, &..; v r-4 •F:1 R rn ca b Q. = o Qz ci)cpt ri N c gl(JE Z g O 4J m O O � z 4W ! QQ1MLI-%¢ c 4C <q CO 1 N zUC C� U� cam-*.o ... Mtn m • r Vr4g M L` n n fit? •• M CI) t„) ca: C}H ri ) >7 0 cni • F>~ I., O •:0 • �D r-1- - • 0 CT L--- •lQ • • �r-t C7 1� C•U \C ICI _4. •..z4.N .:i. Z aeh Q C ,EiI - N _ r -I-� .2. N N .,-i .1ii 4.� R s: . ›;',9--- at al .1 N CULV411 0 T1 CO MHO © a,c-• C). QirZcgB .0 4-+ r-I r-i ,-{ J4 r-i c o a o.ci 4-' ILt1 >3 4 co Cn 0 o 0 O a n Q a • ()u) V)M Ei O gr2 �� N Q. O ?,-tom-) C 1 co ral 72 ti :al. 1411 (L) O ? t!) U O P-. t R�� 1i � r EA o >,> g Fi .0 r m .- 3 }C ,71 1 Ww`� U 'lam 8© ev 0.3 O N 2 2 3 q4C.13 O o o o U .. -. F© v�i1° zc1'� � c° 4c a m � c) rd 0 V WATER QUALITY The earliest recognized water quality problems had to do with the con- tamination of water supplies with human and animal wastes. Pathogens including those responsible for typhoid fever and cholera live in the human and animal digestive tracts and can be transmitted by drinking water that has been in contact with body waste products. Typhoid fever and cholera were major causes of death until the beginning of this century when the chlorination process for disinfecting water was developed. Chlorination of public drinking water supplies rather quickly eliminated the spread of water-borne diseases in the United States. Water quality no longer was a major concern. In recent years, concern over water quality has reemerged centered around new classes of pollutants like heavy metals, synthetic organic compounds and low-level radioactivity. Our modern technological so- ciety uses,at a scale unequaled in the past, a, great number of these materiels. They are indespensible for the functioning of our modern society. However, many of them have the potential to affect human health. The misuse and unproper disposal of these materials has caused many of them to become pollutants in surface and ground water supplies. Some of the pollutants are materials like lead which have long been used by man,but are now being used on a large scale, beyond the ab- - ility of the environment to absorb them and render them harmless. The total number of automobiles registered in this country has increased from 33 million in 1950 to 111 million by 1976. The growth in the automobile population has even outpaced the significant growth in the people population during this time. The United States now uses in commerce about 1.3 billion tons of lead each year, mostly as an additive to gasoline and in automotive batteries, brake linings and tires. It has been known for some time that lead ingestion in relatively large amounts can produce overt symptoms of illness. Interference with men- tal functions has been documented for children eating chips of lead- based paint. More recently, a study published in the New England Jour- nal of Medicine reported that lead contamination too mild to produce overt symptoms of illness may nevertheless do enough damage to a child's brain to interfere with mental function and classroom performance. This conclusion was reached based on a study of 2000 school children. Although lead-based paint was ruled out as the source, no other sin- gle source of lead could be identified. Lead is widely dispersed by automobile exhaust and the frictional wear of brake linings and tires. studies have discovered significant lead concentrations in the air, soil and water in areas where automobile use is concentrated. Synthetic organic compounds are another class of potential water poll- utants. Many of these chemicals have been "created" only rather re- cently in chemical research laboratories to meet the needs of our tech- nological society. They include plastics, fertilizers, detergents, and a host of chemicals used, in modern industrial processes. The num- ber and amounts of these materials used in our society began to pro- 24 IT liferate right after World War IT They have been developed at an in- creasing rate since that time so that currently there are over 50,000 different varieties in use. New ones are being invented at the rate of over 1,000 per year. Almost 35,000 of those now in use in the United States are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as being definitely or potentially hazardous to human health. We have recently become aware that many of the compounds have been dis- posed of carelessly and are now polluting land and water resources. The Love Canal incident in upstate New York received wide-spread pub- licity. People living near a chemical disposal site experienced major health problems which came to the attention of health authorities. The incident raised the question of how and where chemical wastes in other parts of the country had been disposed. Sane 700 potentially hazardous chemical waste disposal sites have been identified nation- wide to date. It has become clear that there has been very little regulation of where and how synthetic organic compounds have been disposed of in. the past. Same knowledgeable people feel. that im- properly disposed of chemical wastes will be the most important en- vironmental problem of the 1980rs. Many of these pollutants have found their way into streams that drain urban areas and industrial sites. One of the first pieces of evidence available that confirmed this was a water quality study done in New Orleans. Investigations there demonstrated that a number of pollut- ants were in the drinki.n& water supply (the Mississippi River) and persons drinking treated water fram this source had higher cancer rates than people in the same area drinking water fram private wells. Studies done since on major rivers in the United States demonstrate that serious water pollution is not confined to the lower Mississippi; but is widespread in the major rivers of the United States. The New Orleans study was responsible in large part for the passage of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 which called for the setting of drinking water standards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established maximum contaminant levels for treated drinking water for 25 pollutants including synthetic organic chemicals, heavy metals and radioactive elements. The potential health hazard fram synthetic organic chemicals is con- sidered so serious that EPA is considering requiring a costly new water treatment process called granulated activated carbon treatment for all public water systems serving 75,000 persons or more unless the raw water source was deep ground water or watersheds protected fram manmade pollution. It is not certain that even this special technique can remove all harmful pollutants and the EPA has recommended that,whenever possible public water suppliers develop new surface water supplies fram "upland watersheds"; that is, those watersheds that do not drain large areas containing towns, cities and industrial areas. Orange County is fortunate that its three public water suppliers draw water from upland protected supplies. University Lake watershed is 25 rzv the most developed of the three water supply watersheds in the county sitting as it does just west of Carrboro-Chapel Hill. Its 19,600 acre watershed and no sewage treatment plants, landfills or indus- :- trial uses are located there. The Cane Creek Upper Eno watershed are likewise rural in nature and free from potential concentrated sources of pollution. The water drawn from these areas is thus of good quality. The sources of pollution which have been discussed so far, like sewage treatment plant outfalls and landfills are called "point sources" of pollution. Point source refers to pollutants from a specific source which would enter the water at an identifiable point. An example would be the outfall pipe fram a sewer treatment plant. Another source of pollutants are called"non-pointm sources. Non-point source refers to pollutants which reach receiving streams in a diffuse manner and cannot be attributed to an identifiable or specific source. An ex- ample would be the pollutants that accumulate on a shopping center parking lot or road surface and are washed off in a storm. Studies around the nation have revealed thattgon-point sources of pollution are equally ,if not more important ,contributors to poor water qual- ity than point sources. These same studies reveal that nonpoint source pollution generation is a function of land use. Areas which are mostly forested have the lowest amounts of pollutants in the water that runs off the land. There are two reasons for this. The forested areas lack urban ac- tivities like concentrated automobile use which can produce pollut- ants. They also have the ability to assimilate pollutants that are present. Only a small percentage of precipitation which falls washes off the land into the nearest stream. The ground cover in forested areas slows the velocity of runoff and allows water to infiltrate into the soil where bacterial and chemical processes can change or trap pollutants. As a watershed becomes increasingly urbanized this situation changes dramatically. All the activities of people which can generate pollut- ants are increasingly present in the watershed. And the natural processes of the land and soil which can act to block pollutants from reaching the water supply are greatly reduced in their ability to trap pollutants. One characteristic common to developing areas is that the percentage of impervious cover is increased as development increases. More precip- itation strikes roads and parking areas, the roofs of homes and other impervious surfaces. The increased impervious area alters the relative magnitudes of runoff and infiltration. A greater volume of water runs off the land at an increased velocity. It is carried quickly via natural drainage ways or storm drainage systems,The process of infil- tration and soil purification does not have an opportunity to function). As a result,studies have shown that the water quality of streams flowing through highly urban areas is very poor even where no point sources of pollution can be identified. .?' *,?:r Any plan to protect the water supply watersheds in Orange County needs to identify and reduce the water quality impacts of non-point as well as point sources of pollution. An important component of any water quality plan for the County should certainly be to direct away fran watershed areas, sewage treatment plants, toxic waste disposal sites, landfills and industrial operations which manufacture or produce as a byproduct potentially hazardous materials. An equally important if less obvious part of a watershed protection plan for the County should be to keep the density of development in watershed areas as low as possible and to direct the future expansion of urban areas away from watersheds. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WATER RESOURCES TASK FORCE The Orange County Water Resources Task Force has developed in their report to the Board of County Commissioners seventeen (17) recommen- dations for the protection of water resources in the County. At this time the Board has not reviewed these recommendations nor acted upon them, the recommendations are as follows: 1. Orange County should adopt a policy which calls for mini- mizing total outflows of water from one major basin to another. 2. Orange County should allocate the water it has rights over in Lake Orange to the Town of Hillsborough, the Orange- ALanance Water Systems Incorporated, and the in-stveam flow needs of the Eno River. 3. Orange County should develop policies requiring water con- servation in both the receiving and withdrawal basins where inter-basin transfers of water are required to meet emer- gency situations. 4. The Task Force Report has identified five prime reservoir sites in the County. Local water suppliers should iden- tify which of these sites they would like preserved for future use. The County and water suppliers should work to- gether to implement means of protecting and preserving these sites for future use. 5. Orange County should investigate the feasibility of a regional solution to its future water needs. As part of that effort, Orange County should reserve a portion of the water allocation from Jordan Lake as a long term option for water supply. 6. Orange County should promote efforts to conserve water. 7. Orange County should adopt a Land Use Plan which identifies protected water supply watersheds. These protected areas V' should be University Lake watershed, the Upper Eno water- , ' shed which drains to Lake Ben Johnson and the watershed of proposed Cane Creek Reservoir. 8. Orange County should adopt a Land Use Plan and associated regulations which preserve and enhance water quality in protected watersheds. Certain point sources of pollution including sewage treatment plants, land fills, hazardous waste generators, storage facilities or disposal sites, and major new highways should be prohibited from these watersheds. Urban development including medium-and high- density residential, commercial and industrial uses should be prohibited fram University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. Medium-and high-density residential housing, and commercial and industrial development in the Upper Eno watershed should be directed to the McGowan Creek sub-basin. Strict water-quality related standards should be imposed on dev- elopment in the McGowan Creek watershed. Develooment should not be promoted in the Seven Mile Creek sub-basin and any industry which does propose to locate in that watershed should be able to show that it will not have any impact on water quality. If development intensifies in the McGowan Creek sub-basin the water quality in Lake Ben Johnson and Corporation Lake should be monitored. Any decrease in water quality which does occur may necessitate either moving the intake pipes of the Orange-Alamance Water Systems and the Town of Hillsborough upstream of the confluence of - - McGowan Creek and the Eno River or an earlier development of Seven Mile Creek reservoir than might be necessary based on water demand alone. 9. The Towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough and Chatham and Alamance Counties should incorporate the findings and recommen- dations of this report into their Land Use Plans and develop- ment regulations. 10. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority should adopt a policy which states that it will not extend sewer and water lines into the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds except in emergency situations. The Town of Hillsborough, the Town of Mebane and Orange-Alamance Water Systems should adopt policies that state that they will only extend sewer and water lines into the McGowan Creek sub-basin of the Upper Eno watershed in accordance with the Land Use Plan of Orange County except in emergency situations. 11. Orange County should extend coverage of its zoning ordinance to include the proposed protected water supply watershed areas in Bingham, Hillsborough, Cheeks and Cedar Grove Townships. 12. Orange County should implement the following zoning dis- tricts and associated performance standards in protected watersheds: A minim= 2 acre residential lot size coupled 20, with stormwater management requirements which will insure that the quality and quantity of runoff from a site approx- imates the pre-development condition. A minimum 5 acre residential lot size without requiring stormwater manage- ment measures. For non-residential developments the ratio of impervious surface to gross land area should not exceed 0.25. k7 13. Orange County should require stream buffers along perennial streams in water supply watersheds and stipulate land uses for these buffer areas appropriate to their intended function. The Task Force recommends that the width of stream buffer along any length of stream be 50 feet plus 4 times the percent slope. The stream buffer should be measured from the edge of the flood plain. The Technical Review Committee established in the County Zoning Ordinance should review the buffer requirements for all proposed non-residential de- velopments and require additional buffer area where neces- sary. The Task Force recommends that stream buffer areas remain in natural vegetation. 14. Orange County should adopt the following recommendations regarding on-site wastewater disposal systems. All newly platted lots bordering on perenial streams and requiring an on-site wastewater disposal system should be recorded as an easement of the final plat and no building or other activity should occur on this portion of the parcel of land which would prevent its future use for on-site waste water disposal. Orange County should inVestite- developing an - -- - on-site wastewater disposal system monitoring and mainten- ance program for the three water supply watersheds in the County. 15, Orange County should adopt stormwater management measures that would apply to protected watersheds. 16. Orange County should adopt the two following recommen- dations regarding sedimentation and erosion. The County should continue to administer a strong local sedimentation and erosion control program. The County should sponsor in conjunction with OWASA a resource conservation and development project in Cane Creek and University Lake watersheds. 17. Orange County should develop a plan of action for deal- ing with spills of hazardous materials in water supply watersheds. 29 g.4 MCLTITNG LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL FRAMEWORK Orange County is located in the Piedmont region of North Carolina, a broad plateau area between the coastal plains to the east and the Appalachian Mountains to the west. Along with the cities of Raleigh and. Durham, the County forms , part of the Piedmont Crescent, a string of urban areas which stretch in an arc from Raleigh to Charlotte. Orange County has an area of 254,720 acres or 398 square miles. It has borders with five other counties - Person and Caswell on the north, Alamance to the west, Chatham on the south and Durham to the east. The County is linked to other major North Carolina cities by Interstate 85 which serves Greensboro, High Point, Winston-Salem and Charlotte and by NC 54 which goes to Raleigh. The incorporated To in the County listed in order of decreasing pop- " ulation are Chapel Hill (pop. 32,038) , Carrboro (pop. 7517), Hillsborough (pop. 3019) and Mebane (pop. 2718). The location of these Towns is shown on the Existing Land Use Map. The population of the County is 77,055 persons. TOWNSHIP PLANNING AREAS Orange County is divided into seven townships. These townships served as voting districts in the nineteenth century, but have no legal stand- , ing today. Each of the townships has a distinctive character and they have been used, as planning areas in developing the Land Use Plan. The location of the townships is shown on the Existing land Use Map. Cedar Grove and Little River are the two most northern townships. They are rural, and agricultural in character and contain no incorporated places. The population of Cedar Grove and Little River Townships is 3166 persons and 1493 persons respectively. With a total area of over 80,000 acres or 125 square miles, the population density is only 38 persons per square mile. Tobacco is the major cash crop. These Townships mark the southern edge of a major tobacco growing region which extends to the north on into Virginia. Cedar Grove Township has experienced no population growth since 1970. The Township is distant from major employment centers in Chapel Hill, Durham, Research Triangle Park and Burlington. The Township is unlikely to see significant population growth in the future. Little River Township has experienced some population growth, especially along Guess Road, because of the proximity of this portion of the Township 31 . . ,..: ,..v. ,-.. to Durham. Suburbanization of this area may accelerate in the future as Durham grows outward. Hillsborough, Cheeks and Eno are the three central tier Townships in the i.:,.., County. They are all traversed east-west by a major transportation corridor consisting of Interstate 85, US 70 and a main line of the south- ., .„.. ern railroad. The excellent access afforded by these parallel transpor- tation routes to other cities in the region has resulted in a more de- veloped character for these townships than those in northern Orange County. Two towns, an unincorporated village and a string of residential as well as commercial and industrial uses occur all along this transpor- tation corridor. The increased intensity of development can be seen ... clearly on the Existing Land Use Map. The Town of Hillsborough, the County seat, dominates Hillsborough Town- ship.il The population of the Township is 8599 persons. The presence of 1-85 has shaped Hillsborough's development in recent years with growth areas being centered on the two interstate interchanges in the Township south of town. NC 86 connects the town with southern Orange County. Proposed Interstate 40 (see Proposed Land Use Plan Map) will give Hillsborough easy access to Research Triangle Park and Raleigh and will no doubt have a strong impact on the development of Hillsborough and central Orange County if it is built. The Town of Hillsborough operates a sewer and water system whose current service area approximates the town's planning jurisdiction. Raw water supply is Lake Ben Johnson on the no River west of town. The Town of HiPsborough has jurisdiction over planning and zoning approx- imately one mile beyond its corporate limits. The exact boundaries of its planning area are shown on the Planning Jurisdiction map. The County plans for surrounding areas. Cheeks Township lies to the west of Hillsborough and contains two de- veloped areas - the small unincorporated village of Efland and the Town of Mebane on the western edge of the Township. Only a portion of Mebane is within the Township and the County, the major portion of it being in Alamance County. The population of Cheeks Township is 4821 persons. Efland has a population of approximately 600 persons. It is the site of several small textile manufacturing firms. There are also a number of commercial uses in the Efland area. Efland is not served by central sewers, but is furnished with water by Orange-Alamance Water Systems Incorporated, a private non-profit corporation. Raw water is taken from Corporation Lake on the Eno, just north of US 70, treated, and pumped west along US 70 through Efland and on into Alamance County around Mebane. The system has about 400 metered connections in Orange County. The population of the Town of Mebane is 2781 persons according to the 1980 Census_ Three hundred and seventy-nine of those persons live in the area of Mebane within Orange County. Mebane exercises a one mile extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. In Orange County its planning jurisdiction extends beyond the one mile limit to an area between US 70 and 1-85 where the Town has developed an industrial park. This area is provided with sewer 32 e 1`,.,te„, • • allalik ':,:- • ri-_e 1 • 1 I 1.141 iLLIK tII VI I I iAlklillFA,„„llg.11lPIFq#,,,LW,i/ • , , . , .. , .:.„ I . I Mabonet 111161.,4: t . . i 1 _ .. ':1',- "I•`•'.,APP.' -.4 1 I s '''... -i■iiiiiii.,-- lipi Arri.c. ._,,,,,,....,.. . holorrApp, %ow ---te-4 PAI iliVitiwAh..410, i IMAdle 1 YiyAiiivr v.v. i 1 APP. /3er vr ;AAP ' ,rn i le gird or Wr . 1 r iiik Arielb4...,,_ / 414009P" 7j514M5P1!! p p ip ,„ .etz,M i:7::-iWif :...:•;::ii' willor..lz.. ,.;; ;,:.,..ri5.441,.::,!-,7- „,T.:-.f.v;g:::;; 1. 4.4470,,A470 i*I" -i,.:Jit ) Ail.0 4 111A1 ,,k-'404r;i1g07. -,. ,P. • LEGEND 1‘.. Ifirr / '. Pr.-71. .St;q1•" Nur' . TOWN PLAI ,:l 1.41.0.00' Alt! JURISDICTI, )* . . ,;fr , . .f.try.. .., „ 44„ - A M JOINT PLA . _— and water has attracted several major corporations including a General Electric plant. Mbst of Cheeks Township, both north and south of the 1-85 - US 70 transportation corridor, is rural in character and consists of agricultural land uses and scattered non-farm development. Eno Township is located in west-central Orange County. Current Township Population is 4456 persons. There are no incorporated places. The 1-85 US 70 transportation corridor occupies the southern portion of the Town- ship and has attracted residential and non-residential development. The highways give southern Eno Township good access to the City of Durham and the employment opportunities in the City and at Duke University. As a result, Eno Township has had a population growth rate of 7.5% per annum over the past 10 years, the highest rate of any Township. The remainder of Eno Township, especially north of ST. Mary's Road is rural and agricul- tural in character. Eno Township is currently not served by central sewers. Water services is provided in two areas at the eastern and western boundaries of the TOwnship. City of Durham water service has recently been extended along US 70 into Orange County near the interchange with 1-85. Water lines from the Town of Hillsborough extend into Eno Township along US 70 as far east as the junction of US 70 and By-pass 70. A unique feature in Eno Township is the Eno State Park. It is the only North Carolina State Park,that is linear in character, with sections of the park extending along the Eno River in Eno Township and an into Durham County. Aquisition of land or easements are incomplete but major sections of park lands have been aquired. Existing sections of the Park are shown on the Existing Land Use map. The two southern townships in Orange County are Chapel Hill and Bingham Townships. Chapel Hill Township contains the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The population of these two Towns combined is 39,555 persons or 51% of total County population. Population of Chapel Hill Township is 50,572 persons. Etployment centers in Chapel Hill Township include the University of North Carolina, North Carolina. Memorial Hospital and Blue Cross-Blue Shield. The proximity of the Township to Durham and Research Triangle Park means that people can commute from the Township to these other centers of employment. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) provides water and sewer ser- vice to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well as to fringe areas in Orange, Chatham and Durham Counties. The primary water supply for Chapel Hill-Carrboro is University Lake located just to the west of Carrboro. Duke University has large holdings of land in northern Chapel Hill Township which are used for teaching, research and limited recreation. These large areas in forest are an asset to the Township and their conversion for residential development would certainly have a major impact on land use patterns in the Township. Chapel Bill and Carrboro exercise planning jurisdiction in an area beyond their corporate limits. The extent of this area is shown on the Planning Jurisdictions Map. The County plans for surrounding areas. Growth and development in Chapel Rill - Carrboro has been predominantly to the north and west in recent years. Growth to the north and resulting annexations have caused their corporate limits to approach and exceed at several points the planning jurisdiction line. Talks are currently under- way between the Towns, O1ASA and the County to establish a joint planning mechanism so that land use planning by the Towns and the County will be coordinated. Implementation of this planning mechanism will result in future development on the fringes of the Towns which will meet urban standards and be compatible with the existing development pattern and growth plans of the Towns and the County. Bingham Township is located west of Chapel Hill Carrboro. Current pop- - ulation in the Township is 3954 persons. A major transportation route, US 54, runs east-west across the Township out of Chapel Rill - Carrboro and on into Alamance County. Because of its proximity to the major ur- ban area in the. County, Bingham Township has experienced considerable growth pressure in recent years. The population growth rate has been 6.2% per annum over the last ten years, second highest of any Township after Eno Township. Dairy farming is an important activity in Bingham Township. About 40% of the County's dairy operations are here. Orange County currently ranks sixth in number of milk cows and fifth in milk revenues among North Caro- lina's one hundred counties. Bingham Township is the site of proposed Cane Creek Reservoir, to be lo- cated on Cane Creek just north of NC 54. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority is seeking to develop this reservoir to supplement its presently inadequate supply at University Lake. The prospect of a large lake in the Cane Creek area has already caused speculative land development. If the reservoir becomes a reality, growth and development in this area could become greatly accelerated. 34 2.5 AGRICULTURE IN' ORANGE COUNTY 1 BACKGROUND Orange County has experienced two striking trends in recent decades population growth and fax loss. An estimated population increase ft' of more than 45,000 persons, or almost 133%, has occured in the County since 1950. Population density has increased from 87 persons per square mile to 202 persons per square mile. During the same period the propor- tion of County land in farms has declined from 70.5% in 1950 to an es- timated 31% in 1979. The number of farms in the County has steadily de- clined from a high of over 2000 in 1950 to 631 in 1974, the last year for which data are available. In spite of a sharp decline in land in farms over the past thirty years, agriculture remains an important contributor to the economy of Orange County. In 1978, revenue from farm commodity sales and government pay- ments amounted to $235 mi33ion or roughly $300 for every man, woman and child in the County. Orange County has 141,430 acres of prime soils, the second highest total of six counties in the region according to a recent study by the Triangle J Council of Governments. County agriculture is based on live stock, es- pecially milk production and tobacco. Table 2- shows the revenue from the five major agricultural activities in the County. TABLE 2-35 ORANGE COUNTY FARM COMMODITY REVENUE FOR LEADING COMMODITIES, 1978. REVENUE PERCENT OF TOTAL COMMODITY (IN MILLIONS O S) FARM REVENUE MILK 7.53 31.9% TOBACCO 6.39 27.1% BEEF 2.61 21.0% POULTRY AND EGGS 2.47 10.5% SWINE 1.03 4.3% — 'Source: The information on agriculture is taken from :the Report of the Orange County Agriculture Task Force, Draft, May 1981. 35 H- Currently there are many factors which make it increasingly difficult for farming to remain economically viable. A majority of Orange County dairy farms are located in rapidly growing Bingham and Chapel Hill townships. Others are located in the potential growth corridor in the center of the County, between Hillsborough and Mebane. The large capital investment and land needs of dairy farming make it particularly sensitive to rising land values and property taxes wh!..ch tend to accompany non-farm develop- . ment in farming areas. Urban growth-induced projects such as reservoirs and highways, have created apprehensions about their full impact on near- by farming areas. Capital investments in farm structures and equipment, necessary to improve productivity and remain competitive, tend to be in- hibited under these general circumstances. Farms generate odors and dust both from plowed fields and chemicals which may be spread on those fields. This "pollution" can and does bring nuisance complaints from new subdivisions nearby. The swine industry is the most vulnerable of all County agriculture to nuisance complaints. Most, if not all, swine operations are located away from County growth areas however. Hence the industry is not as vulnerable to nuisance com- plaints as it otherwise might be. Northern Orange County is part of a major tobacco growtng area that ex- tends north into Person and Caswell Counties. Tobacco farming, with its comparatively high revenue yiels per acre and its location away from the major growth areas in the County, remains a core of agricultural stab- ility. Potential, changes in federal tobacco policies and future market demand leave even this segment of agriculture with its uncerLainties. Poultry and egg operations are centered in the northeastern portion of the County. Future growth pressures from Durham and. Hillsborough may contribute to nuisance complaint problems for this industry. A. major survey of Orange County rural opinion, taken between November, 1978 and January, 1979 by Margaret Wat2 .ns of Duke University, reported that County farmers felt six significant constraints upon their farming future. The results are shown in Table 2-36: TABLE 2-36 CONSTRAINTS ON FUTURE FARMING TN ORANGE COUNTY CONSTRAINT PERCENT OF TIM CITED FAILURE TO PROFIT 37% OLD AGE 20% HIGH PROPERTY TAXES 11% RENTED LAND UNAVAILABLE . 10% POOR HEALTH 8% HIGH LAND PRICES 7W ■:-_,,,f .---- ')'• Four of the six were economic in character and related to the pressures on tr farming due to non-farm development in the County. The same survey found ..-„z. -,-, substantial support in rural areas for County action to preserve farmland. tIc;' Sixty-three percent of the rural landowners surveyed endorsed agricul- tural preservation and farmers in the sample were even more emphatic, r., with a 72% affirmative response. L._ The enduring vitality of County agriculture has been, and will continue t, to be, tested by competing uses for the land. Once farmland is covered ...--, over by roads, subdivisions and shopping centers, however, it is prob- . ably lost to productive agriculture forever. With a growing population ,. to feed in coming years, the time is now to begin viewing productive farmland as an important resource, worthy of protection for an import- ., 1;4-- ant use, the production of food and fiber. '., PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY FARM PROGRAM This program has been formulated to meet the farm preservation policy objectives adopted by the Task Force: the alleviation of tax pressure k on farmers; minimizing nuisance complaints against farm operations; reducing the impact of eminent domain on farmland; and lessening the k' development pressures which might lead to farm relocation. Additionally. the proposed program has been based on voluntary measures in response i; -- to the preferences stated by members of the Task Force. The program has not been reviewed nor acted upon by the Board of Commissioners at -: this time. '.--, v- * --The- redammendationis compdsed of the following four elements: ,., VOLUNTARY CLASSES OF PARTICIPATION This section established four Classes of Participation (in addition to the existing State Law providing use value law, which is Class A) . Including the existing State Law, these four Classes are explained as follows: Class A: Class A is identical to the existing North Carolina Prefer- ential Taxation Law and provides for use value appraisal of the property as a basis for taxation with a three-year pay- back provision of taxes, interest, costs, or penalties as a .., lien on the property on withdrawal from the program whenever it occurs. All Class A Farm units must participate in the ',- N.C. Farm Preferential Taxation Program. Class B: Class B is identical to the existing state law (Class A) but adds twenty-year development rights agreement (Easement) pro- hibiting non-farm development except on three lots meeting minimum Orange County Subdivision and Zoning Standards. I i 1) All Class B Farm units must participate in the N.C. Farm Preferential Taxation Program. 1 2) The farm must be covered by a 20-year development rights agreement prohibiting non-farm development on all but three lots meeting minimum Orange County Subdivision and Zoning Standards. ______......, ,13.;.. Class C: A development rights agreement (easement) of ten years pro- hibiting development on all except three lots meeting min- imum Orange County Subdivision and Zoning Standards is re- quired. The payback period is the same as existing State Law. An added benefit is a ten percent reduction in the use value -:. assessment of the basis for taxation. 1) All Class C Farm units must quality for the N.C. Farm :.. Preferential Taxation Program. ,_ 2) The farmillist be covered by a 10-year development rights agreement prohibiting non-farm development on all but three lots meeting minimum Orange County Zoning and Sub- division Standards. 11' 3) Tax abatement benefits equal to a reduction in assess- ment to 90% of use value as a basis for taxation.1 4) The payback period is equivalent to existing State Law. Class D: Class D is exactly like Class C except that the development rights agreement (easement) is twenty years, and the payback L is equivalent to the existing State Law, and the reduction in use value assessment is to 80%.1 An additional benefit is no property tax assessment would be made of new farm structures constructed on a Class D farm.' 1) Farm units must qualify for the N.C. Farm Preferential Taxation Program. 2) The farm must be covered by a 20-year development rights easement prohibiting non-fart development on all but three lots meeting minimum Orange County Standards. 3) Tax abatement benefit reduction in assessment equal to 80% of use-value as a basis for taxation.1 7 4) The payback period is the same as the existing State Law. 5) No property tax assessment would be made of new farm struc- tures constructed on a participating farm.' =!' BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION ( 2' ' FOR CLASS B, C and D) 1) No assessment or fee for water and sewer extensions as long , as no use is made of the extension by the farmland owner.1 2) Disclosure statement required for all land, transfers on tracts within 600 ft. of a farm unit informing purchasers of the pre- ferred and pre-existing nature of the agricultural use of the adjoining tract and the County law assessing plaintiffs with legal fees for frivolous law suits. 'Source: General Assembly action would be necessary to permit this benefit. 38 '',:, .ez, Ir'''?' , e ' 3) All farms will be shown on the Orange County Land records V with the warning mentioned in No. 2 above and the statement V that land in this area is inside or near a farming community. ki g-•:; 4) Mandatory public hearing on agricultural impact resulting from proposed use of eminent domain to acquire farmland. t,s-- Findings presented to the decision-making body of the 4.'..z- agency proposing acquisition (e.g. N.C. Board of Transpor- ,C: tation) and to the N.C. Commissioner of Agriculture. The N.C. Secretary of Agriculture would then have the power to veto the proposed use of eminent domain, with a three-fourths !:•72 vote of the agency governing board required to over-ride ,;-.. such a veto. .i•i- 5) All attorney's fees in nuisance suits brought against Class B, C, or D farms will be assessed against the plaintiffs bringing the suit if the Court deems the suit frivolous.1 i-- REQUIREMENTS OF PARTICIPATION (MANDATORY FOR CLASS 63 C and D PARTICIPATIM 1) The farm must be certified by SCS as being composed of at least two thirds "prime or locally important" farmland. 2) The farm must develop and adhere to SCS approved Erosion Control Practices that are addressed to "critical areas" , and administered by the Agriculture Advisory Board. 3) The farm must qualify under the existing North Carolina Use ) Taxation Program. The definition of farm for the Orange County program is similar to the State law. (Use Value taxes in law). 4) The payback of the tax abatement given under the existing state law should be governed by that law and the Orange County tax abatement payback (Class C = 5 year payback for the extra 10% tax abatement) will only be for the additional 10% or 20% benefit. 5) After the 10 year development rights easement expires for Class C farms or the 20 year development rights easement expires for Class D farms, then there will be no payback of any tax benefits except as required by the existing State law. VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS (Not a Zoning District) A. Requirements: 1) 640 contiguous acres of farmland in Classes A, B, C, and D. 1Source: General Assembly action would be necessary to permit this benefit. B. Benefits: 1) The district would increase Identify and pride in the agriculture community and its way of life. 2) The district would provide increased pro- tection from nuisance suits against properly- managed farms. 3) Each voluntary agricultural district would be entitled to one voting member of the Agricultur Advisory Board (see Section V) . C. Formation: Signed agreement among participating members to "sustain agriculture" in the district. Agreement would have to be reviewed and approved by the Agricultural Advisory Board. THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD The Board would be composed of one voting member from each vol- - untary agricultural district, as well, as nine other Orange County fain people to be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Tasks of the Agricultural Advisory Board would include the foll- owing: a) Act as a carnittee to draft the proposed farm preservation Program in sufficient form and detail to be acted upon by the Board of County Commissioners, as well as by the N.C. General Assembly; b) Review and approve agreements forming voluntary agricultural districts; c) Periodically review the County Farm Preservation program and recommend necessary changes to the Board of County Commissioners; d) Hold mandatory public hearings on the agricultural impact resulting from the use of eminent domain on farmland. Re- sults to be forwarded to the governing body of the agency proposing use of eminent domain, to the N.C. Secretary of Agriculture and to the Board of County Commissioners; e) Review of major private developments affecting County ag- riculture, as determined by the County Planning Board. Reports and recommendations on these projects would be forwarded to the County Planning Board and to the Board of County Commissioners. -7-, .i: '-',. 2.6 TRANSPORTATION ,.. f-: GamAL, FRAMEWORK While providing a vital service function, the means and manner by which people and goods are transported influences the physical development pattern throughout Orange County. Areas which are served by the most convenient transportation access are the most appropriate locations 77 for centers of employment, leisure activities, schools, services and commercial and industrial activity. Residents of the County require ,,..- an adequate transportation network to insure convenient and safe access to such activities and, generally, their locational decisions are in- fluenced by such transportation related factors. The primary means of transportation in the County is the road system. The system serves two main functions: traffic movement and Land ser- vice. Given the potential incompatibility of these two functions efforts should be directed at balancing the two functions through an i integrated, well-designed road system. This requires consideration of the location and distribution of the population; the intensity and spatial distribution of land uses and their potention for traffic gen- eration; and the economic character of the County. '. The relationship between residential and commercial uses and the ade- ;- quacy of the road system is particularly important as the system in- k tegrates and links such uses, providing access between homes and the ir goods and services needed and demanded by County residents. However, the adequacy of the road system can be determined from two perspectives. The individual county resident evaluates the system on the basis of user objectives such as speed, convenience, safety and cost. In broader terms, the system is evaluated on the basis of its impact on the econo- mic growth potential and the general ambience or environmental character of the County. It is clearly important that neither of these two factors f- can be excluded in the provision of transportation services for Orange County as they are interrelated and interconnected elements. DESCRIPTION OF THE ROAD NETWORK IN ORANGE COUNTY Orange County contains a relatively adequate network. Major population and employment centers are linked throughout most areas of the County. The presence of a widespread state-maintained rural highway system has significantly "opened up" the rural areas of the County for residential development. Subsequently, residential pressures in these rural areas have created additional pressures and demands for commercial development serving the needs of the residents. The road network in Orange County is focused on the urban and urbanized areas of the County as evidenced in the Highway Classification System Map, 41 k Major roads throughout the County provide access to and link the rural areas of the County with the Towns of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. NC 8( ,,' ::,.i,- and NC 1009(01d NC 86) link Hillsborough with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban- f - izing area. U. ,_ - in addition to providing intra-County service, inter-County service linking Orange County residential areas with employment centers in Durham, the ,"- Research Triangle Park and Raleigh is facilitated along US 15-501, NC 54, I-- nn 17T7 (Erwin Road) and NC 1718 (Mt. Sinai Road). As Orange County is ' - characterized by a negative net commutation pattern, with Orange County residents employed outside the County numbering more than non-residents , employed, in Orange County, the adequacy of the road network providing access to these employment centers is particularly important. In turn, the existing road network influences and encourages residential-workplace dispersion, both within Orange County and between Orange County and adjacent counties i,- containing important employment centers, by facilitating such commutation ''- , patterns. Construction of proposed Interstate 40, shown on the Proposed ' Land Use Plan Map, would most likely significantly impact upon the existing traffic patterns by providing greater access to major traffic generators and encouraging potential development in areas adjacent to the route. , The relationship between residential and commercial uses throughout the County is a bit more problematic, particularly in the fringe areas just -- :. outside the urban and urbanizing portions of the County along heavily traveled roads. These roads are subject to the sprawl of commercial activ- ities in an unsightly manner along ] g stretches of the road. In rural areas, the provision of commercial activities in appropriate locations to serve the needs of local residents is important to satisfy quality of life , concerns and minimize the adverse effects of the relative isolation of these residents from major population centers in the County. The goals and policies of the Orange County Land Use Plan seek to focus commercial activities in a concentrated manner at and near the intersections of important highways and roads, thereby providing for the needs of local residents and minimizing the inconvenient, land consuming and unsightly sprawl of such uses along the transportation system. Certain important intersections in the County have been designated as activity nodes at which non-residential development of various types and varying levels of intensity would be permitted within a given distance of the intersection. In essence, the transportation system would serve to provide good access to . these activites and would support the land use policies directed at achieving the pattern of development desired, in the County. ORANGE COUNTY HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM In order to assess the capacity of the existing transportation system to accomodate existing and future land use in terms of access and mobility, a road classification system is required. The road classification system describes the roads comprising the transportation network by function, that is, the level of service provided. In the classification hierarchy, the higher the road classification, the greater the 42 access provided to land uses; the lower the road classification, the great- er the land service provided. As the Orange County Land Use Plan is concerned primarily with those areas outside the corporate and planning boundaries of the urban areas, the focus of the classification scheme is the rural road network. A modified version of the N.C. Highway Functional Classification System' was used by the Orange County Planning Department to describe the County's road network. The system describes parts of the road network according to the level of service they are intended to supply based on the factors of access and mobility. The classification of roads reflects the integration of road types in providing transportation service through- out the County. The classification scheme used describes roads according to the follow- ing categories: Interstate, arterial, collector, local, sub-collector and minor. The categories of particular relevance, however, are the Interstate arterial, collector and local roads. The Interstate and arterial highways provide the best service (shortest travel times) to and from important employment, shopping, educational and population centers. They are characterized by relatively high travel speeds with minimum interference to through movement. Collector roads do not pro- vide areas with access to the major road system. Local roads are least important in terms of traffic movement, but provide the greatest ser- vice in terms of land service, in aggregate providing large land, areas with access to more important roads. In terms of total road miles, local roads will account for the largest proportion of road miles in the County given the large land areas they serve, while arterials will account for the smallest proportion. The classification of roads in Orange County is presented on the follow- ing page and on the Orange County Highway Classification System map. 1Highway Functional Classification: -COncepts Criteria and Procedures. -p- ox ansport. ion: Federal Highway Administration.' July, 1974. ;' '---, ',''. W rc 2.6 TRANSPORTATION ,,-': k.„ GENERAL FRAMEWORK - - '., : While providing a vital service function, the means and manner by which people and goods are transported influences the physical development pattern throughout Orange County. Areas which are served by the most convenient transportation access are the most appropriate locations for centers of employment, leisure activities, schools, services and commercial and industrial activity. Residents of the County require an adequate transportation network to insure convenient and safe access ir- to such activities and, generally, their locational decisions are in- ; fluenced by such transportation related factors. ,-, The primary means of transportation in the County is the road system. The system serves two main functions: traffic movement and land ser- vice. Given the potential incompatibility of these two functions ,.'. efforts should be directed at balancing the two functions through an integrated, well-designed road system. This requires consideration of the location and distribution of the population; the intensity and spatial distribution of land uses and their potention for traffic gen- eration; and the economic character of the County. The relationship between residential and commercial uses and the ade- quacy of the road system is particularly important as the system in- tegrates and links such uses, providing access between homes and the goods and services needed and demanded by County residents. However, the adequacy of the road system can be determined from two perspectives. The individual county resident evaluates the system on the basis of user objectives such as speed, convenience, safety and cost. In broader terms, the system is evaluated on the basis of its impact on the econo- rnic growth potential and the general ambience or environmental character of the County. It is clearly important that neither of these two factors can be excluded in the provision of transportation services for Orange County as they are interrelated and interconnected elements. DESCRIPTION OF THE ROAD NETWORK IN ORANGE COUNTY Orange County contains a relatively adequate network. or population and employment centers are linked throughout most areas of the County. The presence of a widespread state-maintained rural highway system has significantly "opened up" the rural areas of the County for residential development. Subsequently, residential pressures in these rural areas have created additional pressures and, demands for commercial development serving the needs of the residents. The road network in Orange County is focused on the urban and urbanized areas of the County as evidenced in the Highway Classification System Map, 4 1 .......... .47. .,- and water and has attracted several major corporations including a General '4 Electric plant. Most of Cheeks Township, both north and south of the 1-85 "- and US 70 transportation corridor, is rural in character and consists of _ agricultural land uses and scattered non-farm development. ° Eno Township is located in west-central Orange County. Current Township population is 4456 persons. There are no incorporated places. The 1-85- US 70 transportation corridor occupies the southern portion of the Town- ship and has attracted residential and non-residential development. The highwas give southern Eno Township good access to the City of Durham and the employment opportunities in the City and at Duke University. As a result, Eno Township has had a population growth rate of 7.5% per annum -- over the past 10 years, the highest rate of any Township. The remainder of Eno Township, especially north of St. Mary's Road is rural and agric- ultural in character. Eno Township is currently not served by central sewers. Water service is provided in two areas at the eastern and western boundaries of the Town- ship. City of Durham water service has recently been extended along US 70 into Orange County near the interchange with 1-85. Water lines from the Town of Hillsborough extend into Eno Township along US 70 as far east as the junction of US 70 and Bypass 70. A unique feature in Eno Township is the Eno State Park. It is the only North Carolina State Park that is linear in character, with sections of the park extending along the Eno River in Eno Township and on into Durham County. Aquisition of land or easements are incomplete but major sections of park lands have been acquired-.- Existing sections of the Park . are shown on the Existing Land Use Map. The two southern townships in Orange County are Chapel Hill and Bingham ° townships. Chapel Hill Township contains the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The population of these two Towns combined is 39,555 persons or 51% of total Cow , pOpulation. The population of Ch.oel Hill Township is 50,572 persons. Employment centers in Chapel Hill Township include the University of North Carolina, North Carolina Memorial Hospital and Blue Cross-Blue Shield. The proximity of the Township to Durham and Research Triangle Park means ° that people can commute from the Township to these other centers of em- ployment. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) provides water and sewer ser- vice to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well as to fringe areas in Orange, Chatham and Durham Counties. The primary water supply for Chapel Hill - Carrboro is University Lake located just to the west of Carrbor k Duke University has large holdings of land in northern Chapel Hill Township which are used for teaching, research and limited recreation. These large areas in forest are an asset to the Township and their conversion for re- sidential development would certainly have a major impact on land use patterns in the Township. Wf access provided to land uses; the lower the road classification, the great- er the land service provided. As the Orange County Land Use Plan is concerned primarily with those areas outside the corporate and planning boundaries of the urban areas, the focus of the classification scheme is the rural road network. A modified version of the N.C. Highway Functional Classification System' Was used by the Orange County Planning Department to describe the County's road network. The system describes parts of the road network according to the level of service they are intended to supply based on the factors of access and mobility. The classification of roads reflects the integration of road types in providing transportation service through- out the County. The classification scheme used describes roads according to the follow- ing categories: Interstate, arterial, collector, local, sub-collector and minor. The categories of particular relevance, however, are the Interstate, arterial, collector and local roads. The Interstate and arterial highways provide the best service (shortest travel times) to and from important employment, shopping, educational and population centers. They are characterized by relatively high travel speeds with minimum interference to through movement. Collector roads do not pro- , vide areas with access to the major road system. Local roads are least important in terms of traffic movement, but provide the greatest ser- vice in terms of land service, in aggregate providing large land areas with access to more important roads. In terms of total road miles, local roads will account for the largest proportion of road miles in the County given the large land areas they serve, while arterials will account for the smallest proportion. The classification of roads in Orange County is presented on the follow- ing page and on the Orange County Highway Classification System map. 1 Highway Functional Classification: -Concepts Criteria and Proaedures. -n o ansportatidET Federal 1 way Am s ra i.n. July, 1974. , with the Towns of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. NC 86 and NC 1009 (Old NC 86) link Hilleborough with the Chanel Hill-Carrboro urbanizing area. In addition to providing intra-County service, inter-County service link- ing Orange County residential areas with employment centers in Durham, The Research Triangle Park and Raleigh is facilitated along US 15-501, NC 54, NC 1737 (Erwin Road) and NC 1718 (Mt. Sinai Road). As Orange County is characterized by a negative net commutation pattern, with Orange County residents employed outside the County numbering more than non-residents employed in Orange County, the adequacy of the road network providing access to these employment centers is particularly important. In turn, the existing road network influences and encourages residential-workplace dispersion, both within Orange County and between Orange County and adjacent counties containing important employment centers, by facilitating such commutation patterns. Construction of proposed Interstate 40, shown on the Proposed Land Use Plan map, would most likely significantly impact upon the existing traffic patterns by providing greater access to major traffic generators and encouraging potential development in areas adjacent to the route. The relationship between residential and commercial uses throughout the County is a bit more problematic, particularly in the fringe areas just H outside the urban and urbanizing portions of the County along heavily travelled roads. These roads are subject to the sprawl of commercial activities in an unsightly manner along long stretches of the roads. In rural areas, the provision of commercial activities in appropriate locations to serve the needs of local residents is important to satisfy quality of life concerns and minimize the adverse effects of the rela- tive isolation of these residents from major population centers in the County. The goals and policies of the Orange County Land Use Plan seeks to focus commercial activities in a concentrated manner at and near the inter- ' sections of important highways and roads, thereby providing for the needs of local residents and minimizing the inconvenient land consuming and unsightly sprawl of such uses along the transportation system. Certain important intersections in the County have been designated as activity nodes at which non-residential development of various types and varying levels of intensity would be permitted within a given dis- tance of the intersection. In essence, the transportation system would serve to provide good access to these activities and would support the land use policies directed at achieving the pattern of development de- sired in the County. ORANGE CCEINTYHIGHWAy CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM In order to assess the capacity of the existing transportation system to accomodate existing and future land use in terms of access and mobility a road classification system is required. The road classifi- cation system describes the roads comprising the transportation network by function, that is, the level of service provided. In the classifi- cation hierarchy the higher the road classification, the greater the lilt � HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM INTERSTATE - - 1-85 ARTERIAL - - US 70 NC 86 NC 57 NC 54 r-M- US 15-501 NC 49 NC 157 NC 751 eE SR 1002 (St. Mary's Road) NC 1005 (Greensboro Road) NC 1008 (Mt. Carmel Church Road) NC 1009 (Old NC 86) NC 1733-35 (Weaver Dairy Road) NC 1737 (Erwin Road) NC 1777 (Homestead Road) NC 1919 (Smith Level Road) NC 1942 (Jones Ferry Road) COT,TECTOR - - NC 1001 (Walnut Grove Church Road) NC 1003 (Guess Road) NC 1004 (Corbett Ridge Road) NC 1004-1357 (Efland Cedar Grove Road) NC 1006 (Orange Grove Road) NC 1007 ((Mebane-Oaks Road) NC 1102- (Dodson's Crossroads North/South) NC 1113-15 (Arthur Minnis Road) NC 1114 (Buckhorn Road) NC 1117 (Oak Grove Church Road) NC 1120 (Mt. Willing Road) NC 1142 (Bowman Road) NC 1144 (West Ten Road) NC 1177 (Dairyland Road) NC 1306 (Lebanon Road East/West) NC 1343 (Doe Run Road) NC 1352 (Carr Store Road) NC 1364 (Lynch Store Road) NC 1507 (Wilkerson Road) NC 1538 (New Sharon Church Road) NC 1543 (Little River Church Road) NC 1545 (Saw Mill Road) NC 1548 (Schley Road) NC 1956 (Crawford Dairy Road) NC 1567 (Pleasant Green Road) NC 1569 (Cole Mill Road) NC 1710 (Old NC 10) NC 1718 (Mt. Sinai Road) NC 1723 (New Hope Church Road) NC 1730-31 (Whitfield Road) NC 1939 (Poythress Road) NC 1940 (Damascus Church Road) NC 1951 (White Cross Road) I OTHER SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS Orange County's transportation system is dominated by the road network, but is not entirely defined by it. Rail facilities and air services additionally comprise the transportation system and contribute to the movement of people and goods through Orange County. RAIL FACTLTTIES. Orange County is served by the Southern Railroad which traverses the central portion of the County in an east/west direction through Eno, Hillsborough and Cheeks Townships parallel to the I-85/US 70 corridor. The Southern Railroad also serves the southern portion of the County, running south from 1-85 through Chapel Hill Township to the Carrboro-Chapel, Hill area. This spur delivers coal to the University of North Carolina power plant. AIR SERVICES. The main general aviation airport in Orange County is Horace-Williams, owned and operated by the University of North Carolina. However, the recently announced phase-out of the airport has contributed to the controversy surrounding the need and location of new air facial- ,- ties in the County providing the same level of service. A number of small private airstrips are located throughout the County serving a small amount of air traffic use. N' 2 7 ENERGY ]. DESCRIPTION OF TRENDS IN ENERGY USE The United States, with only 6% of the world's population, consumes nearly one-third of the annual global production of energy. Petro- leum and natural gas are our two principal forms of energy, supply- :, ing 77% of total energy used Consumption of petroleum has in- creased so that domestic supply can no longer meet our needs. In fact, we now are forced to import over one-half of our annual con- , sumption. Because foreign petroleum has risen sharply in price in recent years, energy conservation is becoming increasingly attract- ive as a way to reduce demand and save money. Figure2.47shows the pattern of energy use in Orange County. FIGURE 2.47 INDUSTRIAL ENERGY USE BY SECTOR AGRIDUIEURE IN ORANGE COUNTY COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL 111111111111111 36% TRANSPORTATION 46% SOURCE: Fherp4 in Oran:- Coun Orangp County Energy Conservation Task Force, 197.. The pie diagram shows that the residential and transportation sectors combined account for 82% of the energy use in the Country. Since the great majority of total energy use is by these two sectors, they are where the greatest potential savings fran conservation lie. In the residential sector, space heating and cooling consume the greatest amount of energy used. Conservation can be achieved through build- ing code requirements for improved insulation, for example, and through proper orientation of structures to the sun and other site design requirements set in subdivision regulations. The Land Use Plan, 'Source: Energy in Orange County. Orange County Energy Conservation Task Force, 1976. V!' k: however, can probably have little impact on residential energy conser- vation. Land use planning directed at conserving energy can perhaps have its greatest impact on the transportation sector. A land use plan sets forth a general pattern of development for an area - places for living, working and shopping. If the pattern of land uses is compact, rather than spread out, and if individual residential areas are close to places for shopping and work, then an energy-efficient form of dev- elopment is achieved. PLAN INTERPRETATION The Orange County Land Use Plan was not developed specifically to conserve energy, but does have energy saving aspects. The policy of infill development for Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the urban trans- ition areas immediately adjacent to the present urban development will result in a compact and higher density form of development in the future than otherwise might occur. Within these existing and future urban areas are located areas of concentrated commercial development, aCtivity nodes. Each activity node serves surrounding residential development in sub-areas of the towns. In Chapel Hill the plan directs medium-and high-denSity residential development to areas immediately adjacent to the commercial uses at activity nodes. Travel distances between living and shopping areas aneredUced by this pattern of development and energy saved. The infill policy which will increase population density in Chapel Bill and Carrboro will also make bus transportation more economically feas- ible. Buses are a much more enerry-efficient form of transportation than cars. It is hoped that future joint planningeffbrts with the Town of Hillsborough will result in an infill policy for that area with simi- lar energy saving potential. In rural areas the neighborhood activity nodes will also promote con- servation since they are meant to provide places for commercial uses serving local populations throughout the Country. Such development will reduce the needs of people in rural areas to travel to the towns for may day-to-day goods and services. 48 2., V 2.8 POPULATION DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF CHANGES IN DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS *-- Population is one of the most fundamental factors affecting the pattern t-- of development throughout the County. Population not only refers to the absolute numbers of people, but also to their composition and distribution. F., Change in the local population picture has innedlate significance for efforts aimed at determining the future of the County. An examination of population trends will illustrate the direction and tagnitude of change underway in Orange County. Past and Present Trends V- .:, In recent years North Carolina, like other southern region states, has k experienced a reversal of historic long term patterns of out-migration i- to one of in-migration. Orange County is currently experiencing the K locational benefits of this migration pattern. The County is located in the rapidly expanding area of North Carolina known as the Piedmont Crescent. More significantly, Orange County is located in proximity to a center of great economic attraction, the Research Triangle Park. ii f-. Orange County has experienced a dramatic increase in population during recent years. between 1960 and 1980 the County's population a/most doubled in size from 42,970 persons in 1960 to 77,055 persons in 1980. The addition of 34,085 persons reflects the relative locational advantages and attrac- tiveness of Orange County in the development of the Region. Although the absolute numbers are important, an examination of the distri- bution of the growth in population overtime will illustrate the sigrificance of this growth for the County. The annual growth rate for Orange County has increased since 1950. During the 1950 - 1960 period the annual population growth rate was 2.4%, while in the decade 1960-1970 the annual growth rate was 3.4%. The 1.980 Census figures indicate that the growth rate for the County has apparently stabilized at 3.4% during the 1970-1980 decade. This growth rate is significantly higher than the growth rates experienced in the Raleigh-Durham SMSA as a whole, in Region J, in North Carolina and in the nation during the same period ('rable 2.50 ). ' Within Orange County the bulk of the population increase during recent f , decades has occurred in Chapel Hill Township. Chapel Hill Township's population increased by 11,716 persons, contributing 60% of the total popu- lation increase in the County during the period 1970-1980. As shown in Table 2.51. , although Chapel Hill Township accounted for the greatest pro- portion of the total growth, the growth rate experienced in the Township was greater than only Little River and Cedar Grove Townships, The town- ship experiencing the greatest rate of growth is Eno Township, whose 1980 population accounts for only 6% of the total County population. Historically, the distribution of population throughout the County has been characterized by growing towns and declining rural populations. A signi- ficant proportion of the population increase in the County can be accounted for in the municipal areas, particularly the Towns of Chapel Hill and Vq C�; 10 Ln H O 01 l C-- H H fk 01 N N M F.-D z H a) ti m � rn 0 • • ..0 H H N N M me, r.1 • CO© Co N o o C M C O H CO • ,.- G I � r On n w q w 01 N H H N d, *w a 0 • U2 0 0 Lin CO © 01 �j tia o N 'o N Ln CO© Ow N CO 0 LIl UH1 Crk CJ1 LNC1 rH 0 01 N rU H Z Ln Ch L[1 M LC1 • N N 0 N- in co - - '0 co © �' - ' H w w 4 t---, czq CO Q1 L©n CO LM N C1 .w © rf n w N L.(1 N ,. N p E-f CD 0 © N o Q w w CO© t4 . H © iIi 1 o H 0 H 0- L'1 o ■ N O f r R o an C11 N- 0 U z 0 N o 0 , a1 a) w w w w w -r 8 `0 C - ^ N Cl - y_{ r1 I t ag p a r9 H M . U �n ■ o Q © C7 . in Q 8 Ca w c71 69 2 G1G 0 C/] r1-I 1.4 th, i...'4' --..- r1' - ' 0, • c) • • • . • ; ,,c) • 01 m t..,- . - C\I ...., 7 ' - 4.• Cia Pg c0 in 0 l0 C) C •• • CY1 S Fx..1 CO C-- C\J • in a .o. co N.' A A s. C\jes Cr‘ss t..."." C1 g 1 r-IC\ 1.-.4 H H H CV F-1'.. L...' H in in a cv H C) 01 01 in m t-- t- cv in a a cr. H in CO -= 00 s* e* A 4' •NA no% m o .o- -o- co H 0 1.-1 e--. in co cr, T.,. H 1 c) H t,-- 0\ ,s3 ■0 H 0 in 0 10 01 l0 C-- ,4* Lt1 to in in H C) in m H co in in op cv A A 4' A A A n iN c N-. C11 Cri CO On cv in r-I ' 1...- 1 H in 01 H R i g Lr‘ In L I D ryt ..,,,,q .. .' - '.• r.1 in 1-i ■.o o- a n9 ost t-4 em- . . • . 111 i it ' CA (\i a in C11 C\I 0 H c3 Jr- g N M i 19 I ..Q rai in 4-4 0 c :3 ,. ct a co .... in 0,j H N. ere ., ,.‘1.11 --=''• ? cyli, 1 I 01 'l R H H ....... .' a).. 0 C) til H t-- 01 \O 'O H 0 in 0 1 1St C.-- in in H C) in m H CO in in co C■J N- ., ., .. .„ .., „, ... ., cr, t-- CNJ rn CO 0'1 C11 in H H r*--t i in rn 0 I H 0 -='" rr) C) VD in Cki xt0 , C--- H 00 CY) ---1- CV C.-- 01 1. 0 C:71 01 H C \C) C) 0 0 1,0 ss vs et ss et ss vs si, O'N CNI H M LC1 01 (1.1 l0 H 8 (..., 212: 1 Cl) ,..9 - izi g 0 ot4 IA r..3 s 1 i R 1 R Lo i 0 vl r-i ....... ...././../..........,..........gaii.■=.:n 1: -4 Carrboro. Chapel Hill grew by 5,843 persons from a population of 26,195 le in 1970 to a population of 32,038 in 1980. This growth alone: accounts for almost 30% of the population growth in the County. Carrboro's growth ,..': contributed almost 13% of the County's population increase (Table 2-52 ). -.-. ''- TABLE 2-52 MUNICIPAL POPULATION AND CONTRIBUTION TO COUNTY GROWTH: 1970-1980 t AVERAGE ANN- TOTAL COUNTY vz CHANGE UAL % CHANGE GROWTH 1970- t` MUNICIPALITY 1970 1980 NUMBER) 1980 . CHAPEL HILL , (PORTTON) 4 26,195 32,038 5,843 2.2 29.9 irf CARRBORO 5,058 7,517 2,459 4.9 12.6 HILLSBOROUGH 1,444 3,019 1,575 10.9 8.0 MEBANE $ 2 "' (PORTION) 186 379 193 lo.4 9 _ P SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1.980 Census _. ., ..._. _ figures. 'County population increase between 1970-198o of 19,488. 2 Refers to the population of the Towns within Orange County, excluding the section of Chapel Hill extending into Durham County and the section of Mebane extending into Alamance County. [ Chapel Hill Mebane Total Population: 32,421 Total Population: 2,782 Durham County portion: 383 Alamance County portion: 2,403 However, the historical trend of growing towns and stable or declining rural areas has been altered in recent years. Dramatic population increases in the rural townships are now receiving a greater proportion of County development. Bingham and Eno Townships had the highest growth rates in the County, while Hillsborough, Cheeks and Cedar Grove Townships began to show a positive growth rate, a reversal of their negative growth rates during the 1960-1970 decade. Only Cedar Grove and Little River Tbwnshdps, experienced a growth rate lower than the Chapel Hill Township, the predomi- nant urban and urbanizing township. In absolute numbers the growth in the rural townships is relatively small. However, the impact of this change on areas characterized by low density, low intensity rural and agricultural development is significant. 52 {.1 Migration As may be expected for an area of relatively high economic and residential attraction, a considerable portion of the population growth is due to mi gration, rather than simply natural population increase. As shown in Table 2-54 the net migration rate for the North Carolina during the 1960- 1970 period was (-)14.2%. Orange County, on the other hand, experienced a positive net migration rate of 16.1%. Most of this gain was due to white in-migration as more non •whites left the County than entered as new resi- dents, at a migration rate of (-)12.6%. This pattern may reflect the im- balance of economic opportunities in the region due to the high concentra- tion tion of employment in "white collar" sectors. t‘. IT; ir - - -O. 'c" erl 1 1 oa 1 I 1 cl'l ..1-- g-1 ., g o -,, •.!..... I:: ...... ,..... .,..,,t5r, ''. Ur Ol at 1.4 a" NI CO tal Cr W •=" ....0 0 ON -..2 0 ;• ,'" .. gj 7 -,,, 'WOO C: 1 I 5 CO 2 `,13 ,-31 '=',1 T) T. ,r23 t-i , T :,. 2 1 ...... I I...11 ■ Ca. s. l.... 4, ..• ...... .., a IN) W ....• CI ......1 a, ,-, A.0 ..0.- ....I ■0 F.. i C-■ a" I-, ON CO IV ,a . SI 1-1 I . 1-.. trn -.4 la la 0, I '"'") 3 ... , I . * • • * it • • CI VI cn t • k,71 7' , 0 4 w4 1/4o 7 1 T ch , ,...„, „.... .... ,...., v:, ..... ..... ..., ,..c, - -a .. c> i 7 7' rk) 0.) ,...., ....... I1J lr.I 0 CO '41 -CT i'll. M i 7.-• lz: ..,...1, .., 0 ru 1-• Cr, *(), .11 .m- ;‘) k7. .Z . . tg l-a '.'3 C O .. , . 0 ,„ 4 .0 n - RI,1 ,.. . M W I -4, 1111 '!,... 4:- Demographic Characteristics IE RACE. Orange County's population is predominantly a white population. Eighty percent of the population of the County are Whites and 17% of the population are Blacks. The remainder of the population is composed of :9- other racial minorities. c--: TABLE 2-55 a COUNTY AND TOWNSHIP POPULATION BY RACE .47,. 1,-- AMERICAN IN- ASIAN DTAN, ESKIMO, PACiF1C SPANISH TOWNSHIP WHITE BLACK ALM' ' ISLANDER OTHER ORIGIN ORANGE COUNTY 62,522 594 163 735 309 683 BINGHM4 3,316 594 22 3 19 26 t` CEDAR GROVE 1,719 1,433 1 --- 13 43 CHAPEL HILL 42,587 6,943 98 693 251 488 ., CHEEKS 3,443 1,366 4 3 5 36 4,065 353 7 19 6 21 *-, HILLSBOROUGH 6,131 2,408 29 17 14 48 LITTLE RIVER 1,261 229 2 --- 1 21 _-- _-_____------------- SOURCE: 1980 U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of t1 Census. SEX. Although 1980 figures on the breakdown of the population by sex are unavailable, 1970 Census figures show an approximately even distribution of males and females throughout the County with 51.9% male and 48.1% female. !,. TABLE 2-5515 I., ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION BY SEX ----- SEX TOTAL % OF TOTAL POPULATION MALE 29,943 51.9 FEMALE 24,839 48.1 TOTAL 57,707 SOS: 1970 U.S. Census. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. it AGE. The distribution of the population by age in Orange County reflects " : the attraction of this area to; young adults seeking and finding employment •y and higher education opportunities. The median age of the population during the 1.960-1970 period was the 20-24 age group. The County is likely to experience slow maturational the area population due to the continued inn-migration of individua 1 s in this age group,during the plan period. TABLE 2-56 ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION BY AGE AGE GROUP 1960 DIFFEFENCE i- ar -T" 1970 1960-1970 0-4 4,933 4,357 - 576 5-914 3,993 4,459 + 466 3,552 4,429 + 877 '` 20-24 6,0115 7,141 + 2,566 ,5 5 + 5,494 25-29 3,602 5,387 + 1,785 30--34 2,809 3,252 + 443 35-39 2,584 2,692 + 108 40-44 2,194 2,593 + 399 45-49 1,885 2,558 + 673 50-54 1,676 2,160 + 484 55-59 1,400 1,832 + 432 60-64 1,116 1,552 + 436 65-69 1,055 1,331 + 276 ;. 70-74 75-79 469 1,034 707 + 317 $5+and over 148 422 + 171 296 + 148 TOTAL 42,970 57,707 +14,737 SOURCE: 1960, 1970 U.S. Census. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Orange County Survey Report 1977-78, Division of School Planning. N.C. Department of Public Instruction. Distribution and Patterns of Settlement The distribution of population throughout Change County and the resultant settlement pattern reflect the dominant influence of the Towns of Chapel. Hill and Carrboro and a trend toward rural in-migration as apposed to the historical pattern of out--migration (Figure 2-57 ). The typical rural settlement pattern is changing as significant new non-farm development replaces a decreasing farm population at an increasing rate of farmland conversion. Large lot subdivisions, within easy commuting distance of employment centers, and suburban expansion around the incorporated areas reflects this pattern of decentralization. FIGURE 2-57 RURAL-URBAN POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN ORANGE COUNTY: 1960, 1970 AND:1980 URBAN le RURAL URBAN 29% 50% 50% RURAL 1960 1970 1111URBAN FURAL 67% 1980 SOURCE: Inventory of Existint Resources. Triangle J Council of Governments. Orange County Planning Eepartgent. kg North Carolina is not characterized by large urban centers and the rural counterpart to this pattern in Orange County is the dispersed pattern of small population communities. This rural-urban balance is apparently preferred and maintained by many newcomers to the County.. Patterns of employment and residential location support this rural/suburban environment. Research Triangle Park serves as the primary rural focus to this pattern of decentralizing population. Its impact has been significant an commer- cial and industrial expansion Within and outside its borders. It will probably continue to exert the single most important influence tied to the population growth in Orange County. The extensive rural highway system maintained by the state augments this pattern of decentralization through the facilitation of commutation within Orange County and between Orange County and employment centers in Durham and the Research Triangle Park. Orange County is the only SMSA County in the Triangle J region to suffer a net loss due to commutation patterns, emphasizing its relative attractiveness in terms of a place of residence for persons taking advantage of employment opportunities outside the County. To what degree future availability and costs of energy will affect this pattern is yet unknown. The construction of proposed I-40 extension may contribute a local influ- ence to the settlement pattern by again facilitating easy commutation. However, its location and existence is a matter of eentroversy at this time. It is clear that certain intangible factors are the key to this pattern of population decentralization relative to employment. They include the availability of recreational and higher educational opportunities in Orange County and the general attractiveness of the County as a place of residence. The point when these intangibles become less important in the residential location decisions of persons migrating to the County will have tremendous impact on the County's growth.. The pattern of residential decentralization in rural areas has serious implications for the vitality of the agricultural sector. Residential growth pressures mei- result in forcing the land out of production either as a result of rising land values and nuisance suits brought by residents in the vicinity of farm operations or by creating the economic context in which farmland owners recognize the economic gain to be realized through farmland conversion. POPULATION PROJECTIONS Once current population figures have been established, attention should turn to the calculation and analysis of future population projections. These projections provide an important framework for estimating the extent of future impacts on human, economic and natural resources resulting from increase demand for the use of land. Methodology Estimates of population growth in each of the townships over the next 20 years were made by extrapolating from past population trends. nprAnAinm S on past growth rates either a linear or exponential formula was used to estimate future population growth. While more sophisticated methods exist, the relatively simple extrapolation formulas used have been found to be quite accurate in predicting future population size. An additional advan tagp was that the calculations could be done in a few hours using a hand- held calculator. Further details on the methodology used can be found in Appendix A. Projections: 1980-2000. POPULATION. Table 2-60 shows the population projections for Orange County by Township during the plan period 1980-2000. As can be seen from the table above, Orange County's population by the year 2000 is projected to be 140,230 persons, almost a doubling in population during the plan period. Chapel Hill Township will continue to predominate as the most populous Township in the County. Hillsborough Township will increase significantly in recognition of a possibly greater role the Town of Hillsborough will have in future settlement patterns, Cedar Grove Township will remain stable and not increase in population during the plan period as the Township most removed from development pressures. _ . •te 59 'x N O L� M © ICI 1 U] 3t U OR in H H O ( ) - U\ L©- O Cr) N r1 CO H Ar ,1-4 3 CR CO LCD H H O H Cr) ir M H L(1 'C O' N H 0 2 CJ O N us -- - O O O1 O in to O O CO H in in CO C) CO CD .=' C31 H H H 01 UR U 0t N H CO Ltl Cr) Q a E i g n M qd ka al 1 z CV' Lf1 .= .ca N r1 V) rn m H ti Cr) m CD a -=-- CO r-1 r+-1 cd d �° w s O Ln ca •, �- Ln LC) m m O N 2 0{ t N 01 CO m N fV c� a o c4 O D O C11 O ■C) LC) CV Z a .. cr, N CO 0 O O O O +� - - N N r� a c,_, g 0 rA 9 a N ,_., 0 a a 8 was rni w 1 .5c1 8 f.4*" a , l R N a 0 i Ei D CII V g C) W 11 ffij rn 4.,.= 'R.,. If- ,••,.= ofr.: 04 DWELLING UNITS. Much new housing will be needed in the County to accomo- -''= date the population growth. In order to calculate the number of new units needed to house this population increase,average household size must be known. As trends nationwide have indicated, average household size is decreasing dramatically due to smaller family size and an increasing number of single person households. As shown in Table 2-61, household size in the County and change in the average in each Township during the 1970-1980 period reflects this trend: TABLE 2-61 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY COUNTY AND TOWNSHIP: 1970 AND 1980 HOUSING AVERAGE = sU i & AVERAU POPULATION UNITS HOUSEHOLD POPULATION UNITS HOUSEHi 1970 1970 SIZE 1970 1980 1980 SIZE 1, ORANGE COUNTY 57,567 16,950 3.40 77,055 28,712 2.68 BINGHAM 2,379 767 3.10 3,954 1,660 2,38 CEDAR GROVE 3,246 853 3.69 3,166 1,176 2.69 CHAPEL HILL 38,856 11,381 3.41 50,572 18,599 2.72 CHEEKS 3,571 1,076 3.32 4,821 1,698 2.84 ENO 2,550 791 3.22 4,450 1,770 2.51 HILLSBOROUGH 5,855 1,715 3.41 8,599 3,233 2.66 LITTLE RIVER 1,210 367 3.30 1,493 576 2.59 1 SOURCE: 1970, 1980 U.S. Census figures. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. The average household size for the County in 1970 was 3.4 persons per household. In 1980, however, average household size has dropped to 2.68 persons per household. Similar decreases have occurred throughout the Tbwnships. Assuming a constant 1980 average household size, during the plan period, the number of dwelling units required to house the projected increase in population in Orange County is presented in Table 2-62 • 61 .. . ---------..,—.3 4Ft TABLE 2-62 Pr;1 ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED BY COUNTY AND lOWNSH1P: 1980-2000 ADDiTIONAL POPULATION AVERAGE HOUSE- ADDITIONAL PROJECTED 1980-2000 HOLD SIZE DWELLING . . UNITS 1980,=2000 ORANGE 07.INTY 63,175 ,2.68 23,572 TOWNartil .,, Az BINGHAM 3,696 2,38 1,553 CEDAR GROVE -16 2.69 -6 , '':' CHAPEL HILL 49,727 2.72 18,282 CHEEKS 1,145 2.84 403 ENO 3,712 2.51 1,479 HILLSBOROUGH 2,501 2.66 940 LMLE RIVER 4,082 2.59 1,000 —----------------_ _ lsouRGE: 1980 u.s. Census Given the 1980 County-wide average household size of 2.68 persons, an additional 23,572 dwelling units would be required to house the projected population increase between 1980-2000. This represents an average yearly rate of construction of 1,179 dwelling units during the plan period. Rising construction and financing costs could suggest a possible reverse in the trend toward decreasing average household size as individuals choose to live together in order to reduce rising housing costs. ' Plan Interpretation These projections suggest the need to develop and adopt growth management strategies to accomodate such changes in the population profile of the County. Although the determination of the impacts of this magnitude of change is highly subjective, population growth will affect migration pat- terns, prospects for economic growth, the local job market, housing and the settlement pattern of the County. Important County-level impacts will occur in the quantity and quality of the educational, health and other public services provided by the County to its residents. Local impacts will primarily affect the character of neighborhood and crossroads communities. Residential expansion throughout the County will be accompanied by an increase in demand for commercial uses and supporting services, particularly in the rural areas. There is currently a lag in the employment-population nation in the Triangle J Region. Employment opportunities within and in the vicinity of Orange County are stimulating greater population in-mizraHnn i-rt +++= r" County will probably continue to receive a larger share of the population growth in terms of residential development, as a result. However, population growth may eventually constrain employment growth as the two factors come into alignment over tine and employment opportunities become more restricted. As these opportunities are generally concentrated in government, higher education, research and development sectors, the opportunities for employment of the less skilled nay continue to be limited and result in continued out-migration of these groups. During the plan period, a number of factors will continue to affect popula- tion growth and change in the County and should be recognized in future planning efforts to guide the appropriate use of land to accomcdate this population. These factors include: o growth in the Research Triangle Park o growth of adjacent counties and cities in the Triangle J Region o growth in UNC o expansion of Duke and N.C. Memorial Hospitals' prograns o adoption of water and sewer extension policies o availability, type and cost of housing o agricultural land preservation efforts o energy availability and cost o natural systems capacity o water availabuity o local attractiveness and ambience o industrial expansion o adopted local government policies 63 mipT mi 7r E.Y 2.9 EMPLOYMENT ;;::. - _____ - c',- ECONOMIC FRAMEWORk Population and the economy are inteprelated components of the develop- . _ ment picture. Both are limited by the capacity of the County's phy- (:-' sical resources and infrastructure. Moreover, change in one component affects associated change in the other component. Change in the total population affects the level of demand for employment opportunities, while change in the employment opportunity structure affects the num- ber of people in the affected area and their demands for housing and --7 services. If an area is experiencing a pattern of net in-migration during the planning period and is likely to experience continued ec- onomic growth, future population growth over time can be expected. The basic indicator of economic growth is Employment. This indicator c6; can be broken down into other factors such as the level of employment and the rate of unemployment, the amount of income provided in the var- , ious sectors, and the future facility requirements of each sector. Ex- amination of these factors seeks to assess the economic state of an area and provides the basis for estimating the degree of change likely. It , further serves as the basis in determining desirable growth trends and , the degree of sectoral balance appropriate and preferred for the area. Balanced economic development impacts on the economic health of the ft area, the stability of the employment picture, the quality of life en- , joyed by the area's residents and the costs of future development. ' Description and Analysis of Economic Trends in__ County ' The Triangle J Beg.ion of which Orange County is a part, is experiencing , , significant growth as the region enjoys comparative advantages state- ' wide. The area is currently characterized by a level of employment opportunities which is outpacing population growth, new employment is particularly concentrated in the government, higher education, research and, development and service sectors. Individuals seeking these employ- ment opportunities are migrating here from other areas both within and outside the state. , , As there is a link between economic growth and migratlan patterns, the continued economic rowth enjoyed by the area will be associated with continued in-migration as potential employees perceive a good employment climate. This source of population growth will stimulate increased de- mands for services and goods and encourage activity in the commercial and service sectors to satisfy these demands. Orange County is currently ex- periencing the fastest growth in the region and in the state and plays an important role in this economic growth scenario. The major focus for economic growth in the Triangle J Region and in Orange County are the important employment centers located in the vicinity. These employment centers include Research Triangle Park (began in the mid- 1960's) , three universities (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. TRIANGLE J REGION NORTH CAROLINA ,d v.., ,.,..,/, 1 I ! I 1 1 I 1._ i -rk \ i r y,, .---4 1 4 f i V ,„ '�1 ', ` '7 ^� '` rte\ �• '_•,. :.,. 1- ._,_ ..z, r ' 1 çJLv,r� ` t ./ 'T'"r+:i ,.1 ...-rd. % `t /r-,N. S i '-. l 1 • rte_ ORANGE DURHAM REGION J NORTH CAROLINA . ."-7 - m,i.. ',- � FGR:borougn �l� ~140uoutm* T wAxE Chapel Millp\i„ a0 wiiitrboro Wake k. Fl>f Forest �i leigh c � D Rolesrille ~�cHATMAM ZeuM Moravh Krptdale`,, r a 0 it,. 4440.0„Ca WeWendell"Stier Gtr Piitsbctp r Springs .... , '‘ Clay• 4E FucNay'VUi�e Krnley 1r lb Selma • Sanford l.At Micro 1e1s11i11L.. 9rood.ar Srniirdield . ,, t"JP,ne Level �\ four Da� 1 Princeton itio IrBenson JOHNSTON 7n North Carolina State in Raleigh and Duke University in Durham), North Carolina Memorial Hospital, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina and the state government at Raleigh. Research Triangle Park, in particular, has had an importait impact on the area in terms of in- ' dustrial and commercial expansion beyond the boundaries of the Park. Its success has augmented the perception of the area as a prime invest- ment area. The primary geographic focus for employment within Orange County is di- . vided between the Chapel Hill - Carrboro area and the 1-85/US 70 South- ' ern Railroad corridor which bisects the County, crossing east/west through the Townships of Eno, Hillsborough and Cheeks. The Chapel Hill- Carrboro area's employment emphasis is in institutional and governmental employment sectors given the presence of the University of North Carolina. Its presence has also generated significant commercial and services ac- tivity. The transportation corridor crossing the central townships is characterized by commercial and industrial activity. In Orange County the single largest employer is the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It is unlikely that a significant alternative employment center will emerge in the immediate vicinity within the County. As a result; commutation patterns, particularly in the southern tier of the County, are focused in the Chapel Hill - Carrboro urban area. However, commutation patterns characteristic of the County are also focused on employment centers outside of Orange County. The commutation patterns of Orange County residents reflect the loca- tion of major employment centers, within and outside Orange County, and the character of the County road network. The existence of a well-defined state-maintained highway system providing convenient and dependable acc- ess from the rural areas of the County to Chapel Hill - Carrboro and from both the rural and urban areas of the County to employment centers in neighboring Durham and Wake Counties plays a very significant role in the economic growth framework. In terms of location and access, Orange County residents are successfully competing for jobs within and outside of the area. In addition, adequate services and retail, facilities are close to residential areas due to good road access. However, the willingness of County residents to commute to jobs and travel relatively long distances to satisfy their demands for goods and services may change dramatically if energy costs and avail- ability become so prohibitive as to impact on transportation costs and result in an increased demand for more local goods and, services requir- ing fewer and shorter trips. This situation may also result in a furth- er erosion of the rural quality of life and increase the sense of iso- lation and, economic disadvantage experienced by rural residents of the County. An important economic factor in Orange County is the disparity between the rate of population growth in the County and the level of employment- ' based out-commutation as shown in Table2-68, Orange County experienced a negative net commutation pattern in both 1960 and 1970 at a time when the County was experiencing a positive population growth rate. 67 6. U I. cra cv m t---in m `O 0 cn Ln 0 Ln ti ca Ln© N �o N H r- N o Ln C7) in U r-i CV I �H a cY1 N o H 0 _ +� cn �0 'U�N '.0 N Ctrl Ct? i Cq 0 N Lam-Cr‘Cam- iS l0 Cam- ... H H N Cr) N- Cr\Ln Lc) }SS " O N n n „ I-1 I N rl �} v CO-4' Cc) coq al N - m cy xt.---co M m }co ill Q a co . g E:9 8 N �; �, E+ x C.) g H N -. C71 CO CO Cti3 rl CV VO CI 01 CO rl 1 n n H N Ln CD CO (13 ti) a4 ;. I o CO U `tJ 0 o '1, c9-3 g 4_, 0 N ■••••■ •••••■ 8 oz 0�"c'n' 0 uk. o cra g ! I chi r9 J f,,.. 1 H i 2 R 0 p 02 •• z ._ z 4 a. 6 Q xy U per' 0B ITIR 5 ..g N :Ei N t er. -';'i ',,-,:i :i AJ. It is not clear what proportion of the copulation commute because of pl better jobs or a greater availability of jobs outside the County and what proportion have sought and found employment in adjacent Counties ._.; and have then chosen to reside in Orange County. It appears, however, that Orange County offers important residential advantages and intang- ibles important in the residential location - decisions of future Y' County residents. These intangibles include the availability of high- ., er education and recreational opportunities and a general ambience perceived as appropriate for pleasant residential living. The concern becomes how to provide local employment for County residents without significantly damaging the natural and man-made environments en- couraging residential in-migration and, yet, promote development patterns aimed at minimizing land and energy consumption. The present growth pattern is accompanied by a shifting of labor out of the agricultural sector, a sector which is limited in terms of creating new jobs. This -,, I labor shift is compounded by an increased level of development pressures on farmland for non-farm uses, particularly residential uses. As Orange County and Triangle J receive a larger proportion of total state growth, serious concerns are raised regarding the impact of such growth on traditional land uses and traditional employment sources throughout the rural areas of the County. '.' Further concerns are raised regarding the impact of such in-migration on lower income County residents. The weighting of employment opportun- , .1 ities at the white collar end of the scale c=esponds with higher in- comes and a rise in the cost of living. Migrants attracted to the area are often either accustomed to a higher cost of living and financially capable of adapting to it or are willing to forego current and future hardship to take advantage of preferred employment and the area's compen- satory factors. Some County residents, particularly low-income residents, are increasingly unable to compete with the in-migrants for jobs and housing, forcing many to leave the County either to find housing or jobs or both. Although there are no absolute growth limits, public response to these concerns should seek the effective and well-planned management of growth pressures to minimize such negative impacts. en : 1 .., ti A-4 ErvEPLOYMENT PROFILE Labor Force Characteristics In 1979, the total labor force of Orange County was composed of 39,660 persons. The unemployment rate for the year was 3.1%, translating into •. an employed labor force of 38,440 persons. 59.5 percent' - of the employed labor force were male and 42.5% were female. The male unemployment rate was lower than the combined unemployment rate at 3.0% Iff and, the female unemployment rate was higher at 3.2%. Table 2-70 further describes the labor force of Orange County by sex and minority status. TABLE 2-70 ORANGE COUNTY LABOR FORCE BY SEX AND MINORITY STATUS 1979 f• PERCENT DISTRIBt 0 UNEM1 '-- SEX ANDKNORITY LABOR UNEM- LABOR UNEM.. VIEI STATUS FORCE EMPLOYED PLOYED FORCE EMPLOYED PLOYED RAI !.' BOTH SEXES 1. TOTAL 39,660 38,440 1,220 100,0 100.0 100.0 3. 2. WHITE 320360 31,440 920 81.6 81.8 75.4 2., 3. BLACK 7,140 6,840 300 18-.0---- 17.8 24.6 4., 4. OTHER RACES 160 160 0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.( 5. SPANISH-AlvIER- IC 280 270 10 0.7 0.7 1.0 3.E AN 6. MINORITY GROUP 7,580 7,270 310 19.1 18.9 25.6 4.] FEMALE 1 7. TUT& 16,880 16.340 540 1(/0.0 100.0 100.0 3.2 8. PERCENT OF BOTH SEXES 42.6 42.5 44.6 ____ _ - 9. WHITE 13,420 13,020 400 79.5 79.7 73.9 3.0 10, BLACK 3,390 3,250 140 20.1 19.9 26.1 4.1 11. OTHER RACES 70 70 0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 12. SPANISH-AKER- ICAN 140 130 10 0.8 0.8 2.3 7.1 13. MINORITY GROUP 3,600 3,450 150 21.3 21.1 28.4 4.2 MALE 14. armAL 22,780 22,100 680 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.0 15. , PERCENT OF BOTH SEXES 57.4 59.5 55.7 ....._. - _ 16. WHTTE 18,940 18,420 520 83.1 • 83.4 76.5 2.8 17. BLACK 3,750 3,590 160 16.5 16.2 23.5 4.3 18. arEER RACES 90 90 0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0,0 19. SPANISH-AMER- ICAN 140 140 0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 20. MINORITY CROUP ' 31980 3,820 160 17.9 17 h n $1- Thi- Nilo -nt Trends ':;.:- ,,,,z ,ti"I' 1; As noted earlier aPloyment is a key indicator of the economic health of ,A. the-Countir.: The rate Of_ m_er,40-4)MmIt‘ experioncedin the County is a -, - rT _ . particularly useful measure•of thiseconomic health f- Orange County's unemployment rate has stabilized at 3.6% throughout the v., current year (1981). It is the lowest unemployment rate by County in the entire state. It corresponds to a total of 1440 unemployed persons out of a workforce of 40,540 persons.' In comparison, the statewide unemploy- 4;- ment rate in March 1981 was 6.9% and the national unadjusted rate was 7.7%. It is clear from this comparison that Orange County is experiencing econo- - f:. mic health and vitality relative to its location and rapid population 4-, t,,,, growth. ,('' 1 'SOURCE: N.C. Employment Securities Commission. 'f.:- { Sectoral Analysis Analysis of the employment structure of the County reveals the contribution of each sector to the economy and highlights sectoral trends influencing the economic stability of the County. The breakdown of the employment structure of Orange County by sector is presented in Table 2-71 . ° TABLE 2-71 ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR: 1970 AND 1979 ;,- . 1970 1979 , - CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE 27,500 39,660 EMPLOYMENT TOTAL 26,540 38,44o AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT 1,190 850 MANUFACTURING 1,190 3,570 TEXTILES 610 880 LUMBER/WOOD 120 200 PRINTING 140 280 OTHER 320 2,210 NON4MANUFACTUR1NG 16,070 29,040 CONSTRUCTION 660 820 TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, PUBLIC UTILITIES 140 730 TRADE 2,580 5,070 FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE 750 1,640 SERVICE, MISC, 1,380 2,990 GOVERNMENT 10,560 17,790 Between 1970 and 1979, total employment in Orange County rose by 69%, from 27,500 persons in 1970 to 39,660 persons in 1979. In both years, Non-agri- cultural Wage and Salary Employment accounted for the largest percentage of employed persons in the County. Er L,4 :,, ,.:_,,„ In the sere period, total agricultural employment, the only sector experi- encing a *decline, fell by 29%. This decline in agricultural employment parallels similar trends throughout the Triangle J Region and North Carolina. f,- The government sector grew by 59%, representing the largest increase in employment in any sector, as well as absorbing the largest percentage of employed County residents 46.3% . Less than 9.3% of employment was in manufacturing compared with 19.8% in the Region and 32.2% statewide. In 1977, Orange County contained 58 industrial-based establishments, employing 2000 workers. 1 The contribution _ ' of the manufacturing sector to the employment picture will probably . increase significantly during the plan period, although areas appropriate for industrial activities have been designated and the 1-85/U.S. 70 corridor and at Commercial-Industrial Transition and Rural Industrial activity nodes. ..... - . - . Governmental Employnent The single most important sector in Orange County is government. In 1962, 5,900 persons were employed in the government sector. By 1978, 16,700 persons had, been absorbed into the sector, accounting for 50% of the total employed residents of the County. [ TABLE 2-72 TOTAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT BY 00UN2Y: 19781 ALL GOVERNMENTAL % coumry WORKERS EMPLOYEES GOVERMAENT , CHATHAM 12,850 1,050 8.1 DURHAM 68,290 13,790 20.1 JOHNSTON 24,340 3,670 15.0 LEE 14,720 2,280 15.4 ORANGE 33,230 16,770 50.4 WAKE 127,980 38,440 30.0 Tura, 281,4l0 76,0oo 27.0 'SOURCE: N.C. Labor Force Estimates. N.C. Employment Security Commission, December 1979. An Economic Anal sis of Reul'on J. Triangle J Council of Govern- ments. November 19:0, P. 130. WI' I*, As shown in Table 2-72 , Orange County was second only to Wake County in Itc the number of government employees, reflecting the dominance of the state government in that County. However, Orange County had the largest percea- rtf tage of its County residents concentrated in that employed sector. Although government will remain an important employment sector in Orange County, it is unclear whether it will remain a growth industry given a ,-. current economic climate of fiscal austerity. „2 - , . -- . . _ - - . . __ __. ...;: ,, k, Per Capita Income , .i.: Per capita income measures the income generating strength of the local County economy. The per capita income for Orange County rose from $3,187 t.' in 1970 to $6,770 in 1978. ';' g- i'. ;,..,. TABLE 2-73 '.,.:., PER CAPITA INCOME COMPARISONS: 1970 - 1978 1 PER CAPITA CHANGE IN POI ii ' 11 11 ' PCI fi ,INCOME (PCI) 1970-1978 PIC (USMAREA PCI) % OF US P AREA 1970 1978 . AMOUNG % 1970 1978 1970 1 U.S. 3,893 7,840 3,947 101.4 0 0 100.0 10 LI N.C. 3,200 6,640 3,440 107.5 693 1,200 82.2 8 REGION J 3,528 7,439 3,911 110.9 365 401 90.6 9 rf RALEIGH-DURHAM SMSA 3,716 7,708 3,992 107.4 117 132 95.5 9 t. ORANGE COUNTY 3,187 6,770 3,583 112.4 706 1,070 81.9 a ,.. Isourn: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. An Economic Analysis of Region J. Triangle J Council of Govern- ments. November 1980. Exhibit VI-A. As shown in Table , throughout the period Orange County's per capita income was lower than the Raleigh-Durham SMSA, the Triangle J Region and c the nation. The County's per capita income exceeded that for the state in 1978. Although the County's per capita income is rising relative to the nation, it remains only 86.4% of the national per capita income. It is possible that this figure is based downward as a result of the large institutional component of the Orange County population I particularly given the concen- , tration of employment opportunities in the high-income white collar sectors. Recent gains in income, however, have been substantial, an increase of , $3,583 between 1970 and 1978. This suggests a growing income base increas- ' iaglYalTentedby high-income workers and in-migrants. v r:,,, LAND USE PLAN -.i: .,, k- 3212121121LaaSTRUCTURE OF THE PLAN .. -,, In its broadest sense, County planning is a process of guiding and managing the growth and development of the County through the appli- --- cation of sound planning principles. The planning process should re- flect the social,economic and natural environmental conditions throug :- out the County and be responsive to the needs and desires of the County citizens. As an element of the comprehensive plan, the Orange County Land Use Plan is the official guide for the rational distribution of growth the County. The plan recommends strategies which serve - to allocate the uses of land to assure appropriate fUture development objectives. FUrther, the Plan serves as a policy guide to assist public- officials in their day to day decision-making which bears on the land development process. The foundation of the Land Use Plan are the County-wide goals and policies which provide the written framework to guide future public and private development decisions. The goals are general statements which express the ideals toward which the management of growth and development will be directed. Each goal is supplemented by policies which state specific public actions which should be taken to achieve that goal's objectives. --To---te- effective,- these goals-and policies must reflect and be responsive to the needs and desires of the resi- dents of the County. The key structural element of the Land Use Plan is the township com- ponent. The township component refers to a township specific plan for each of Orange County's seven townships. These township components contain most of the land use planning information and recommendations of the Land Use Plan. The achievement of the objectives of the Plan requires the adoption of appropriate implementation tools. These implementation tools in- clude the Zoning Ordinance,Subdivision Regulations, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, stormwater management ordinance, capital improvements programs, thorough- fare plan, community development projects, coordinated inter-governmental planning mechanisms and improved pubLic awareness of planning issues. ff 4 To capitalize on this pool of undeveloped urban land, the Land Use Plan incorporates a second development strategy, "infill" develop- ment The level of infill desired in a given area is a policy issue. The successful achievement of the infill policy objectives would result in a more compact and efficient urban form, lead to reduced transportation energy costs, reduce public services costs and Irdni- mize the conversion of agricultural land, to urban uses as a result of development pressures. The major management tool to he used to accoRolish the infill objectives is a structural, cooperative planning process between the municipalities' and the County. This process would emphasize the advantages to promoting a more compact urban form, preserving prime agricultural land and protecting future water resources. The combined use of the activity node and infill strategies provides the management tools whereby the future accomodation of development pressures can be facilitated in an efficient, controlled and impact- minimized manner. 78 :11Z: 3.3 LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES --------- One of the fundamental methods used to achieve the stated Goals and Policies of the Land Use Plan is the design and application of a land classification system. Each category of the land classification system is delineated and located to accomodate certain uses throughout the plan area to achieve a desired pattern of development. The Land Use Plan Categories contained in the Orange County Land Use Plan are based on five basic categories which have been refined into a more detailed classification system to meet the specific needs of the County: BASIC CATEGORY ORANGE COUNTY LAND-USE PLAN CATEGORIES DEVELOPED Urban Existing Urban Activity Node Proposed Urban Activity Node TRANSITION 10-Year Transition 20-Year Transition Commercial Transition Activity Node Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node C. Rural Community Activity Node RURAL Rural Residential Agricultural-Residential Rural Buffer Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Rural Industrial Activity Node CONSERVATION Public Interest Area Water Supply Watershed 79 Oh 4. I O O � O ' I � o 7 Q N L, II U] i ,�'tJ g, igi r , +3 4 o, u7 ' g''O N GE A 0 N N g 0 �O ,° U ° � � O , OT Ca 0 46, C 2 � ° M � gN �a) R ,�z i'-. 2.).' qi 2 2 tcl "r1 4-1 g g rg5) -r-l? 7) li R1 a O O 0 t' t4 rI T VICat U ° U U 4 qJ ptcil cd � cd DI 4-) ° g.1g.� wtvo ,-i ,� � .0 CC3 0 U rl :' `� 4° �° �' ` a°i � � ' 0 › 0 al oe ' �+ � 1 ° � oa : cti 'L3 C © U ,-� t-I vT z b ❑. a w O. OIL E 1V9440 . Qs C 'El 0 . Pc114.) PE .2 V4, 82 Egt ,ri -t54'-.)1 4g • ,1, ..vorl Q . Q aaia q-4 , • .. . U L O 4,044M U O om .rO N ] O cia 00714 � V3 ° t boo Mb2 ...9c1 �tz;Y 1171f4 9T7 cd cl V .�,) > A rU v a CP ¢ o co u4 � Ca T4-3 144o71 ° c) a � oc-1 Crtmv, :11 g, c) v Q CY a U C 11, �.� O f 27 � 1 ELI •H H ,0 M 2 :5148 h4" 2 1 g 0 Ca 4ralgi W,A, A Ca Cf) r-I 551 p a.9 1 `CI rCi Bqg, ..9.1 ,9u; 4sPA . . 4- -s En 4-3 -4) 14(1) 5: re .;1 h..) qocq gh , -4 „.9 •d .r-I Q) 1 O 0 6 ca. 1 , p „ W: . L 0 z O © m© � 2 N (CI 0 75 �' 9 � ^ ) 4 c ►) o � � o s A -5Ac © � m ro � o+, � UQ1T7v © mU 'v1°-r � 3 � rI•4 : EIV14,9' U g+ Ci 'z �j in, 0 O O C7 rte. N N .0 ii ,04i i Cd , U O co a ca m is z ) o CU 4 H U r l 0 Ti U O ryaH Ti c LI ' O � ed 4-) "0 b i Ti 0 0HU Lj Ili 3 rC.i U v En O t T o .o . ' ° La116' 4, 4 >, 4-) 3D 5N N � � f W 03 . T 3.4 LOCATIONAL CRITERIA Applying each of the Land Use Plan Categories includes making de- , cisions about the most appropriate distribution of land uses throughout the County. Land in the County was filtered through the set of criteria in order to evaluate the suitability of certain locations to contain various land uses. The following location al criteria and their evaluation determine the best location for new Land uses in the County. The locational criteria include: Land Slope Hydrology Flora and Fauna Soil Conditions Public Services/Utilities Transportation System Energy Use Existing Land Use Agriculture and Forestry Population Density Historic and Cultural 81 C bp 0 0)) � a �' H - a) m � fi � P � � o 0 c��C 0) 0 N N > g4 co rm a O ,I ,n= 0 a) O aasi c ro ro +} H o 0 p CO 0 � .0 . 1U aroa) ate) 0 r4 RI W � U •0 U4 a) 4-. U � � s a Q)•: i z as g i F� ri v7 'd 2 N2 l' w •F G re N-1 ui E Ca 0 c� oo .h cad a) 'v 0 0 g 0 C) _ roro roro -P CO CD ctt a v '� H as P u) c°.3 +s U `�$ 0 at.. R. 'd 4.3 r ai 'g. o a as co A 0 al al N N H H 4.) '0 al H a .r-i N �°+ � � obnv) 0 Z b U Q'O 3 D a 13 Rf ed rl U) 0 a) c.-, U] 0) cd a) al v ? "� Q 4 a v �, (1) .0 ab © ad) O S_-1 ,�-I 0 '0 0 D3 U Q a) vim] Z le rf i 4-) � Q0) a) 4-q m 1-1 cn ° m `a o CO o aas� w 0) H 0. U H 0 0) � � �, 0 C . M 4.) a 4-� Tr H 2ro ;dal � � 0 a) 'drop b ° r° v� w � a U � U a c g t DI r-f A p� Pr Z a a 'C7 p aJ f,, 0 0 A~ 0 • 0 C -Hcoa) CU .�cv4 'd ,1 rorou 0) 0 0 0 a)HOW Frri9 0 a m -1-1 U Q., •rU-I 't:3 .4--1 S , 3 O 5 .`�-� 'U n1 , r-1 - A. O r-I c' 4.) +.ri ts, co a c ct, g., gl i 0 CD 4_, . a) O F R FRfi En 4-3 • .5 E G-1 ,EL3 5 23 Q '� U Q ro H 0) rat O M U �, U y ri o Uq I Z '0 f w 4.4T, � U d 0 q) aJ i A a ) Q§meg ti-f t.? ti '7 7 p 0 O D rH U O +) a a Hro W CU CO in 0 UO � O � � Ur�n o gip, o ro ov O © 01 03 C7 4 U a) co 4.) Q CO a) CU`� G© 0 T3 'U 4-i rH1 ~ p aa) ,-, a) v C 7 ri rN v a) � 03 41 C1 � A r-i`C ai a�i � � ro ro ti � vc� a) -. CD mi o a) a) 7.40 ,06T) P co ?� "' o °c� .0 .gym 07 Z .. c to H = 8 . g 1.) 03 a) •r-1 r0 -Pg4 1H g.4 crj r a) J-) `o cei N 02 Q r } i v 0 0 0 a, -ri 03 q A) °>) a) !/r • ,� ,,� c5 'c7 O Ed m rn � a .0 ,§ k E v , •- ter- qt 407 6 -,Y ) g 4 Lc) 5 4 ",, ti.) I G..1 r-i c N 0 © r-1 E-I U R+ y r1 r 21 O 5 Q ,Qj A o v ro,9"� 3 v � �, ? : CIAO S wr. co � to a 4 e F�- �-] >3 CO U `�5‘5, O U = .c�C�ry Og-i 05 'Ci c" .,9 .,1 1 -,L), a 0 = U I rt d7 m jig [ Ii ro i§ g CO in rti 0= U• ctt a) . V +-I r{ v P-4-3 ,' Q? ro R1 pg) 07 Z d O rii GI ta © � +� O Q-1 V GO ri rn 4 o � � QC N Cll og o 8 robes ;,C(1 0 C.) .4-4 3 � tU�U ) +1 clf•r-1 75 ro aj 'CJ 0 cif C--1 %r-I U C.) cti pp 1a `0 -0 U .1-1 (CI Q) }; 7 Uj cat al r.1 Ej , O ' � m § g4 0 ai +(1 C1:1 c � m0Ai �• v ' CI "� � � � faro o � , � � y I t " Uri rf U Ti 2 „, ,,,,,,,- ,..., m r ,� CO °' 03 a r{ -f U 0 r_f a z >3 & .?.. = e i Q m • 1 0w `� al V ca � a or4 11 r; p z∎ oLri o R,f G-i Q a Q V a Q g .. zo 0. r-f r-r >b CU N v� Cd 4-i in. 3 ' • , r-f-t b 1 � 1, �+ U .”7� Jr -i § c Q ti EI 01 Ca tq) cti © � _ r ctl U irk tee, o '-+ ry G ue co WI 5 i cG f �' 4 o z7 E94 t) r� Q3 7 0 '0 # 0) Ed ii)3 ril �r ©8 E ro "E .7 ���Z �p 0) o 4(12 cil 2 r g 0 r0 N O U 7.4 Ora v 6 Chi q�j l'cic), .,_, a) N or +' •s 0 Q (Q U I. a C .,..r zi DI 0 1-1 :,, i ri aI Q 2 t En )-.1 © n 4-)T:1111 Q1 W I i - m a -3 9-1-- fi 0 '-I 3 U '© crf i 41 Di u] R ; cc•rr.-.,,rr U 0 ,� V q� ' r-1 tj Q' O.q co Q1 .� i U - 'O I.d r-i p+ as O 5 '`� GI T 1 g X g-I0 28 W F. a g-1 a) V Q 0 ro ctl� � rorci O. m m a v 5 � 4~ cd ,-r �+ 1:73 O U `) ' 4 r- .r.{ ���cc•of co o iiiiiAkiiiüi g z a' cqa'0:1 m r;1 gl 03 'l M 0 l0 a) a,) a) 'I m ,f„{ M a) ri j u? Co r-{ O +.3 ).-{w ca p. .� 4 a, Jj, J4) 4' "--I 'O c�'d Q) T7 4d m 0 /- sF*, v 1:7 .p.tea " .-+ a a) cI -0 tUd 2 cu ) h [mil 11111 V CJ Al tt r—I I 1 ,--I N R. r F•f .0 cu V. a a�i 4' 5 E ] i .r1 •0 g-1>3 ccti O MI r1 0 � � U ,-� W Q3 0 O Q QJ 5 N CD CL1, ID CD ' c1 � � V �V rn o' V•El • CI) a) U N Q) Q a E Q Cil cob ro,., 4 co RI coq C) V 4 § 2 � 1 Q 1 �, `� � V 4, .0 '� a) � v 01 CIJ o v a, • ,s a) '0 � '0 .� ro .5 5 °' A p sv 'p id ' 5 ° ro a) cct crt rd EV I fi . g Q pVV ••-1 1cC11 4-3 1, a) o 0 R3 pj © N TS 0 _., cd .,...1 V U) ,� a; fs+ V v p d Si� © r Z R '0 U Q T-1 „9, •H >, a■ 'o ri cc rn ri © Z a) 0 a) 4-3 int art Z U) a� cc o E +a ,-i 4) 0 § cc •9 .,-I a) Cl) va a) Cl) orii q oo a• © ti � n ri i g4 0 0. a) a C 11 � C 0 A g 2 8 1 m 0 CI ' CI, CU F-4 a) bar~ 0 0y v d :.) r-I a N Cl)r-I 4-1 Z v] ; Sfi W O 0.� 'L7 QS 0-P c-II -- - - 1 gr-i co CO 1 4 o a) 0 0) � � i cc 4 4) do CO a `C 0 in Z 60 CU .8 r(21 P4 Il a) a) W o b o `E 0° � a V .00 Ao ( N 1 ti-I 0a) °' i' occ Mai .1 ) � 0) V ° � � a) Eia g g r"i r-) ti .0 U c�U al GAG a) a) a) z cn o cd CI 4-s •cc' 4 Cam'0 T U o c" a) a � � � 2 §Q °r a) U d °ri � 0V U r- © c) C ri U ri U F a)i°D d r I rI 'o L n ° D 0 ,u H cd a) O N Cr) j N "CS c0 Q ri 0 O 4-3 cii 'CI s O ri �CX 4 � a) 0rii0 N U) r c� N .0 r H O a) .7-) .4.a i O'la •,9 � 3°g • ) 4 ' al ?, 'd b • U) a) CU C) U (1) 4-1 a) • 4 cr cci 4 4-) 4-) m w r�i U m C • a) cc I U Vi d i (uo : gil 3U) � Q) X85 � � wb ° ! :13a:: C:7; .4.-CCCi b-� 4r1 O O c Jr .0 a z p r4 I i� +�) {� N VI a) U U r-4 a) Q) CT CJ co H cg al i i a) ti I R! LH a) 'V En 4r ,-I O 11 v°] 1 W H Z Gi3 0 0 �-i O V b U Z H O+ +� 0 � u0i "t7cdv � � � y y 0 4_p OVoa) '� H A a) d 4• a) rid = 3 ccdd -p i .0 a b i c.) a) OCH gi O 0 © v 0 H c.D r4 IR. '0Cda) 'd 4°-i v) aa)) 0 a) a) .O a) a) (I) ri 0 1.) a) +30 U -P CO Cd ." Qp CO j P' 0 O O -0 cd cd U)U) a) Uj 0 F7 �� aa)) cdd 0 C ° VJ Ti pri w a) ° ' H b a�) � © cn ri 0 � • r4 0 O cSi O -4) C.) Qa, N 3 '8 rb„ O 0 N •,� U) .S -P o o it: ,n H0 a) . � z r 0 7.4 U O N ,C trd N to UN Y- 1 15 •Hrl E � Cd ri c!1 O U?�' (9. 9?-1(1) M -ri ?a CU ~ U N .5 'C C) s O � UCOZ CO w Q I+ -i -P Cad • N cod Qo C• 1 r:• U v � Q Fr. ro 4-) C ro.,_;:i •:~ ate ,`� � © 1:5:9 ` � ca 1 Li,°-1 s zt '� r-1 O V CCU S, � �• � � � �P ti U] Si U H .� U .4) r-i ri Cd H cWg4 a ril 4:.,) 41) z74Cd U U al �.L3 Q U °, �-1 1 In CZ9 4-1 1-I Hi I C� U H p ti3 1.9 cd + N H Z Q rUt � 0Z rl 64 N rvl rUl q--(r-1 U N c0 `� U CU O 'CI O O a) N U N CUB }' + d] 0] H + ,. CO U I p g z CV b r©i •� © Cd o O cd 5 4.) a 0 ` s 0 3 +) 4 0• 0 -P -P P cr; t :14-) k }9 al 'CI 4-) U a • a • Q ad cd CI--1 [1V R E oz a 0 v i. c U U C Ha' 0 CO 0 1 Ugty 1 0 1 eil .0 b a) F R. • a) C c Q. •© g a) U P. ai } � 0' • 0 a a)) ° 00 ,°-� ' � o tii at � 0 � r1a a4) Q cd .r2 2 a) � O r0 rO a) 121 u3 3x .0 f); cd c� �• � � VI 3 0 2 c� ��, i 2i r�u� a�i o • {a�i -°� a) r-a Q Q p [t1 � O ca 4-I ori-4 • H 4) CD ri I CI a) C 5 ° ;la) •� v �G 0 U � � L� O W ;i a O U) a) al c tiff U H r-I Pr U o r I CA - - R{ S CG'S� 4a Cr d L P OU O 0 g4 CD H Ua) 3b co q C z › 0 a) 0 OC , U Ts .-) Q U 1 i • a) CI Fq O � 2 a) � co U a)H H-I 4-) .,., Q3) ••• (3)) Z H P4 Cj cL • ( 774 O c 0 jai © a) ix, a) • +. U O 0 • O '0 W rn t�+ o 0 0 va • 0 In bp m ri r-1 o -4 (--) � � CI 0 1-1 4-3 V C rA4.3,t 0 41) -ri = 1 . 0 - ;,. z 0 4.) Z 0 0 4.) al Z a) ,..9 .-4 E. r•ti rw- P etsk U2 15 0 0 = ' ;... 0 ., = 9:4 a) ih 0 I-4 4.) cd . t P .5 c...) Crl VI ;-i .M. .. a) 0 C11 Z 0.1 a) ".:,. Rd;--. 4-1 i U2 9 41 1'4 4.) 21 Cti ';..- . Ci) TA -,.. al Z 03 n-i 0.,- 43) co U3 0 0 h) , bo ., .9 -I 0 CD ;-4 6 rC, 0) 00 0.) ,.. • Si ul !.-.1., 41. coo a) , . ...,. 4.3 ., i'..." la,---,' '--.1›:NI-` •*1°. ;(1)() ct > .ri 0ii 0 4.) cd 0 4-3 r-i 4-3 H 03t, Z cd al • 0,,, atb e!...... . a) tti ::::.,... ...-* 4.) if:,,z', 0 C _t4-3 0 g r,:,, - ,„. ... fr-.4 10 ild a) " >4 1 03 0) r. a 0 0 11 1 r-i CI, <4 0 ,.. 3.5 LAND USE GOALS AND DRAFT POLICIES The County-wide goals for Orange County are general in concept and scope. They encompass areas over which the County government has varying degrees of influence and serve as a guide in developing policies and programs re- lated to land use and the management of growth and development in the County. CATEGORY: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND ENERGY GOAL ONE: The conservation and protection of Orange County's natural and cultural environments by means which are equitable to all citizens of the County. 1.1 Protect the following significant Public Interest Districts from adverse development impacts and require management of these areas in ways that will prevent internally generated negative impacts from affecting surrounding land: publicly owned parkland (Eno River State Park), water reservoir buffer land (University Lake water supply watershed) , state or federally designated historic/archaeological sites, research orient lands(Duke Forest) and lands placed by individual property owners into conservation easements. 1.2 Restrict or prohibit uses in flood hazard areas which are dan- gerous to health, safety and property due to flood heights or velocities. Protect the function of the floodway to provide passage for the 100-year flood without increasing flood levels upstream. GOAL TWO: The conservation of natural resources in Orange County. 2.1 Maintain and protect land, which contains valuable renewable resources existing such as productive agricultural areas managed forested areas and potential reservoir sites by directing i compatible development away from these areas. 2.2 Protect non-renewable resource lands from incompatible de- velopment and allow their use in a safe and reasonable manner according to performance standards designed to ensure a suffi- cient level of environmental protection. GOAL THREE: The conservation of energy resources in Orange County. 3.1 Encourage site planning and design alternatives for building development which reduce the demand for artificial heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting. 3.2 Modify land development regulations to eliminate imped- iments to the introduction of more energy-efficient de- sign and construction. 3.3 Encourage energy-efficient industry to locate or expand in the County in the appropriately designated land use plan areas. 3.4 Encourage the design, siting, construction and management of public buildings and public housing in a manner which conserves energy and/or uses nonpolluting renewable energy sources when economically feasible, 3.5 Develop educational and public information programs to in- crease awareness of the potential far the design? construc tion and rehabilitation of commercial and residential structures which. are energy efficient and/or use non-polluting renewable energy sources. GOAL FOUR: Development of renewable sources of energy. 4.1 Facilitate the use of non-polluting renewable sources of energy by removing local administrative and legal barriers to their use. CATEGORY: GROWTH GOAL FIVE: The management of growth so that it is directed to areas where it is desireahle and suitable to accanodate it: 5,1 Utilize the following locational criteria to designate the most appropriate location for the various Land Use Plan Categories: natural environment constraints (land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions); availability of public services and utilities; transportation system access and capacity; im- pact on energy resources; existing land uses; presence of pro- ' ductive agricultural or forested land; appropriate population densities; and the presence of historic or cultural features. 5.2 Guide growth to achieve a maximum amount of infill development in the urbanizing areas of the County while maintaining the in- tegrity of the existing and future open space and recreational system. The purpose of infill will be to minimize sprawled de- velopment and promote a more comnact urban farm. Secondary purposes will be to reduce transportation energy costs in addition to reducing public services costs. The Chapel Hill Township component of the Land Use Plan will be based on the assumption that 75% of the suitable vacant land in the Towns' existing urban area will be developed; however the goal will be to achieve 100% infill. 5.3 Direct intensive land uses to existing urban areas and areas designated Transition Areas and away from areas suitable for 5.4 Maintain the unique identity and character of rural crossroad com- munities in Orange County. Allow development at these locations which is appropriate 'or each community and will not exceed the ce pacity of the natural or physical systems to support it. The fol- lowing crossroad communities have locational attributes which make them suitable to accomodate new commercial and residential growth a limited, community scale: Caldwell, Schley, Cedar Grove Village Carr and White Cross. 5.5 Designate land in areas changing from rural to urban in character which could reasonably be developed to accomodate urban-type den- sities, but are currently not completely served by urban systems such as water and sewer lines, as Transition areas. These areas v be further classified into 10-Year and 20-Year Transition areas tc reflect the most appropriate sequence of development as this area changes fran rural to Urban and services are extended:. 5.6 Allocate development in areas designated Ten and. Twenty Year Transition Areas proportional to land requirement projections. In Cheeks and Hillsborough Townships, the ratio of areas designate Ten and Twenty Year Transition to land requirements projections fc residential acreage is approximately 2.5:1. In Eno ToOnship, the ratio of areas designated Ten and Twenty Year Transition to land requirements projections for residential acreag is 4:1. In Chapel Hill Township, land designated Ten and Twenty Year Trans ition outside the planning jurisdictions can accomodate 25% of the projected population increase during the plan period. 5.7 Designate the rural, low density land surrounding the urban areas, but beyond the Transition Areas, as Rural Buffer. This area will main rural in character, will not require urban services and will maintain farming or rural non-farm residential development as the appropriate land use. Future consideration will be given to desig ing Rural Buffer areas around other Towns in the County. 5.8 Designate land in the rural areas suitable for low-density residen development, but not particularly suitable for agricultural uses, is not dependent on urban services and to which urban services wil be extended within the next twenty years as Rural Residential. 5.9 Allocate development in areas designated Rural Residential proport al to land requirements projections for the respective townships. In Little River, Cheeks, Hillsborough, Eno and Bingham Townships, ratio of areas designated Rural Residential to land, requirements p jections for residential acreage is 2:1. In Chapel Hill Township, land designated Rural Residential can ace odate 9% of the projected population increase during the plan peri 5.10 Designate land in areas where the prevailing land use activities c sist of agriculture and forestry and which should continue in then uses as Agricultural Residential, 5.11 Designate activity nodes of various types and functions at the into sections of major arterials and collectors in order to accomodate These nodes include both existing and proposed nodes. New activit nodes will be located using the locational criteria specified in Policy 5.1, in response to proposed development activity. 5.12 Utilize activity nodes to promote clustered development and to dis courage strip development. 5.13 Identify activity nodes as the only places appropriate for non-far related commercial and industrial development. 5.14 Designate existing and proposed Urban activity nodes in urban area In the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro these nodes will correspc with the "activity centers" identified by the Towns. 5.15 Designate two types of nodes in the Transition areas: Commercial Transition and Commercial-Industrial Transition. 5.16 Designate Rural Community, Rural Industrial and. Rural Neighborhood tivity nodes in Rural Residential and Agricultural-Residential are 5.17 Designate land focused on designated road intersections within Rur Residential or Agricultural-Residential areas that is appropriate small scale commercial uses as Rural Neighborhood activity nodes. 5.18 Designate land focused on designated road intersections within Rur Residential or Rural Agricultural Areas that is appropriate for in Lrial activities and which has good access as Rural Industrial ac- tivity nodes. GOAL SIX: The promotion of ecoMmid—development which emphasizes employment meeting local needs while preserving the character of communities and protecting the natural environment. 6.1 Provide for a sufficient amount of suitable land to accomodate the pension and growth of commercial and industrial uses in the County 6.2 Select industrial sites in the Transition Areas on the basis of t capacity of supporting systems, such as water and sewer lines and highway and rail access, and the absence of detrimental environmen or social impacts, 6.3 Locate industrial sites in the Rural Residential and Agricultural- Residential areas along the U.S. 70/1-85 highway and rail corridor taking advantage of the corridor's locational attributes. A limit number of small scale industrial nodes,not requiring urban-type se vices,are appropriate elsewhere in the County where good access ex 6.4 Prohibit new industrial uses in the area designated Rural Buffer. 6.5 The Economic Development zoning district is not appropriate in the area designated Rural. Buffer. 6.6 The following areas in the County are identified as appropriate for commercial uses and have been designated as Commercial 96 Transition Activity Nodes: Timberlyne (CHT-1) ; North Office Park (CHT-2) ; Homestead Road (CHT-3); Weaver Dairy (CHT-4); St. Mary's (HB-3); Harmon-Young (HB-4); and Duke Forest (Eno-3) . 6.7 The following areas in the County are identified as approp- riate for industrial uses and have been designated as Commer- cial-Industrial Nodes: Efland Center (CK-1); Miles North (CK-2) ; Miles South (CK-3); and Eno (ENO-2). 6.8 Five Rural Community activity nodes have been designated: White Cross (BH-2); Caldwell (LR-1) ; Schley (LR-2); Carr (CG-1) ; and Village (CG-2). 6.9 The following Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes have been designated: Toler's Store (C0-3); Villjnes Store (CG-4); Walnut Grove (CG-5) ; Underwood's Store (LR-3) ; Berry's Grove (LR-4) ; Harris Crossroads (M-5); Fairfield (CK-4); Lighthouse Church (CK-5); Bowman ((K-6); BuckhOrn(CK-7); Ridge Road (HB-l) ; Law's Store (ENO-1); Adam and Eve (BH-1); Haw River (BH-3); Frog Level (BH-4); Oak Grove (BH-5); Calvander (CHT-6) ; and Blackwood Statioa (CHT-7) . 6.10 The following Rural. Industrial activity nodes have been des- ignated: Major Business Forms (BB--2) and Prospect Hill (CG-6). GOAL SEVEN: The continued use of agricultural land and the maintenance of the farming way of life in rural areas as a viable part of the County's economy. 7.1 Protect and maintain the public economic, social and environ- mental benefits provided by a vital farming community. Address the problem of increasing tax burdens on agricultural lands through property tax relief to farmers under the Use Value Law. 7.2 Minimize the negative impacts of proposed public projects on farming operations and on productive farmland. Public review of projects proposed by entities which have the power of eminent domain should include explicit consideration of the impact of such actions on agricultural activity. 7.3 Minimize the relocation of bonafide farming operations caused by non-farm development. 7.4 Provide adequate amounts of available vacant land in and near existing urban areas for intensive land uses to minimize the need for farmland consumption and direct such uses away from viable farming operad.ons and concentrations of prime farmland. 7.5 Direct residential commercial and industrial growth away from farming areas to minimize inflation of rural land values and tax assessment which can price farmers out of the land market. 7.6 Discourage the location of new non-farm development, partic- ularly more intensive residential development, within farming areas to minimize the incidence of complaints and nuisance suits against farm operations. 7.7 Provide adequate amounts of vacant land at activity nodes accessible to farming areas for commercial land uses serving the existing and future commercial needs of the farming community. 7.8 Encourage more effective forest management practices with con- sideration to discouraging inappropriate clear-cutting, pro- viding renewable energy resources and protecting wildlife hab- itats. 7.9 Encourage agricultural related commercial and industrial uses consistent with the zoning district Agricultural-Services (AS) to locate at activity nodes, but allow their occurence anywhere in the Agricultural-Residential plan areas. CATEGORY: HOUSING GOAL EIGHT: Adequate, reasonably priced safe housing in an appropriate varlet of types in proximity to jobs and daily activities for all citize 8.1 Encourage the construction and rehabilitation of a diverse range of housing types in response to the needs of various house- hold sizes and incomes. 8.2 Encourage the location of various housing types according to the accessibility of public services and commercial uses. Multi-family housing should be built in Urban and. Transition Areas where urban-type services are avaiiable. Lower density (a minimum of one dwelling unit per acre) non-farm housing is most appropriate in rural and community areas outside of pro- ductive farmland areas. 8.3 Encourage the provision of a range of affordable and suitable low-income housing by means of development incentives in order to provide a balanced housing stock for the residents of Orange County. 8.4 Support the provision of housing assistance for households in need through technical assistance and coordination with public organizations responsible for housing in the County. 8.5 Recognize the Areawide Housing Opportunity Plan as the basic guide for the allocation of assisted housing to the County. The Housing Assistance Plans for the County and for the Towns will serve as the guide for the allocation and distribution of housing within the County. 98 8.6 Assist the Orange County Community Development Block Grant Program in concentrating its efforts and resources in those areas of the County occupied by low and moderate-income house- holds and having the most severe housing and community devel- opment needs. 8.7 Support the use of individual mobile homes as a useful hous- ing resource in the County by affording these homes the same locational opportunities as single-family units meeting the State Building Code. 8.8 Require that all new housing built or located in Orange County meet the minimum standards specified in the State of North Carolina Building Code, as well as Department of BUD and FMHA standards when required. 8.9 Encourage the location of high density housing within one- half mile of the center of the activity nodes in the Chapel Hill. Joint Planning area 8.10 Discourage medium and higher density residential development in the rural portion of the County. CATEGORY: COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES GOAL NINE: The provision of water and sewer lines in those areas which can be practically and efficiently served by these facilities. 9.1 Develop and implement a cooperative joint planning process among the County municipalities and those organizations re- sponsible for water and sewer lines to guide the extension of lines in accordance with the land use plans and policies of the affected jurisdictions. 9.2 Establish Urban Service Areas for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hills- borough, Mebane and Durham which will correspond with the 10- year and 20-year Transition Areas. Water and sewer lines should be directed to those areas which contain and are approp- riate for higher density levels of residential, commercial and industrial. development. GOAL TEN: Clean and safe water supplies available and adequate to meet future needs of the residents of Orange County. 10.1 Manage Orange County's water supplies so that available re- sources are balanced with existing and projected needs. 10.2 Adopt and implement policies which specify land use patterns and intensities of development in water supply watersheds that will minimize potential adverse impacts on water quality. 10. 3 Designate prime reservoir sites, based on an evaluation of water resources throughout the County, to protect those areas from adverse development impacts and to insure that inapprop- riate restrictions are not placed on a large proportion of the land area and land resources of the County. 10.4 Support programs which help to protect water quality, such as the Soil Conservation Service and. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Programs. 10.5 Encourage efforts to monitor the quality of water in Orange County streams. 10.6 Cooperate with other public and private bodies in promoting water quality legislation and programs. 10.7 Support educational efforts which serve to increase citizen understanding of water quality problems and the need for water conservation. 10.8 Commercial and industrial uses are inappropriate in the Univer- sity Lake watershed. 10.9 With the exception of Activity Node HB-52 commercial and in- dustrial uses are inappropriate within the Proposed Cane Creek watershed. 10.10 Direct urban development pressures in the 1-85/U.S. 70 corr- idor in the Upper Eno watershed in. Cheeks Township to the McGowan Creek sub-basin and away from the Seven Mile Creek watershed in accordance with the Water Resources Task Force recommendation. GOAL ELEVEN: Adequate and appropriate sewer disposal facilities for all current and future residents. 11.1 Identify the type of sewage disposal facilities appropriate for an area as a function of the magnitude of present and future demand; the distribution of users; and the capacity of the natural environment to absorb the impact. 11.2 Identify service by centralized water and sewer systems (Towns of Hillsborough and Mebane, Orange-Alamance Water Systems Incorporated and Orange Water and Sewer Authority) as most appropriate at the higher-density levels which occur in the Urban and Transition Areas. 11.3 Develop a process to ensure that buyers of property in the County are fully informed about the on-site sewage disposal characteristics of the sites on their property. 11.4 Allow on-site disposal in low-density and rural areas where soil conditions are acceptable. In rural areas with unac- ceptable soils, state-approved on-site sewage disposals systems will be required. 11.5 Facilitate the use of alternatives to the traditional septic systems on land unsuitable for septic tanks and not served by public sewer. Elimination of administrative and informational barriers to the use of safe, sanitary alternative on-site dis- posal systems within the County should be encouraged. 11.6 Allow ground absorption sewage disposal systems of 3000 gallons per day or more design capacity and package sewage treatment plants with a design capacity of 3000 gallons per day or less as appropriate only in the areas designated Ten and Twenty Year Transition and Rural Residential. 11.7 Develop and implement a process whereby the responsibilities and duties adjunct to the operation and management of package sewage treatment plants are specified as a requirement to the permit process for such facilities. GOAL TWELVE: An efficient and balanced transportation system. 12.1 Improve and promote the use of existing highway and transpor- tation facilities as opposed to developing extensive new conventional transportation systems . 12.2 Encourage arrangements of land uses that ease the expanded use of non-auto modes of travel, increased occupancy of autos and use of an energy-efficient transport system. - -12:3 - Develop alternative, safe; energy-efficient transportation systems to discourage dependence on automobiles. Encourage the provision of bikeways, walkways and supportive facilities such as bicycle parking zone. Wherever feasible, acqnire pedestrian and bikeway easements with public utility ease- ments as long as the primary use of the easement will remain intact; 12.4 Improve transportation services for human service agency clients in the County through coordination and utilization of available resources, while maintaining or reducing present system costs. Encourage the use of private transportation provided as part of the human services system in addition to serving the needs of the general public. 12.5 Encourage DOT to reassess the need for I-40 and the corridor selected with respect to its human and natural environmental impact on the County. 12.6 Undertake a feasibility study before another general aviation facility is built in the County to (1) determine..the level of need for such -a facility and (2) examine locational alternatives given the determination of sufficient need. - 12.7 Develop a Road Classification System to classify major roads by function for purposes of effective long range planning including the evaluation of highway capacity. The functional classifications include: interstate, arterial, collector, subcollector, local, minor and private. 12.8 Encourage the use of loop roads and cul-de-sacs and dis- courage the use of cross connectors in the Chapel Hill joint planning area in accordance with the Town of Chapel Hill's policies respecting residential neighborhood integrity. GOAL THIRTEEN: Maximum availability and use of recreational land, faci- lities and open space land to serve citizens at both the County-wide and community level. 13.1 Locate parks and recreational facilities close to residen- tial areas to reduce long trips for recreational purposes. 13.2 Encourage the multiple use of existing public and instit- utional buildings and grounds for recreation as well as their primary uses. 13.3 Require developers to provide for adequate open space suit- able for active/passive recreation in residential develop- ments. GOAL FOURTEEN: Full and equal educational, opportunities for the residents of Orange County consistent with the wishes of the school district and the needs of the County residents. 14.1 Develop a process for the coordination of planning activities by the School Board, Planning Board and Planning Department to provide for the future space needs and appropriate locat- ion of schools to meet the educational needs of Orange County residents. 1.4.2 Require residential developers to set aside an adequage amount of acreage to meet future school facility needs. GOAL FIFTEEN: An efficient and effective solid waste collection and dis- posal system for Orange County citizens. 15.1 Evaluate the solid waste collection system presently used by the County in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. Recommend alternative systems or means to improve the existing system based on this evaluation. 15.2 Encourage the recycling of solid waste when feasible. 15.3 Acknowledge the value of solid waste as an energy resource and encourage recovery measures when feasible. GOAL SIXTEEN: An efficient and effective system of public safety in the County. 102 16.1 Include the provision of adequate public safety protection standards for residential, commercial and industrial de- velopment. 16.2 Include road design standards to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access in site design standards for residential, commercial and industrial development. 16.3 Insure that all state roads in the County receive non- duplicated names to be posted in signs at intersections and that all houses are numbered in order to improve the re- sponse time of emergency vehicles. GOAL S O OO : A land use planning process which is responsive to the citizens and communities of Orange County. 17.1 Undertake a comprehensive effort to inform and involve the citizens of Orange County in the land use planning process. The basic components of this process include: regular and special public hearings; direct citizen input to the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Board; special citizen task forces and committees to work on certain problems; and the Township Advisory Councils to advise the Planning Board on land use planning matters. It will also include a sys- tematic effort to inform and notify the general public, through special news features as well as public meeting notices in newspapers of local circulation, of significant planning activities. 17.2 Develop ant implement a cooperative joint planning process among the County municipalities and those organizations re- sponsible for the provision of water and sewer services to provide for the orderly transition from rural to urban de- velopment around the municipnlities. 17.3 Adopt the Orange County Land Use Plan and Map as the long- range planning framework and guide to development in the County. 17.4 Review the Orange County Land Use Plan periodically to assure that it remains an up-to-date and workable framework for land use development. 17.5 Provide an annual status report on the implementation of the Plan to the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners for Orange County. 17.6 Develop and implement a process for complete review of the Plan on a two -year basis which will include land use and demographic data collection and analysis, a progress report and citizen involvement to evaluate the effectiveness of the Plan and propose amendments as appropriate. 103 17.7 Implement the Orange County Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the Goals, Policies and proposed Land Use Plan Map contained in the Plan. 17.8 Review of proposed amendments to the Goals, Policies and Map of the Land Use Plan and implementing ordinances will be by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners and involve citizen participation procedures. 17.9 Develop process to deal with requests for modification of the Plan. The burden of proof for such a change is placed upon the petitioner seeking such action. The applicant must show that the requested change is 1) consistent with the Goals and Policies, 2) compatible with the land use pattern and 3) in the public interest. __ _-_'_-~ _-�.__-'__, ._~�^~�_.-_-'__._~� , _ ._ r.... .„ '----* i '--- 11 Pik lly ' Ilipiallillik , in ... — warp- i Atahh, stop., ,Api.irpri 1- I 011111 i„ 40141k. gh I IT'hiebahe ::;::::::*:: 4 Amilfaiir II IIIILID griplak ..::i,,-. 447. i thi______,......-Nb,iwagiphipity ./--t)i . Igo_ __I __ Air |' AWl 410/1, 1,4 A 4 ,, , lit ‘1111111111111111111' ici%„ I i .,,_....w. i ipird., * .„„,: 1 5- .„ :. 4 .41:4* 4 qapel f. Carrb. o krgait;.::;;;;;;:.:.:'.. 1111 [ ir ar '.. 11):":::1":::::il.i*Ii.:::40.,;•:11:=, I , ii '''')) � ----' t _.-'--' -�1 [ ^ .6 CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP PLAN TOWNSHIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Cedar Grove Township, located in north-western Orange County, occupies 51,700 acres and contains 20% of the total County land area. The Township is characterized by a predominantly rural-agricultural landscape with limited low density commercial and residential development. It is the most removed of the County's seven township from urban growth pressures. It is likely that the Township will, retain its rural agricul- tural character over the planning period, even as other townships experi- ence significant non-farm development. Socio-Economic Features The 1980 U.S. Census figure for Cedar Grove Township is 3166 persons, which accounts for 4% of the total County population. This represents a .06% average annual growth rate from a 1970 population of 3146 persons. This slight population increase reflects the relative isolation of the Township from development pressures. Population projections for the Town- ship indicate that the population will actually decline during the plan period. The predominant economic activity in Cedar Grove Township is agriculture. The Township is one of the most important agricultural areas in the County and will probably retain that distinction during the plan period. Exist" : Land Use and Infrastructure Cedar Grove Township is an agriculturally based area containing limited low-density commercial and residential development. The major employment centers of Durham, Research Triangle Park and Burlington are well outside a convenient commuting distance from the Township. The construction of proposed Interstate 40 extension is unlikely to cause a significant change in the commutation pattern. Cedar Grove Township is not currently served by public sewer or water and no plans exist to extend services to the Township. As a consequence, Cedar Grove Township is likely to retain its rural character over the plan period, experiencing minimal development pressures. Transportation A modified version of the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System has been used to describe the road network in Cedar Grove Township. This system describes parts of a road network based on the factors of access and mobility. The most important roads (Interstate and arterial highways) provide the best service (shortest travel time) to and from important employment, shopping, educational and population centers. Roads of lesser importance (collector roads) do not provide as good a service function, but do provide an area with access to the major road system. The least important roads (local roads) function in the most limited service capacity, but in aggregate provide large land areas with access to the more important roads and highways. The rajor Township roads are the arterial highways, N.C. 86 and N.C. 49, both important north/south transportation routes. The collector roads providing access to these arterials include Efland-.Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004), Carr Store Road (SR 1352), Oorpett Ridge Road* (SE 1004), Walnut Grove Church Road (SR 1001), Little River Church Road (SR 1543), Wilkerson Road (SR 1507), Lynch Store Road (SR 1364), Saw Mill Road (S 1545) and Schley Road. ( R41548). All other roads are considered to provide a local level of service. Agriculture Cedar Grove Township is one of Orange County's most important agricultural areas. Major agricultural activities in Cedar Grove Township are tobacco farming, dairying and hog production. Tobacco production in Orange County is centered in Cedar Grove Township, Nearly 2,600 acres of the crop were harvested in 1978, each acre averag- ing almost 2,500 dollars in revenue. Total farm revenue from tobacco in the County in 1978 was 6.3 million dollars making it second only to dairy- ing as a source of farm income. Five significant dairy operations are located in Cedar Grove with an esti- mated total of over 400 cows. Swine operations are increasing in the Town- ship with more than 300 animals contained in two significant existing operations and several more planned. Between the years 1955 and 1977, Cedar Grove cropland, harvested and idle, deminished by about 2000 acres or 13% (Table3-106 ). TABLE 3-106 CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP FARMLAND TRENDS 1 CHANGE 1955 1977 1955-77 CHANGE TOTAL CROPLAND 15,657 ac. 13,689 ac. -1,968 ac. -12.6% TOTAL PASTURE 3,649 ac. 5,452 ac. +1,803 ac .1 +49.4% TOTAL FARMLAND 19,306 ac. 19,141 aa. -165 ac. -0.9% 2SOURCE: North Carolina Crop and T4vestock Reporting Service; Triangle J Council of Governments. In contrast, the Township pastureland base increased during this period by nearly 50% or 1800 acres. On balance, the total Cedar Grove Township cropland and pastureland was stable during this 22-year period. diminish- ., _ . _ Natural Environmental Constraints Cedar Grove contains the following natural environmental constraints to development activity: floodplains, water supply watersheds, steep slopes and poor soil conditions. FLOODPLATINS. The major flooding hazard in Cedar Grove Township exists along the Eno River, the South Fork of the Little River and Forest Creek. The areas that would be subject to flooding in a storm which would occur on an average once every 100 years is not extensive. It is generally confined to a band along these streams rarely exceeding 1000 feet. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. The Eno River, which has its headwaters in Cedar Grove Township, is the source of the water supply for the Town of Hills- borough and for the Orange-Alamance Water Systems Incorporated, a non- profit association which supplies:water along the U.S. 70 corridor west of Hillsborough including the Efland community and areas in Alamance County around the Town of Mebane. These two water supplies draw water directly from the Eno, Lake Orange, a water supply reservoir, is sited on the east branch of the Eno River in Cedar Grove Township. The County owns the water rights from this impoundment. Lake Orange is a secondary reservoir from which water can be released during dry spells to increase the flow in the Eno for the two downstream users. The watershed area in Cedar Grove Township should be protected from types and intensities of development which could reduce the water quality in the Eno River. STEEP SLOPES. Cedar Grove Township is in the headwaters of three major drainage basins, the Neuse Basin, the Roanoke Basin and the Cape Fear Basin. As a result streams are quite small in Cedar Grove Township and do not have the power to cut steep valleys. As a result, there are very few areas with slopes greater than 15% in the Township. SOILS. Soils of the Applingr-Helena association predominate in northern and western Cedar Grove Township. They consist of well drained and mode- rately well drained soils that have a surface layer of sandy loam and a subsoil of clay or sandy clay. This soil type is nearly ideal for grow- ing tobacco and accounts for the concentration of tobacco farming activi- ty in the Township. The clay subsoils of the Appling-Helena association, however, makes this same area poor for many other land uses, especially on-site waste disposal systems. In the southern and eastern portions of Cedar Grove Township deep, well drained soils of the Georgpville-Herndon soil association predominate. They are some of the better soils to be found in Orange County and are well suited for most urban uses. PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND APPLICATION Or z Conceits The following Township policy statPmPnts represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Cedar Grove Township is constructed: 1) Cedar Grove Township should retain its agricultural and, low density residential character. 2) The integrity and character of the small crossroads corammitip of Carr and the Village should be maintained. 3) Low density commercial uses should be encouraged to exist in order to serve township needs. 4) Rural industrial uses should be accomodated where appropriate in the Township. 5) The Eno water supply watershed in Cedar Grove Township should be protected against adverse development. Populntion Projections and Land Requirements: 1980-2000 One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is the calculation of the amount of land required to accomodate projected growth in an area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential and commercial uses is directly related to the size of the population. The following table summarizes the population projections for Cedar Grove Township during the plan period: TABLE 3-108 POPULATION PROJECTIONS: 1980-2000 1980 1990 2000 1980-2000 POPULATION TOTAL 3,166 1 3,150 2 3,1502 POPULATION CHANGE (NUMBER) (-)16 ••••*• (-)16 11980 U.S. Census figure. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2 Projected population based on the LINAVE method. Explanation of methodology can be found in Appendix A. SOURCE: Orange County Planning Department. The projected population of 3150 persons in Cedar Grove Township by the year 2000 represents a decline in population over the plan period. This reflects the relatively stable population in Cedar Grove Township since the 1960s and the liklihood that the Township's isolation from centers of employment will result in the out-migration of certain segments of the population. Since a loss in population has been projected, the land area required to accommodate future population has not been calculated. Allocation of Growth The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographically allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Township in accordance with the County- wide goals and policies and Township policy statements. Since no population growth is anticipated for Cedar Grove Township the primary task was to provide space for additional commercial enterprises required in the Township during the plan period. The following allocation guidelines, which incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use classification system, are derived from the County and Township policies to facilitate the process of determining the location of new commercial growth in Cedar Grove Township: o The majority of the Township is to be maintained as rural and agricultural since the predominant land use activities will remain related to the land. o Rural non-farm commercial development will be allocated to desig- nated activity nodes chosen so as to avoid negative environmental or economic impacts in agriculture. o Industrial and high intensity commercial and non-farm residential development will be directed away from areas that, if developed at those intensities, would create negative impacts in the Upper Eno water supply watershed. In light of these allocation guidelines, information about land in Cedar Grove Township was "filtered" through the set of locational criteria in order to evaluate the suitability of certain lcoations to contain various land uses. This information was then utilized in the classification of land throughout Cedar Grove Township. Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Cedar Grove Township has been classified into the following Land Use Plan Categories according to the public policies expressed in the Plan, the set of locational criteria defining the appropriateness of the physical environmental context for future development, and the Township's projected population change and resulting land requirements: AGRI RESIDENTIAL. The majority of the Township is designated Agricultural-Residential as in the future the predominant land use acti- vities will remain related to the land. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. That portion of the Upper Eno water supply water- shed which extends into Cedar Grove Township has been designated as a water supply watershed. In addition to classifying the land in the Township, the County's land use planning strategy has been to identify and evaluate. a number of poten- tial activity nodes in the Township. The purpose of this activity is to direct commercial and industrial uses to the most appropriate areas in the Township, preventing strip-type development, and promoting a more compact and efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections in the Township. A total of six activity nodes have been designated in Cedar Grove Township, REFERENCE: CG-1, Carr LOCATION: N.C. 49 and Carr Store Road (SR innin _ PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: Existing land uses at this node include a small store, a car wash and single family residential units. There are no significant environment constraints. The commercial facilities at this intersection make it a place where local people frequently go to socialize as well as to shop. REFERENCE: CG-2, The Village. LOCATION: Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) and Carr Store Road (SR 1352, SR 1004). PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: A well established community character is present in the area of the node which contains three commercial uses, a church, a post office and several residences. Commercial development which occurs in the Upper Eno watershed will require certain site design features to protect water quality. REFERENCE: CG-3, Toler's Store LOCATION: N.C. 86 and Walnut Grove Church Road (SR 1001). PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: An existing commercial use is present at this node. There are no environmental constraints in the area of this node. No disruption of existing residential character would result from develop- ment at the node. REFERENCE: CG-4, Villine's Store LOCATION: N.C. 86, Saw Mill Road (SR 1545) and Carr Store Road (SR 1352). PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: A commercial use is present at the intersection. No environmental constraints hinder small-scale commercial development in the area. There is some residential development in the area of this node and additional commercial development could be disruptive. The area west of Highway 86 is in the Upper Eno watershed. REFERENCE: CG-5, Walnut Grove LOCATION: Walnut Grove Church Road (SR 1001), Saw Mill Road (SR 1545) and Little River Church Road (SR 1543). PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of three collector roads. No environmental constraints hinder small-scale comer- cial development at this node. Three commercial uses exist in the area of this node. REFERENCE: CG-6, .Prospect Hill LOCATION: N.C. 49 and N.C. 86 PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Industrial ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two arterials. It, therefore has good access for rural commercial as well as rural industrial uses. No environmental constraints hinder snail-scale, rural industrial development at the node. The absence of municipal water and sewer services would limit the scale of future rural industrial development in the node area. Minimal disruption of residential uses would result from such develogrent. 111 ' ---- .-_�.__^'~��._~~' ___'__- '_-�'_~� ___^~~~_'^_^. _~�'__-_~_. .�_-~~^___ ._ r_ ,___...„ A 1 444 401 vilir,,T7.. -m - , A.A., ,....., ,,r, . r-i: At ty, .1 AVM 41.41 i %II 14MWIPP401412"tik kiik * lel--w- 4‘ -44V.W4' a PliltINIII ji ,,,,,,sle,,,,..„....„, ...J.....„, • ilrillirlimroPf II' -7410 Ilk AL 1 110"5904 ' Cgrrb. 0 *illy Hcplape- Aivii, i- . , di,. 4,s, A i,..-- hir . :..ii.1:::ii::::-'-* . . . ---li .) • i . LITTLE RIVER TOWNSHIP PLAN TOWNSHIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Little River Township, located in north-eastern Orange County, occupies 28,700 acres and contains 11% of the total County land area. The Township is rural in character and the primary economic activity is agriculture. Sections of the Township, however, are within reasonable commuting time to the City of Durham and are beginning to experience suburban residential development pressures from that area. If this trend continues, the charac- ter of much of Little River Township could change dramatically in the future. Socio-Economic Features The 1980 U.S. census count for Little River Township is 1493 persons or 9% of the total population. This represents a 23.4% increase over the 1970 population of 1210 persons. Of equal interest is the distribution pattern of this increased population. The area in eastern Little River Township closest to the City of Durham contains a disproportionate percen- tage of the population. This distribution pattern reflects the economic attraction of Durham, in terms of both employment and shopping purposes, for the residents of Little River Township. Much of Little River Town- ship is within a half-hour commute of the major employment center in Durham. The northern and western sections of the Township are predominantly agri- culturally based. Major agricultural activities include tobacco farming, egg production, dairying and swine operations. If the population of Little River increases as projected, this growth will inevitably put pres- sure on agricultural activities throughout the Township. Exist Land Use and Infrastructure The southeastern portion of the Township has experienced increased subur- banization in recent years with residential, subdivisions being developed as housing for people who work and shop in Durham. The northern part of the Township retains its agricultural character and consists primarily of farms with some scattered low density residential development and very few commercial uses. Little River Township is not currently served by either public water or sewer. There are no existing plans to provide these services to the Township. Transportation A modified version of the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System has been used to describe the road network in Little River Township. This system describes parts of the road network based on the factors of access and mobility. The most important roads (Interstate and arterial highways) provide the best service (shortest travel-time) to acid from important employment, shopping, educational and population centers. Roads of lesser importance (collector roads) do not provide as good a service function, but do provide an area with access to the major road system. The least important roads (local roads) function in the most limited service capacity, but in aggregate provide large land areas with access to the more important roads and highways. The two major highways in Little River Township are the arterials N.C. 57, which runs in a north-easterly direction fram Hillsborough through the Township, and N.C. 357 which runs in a south-easterly direction toward the City of Durham. These two routes form an "X" pattern, intersecting in the center of the Township. The community of Caldwell has developed at that intersection. Other important routes in the Township include the collectors New Sharon Church Road (SR 1538) , Schley Road (SR 1548) and Little River Church Road (SR 1543), Guess Road (SR 1003), Pleasant Green Road (SR-1567). The re- maining roads serve primarily local traffic. Agriculture The major agricultural activities in Little River Township are tobacco farming, dairying, egg production and swine operations. Eight of Orange County's estimated fifty commercial dairy farms are in the Township with a total herd of over 360 milk cows. Four of Orange County's five commer- cial egg farms are in Little River Township, accbunting for over 130,000 layers. One commercial swine operation exists in the Township with some 300 sows. As of 1977, Little River contained 13.4% of the cropland and 10.4% of the pastureland in Orange County. However, like other agricultural areas in the County, Little River Township experienced a pattern of farmland con- version in recent decades. Reported cropland and pastureland, harvested and idle, declined by over 32% or some 3,400 acres between 1955 and 1977 (Table 3-114). TABLE 3-114 LITtLE RIVER TOWNSHIP FARMLAND TRENDS" CHANGE 1955 1977 1955-1977 CHANGE TOTAL CROPLAND 6,997 5,016 -1,981 -28.3% TOTAL PASTURE 3,695 2,258 -1,437 -38.9% TOTAL FARMLAND 10,692 7,274 -3,418 -32.0% lsoURCE: N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; Triangle J Council of Governments. The factors that have caused this decline in farming activity in Little River Township over the past two decades will most likely continue to influence the viability of farming in the future. These factors are essentially economic in nature. One of these factors is the price of land. As population growth pressure increases in the Township, it causes land values to be bid up. Farmers may find it to expensive to acquire more land to enlarge their farming operations and nay in fact find that it make more economic sense to sell out to residential developers. Natural Environmental Constraints Little River Township contains the following natural environmental, con- straints to development activity: flood, poor soils and steep slopes: FLOOD. The north south forks of the Little River are the two main streams subject to flooding in the Township. These streams flow in narrow valleys so that the areal extent of flooding is not great during the projected 100 year-flood. The flood prone areas along these two stream segments rarely exceeds 1000 feet and is usually much less. SOILS. Little River Township contains generally good soils, suitable for most kinds of land uses. A small area of predominantly heavy clay occurs in the northwestern corner of the Township and is an extension of a wide area of such soils found in Cedar Grove Township. STEEP SLOPES. There are only a few areas with steep slopes (greater than 15%) in the Township. They generally border segments of the north and south forks of the Little River. PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND APPLICATION Organizing Concepts The following Township policy statements represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Little River Township is constructed: 1) Agricultural operations in the Township should be protected against disruption due to non-farm development. Residential development should be encouraged to locate on non-prime farm lands. 2) The rural, low-density residential character of the Township should be maintained. 3) The Caldwell and Schley areas exhibit the characteristics of a crossroads community within the Township, a character which shOuld be enhanced. 4) A need for some commercial and industrial activities, especially agricultural support services, exists and should be accomodated. Posulation Pro'edtions and Land Renuiiements: 1'80-2000 One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is the calculation of the amount of land required to accorodate projected growth in an area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential and commercial uses is directly related to the size of the population. The following tables summarize the population projections and estimated land requirements for Little River Township during the plan period: TABLE 3-116a POPULATION PROJECTIONS: 1980-2000 1980 1990 2000 1980-2000 TOTAL POPULATION 1493 1 2788 2 4082 2 POPULATION CHANGE (NUMBER) 1295 1294 2589 11.980 U.S. census figures. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2 Projected population based on the LINAVE method. Explanation of methodology can be found in Appendix A:, TABLE 3-116b LAND REQUIREMENTS: 1980-2000 1980-1990 1990-2000 1980-2000 DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED 1 500 d.u. 500 d.U. 1000 d.u. RESIDENTIAL,ACREAGE REQUIRED ' 1065 ac. 1065 ac. 2130 ac. TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 3 1118 ac. 1178 ac. 2237 ac. 1-Based on an average household size of 2.59 persons. 2 Based on an average subdivided lot size of 2.13 acres. 3Adjusted for non-residential and commercial uses based on a multiplier of 1.05 for areas outside of the municipal planning limits. Since industrial development usually has little or no market relationship to local residential development, it has not been calculated as part of of the Township needs. 116 The projected population of 4082 persons in Cheeks Township by the year 2000 would require an estimated 827 additional dwelling units and 1762 acres of additional residential land. In addition to the residential acreage, residential development bringp in its wake the need for land for non-residential purposes such as shopping, schools, recreational facilities, churches and other similar uses. The total additional acreage required during the plan period, therefore, is 1850 acres. Allocation of Growth The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographically allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Township in accordance with the County- wide goals and policies and the Township policy statements. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accomodate this growth will be substan- tially greater than the calculated need to allow for variations in the availability of land and the exercise of market choice. The following allocation guidelines, which incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use classification system, are derived from the County and Township policies to facilitate the process of determining the location of new growth in Cheeks Township: o Mbst of the Township is best suited for agricultural purposes and should be maintained in that use. o The area in the eastern portion of Little River Township adjacent to Durham County is best suited for low density, rural non-farm residential growth. o Low intensity rural commercial and industrial land uses should be located in proximity to activity nodes to minimize strip develop- ment and maximize the efficient and compact use of the land. In light of these allocation guidelines, information about land in Little River Township was "filtered" through the set of locational criteria in order to evaluate the suitability of certain locations to contain various land uses. This information was then utilized in the classification of land throughout Mttle River Township. Distribution of Land Use Plan Catez..ries Land in Little River Township has been classified into the following Land Use Plan categories according to the public policies expressed in the Plan, the set of locational criteria defining the appropriateness of the physical environmental context for future development, and, the Township's projected population change and resulting land requirements. RURAL RESIDENTIAL. The eastern portion of the Township adjacent to the Durham County and focused on Guess Road has been designated Rural Residen- tial to accomodate growth pressures from Durham. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. The majority of Little River Township has been classified as Agricultural-Residential in recognition of the fact that Little River is predominantly rural and agriculturally oriented. In addition to classifying the land in the Township, the County's land use planning strategy has been to identify and evaluate a number of potential activity nodes in the Tbwnship. The purpose of this activity islto direct commercial and industrial uses to the most appropriate areas in the Town- ship, preventing strip-type development, and promoting a more compact and efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections in the Township. A total of five activity nodes have been designated in Little River Township: REFERENCE: LR.-1, Caldwell LOCATION: N.C. 57 and N.C. 157 (Guess Road) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two arterial highways. A multi-use community with a recognized social identity exists in the area of this node. Several commercial uses, a church, a fire station and several residences comprise this rural community. No natural environmental constraints hinder the development of a rural community node in this area. The lack of public water and sewer over the 20-year plan horizon will determine, in part, the degree of commercial and institutional activity in this area REFERENCE: LR-2 , Schley LOCATION: N.C. 57 and Schley Raod (SR 1546) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of an arterial highway (N.C. 57) and a collector road (SR 1546). The node is conSidered to have a social identity and it displays some of the character- istics of a rural community. A church, grange hall and several residences are within or near this node. No natural environmental constraints hinder small-scale commercial activity in the area of the node. The probable lack of public water and sewer service over the 20-year plan horizon constrains all but low intensity commercial activity in this area. REFERENCE: LR-3 , Underwood's Store LOCATION: Schley Road. (SR 1548) and New Sharon Church Road (SR 1538) FLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is boated at the intersection of two collectors. The disruption of a residential character would result with small-scale commercial activity in the area of the node. An existing com- mercial use is presently within this node. REFERENCE: LR-4, Berry's Grove LOCATION: N.C. 157, Holly Ridge Road (SR 1524) and Brown Road (SR 1516) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of an arterial (N.C. 157) and a collector road (SR 1524) . No environmental constraints hinder small-scale development in the area of the node. No disruption of residential uses would result from commercial or light industrial uses at this node. REFERENCE: LE-5, Harris Crossroads LOCATION: Guess Road (N.C. 1003) and New Sharon Church Road (N.C. 1538) PLAN CATEGORY; Rural Commercial - ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of an arterial and a collection road. No disruption of an area of residential character would result with small scale commercial development at this node. No environmental constraints hinder development at this node. * _ _ 119 r '_�.-�-~_~____' .^__-___ -��.~_- T114._~~- -__.' ._~�~~��-��'__.___ | law , All illikr 4. js1" 1111114, ar -1 • iga TVV\". P." 1111 tx 111 I I,Mebane 0111171:::::::::: 0 I III OrilliVtinAr 1 i 41411111111.11111.00,- - 4145111111jfkiii1/4 1,-) tiitippiiiimi,,,w...„: ili Ak 1111Wilir 47 '..' -- 1 Ki:416,, 1 ilk M::::::::i:::::::,ii:iiii::400 ir t::41:! :::::::::::g:::ii.,-;i:4::. 1 . ii c.,.„,:::: :'iiiiii:;.:,;-i;:::::.:_--- ,.._.1 ---) 1 .., .,.. .-.( i L a __, . i., 8 CHEEKS TOWNSHIP PLAN TOWNSHIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Cheeks Township, located in the west-central portion of Orange County, occupies 32,700 acres and contains 13% of the total County land area. The Township is divided, by the transportation corridor made up of U.S. 70, Interstate 85 and the Southern Railway lines. This corridor serves, in effect, as a focus for current and future development in the Township as the greater population densities occur in areas near these highways and rail lines. The small, unincorporated village of Efland, in the center of the Township, is where much of the population is concentrated outside of the portion of Mebane that extends into Cheeks Township. North and south of the transportation corridor the Township is rural in character with agriculture constituting the major land use. Socio-Economic Features The 1980 U.S. Census count for Cheeks Township is 4821 persons or 6% of the total County population. This represents a 3.5% annual average growth rate during the past decade. The number of dwelling units increased at a faster rate during this same periodlfrom 1076 units in 1970 to 1691 units in 1980, a 57.2% increase.. A related trend is the average household size which decreased from 3.3 persons per household in 1970 to 2.9 persons in 1980. The smaller household size parallels a nationwide trend toward small families. The rapid growth of Cheeks Township during the 1970s is in contrast to the virtually Unchanged population count between 1960 and 1970 when the Township experienced a negative growth rate. Much of this new growth is associated with non-farm, residential development, housing people who work for local industries or work in Mebane or Hillsborough. The unin- corporated village of Efland is the focal point for most of the growth occurring in the central portion of the Township, with a population of an estimated 500-600 persons. Existing Land Use and Infrastructure Mast of Cheeks Township north and south of the 1-85 - U.S. 70 corridor consists of agricultural land uses and scattered non-farm rural housing. All of the medium and higher intensity residential, commercial and indus- trial uses occur along the 1-85 - U.S. 70 transportation colTidor. The village of Efland and the portion of the Town of Mebane which extends into Cheeks Township serve as the fbcal points for.mbst of this medium and higher intensity development. There are several industrial uses along the portion of 1-85 which forms the southern boundary of Mebane's extra- territorial planning jurisdiction. Efland is the site of a few small- scale textile manufacturing firms, several commercial uses, some associ- ated with farming; and a post office. Presently, the only municipally sewered area in Cheeks Township is the portion of Mebane's corporate limits that extends into the Township and the area southeast of Mebane between 1-85 and U.S. 70 where an additional park is located. The Town of Mebane also supplies water within its cor- porate limits and within the immediate vicinity of the Town. The Orange- Alamance Water System supplies water beyond Mebane and along U.S. 70 bet- ween Mebane and the Eno River. Their dam and filter plant are located on the Eno River just north of where it intersects with U.S. 70. Distribu- ti on lines for this system extend throughout the road network in the Efland area. Transportation Cheeks Township contains the principal east-west transportation corridor through Orange County. Nine and one-half miles of Interstate highway (1-85), over seven miles of a major state highway (U.S. 70), eight miles of rail line (Southern RR) and several miles of locally important roads make up this corridor. The principal north/south routes are: Efland Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004-1357), Buckhorn Road (SR 1114), Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120), Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) , Bowman Road (SR 1142), West Ten Road (SR 1144), Lebanon Road (SR 1306) and Doe Run Road (SR 1343). A modified version of the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System has been used to describe the road network in Cheeks Township. The system describes parts of the road network based on factors of access and mobility. The most important roads (Interstate and arterial highways) pro- vide the best service (shortest travel time) to and fram important employ- Merit, shopping, educational and population centers. Roads of lesser im- portance (collector roads) do not provide as good a service function, but do provide an area with access to the major road system. The least impor- tant roads (local roads) function in the most limited service capacity, but in aggregate provide large land areas with access to the more impor- tant roads and highways. The major highway in Cheeks Township is Interstate 85, and the arterial highway is U.S. 70. The next classification level, collector, includes the following Township roads: Efland Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004-1357), Buckhorn Road (SR 1114), Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120), Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) , Bowman Road (SR 1142), West Ten Road (SR 1144), Lebanon Road (SR 1306) and Doe Run Road (SR 1343)., All other roads are considered to be at the local level of service function. Cheeks Township's transportation network adequately connects the Township with such population centers as Burlington, Durham and Chapel Hill. The construction of the proposed Interstate 40 extension would bring Raleigh and the Research Triangle Park within closer traveling time of the Township. In addition, Cheeks Township's transportation system places it in direct line of the Northern Piedmont growth area of North Carolina. Winston-Salem, Greensboro, High Point, Burlington, Chapel Hill, Durham and Raleigh are the major centers of this growing region. The strategic location of the Township in the region, as well as the large land areas within it which have convenient access to Interstate 85, U.S. 70 and the Southern Railway lines, make Cheeks Township attractive to industrial development interests. Agriculture Although agriculture is a dominant land use throughout Cheeks Township / development pressures in recent decades have contributed to the conver- sion of farmland for uses. Reported Cheeks Township cropland, both harvested and idle, diminished by over 30% between the years 1955 and 1977 (Table 3-123 ). TABLE 3-123 CHEEKS TOWNSHIP FARMLAND TRENDS 1 CHANGE ----T------- 1955 1977 1955-1977 CHANGE TOTAL CROPLAND 7294 ac. 4992 ac. -2302 -31.6% TOTAL PASTURE 2579 ac. 3085 ac. +506 +19.6% TOTAL FARMLAND 9873 ac. 8077 ac. -1796 -18.2% 1SOURCE: N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; Triangle 3',Council of Governments. As shown., the cropland base of the Township decreased in this period by 2,302 acres. In contrast, the pasture land base increased over the same period by almost 20%, or just over 500 acres. Overall, the combined total of cropland and, pasture land in Cheeks Township declined by about 1,800 acres between 1955 and 1977, representing an 18% loss. Part of this loss probably occurred as a consequence of the construction of Interstate 85 through Cheeks Township. The three Townships through which the Interstate was built lost an average of more than 26% of their total crop and pasture land, as compared to an average loss of 19% for the four remaining Townships. Such major highway construction can cause farm- land loss through both direct acquisition of right-of-way and through the commercial industrial and residential development that is stimulated by approved transportation access. The proposed widening of 1-85 to six lanes through this part of North Carolina, as well as the construction of the proposed 1-40 extension, would further upgrade transportation access to regional population and employment centers from Cheeks Township. Growth resulting from these changes will create additional pressures for the con- version of crop and pasture land to non-farm uses. Population growth pressures, even without the addition of such major public projects such as new highways, are likely to promote the conversion of farmland to residential and commercial use. Dairying, which is an impor- tant use of Township farmland south of 1-85, is especially vulnerable to the pressures of non-farm development. Relocation of such operations is very costly and often impossible. 123 Natural Environmental Constraints Cheeks Township contains the following natural environmental constraints to development activity: floodplains, a water supply watershed, steep slopes and poor soil conditions. FLOODPLAINS. 100-year floodplains occur along Seven Mile Creek, Crab- tree Creek and. Rocky Run in the southeastern part of the Township; along the Eno River and its tributaries and McGowan Creek in the north- central part of the Township; and along Back Creek (Tributary A) north- east of Mebane. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. Most of the Upper Eno watershed, which is drained primarily by the Eno River and Seven Mile Creek, is located in Cheeks Township. In general this watershed encompasses the eastern two-thirds of the Township. Water from this area supplies both the Town of Hillsbo- rough's and the Orange-Alamance water systems. The existence of a water- shed crossed by an important transportation corridor requires serious consideration of the trade-offs between environmental protection and.lindus- trial development opportunities and is the critical issue facing Cheeks Township in the near future. STEEP SLOPES. Steep slopes represent only very limited constraints in the Township, occurring along sections of the Eno River and Seven Mile Creek in the eastern part of Cheeks Township. SOILS. As would be expected poor soil conditions because of flooding are found to generally coincide with the floodplains identified. The only other significant patterns of poor soil conditions exist in the north- central area and on scattered sites in the south-central part of the Town- ship where theneiF some limitation due to heavy clay content and shallow depth to bedrock. PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND APPLICATION Organizing Concepts The following Township policy statements represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Cheeks Township has been constructed: 1) The small, unincorporated community of Efland is appropriate for medium intensity residential and commercial development. 2) The community of Efland is suitable for urban-type services, including the extension of water and sewer lines. 3) The moderately sized TOwn of Mebane is capable of providing urban- type services, when appropriate, to adjacent areas likely to become urban in the plan period. 4) Medium and higher intensity commercial and industrial development is appropriate in the areas within and immediately adjacent to Mebane's planning jurisdiction that are currently served by water or sewer lines. 5) Areas to the north and south of the 1-85 - U.S. 70 corridor should remain agricultural and rural/low-density residential and commercial in use. 6) Developtent in the portion of the Township within the Eno water supply watershed should be subject to standards and land use restrictions directed at maintaining the quality of the water draining into the existing water supply reservoirs of Lake Orange, Lake Ben Johnson and Corporation Lake and into the proposed Seven Mile Creek reservoir. Population Projections and Land Requirements: 1980-2000 One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is the calculation of the amount of land required to accomodate projected growth in, an area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential and commercial uses is directly related to the size of the population. The following tables summarize the population projections and estimated land requirements for Cheeks Township during the plan period: TABLE 3-125 POPULATION PROJECTIONS: 1980-2000 1980 1990 2000 1980-2000 TOTAL POPULATION 4821 1 5400 2 5950 2 --- POPULATION CHANGE (NUMBER) 579 1119 1698 11980 U.S. census figure. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2 Projected population based on the LINAVE method. Explanation of methodology can be found in Appendix A. SOURCE: Orange County Planning Department. 125 TABLE 3-126 LAND REQUIREMENTS: 1980-2000 1980-1990 1990-2000 1980-2000 DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED 1 204 d.u. 394 d.u. 598 d.u. RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE REQunED 2 571 ac. 1104 ac. 1674 ac. TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 3 599 ac. 1159 ac. 1758 ac. 1Based on an average household size of 2.84 persons. 2 Based on an average subdivided lot size of 2.80 acres. 3Adjusted for non-residential and commercial uses based on a multiplier of 1.05 for areas outside of municipal planning limits. Since industrial development usually has little or no market relationship to local resi- dential development, it has not been calculated as part of the Township needs. The projected population of 5950 persons in Cheeks Township by the year 2000 would require an estimated 598 additional dwelling units and 1674 additional acres of residential land. In addition to the residential acreage, residential development brings in its wake the need for land for non-residential purposes such as shopping, schools, churches, recreational facilities, fire stations and other similar uses. The total additional acreage required during the plan period, therefore, is 1758 acres. Allocation of Growth The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographically allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Township in accordance with the County- wide goals and policies and the Township policy statements. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accomodate this growth will be substan tially greater than the calculated need to allow for variations in the availability of land and the exercise of market choice. The following allocation guidelines, which incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use classification systen, are derived from the County and Township policies to facilitate the process of determining the location of new growth in Cheeks Township: o Medium and higher intensity commercial and industrial development that would be most appropriately served by a centralized water and sewer system should be located within Mebane's Transition Areas in proximity to the designated activity nodes. o Low and medium intensity commercial, industrial and residential development which would create minimal negative impacts on the Upper Eno water supply watershed should be located in Efland's Transition. Areas in proximity to the designated activity nodes. o The areas to the north and south of the 1-85 - U.S. 70 transpon- tation covvidor are best suited for agricultural purposes and should be maintained in this use. o The small area in southeastern Cheeks Township adjacent to Hills- borough Township, and the area between Mebane and Efland focused on the 1-85 - U.S. 70 corridor, are best suited for low-density, rural non-farm residential growth. o Low intensity rural comercial land uses, occurring outside of the Urban and Transition Areas, should be located in proximity to act- ivity nodes to minimize and prevent strip development. o The area of the Township which contains the Eno water supply water- shed should be afforded the protection necessary to minimize adverse development impacts. In light of these allocation guidelines, information about land, in Cheeks Township was "filtered" through the set of locational criteria in order to evaluate the suitability of certain locations to contain various land uses. This information was then utilized in the classification of land throughout Cheeks Township. Distribution of Land Use Plan Catet.ries Land in Cheeks Township has been classified into the following Land Use Plan categories according to the public policies expressed in the Plan, the set of locational criteria defining the appropriateness of the physical environmental context for future development, and the Township's projected population change and resulting land requirements: URBAN. All of the area within the portion of Mebane's corporate limits which is located in. Orange County has been classified as Urban. 10-YEAR TRANSITION. The 10-Year Transition area for Mebane is contained entirely within the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction: In the Efland area, the 10-Year Transition area is generally focused on the commercial area along U.S. 70 and the rail lines. 20-YEAR TRANSITION. The 20-Year Transition area for Efland vicinity correspondsto the area defined by the southern boundary of the McGowan Creek sub-basin south of Efland and extends north along U.S. 70. The Transition area to the east abuts against the Duke Forest tract. The 20- Year Transition area for Mebane extends a short distance beyond the Mebane planning area along U.S. 70 and 1-85. RURAL RESIDENTIAL. The area in the Township designated Rural Residential is located north of the I-85/U.S. 70 corridor between Mebane's extraterri- torial planning jurisdiction boundaries and the Efland area. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. In Cheeks Township this category applies to the vast majority of the land area located to the north and south of the 1-85/ U.S. 70 corridor. PUBLIC INTEREST AREA The'Duke Forest tract located on the eastern boundary of the Township along U.S. 70 has been designated a Public Interest Area. WATER. SUPPLY WATERSHED. This category applies to both existing and pro- posed water supply watersheds for purposes of providing water quality pro- tection for water draining into a supply source. In Cheeks Township, this classification applies to the Eno River watershed which includes the sub- basins of McGowan Creek, north of the I-85/U.S. 70 corridor, and Seven Mile Creek,, south of the corridor. In addition to classifying the land in the County, the County's land use planning strategy has been to identify and evaluate potential activity nodes in the Township. The purpose of the activity is to direct commercial and industrial uses to the most appropriate areas in the Township, prevent- ing strip-type development, and promoting a more compact and efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections in the Township. A total or seven activity nodes have been designated in CheeksoTownship: REFRNCE: CK-1, Efland Center LOCATION: Efland Commercial Area PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: An existing commercial/industrial node. is located in Efland, focused on the intersection of Southern Drive and Mt. Willing Road. This node currently serves as a ,fbcal point for lower and medium intensity residential, commercial and industrial uses. As Efland develops, new growth should "infill" suitable vacant land within the immediate area to take advantage of the existing infrastructure which includes the water supply from a central system. Due to the location of this node entirely within a water supply reservoir, industrial and commercial uses should be limited to these types which have a demonstrated record of not generating pollutants, either through the industrial process or the size of the opera- tion, which are known to degrade or harm water quality. Those uses which do meet this initial criteria should be designed and built in ways to mini- mize any other potential negative impacts on the quality of wate draining from the Eno River watershed. REFERENCE: CK-2, Miles north LOCATION: U.S. 70 and Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of an arterial (U.S. 70) and a collector. Existing commercial uses at or near this site include a small mill outlet and two gas stations one of which is also a small store. There are no environmental constraints imposed by sensitive lands or water-supply watersheds. A rail line is nearby. This site is presently served by a central water system with possible future sewer line extensions. These facts, combined with its proximity to Mebane, create the potential for fairly intensive comgercial and industrial uses during the later phase of the Plan. In fact, this node falls within the 20-Year Transition Area that extends slightly beyond the Mebane l0-Year Transition Area. As this site becomes more intensively developed, care should be taken to ensure that the highway intersection is upgraded suffi- ciently to handle the increased load. EERENCE: CK-3 , Miles South LOCATION: Interstate 85 and Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVAWATION: This node is located at the intersection of Interstate 85 and a collector. Existing land uses include a small resi- dential community (Miles), a gas station, and a small vacant store. The General Electric plant is located on 1-85 a short distance west of this node. This site is currently served by a central water supply system. The GE plant is served by sewer lines from Mebane. This node falls within the designated 20-Year Transition Area for Mebane Urban Area. Therefore, its development potential is long-term. When additional commercial Or industrial uses are located here, attention should be given to minimizing any negative effects on the residential area nearby. REFERENCE: CK-4 , Fairfield LOCATION: Lebanon Road (SR 1306) and Efland Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two collector roads. Existing land use at this node are currently limited to farmland, rural residential development and open fields. As this node is located in an Agricultural-Residential and a Water Supply Watershed, new commercial development should be limited to one or two small-scale stores designed to serve the needs to the surrounding rural area. REFERENCE: CK-5 , Lighthous LOCATTON: 01 #10/West Ten Road (SR 1144) and Bowman Road (SR 1142) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two collectors. There are no natural environmental constraints caused by sensitive lands or water supply watersheds that would hinder development. However the node is located within an agriculture area giving rise to concerns that new development not disrupt this farming activity. Existing land use at the node include a church and a low-density residential area. This site is not presently served by either water or sewer lines and will not be served in the foreseeable future. As a result of these factors, new commercial development at this node should be of a lower intensity, designed to only serve the residents in the immediate area. A new store at this node will probably not be needed before the later phase of the Land Use Plan. REFERENCE: CK-6 , Bowman LOCATION: Bowman Road (SR 1142) and Wilson Road (SR 1140) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two collectors. There are no natural environmental constraints caused by sen- sitive lands or water supply watersheds. Existing land uses are presently limited to low-density residential uses and agriculture. This site is not served by a central water supply or sewage treatment system. Extension of these services during the plan horizon is unlikely and inappropriate. Aa a result, this node should remain low-density in character with perhaps one small, additional store during the later phase of the Plan. REFERENCE: CK-7, Buckhorn LOCATION: Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) and Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two collectors. There are no environmental constraints caused by the presence of sensitive lands. The node is located within the Seven Mile Creek water- shed. Existing land uses consist of single-family houses. This node is not now served by water and sewer lines and should not be served during the tire horizon of the Plan. As this area is now residential in charac- ter, the introduction of a new commercial use (which should be limited to one small store) should be accomplished in way so as to not disrupt the surrounding residential area. It is unlikely that such a store will be needed here before the later phase of the Land Use Plan. 1 pn __. . / __. '__'__~__'_~�,~~ . Am, • 1 | ' ' AlliolikiprAllic, AIMIliiiiiift.,_ 1-1,7„. '441411WIrjr, I t;•Mebono jai ' Hilisb—ugh i ihillIllPr i ..i:i::;i::i:1.: Iii,': 10 * � ( . 1411111t, II,' 7:114Piii‘..,. :di' ' 4 lf i 1111110 i 1 ,.„--5/- ik, 11111,111 ....................., .........::::::::::%,,,,,m i 1 i 1 gsgu:: :::::::::::gi::::. --- •,.....:::.::.:-::::::,,,,:::-.::::.%::::?. ir— i .'.:Aii::iiiii:::::*: . .1,11 ir avolii:?i:::0:.::,:iN.... . 1 Hill ( \\ l004 . u~__ ___,__~, ,_�� ( `----~� /| --� --' • HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP PLAN TOWNSHIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Hillsborough Township, located in central Orange County, occupies 15,100 acres and contains 6% of the total County land area. The major growth and development center in Hillsborough Township is the Town of Hillsborough, located at the Township's geographic center. The Town, including its planning jurisdiction, divides the Township into northern and southern sections. The section located to the south of Interstate 85 is influenced to some degree by the urbanizing area of Chapel Hill and Carrboro due to the pre- sence of both Old and New N.C. Highway 86 routes which provide a trans- portation link between the areas. The level of influence will signifi- cantly increase if proposed Interstate 40 extension is constructed through Orange County. Access to Chapel Hill and. Carrboro, as well as to the Research Triangle Park,would be upgraded, perhaps contributing to the attractiveness of Hillsborough Township as a residential area for commu- ters to these employment centers. This attractiveness, however, may be mitigated in the future by either the scarcity or prohibitively high costs of gasoline. In either case, the Town of Hillsborough, as it grows in population and area, will remain the dominant urban influence in this area of the County. Soda-Economic Features The 1980 U.S. Census figure for Hillsborough Township is 8599 persons or 11.2% of the total population for Orange County. This represents an increase of 2744 persons over the 1976 population of 5855, at an average annual growth rate of 4.7% during the past ten years. The 1980 Census figure for the Town of Hillsborough is 3019 persons. Sixty-five percent of the people in Hillsborough Township live outside the corporate limits of the Town. Development patterns indicate that a large portion of this non-corporate area population Lives in proximity to the corporate limits of the Town, generally within the one mile extra-territorial planning jurisdiction. The economic charater of the Township is strongly influenced by the pre- sence of the transportation corridor formed by Interstate 85, U.S. Highway 70 and the Southern Railroad line. Historically, the Town of Hillsborough has been a good site for industrial uses because of its location on this important east-west transportation corridor connecting major towns and cities in the expanding Piedmont Crescent region of North Carolina. The second major influence on the Township's economic character is the Town- ship's proximity to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro urbanizing area and the employment opportunities available in that area. The current economic base for Hillsborough Township consists of manufacturing, agriculture, and public sector employment, including education, medical-hospital and county government employment. Existing Land Use and Infrastructure The Town of Hillsborough constitutes the major development center in Hillsborough Township. Outside of the Town of Hillsborough's planning jurisdiction, the southern portion of the Township's land use pattern consists of low to medium density residential development, several corn- mercial uses and a few industrial-type uses. The northern tier of the Township is larger in area and is characterized by farms, scattered low- density residential development and a small number of commercial uses. Most of the area within the corporate limits of Hillsborough is served by municipal water and sewer lines. Extension of the sewer lines beyond the corporate limits, but within the planning jurisdiction, has expanded the service area to residential, commercial and industrial development north and south of the Town. Water lines have also been extended to the east of the Town across the planning area and into Eno Township along U.S. 70 and Old N.C. 10. Transportation Orange County's principal east/west and north/south transportation corridors pass through Hillsborough:Tbwnship. Four miles of Interstate 85, three and one-half miles of a major U.S. highway (U.S. 70) and four and one-half miles of (Southern Railroad) rail line comprise this east/west transportation corridor. The north/south routes consist of two important state highways, N.C. 86 and N.C. 57, as well as two other locally important roads, Old N.C. 86 and Orange Grove Road (SR 1006). A modified version of the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System has been used to describe the road network in Hillsborough Township. This system describes parts of the road network based on factors of access and mobility. The most important roads (Interstate and arterial highways) provide the best service (shortest travel time) to and from important em- ployment, shopping, educational and population centers. Roads of lesser importance (collector roads) do not provide as good a service function, but do provide an area with access to the major road system. The least impor- tant roads (local, roads) function in a limited service capacity, but in aggregate provide large land areas with access to the more important roads and highways. Based on the modified classification system, Interstate 85 is classified as a major highway or interstate. Old N.C. 86, U.S. 70 Bypass, N.C. 57 and St. Mary's Road are classified as arterials. U.S. 70 Business, Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) and Old N.C. 10 are classified as collectors. All other roads are classified at the local level of service. Hillsborough Township's transportation network adequately connects it to the nearby pop- ulation centers of Durham, Chapel Hill, and Burlington. The construction of proposed Interstate 40 extension will place Raleigh and the Research Triangle Park within closer traveling time. Agriculture Hillsborough Township has been experiencing a pattern of farmland conver- sion to non-farm uses during recent years. Reported Hillsborough Township cropland, both harvested and idle, diminished by nearly one-half between the years 1955 and 1977- (Table 3-133) . TABLE 3-133 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP FARMLAND TRENDS 1 CHANGE 1955 1977 1955-77 CHANGE TOTAL CROPLAND 1,842 ac. 991 ac. -851 ac. -42.6% TOTAL PASTURE 1,780 ac. 1,623 ac. -157 ac. -8.8% TOTAL FARMLAND 3,622 ac. 2,614 ac. -1,008 ac. -27.8% 1SOURCE: N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; Triangle J Council of Governnents. As shown, the cropland base of the Township declined in this period by almost 1000 acres. In contrast, during the same period the pastureland base decreased at a much slower rate of about 9%, representing a loss of fewer than 160 acres. Part of this loss probably occurred as a consequence of the construction of Interstate 85 through Hillsborough Township. The three townships though which the Interstate was built lost an average of more than 26% of their total crop and pasture land as compared to an average loss of 19% for the remaining four townships. Such major highway construction can cause farmland loss through both direct acquisition and through the commercial, industrial and residential development stimulated by improved transportation access. Much of Hillsborough Township's farmland is concentrated in the portion of the Township north of the intersection of N.C. 86 and N.C. 57. As such, construction of the Interstate 40 along the proposed corridor will have very limited direct impact on the Township's agricultural land. The indirect effect, however, will be to increase development pressure on farm- land, even in the area to the north of the Town of Hillsborough. The greatly reduced travel time that proposed Interstate 40 extension will provide from Hillsborough to Research Triangle Park, RDU airport and Raleigh will probably increase the convenience of Hillsborough Township as a place of residence and as a location for new businesses. Conversion of more Township farmland to non-farm uses will probably result from this increAs- ed access. Natural Environmental Constraints Hillsborough Township contains the following natural environmental constraints to development activity: floodplains, a water supply watershed, steep slopes and some poor soil conditions. FLOODPLAINS. Floodplains occur along the Eno River, Cates Creek and Strouds Creek. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. A small portion of the Upper Eno water supply watershed falls within the western edge of the Township. STEEP SLOPES. A few steep slopes (greater than 15%) exist in the east- central portion of Hillsborough Township, primarily along the banks of the Eno River. SOILS. Most of the area outside the Town's planning jurisdiction contains soil types which are suitable for both agriculture and urban development. However, scattered areas, particularly in the northern tier of the Township, contain soil types characterized by a high clay content which present 1 limitations because of their poor suitability for building foundations and roads. PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND APPLICATION Orgard.zings. The following Township policy statements represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Hillsborough Township is constructed: 1) The Town of Hillsborough is the major growth and development center in Hillsborough Township. 2) The more intensive, higher-density commercial, industrial and residential land uses are most appropriately located within the Town's corporate limits and within the areas adjacent to the Town likely to become urban. 3) The agricultural character of the northern tier of the Township should be maintained as the most viable land use activity. 4) The rural residential and agricultural character of the Township south of the Town should be maintained. Posulation Pro'ections and Land Reouirements: 1980-2000 One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is the calculation of the amount of land required to accomodate projected growth in an area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential Land associated non-residential and commercial uses is directly related to the size of the population. The following tables summarize the population projections and estimated land requirements for Cheeks Township during the plan period: 134 TABLE 3-135a POPULATION PROJECTIONS: 1980-2000 1980 1990 2000 1980-2000 TOTAL POPULATION 8599 1 9850 2 11,100 2 --- POPULATION CHANGE (NUMBER) — 1251 1250 2501 11980 U.S census figure. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2Projected population based on the LINAVE method. Explanation of methodology can be found in Appendix A. SOURCE: Orange County Planting Department. TABLE 3-135b LAND REQUIREMENTS: 1980-2000 1980-1990 1990-2000 1980-2000 DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED 1 470 d.u. 470 d.u. 940 d.u. RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 2 1302 ac. 1302 ac. 2604 ac. I.DTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED 3 1303 ac. 1303 ac. 2606 ac. 1Based on an average household size of 2.66 persons. 2Based on an average subdivided lot size of 2.77 acres. 3Adjusted for non-residential and commercial uses based on the addition of one acre of land to accomodate these uses. Since industrial devel- opment usually has little or no market relationship to local residential development, it has not been calculated as part of the Township needs. 135 The projected population of 11,100 persons in Hillsborough Township by the year 2000 would require an estimated 940 additional dwelling units and 2606 additional acres of residential land. In addition to the residential acreage, residential development brings in its wake the need for land for non-residential purposes such as shopping, schools, churches, recreational facilities, fire stations and other similar uses. Within Hillsborough Township only a small amount of land is needed for these associated uses because of the lower density of residential development occurring outside of the planning jurisdiction of the Town. For Hillsborough Township this situation is compounded by the small size of the Township, making most areas reasonably accessible to the Town and its commercial and institutional facilities. Therefore, the need for ex- tensive commercial development outside the Town and its planning jurisdic-. tion is unnecessary. I"breover, directing commercial and low and medium- density residential uses toward areas already served by water and sewer lines, as well as other types of urban services, would satisfy standards of energy efficiency. The projection of additional land for non-residen- tial purposes is based on only one acre to reflect the future location of some low intensity uses at designated activity nodes. The total acreage required to accomodate the projected Township growth during the plan period, therefore, is 2606 acres. Allocation of Growth The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographically allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Township in accordance with the County- wide goals and policies and the Township policy statements. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accomodate this growth will be substan- tially greater the calculated need to allow for variations in the avail a- bility of land and the exercise of market choice. The following allocation guidelines, which incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use classification system, are derived from the County and Township policies to facilitate the process of determining the location of new growth in Hillsborough Township: o Higher intensity residential and commercial development which would most appropriately be served by a centralized water and sewer system should be directed to suitable vacant land within the Town of Hillsborough in accordance with a policy of Hinfilling" and, secondly, to the Town's Transition Areas. o Rural, non-farm residential development should be allocated to the southern tier of the Township to avoid negative environmental or economic impacts on agricultural lands in the northern tier. o Agricultural lands in the northern tier of the Township should be maintained in acknowledgement of the viability of the land for that use. o Commercial and industrial developuent occurring outside of the Town's planning jurisdiction should be located in proximity to activity nodes which provide a mbre reasonable and efficient alternative to strip development. o Development at intensity levels which would create negative impacts on public interest areas should be directed away from those areas. In light of these allocation guidelines, information about land in Hills- borough Tonwhsip was "filtered" through the set of locational criteria in order to evaluate the suitability of certain locations to contain various land uses. This information was then utilized in the classification of land throughout Hillsborough Township. Distribution of Land Use Plan Catee•ries Land in Hillsborough Township has been classified into the following Land Use Plan categpries according to the public policies expressed in the Plan, the set of locational criterria,defining the appropriateness of the physi- cal environmental context for future development and, the Township's pro- jected population change and resulting land requirements: URBAN. All of the area within the Town of Hillsborough's corporate limits and extraterritorial planning jurisdiction has been classified as Urban. In effect, this means that the Land Use Plan for the Town will shape the development pattern in that area. Given the policy of encouraging infill development, most of the higher intensity growth during the plan period should occur within the designated Urban area. 10-YEAR TRANSITION. The external boundary of the Town of Hillsborough's extraterritorial planning juriddiction generally coincides with the designated 10-Year Transition. Some subdivisions adjacent to, but outside of,the Town's planning jurisdiction have also been designated 10-Year Transition. 20-YEAR TRANSITION. Land to the east of Hillsborough's planning jurisdic- tion, which includes land area currently served by the municipal water and sewer system or could be efficiently served at some time in the future when the demand is sufficient is designated 20 Year Transition. This area is bounded on the north by St. Mary's Read, to the east by the Township boundary and to the south by the railroad tracks. RURAL RESIDENTIAL. All of the land designated Rural Residential occurs in the southern tier of the Township where rural, non-farm residential uses would be the most suitable land use. AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL Except for sue01 areas in southern and western Hillsborough Township, most of the land designated Agricultural Residential is located in the northern tier of the Township where farming and associ- ated agricultural activities are the most appropriate land uses. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS. The Duke Forest tracts, located in the southeast and west-central portion of the Township, are designated Public Interest Areas. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. A small portion of the Upper Eno water supply watershed which lies along the western boundary of the Township is classi- fied as water supply watershed. In addition to classifying the land in the County the County's land use planning strategy has been to identify and evaluate potential activity nodes in the Township. The purpose of this activity is to direct comer- cial and industrial activities to the most appropriate area in the Town- ship, preventing strip-type development, and promoting a more compact and efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections in the Tbwnship. A total of four activity nodes have been designated in Hillsborough Township. REERENCE: NB-1, Ridge Road LOCATION: N.C. 86 and SR 1334 PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of an arterial highway (N.C. 86) and a collector (SR 1334). Commercial uses presently exist near this node on. N.C. 86. There are no environmental constraints that would hinder further small-scale commercial development in the land area focused on this node. Nor would this scale of commercial development disrupt the residential areas nearly. The lack of water or sewer lines in the foreseeable future limits the scale of new develop- ment. Due to the existence of commercial uses in the area, only limited new development would be necessary during the 20-year plan horizon of the Plan. Instead encouragement should be given to the rehabilitation and reuse of existing commercial establishments if and when they fall into disrepair or become vacant. REFERENCE: HB.- Major Business Forms LOCATION: N.C. 86 and SR 1332 PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Industrial ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of an arterial highway (N.C. 86) and a collector (SR 1332). A small scale indus- trial use presently exists at this node. There are no environmental con- straints that would hinder small scale, rural industrial development in this area. This type of development would not disrupt an area of residen- tial character. The scale of future rural industrial development at this node would be limited by the lack of municipal water and sewer lines and the capacity of N.C. 86 to handle additional traffic. These factors, among others, would be taken into consideration during the review of a new or expanded rural industrial use at this activity node. REFERENCE: HB-3, ST. Mary's LOCATION: U.S. Highway 70 By-pass and St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of an arterial (U.S. 70 By-pass) and a collector (St. Mary's Road). Commercial uses presently exist near this node, including a small gas station, a convenience store with gas pumps and a flea market store. There are no natural environmental constraints that would hinder medium to higher inten- sive commercial development in this area. However, there are constraints imposed by the arrangement of the highway and its access points which would require redesign to safely accomodate additional commercial development. Redesign could include turning lanes on U.S. 70 By-pass and/ or St. Mary's Road at their intersection, and/or perhaps a stoplight. Due to the increase in residential density in the immediate vicinity, sewer lines are likely to be extended, thereby adding important infrastructure and allowing for more intensive commercial development in the future. =ONCE: FIB-k, Hannon Young LOCATION: The intersections of Interstate 85 and N.C. 86 PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is focused on the interchange at the intersection of an interstate and an arterial highway. Various commercial uses presently exist in the area including a convenience store, 2 gas stations, a health club and a truck stop-restaurant. There are no natural environmental constraints that would hinder more intensive commercial acti- vity in the area. Also, there would be no disruption of an area of resi- dential character, with the possible exception of the area immediately to the south of the intersection of Old #10 with N.C. 86. Another limiting factor is the existence of an historic site west of N.C. 86, just south of 1-85. Mbst of the development capacity of the node has, in fact, al- ready been utillzed,thereby decreasing the need for additional development in the near future. However, this activity node Will retain and gain in capacity as sewer lines are extended, making it a good site for commercial uses servicing the surrounding population. Although the Land Use Plan for the Town of Hillsborough does not specifi- cally designate activity nodes or centers, the following sites have the Characteristics of existing urban "activity centers": REFERENCE; Hills North LOCATION: Intersection of U.S. 70 and N.C. 86 PLAN CATEGORY: Existing Urban REFERENCE: Town Center LOCATION: Central Business District of Hillsborough, focused on the inter- section of Churton and King Street PLAN CATEGORY: Existing Urban REFERENCE: Daniel Boone LOCATION: General area of the Daniel Boone Complex near 1-85 PLAN CATEGORY: Existing Urban REFERENCE: Hillsborough West LOCATION: Intersection of Eno Street and Dimmocks Mill Road FLAN CATEGORY: Existing Urban These Hillsborough "activity centers" are indicated to provide clarifica- tion regarding the relationship between the Township Land Use Plan and the Town's Plan. 139 ■ • • d • •***••• **O.**■101•dOOAMOM A **.***.**•W 1**N•Y*MOM!••■••••00•. E* I • . Alb' i , :41611111,10N11411 i lontrip i 11,114111P , ' 44 impi 000 1 i 10111"11110.1011111.1.41110 imamomm.....- iimiradlitioNNIVIiik, 1 dipir 7ritiliktlitia.: Ai..? ! Irk , APPli Illne-I 1 1 gal .....gft4 Idibi i. ' .-IrM lik IMP I ,...„ ,., i lik. i ineatika . 0, • 4;:i::.i:::iiiii:::::::::... V - CCirrb. * ktpralini:if Cflopel --)) - L. 10"0„1110(.:::"M:::ili i i:. . 1 _„,,...._.., ( '' 0 ENO TOWNSHIP FLAN . - TOWNSHIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Eno Township, located in the east - central portion of Orange County, occupies 24,000 acres and contains 9% of the total County land area. The character of the Township is defined by a number of physical and existing land use features. The area of the Township north of St. Mary's Road is agriculturally-based and marks the southern limit of the tobacco farming area that extends into Little River Township and north into Caswell County. The southern portion of the Township is traversed by Interstate 85, U.S. 70 and a main line of the Southern Railroad, each paralleling one another in an east-west direction across the Township. The Eno River flows east from HillADorough across the Township, turns sharply and flows directly south before turning to the east again just north of 1-85. The southeastern portion of the Township is in close proximity to the City of Durham. Residential development focused on Durham is occurring in this area. Development pressures in this area are likely to continue during the plan period. Socio Economic Features Population figures from the 1980 Census indicate that between 1970 and 1980 the population of Eno Township increased by 1900 persons, from 2550 persons in 1970 to 4450 persons in 1980. This represents an average annual rate of growth of 7.5% during the past decade, almost a three-fold increase in the population growth rate during the 1960 - 1970 period. The population of the Township accounts for 6% of the total County population. Much of this growth has occurreclin southern and eastern Eno Township. This area has good access to employment centers in the City of Durham and Research Triangle Park via U.S. 70 and 1-85. The continued growth of Research Triangle Park will probably continue to contribute to a popula- tion growth rate for the Township consistent with that experienced over the past ten years. Exist" • Land Use and Infrastructure The southern portion of the Township has experienced increased suburbani- zation in recent years due to development pressures associated with the Township's proximity to Durham and the existence of a major transportation corridor which traverses the Township's southern tier. The northern tier of the Township retains its agricultural and rural character and consists of low-density residential development and a few commercial uses. Eno Township is characterized by clusters of residential and non-farm development generally referred to as neighborhoods and communities. These social. units were of greater importance in the past when such individual areas were more isolated and people generRlly more self-sufficient. They are significantly less iMportant now due to the influence of the automo- bile and improved transportation networks and the resulting expansion of social spheres. A neighborhood is defined as a small group of farm families who live in close proximity to each other, who personally know one another and to some extent visit among themselves, who recognize a common name for their immediate locality and who are accustomed to working together as a local unit. Their homes are usually centered around a church, store, filling station or school. A community may be defined as a group of neighborhoods which have a natu- ral tending to associate together because of common interests. They tendency to be more arbitrarily delineated that neighborhoods as community members may choose to meet together at different locations even if from the same neighborhood. The community usually possesses one center, however, to which most of its people go fairly often. Residents of Eno Township still identify to some extent with Pleasant Green, Palmer Grove and St. Marys communities. Eno Township is riot currently served by a public sewer system. However, sewer mains from the Town of Hillsborough and the City of Durham currently border Eno Township. "201" sewer plans prepared for these two municipali- ties call for future expansion into Eno Township. Sewer lines from the Town of Hillsborough are projected to include a small area of Eno Township along U.S. 70 by the year 2000. The Greater Durham 201 Facilities Plan proposed future extensions of the City of Durham's sewer system to provide sewer service to the area of Highway 70 near the Orange County/Durham County line. Water lines from the Town of Hillsborough do extend into Eno Township along U.S. 70 Business to its junction with U.S. 70 Bypass, down Old N.C. 10 to its junction with New Hope Road and along Piney Grove Church Road (SR 1711) and Lennie Drive (SR 1831) . The City of Durham is currently extending its water lines into Orange County along U.S. 70 for a distance of abouti.1/2 mile. This extension is to serve residences and mobile home parks in this area whose private water supplies have been contaminated by malfunctioning on-site sewage disposal systems. It is expected that the Hillsborough system will expand into Eno Township to meet the needs for public water. The further expansion of the City of Durham system from the west is less certain because of demands from many areas within Durham City and County for provision of public water and be- cause the City currently has a policy of not extending services into Orange County. Transportation The principal east/west corridor through Orange County traverses southern Eno Township. This corridor is composed of five miles of Interstate 85, five miles of U.S. 70 and several miles of a main line of the Southern Railroad. North/South transportation is much less pronounced in the Township with Pleasant Green Road (SR 1567) serving this function. St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) additionally serves as a transportation link angling north-east across the northern portion of the County from Hillshormuil A modified version of the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System has been used to describe the road network in Eno Township. This system describes parts of the road network based on the factors of access and mobility. The most important roads (Interstate and arterial highways) provide the best service (shortest travel-time) to and from important employment, shopping, educational and population centers. Roads of less importance (collector roads) do not provide as good a service function, but do provide an area with access to the major road system. The least important roads (local roads) function in the most limited service capacity, but in aggregate provide large land areas with access to the more important roads and highways. Using the North Carolina Functional Classification System, the major roads in Eno Township have been classified. The interstate highway traversing Eno Township is 1-85 which travels across the southern portion of the ToWn- ship. An interchange is located at the intersection of 1-85 and U.S. 70. U.S. 70 is a major two-lane hi way and is classified as an arterial along with St. Mary's Road CSR 100.2). The maj Or Collectdr roads in the Township include: U.S. 70 Business,7Eleasant Green Roaa'(8R 1567), Cole Mill Road - (SR 1569) and New Sharon Church Road (SR 1538). All other, rciads _in the Township are classified at the local, level of service-. Agriculture In Eno Township active fanning operations are currently concentrated along St. Mary's Road and in the area north of the road. Commercial dairying, beef, swine arid poultry operations are located in this general area. In recent years Eno Township has experienced a significant loss of farmland through farmland conversion. Reported Eno Township cropland, both harvested and idle, diminished by over 53% between the years 1955 and 1977, a decline in cropland of 2,300 acres. (Table 3-3)43). TABLE 3-143 ENO TOWNSHIP FARMLAND TRENDS' CHANGE 1955 1977 1955-77 CHANGE TOTAL CROPLAND 4,288 acres 1,987 acres -2,301 acres -53.7% TOTAL PASTURE 2,221 acres 2,116 acres -105 acres -4.7% TOTAL FARMLAND 6,509 acres 4,103 acres -2,406 acres -37.0% 1SOURCE: N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; Triangle J. Council of Governments. As shown, the amount of pasture land, in the Township also declined, but at a slower rate of 5% for the 22 year period. This represents a loss of about 100 acres. Several factors may accouht for this loss of farmland. Some of the losses may have taken place as a direct consequence of the construction of 1-85 through the Township. Perhaps the more significant consequence of the construction of interstate has been greatly improved transportation access in the area which has stimulated competition for land by residential, commercial and industrial uses. Southern and eastern Eno Township are also in close proximity to a regional employment center which includes Duke Forest, Duke Medical Complex, downtown Durham and Research Triangle Park. This has made those areas of the Township an attractive place of residence for "exurbanll commuters. Eno Township is likely to continue to experience growth pressures due to its good access to employment centers in the City of Durham and the Research Triangle Park. Increases in land values due to such population growth will most likely increase the cost of farming and also stimulate the rate of farmland conversion. Natural Environmental Constraints Several areas in Eno Township contain natural environmental features which affect their suitability for certain kinds of land uses. These constraints include: floodplains, steep slopes and poor soil conditions. FLOODPLAINS. The Eno River is the major stream which drains Eno Township. The Eno and its tributaries are subject to flooding. The extent of that flooding for the 100-year storm has been determined by the Army Corps of Engineers. Because the streams in this area have steep cilit valleys, the maximum width of the floodplain does not generally exceed 500 feet. One exception is the north/south section of the Eno where flatter topography produces areas where the floodplain extends 1000 feet in width during the 100-year storm. STEEP SLOPES. Areas with slopes greater than 15% are generally concen- trated in the central portion of the Township along the Eno River and in the lower drainage basin of its tributary, Buckwater,Creek. SOIL. Eno Township has large areas of good soils north of St. Mary's Road which are suitable for development. South of St. Mary's Road less suitable soils begin to predominate. The areas of steep slopes in the central area of the County have a covering of thin soils underlain by hard rock which make them generally unsuitable for development. In many other areas of the Township where the topography is gentler, heavy clay soils present problems, especially for the operation of on-site sewage disposal systems. Eno State Park: A Special Township Issue A State Park has been established along the Eno River valley in Eno Town- ship. It is the first State Park in North Carolina that is linear in character. In Orange County, the State currently owns or has easements for these large parcels. Three are the Cate's Ford access, Cabe's Mill access and the Red Hill Farm. The Eno River State Park Master Plan calls for the development of the Park in two phases. In Orange County, the first phase calls for the development of the Cate's Ford and Cabe's Mill areas to provide for primitive camping, picnicing and hiking. The Red Hill Farm tract will be used only as the site of a ranger residence. The second phase of the development plan calls for completing the linear character of the park by purchasing land or easements for connecting pieces along the Eno River. It also calls for two additional access areas. The point where the Eno crosses Lawrence Road is the proposed site of a small parking area and canoe launch. A second canoe launch area is proposed for the area just south of where the Eno crosses Pleasant Green Road. Additional land will also be added to the Park around the Cate's Ford Access during the second phase of the plan. PLANNING FRAMEWORA AND APPLICATION Organizing Concepts The following Township policy statements represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Eno Township is constructed. 1) The agricultural and rural character of the area in the northern tier of Eno Township should be maintained and the predominant land use protected from adverse environmental and economic impacts. 2) Low density residential development should be the predominant land use in the southern portion of the Township. 3) Commercial and Industrial uses are appropriate in the areas adja- cent to the intersection of U.S. 70 and 1-85 and extending south- east toward the Durham County line. 4) The State of North Carolina has designated certain areas along the Eno River for development in its Master Plan for the Eno State Park. These areas should be protected from adverse develop- ment pressures. 5) The Duke Forest lands in southern Eno Township, which are. a valu- able research and teaching facility and are available for public use should be protected from the negative impacts of development. Population. Projections and Land Requirements: 1980-2000, One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is the calculation of the amount of land required to accomodate projected growth in an area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential and commercial uses is directly related to the size of the population. The following tables summarize the population projections and estimated land requirements for Eric Township during the plan period: TABLE 3-146a POPULATION PROJEU.UONS: 1980-2000 1980 1990 2000 1980-2000 TOTAL POPULATION 4450 1 6033 2 -- 8168 2 POPULATION CHANGE (NUMBER) 1583 2135 3718 11980 U.S. census figure. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2 Projected population based on the EXAVE method. Explanation of methodology can be found in Appendix A. SOURCE: Orange County Planning Department TABLE 3-146b LAND REQUIREMENTS: 1980-2000 1980-1990 1990-2000 1980-2000 DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED1 631 d.u. 851 d.u. 1482 d.u. RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE2 REQUIRED 1344 acres 1813 acres 3157 acres TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED3 1411 acres 1904 acres 3315 acres 1Based on an average household size of 2.51 persons. 2Based on an average subdivided lot size 2.13 acres. 3Adjusted for non-residential and commercial uses based on a multiplier of 1.05 for areas outside of the municipal planning units: Since indus- trial development usually has little or no market relationship to local residential development, it has not been calculated as part of the Township needs. 146 - - The projected population of 8168 persons in Eno Township by the year 2000 would require an estimated 1482 additional dwelling units and 3157 acres of additional residential- land. In addition to the residential acreage, residential development brings in its wake the need for land for non-residential facilities, fire stations and other similar uses. The total additional acreage required during the plan period, therefore is 3315 acres. Allocation of Growth The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographically allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Township in accordance with the County- wide goals and policies and the Township policy statements. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to acconixiate this growth will be substan tially greater than the calculated need to allow for variation in the availability of land and the exercise of market choice. The following allocation guidelines which incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use clLsificati6n system, are derived from the County and Township policies to facilitate the process of determining the location of new growth in Eno Township: o The areas in the northern and central portions of Eno Township contain the prime agricultural soils in the County and should be maintained in this use. o Low density rural non-farm residential development is most appro- priate in the southern tier of Eno Township. o 1414 and medium intensity commercial, and industrial development should be located at the activity node in and around the intersection of U.S. 70 and Interstate 85. o Medium and high intensity residential development is appropriate in the area focused on the intersection of U.S. 70 and 1-85 and the area extending southeast to the Durham line. o The Duke Forest and Eno State Park lands, which are associated with prime educational and recreational opportunities, should be protected as public interest lands. In light of these allocation guidelines, information about land in Eno Township was "filtered" through the set of location criteria in order to evaluate the suitability of cevLain locations to contain various land uses. This information was then utilized in the classification of land throughout Eno Township. Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in. Eno Township has been classified into the following Land Use Plan categories according to the public policies expressed in the Plan, the set of locational criteria defining the appropriateness of the physical environmental, context, and the Township's projected population change and resulting space requirements: 20-YEAR TRANSITION. The area along U.S. 70 and 1-85 fram the Durham- Orange County line to the intersection of these roads in Eno Township and east to SR 1712 has been classified as Transition. The area is an extension of the expanding Durham City urban area and part of it is currently provided with water by the City of Durham. It also contains several large tracts of land which are zoned commercial or industrial. Transportation access is obviously good. A second area along the western edge of the Township line has also been designated 20-Year Transition. RURAL RESIDENTIAL. The retraining land in the southern portion of the Township has been classified rural residential. It is an area of the Township with good access to the City of Durham, which will in the future attract suburban-type development. AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL. The central and northern areas of the Township are areas where agriculture is an important use of the land and economic activity. They have been classified Agricultural-Residential. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS. The plan recognizes the existing State Park lands along the Eno River and the sections of Duke Forest in Eno Township which are available for public use. They are classified as Public Interest Areas worthy of protection from incompatible land uses. In addition to classifying the land in the County, the County's land use planning strategy has been to identify and evaluate potential activity nodes in the Township. The purpose of the activity is to direct comer- bial and industrial uses to the most appropriate areas in the Township, preventing strip-type development, and promoting a more compact and efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections in the Township. A total of three activity nodes have been designated in Eno Township. REFERENCE: Eno 1 , Law's Store LOCATION: U.S. 70 Business/U.S. 70 By-Pass, PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of an arterial (U.S. 70 By-Pass) and a collector (U.S. 70 Business), Palmer's Grove Church Road intersects By-Pass 70 at this intersection. Two commer- cial uses are currently located in the vicinity of this node. No environ- mentAl constraints hinder commercial development in the area of this node. REFERENCE: Eno 2, Eno LOCATION: U.S. 70 and 1-85 PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial-Industrial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two major highways. It is also serviced by a spur of the Southern Railroad. Existing commercial uses are located in the area of the node. The node is located within Durham's 201 sewer planning area. Durham City water is within 4000 feet of this node. There are a minimum of residential uses located in the area. A section of the Eno River State Park as well as floodplain along the Eno River are located north of 1-85 interchange at this node. Therefore, industrial and commercial development should be confined to the area south and east of this interchange. REFERENCE: Eno 3, Duke Forest LOCATION: U.S. 70, Old Number 10 and N.C. 751 PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of three collector roads. It is bordered on the south by a main line of the Southern Railroad. Existing land uses include commercial uses and mobile home parks. The node is within Durham's 201 sewer planning area and has Durham City water. A section of Duke Forest land abuts the inter- change on the southern side of U.S. 70. Therefore, commercial development at this node should be confined to the area north of U.S. 70 at the intersection. _____ .— ~�_.-~_- _�. . .~��.__.' ,_ ^~~�~ '~�~'__~ I ''Aikk i „..... ,_______. ..._ i . 1 1 leolitipirill41, 7; ,416 vol i 46416,.. itior 1 1 ,ww,/ .11 jars„. , 1 1 . tHi1613., . calf' 0 IOW 1 .illrillis ._,.,„..iiii AI 1 '!' tilimpii4r114.01611"fikiliriam........-1,..il 1 Ail. ' | ivir ...a 4 0 ig411M....,000- 1 , T . Pa villkk 1 '6' . 4: ,. *r If| )), �:::::.i:° ° \ .~_~_'___ | y _______ __j ~~_- 3.11 BINGHAM TOWNSHIP PLAN TOWNSHIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Bingham Township, located in the southwestern portion of Orange County, occupies 148,900 acres and contains 19% of the total County land area. The Township is characterized by a predominantly rural landscape with limited low density commercial and residential development. Farming remains an important activity throughout the Township. Due to its pro- ximity to Chapel Hill and Carrboro, urban forces have begun to exert a significant influence on the character of the Township. These growth pressures are likely to continue throughout the plan period and will require concerted growth management efforts to minimize adverse impacts resulting from this growth. Socio-Economic Features During recent years Bingham Township has experienced a significant popula- tion increase. Population figures from the 1980 Census indicate that between 1970 and 1980 the population of the Township increased from 2379 persons to 3954 persons at an average annual growth rate of 6.2%. The current population of the Township accounts for 5% of the total County population._ The primary economic activity of the residents of Bingham Township is agriculture. Forty percent of the County's dairy operations are located in the Township. Development pressures on this agricultural area are of major concern to the Township residents. Existing Land Use and Infrastructure Bingham Township is predominantly a rural-agricultural area. Limited low density commercial and residential development is scattered throughout the Township. However, the proximity of the Township to the expanding Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill represents a growing source of development pressures. N.C. 54, which runs east-west across the central portion of the Township, functions as a connecting link between Bingham Township and the Towns. This corridor and its intersections provide a visible demon- stration of the increasing impacts resulting from urbanization in the adjacent townships. Commercial uses locating along this route, particu- larly along the sections nearest the Towns, elicit concern about the potential for strip commercial development. The TOwnship's accessibility not only to Carrboro and Chapel Hill, but also to Durham and the Research Triangle Park, is attracting new rural non-farm development. In 1978 Bingham Township accounted for 13% of all building permits issued in the County. It's estimated population for that same year, however, amounted to only 5% of the County total, thus indicating that development activity in the Township was disproportionately high in comparison with the existing population. These trends are a matter of concern to Bingham Township residents. AS with many rural residents of the County, this new growth is perceived as a disquieting element in their lifestyles. The designation of Proposed Cane Creek water supply watershed has created a very specific focus for this concern. It pinpoints the conflict between two valuable and necessary land uses: agriculture, as a life supporting and income-producing activity, and a water reservoir, also a life supporting land use. The resolution of this issue as well as the other land use issues facing Bingham Township today and in the near future:needs to be addressed in a way which seeks to balance the competing uses so as to be least disrupting to the current residents and existing land use pattern and which most enhances the public benefits to be gained County-wide. The Township is not currently served by public sewer and water systems. It is not anticipated that such service will be provided during the plan period. Transportation A modified version of the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System has been used to describe the road network in Bingham Township. This system describes parts of the road network based on the factor of access and mobility. The most important roads (Interstate and arterial highways) provide the best service (shortest travel time) to and from im- portant centers. Roads of lesser importance (collector roads) do not pro- vide as good a service function, but do provide an area with access to the major road system. The least important roads (local roads) function in the most limited service capacity, but in aggregate provide large land areas with access to the more important roads and highways. Bingham Township's transportation network adequately connects it with the urban areas of Chapel Hill-Carrboro, Burlington and Durham. In its capa- city as the major transportation route in Bingham Township, the arterial N.C. 54 carries an average daily traffic load, of 6000 vehicles at its busiest point within the Township. A second important east/west route is the Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005), a collector. The north/south routes are not as important. They include the collectors Orange Grove Road (SR 1006), White Cross Road (SR 1951), Dodson's Cross- roads (SR 1102), Mebane Oaks. Road (SR 1007) and Orange Chapel Clover Road (SR 1956) . All other roads provide a local level, of service. The construction of the proposed N.C. 54 Southern By-Pass would make the southern tier of Bingham Township more accessible for commuting to and from Chapel Hill. In addition, both Durham and the Research Triangle Park would be brought within reasonable commuting range of this tier of the Township. The construction of the proposed Interstate 40 extension in neighboring Chapel Hill Township would reduce the commuting travel times to and from the northern and central portions of Bingham Township from both Durham and Research Triangle Park. Agriculture Although an important and predominantly agricultural area, Bingham Township has experienced the County-wide trend of farmland and conversion in recent years. Reported Bingham Township cropland both harvested and idle demin- ished by 16% between 1955 and 1977. The cropland base of the Township declined in this period by almost 1400 acres (Table3z153 ). TABLE 3-153 BINGHAM TOWNSHIP FARMLAND TRENDS1 CHANGE % 1955 1977 1955-77 CHANGE TOTAL CROPLAND 8,691 ac. 7,319 ac. -1,381 ac. -15.9% TOTAL PASTURE 4,491 ac. 4,418 ac. -73 ac. -1.6% TOTAL 13,182 ac. 11,728 ac. -1,454 ac. -11.0% ------ 1SOURCE: N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; Triangle J Council of Governments. As shown, the Township pastureland base also diminished, but at a much slower rate of less than 2%, representing a decline of less than 100 acres. The twenty operating dairy farms in Bingham Township maintain over 1800 mile cows. Consequently, Bingham Township is an important center of the dairying in a county, ranking sixth among North Carolina's 100 counties in number of milk cows. Other types of farming operations in the Town- ship include poultry and swine operations. Pressures fran the urbanization trends will likely affect Bingham Township agriculture. The proposed I-40 extension, if build, will significantly decrease the commuting time to typical places of work such as the Research Triangle Park, Durham and Raleigh. Dairy, swine and poultry operations in Bin&lam Township are vulnerable to development pressures. Nuisance complaints from non-farm residential areas are often directed at swine and poultry farms. Dairy farming is subject to increased environmental regulation as population density increases. The large capital investment necessary in dairying makes any relocation of a operation due to surround- , ing development pressures very difficult and expensive. Natural Environmental Constraints Bingham Township contains the following natural constraints to development activity: floodplains, watersheds, steep slopes and poor soil conditions. FLDODPLAINS. Floodplains present identified constraints along the Haw River in the southwest corner of Bingham, along Cane Creek and its tribu- taries in the central and northwest sections, and along Collins Creek in the south-central portion of the Township. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. Approximately 28% of the University Lake watershed pytpnds into the eastern section of the Township, consisting of 5385 acres or 8.4 square miles. The watershed which would drain into the proposed Cane Creek reservoir covers 20,160 acres or 31.5 square miles of Bingham Township. STEEP SLOPES. Steep slopes represent a limited constraint, occurring pri- marily along the Haw River and some sections Cane Creek. SOILS. Soil conditions in the east-central and southeastew area of the Township present some limitations to building or development activity be- cause of heavy clay content and shallow depth of bedrock. PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND APPLICATION Organizing Concepts The following Township policy statements represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Bingham Township is constructed: 1) The agricultural and rural residential character of the Township Should be maintained. 1 2) Existing and potential water supply watersheds in the Township should be developed in a way that will minimize impacts on water quality and not conflict with agricultural activities. 3) The White Cross area has the characteristics of a community within the Township and this character should be enhanced. 4) Residential development that does occur in the Township should be planned for areas that will not create negative impacts on agriculture or potential or existing water supply watersheds. 5) The area along North Carolina Highway 54 is not appropriate for strip-type commercial development; rather, development should take place in compact clusters focused on designated activity nodes and separated from residential areas, thereby preserving the utility of the highway as an important throughfare. Population Projections and Land Reauirements: 1980-2000 One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is the calculation of the amount of land required to accomodate projected growth in an area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential and commercial uses is directly related to the size of the population. The following tables summarize the population projections and estimated land requirements for Bingham Township during the plan period: TABLE 3-155a POPULATION PROJECTIONS: 1980-2000 1980 1990 2000 1980-2000 TOTAL POPULATTON 3954 1 5500 2 7650 2 --- POPULATION CHANGE (NUMBER) 1546 2150 3696 11980 U.S. Census figure. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2 Projected population based on the EXAVE method. Explanation of methodology can be found in Appendix A. SOURCE: Orange County Planning Department. TABLE 3-155b LAND REQUIREMENTS: 1980-2000 1980-1990 1990-2000 1980-2000 DWELLING UNITS REQUIRED]. 650 d.u. 903 d.u. 1553 d.u. RESID2 ACREAGE 4 11MP 1788 ac. 2483 ac. 4271 ac. TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED3 1877 ac. 2607 ac. 4485 ac. 1Based on an average household size of 2.38 persons. 2 Based on an average subdivided lot size of 2.75 acres. 3Adjusted for non-residential and commercial uses based on a multiplier of 1.05 for areas outside of municipP1 corporate limits. Since indus- trial development usually has little or no market relationship to local residential development, it has not been calculated as part of the Township needs. The projected population of 7650 persons in Bingham Township by the year 2000 would require an estimated 1553 additional dwelling units and 4271 acres of additional residential land. In addition to the residential acreage, residential development brings in its wake the need for land for non-residential purposes such as shopping, schools, churches recreational facilities fire stations and other similar uses. The total additional acreage required during the plan period, therefore, is 4485 acres. Allocation of Growth The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographically allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Township in accordance with the County- wide goals and policies and the Township policy statements. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accomodate this growth will be substan- tially greater than the calculated need to allow for variations in the availability of land and the exercise of market choice. The following pllocation guidelines, which incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use classification system, are derived from the County and Township policies to faciJitate the process of determining the location of new growth in Bingham Township: o Rural non-farm residential development will be allocated so as to avoid negative environmental or economic impacts on agriculture. o Commercial development will be allocated to designated activity nodes, which provide a more reasonable and efficient alternative to the trend toward strip-type development along the rural roads, especially along N.C. 54. o Commercial and non-farm residential development will be directed away from areas that, if developed at those intensities, would create negative impacts on water supply watersheds. In light of these allocation guidelines, information about land in Bingham Township was "filtered" through the set of locational criteria in order to evaluate the suitability of certain locations to contain various land uses. This information was then utilized in the classification of land throughout Bingham Township. Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories Land in Bingham Township has been classified into the following Land Use Plan categories according to the public policies expressed in the Plan, the set of locational criteria defining the appropriateness of the physical environmental context for future development, and the Township's projected population change and resulting Land requirements: RURAL RESIDENTIAL. This area of the Township is generally bounded by the University Lake watershed to the east, Dairyland Road to the north, Orange Grove Road to the west and N.C. 54 to the south. The area has character- istics which make it suitable for rural, non-farm residential development. It is adjacent to the major east-westroad, N.C. 54 and near the Rural Community of White Cross. A proposed Rural Commercial Activity node at the intersection of N.C. 54 and Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road is also close by. Commercial uses, either existing or future, at these nodes will provide the necessary support services for the Rural Residential area. This area is also outside both the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. The vast majority of the land area in the Township is classified as Agricultural Residential. This classification is to designate those areas where the land use activities are predominately related to the cultivation of the land or the use of land as pasture. The intent is to provide for the preservation of land suitable for agriculture, silviculture and horticulture uses. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. In Bingham Township this classification applies to the University Lake and Cane Creek water supply watersheds (In the case of Cane Creek the designation refers to the part of the watershed that will drain into the proposed reservoir.). This classification includes lands that drain to existing reservoirs which are public water supplies for Orange County or to potential reservoir sites which have been designated for protection. These watersheds need to be protected from the impacts of development which MftEht cause water quality problems for existing public water supplies or preempt the future utilization of poten- tial reservoir sites. RURAL BUFFER. This area extends into Bingham Township from Chapel Hill Township generally coinciding with the boundaries of the University Lake watershed. The purpose for this classification is to designate land near or within the urbanizing area of Chapel Hill and Carrboro that should remain rural in character and not require urban-type services. It should contain very low density residential uses and agriculture uses. In addition to classifying the land in the County, the County's land use planning strategy has been to identify and evaluate potential activity nodes in the Township. The purpose of the activity is to direct commercial and industrial uses to the most appropriate areas in the Township, preventing strip-type development, and promoting a more compact and efficient land use pattern focused on major intersections in the Township. A total of five activity nodes have been designated in Bingham Township. REFERENCE: 6H-11 Adam and Eve LOCATION: N.C. 54 and Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (SR 1956) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of an arterial road (N.C. 54) and a collector road. Existing commercial acti- vities in the vicinity of this node include: two auto gas-service sta- tions, an auto parts firm, a wholesale mailorder distribution finis and a vacant store. There are no environmental constraints associated with this node. REFERENCE: 13H-21 White Cross LOCATION: Focused between the intersections of N.C. 54 and White Cross Road (SR 1952) and N.C. 54 and Butler Road (SR 1951) . PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Community ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node situated between the two intersections with N.C. 54 and encompasses both intersections within its area. Existing uses in the node area include a combination gasoline station and small grocery store. There are no environmental constraints. This node cur- rently has only limited community or commercial type uses. However, it possesses locational attributes which make it a suitable Rural Community node. It is located at the intersection of an important and well traveled east-west road with two important north-south routes. This location is near an area to the northeast of the node (between Orange Grove Road and Dodson's Crossroads South) that has been classified as Rural Residential. As this resident1P-1 area develops it will have a need for support services that could most appropriately be located at this node. REFERENCE: BH-3, Haw River LOCATION: Old Greensboro Highway (SR 1005) and Crawford Dairy Road (SR 1956). PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two collector roads. Existing land uses at this location include a church and a few residential uses. There are no environmental constraints. It was determined that this node would be a good location for small scale limited commercial use, such as a single-small grocery store to serve residents of south-western Bingham, when and if a sufficient population density develops. REFERENCE: BH-4, Frog Level LOCATION: Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) and Dodson's Crossroads North (SR 1102). PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two collector roads. Existing land uses include a commercial use, previously used as a leather shop and an auto parts store. It is located on the boundary of Cane Creek water supply watershed. It location in the north- east section of the Township means it can serve the residents in that area efficiently. REFERENCE: EH-5, Oak Grove LOCATION: Oak Grove Church Road (SR 1117) and Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120). PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two collector roads. Existing land uses include a combination small store and auction facility, a mobile home park and a retail meat outlet. It is located in the fringe boundary area of the Cane Creek watershed. This site is a good location to serve residents in the northwest section of Bingham Tbwnship. •,.F1 . _____ _ ........__.._.i I ph. j ,4416111itipprivpillit, ilk I . Ill ibi,jioillltsrapp. . .„..4.1 1 1 & i ihabk- -,::. Mebene As Hitlsb,..,„.. ,0 i 1 i Illit ilialikilikr1/4 i r. ,....Lvo.r.„. --„,), ",,,, w...........„,i i i � i , i � rHAPE _ glik i ...::::,::::::::::::,. 4 . • - 1,5 i: CgrrE• o rcppel vari •Iiiiii:::1::::::::vgiiii.:0::::i:::i.. I . ii .....„ . . .."::iIIII:f:::::::i:::::::::::::::::::::::.::::- ,,,. . -----1 1::ii::i::::•••• ----1 1 1 k 1111111FOr _ j I3.12. CHAPEL HILL PLAN . TOWNSHIP PROFILE: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Chapel Hill Township, located in the southeastern part of Orange County, occupies 46,700 acres and contains 18% of the total County land area. The municipalities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro are located within the Township. The Township has been experiencing significant growth due to its locational advantages relative not only to the Towns, but also to its proximity to Durham and the Research Triangle Park. Socio-Economic Features The 1980 U.S. Census figure for Chapel Hill Township is 50,572 persons, an increase of 11,716 from the 1970 population of 38,856 persons. This represents an average annual population growth rate of 3.0% for the period. However, the rate of growth in the Township has slowed during this census period as opposed to the 1960-1970 growth rate of 5.5%. The 1980 Chapel Hill Township population accounts for 66% of the total County population. The Town of Chapel Hill, with a population of 32,038 in 1980, contributed 42% of the total County population and 63% of the Township population. Further, the Town of Chapel Hill absorbed 30% of the population growth in the County during the past decade. and 50% of the population growth in the Township. Carrboro, with a 1980 population of 7517, experienced an average annual growth rate of 4.9%. Carrboro's population accounts for 10% of the total County population and 15% of the Township's population. The Town has absorbed 13% of the population growth experienced in the County during the past decade and 21% of the Township's population growth in that same period. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro urbanizing area contains the major employment centers of the University of North Carolina and North Carolina Memorial Hospital as well as supporting commercial and services-related activities. In addition, this urban area is located in close proximity to the Research Triangle Park, Raleigh and Durham employment centers. This accessibility to major sources of employment, as well as social and recreational activi- ties, is reflected in the attraction of the area for population in-migration. The remainder of the Township is experiencing the impacts of Chapel Hill and Carrboro's locational attributes as significant non-farm development spreads throughout the Tbwnship. The potential for adverse pressures on the agricultural activities in this area will probably increase throughout the plan period. Existing Land Use and Infrastructure The primary factor shaping the land use pattern of this Township is the presence of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro urbanizing area. The Township is experiencing additional, but secondary growth pressures from the City of Durham to the east and to a lesser extent from Chatham County to the south. Residential development activity in northern Chatham County will likely increase its influence on southern Chapel Hill Township with the comple- tion of the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir. The expansion of the Research Triangle Park as new research and industrial firms locate there will exert considerable influence on this development pattern as new employees choose to reside in the Chapel Hill area. Supportive uses to these new firms and population will cause further developmental and environmental impacts to occur in the Township. Except for some minor areas within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro corporate limits, much of the southeastern portion of Chapel Hill Township is sewered or has the potential for sewer. A trunk line, which runs south of Chapel Hill and. Carrboro along Smith Level Road, has encouraged and will continue to encourage medium to high density development in this area. The commer- cial complex at the Chatham County line and the large residential develop- ment called Heritage Hills gives evidence of this trend. A major sewer trunk line rune northward south of the Horace Wi]liams Airport toward the Calvander area. This line, built on University of North Carolina property, is expected to fulfill UNC expansion needs in the area. Future sewer extensions from the City of Durham to the area on the east side of New Hope Creek could encourage development in the eastern sector of the County. The northern part of Chapel Hill, generally focused on Weaver Dairy Road, is currently being subjected to strong development pressures and is in the process of urbanization. Most of this area is or will be served by water and sewer lines, thereby increasing the potential for higher density develop- ment. Timberlyne, Carol Woods and The Village Companies' offices are examples of this type of development. The northern and western portions of the Township are characterized by low and medium residential development. As the areas closer to Chapel Hill and Carrboro become more urbanized development pressures may exert a greater influence on these outlying areas of the County, particularly along the transportation condors between Chapel Hill and Carrboro and. Hillsborough. This represents a growing threat to the viability of the agricultural operations in this portion of the Township as well as the protection of the water supply watershed to the west of the Towns. Transportation Chapel Hill Township is traversed by four major north/south and east/west highways. The north/south routes are N.C. 86 and SR 1009 (Old 86) which connect Hillsborough and points north with Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The proposed 1-40 Interstate extension, if built, would serve as a significant part of this north/south corridor. The east-west routes are the Business and By-pass 15-501 highways and N.C. 54. A municipally operated bus system currently serves the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. In the future this system could potentially serve areas out- side town limits if they contained sufficient population density. A modified version of the North Carolina Functional Classification System has been used to describe the road network in Chapel Hill Township. This system describes roads based on access and mobility. Interstate and arte- rial highways are most important because they provide the best service (least travel-time) to and from employment, shopping, educational and population centers. Roads of lesser importance are called collectors because their chief function is to "collect" traffic from large neigh- borhood and community areas for eventual access onto an arterial or Interstate. Local roads are the least important roads providing access to the major road system from smaller service areas in the County. The arterial highways in Chapel Hill Township are: : N.C. 86, NC. 54, N.C. 501, N.C. 751, Greensboro Road, Mt. Carmel Church Road, Old N.C. 86, Weaver' Dairy Road, Erwin Road, Smith Tcwel Road, Jones Ferry Road and Homestead Rodd.anMhe collector roads include: Efland Cedar Grove Road, Mebane OakA Road, -Arthur Minnis Road, Buckhorn Road, Mt. Willing Road, West Ten Road, - Daityland Road, Lebanon Read, Doe Run Road, Mt. Sinai Road, New Hope Church Road, Whitfield Road, Poythress Road and Damascus Church Road. Chapel Hill Tbwnship's transportation network connects it to the regional population centers of Durham, Burlington and Raleigh, as well as to the Research Triangle Park. The construction of the proposed Interstate 40 extension would bring these areas within much closer commuting distance to the Township. This increased convenience of access to such centers is likely to stimulate new growth pressures in the area of the Township north and west of Chapel Hill. Agriculture Chapel Hill Township is probably experiencing the greatest growth pressures in the County and the result has been a dramatic rate of farmland conversion during recent years. Reported Chapel Hill Township cropland, harvested and idle, diminished by over one-half between the years 1955 and 1977. This reduction accounted for a decline in the Township cropland base of over 4,200 acres (Table 3-161 ). TABLE 3-161 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP FARMLAND TRENDS 1 CHANGE 1955 1977 1955-1977 CHANGE _ TOTAL CROPLAND 7,735 ac. 3,531 ac. -4,200 ac. -54.4% TOTAL PASTURE 3,984 ac. 2,657 ac. -1,300 ac. -33.3% TOTAL FARMLAND 11,719 ac. 6,188 ac. -5,531 ac. -47.2% 1SOURCE: N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service; Triangle J Council of Governments. However, as shown, the Township pastureland base also decreased, but at a slower rate of about 27%, representing a loss of 1,300 acres. Much of this loss msut be assumed to have taken place because of intensive development pressures within Chapel Hill Township during the past two decades, as evidenced by the dramatic population growth experienced in the .J; Township. Between 1960 and 1980 the population of Chapel Hill grew from 25,000 to 50,572 persons, an increase of 50%. Increases in land values due to such population growth usually result in concomitant increases in the cost of farming by making expansion more costly, by directly and in- directly increasing the tax burden on farming, and by increasing the costs of "externalities" (crop theft, soil and crop pollution, nuisance complaints, etc. ). Increased land values also offer an inducement to farmers to sell some or all of their farms and realize a capital gain, rather than absorb increased operations costs. Growth pressures are likely to continue to impact on Township farmland. In 1978 alone, over 500 new lots on over 1000 acres were created in Chapel Hill Township outside of the planning jurisdiction of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The construction of the proposed Interstate 40 extension will place additional development pressure on the remaining Township farmland. Most of this remaining farmland is in the western third of the Township. The decreased commuting time to these areas from Chapel Hill, Durham, Research Triangle Park and Raleigh will likely make the area more attractive for residential and, in turn, commercial development as well. Dairy farming, still carried on in the western part of the Township, is particularly vulne- rable to development pressures in that the relocation of such operations is very costly. Natural Environmental Constraints Several areas in Chapel Hill Township contain environmental constraints which affect the degree to which land can be developed. These constraints include: floodplains, water supply watershed, steep slopes and soil conditions. FLOODPLAINS. The floodplains in Chapel Hill Township are found along Morgan, Phils and Pritchard Creeks in the University Lake watershed and. New Hope and Bolin Creeks in the northern and central part of the Township. The land adjacent to these water courses, defined as the floodplain, is a natural hazard which places a constraint on the development of this land. Most types of urban development should be discouraged from locating in these areas. Whatever limited building that is permitted should adhere to design standards which would ensure that the function of the floodplain would be maintained. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. The University Lake watershed is an important natural resource for Chapel Hill Township since it drains into a water supply reservoir. This watershed needs to be protected from development and land uses which would negatively impact on the reservoir through excessive sedimen- tation and other forms of pollution from various types of urban development. The streams within this watershed form a critical element in this system and need special consideration with respect to development and land use impacts. STEEP SLOPES. Although not a Township-wide constraint, some steep slopes (greater than l5%) exist in portions of Duke Forest, around University Lake and in the area called the "southern triangle", By itself, steep slope conditions are not necessarily a prohibitive constraint on small scale development. However, the level of constraint does increase when this con- dition is superimposed upon additional environmental constraints such as floodplains or water supply watersheds. SOIL CONDITIONS. Certain soils in the Township have poor building develop- ment potential. The extreme eastern portion of the Township along the Durham County line and the area know as the "southern triangle" contain soils which have limitations for development because of erodability, shallow depth to bedrock and high runoff potential. The University Lake watershed area is comprised of generally poor soils in ter nm of development potential . North of Chapel Hill and Carrboro soils are more suitable for various types of development. Similar to steep slopes, poor soil conditions do not neces- sarily represent prohibitive constraints on development. Rather, they indi- cate the need for appropriate design standards. PLAN FRAMEWORK AND ANALYSIS Organizing Concepts The following Township statements represent the organizing concepts around which the Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill Township is constructed: 1) The urbanizing areas of the Towns are the major growth centers in the Township. The " fill" of existing urban areas is the guiding principle upon which the Chapel Hill Township Plan is based. "Infill" development of suitable vacant land within the Towns at existing or projected densities as set forth in the Towns' 19.77 Land Use Plans should be encouraged. 2) The more intensive land uses are most appropriately located within the Towns and then within the areas adjacent to the Towns likely to become urban. 3) The rural residential and agricultural character of the Township outside the Towns and adjacent transition areas should be main- tained. 4) The existing open space system in Chapel Hill Township, which in- cludes the Duke Forest Lands, the UNC buffer around University Lake, the Morgan Creek Wildlife area, and existing agricultural and forest land, should be protected from intrusion by incompatible land uses. 5) University Lake water supply watershed should be developed in a manner which will protect the quality of the water supply. Very low density residential, low intensity commercial and agricultural land uses are appropriate in this area. Population Projections and Land Requiremtnts: 1980-2000 One of the initial and fundamental steps in the land use planning process is the calculation of the amount of land required to accomodate projected growth in an area. Generally, the amount of land required for residential and associated non-residential and commercial uses is directly related to the size of the population. However, the forecast of the amount of land required to accomodate future population growth must rely upon both a projection of future population levels and an assumption about the compactness of settlement. For Chapel Hill Township the stated policy is to encourage "infill" development of suitable vacant land within the existing corporate limits of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. This is land which is not constrained by the presence of environmentally sensitive or public interest Lands. If totally successful, the effect of this policy would be to achieve 100% infill of vacant urban land. As this level of 100% infill is very optimistic and not likely to be achieved, the Chapel Hill Township Land Use Plan will be based on the assump- tion that development at a level of 75% infill will, occur during the period 1980-2000. The infill goal, however, will remain at 100% and all relevant policies will, be directed toward achieving maximum infill. The Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill Township distinguishes between two cate- gories of residential development in the Township outside the Town's plan- ning areas. "Spillover" development refers to that growth which overflows into the land adjacent to the Towns current planning jurisdiction boundaries after 75% of the suitable vacant land within the Towns' jurisdiction has been absorbed at densities set out in the Towns' Land Usa Plan. "Scattered" development refers to a constant, minimum amount of growth that will occur in the rural areas of the Township, regardless the amount of "infill" of vacant land within the Towns' jurisdictions. Scattered develop- ment reflects the fact that some people prefer to live in the rural areas and total control of this factor is not possible, in spite of a policy directed at infill development. This constant for "scattered" development, based on the estimated percentage of the 1980 Township population residing outside of the Towns' planning areas, has been projected to be the land required to settle 9% of the future Township population. It is assumed that this constant rural density growth will be equally distributed through- out the rural areas of the Township. Based on the policy of "infill" development in the urban areas, the amount of land required to accomodate growth not absorbed within the Towns can be estimated from the amount of vacant land available within the Towns that is suitable for residential development. As shown in Table 3-165, an in- crease in population during the plan period of 33,350 persons in Chapel Hill and 12,720 persons in Carrboro can be accomodated through 75% infill develop- ment of suitable vacant land in the Towns. This is a total of 46,070 persons. 164 h 1 td .,_, ,.... ,.... • 1::) 14- i CT\ H - 4.• 0 e -1 P-4 rn 0 cv 0 0 0 ol • 0 1 in CU i--- 1-4 <4 0 4-Y1 g I cc ct 44.) $4 S o 0 H rn ■ 00 a) 0 H cH 0 0 - EA 4-) N a) a) 0 9$ g o 8 8 5 co 0 4-) 8 rcl fi 4-1 0 1 co • 0 't crl . T 4-4 0 4-4 v) 0i Z '1 ( 1 cv in .10 i_:19 g4 Ic:',4 @ ...4 0, N-4 0, c0 0-) ,--, .1 " Q 4-4 1 ;c-rn) a) A H •, . H 0) 0 in C.) v-i 4-1 1--1 on c--- ccl -1-10 .17.4 >4 I-a r- a. R . 2 0 4 2 • 2 .- c..) ITC H 8 -,5 H 0 E-1 ca • c.) • c.) c) '0 cti '1:1 cd I 0 L. a) • N n..1 ct.) C I 4 -4-) H Lri cz .9 4 vo 0 E-4 r.b0 0 r-i nq 11 cr) E En a) ul to 0 F-1 Pi N R Ei1,0 0 c.) 0 0 2 cd cli RS co ,r r14 F. h N. H bo 2 0 U) .0 0 E. ,. ,-4 cr, .=. • 0 h a) 04 PI lg In H C7N nr. 0 O\ ,--7 01; ,z). cl I Ts 0 ..4 a. r: rd 0 1 4-4 H t C.) Cl] 4 ED 0▪ H a) 0 HD r-1 61 < 0 2 2 2 ,--1 * 1-1 •ri 110 C7\ 1-1 CO 0 LC ti-N E• CU r--1 H ON g (714 00 c--- '.o 01 0.1 (1.1 a 0 0 ..c rri H " § 6 S c5 a) •• ca 0 4 g4 -P • 4) a (1) 1-91 t E Er; ?) Z I i a) cr) a s:L r0 (a 0 H ''' 8 ri i'Irrl 5 .. co H ,c,.1 R (.4 a) rn 0 fn 1-1 it-i c.) ed rd cp rA A') 64 44 0 N c\1 rn Population pinjections done for Chapel Hill Township predict a population of 100,130 persons by the year 2000, an increase of 49,558 persons. These projections are shown in Table 3-166a. TABLE 3-166a POPULATION PROJECTIONS: 1980-2000 _____________ 1980 1990 2000 1980-2000 TOTAL POPULATION 50,572 1 71,160 2 100,130 2 POPULATION CHANGE 20,588 28,970 49,558 ADDITIONAL POPULATION ACCOMODATED THROUGH 75% INF= 46,070 3 11980 U.S. Census figure SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2 Projected population based on the EXAVE method. Explanation of the methodology can be found in Appendix A. SOURCE: Orange County Planning Department. 3See Table 3-165. Population Accorrodated in Chapel Hill-Carrboro by 75% Infill. As shown in Table 3-1664 this represents an addition of 49, 558 persons during the plan period 1980-2000. It is assumed that 9% of this fixture population growth or 4,460 persons will chcoseto settle outside the urban areas in the remainder of the Township. The additional acreage required to accomodate this scattered development is shown in the following table: TABLE 3-166b SCATTERED DEVELOPMENT LAND REQUIREMENTS: 1980-2000 SCATTERED DEVELOP- DWELLING UNITS RESIDENTIAL ACRE- TOTAL ACRE- , MENT POPULATION REQUIRED 1 AGE REQUIRED 2 AGE REQUIRED -) 4,460 1,640 4,182 4,391 'Based on an average household size of 2.72 persons. 2Based on an average subdivided lot size of 2.55 acres. 3Adjusted for non-residential, and commercial uses based on a multiplier of 1.05. Since industrial development usually has little or no market relationship to local residential development, it has not been calcu- lated, as part of the Township needs. ik The projected scattered development population of 4,460 persons locating outside of the Towns planning area during the plan period would require an estimated 1,640 additional dwelling units and 4,182 additional resi- dential acres • In addition to the additional residential acreage, resi- dential development brings in its wake the need for land for non-resi- dential purposes such as shopping, schools, churches, recreational facili- ties, fire stations and other similar uses. The total additional acreage required to accomodate scattered development during the plan period, therefore, is 4,391 acres. Having accounted for the estimated land requirements for scattered develop- ment, further consideration should be given to accomodating the land re- quirements of spillover development regardless of the calculated absence of spillover development unaccomodated through infill development. As shown on Table 3-166a icappears that the policy of 75% infill development of suitable vacant land in the Towns, it successful, would almost exactly accomodate all the projected Township population increase with land capa- city to spare. However, the concept of infill development is based on an assumption regarding the desired compactness of settlement. In actuality, other factors such as individual preference, the functioning of the land market, political, and community support for the policy and the adequacy of infill development incentives impact upon the degree to which this policy is successfully translated into physical form. Therefore, land in areas adjacent to the Towns has been allocated to accomodate for 25% of the projected increase in Township population (less the population accomodated through scattered development) unable Or unwilling to live within the Towns planning area. The average population density of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro planning area is 2.25 persons per acre. Assuming the same density of development for the transition areas outside the towns planning area, an additional 5011 acres will be needed to accomodate the potential "spillover" development of 25% of the population increase or 11,275 persons. TABLE 3-167 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP LAND REQUIREMENTS: 1980-2000 ACCOMDDATED TDTAL ACREAGE POPULATION REQUIRED SPILLOVER DEVELOPMENT 11,275 5,011 SCATTERED DEVELOPMENT 4,460 4,391 TOTAL 16,849 9,402 As shown on Table 3-167, the total additional land required to accorodate both scattered and spillover development is 9,402 acres. Allocation of Growth The primary task of the Land Use Plan is to geographically allocate the anticipated growth throughout the Township in accordance with the County- : wide goals and policies and the Township policy statements. In actuality, the amount of land allocated to accomodate this growth will be substan- .: tially greater than the calculated need to allow for variations in the availability of land, and the exercise of market choice. The following allocation guidelines, which incorporate the descriptive framework of the County land use classification system are derived from the County and Township policies to facilitate the process of determining the location of new growth in Chapel Hill Township. o Duke Forest tracts will, not be developed over the period 1980-2000. o No "spillover" growth fram the two Towns will occur in Chatham or Durham Counties or in Bingham Township. In other words, all "spillover" development will be absorbed within the boundaries of Chapel Hill Township. o University Lake water supply watershed will develop only after the remaining suitable vacant land in the Township is developed. o The "southern triangle" area will develop only after all the suit- able land, south of and between the Duke Forest tracts has been developed.. o The area north of the Towns' is assumed to be most suitable for absorbing "spillover" because of transportation access; the large efficiently sewerable area below the Morgan Creek-New Hope Creek divide; and existing growth patterns. To facilitate the allocation of growth the Township was divided, into 27 planning units. Boundaries for the planning units were determined pri- marily by major roads and, the University Lake watershed divide. The exception to this was the designation of the Duke Forest tracts as sepa- rate, istinct planning units. It should be noted that the planning units to which the anticipated growth was allocated were delineated prior to recent annexations by Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The calculation of vacant, suitable land within the Town's planning areas was also done prior to the annexations. The net effect of these annexations on the calculation of land requirements elsewhere in the Township is minor. In light of these allocation guidelines, information about land in Chapel Hill Township was "filtered" through the set of locational criteria in order to evaluate the suitability of certain locations to contain various land uses. This information was then utilized in the classification of land throughout Chapel Hill Township. Distribution of Land Use Plan Catel•ries Land in Chapel Hill Township has been classified into the Land Use Plan categories according to the public policies expressed in the Plan, the set of locational criteria defining the appropriateness of the physical environmental context for future develooment, and the Township's projected population change and resulting land requirements. The following land use categories constitute the basic framework of the Chapel Hill Township Land Use Plan. Modifications of some of these cate- gories was necessitated by the unique character of Chapel. Hill Township due to the presence of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban and urbanizing area. URBAN. Land that is within the corporate litits of the Towns, has been classified as Urban. The Land Use Plans for the Towns will shape the pattern of development in that area. Given the policy of infill develop- ment, most of the:higher intensity growth during the plan period should occur within the designated urban area. The corporate limits define the inner boundary of the Joint Planning Area and the Rural Buffer defines the outer boundary. 10-YEAR TRANSITION. Land adjacent to the Towns which will be developed to urban densities and provided with water and sewer lines during the first 10-year phase of the Plan is designated Ten Year Transition. The desig- nation corresponds with the area extending north from the Chapel Hill- Carrboro planning jurisdictions to Homestead Road west of N.C. 86 and to the electrical power line right of way east of N.C. 86 just north of Weaver Dairy Road. 20-YEAR TRANS4ION. The TWenty-Year Transition area extends north of the area classified as Ten-Year Transition to Whitfield Road and Eubanks Road. Like the Ten-Year Transition area, this area will develop at medium and high density levels and will be provided with water and sewer services during the second ten year phase of the Plan period. RURAL BUFFER. The Rural Buffer extends from the western boundary of the _ Towns' planning jurisdictions to the outer edge of the University take watershed. To the north, the Rural Buffer extends to New Hope Road and includes most of the major Duke Forest tracts in Chapel Hill Township. This area defines the outer boundary of the Joint Planning Area and the Towns' corporate limits defines the inner boundary. , It will remain rural in character, contain very low density rural and agricultural uses and never require urban services during the plan period. RURAL RESIDENTIAL. Areas classified as Rural Residential are appropriate for rural density, non-farm residential development and are generally focused on the northern edge of the Township. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. Areas designated Agricultural Residential extend through the western portion of the Township adjacent to Bingham Township and are used primarily for agricultural activities. Designation indicates that the land should remain in agricultural uses with non-farm development limited to those uses which would serve and support the farming population. PUBLIC INTEREST AREAS. The Duke Forest tracts and the buffer area around University Lake are unique because they are, in effect, being held as open space and used for research and recreational purposes by designation as Public Interest Districts. The Duke Forest lands, as a group, form a band across the north central part of the Township generally separating the rural area from the Transition area. Thus, the integrity. of the Duke Forest tracts are an important aspect of the developing land pattern in the Township. WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED. This category applies to the water supply watershed for the University Lake reservoir and seeks to protect the watershed from adverse development impacts affecting the water quality of public water supplies. In addition to classifying the land in the County, the County's land use planning strategy has been to identify and evaluate potential and existing activity nodes in the Township. The purpose of this activity is to direct commercial and industrial activities to the most appropriate area in the Township, preventing strip-type development, and promoting a more compact and, efficient land use pattern focused an major intersections in the Township. A total of seven activity nodes have been designated in Chapel Hill Township. Those activity nodes south of the Duke Forest tracts and directly north of the Town's planning jurisdictions, are capable of sustaining more intensive commercial and residential development than other nodes in the Township. These nodes represent the core elements of a transition area between the urbanizing area focused on Chapel Hill-Carrboro and the rural area to the north. This area is in a process of transition from rural level densities and characteristics to urban level densities, including the need for urban services such as centralized sewage treatment. The following is a description of the various activity nodes designated in Chapel Hill Township. REFERENCE: CHT-1, Timberlyne LOCATION: N.C. 86 and Weaver Dairy Road (SR 1733) PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: The Chapel Hill Land Use Plan designates this area as an "activity center". The node is located at the intersection of an arterial (N.C. 86) and a collector (Weaver Dairy Road). Commercial uses and medium density residential uses presently exist within the area focused on this node. There are no environmental constraints which would severely limit commercial or medium density residential development. Sewer lines have been extended to this area making the development of medium to higher density uses more feasible. This node is located in the 10-Year Transition area. REFERENCE: CHT-2, North Office Park LOCATION: Homestead Road (SR 1777) and N.C. 86 PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of an arterial (N.C. 86) and a collector (Homestead Road). Commercial uses exist in the area. No environmental constraints exist which would prevent com- mercial development. Sewer line extensions to this area will increase the scale and density levels of commercial development. This node is located in the 10-Year Transition area. REFERENCE: CHT-3, Homestead Road LOCATION: Homestead Road (SR 1777), near Chapel Hill High School PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node is located at the intersection of two collectors. There are no environmental constraints. Because there are no major residential areas nearby, continued commercial or business develop- ment would be minimal. Future sewer line extprisinns 4.4„ ir p;t potential for higher-density commercial development. This node is located on the border between the 10 and 20-Year Transition area. tiEFE.KENCE: CHT-4, Weaver Dairy Road LOCATION: Weaver Dairy Road (SR 1733), east end adjacent to Chapel Hill planning jurisdiction PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial Transition ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node has been designated as an "activity center" in the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan. No disruption of residential areas would result from continued commercial growth focused on this node. There are no environmental constraints. Development at this node will be promoted by the future extension of sewer lines. This node is located in the 10-Year Transition area. REFERENCE: CHT-5, Watts/Star Point LOCATION: U.S. 15-501 and Smith Level Road at the Chatham County line PLAN CATEGORY: Proposed Urban ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node has been designated as a proposed "activity center" in the Chapel Hill. Land Use Plan. No disruption of if residential area would result from continued commercial growth focused on this node. There are no environmental constraints. Some commercial uses already exist at the node. REFERENCE: CHT-6, Calvander LOCATION: Old N.C. 86 and Homestead Road (SR 1777) PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: There are limited environmental constraints because this node is located on the boundary of the University Lake watershed. There would be no disruption to residential area resulting from environmental development. Some problems, however, would probably exist with traffic safety at this intersection if intensive commercial development did occur. The surrounding residential area that would be served by commercial uses at this node is growing in population and den- , sity. For these reasons, a Rural Neighborhood node at this site would be appropriate especially in the longer term when population density is sufficient to support limited, rural commercial uses. REFERENCE: CHT-7, Blackwood Station LOCATION: Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) and N.C. 86 PLAN CATEGORY: Rural Neighborhood ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION: This node exists at the intersection of two collectors. Several commercial uses presently exist in the area. There are no environmental constraints which would restrict limited commercial development at this node. There should be no disruption to nearby resi- dential areas. Due to the distance of the node from Chapel Hill-Carrboro and, the generally rural character of the area, sewer lines should not be extended to this node. As this node presently contains several commercial uses, its capacity for additional development is somewhat limited. In addition to the County designated activity nodes, activity nodes cor- responding to the Towns "activity centers" have been designated. The 1977 Land Use Plan for the Town of Chapel Hill identifies the following existing and proposed "activity centers".' EXISTING 1) Chapel Hill Downtown (CBD) 2) Town and Country 3) University Mall-Kroger 4) Legion Road 5) Eaztowne 6) Glen Lennox PROPOSED 1) N.C. 86 (corresponds with the County activity node at N.C. 86 and Homestead Road - North Office Park, CHT-2) 2) Watts/Star Point (corresponds with the County activity node at US 1 502 and Smith Level Road - Watts/Star Point CHT-5) 3) Pittsboro Road 4) Ephesus Church Road 5) Weaver Dairy (corresponds with the County activity node at the east end of Weaver Dairy Road - Weaver Dairy, CHT-)4) 6) Parker Road 7) Timberlyne (corresponds with the County activity node at N.C. 86 and Weaver Dairy Road - Timberlyne, CHI-1) In the Town of Carrboro the following existing and proposed "activity centers" are identified:2 EXISTING 1) Carrboro Downtown (CBD) PROPOSED 1) Bolin Creek Collector Road (neighborhood shopping) 2) Intersection of N.C. 54 (Business) and N.C. 54 (By-pass) (neighborhood shopping) 3) Smith Level Road and Culhreth Road (neighborhood shopping) 4) Homestead Road (neighborhood shopping) (corresponds with the County activity node on Homestead Road near the Chapel Hill High School - Homestead Road, CHT-3) 1 See Appendix for a more detailed description of the Chapel Hill "activity centers". 2 See Appendix for a more detailed description of the Carrboro "activity centers '. 3.13. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OVERVIEW OF t r TION STRATEGIES The awareness and desire for appropriate and managed development and use of the land which led to the conception and development of the Orange County Land Use Plan will remain merely a "good idea" unless a commit- ment is made to translate the concept into physical form through adop- tion and implementation. The Land Use Plan is a carefully thought out statement of policy regarding the pattern of physical development in the County. As the long-range planning framework, it should be considered in the day to day decision-making and implementation of policies affect- ing the use of land. To be effective a commitment should be made by decision-maker and citizen alike to the policies outlined in the Plan. Failure to do so may result in a weakening of the day to day decision-making process and could lead to the deterioration of the man-made and physical environments. Un- coordinated decision-making, inconsistent with the Goals and Policies set forth in the Plan, will result in arbitrary and unreasonable actions affecting the development and integration of land uses in the County. Commitment to the Plan does not presume an inflexible and unchangeable document. Commitment should correspond with a willingness to recognize and adapt to the constant change in the planning context by incorporat- ing flexibility in the Plan. As long as internal consistency is main- tained and the Goals and. Policies remain intact, and until such time as the public participation element cslls for a revision of the Goals and Policies, the Land Use Plan will remain a flexible, policy document guiding development as intended. The success of the planning activity, however, is dependent on the degree to which public and private development actions and decisions are coord- inated since the Plan is not "self-executing". Legal, financial and ad- ministrative tools must be developed and utilized effectively. These implementation tools include: Zoning Ordinance; Subdivision Regulations; Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance; Building, Fire and Housing Codes, among others; Water and Sewer Extension Policy; Thoroughfare Plan; Economic Development Plan; public investments; community development projects; coordination with other plans; and Public education and awareness. Zoning Ordinance The Zoning Ordinance is the major legal tool for implementating the Land Use Plan. The Zoning Ordinance serves as the means to achieve the de- sired relationships between land uses, to prevent incompatible land use associations and to encourage and provide incentives for the more compact and efficient land use patterns delineated in the Plan. Simply states zoning is the division of a jurisdiction into different districts and the regulation within those districts of the density of population, intensity of the use of buildings and land, and the lot coverage and required setbacks. Most zoning ordinances divide land uses into the three general categories of residential, commercial and indus- trial and specify the areas where each of these uses is permitted. Orange County's Zoning Ordinance currently applies to two townships, Eno and Chapel Hill. The proposed Zoning Ordinance, which is soon to be adopted, will apply to Eno, Hillsborough and Cheeks Townships, in addition to Eno and Chapel Hill Townships. Subdivision Regulations Subdivision regulations govern the conversion of raw land for intensive use. It serves as the means to secure a well designed and coordinated pattern of streets, lots and utilities in advance of subdivision, given the relative permanence of the character of the subdivision once com- pleted. Such an implementation tool is particularly necessary to coor- dinate existing development and potential future development with proposed development. As the interest of the developer is generally short; term, the application of subdivision regulations protects not only the indiv- idual homeowner, but also the general public by providing for a review process which facilitates and suggests coordination of the proposal with the long range specifications of the Plan. By providing an opportunity for negotiation it likewise allows for the potential coordination of private and public activities. - Orange County's Subdivision Regulations apply to all seven Orange County Townships. Chapel Hill and Eno Townships were the earliest Townships to have Subdivision Regulations. The Subdivision Regulations were extended to the remainder of the Townships in the County in 1978. Erosion and Sedimentation Controls Soil erosion has been and is a serious problem in the Piedmont of North Carolina, resulting in land degradation and water quality deterioration. The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance provides the legal means by which the adverse impacts of land disturbing development activities can be minimized. The Ordinance serves to control and prevent acceler- ated soil erosion, maintain the ecological balance, prevent the obstruct- ion of natural and artificial drainage ways, inhibit flooding, reduce the undermining of roads and protect water quality. Orange County presently administers a strong erosion and sedimentation control program for the entire County, including Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough. Before a construction permit is granted, a developer must submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan to the County's erosion control officer. These plans include the type of soils present at the site, the topography and location of nearby streams, erosion control measures to be taken during construction, and the operating and maintenance of any structural controls during the life of the project. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Orange County was recently accepted as aparticipaht in the National Flood Insurance Program of 1974, as of March 2, 1980 upon acceptance of the proposed ordinance. The adoption of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance for Orange County provides a means for prohibiting or res- tricting development within areas environmentally constrained by flood- ways and flood plains. This ordinance seeks to prevent property loss, insure human safety and enable the safe and natural flow of streams. Codes Building, plumbing, electrical, fire and housing codes protect the health, safety and welfare of individuals in the community by establishing min- imum standards for individual structures. These codes supplement the broader influence of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. Sewer and Water Extension Poll Sewer and water extension policy refers to an official or unofficial policy regarding the expansion of these systems to new areas. The ex- istence or absence of water and sewer facilities significantly affects the level of development in a given area. Without the provision of cen- tralized sewage collection and, disposal land can only be developed for rural uses and at rural densities. The provision of public services and facilities should seek not to follow private development, but should occur simultaneously with planning efforts to channel development overtime in a manner consistent with the Land Use Plan. Public facilities should be designed to serve a specific purpose given a desired location, density and form of pri- vate development. Thoroughfare Plan A major functional plan and integral element of the comprehensive Land Use Plan is a thoroughfare plan covering the means and manner of transporting goods and people throughout the County. The Thoroughfare Plan is premised on the road classification system which specifies the service level provided by each road in the network. The major purpose of the plan is to assess the capacity of the existing system in terms of future development requirements. As the location and type of trans- portation system is inextricably tied to the pattern of land, use, a Thoroughfare Plan for the County should be completed in the immediate future. Economic Development Plan The physical land use planning activity cannot be separated from econom- ic considerations. In detenninin e the appropriate pattern of land use an assumption is implictly made regarding the type of growth favored and the response of the economy to such growth. Conscious efforts to broaden and diversify the economic base of the area and promote certain forms of economic development should complement planning considerations affecting land use patterns, particularly as they impact on the maxim- ization of opportunities for County residents for housing and work and the protection of the environment. An economic development would sig- . appropriate economic development patterns. Public Investments Development of a capital improvements program and budget is a key in- plementation tool. It requires integrating both County and muni- cipal, plans with the recommendations and priorities for programming the fiscal outlay in capital improvements during the plan period. This administrative tool provides decision-makers with guiding mechanisms aimed at coordinating the improvement of the provision of services and facil- ities with the private development they are intended to serve. Community Development Projects Ccmiiunity development projects seek to coordinate public funds with re- development activities to stimulate private development in an area. These projects are premised on community goods and require a coordinated approach to the negotiation between public agencies, private developers and the residents of a community to achieve the objectives of these goals. Generally these objectives include neighborhood stabilization and business renewal, among others. Coordination withher Plans A successful and acceptable planning program necessitates the maximization of coordination between the Land Use Plan and other official plans and policies and the minimization of "conflicting signals". The Plan should seek consistency with existing local, regional,state and federal plans and policies. It should also be supplemented with more detailed fun- ctional plans regarding transportation, housing, recreation and water and sewer extensions, as well as specific area plans. These plans should subsequently be prepared to complement the Orange County Land Use Plan. Public Education and Awareness The primary and most effective implementation tool is the acceptance and commitment of the general citizening to the concept of the planning pro- cess and the product evolving from that process, the Land Use Plan. f.7 Since the planning process necessitates tradeoffs between the public and private use of land in a legal climate where property ownership and use is highly revered, public awareness and support and, consequently, public participation in the process should be facilitated and encouraged. 4P ; 176 RELATIONSHIP OF THE LAND USE PLAN TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE - A matrix has been designed to assist decision-makers in comprehending the relationship between the Land Use Plan and the key implementation tool, the Zoning Ordinance. The Land Use Plan Categories, as shown on the Land Use Plan Map, serve as the official long range planning guide for land use development in the County by type, density and form. The Land Use Plan Map determines the zoning districts that may be applied to a specific site within each designated plan area consistent with the broad definition of land use patternn in each plan area. In the case of activity nodes the Plan seeks to concentrate commercial and industrial development within limited areas. The applied zoning districts reflect the level of intensity of these activities permitted in a given node, The zoning districts applied to each of the Land Use Plan Categories are as follows: COUNTY RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION. Identifies areas changing from rural to urban in form and density. Al]. densities of residential development would be appropriate. The applied zoning districts include: R-1 (low density); R-2, R-3, R-4 (medium density) : and R-5, R-8, R-13 (high den- sity) residential uses. COUNTY COMMERCIAL TRANSITION. Identifies areas changing from rural to urban in form and density. A full range of intensities of commercial development would be appropriate. The applied zoning districts include: LC-1 (Local Commercial); NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial); CC-3 (Community Commercial); GC-4 (General Commercial); OI (Office and Institutional) ; and ED (Economic Development) . COUNTY INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION. Identifies areas changing from rural to urban in form and density. A full range of industrial activities would be appropriate and allowed. The applied zoning districts include: I-1 (Light Industrial); 1-2 (Medium Industrial) ; 1-3 (Heavy Industrial) ; and ED (Economic Development) . CARRBORO TRANSITION. In the Carrboro Transition area, the full. cle- ment of Residential, Commercial and Industrial uses are appropriate except for General Commercial (GC-4); Light Industrial (1-1) ; and economic development nodes. CHAPEL HILL TRANSITION. In the Chapel Hill Transition area, a full range of Residential densities are appropriate, complemented with commer- cial development at the level of intensity provided for in the following zoning districts: NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) ; CC-3 (Community Commercial); and OI (Office/Institutional) . RURAL BUFFER. Only very low density Residential uses and Agricultural uses appropriate in the Rural Buffer. The approved zoning districts include: AR (Agriculture Residential) and R-1 (low density) Residential. RURAL RESIDENTIAL. Identifies rural areas to be developed as low in- tensity and low density residential. The applied zoning districts is K-1 (low density) Residential. AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. Agricultural activities and associated residen- tial and commercial uses predominate. The applied zoning districts re- , cognize this primary land use and include: AR (Agricultural Residential) and AS (Agricultural Services) . RURAL COMMUNITY ACTIVITY NODE. Identifies rural crossroads communities throughout the County where small scale commercial activities serving the community and surrounding area are appropriate. The applied zoning districts include: LC-1 (Local Commercial) and NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) . RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY NODE. Identifies areas in the County where small scale commercial uses serving the surrounding ccmounity are appropriate. The applied zoning districts include LC-1 (Local Commer- cial) and NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) . RURAL INDUSTRIAL. Identifies rural areas in the County where small scale industrial activities would be apnropriate. The applied zoning district is L-1 (Light Industrial). PUBLIC INTEREST AREA. These lands are considered valuable for recreational and research purposes and are afforded special treatment. The applied zoning district is PID (Public Interest District) . • F....., if f'..: ,..c! .. . Q A. ;. tc4 0 0 ! . --....._ 4 0 0 - 0 us' ' 44 t8'6' "t1-3 0 In en 0 . _ 0 0 0 0 1. I oz 0 0 0 0 g 6 o, , trt 5 0 0 0 .k o z v N - I 0 0 0 ._• rst C4 1 0 0 0 0 0 , 14 C4 0 0 --.....---.— E 2 2 Q 44 Z z 0 0 0 0 0 . 4. z 0 i 21 tej 8 i 1.4 El Ei 8 4 4 m to .. . tl V t V.1 f gN t", t4 Fil 1 0 H N z E... 4 k N 4344 i El r) E 44 g .4 g . ti, ,,,, H 14 P4 '12 E 0 '-'-. R '10 0 44 R El z H 8 r ,. 888R R NRR R Rtsa --...........--„,....._--___,.....-.„......-4 SRIIIMMND mria PLAN ADOPTION, EVALUATION AND REVIEW Plan Adoption Official adoption of the Orange County Land Use Plan and Map as the long- : range planning framework and guide to development in the County would provide public policy decisions impacting on land use with the foundation necessary to prevent the arbitrary and uncoordinated application of such policies. Over a period of two years, sketch land use plans have been distributed Z2. for review and coment by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board, Township Advisory Councils, Joint Planning Camnittee, other interested groups and individuals and the general community to insure the adcept- f ability of the concepts, goals and policies of the Plan and to fulfill the intent of the County's commitment to maximum public participation in the planning process. The Orange County Land Use Plan should be adopted by simple resolution of the full Board of Commissioners preceded by a formal public hearing. Copies of the Land Use Plan were distributed to the Hillsborough and Chapel Hill Public Libraries for review by County residents prior to the public hearing. Plan Evaluation Evaluation of the Land Use Plan should seek to access the effectiveness of the Plan and its continued relevance to Orange County. The evalua- tion process should involve the response of both the public and private sectors. The results of the evaluation process could provide guideposts for prioritizing programs affecting land use and development in the County. At a minimum, the criteria for evaluating the Orange County Land Use Plan will include questions of effectiveness, administrative effic- iency and political acceptability. Special evaluation criteria, will be formulated following the adoption of the Land Use Plan. Plan Review The Orange County Land Use Plan is not a static document. The information and data which it contains should be revised and updated as required to reflect the pace of changing conditions throughout the County. The con- stant revision and updating of baseline information regarding the planning environment will provide the means to analyze relevant factors contrib- uting to existing and potential land use patterns and problems. Only through this process will the Land Use Plan have continued relevance to land use and development in Orange County. Public officials and admini- , strators should be particularly aware of and responsive to this factor. These review activities should be complemented with a complete review of the Land Use Plan within no more than a two year period. This re- view will include the collection and analysis of land use and demogra- ; phic data, a progress report and citizen input and involvement to ev- aluate the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of the adopted goals and policies and to propose amendments to the Plan as required. In addition to the review process described above, an annual status re- ,- port on the implementation of the Plan should be ;rade to the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board for Orange County. It is partic- ularly important that the Land Use Plan be implemented and that the implementation tools be effective and appropriate to the endeavor. 1 81 APPENDIX A POPULATION PROJECTIONS: EXPIANANTION OF METHODOLOGY Two extrapolative population projection methods were used: L1NAVE or linear extrapolation and EXAVE or exponential extrapolation. The LINAVE method assumes that population will change by identical in- crements in each interval of future time and is calculated based on the average population change in decades. This method is considered to be the most accurate method for moderately growing townships, at a rate of up to 25%. The EXAVE method assumes that population will occur at constant percent- - age rates over time and Es cb,Iculated based-on the average rate of tlopula- tion change in previous decades. This method is considered to be the most accurate method for rapidly growing Tabwnships ,at a rate of more than 25%, and Townships with less than 5000 inhabitants. The equations used in the EXAVE and LINAVE methods are described below: Linear Extrapolation (LINAVE) Pt - Pi 71771, Exponential Extrapolation (EXAVE) n = -Pt n/(t-i) Pt Pt Pt-i Where: P = population t = terminal year of base period i = initial year of base period n = number of years to projected year I SOURCE: Andrew M. Isserman. "The Accuracy of Population Projections for Subcounty Areas". Journal of the American Institute of Planners. July 1977. Vol. 13. No. 3. Pps. 2 7-259. APPENDIX B 1 CHAPEL HILL ACTIVITY a a" Activity Centers Because access by motor vehicles to activity centers is essential, the most important consideration in placing these centers is the transportation system. Activity centers should be located along major thoroughfares which can accomodate the high level of traffic flow. If possible the should be located so that bus service may be provided to them. Because it is a Town policy to avoid strip commercial development and concentrate commercial uses and activities in centers, activity centers should be spaced a minimum of one mile apart (see fugure 3). This provides each activity center with a minimum service radius of one-half mile, which should provide a reasonable economic base for the center. While this spac- ing represents the ideal, in fact, the density of development of the land immediately surrounding the center and the economic viability of the urban area will be important in determining the final spacing and service radii for activity centers. The Land Use Map shows thirteen activity centers: (1) Central Business District (CBD) (8) Watts (2) University Mall-Kroger Plaza (9) Pittsboro Road (3) Legion Road (10) Ephesus Church (4) Eastowne (11) Weaver Dairy (5) Glen Lennox (12) Parker Road (6) Town & Country (13) Timberline (7) NC 86 The first six centers are well developed and the location of each is already determined although they may expand in the future. The CBD, University Mall Kroger, Legion Road, and Eastowne activity centers serve both regional and subcorrmunity needs. For the next two activity centers, NC 86 and Watts, there are some existing commercial uses in the area. The final location of the activity center may be anywhere in the vicinity of these existing uses. Finally, the last four activity centers are the most tentative in location. While approximate locations for the last seven centers are indicated on the Land Use Map, the final locations will be determined by economic forces that cannot be accur- ately predicted. The Land Use Plan however, does recommend activity centerE somewhere in the vicinity of the indicated locations, along the major thor- oughfares and in keeping with the location and spacing criteria discussed abc With the thirteen activity centers, it is anticipated that all residential development will be within approximately 1/2 mile of an activity center. It was decided not to adopt a minimum or maxim= site size for activity centers. The squares on the Land Use Map represent 25 acre sites. Existing shopping areas at Town and Country (4.5 acres) and Glen Lennox (6 acres) are 'Source: The Town of Chanel Hill Comprehensive Plan„December, 1977, l'V ...t, l'rP'ti RT considered inadequate in size to function properly as activity centers. To: ::. acres was one minimum site size standard that was not adopted. However, a ..,,, 10 to 25 acre standard may serve as a flexible guideline for judging the i adequacy of a proposed center. The size of the proposed service area, the density of surrounding development and the uses proposed for the activity center should be considered in setting the final size of a center. Careful consideration should also be given to expansion capability of the site. A small site adequate at first, may not be adequate once the surrounding are considered inadequate in size to function properly as activity centi acres was one minimum site size standard that was not adopted. How' 10 to 25 acre standard may serve as a flexible guideline for judgiq adequacy of a proposed center. The size of the proposed service arE density of surrounding development and the uses proposed for the act center should be considered in setting the final size of a center. consideration should also be given to expansion capability of the si small site, adequate at first, may not be adequate once the surround is fully developed. The thirteen activity centers, current acreages available for expansion, and the subcommunities serviced by each cen are listed in Table 3. Residential and Recreational Uses With the location of activity centers and boundaries of the subconrour delineated, only allocation of land within subcommunities to future dential and neighborhood recreational uses remained. Critical envirc tal areas are the starting point for mapping an open space system for Planning Area. In addition to critical areas, it wad decided not to blish a specific standard for a percentage of land within the urban a which would be left in its natural state. The Tbwn however, has ado the objective of achieving "an open space network designed to protect natural environment, provide active and passive recreation sites thra out the community, buffer incompatible land uses, define urban form, Provide scenic views". TO meet this objective a minimal amount of ad( open space was designated in the form of open space density credits, buffers, and recreation sites. A density credit is a way to preserve space without outright purchase of the land and without taking the va2 the land from the owner. With a credit the owner is allowed to develc of his property with a greater number of dwelling units per acre if he agrees to leave a specified portion in open space. Stream buffers ale watercourses for which there are no designated floodways, while not cm' cal areas, are logical locations for addition open space. In areas wb there are no existing parks the Plan includes possible recreation area The location of these proposed facilities is only tentative. The Cam Facilities , sis will study recreation needs in much more detail ax will recommend suitable sites. Residential uses in the subcommunities have been divided into low densi residential, with a density of from 1 to 7 dwelling units per acre, and high density residential, with a density of from 7 to 15 dwelling units per acre (see discussion under Intensity of Land Uses) . High density residential development, like activity centers, has specia location requirements. Again, intense use of land can be expected to create an increased traffic flow. Careful placement of high density re: dential areas can minimize this increase, as well as its detrimental efi on other residential areas. Locating high density housing no more than one-half mile from an activity center places a substantial number of households within walking distance of shopping, employment, and other activities. Also, this location near an activity center places apartmer close, though not necessarily directly on a major thoroughfare which can absorb the higher levels of traffic and also minimizes travel through other residential areas. Finally, high density housing surrounding and activity center can serve as a transition use between the intense land Lt of the center and lower density residential use. ElISTING AND PROPOSED ACTIVITY CENTERS Existing Acres Available &theorem Center for Dt •ansion CBD* 103 Battle Pa Bolin South Cam tstead Wesood University Mall- Kroger 206 35 Battle Pa/ Bolin Colony Woc Eastwood L Ldttle Cre Legion Road* Colony Woo Eastwood Li Little Cre( Mt. Moriah Lastowne* 19 10 Colony Wood Eastwood La Mt. Moriah Glen Lennox 29 6 Battle Morgan Creel South CampuE Town & Country 4.5 2 Bolin Umstead NC 86 3 up to 25 Airport North Forest Watts up to 25 Dogwood Southern Tria Pittsboro Road 0 up to 25 Culbreth Dogwood Farrington Southern Trim Ephesus Church up to 25 Colony Woods Little Creek Weaver Dairy 0 up to 25 Eastwood Lake Parker Road 0 up to 25 Morgan Creek Tjhberline up to 25 Mt. Moriah . Activity centers th=i- , APPENDDCC CARRBCRO ACTIVITY CENTERS 1 Detailed Descriptions of the Carrboro Activity Centers EXISTING 1. Carrboro Downtown (CBD) - This is a linear zone extending from the Chapel Hill line westward to Carrboro Hall. The most intense commercial district in Carrboro, it is designed to accomodate a great variety of retail and office uses. Under the proposed Land Use Ordinance the Carrboro downtown will also include high density residential use. PROPOSED 1. Bolin Creek Collector Road (Neighborhood shopping) - A draft Collector Roads Plan, and the draft Residential Rezoning Plan for the Carrboro Planning District indicate a medium density residential neighborhood along Bolin Creek. A limited commercial center will be appropriate within this area. The commercial uses would be confined to neighborhood needs. 2. Intersection of NC 54 (Business) and NC 54 (By-Pass) (Neighborood Shopping) - Limited business uses which do not actively compete with the Carrboro downtown will be located at this major inter- section. A convenience store is currently at this location. 3. Smith Level Road and Culbreath Road (Neighborhood shoppirg) - A draft Residential Rezoning Proposal indicates a medium and high density zone to the west of Culbreath Road. This intersection is a reasonable location for neighborhood business and services. 4. Homestead (Neighborhood shopping) (This activity center is located on Homestead Road near Chapel Hill High School and corresponds with a County activity node.) - This neighborhood shopping area would provide goods and services for an area which is suitable for urban development. The development of this activity center is considered to be some time away. 1 Source: Memo from the Town of Carrboro Planning Department, August 22, 29 187