The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 03-10-1987 • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA QUARTERLY JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1987 7 :30 P.M. CULTURAL ARTS AUDITORIUM CHAPEL HILL HIGH SCHOOL CHAPEL HILL , NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE MM US. 1 . Matters on in& Printed Agenda ( If if wish to speak to matters on the agenda, we would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked . ) 2. Matters 4n itL printed agenda PUBLIC DHARGB - The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful , courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control . Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Page C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 001 1 . Rural ayffer Study. n07 2. Land Q. Plan Amendment a . 1EA Land laa Plan Citizen Petition Request to reduce minimum lot size standard applicable in Rural Buffer from "one dwelling unit per two acres" to "one dwelling unit per acre". D. ADJOURNMENT • \c\ APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON 5/x/87 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 10, 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County Planning Board on March 10, 1987 at 7: 30 p.m. in the Cultural Arts Center, Chapel Hill High School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina for a quarterly joint planning public hearing. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr. , John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry Jacobs (Chair) , Chris Best, Dan Eddleman, Peter Kramer, Mike Lewis, Betty Margison, Sharlene Pilkey, Brenda Swann, Prince Taylor, Carl Walters, and Steve Yuhasz. A. BOARD COMMENTS Chair Marshall apologized for the notices being sent out late to those citizens who reside in the Rural Buffer area. She stated that notices had been published in the newspapers. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Those who had signed up to speak will be recognized at the appropriate time. 2 . MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Marshall read the Public Charge as stated in the agenda. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill made reference to the recommendation made in the Rural Buffer Study that would allow property owners of record in the RB to create one lot for each child which would be exempt from the size requirements of the RB zoning classification. He stated that there are also two other amendments that are related to that exemption and they would not be necessary if the Board accepts his recommendation to not permit an exemption for special consideration for children or family members. He continued, stating that, in his opinion, the County would be either without authority to do that or would in other ways violate the laws of the United States and North Carolina. He cited the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution which requires equal protection under the laws that regulate land use. The focus of the power of planning enabling legislation is on the use of the property rather than on the ownership. There is no rational basis under the law for distinguishing between owners of property when the use of the property is identical. The North Carolina Constitution 2 has a similar provision -- Article 1, Section 19 says that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws. Article 1, Section 32 states that no person or set of persons is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community but in consideration of public service. There is no public service involved which would exempt family members from dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. Therefore, there is a likelihood that any exemption for family members would likewise violate the North Carolina Constitution. The enabling legislation which allows counties to zone is contained in Chapter 153A of the North Carolina General Statutes. There are two sections - (1) Grant of Power - which allows the County, for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals or the general welfare to regulate the height and the number of stories, the percentage of 9 the lot that may be occupied, lot sizes and densities, etc. (2) Purposes - zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and designed to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers, to promote health and the general welfare, to provide adequate light and air, to prevent the overcrowding of land, to avoid undue concentration of population, and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks and other public requirements. None of these purposes have anything to do with ownership of the property. Therefore any classification of property in regard to ownership would be beyond the authority of the County. The Supreme Court of North Carolina has expressed concern with legislation that would have the same effect as this proposed exemption for family members in a number of ways. One of the limitations on zoning restrictions is that they cannot create zoning districts which are not consistent with the comprehensive plan. An example of this limitation is known as the prohibition of spot zoning. Spot zoning would be the result of such an exemption and would very probably be invalidated by the courts. The theory behind the limitation on spot zoning is that the decision to so zone is arbitrary and not based on the general purposes of the zoning enabling legislation. Gledhill continued that the problem is that there would be no legal reasonable basis for distinguishing between the property that would be owned by the family members and the property owned by other people. For this reason, he recommended to the Board that they not create this special family exemption. Commissioner Willhoit asked about similar prohibition against exempting minor subdivisions from these provisions since they are exempt from other aspects of the Ordinance. Gledhill responded that minor subdivisions under the County Sub- division regulations are subject to all the substantive provisions of major subdivisions. The difference between minor and major subdivisions is the process. They are required to meet all the same standards. In answer to a question from Council Member Julie Andresen, Gledhill stated that he did not have enough information or background on the Chesapeake County, Maryland case to comment as to whether or not it would be subject to a federal constitutional attack. The risk is that the people who will complain will not be the family members but those who wish to develop the property in higher density who would complain of unfair treatment. Chair Marshall assured the public that even though a few lots are 1 rsor 1 • 3 involved that the Board is concerned and determined to find a solution for those families affected. Planning Director Marvin Collins informed the public of changes which had been implemented to help make the public notices in the newspaper easier to locate such as the logo which has been added to the top of the notice and the addition of bold print for each topic listed. In addition, he has been working with the news reporters to have lead stories as well as articles in other areas of the papers concerning the public hearing items. He indicated that the public hearing notices are placed in the Durham Morning Herald , The Chapel Hill Newspaper , the News and Observer and the News of Orange . He noted there was a miscommunication about the mailing of the postcards. It was decided to send them out late rather than not send them at all. OPENING STATEMENTS Marvin Collins explained that there are two items scheduled for public hearing. The first item has to do with a rural buffer study that was prepared by the Orange County Planning Department at the request of the Board of Commissioners. The second item has to do with a citizens ' petition that was presented to the Board of Commissioners on January 5, 1987 which requested the Joint Planning Land Use Plan (plan for the southeastern portion of the County) which was jointly adopted by the Board of Commissioners and the Town of Chapel Hill be amended to change the text. The specific text provision requested for amendment is the minimum lot size standard in the Rural Buffer. That minimum lot size standard was set at one dwelling unit per two acres when the plan was jointly approved on October 13 , 1986. The requested amendment is to reduce that standard back to the original one dwelling unit per 40, 000 square feet (0. 92 acre) . Because both items are separate but interrelated they will be considered at the same time. Collins recognized the planning staff members who would be involved in the presentation -- Greg Szymik (current planning) , Gene Bell and Brad Torgan (comprehensive/long range planning) , and Emily Crudup (current planning) . He announced that following the Orange County presentation, the Chapel Hill Planning Director Roger Waldon would make a brief presentation of the Chapel Hill perspective regarding the Rural Buffer concept. Collins began the presentation highlighting some of the points in the history of joint planning. On October 13 , 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Town of Chapel Hill adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. On November 24, 1986, a public hearing was held by the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas to create the Rural Buffer District and to apply that district designation to 38, 000 acres of land surrounding the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area. The most significant change proposed was an increase in the minimum residential lot size requirement from 40, 000 square feet (0. 92 acre) to two (2) acres. One of the concerns of the residents who live within the rural buffer was the issue of property rights. The property owners felt that the two acre minimum lot size requirement denies them reasonable use of their 4 land. The concern presented by the County Attorney previously was also ammI raised by some of the residents. Nonconforming lots is another concern. Many owners felt it was unfair to require the combination of contiguous lots to meet the two-acre minimum lot size since these lots had been created under existing legal ordinances. Affordable housing was another major issue. With the increase in minimum lot size requirement and the increase in land cost, many families would be unable to create building lots for children. Environmental impacts was another concern. Soil conditions in the Rural Buffer are limited with regard to their capacity to absorb septic tank effluent. It was felt that with these limitations, there would be a real threat for groundwater contamination. It is the current policy not to allow public water and sewer into the rural buffer except in emergency situations. Tax increases and the ability to fund services in the Rural Buffer was another concern. There was also a concern that the more stringent requirements of the Rural Buffer would encourage leap frog development. On January 5, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved the Rural Buffer zoning district designation and applied that designation to the 38, 000 acres of land. Also at that meeting, a petition was presented by approximately 650 citizens asking that the two- acre minimum lot size be reduced to 40, 000 square feet (0. 92 acre) . Collins stated that because the Rural Buffer is a part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and because of the existence of the Joint Planning Agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County, both Boards were required to sit jointly at the hearing and both Boards were required to take action on the requests. Collins explained that the Rural Buffer Study was broken down into three main sections, DATA AND ANALYSIS, POLICY ANALYSIS, and IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM. Concurrent with the preparation of the study, a new Joint Planning Agreement was signed by Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill on February 3 , 1987 . The agreement established within the Rural Buffer, the Chapel Hill Joint Development Area (CHJDA) which lies north of I-40 and east of a north-south line adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Blackwood Division of Duke Forest. Within this area, Orange County standards and ordinances are in effect and the Town of Chapel Hill is granted courtesy review. Orange County may not vote to issue or deny a development permit until it has received the recommendations of Chapel Hill or until the expiration of forty-five (45) days after Chapel Hill has received the application, whichever occurs first. The new agreement becomes effective upon adoption of a zoning map and the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance by Orange County. The first draft of the Rural Buffer Study was completed on February 27, 1987 and distributed to the Orange County Planning Board and Chapel Hill and Carrboro Planning Department for review. Following this review, a revision of the study was produced on March 4, 1987. Major recommendati5 ons contained in the study include: 1. Retain the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. Collins indicated the following reasons for retaining the two- acre minimum lot size requirement: a) The Rural Buffer concept as adopted by the County is an important growth management strategy in terms of defining the growth boundaries for the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area and preventing the sprawl of the urban area in the southeastern portion of the County. b) Equally important is the issue of environmental protection and open space. As well as University Lake Watershed, there is a substantial portion of Duke Forest and a significant amount of environmentally sensitive areas in the Rural Buffer. There are farms that are in operation or under use value taxation that contribute greatly to the open space surrounding the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area. For these reasons, the Planning Staff feels it is critical to maintain the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. 2 . Retain the policy prohibiting extension of water and sewer ' facilities into the Rural Buffer except in emergency situations. Collins indicated that allowing public water and sewer extensions the potential for increased density is much greater. 3 . Delete Article 11. 7 .2 of the Zoning Ordinance, Non-Conforming Lots. The amendment would allow owners of adjacent, undeveloped lots less than two (2) acres in size to develop their lots without combining them to create conforming lots. 4. Amend Article 4. 2 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, Rural Buffer (RB) Zoning district. The amendment would allow property owners of record in the Rural Buffer to create one lot for each child. such lots would be exempt from RB dimensional requirements, but would conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-1 Residential zoning district. The proposed amendment would add the following paragraph to Article 4.2 . 1. c) Exempt Lots A lot created for use for a one-family residence by a 9 6 child, or spouse of a child, or an owner of property zoned Rural Buffer would be exempt from the dimen- sional requirements of the Rural Buffer zoning district. Such a lot would be created in accordance with the dimensional requirements of the Rural Residential (R-1) Zoning District. This exemption will apply only if the property owner can establish that he had legal title on or before January 5, 1987 and shall apply to only one such lot for each child of the property owner. Collins reminded the Boards of the County Attorney's comments on this recommendation. 5. Amend Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations, Cluster Developments. The amendment would prohibit exempt lots created under Article 4. 2 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance from being further reduced in size under the provisions of this Section. The amendment would consist of the following changes: Renumber paragraphs IV-B-10-C-a/b/c/d to IV-B-10-C-b/c/d/e respectively. Add the new paragraph IV-B--10-C-a a. Exempt lots created in accordance with Article 4 . 2 . 1 may not be further reduced in size by application of the provisions of this Section. 6. Amend the Zoning Atlas by applying the Public Interest District (PID) Zoning District to applicable lands. Collins indicated the PID zoning district is one designated for lands which are in public ownership. It also addresses private lands which represent designated open space areas such as the Duke Forest holdings. The minimum lot size requirement within the PID district is 400, 000 square feet (approximately five (5) acres. Planning Staff would recommend seeking application of the PID district throughout the County. 7 . Initiate a Purchase of Development Rights program by author- izing the Planning Department to prepare an Implementation Plan. Collins explained that acquisition of development rights means that the County would seek to acquire development rights for individual property owners for their property in such a manner that a lower density than permitted would be achieved. The County would compensate the property owner for the acquisition of the development rights. 8 . Pursue special legislation to allow Transfer of Development Rights. 7 Collins explained that for each individual property within an area there is a value placed on those development rights which may be on an acreage or per lot basis and the value is assigned by the County working with the individual property owners. The rights are then transferred to another portion of the County. Receiving areas are identified. He noted that this program had been a success program in Montgomery County, Maryland in relation to agricultural preservation. He also noted it had been successful in the Pinelands of New Jersey for environmental protection as well as agriculture preservation. 9. Amend Cluster Development provisions to encourage its use. Collins stated that this would promote the provision of open space in the Rural Buffer. 10. Collect additional data on: a. environmentally significant areas; b. septic system failures; c. techniques to maintain visual quality. Collins indicated a more in-depth study should be done to more accurately determine the situation with septic tank failures. The need for an inventory of environmentally sensitive areas in Orange County has also been indicated. Planning Staff also feels the need for a study to ascertain the visual characteristics of the area and what design standards could be implemented in order to maintain that visual quality. Commissioner Hartwell asked if a mechanism was in place to tax the property owner at a lower tax rate after having sold development rights. Collins responded that the impact aspect would be reviewed as a part of the authorization to prepare an implementation plan. Hartwell indicated that Forsyth County has an implementation plan whereby only the County is allowed to purchase development rights and the property owner is taxed at use value. Chapel Hill Town Council Member, R. D. Smith asked what the regula- tions were governing non-conformities in the Rural Buffer and how many lots would be nonconforming under this regulation. Collins responded that Article 11 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance addresses nonconforming lots. He indicated that of the 4500 lots in the Rural Buffer approximately half of them would be nonconforming. However, those lots would only constitute 5 to 10% of the total acreage in the Rural Buffer. Mr. Smith continued asking the consequences of having a nonconforming lot. Collins responded that the nonconforming status stayed with the land until such time as the ordinance is amended to make it conforming or the property owner acquires additional land or takes whatever steps necessary to make the lot conforming. lemmm 8 Roger Waldon, Chapel Hill Planning Director, presented Chapel Hill 's perspective on Rural Buffer issues. Waldon began his presentation by commending the Orange County Planning Department on the Rural Buffer Study document. He indicated that he felt the policy analysis is one of the key points of the Rural Buffer Study which discusses the key issues and offers some good policy recommen- dations. He stated that from a staff perspective, Chapel Hill is in support of the recommendations as presented by Collins and that adoption of those recommendations would achieve the successful implementation of the Rural Buffer concept. Waldon stated that the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan have as a foundation the concept of a fixed urban area surrounded by a low-density rural buffer. He indicated that such a concept would encourage urban development to occur in areas which can be most easily served by the urban services it will require. Such plans preserve the low-density nature of Central Orange County. Waldon listed four points in answer to the question of "Why a 2-acre minimum lot size?" 1) When water and sewer are extended, development at urban type intensity occur; 2) the concept of a low-density rural buffer demands that water and sewer not be extended into the Rural Buffer; 3) a two-acre minimum lot size will insure that water and sewer are not extended, that the character of Central Orange County will be preserved and that ample land would be available for individual wastewater disposal systems now and in the future; 4) a minimum lot size requirement of one-acre would create a sprawling development pattern at such a density which would demand urban services. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mary Ellen Priestly stated that she and her husband had been property owners and taxpayers in Orange County since 1972 . She noted appreciation for being able to live in a rural setting with trees and wildlife. She expressed concern with the impact that will be created by the opening of I-40. She encouraged maintaining the rural atmosphere of those rural areas of the county. She continued citing examples of the loss of rural communities she had witnessed in other areas. She encouraged the control of growth and she felt that the creation of the Rural the two-acre minimum lot size to be a good step forward in this effort. and John F. Sherron asked that the reduction of the minimum lot size requirment be reduced to one acre. Clara P. Trice also indicated the desire for a one-acre minimum lot size. 9 James Bumphus asked that the minimum lot size be one acre. Delois Turner indicated the desire for a one acre lot size. Regina Nobblitt stated that her desire was to give her son one of the two acres belonging to her and thus was in favor of the one acre minimum lot size. Brian Yeargan indicated the property owned by his family had been in their ownership seventy years. He stated that young people were needed in the communities in Orange County. He felt that the regulations of the Health Department regarding septic tanks was sufficient for regulating lot sizes. He expressed a concern that perhaps the Rural Buffer is simply a means for future annexation by the Town of Chapel Hill. He asked that decisions be made which would help all the citizens own homes in Orange County. Lois Herring indicated she was in favor of the two acre minimum lot size especially in the University Lake Watershed. She noted that increased density in a watershed decreases water quality. She indicated that she felt the right to use land carries many responsibilities such as protection of the water supply and to pass the land on undamaged to those who follow. Brian Lessley , a Durham attorney, indicated he represented a property owner who owned land in the Rural Buffer which abuts Duke Forest. He expressed concern that his client received his mail too late to submit a presentation. He asked if the creation of the PID district would be the extent of the protection of the forest or if there is a possibility of a buffer zone being created around the forest. He also asked if such a proposal is made, will there be an opportunity for public comment. Chair Marshall responded that for any recommendations adopted there would be adequate study and adequate opportunity for public response. She continued that the actual change being considered at this hearing is to return the minimum lot size in the Rural Buffer to one acre. Furman Herring expressed the concern with stewardship of the land and noted he is in support of the two acre minimum lot size in the Rural Buffer. Charles W. Johnston stated he had been living in the same location for 65 years. He indicated he felt that a one acre lot requirement had been a successful and noted that he felt a county-wide sewer system was a need that should be met. He expressed the concern that a landfill had been allowed but the extension of water and sewer was not allowed. Edward S. Johnson stated he was a resident of Bingham Township and ' Chair of the Bingham TAC. He noted that residents of Bingham Township were greatly concerned with leap-frog development into Bingham if development is restricted in the Rural Buffer to a two-acre lot size requirement. He was concerned that leap-frog development was not seen as the problem he felt it to be. He reminded the Commissioners that they represented all of the citizens in the County and not just Chapel Hill and/or the Rural Buffer zone. He asked that the Planning Staff be directed to study the issue of leap-frog development and inform the citizens of Bingham Township if there is cause for concern. He also suggested that a way be found to access opinions from the rural townships to determine their concerns and whether 10 or not development is desired. Commissioner Marshall commented that the Board is in the process of updating the Land Use Plan and those things the public has asked for such as potential growth and the feelings of citizens should be done township by township. She noted that Mr. Johnson as Chair of Bingham Township Advisory Council should be involved in such meetings that take place on the update of the Land Use Plan. She continued that the whole effect of growth throughout the County should be studied and brought together in one document which should be adopted after public hearing. The Rural Buffer is a background study to the problems that have been brought up and the specific amendment for consideration at this time is the request to reduce the minimum lot size requirement in the rural Buffer from two acres to one acre. Henry Whitfield expressed concern and possible confusion with the number of things happening in County planning at the same time and the magnitude of those things. He indicated he felt sufficient time had not been allowed for an indepth study of the Rural Buffer and the recommendations listed therein. He particularly noted the lack of data available on septic tank failure. He continued that he felt the existing ordinances were sufficient for the provision of orderly progression of urban and municipal development. He indicated he felt a checkerboard grid of two acre lots without public water and sewer would surely emerge and would impact far more on the natural environment than one acre lots or cluster lots which would encourage extension of public water and sewer and would promote larger tracts of unused land. He stated that he felt the one acre lots had left sufficient open space and that the only reason for a two acre minimum lot size requirement was to reduce density. He questioned the ability of newer residents to know more about stewardship of the land than those long time or lifetime residents. He indicated he felt there were still many questions to be answered about a two-acre minimum lot size requirement. He felt the majority of the citizens had not been considered in this requirement. Mr. Whitfield stated he felt excessive regulations and planning beyond that which is needed for a high quality of living is being implemented. He felt this would tend to destroy the desire to own property and pay taxes. He expressed the feeling that the City and County governments should institute a long range policy for acquiring the open space and park land needed for the future growth of the County. John Cates indicated he has been a property owner and taxpayer of Orange County for over sixty years. He was not in favor of the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. He felt that one acre was sufficient for many home owners. George L. Wheless expressed confusion with the watershed around Morgan Creek and indicated a desire to have the Board address those questions. Mary Le May indicated she is a property owner in the extra territorial jurisdiction. She expressed the desire that the larger mmw 11 community be considered and protected. She also expressed support for the Rural Buffer recommendations. David Merten expressed support for the Rural Buffer and urged the Board of Commissioners to support the buffer and watershed protection. David Parrish expressed the desire to be able to subdivide his four acres of land to give one acre to each of his three children. Robert E. Cowan indicated he was in the process of looking for land to purchase on which to build a home. He felt that young people as well as poor people were being restricted from owning property and homes due to the increased cost with larger lot sizes. Helene Ivey expressed concern with expanding development in the form of apartments. She noted that she felt a bond issued should be held to acquire open space and parks that were needed. She indicated she felt the Rural Buffer was unfair to those desiring to build homes. Bobby Spaugh expressed concern with the regulations and the procedures necessary to be able to build a home and indicated he was not in favor of a two-acre minimum lot size requirement. He stated that he felt a rural setting was being provided for a metropolitan area for those to enjoy at the property owners' expense. Theo Cantwell expressed concern with the lots that are not buildable due to perk test failure. He noted it is important for young people to be able to purchase land and build homes. He was in favor of one acre minimum lot size. Robert Mays stated that he owned a one-acre nonconforming lot. He expressed concern that if his home were destroyed by fire that he could not rebuild due to being a nonconforming lot. He continued that he felt he should be due a reduction in tax value since he had a nonconforming lot. Marvin Collins, Planning Director, responded that the Orange County Zoning Ordinance permits a home destroyed by fire to be rebuilt. County Attorney, Geoff Gledhill, responded that the only requirement to be met would be setback requirements. Mr. Mays continued that the only way he could be assured that his rights were being protected would be for the Board to change the two-acre minimum lot size requirement to one acre. James Plymire indicated he felt there were still some unanswered questions about the Rural Buffer and some of the recommendations of the study are invalid. He stated he felt a moratorium should be placed on the recommendation of the two-acre minimum lot size until such time as a complete study could be made. B. B. Olive , representing the Triangle Land Conservancy indicated he was in favor of the Rural Buffer and preserving the quality of the environment but expressed the idea that perhaps it should extend farther to the north. He stated that he felt it was an invalid premise that public water and sewer could be prevented in the Rural Buffer. He felt the 38, 000 acres could be substantially reduced by an agreement with Duke University regarding restriction on Duke Forest properties. He felt there were those 12 large property owners who would be willing to build on only two-acres or possibly five acre lots and this would reduce problems. Melvin Parrish stated he felt more people are better served by a one 1 acre minimum lot size requirement. He indicated that he felt the two acre minimum lot size requirement was unfair to many residents of the County. He felt there would be sufficient open space since much of the land in the Rural Buffer would not perk. Jeff Collins stated he was the Conservation Chair of the Sierra Club and that the club was in favor of the two acre minimum lot size requirement. He expressed the feeling that there had been much public input. He indicated he felt the Joint Planning Agreement was a plan that would manage growth in a wise way. He stated that he was also against the extension of public water and sewer into the Rural Buffer. Brad Walters stated he is the owner of a nonconforming lot in the Rural Buffer. He expressed concern for those who wished to pass land on to children but would be unable to due to legalities as presented by the County Attorney. He expressed approval of the recommendation to not extend water and sewer into the Rural Buffer. He felt that was essential to maintain the buffer. Mr. Walters asked Mr. Collins the percentage of the 38, 000 acres which would not perk. Collins responded that information is not available. Commissioner Marshall noted that that information would be very difficult to obtain. Mr. Walters continued that he felt a bond issue would the best way to acquire open space and parkland. Nick Tennyson stated he is president of the Homebuilder's Association of Durham/Chapel Hill. He indicated he felt that one acre lots are needed in order that housing can be provided. Ruth Williams opposed the two acre minimum lot size requirement. Mrs. W. M. Burnette indicated opposition to the two acre minimum lot size requirement. Carl Walters indicated the farmers in the Rural Buffer had not been spoken to about the recommendations for the area. He noted that Mapleview Farm had received national recognition. He stated there were three contiguous farms totaling 1000 acres. If Carrboro and Chapel Hill really need open a Rural Buffer/open space, how much are they willing to pay for it? He suggested that if we want things to stay agricultural/open, that it be left in the hands of the farmers who know how to protect it. Mr. Walters stated that a 15% slope is not reasonable. He noted the state of Maine has encouraged farmers to preserve level areas and clear slopes. No one has come up with a number of acres greater than 15% and unperkable. Mr. Walters asked that if that number of acres plus several full-time dairy farms (Cheeks, Hogan, Dodson & Cates) , is considered, just how much land is left to develop? Walters stated he did not feel enough information was available to "put anything down in concrete" . If the desire is to preserve farmlands for open space, let's give some incentives that are more than just suggestions. 13 Cecil Griffin stated that higher density is needed to lower the costs of governmental services. He asked why the two acre minimum lot size requirement should just apply to the Rural Buffer rather than the entire county. He indicated he felt it was illogical to expect that two acres is sufficient for wildlife and a rural environment. Mr. Griffin noted that on two occasions the Orange County Planning Board had recommended a one acre minimum lot size and the Board of County Commissioners voted for a two acre minimum lot size. He asked why the Planning Board is not recommending one acre now. Spence Dickinson indicated he felt that everyone will not be represented no matter whether the minimum lot size requirement would be one acre or two acres. He felt that those lands owned by Duke University should not be developed as many of those lands had been donated in order that it would be preserved. He indicated that development costs are high and create many problems. Hezekiah Dodson stated he was a former sanitarian and that 40, 000 square feet was sufficient for a septic system as well as an alternative system. He also stated he was concerned that the municipality would tell those citizens living in the watershed that public water and sewer would not be provided to taxpayers. He stated that public water and sewer is the best way to protect the watershed. James Austin indicated opposition to the two acre minimum lot size requirement. Ben Lloyd stated that he was on the Board of County Commissioners when the two acre minimum lot size requirement was adopted. He indicated IPthat he now felt the two acre minimum lot size was a mistake which would make affordable housing unavailable. Lloyd wondered if those responsible for the study would be affected by the two acre minimum lot size requirement and asked that the minimum lot size requirement be changed back to one acre. Marilyn Herview indicated she favored the two acre minimum lot size and felt it was important to protect the rural setting of the area. Larry Reid expressed concern that the study is not yet complete. He stated that he felt the information was desperately needed as to how many of the 19, 000 two acre lots would perk. Mark O'Neil expressed opposition to the two acre minimum lot size. Perhaps there is some type of transition that could be done from one acre to two acres. R. D. Smith , Chapel Hill Town Council Member, stated that as a member of the Affordable Housing Task Force, he felt that the two acre minimum lot size is a crucial issue in providing affordable housing. He indicated the Affordable Housing Task Force had decided to wait for a decision as to the two acre or one acre minimum lot size. He continued that it was a waste of his time if decisions were going to be made that would not allow for affordable housing. He stated that zoning should not create more nonconformities but eliminate nonconformities. He noted that many of those persons speaking tonight were having severe 14 problems making such changes so late in life for the provision of homes for family members. Council Member Smith moved, seconded by Council Member Preston, to refer the issue to Chapel Hill Town Manager for recommendation. Commissioner Halkiotis moved, seconded by Commissioner Carey to leave the public hearing open until April 6, 1987 to receive the recommendation from Chapel Hill. VOTE: Unanimous. The meeting adjourned 11:40 p.m. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna Bradshaw, Admin. Secretary O R A N G E C O U N T Y 001 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 10, 1987 Action Agenda Item# _ SUBJECT: RURAL BUFFER STUDY *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS : CONTACT: Marvin Collins Rural Buffer Study; 3-4-87 Housing TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Cost Memorandum (Separate Hillsborough 732-8181 Enclosures) ; Chapel Hill Chapel Hill 967-9251 Planning Director 2-8-87 Durham 688-7331 Memorandum. Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a study of the Rural Buffer portion of the Joint Planning Area. NEED: On January 5, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Atlas, establishing the Rural Buffer zoning district, dimensional requirements applicable therein, and its designation to 38, 000 acres of land surrounding the Chapel Hill -Carrboro urban area . Issues identified during the Rural Buffer hearings included the following: 1 . Housing affordability; 2. Property rights; 3 . Environmental impacts; 4. Tax increases; and 5. Leap frog development. The Board instructed the County Manager to prepare an outline for a study which addressed the issues and recommended design standards for implementing the open space strategy desired in the Rural Buffer. On January 20, 1987, an outline for the Rural Buffer Study was approved by the Commissioners. The results of the study were to be presented at the March 10, 1987 joint public hearing with the Town of Chapel Hill . IMPACT: The Rural Buffer Study consists of three parts : data and analysis; policy analysis; and implementation programs. The "data and analysis" section reviews information gathered during preparation of the Joint Planning Area 002 Land Use Plan as applicable to the Rural Buffer. The "policies" section reviews existing policies, plan proposals and standards relevant to the Rural Buffer . The " implementation" section reviews measures and actions currently in use to implement the Land Use Plan concepts. Updated information is presented, and recommendations are presented for new/expanded policies and implementation measures. RECOMMENDATION: Refer to Orange County Planning Board and Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for recommendation regarding policies, programs and implementation measures to pursue further. The recommendations would be presented at the Commissioners May 4, 1987 meeting in Hillsborough . a , 00,3 MEMORANDUM TO: Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director FROM: Roger Waldon, Chapel Hill Planning Director SUBJECT: Comments on Rural Buffer DATE: February 8, 1987 This memorandum is written to confirm and emphasize Chapel Hill' s perspectives on several Rural Buffer issues under examination. BACKGROUND Chapel Hill and Orange County have been working cooperatively for over two years in the context of a Joint Planning Agreement. The summer of 1986 was a critical time in the life of this Joint Planning Agreement, as our two governments came together to jointly adopt a Land Use Plan for the areas surrounding Chapel Hill. Perhaps the most important concept of this Land Use Plan was designation of a Rural Buffer around the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Urban Area. This cornerstone of the Land Use Plan has been questioned in recent weeks, and will be discussed at upcoming Public Hearings. I wanted to take this opportunity to restate some of the reasons why we believe the Rural Buffer is so critically important. KEY ISSUES Why a Rural Buffer? Chapel Hill began this round of Land Use Planning by adopting a set of Goals and Objectives, articulating a vision for the future of the Chapel Hill area. Several themes emerge from these Goals and Objectives; of particular relevance here are the following: - We want to retain the basic form and scale of Chapel Hill. We do not want to become a large city. We want to grow at a moderate, orderly pace, with the rate of development being consistent with the expansion of the community' s ability to support new development. 004 • - We want to be able to serve efficiently the new development that does occur; we do not want a sprawling pattern of development that will require and demand urban services. - We want to be able to maintain the identity of Chapel Hill as a distinct and unique area. We have seen the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as key instruments in achieving our basic Goals and Objectives. The concept of a geographically fixed urban area, surrounded by a very low-density rural buffer, achieves these purposes. We drew an "Urban Services Boundary; " this is the area where we think we can efficiently provide urban services in the future (water, sewer, police and fire protection, parks and recreation services, etc. ) . We took - the position that development within this urban services area should occur at urban densities , and be developed to allow for provision of urban services (water and sewer extended, streets built with curb and gutter, etc . ) Outside of this area, in the Rural Buffer, ' we would expect that urban services would not be provided; development would occur at very low densities, if at all. Water and sewer lines would not be extended into the Rural Buffer. There would be no effort to annex any of these areas. We believe that, if development occurs in a manner as called for in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, we will achieve a desirable result. Development in the Urban area will occur according to urban- standards, and will receive the benefits of all urban services. Development in the rural buffer will be of a very low density. Urban services will not be provided, and urban development standards will not be enforced. These areas will not be annexed, and will not pay municipal taxes. The low-density nature of central Orange County will be preserved, and the environmentally sensitive Duke Forest and University Lake watershed will be protected. We believe it is a sound concept. Why a 2-Acre Minimum Lot Size? The question of how low is "low density" was extensively discussed during preparation of the Land Use Plan. Proposed densities in the Rural Buffer ranged from 1 unit per acre to 1 unit per five acres. We believe that the concept of "no water and sewer" in the Rural Buffer is key to the Buffer' s success. We believe that when water and sewer are available, development pressures are irresistable. Therefore, we believe that development should occur at densities that will not require public water and sewer now or in the future. . 005 soils in this area,the poor nature of soi , we believe that a 2-acre minimum lot size will help assure that public sewer will not be required in the future. We also believe that development in this low-density pattern will make extension of water and sewer lines infeasible. And with development occuring at this low density (if at all) , we believe that the nature and character of central Orange County will be preserved. During our discussions on this point, we rejected the concept of a 5-acre minimum lot size as being too restrictive. We believe that a 2-acre minimum is a compromise that still achieves the purposes of the plan. We believe that, if development were to occur at a higher density (eg. , 1 unit per acre) , we would have the worst of both worlds. We would have a sprawling pattern of development at near-urban intensities, which would inevitably be followed by demands for urban services. Providing urban services to a large geographic area developed at a density of 1 unit per acre would be disastrous. • Development Standards Chapel Hill' s Development Ordinance contains a set of standards for areas called "Rural Transition. " This is roughly equivalent to the Joint Planning category of "Rural Buffer. " Standards in our Rural Transition zone are as follows: - Minimum Lot Size: 100, 000 square feet - Mimimum Lot Width: 200 feet - Floor Area Ration: .031 - Street Setback: 30 feet - Maximum Height: 35 feet We have a limited amount of Rural Buffer currently in our Extraterritorial Planning Area. The Town Council will be considering rezoning these areas "RT" in April. SUMMARY We believe that the concept of a Rural Buffer is critical to the future of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Urban Area. It has been a component of Orange County's Land Use Plan for years, and is a cornerstone of the new Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. We are basing all of our plans upon this cornerstone (annexation, expansion of community facilites, etc. ) . We believe that a 2-acre minimum lot size is critical to the success of the Rural Buffer concept. 006 ORANGE COUNTY 007 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 10, 1987 Action Agenda I tem# SUBJECT: PROPOSED JPA LAND USE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT (TWO ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE STANDARD) *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No ATTACHMENTS : CONTACT: Marvin Collins Citizen Petitions; Joint Planning TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Area Land Use Plan Text. Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. NEED: On October 13, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan . Denoted on the Plan map and in the text was a residential land use category, described as a low-density area of single-family homes on large lots of at least two acres in size. To conform the Orange County Zoning Ordinance ( and Atlas) with the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, a public hearing was held on November 24, 1986 . The purpose of the hearing was to consider- a proposed Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district and accompanying dimensional requirements, including a two-acre minimum lot size requirement. On January 5, 1987, the Board of Commissioners adopted the RB zoning district designation and dimensional requirements applicable therein . At the same meeting, petitions with 643 signatures were received, requesting that the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan be amended to reduce the lot size standard in the Rural Buffer from "one dwelling unit per two acres" to "one dwelling per acre" . Section 2.4 of the Joint Planning Agreement indicates that proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan shall not become effective until approved by the parties to the Agreement - Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill . 005 IMPACT: One purpose of the Rural Buffer is to define an -urban services boundary around the Chapel Hill -Carrboro area. Within the boundary (or transition area) , development would occur at urban densities and the full range of services would be provided, including public water and sewer. In the Rural Buffer outside the boundary, development would occur at very low density (one dwelling unit per two acres) , urban services would not be provided, and municipal annexation would not occur. A second and equally important purpose of the Rural Buffer is to protect and preserve environmentally sensitive and open space areas. Included among these areas are University Lake watershed, Duke Forest and productive agricultural lands. Approval of the amendment would result in increased development pressure within the Rural Buffer, including requests for water and sewer extensions. As land developed at more urban densities, the amount of productive farmland would be reduced, and municipalities would encroach on environmentally sensitive areas. If approved, a subsequent public hearing (May 25, 1987 ) would be required to conform the Zoning Ordinance and Atlas with the JPA Land Use Plan . RECOMMENDATION: Retain two-acre minimum lot size standard . O Q1 We, the undersigned, citizens of Orange County, urge the County Commissioners and its duly empowered Boards and Commissions to return rural densities to one acre minimum lot sizes by defeating the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, zoning atlas, and subdivision regulations. Further, we request you amend the Land Use Plan to allow ONE ACRE lots in the RB (Rural Buffer) district. • We support the concept of maintaining rural features in our County, but believe the two acre lot size minimum will have significant adverse consequences for the people and government of the County for the following reasons: 1. Property Rights - Requiring a two acre lot minimum infringes on the rights of current land owners by decreasing land values and limiting opportunities to provide land for future generations. 2. Affordability of Housing - Individual lot prices- will increase due to the extra costs of acquiring and developing land to a two acre standard, further reducing the practicality of affordable housing. 3. Tax Increases - Decreasing housing densities and decreasing land • values will reduce the tax base, thereby requiring substantial future tax increases.to provide County services. In light of current funding problems, a two acre lot minimum seems irresponsible. Fg 4. Environmental Impact - Setting up regulatory and economic barriers to water and sewer extensions creates urban sprawl and risks Suture public health problems. 77/4! ADDRESS 7t'' TELEPHONE f 7 G._,;c I7OI ° T tf dj . ,r 7:47 13 2-7 rAek, _ f71- s- 4 • 4114 ii1.4/ 4, 47. - . _ /(i 7 G <re 3—C77( k. oio , i _ PEfITU)t1 TO AMEND JOINT PLANNING LAND UDC PLAN WHEREAS, the Orb: county Board of Commissioners vdopted the Orange County--Chaff: Hi l l -Carrboro Joint Planning L i Use Plan on October 13, 996; and WHEREAS, the Jai Planning Land Use Plan contains a land use classificat n of Rural Residential and descr . bes said classificat •n as a low-density area consists ...) of single-fami . r homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater ; anl, WHEREAS, Orange •' .runty has required compliance wit.. the two-acre lot size standa. .1 through application of its Sub. 'ision Regulations; and WHEREAS, Orange C.,lunty conducted a public hearing November 24, 1986,' for tt purpose of amending its Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas to conform with the Joint Planning Land Use Plan, including tF.a establishment of a Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district ar, dimensional requirements applicable therein ; and WHEREAS, the two- •,cre minimum lot substantially in,.-eases the cost of housing a-. .d is therefore directly contrary to any intention the county Fas of providing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the two-acre minimum lot imposes hardship cn the majority of land owne 's, most of whom have struggled f4..• many years to pay for thei,• land and the taxes thereon, and would like to use the land fa' their children or realize some b:Hefit to themselves . _ether than lose the value thereof ; and WHEREAS, the two ire minimum lot standard makes t,.. extension of public wake: and sewer lines to new developme.. .s uneconomic, thereby encc .raging the use of septic tanks acid wells, both of which are a' .!ady causing increasing health al-,d sanitation problems; a. WHEREAS, as more nd more people settle in the cou- ty,, public water and sewer wi 1 of necessity have to be extendkd to both old and new lots at .a cost that will be devastating if lots are large; and WHEREAS, there are other ways to obtain open space such as public parks and cl _ster developments with dedicated open space; and WHEREAS, the two--.cre minimum standard has made most of the platted lots in the rural--Buffer (RB) zoning non-confurming and therefore less valuable since fiduciary institutions have reservation : about making loans on non-confor .ing property; and WHEREAS, under th_ present two acre standard, exis', ;.-ig structures on non-conformi .,g lots, if damaged by catastrophe, might not be rebuildable 'n a manner suitable to the owner's needs: THE FOLLOWING RES DENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIVING WITHIN THE PROPOSED RUR'.L BUFFER (RB) ZONING DISTRICT AND ELSEWHERE IN ORANGE COUNT: RetPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIC ERS AMEND THE ORANGE COUNTY-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO JOINT PLANK' 3 LAND USE PLAN TO CHANGE THE MIN:MUM LOT SIZE PER DWELLING FRU' TWO (2) ACRES TO ONE (1) ACRE WITHIN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION: SIGATURE ADDRESS 3 ,-,tt$5I ' ` (Lk- 3 €4-4 1,25r1 E1;11�� y1^r '"G• vi 011 FUTURE LAND USE - JOINT PLANNING AREA In this section, anticipated patterns of future land development are outlined for the Joint Planning Area, exclusive of Carrboro and Chapel Hill . The future land use patterns described in this section are based, in part, on the population, economic and existing land use trends identified in background studies. Also considered in the formulation of these patterns were environmental features, infrastructure and service concerns, operating principles, locational standards and concept/strategy maps developed for the Joint -Planning Area or currently existing in the Orange County Land Use Plan. Finally, comments received at two public hearings, six public information meetings, and the recom- mendations of town and county advisory and governing boards were con- sidered in the formulation of the plan . The discussion of the Plan centers on four broad categories of land use - Residential , Commercial , Industrial and Resource Conservation. _ Resjlentiai Land Three categories of residential land have been depicted on the Land Use Plan - Rural Residential , Suburban Residential and Urban Residential . The three categories are discussed below. Rural Residential, The first of the categories Is Rural Residential , a low-density area consisting of single family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater. The- Rural Residential designation is identical to the Rural Buffer category - contained in the current Orange County Land Use Plan. The Rural Buffer category is described in the Plan as land adjacent to an Urban or Transition area which is rural in character and which should remain rural , contain very low-density residential uses and not require urban services (water and sewer) during the Plan period. The Town of Carr- boro, while supporting the concept of a Rural Buffer, has gone on record in favor of large tract cluster development as opposed to a two acre lot size restriction . At the time of the second public hearing in April , the entire Bolin Creek Basin was designated as transition area. Plan revisions made following the hearing resulted in a southward extension of the Rural Buffer into a sizable portion of the transition area. Three primary rea- sons are advanced for this redesignation: ( 1 ) Protection of Duke Forest - The Duke Forest Manager requested that all lands bordering Duke Forest be given the lowest In- tensity uses possible to lessen potential impacts. Suburban Residential areas bordering Duke Forest were redesignated as Rural Residential . (2) Deletion of the Calvander Commercial/industrial Node - it was felt that deleting the sizable area designated for light manu- facturing, retail , and Office/Institutional would likewise • 71 012. 14`1 ORANGE COUNTY Kai=MI PUBLIC HEARING 0 Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina.Chapter 153A,Section 323 and 343,notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Cultural Arts Auditorium of Chapel Hid High School, Homestead Road,Chapel Hill,North Carolina,on Tuesday.March 10,1987,at 7:30 p.m.for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the adoption of proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan and com- ment on findings and recommendations of the Rural Buffer Study. ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN Amend JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN text to change from two(2) acres to 40,000 square feet(0.92 acre),the required minimum residential lot size in the Rural Buffer.The Board of County Commissioners adopted the two(2) acre lot size designation on August 19,198&The proposed amendment is based on a petition received from property owners In the Rural Butler. The Rural Buffer is located adjacent to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and is bounded generally by Interstate 40,Clyde Road.Eubanks Road, Rogers Road, and Homestead Road to the south: Cornwallis Road, Murphey School Road, Brockweil Road,the University,Railroad,N.C.86. Davis Road,and Tree Farm Road to the north; the Durham County line to the east and Dodsons Crossroads, Can Durham Road, and Ferguson Road to the west_ It contains aproximately 38,000 acres and also includes the area known as the"Southern Triangle"bounded by the Durham and Chatham County lines,and the Town of Chapel Hill extraterritorial jurisdiction line. RURAL BUFFER STUDY On August 19, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN,including a minimum required lot area per dwelling of two (2) acres. To conform the Zoning Ordinance/Alfas with the adopted Land Use Plan,a public hearing was held on November 24,1986.Revi- sions were proposed to establish a new zoning district classification, Rural Buffer(RB).and rezone approximately 38,000 acres from a minimum residential lot size of 40,000 square feet(0.92 acre)to two(2)acres.At the hearing,a num- ber of concerns were identified regarding the proposals and their application. On January 5,1987,the Board of County Commissioners approved the proposed Zoning Ordinance/Atlas amendments as an interim action to be followed by additional investigation and refinement of the adopted standards.In recognition of citizen concerns,the Board instructed the Planning Staff to prepare a RURAL BUFFER STUDY which would recommend design standards for the Rural Buffer district.The results of the study will be presented at the hearing. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment must be received during the public hearing.Those wishing to oppose the proposals must provide competent material and substantial evidence as to the specific manner in which they are opposed to the amendments. Following the dose of the public hearing.only evidence presented at public hearing wit Ibe examined by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for deci- sion. - Changes may be made In the advertised proposal which reflect debate,objec- tions and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposal should be directed to the Orange County Plan- ning Department. The Planning Department is located in the New Courthouse, 108 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough.NC. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m..Monday through Friday._ - Marvin Collins,Planning Director 0 1 4 p7/7- March 8, 1987 L. / Planning Department Orange County Courthouse Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 To the Members of the Board: A letter to the Editor of the Chapel Hill Newspaper from Mary Ellen Priestly appeared in today's edition concerning the public hearing scheduled for this Tuesday evening. Because I will be unable to attend the hearing I would like to submit these comments to you about the development of our community, including rural space in Orange County which would be affected by the proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Ms. Priestly's letter is the first news I have encountered about this important issue. My father and I both grew up and live in Chapel Hill . My paternal grandfather, who was a member of the Sierra Club, imparted to my father, and the two of them to me, a deep appreciation of the natural environment and its inhabitants -- be these animal , vegetable, or mineral . This is my inheritance -- a valuing of nature, and in particular, of its expression in Chapel Hill , Orange County and North Carolina. To see our space with the varied life it supports squandered to promote short-sighted interests really hurts. When we begin by disregarding the integrity of this rural area we initiate a process which can lead to its disintegration altogether: "development." Ms. Priestly put it very well when she wrote, "We should all care about the trusteeship of our land; we won't get any more." Actually, the land constitutes our collective inheritance. This is why I request that the Board turn down the proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Jlan which would compromise Orange County's rural area. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, )6 ,1T-1 /14'C??._ Margar P. Heath 405- estwood Drive Chapel Hill , NC 27514 copy sent to Mary Ellen Priestly r 3 * i \ ` + 71 11111 I_may ,�. \ r .0• 0 0. mil' 'I, �..r / • r, �1 Y --it. , 1. , /',Alai-7\, \,. ° y°y, \ a� 1;......,:.,., r MI �f 3 Z�. ? IF ■ .� :::,.12.7:.',•\. I 11 s , 1,.-- - ..iii �' _ `�`'�� i . J'll i 4,,,, ,t . . ,. p..•,' . ..!-.`..., .4-• '. gm 1 1. , Q_ �� _ 'w. ; - J— N °i • -. - �, r 11Miliwili ! 1 it :,,i(:1`. i 61 �f ;i;' Kr!'~' �, � r kr4 `. ••J.-r 'I 4.>,:ti, , % , - 7.! Ka 41... . 16111012,i .-.- litlh''' al f • j..-Ain..... I. / 1 5 ' '1P '00.f. �� '1� \k 'IChIAPE' HILL .: � :: ...,..111.It 'VT 4 4'4,71. ..:Pb .: 1 I..1:711:41:W, : .11.4.-?1,t-..::::1 1 1� _ 1 „ •• sire:. ?. S w , "'err• 1► I~'• r ':.ri r. _ r• �` �� ._ '; tom. ' . • f`f,r 1 ``^�•, i K '^�,M (T ,.1.1:4107 � C "14'4 ii:71.1;1.▪ ;;.;;:if:i. .11:VI Pig:gi --_, , ;')..1*- 2'-'tl. '''''tr1/4................. cr,•4▪ 1:::::•::: :4'4 ..;1 i ‘ , ?Plilik - I, \r'Z'4'9, 1:::1;.),. 1,04,1/171' ''-ifl§„.11:117:'„,. 1 ''' , ',1,. -') .e ' ,..„ `riTIV:1"1.4-i*APAIViii IL --',- IP; Wp:*-.:f.:7--"L'i - .5;;.1.41 ii, fitt:aboi:Li iotiiiill- 4 , Ar,1,117- --5-1- cdfrri ,,„„„,..., ..,;- .4,.,, , _ . ---- y ,,,,‘, ., 1 Itilk? - i ,,,, • -4 .•�•�.�.�• */ \may ..r •• Cho�lrXn • -�• . � •• • .�+ ..�• Joint Planning Area ____ -_ _ RURAL BUFFER STUDY .... February, 1987 Joint Planning Area R U R A L B U E E E R I L Y Prepared By Orange County Planning Department February 27 , 1987 Revised March 4, 1987 CONTENTS Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii INTRODUCTION 1 DATA AND ANALYSIS 3 introduction 3 Natural and Historical Resources 4 Infrastructure and Development 7 Environmental Constraints to Development 9 POLICY ANALYSIS 1 Issues/Recommendations 11 2 Land Use Element 12 Circulation Element 13 Housing Element 13 Open Space Element 13 Conservation Element 15 Health & Safety Element 16 Conclusion • 17 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION 19 Foreword 1 1 Implementation Measures Currently Used 24 Implementation Measures Used Elsewhere 24 Transfer of Development Rights 27 Purchase of Development Rights 29 Acquisition/Land Banking 31 Impact Fees Impact Zoning 33 33 Municipal Service Pricing 37 Adequate Public Facilities 9 Permits Systems/Points Systems 3 3 Evaluation of Implementation Measures 41 Possible Changes to Current Measures 43 Conventional Zoning 43 Overlay Zones 43 Cluster Development 44 Exaction 44 Other Measures with Significant ''Use Potential Acquisition/Land Banking 44 45 Purchase of Development Rights 45 Transfer of Development Rights 46 Other Measures with Limited USe Potn"ti. l 46 Adequate Public Facilities 47 Municipal Service Pr1cin,9. �"." 47 Impact Fees 47 Impact Performance Zones 47 Performance Systems/ ts ystems 49 Recommendations APPENDICES ----.`e :- i Appendix A - Study Outline 51 59 �. Appendix B - Data Summaries 159 25 Appendix C - Policy Analysis 165 Appendix D - Implementation Measures w. , ��t% w, 111 �� , ,_ , c I --_,11„, ,I. , \ .. 8•1• .may •! j ka- II 1 • r % P •I /'�� FAT ! '4. 10'J.; ich. 1 /dZ,.,\,_ t,_ c-;._, .- ...I. a_...i as //� / ,� 10 ,2.:.,.. -� lidlidiPPIPP "ORD L ' ; ,9z, ,. ...a f.- s A A6,3■71, . liqj 4... it 41,_,._.'_" ..kii;-4---;,,""4 'r r^'r Wf • i �y'IV. 10'. - 1„..„,.."1? • •T+ 8.. 8 4"-r.V " .-,41,1L W-:::,..1 z.- - 4-`, =-..: .::•,' .....1 •,-� j4 114 Y 41.4:c. :'4;.r.:r 111W ..Pgi mi. a 411 7 ..,,„_.' T '• J ........•- , ,..,? ,,.:4;F:,t. ,.;.,e,, Ai,4 _fORt4„ \ 401101111111t airlft -iP"."1411.,t7A '' * . • ..", 11‘• 4tvt, it., . ....4„..„,4:-.4 ,472t,,,e A. ..:_IIIPA.., r.'4 AlKiw- • te � .►L. r....�. 4 1 (� 1 ri411111ViipW-Oa'•�.::�� tip, :- +r� t► f , rI- CLAP .T � i y�� ,' -.:�tii-, ti'• ? _: �,y� v .�' I t- TRANSITION '' � �; "y: ;; ;`. �•.• ° NM --1,a '0 fi/ fit" r, ;; •• ::� :', � -,,,�-••� 1 ` ; ek. 1ri; :.4:::-:...:4.. ate . £Ie. ''', - ',4- .::::::::.. Dr./pp.:0 ::::::.:::: -47-ziPi7;) • ..„,.... -40p .i. _,1 _. .1 mi . 'tt4it"Millh .": _AN .1:•::.::-..._•••• . . 1.. •...:.4,.... ...4F.::: IV I i■ :..IS•••••.k„ 4.1.:Palit:. •. .11. ii.:MA. :::: "IP 44° -L.i;..'.'''if,...4.'tiiii :*:...:••''' 2: .."4.;.1 1:lig.% 7i: 1■1::..1:••Ii e ciVie , i ii. : .t 7' ' ‘SVNI§W:v_ I, ::: ...1:::::.2:•ZiadV ..:.'4727;,:i iii,:. !:::::ii. ."•'--;: I •N\4 o-�`` , i\V n,, ;~•:'•~: ' rv.e. it::-•.: •: : : •' +K.. pm.%-\ 1 .4•• e 1,1 f. ,., A ttse" ,...,-,:.,,,4,4.....,,,:p47-....,::::.....----. . . , 7 -...,i . r 'I ;;:4,:- ••+ -,..w.c ,. • a _- ..%111 NV -zz.--z-,Ier.- , ;._. , „ te,4 .ikir . - - )1/41 . .. ..r� EXTRATERRITORIAL1 �� j II 'Pei ' >JURISDICTION , i,V+r ii •, Oh. 'lyl3w)‘ 1: lr. ..`"�.�.�• ,�� Of J IL r sr! ' + RURAL BUFFER •Chatham Canty +.." � _ �1 t f + wJ• JOINT PLANNING AREA illi "No. " 11111.1 (ifift.,,, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 13, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Chapel Hill Town Council adopted the JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN. The Plan identified Transition areas where urban development was to occur as well as a Rural Buffer where very low density residential development was permitted. To maintain a low density of development and protect environmentally sensitive areas, a two-acre minimum lot size standard was established for the Rural Buffer. The Rural Buffer is located adjacent to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and is bounded generally by Interstate 40, Clyde Road, Eubanks Road, Rogers Road, and Homestead Road to the south ; Cornwallis Road, Murphey School Road, Brockwell Road, the University Branch of the Southern Railroad, N.C. 86, Davis Road, and Tree Farm Road to the north ; the Durham County line to the east; and Dodsons Crossroads, Carl Durham Road, and Ferguson Road to the west. It contains approximately 38,000 acres and also includes a sizable portion of the area known as the "Southern Triangle" bounded by the Durham and Chatham County lines, and the Town of Chapel Hill extraterritorial jurisdiction line. To conform the Zoning Ordinance/Atlas with the adopted Land Use Plan, a public hearing was held on November 24, 1986. Amendments proposed included a new zoning district classification, Rural Buffer (RB) , the rezoning of approximately 38,000 acres to the new district designation, and a schedule of dimensional requirements applicable within the district. The most significant change proposed was an increase in the minimum residential lot size requirement from 40,000 square feet (0.92 acre) to two (2) acres. At the hearing, a number of concerns were identified, including the following: 1 . property R i ghf s Property owners felt that the two acre minimum lot size requirement denies them reasonable use of their land. Another aspect of this concern involved Article 11 .7 of the Zoning Ordinance which generally requires nonconforming lots less than two ( 2) acres in size to be combined into conforming lots. Property owners felt the provi- sion was unfair since these lots were legally created under ordinances in effect at the time. M 2. Affordable Kousing Another concern focused on housing prices in Orange County, particularly the southeast portion . Statements were made that prices were already too high for most county residents to afford and raising the minimum lot size to two (2) acres would increase the cost of housing in the Rural Buffer even more. An ancillary argument is that some property owners who want to subdivide their land to create building lots for their children would be prevented from doing so by the two (2) acre lot requirement. Their children would not be able to afford a two (2) acre lot near their parents because of the high cost and would be forced to live elsewhere. 3. Environmental Impacts Concerns were voiced about the reliance on on-site water and sewage disposal and the potential for undesirable environmental impacts . Soil conditions in the Rural Buffer are limited with regard to their capacity to absorb septic tank effluent. This may result in septic system failures, contaminating surface and ground water supplies. The low density development would make retro- installation of public water and sewer in areas of septic field failures or well contamination very expensive. 4. Tax Increases The cost of providing public services to low density residential development exceeds the tax revenues produced by the development. The lower density in the Rural Buffer would produce a higher tax liability, resulting in higher taxes in the future. 5 . Leap Frog Development. The more stringent requirements of the Rural Buffer would encourage development in areas beyond the Buffer. This would result in an undesirable devel - opment pattern. On January 5, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners approved the proposed Zoning Ordinance/Atlas amendments. The Board also instructed the Planning Staff to prepare a RURAL BUFFER STUDY which would, address citizen concerns and propose a set of standards for the Rural Buffer district. A This study is the result of that effort and is broken down into three main sections, DATA AND ANALYSIS, POLICY ANALYSIS, and IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM. Section 1 analyzes and documents the data used as the basis for Rural Buffer policies. Section 2 addresses policies, plan proposals, and standards for issues relevant to the Rural Buffer and which guide private and governmental action . Finally, and most importantly, Section 3 addresses a coordinated set of specific measures and actions to be used in carrying out the policy of the Rural Buffer plan. Concurrent with the preparation of the study, a new Joint Planning Agreement was signed by Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill on February 3, 1987. The agreement established within the Rural Buffer, the Chapel Hill Joint Development Area (CHJDA) which lies north of 1-40 and east of a north-south line adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Blackwood Division of Duke Forest. Within this area, Orange County standards and ordinances are in effect and the Town of Chapel Hill is granted courtesy review . Orange County may not vote to issue or deny a development permit until it has received the recommendations of Chapel Hill or until the expiration of forty-five (45) days after Chapel Hill has received the application, whichever occurs first. The new agreement becomes effective upon adoption of a zoning map and the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance by Orange County . The first draft of the Rural buffer Study was completed on February 27, 1987 and distributed to the Orange County Planning Board and Chapel Hill and Carrboro Planning Depart- ments for review . Following this review, a revision of the study was produced on March 4, 1987 . Major recommendations contained in the study include: 1 . Retain the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. 2. Retain the policy prohibiting extension of water and sewer facilities into the Rural Buffer except in emergency situations. 3. Delete Article 11 .7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, Non- Conforming Lots. The amendment would allow owners of adjacent, undeveloped lots less than two (2) acres in size to develop their lots without combining them to create conforming lots. 4. Amend Article 4.2. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, Rural Buffer (RB) Zoning District. The amendment would allow property owners of record in the Rural Buffer to create one lot for each child. Such lots would be exempt from RB dimensional requirements, but would conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-1 Residential zoning district. The proposed amendment would add the following -paragraph to Article 4.2. 1 . c) Exempt Lots A lot created for use for a one-family resi- dence by - a child, or spouse of a child, of an owner of property zoned Rural Buffer would be exempt from the dimensional requirements of the Rural Buffer zoning district. Such a lot would be created in accordance with the dimensional requirements of the Rural Residen- tial (R-1 ) Zoning District. This exemption will apply only if the property owner can establish that he had legal title on or before January 5, 1987 and shall apply to only one such lot for each child of the property owner . 5. Amend Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regula- tions, Cluster Developments The amendment would prohibit exempt lots created under Article 4.2. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance from being further reduced in size under the provisions of this Section . The amendment would consist of the following changes: Renumber paragraphs IV-B-10-C-a/b/c/d to IV-B- 10-C-b/c/d/e respectively . Add the new paragraph IV-B-10-C-a a. Exempt lots created in accordance with Article 4.2. 1 may not be further reduced in size by application of the provisions of this Section. 6 . Amend the Zoning Atlas by applying the Public Interest District (PID) Zoning District to ,appli- cable lands. 7 . Initiate a Purchase of Development Rights program by authorizing the Planning Department to prepare an Implementation Plan. 8. Pursue special , legislation to allow Transfer of Development Rights. 9. Amend Cluster Development provisions to encourage its use. P 10. Collect additional data on : a. environmentally significant areas; b. septic system failures; c. techniques to maintain visual quality. The revised study will be presented at a public hearing on March 10, 1987. Comments received at the hearing will be evaluated by the Orange County Planning Board at their meeting on April 14, 1987, and a recommended course of action will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for decision on May 4, 1987 . INTRODUCTION ° On August 19, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN, including a minimum required lot area per dwelling of two (2) acres in the Rural Buffer. To conform the Zoning Ordinance/Atlas with the adopted Land Use Plan, a public hearing was held on November 24, 1986 . Revisions were proposed to establish a new zoning district classification, Rural Buffer (RB) , and rezone approximately 38,000 acres from a minimum residential lot size of 40,000 square feet (0.92 acre) to two (2) acres. At the hearing, a number of concerns were identified regarding the proposals and their application . On January 5, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners approved the proposed Zoning Ordinance/Atlas amendments as an interim action. In recognition of citizen concerns, the Board instructed the Planning Staff to prepare a RURAL BUFFER STUDY which would address citizen concerns and propose a set of standards for the Rural Buffer district. The text of this study is contained in the following pages. It is broken down into 3 major sections; DATA AND ANALYSIS, POLICY ANALYSIS, and IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM. Section 1 analyzes and documents the data used as the basis for Rural Buffer policies. Section 2 addresses policies, plan pro- posals, and standards for issues relevant to the Rural Buffer and which guide private and governmental action . Finally, and most importantly, Section 3 addresses a coordinated set of specific measures and actions to be used in carrying out the policy of the Rural Buffer plan. Attached as Appendix A is the study outline for the Rural Buffer. each through D contain the issue n of the study. papers produced in each section s 1 fir_, I. tt. ....., ...... , ,,. , , 1 ,4 I \rill „Eli*,,:\. ° _ ... _ .. , ,, is eg ; -.. --......„ 4, 0. ....,-,. . . . i r ` gJFc1; r. Air' . All iiir..-„,....!. ;.:. :„... 1,.. 1 A _._ ,, ,--.1 4■ " _ffiAllij .m., ip -if !,4. -_... pri --i.,%1 •..rte . ,Y.. T., Luz 1 Tli' : •t :.�.��., � ,,fo,.q `w/�....�i � _ Sri i ::,-...,,ii A.:0.1-t.04,' Y t Vii:`0 aw.r. � r cr. 1,17:e.,...,4004.7.:L.40.;.,14:7‘..: ::,,,"i:il::::::::::It4;:b. :i..-1....\.... 12t,,,....":.,:.::.......:..,..1::i.,k...,......1.....1.1 •?..g ....---I-- IV, N.., ''' 1 *IA A P E--.._ • ilii i 12,1,_ ill Ili p _..1;lit.l. .- .:' ,,P, uol is w, vigh A....:. t._ . _ .., 1„, :_,, , N •i-;-.1% 71' (4"; -....-••---7-... T WIF NIP,' -e...• ...Vi- - - .:::iii.li. ;- 111i.— ri‘NTly '-**SEFL-7! Zigh: ,,' , _n i : ._ ...... . , • 4 '-N i : 8 v v a. 14, , / 1.6 _:_, �. :• - tP ,, _ -/PP::... _._ , c' ( ‘ ,L,,,... bp. , 11 u, %.,,i-' iri)v. -iii .r- .. •_::::...: 7 - 1 1 • iiisr., , :\ -14 , r-- PO/4F,1111 1 -2 ' , ( % :•---way.',, ,!�1 I � j R - •1 I ilk I �► , . .. i / vieVitH ' Er.7.9 - --.............. ,„ * 0, , FAIV .. .. ,.' esmIs• ounIsom'" SECTION ONE DATA AND ANALYSIS 3 DATA AND ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This section presents a summary of data collected on the Rural Buffer grouped into three broad categories, Natural and Historic Resources, Infrastructure and Development, and Environmental Constraints to Development. More detailed information, along with references, is provided in the appendices at the end of the study. NATURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES In terms of gross land area, farmland is the most important natural resource in the Rural Buffer. The 16,000 acres of farmland in the buffer comprises over 40% of its total land area . About 10,000 acres are considered prime or locally important farmland. Even though individual farm tracts range in size from one to five hundred acres, many of the parcels are clustered. Several clusters of over 1000 acres of contiguous farmland are located in the west and northwest portions of the Rural Buffer. Active farms, especially those on prime and locally important farmland, have an importance that extends far beyond food production . Agricultural concerns provide rural employment and insure that soil resources are entrusted to those who are in the best position to know the land ' s ` capacity. Farmlands provide for flood control and wildlife conservation . They provide scenic vistas and recreation space. Preserving farmland and enhancing incentives to keep land in farm acreage also helps to meet the County ' s long range goal of maintaining the rural character of the area. The 2,760 acres of Duke Forest tracts cover almost 10% of the Rural Buffer and are the largest unbroken areas of forest cover in the buffer. Several areas within the forest • are classified as "natural areas" by the university, reflecting sites of endangered and threatened species or unique species diversification . In addition to its biological importance, Duke Forest is also an important recreation area. University Lake and the surrounding lands are obviously a critical natural resource. First and foremost, it provides drinking water for 45,000 residents of southeastern Orange County. It also provides recreation and significant biological habitats. The University Lake lands have a very high species diversity and two threatened species have been recorded. Knowledge" bf'biologically important sites in the Rural. Buffer is incaplete. No areawide study has been done, although a registry of reported sites is maintained by the North Caro11ha - Natural Heritage , Program. The registry 1'r consists`pe of nantfy `"of `pfant`"Communities, such as that on PickardsMM9!.10-11,71 ,0� the headwaters of Morgan Creek . At least six endariiere _ r�Pe sp cies b8ybnd those already recorded are believed to exist in the -are4. Confirmation, though, does not exist. 4 Geologic resources in the Rural Buffer include both exemplary -exposed formations and mineral deposits which allow for commercial extraction. Two active quarries exist in the Rural Buffer and two other mineral deposits that could be mined commercially have been identified. One of the two is in the Duke Forest. The exemplary exposed formations consist primarily of bluffs and basalt flows in the New Hope Creek corridor. Certain subsurface formations other than mineral deposits are also relevant to land use planning. Faults, of which there are two in the Rural Buffer, and shear zones, of which there is one, can have bearing on the siting of such uses as dams and industrial buildings. Their location also affects the movement of groundwater. The Rural Buffer is an area rich in Iocal history. Within the district are three state recognized historic buildings, one dozen cemeteries and churchyards that can be considered historic, and over thirty archeological sites. Although historically significant sites are often part of the man-made environment and not natural features they are, nevertheless, unique physical features that can have an impact on growth patterns within the buffer . While visual amenities are not often considered in a survey of natural resources they should be for several reasons. The visual environment educates the viewer about possible problems in the environment. Unfortunately, many problems are not dealt with until they are visually evident. Similarly, everything that is seen effects human emotion and guides activity on the Iand. The overall image of the Rural Buffer is one of variety, which is most valuable to the visual environment. Harmonious visual variety Is not only more aesthetically pleasing but is more indicative of ecological stability and an environment tolerant of visual change. Lands in the buffer can be classified in three groups. Wild Iands are characterized by natural elements in a natural state. Agrarian Iands are natural elements in an altered state, such as a planted field or pasture. The third element is settlement areas. These Iands are dominated by man-made elements. INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT Existing Iand use in the Rural Buffer is characterized by very low residential densities. Of the 44,000 acres in the Joint Planning Area (Rural Buffer and Transition areas) nearly three-fourl-hs: ins open space or undeveloped land. Less than 3,600 acres' i s. r..r rro`s i dent l`a=1 use. While housing try in the Rural Buffer is Iow the current pace of develop:rrren.t and construction activity is high and i ncreas 1 Tinto I n� r er. Tft news.,, -I ots created i n the University Lake ` Erite etritrrcreaks it 1ti veto ld from 38 parcels i n 1984 to 199 paftwrgr in 1986. 'Ma Jor"=sibd iv is ions accounted 5 for 21 and 181 of those lots, respectively . During the same time span the average new lot size in major subdivisions decreased - from 2.88 to 1 .92 acres and new housing unit building permits issued increased from 60 to 99 permits. The trend is similar for the remainder of the Rural Buffer. In the portion of Chapel Hill township in Orange County 's planning jurisdiction subdivisions created 218 new lots in 1986, up from 76 lots two years earlier. The average lot size in new major subdivisions dropped from 3. 1 acres to 1 .58 acres during the same time. This growth is reflected in the population projections for the Joint Planning Area. The JPA Land Use Plan predicted an annual average growth of 2.75% between 1980 and the year 2000, increasing Chapel Hill Township' s population from 50,572 residents in 1980 to an estimated 86,973 residents in the year 2000. The unincorporated portion of the area should increase from 11 ,017 residents to 14,545 residents during that same time period, but annexation will remove a large part of land from unincorporated status, masking its true growth . The spatial pattern of development in the Rural Buffer is guided in part by the lack of public water and sewer service. The use of individual septic systems and wells requires larger lots and demands greater attention to environmental constraints than might otherwise be necessary . The Town of Hillsborough currently has no plans to extend water or sewer into the Rural Buffer. OWASA' s current policy is not to extend water or sewer into the Rural Buffer without concurrence of the Board of County Commissioners. A 16" water line owned by OWASA, though, runs along Old NC86 for the purpose of allowing Hillsborough to supply OWASA with water during drought conditions. With the completion of the OWASA pump station in the Calvander area, which will allow OWASA to supply Hillsborough, adequate pressure will exist to supply some of the Rural Buffer with water . The solid waste disposal site for the residents of the Rural Buffer, as well as most of the rest of Orange County, is the Orange Regional Landfill on Eubanks Road. Its remaining Iife has been projected at eight to twelve years. In 1984 the 169 acre "Green Tract," to the south of the current landfill , was jointly purchased by the county, Chapel Hill , and Carrboro, and designated on land use maps as a potential landfill site pending further study. Use of the Green Tract as a landfill site would entail the issuance of a special use permit and the holding of a public hearing. Alternatives such as incineration, a combination shredding/ landfill program, .and recycling, have been explored by the. Orange Regional 7t'ahaf YI i Task Force. Sanitary landfill , though, remains the most cost-effective method available to the county at this time. "Orthe Rural Buffer .cir aiationw system Components, roads are the Most important, but thi`dbuntci neither ` develops nor maintaiis roads. The North ^tarolina Department of 6 Transportation (DOT) is responsible for the development, maintenance, and improvement of highways in the Rural Buffer. Orange Co.unty does not maintain a street system, hence, street service to individual developments are initially privately built, owned, and maintained. In larger subdivisions the roads often must be built to state specifications and are turned over by the developer to the state upon completion of the development. Reliance on private roads will continue unless annexation into the Rural Buffer occurs. Annexation is not forseen during the Joint Planning period. Thoroughfare plans for both Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Hillsborough incorporate projects in or near the Rural Buffer . They include widening portions of NC86 and Old NC 86, extending Weaver Dairy Road and Davis Road, relocating Homestead Road, and constructing an outer by-pass south of Chapel Hill by extending Old Fayetteville Road from Jones Ferry Road to NC 54 at the Durham County line. Funding is not available for all highway projects that have been identified as necessary to provide acceptable levels of highway service. As a result, highway construction lags behind need. This is expected to continue and will present serious problems for high growth areas, especially where roads are already at or near capacity. The other components of the circulation system are minor. The density in the buffer area is too low to generate sufficient demand for regular public transit service. Traffic volume on the Southern Railroad spur, which crosses the northern portion of the buffer, is expected to remain at its current low level of less than one train per day. Transmission lines are also considered part of the circulation system. High voltage electrical transmission lines owned by Duke Power and Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation cross the Rural Buffer, as does a Public Service Company gas line. The rights-of-way for these lines consume a significant amount of land and cannot be included as part of a buildable portion of a lot. As such, subdivisions must be designed around the rights-of-way. Rights-of-way can be used as part of a greenbelt or even a passive recreation system. Some of the trails in Eno River State Park currently follow transmission line rights-of-way . No publicly owned recreation facilities exist in the Rural Buffer, although there are numerous privately owned recreation sites. These include Duke Forest, camp and meeting facilities owned by churches ' or other non-profit organization, and clubs owned by hoiheowners associations in various subdivisions. r,., Police protection for the Rural "buffer is provided by R the Orange County Sheriff ' s Department. Fire protection is provided by seven volunteer , #, ire " °departments while two Jurisdictions provide the area 's wt'tth" <rescue service. No s i g n i f i c a n t problems with pub l't ' sat tS prov i s t'on exist in the Rural Buffer and none are anticipated in the forseeable 7 future. _ The Rural Buffer contains attendance zones for two public school systems, Orange County and Chapel Hill Carrboro. Five of the six Chapel Hill Carrboro elementary schools and one from the Orange County system have attendance zones extending into the Rural Buffer. Three public junior high schools and two high schools also serve the area. Several schools serving the Rural Buffer are at or near their ideal capacity. The Orange County Board of Education is studying the potential for siting a new elementary school in the northern portion of the Rural Buffer. The Chapel Hill - Carrboro system is evaluating the impact of growth on its schools. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT Several environmental parameters exist in the Rural Buffer which create constraints to development. Soils are the most constraining parameters, both in terms of the stability it provides for construction activity and its suitability for septic systems. To a lesser extent constraints are provided by steep slopes, groundwater quality, and floodplain. Soils was one of the three environmental parameters addressed in the preparation of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan . The stability of the soil , its suitability for construction activity, was measured using four constraining factors; shrink-swell potential , depth to bedrock, depth to groundwater, and slope. The constraints to building activity were rated either slight, moderate, or severe for all soils types. A soil type had to receive a poor rating in at least two of the four factors to be typed as moderate or severe. Using this system, most of the soils in the Rural Buffer pose little problem for construction activity . Seven percent of the land area, 2,675 acres, pose moderate problems and severe constraints are attached to another three percent, or 1 , 138 acres. Solis posing problems for conventional septic systems are a far greater obstacle to development in the Rural Buffer. It is probably the major obstacle. While soils presenting moderate problems for the use of septic systems cover a majority of the land in the buffer, soils presenting severe problems cover a significant portion. Soils that do not present problems or present only slight problems do not exist in the Rural Buffer. Four different suitability problems are associated with Rural Buffer soils. Slow absorption is ttiffp most common, followed by steep slopes. Shallow bedrock=wis- ,;a- problem between Old NC86 and the University Lake Water6hed: ' Wet Soils present problems primarily in the creek corridors. ,— As such, the problem of wastewater disposal in the Rural • Buffer is much more a potential problem than an existing one. The poor soils that predominate have precluded much development and have also precluded problems that could occur 8 with the increasing use of septic systems. The problem, though, may be greater than is readily apparent. Failing systems are not usually reported to the Health Department until they create a serious enough nuisance to the homeowner or neighbor. The few problems with failing septic systems in the area that have been identified are primarily a result of installation in poor soils. Other failing systems can be attributed to improper maintenance and installation . A parallel does exist, though, between housing density and pollution problems caused by failing systems. As development increases it should be expected that the number of reported system failures will also increase. Groundwater quality does not seem to be a problem in the Rural Buffer, but the potential for degradation is strong. Because of the parallel between density and septic system failures, increasing development could increase the hazard of groundwater pollution. A more serious threat to groundwater quality, specific to the Old Field Creek sub-basin, is posed by the Orange Regional Landfill . Monitoring of wells In the Eubanks area near the landfill during 1984 and 1985 found some levels of acidity, turbidity, and coliform bacteria higher than those recommended safe in some unprotected wells. The levels found, however, did not pose an immediate or serious health hazard. s � Leachate contamination from the landfill is a potential problem for more than just the area i mmediately surrounding the landfill site. The flow of groundwater tends to follow slope and the landfill sits near the headwaters of Old Field Creek. Any leachate contamination could thus cause water quality problems along the creek corridor to its confluence with New Hope Creek. Degree of slope can affect soil depth, septic tank location, and building sites. Hydrology and soil erosion are directly affected by slope. Slope was one determinant for Resource Protection area in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, and those over 15% are considered unsuitable for development. Topographically, the Rural Buffer is typical of the North Carolina Piedmont, with gently rolling upland made up of rounded hills and V-shaped valleys. Areas with slopes of greater than 15% are strewn throughout the area. They Include much of the Southern Triangle, creek corridors, and surrounding prominent high points such as Blackwood Mountain and Bald Mountain. Areas prone to flooding are few in the Rural Buffer, confined primarily to creek corridors. Even along New Hope Creek and other major streams in the Rural Buffer the 100 year floodplain ( 1 in 100 chance of occurring in a given year) rarely extends more than 300 feet from the stream center . 9 i .,, ._ :---- ■Nd.,441 ..._ _ ........ _ \,. i . , , , ,1, : r ■, a ' ri PrliC • * • 7 : / I , \ill 4.;f1.- ,,',- - . - . .7" ,, t--- ..... / /,• _LeuratIP 1 -14 0 1/4 " OK' , : -- a , II . _'_ • ‘,:, .,-_,VI 4. }..11, int.", . 12:.:.,... -"..--• ) vorp 4. i„,,,c4 1 wog ; re' ---.... . P r"-.I -1----- Ns 1 • -1'" - Atli:J..;;.,:',.1:i 1 op - sof i PAIII) _ . AP- pm III .. F - .if Cs"--4" ---trik...,, .- . ,...,Li .., , - r ay fir- w . 1 r T '4.21,�:,,..,::::::!::::::':'.:::::::161:14,-1-::L.1.::: -4. \ l /I, ft_ \ A44k- - II _ .,,:.: • . .......,.., ..• , i-ilk 4- _ ,.,_ si..„ littio......• A, 1 \• -:'!":' .4%* - 1-Wzgkoftte j. :4,4, .../ ,— -••• : i im- 1 1 !‘--,46--47-i.NI, . _ - --, /"Ne•,11 I - .,........1.4 744:11:: .7:111 N I lj i .b.1..77.. .. • cif :;:;7r:ii i' -glii -A:JO....................... ,:mx://....11:4,,,- * `` a 1 1 F .} V • r 1 gigt%ll: on ‘ 1 - • :▪. I. • . • 1/4'etIti......:1/4'. TN Nip,.... We' ' - 7.ig.:// .. •d '\ "111 ' kt\'/) hilliti 1,‘iwk6. ' _. ......,...... .... . ,. ... ., . ..:„. .. . i ..... ,.. , , , ,,,v5,.„ _ _ , - ,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: , ::., . • j _ jiti . \ 7 ) . f 6 -, A g? '' '41114-- Ilk '''',-.',.4:11! L•77:11 "+` "ill .r 1,11 ,,,,.. p.,.. ........-.4t▪ :::::::::::::::::- --41 ' ' ter ' I, .. —ft " 4 ,,a , • . P -t• -41‘ digir—'— t l' 1.1: -- i b • ' ,, \ 14*,-4113 ,_, .-, - • • i �; • AAlit /Chatham caws `Y. ,./'� •�� • • •SECTION TWO POLICY ANALYSIS 11 poL i cY ANAI..YS I S. The purpose of the Policy Analysis component is to review, analyze, update, and document policies, plan proposals, and standards for issues relevant to the Rural Buffer and which guide private and governmental action . Policy Analysis has been broken down into three distinct phases; review of current policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards, comparison of the phase 1 results with issues defined during the DATA & ANALYSIS component, and recommendations for changes/additions to policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards. Phase 1 began with a review of all pertinent documents which address the Rural Buffer. Primary documents were the Joint Planning Area Land. !(,ag Elan ( 1986) , Orange County Land lag plan ( 1981 ) , and the adopted Goals and Objectives of the Town of Chapel Hill ( 1986) . Many other sources were con- sulted and these are listed in the six phase 1 Policy Analy- sis summaries in the Appendix. The policies, goals, objec- tives, proposals, and standards derived from the review process were grouped under the plan elements of Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, and Health & Safety as appropriate. Concurrent with this, the DATA & ANALYSIS component of the study was being conducted . For each category and subcategory in DATA & ANALYSIS, relevant issues were identified . Phase 2 involved taking the issues from DATA & ANALYSIS and assigning them to the six plan elements of Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, and Health & Safety as appropriate. In some cases, the same issue was listed under several elements. The issues under each plan element were then compared/contrasted with the policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards and points of similarity/divergence were identified . Phase 3 involved assessment of the adequacy of policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards and where appro- priate, recommending changes/additions to them. Not all of the phase 2 issues were carried forward to phase 3. Staff review at the completion of phase 2 identified some issues as irrelevant or redundant and they were removed from further consideration . Though the same issue was often listed under several plan elements in phase 2, in phase 3 it was assigned to the single best element. Recommendations for changes/additions were most often in terms of policy . ISSUES/RECOMMENDATION . In the following section, the issues under each plan element are listed . Recommendations regarding policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards for that issue •- are listed immediately following it.. 12 Land Use f Lement Issue: Residential development in the Rural Buffer Zone is occurring on lots larger than currently required by the zoning ordinance. The average subdivided lot size for Chapel Hill Township for the last three years is 2. 43 acres. The required two acre minimum lot size may cause large subdivisions to have fewer lots but will have a limited effect on overall development activity. Recommendation : Supplement Orange County LAn. alA Plan policy 5 .7 and Rural Buffer proposal on page 3. 12. 11 with the underlined text. Designate the rural , low density land surrounding the Chapel HillJCarrbgr9 urban areas, but beyond the Transition Areas, as Rural Buffer. This area will remain rural in character, will not require urban services and will maintain farming or rural non-farm residential development as the most appropriate land use. Future consideration will be given to designating Rural Buffer areas around other Towns in the County. RURAL BUFFER. The Rural Buffer extends from the western boundary of the Towns / planning jurisdic- tions to the outer edge of the University Lake Watershed. To the north, the Rural Buffer extends to the outer boundaries of the New Hope Creek drainage basin and includes most of the major Duke Forest tracts in Chapel Hill Township . To the southeast. the Rural suffer encompasses the area known as the 1411thern Triangle. This area defines the outer boundary of the Joint Planning Area and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro' s corporate limits/extraterrltQrja) jurisdictions 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. Issue: Together with slope, topographic relief is a direct influence on the water table and the location of streams and waterways, as well as soil erosion. Therefore any alterations in topographic relief or slope gradient may have far reaching effects on the entire area. Recommendation : New policy statement for inclusion under Goal 1 in Orange County Land 1LaQ Plan . Areas 9t greater then fifteen percent ( 15%) slope are environmentally sensitive and development in such areas shall be in strict conformity to appli- cable ae;imentation and erosion controls. 13 • Issue: While addressing the problems of unsuitable soils and failing septic tanks, water and sewer line extensions would defeat the purpose of the Rural Buffer . They would promote development at urban densities and subsequently, annexation. Recommendation : New policy statement for inclusion under Goal 9 in Orange County L.'laA Lim P As a service required by urban development, water and sewer is inconsistent with the desired develop- ment pattern for the Rural Buffer . Water and sewer lines will not be extended into the Rural Buffer except to address failing septic systems where state approved alternatives are unfeasible. Circulation Element Issue: Since funding is not available for all highway projects that have been identified as necessary, highway construction will continue to lag behind need. Reliance on private in the Rural Buffer maintain a street system. Recommendation : No further policies, goals, objectives, proposals, or standards are proposed; the existing ones are deemed adequate and are listed in Appendix C, Phase 1 , Circulation . Housing Element. Issue: No relevant housing issues were carried forward from phase 2 policy analysis. Open space _Element Issue: The largest unbroken area of forest cover in the Rural Buffer is comprised of Duke Forest tracts. A study by the Urban Land Institute has been completed and includes recommendations for uses more intense than education, research, and recrea- tion in portions of Duke Forest. In contrast, the Duke School of Forestry and Environmental Studies is currently examining the non-monetary values of Duke Forest lands. Recommendation : No further policies, goals, objectives, proposals, or standards are proposed; the existing ones are deemed adequate and are listed in Appendix C, Phase 1 , Open Space. The recommendation for a new policy on Public Interest District zoning contained under the Conservation Element is also applicable to Open Space. 14 Conservation Element Issue: The adequate protection of biologically significant areas and historic sites is increasingly important in light of recent and proposed development in the Rural Buffer. However, providing protection for such areas and sites is difficult since their exact location and present status is not always known. Recommendation : Supplement Orange County Land 1112 Plan policy 2.2 with the underlined text and adopt a new policy statement on application of Public Interest District zoning for inclusion under Goal 1 in Orange Count, Land 1L12 Plan. Protect non-renewable resource land, to include historical and biological resources. from incom- patible development and allow their use in a safe and reasonable manner according to performance standards designed to ensure a sufficient level of environmental protection . Apply the Public Interest Area plan designation to all areas and sites identified as biologically ,end/or historically significant, and to the maximum extend feat i b le; apply the Pu1z l i c •Interest District zoning classification to all areas an4 Bites identified as "Public Interest Areas" in thh adopted Land Use Plan. Issue: Escalating land prices due to residential demand in the Rural Buffer is making it more difficult to keep prime farm land in agricultural use. Recommendation: No further policies, goals, objectives, proposals, or standards are proposed; the existing ones are deemed adequate and are listed in Appendix C, Phase 1 , Conser- vation. Issue: Development activity in the Rural Buffer has two impacts on Duke Forest properties. Erosion and runoff from development activity upstream may lead to the degradation of surface water habitats. Increased development, not just in the Rural Buffer, but throughout the Chapel Hill /Durham region also places increasing recreation pressures on the forest. Recommendation : No further policies, goals, objectives, proposals, or standards are proposed ; the existing ones are deemed adequate and are listed in Appendix C, Phase 1 , Conser- vation . i 15 Health & Safety Element Issue: Areas with soils unsuitable for conventional septic tank usage present an obstacle to development. Alternative sanitation systems tend to cost more, require more land for operation, or perform less effectively . Recommendation : New policy statement for inclusion under Goal 11 in Orange CQgnty Lan U12 Plan. Orange County recognizes the right of individual property ownets to develop their property to its highest and best use as Jong as such deveJopmerlt 1a consistent with adopted land use plans, policies . and standards. In this regard, properties with soils unsuitable for conventional septic systems will be allowed to develop with . a state approved alternative sewage disposal system provided_ there is sufficient land area for the system, the owner documents his ability to afford and maintain sucJ1 .a system, and such development is consistent with section 6.20 of the Orange county Zoning Ordinance. Issue: The increasing use, and increasing density, of septic tanks contribute to the potential risk of groundwater contamination especially during low flow conditions. Recommendation : Supplement Orange County Land lag Plan policy 10.2 with the underlined text. Adopt and implement policies which specify land use patterns and intensities of development in the Rural Buffer and in water supply watershed and Water Quality Critical Areas that will minimize potential adverse impacts on surface and ground water quality. Issue: Continued development in the Rural Buffer will increase the need for volunteer fire protection and rescue service as well as for police protection from the Orange County Sheriff ' s Department. Recommendation : New policy statement for inclusion under Goal 16 in Qrango County Land UAA Plan , _It shall be the policy of Orange County to notify aQnrogr late pubs is safety ag$nc ies of the ioQat ion and extent of approved land development projects SQ pons$ tlW s. 16 CQNQ ION The Policy Analysis component of the study has been a process involving three distinct phases. Phase 1 involved reviewing a broad range of planning literature related to Joint Planning and attempting to extract all pertinent policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards related to the Rural- Buffer. Phase 2 involved taking the issues defined in the DATA & ANALYSIS component of the study and comparing them with phase 1 results, this in the framework of the six plan elements of Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, and Health & Safety. In phase 3, recommended changes/modifications to the policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards have been suggested, where appropriate. Recommendations for change have most often been in the form of new or revised policies. Plan elements with the most substantive changes were Land Use, Conservation, and Health & Safety. No relevant issues were carried forward under Housing and the issues under Circula- tion and Open Space were deemed adequately covered by exist- ing policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards. . a 17 t ...t ll'S-r a 4 y y.;X12 1 C.'-' a lull , =•r i • r I. ....i _Al; : i WO 1\ 1 t'I'IrM /4:11r1\\ - • . •'''' '9. WI 4.-- .2„ 1 --- ''''''‘ 1 6 L' ‘,,,A • ON, / %r � ".•71.1 i �iL? � /-- '1/p lad" II .,...-H" 1 r II 7:— IV. r :<<.:,,:::,.,,, ,,......„ .....,.. : -...„• ...-..--......... .r. ...Afflmmun . ., , ,,,,,,,,,-- v ,• .Ilk •nf, ..11" '1Y rl.S. .q•.?•P . •• 3. ;:.:::•:-.::•::••:•-::i � • : : .(fit* I :•\ C k,gl 1 t \ 0"l r • ,� r _ j -. - ..aga4AWMPAIrr u.,-.---i- '7,- •:,i,„_.. _ ; ',„,..,,i.:::* ...;41*14"' pidPm44/(Mgikakt:"; I %, ct ; it ,.• \ \Iii "i%ki. .1 _ f . ur • a - , ' ' 4 . _.... • ....„,.... . ,-,*ii.ii-wp ,-,_, -,,,, "...NA: i • ...., itp„„..IV..sl5 A. .44-il - .Q ,:, ... 0. a 1 ( 1, , 1.. .A) A .-_. 1111r%,„6„--'1L 1119KWIti" Ilii -, 1,.-4-16-..1 ( 4. '�' 3. 3 ,..• t•ifthi....,_ r 7;:1;:qpi.:: r �r • .rte Fe i ',;F� �, �� ~ • w__ r , • 40.' 1 Illi < .- W lire), , ,_ . N„...' '''...: -3 ... . _ ,,1 it • 1 4.a.•••••••.....,-,.. ' w •�hOthort •fir • A� � r• � • y • • +�+ •� SECTION THREE RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION 19 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION - Foreword } It is perhaps best to begin this section by restating what the Rural Buffer is and presenting the concerns that have been expressed about it. This will provide not only a basis for describing how it is being implemented, but also an understanding of how current implementation measures may be changed or new measures may be able to implement the Rural Buffer concept while addressing concerns. The purpose of the Rural Buffer is to provide locations for rural residential development and agricultural , silvi - cultural , and horticultural uses which serve to buffer or separate more intensively planned and/or developed portions of Orange County . Development in the Rural Buffer is allowed at low density . One dwelling unit is allowed on a two (2) acre lot. Individual wells and ground absorption systems are used for domestic water supply and sewage disposal , respectively . When the Rural Buffer (RB) Zoning District, which created the one dwelling unit on a two (2) acre lot, was presented at public hearing for public comment, concerns were expressed that the requirement would have several undesirable effects. These concerns involved the following areas : 1 . Property Rights The requirement that one dwelling unit be located on a two ( 2) acre lot is the most stringent resi- dential lot size requirement in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Some property owners feel that the requirement denies them reasonable use of their land. Another aspect of this concern stems not from the lot size requirement but from the Non- Conforming Lot section of the Zoning Ordinance. it requires non-conforming lots, that is lots less than two (2) acres in size, be recombined into conforming lots when two or more contiguous unde- veloped lots are owned by the same person . This, it is felt, is unfair since these lots were legally created under ordinances in effect at the time, owners of such lots should be able to develop such lots. 2. Affordable Housing Housing prices in Orange County, particularly southeast Orange County, are already too high for most county residents to afford . Raising the minimum building lot size to two (2) acres will increase the cost of housing in the Rural Buffer making housing even less affordable. An ancillary 20 argument is that some property owners who want to subdivide their land to create building lots for -their children will be prevented from doing so by the two (2) acre lot requirement. Their children will not be able to afford a two ( 2) acre lot near their parents because of the high cost and will be forced to live elsewhere. 3 . Environmental Impacts Reliance on on-site water and sewage disposal, will create undesirable environmental impacts. Soil conditions in the Rural Buffer are limited with regards to their capacity to absorb septic tank effluent. This will result in septic system failures that will contaminate surface and ground water. Since drinking water is being supplied from wells, well contamination is likely . The low density development will make retro- installation of public water and sewer in areas of septic field failures or well contamination very expensive. 4. Tax Increases The cost of providing public services to low density residential development exceeds the tax revenues produced by the development. The lower density in the Rural Buffer will produce a higher tax liability, resulting in higher taxes in the future. 5 . Leap Frog Development The more stringent requirements of the Rural Buffer will encourage development in areas beyond the Buffer . This will result in an undesirable devel - opment pattern . In the analysis of Rural Buffer implementation measures that follows, we attempt to address these concerns and the policy issues discussed earlier . n r4 ., .' 21 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION Implementation Measures Currently Used The Rural Buffer is a means of managing growth in Orange County. Growth management is implemented through land use controls. Orange County has a rather sophisticated array of land use controls available. These include County ordinances such as the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, and Soil Erosion and Sedimenta- tion Control Ordinance. There are, additionally, ordinances and programs at the State level which affect land use and have applications in the Rural Buffer. These include the Conservation and Historic Preservation Act, the Farm Use Taxation Act, and Thoroughfare Planning conducted by North Carolina Department of Transportation. The use of these various devices as means of implement- ing the Rural Buffer varies widely . Some were created specifically to implement the Rural Buffer. Others hale other purposes but have the effect of implementing the Rural Buffer. Summaries of each Implementation measure have been prepared. Because of their length, these summaries are contained in the appendices of this report. A brief descrip- tion of how each measure helps achieve the Rural Buffer is included here. The following measures help to implement the Rural Buffer . 1 . Rural Buffer (RB) Zoning District This zoning classification was created specifically to implement the Rural Buffer. It establishes the one dwelling unit per two (2) acre lot requirement, establishes dimensional requirements for lots, and establishes permitted uses in the zone. 2. Recreation Requirements Subdivisions in the Joint Land Use Planning Area are required to dedicate land for public recreation or open space areas or make a cash payment- in- lieu of dedication of Land . 3. Public Water and Sewer Extension Policy Public water and sewer are not available in the ' Rural Buffer . It is the policy of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority that it will not extend service into the Rural Buffer without the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The following measures were created for other purposes but have the effect of implementing the Rural Buffer. 1 . Public Interest District (PID) Zoning District 22 This zoning classification significantly restricts development on certain public land and private -educational lands that are environmentally sensi- tive. The PID may be applied to Duke Forest lands, a significant part of the Rural Buffer. 2. Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District This is an overlay zoning district that has been applied along 1-85 and 1 -40 in Orange County . Along the portion of 1 -40 that is in the Rural Buffer it will provide a visual buffer between development and the interstate. This will help preserve the rural character of the highway corridor . 3 . Protected Watershed II (PW- II ) This is an overlay zoning district that has been applied to land in the University Lake Watershed, a significant portion of the Rural Buffer. The district places additional restrictions on develop- ment. These restrictions protect the water supply and are consistent with the objectives of the Rural Buffer . 4. Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) This is an overlay zoning district similar to PW- II , but more restrictive. 5. Protected Watershed Industrial ( PWI ) This is a floating zone within areas zoned PW- II . It can be applied to appropriate sites for certain limited industrial uses. 6. Non-conforming uses This article of the zoning ordinance requires lots that are made non-conforming by the application of the RB zoning district, that is, lots less than two (2) acres in size, to be recombined into two (2) acre lots. This helps to achieve the low density development desired in the Rural Buffer. 7 . Landscape/Screening/Buffer Requirements Provisions of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations require site plans and subdivisions to provide landscaping, screening, or buffers. These measures help to preserve the rural appearance of the Rural Buffer through screening and buffers. 8. Cluster Developments This provision of the subdivision regulations 23 allows variation from the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. These variations can preserve natural features while still allowing development. In the Rural Buffer it can result in dedication of public recreation area or open space. 9. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance This ordinance severely restricts development in floodways. These floodprone areas have been incorporated into the greenway system contained in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan . 10 . Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance Countywide, this ordinance requires certain land disturbing activities to be conducted in con- formance with soil and erosion control plans. In the University Lake Watershed portion of the Rural Buffer, all land disturbing activities are subject to control requirements that are consistent with objectives of the Rural Buffer. • 11 . Thoroughfare Planning This is a form of capital improvements programming. Long range thoroughfare plans propose few highway projects in the Rural Buffer. This may be con- strued as being consistent with the low density development desired in the Rural Buffer. 12. Farm Use Taxation This State law allows farm, forest, and horticul - tural land uses to receive preferential tax treat- ment. This is an effective means of encouraging such uses. When used in the Rural Buffer, it helps. to achieve the Buffer. 13. Conservation and Historic Preservation Act The State law permits creation of conservation and preservation agreements. These agreements effec- tively prevent development of land covered. When used in the Rural Buffer, it implements the Buffer. 24 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION Implementation Measures Used Elsewhere While an impressive array, the growth management mea- - sures being used to implement the Rural Buffer by no means constitute all such techniques. Growth management is an area of widespread interest and activity. Many different types of measures have been developed to control where growth will occur and what kind of growth will occur . Some are designed to address specific issues that have no direct bearing on implementing a development pattern such as the Rural Buffer . Others are relatively minor variations of other measures. They do not merit separate consideration since they can be considered in combination with other measures. The following implementation measures are of interest because they may be of use in implementing the Rural Buffer • or illustrate a land use control technique that 1s signifi- cantly different from those currently used by Orange County : 1 . Transfer of Development Rights 2. Purchase of Development Rights 3 . Acquisition/Land Banking 4. Impact Fees 5. Impact Zoning 6 . Municipal Service Pricing t 7 . Adequate Public Facilities 8. Permits Systems/Points Systems Each of these measures is separately described in detail in the following summaries. ,ID 25 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE MEASURES USED BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS T;.ansfsr of_ Development Rights (TDR) Definiti9j Ownership of land carries with it certain rights with regards to that land. Among these rights is the right to develop the land. The term Transfer of Development Rights refers to the severance or separation of the right to develop from the land itself and transferring that right to another person. Neither the transfer of a land ownership right to another person nor the severance of a right from the land is a new concept. A lien on property is a partial transfer of an ownership right. Selling mineral rights to another person is a transfer of a development right. Actual extraction of a mineral is distinctly a severance of the right from the land. Application There are several basic elements to a transfer of development rights program. 1. Through adoption and development of a comprehensive long range master plan it is necessary to identify an area from which development rights may be trans- ferred and an area into which they may be trans- ferred. 2. Develop a basis for assigning development rights to the land from which they may be transferred. Bases for assignment could be acreage, fair market value, assessed value, or development potential. 3. Assign development rights to the owner of each tract of land in the area from which development rights may be transferred. 4. Open the market to the buying, selling. and trans- fer of development rights. This technique is being used for a variety of purposes in areas where the exercise of the right to develop land conflicts with some public purpose. The most common use of this technique has been for the preservation of agricultural land. In such cases. the development right on the land is severely restricted; to the extent, for example, of only one (1) dwelling unit per twenty five (25) acres. An owner of land so restricted is compensated by being allowed to sell his development rights to another person for use elsewhere. 26 Other uses for the technique are preservation of historic and environmentally significant areas. public access. and scenic vistas. _ The technique is prone to a number of problems. 1. A poor market for development rights will result in unreasonably low selling prices. 2. The use of other density bonus provisions will reduce the demand for development rights. 3. There is a tendency for development rights to be transferred to congested areas. 4. Changes in the zoning patterns can reduce the demand for development rights. 5. It is often expected that the technique will be changed or eliminated at some point in the future. The transfer of development rights is not permitted in North Carolina. References Preservation of ligxiculture and Rural Open Space;. Montgomery County. Maryland; October 1980 Procedural and Substantive Land Management Techniques of. Potential _Relevance for the New Jersey Pinelands; Excerpt from Vol. III, Substantive Elements. pp 85-100; Ross. Hardies. O'Keefe. Babcock. and Parsons; Chicago IL "Preservation Report #6. Transfer of Development Rights Programs to Protect Farmland; A Status Report"; NASDA Research Foundation. October 1984 "Real World Experience With TDRs - An Update"; Stanley D. Schiff; Piedmont Environmental Council "Urban Land"; Urban Land Institute. January 1985 27 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE MEASURES USED BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS _ - • D - - . .1 1 - $ : . 1 Definition Ownership of land carries with it certain rights with regards to that land. Among these rights is the right to develop the land. The term Purchase of Development Rights refers to the acquisition of the right to develop land by a person other than the owner. The transfer of a land owner- ship right to another person is not a new concept. Liens. easements, and covenants accepted methods of such a transfer. The Purchase of Development Rights technique may use such methods. - Application The process for purchasing development rights to straight-forward. 1. Define the right to be purchased. 2. Determine its value. This is usually done by appraising the value of the land with and without the development right. The difference is the value of the right. 3. Record the new ownership with the property. This technique can be used for a variety of purposes. In Maryland it is being used to preserve farmland. Here in North Carolina. development rights can be purchased to create - a conservation easement on lands with environmental or historic significance. The "conservation or preservation agreement" that is purchased significantly restricts develop- ment or land disturbing activity. It also must be taken into account in the tax assessment on the property. Another use of this technique in North Carolina is in Forsyth County. There. a farmland conservation program is underway using purchase of development rights to implement the program. The primary problem with this technique is its per acre cost. Since the development rights are purchased and not used. there is no off-setting revenue as with transfer of development rights. There must be a steady supply of money to sustain a program of purchase of development rights. 28 References "Uniform Conservation and Historic Preservation Agree- ments Act" . (1979. C. 747) Ch. 121 "Preserving Farmland by Purchasing Development Rights". (Report No. 84-116 ENR) . Richard W. Dunford, Congres- sional Research Service. Library of Congress. June 25 . 1984 "Real World Experiences with TDRs - An Update". Stanley D. Schiff. Piedmont Environmental Council "Urban Land". Urban Land Institute. January 1987 • 4- 29 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE MEASURES USED BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS Acquisition/Land Banking Def initlon Outright or fee-simple purchase of land. If acquired for the purpose of withholding it from development until some point when development is deemed desirable, acquisition is referred to as land banking. Application Acquisition is not commonly used by governments as a growth control measure. The nature of growth control through public ownership of land is to make land available for development where growth should occur as well as to withhold land from development where growth should not occur. In order to do this without a continuous demand for funding, the price of land sold for development would have to cover the cost of land withheld. Even when such a balance can be realized the initial costs could not be recovered. If land is being acquired to permanently prevent its development, then no cost recovery is possible. Referepceg "The Realities of Large Scale Public Land Banking" , Sylvan Kamm BanagQment And Control of Growth, Vol. III, Randall W. Scott, The Urban Land Institute, 1975 30 I 31 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE MEASURES USED BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS Impact Fees Definition An impact fee is a fee imposed on a new development to finance a specific type of facility or improvement. This would include streets, parks, drainage facilities, public buildings, water and sewer facilities. It is essentially a means of shifting some of the cost of providing new or expanded facilities to the developments that create the need for the new or expanded facilities. Apia licAtion There are several basic features to establishing an impact fee system. 1. Linkage with comprehensive planning - The unit of government must be able to determine the total cost of improvements to facilities and services in its planning jurisdiction. Comprehensive plans and the planning process can demonstrate the need for improvements that will result from development and provide a basis for determining the cost of those improvements. 2. Defining facility service areas - A development must directly benefit from the facilities or services provided with the impact fee. Service area definition will assure that benefit linkage. 3. Assessing impact on existing facilities - An impact fee system cannot require new development to pay for existing capacity deficiencies. Impact fee systems should account for the need for new or expanded facilities that results from new develop- ment. 4. Measuring unit impact - A method of equitably allocating impacts to new development must be developed. 5. Pricing unit impacts - The unit price of impacts should be set so that the total amount collected in impact fees does not exceed the amount determined as the "fair share" of costs for a new or expanded facility that is to be paid by developments. Typically, impact fees finance only a portion of total cost. 32 6. Administering revenue It is necessary to develop -a system of payment. provide options to payment such as credits for actual construction of facili- ties. and tracking and monitoring revenues until rt their use. 7 . Administering expenditures - It is critical that the unit of government be able to demonstrate that all fees collected for a particular facility were expended on that facility. Impact feesr also known as project fees or public facilities fees must be authorized by special legislation in North Carolina. At present. 8-10 cities. including Carrboro. Chapel Hill. Durham. and Hillsborough. have been authorized to charge such fees. Durham is currently charging impact fees of up to $1000 per housing unit for water and sewage treatment facilities. Since authorization is through special legislation. each city has different authority. differences include variations on each of the basic features listed above. References. "1985 Legislation Related to Planning. Development Jand Land Use Regulation" . Richard Ducker. Institute of Government. UNC Chapel Hill. August 1985. - "1986 Legislation Related to Planning. Development and Land Ust Ro Government. UNC Green. Hill. August Institute of 1986 . "PAS Memo" . Drafting Impact Fee Ordinances Part 2: Technical Planning and Administrative Guidelines. American Planning Association. November 1986 . fa 33 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION TECHNIQUES MEASURES USED BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS Impact Zgnina Definition Also known as performance zoning. development impact zoning. or land capacity zoning. This technique establishes performance standards and methods for evaluating the impact of land use proposals. It establishes a framework for negotiation between a developer and a local government for the purpose of generating a proposal that produces no overall negative or damaging impacts on the community. It has four primary characteris- tics: 1. It relates land use demands to land use capacities. 2. It assesses the consequences of any proposed change in land use. 3. It emphasizes an on-going process rather than fixed products. 4. It provides a legislative and administrative framework for land use management and uses minimal land use controls. The intent of impact zoning is to replace traditional use specifications with a broad set of objective standards. These standards may be as simple as a requirement that total tax revenues from the development offset the cost of public services for the development. or they may involve complex formulas for matters such as peak hour stormwater runoff performance calculations. All such measures are set out in the ordinance so that they can and will be used. Application Impact zoning can be used as part of a conventional zoning ordinance or can be offered as an alternative to conventional zoning. Before it can be used it is necessary to develop an impact measurement system. In achieving this. it is necessary to incorporate impact measurement into the planning program. As part of the planning program. it may be possible to not only develop impact measurements. but also make the public more familiar with the concept. An innova- tive technique such as impact zoning may cause uncertainty among land owners as to what type of development it will permit and the subsequent affect on land values. 34 References "Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands: A Practical Guide for Local Administrators" . Reports 307-308. American Society of Planning Officials. July 1975 "Using an Impact Measurement System to Evaluate Land Development". Philip S. Schaenman. UI Report. 1976 k F 35 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE MEASURES USED BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS Municipal Service Pricing Definition Municipal service pricing is basically a method of allocating the cost of providing public services to various components of the community. Components such as new resi- dents, service users, or the entire community. As a growth management measure, municipal service pricing policies as set so that fees or charges collected from new developments are higher if that development is not consistent with a previous- ly determined development pattern. The intent is that having to pay such higher fees will discourage inconsistent develop- ment. AppliCaltiaa Pricing policies can be established to not only penalize development that is inconsistent with desired development patterns, but also to encourage desirable development. A higher than usual fee would penalize inconsistent develop- ment. A lower than usual fee could be charged in areas where development is desired, thereby providing an incentive. This type of pricing strategy may not always influence the location of development. A number of factors will affect the ability of a pricing strategy to do so. It will not affect the location of development if the fee can be passed onto the home buyer by raising the price of the house. It will not have an effect if land values drop to offset the fee. The fee will be effective only to the extent that other factors such as these cannot adjust to offset the fee. To the extent that they cannot and the fee is sufficiently large compared to other development costs to affect potential profits, it will influence development location. The charac- teristics of the local development market will determine if a pricing policy will be an effective growth management mea- sure. And, if sop how high the fee must be in order to be effective. References "Municipal Service Pricing: Impact on the Spatial Location of Residential Development", David De Ferranti, et al. National Science Foundation, November 1975 . 36 37 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE MEASURES USED BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS Adequate public Facilities Definition It is a means of synchronizing development with the availability of public facilities needed to support it. Developments are not approved unless public facilities are available or programmed for construction. Application Since developments must have access to certain public facilities. the approval of developments is linked to the availability of those facilities. The questions of what facilities must be available, what constitutes availability. and how closely development approval is linked to avail- ability are answered in different ways by different juris- dictions. In Montgomery County. MD, developments will not be approved unless adequate water. sewer. educational. and transportation facilities are available or are programmed for construction. This obviously requires development. adoption, and implementation of various capital improvements programs as a pre-requisite to such a requirement being placed on development approval. The well-known Petaluma. CA growth management program contained a provision linking development approval with the availability of public facilities. In Petaluma. development had to occur where facilities were available. The connection was carried further in that extensions of facilities were contingent on a certain level of utilization of existing facilities. This links the availability of public facilities even more closely to development. Many further modifications are possible. A key element in each is that the development restriction must be related to active efforts to provide the required facilities. Agterencea planning, Zoning. Subdivision irk Montgomery County Maryland . Montgomery County Planning Board. May 1984 38 • 39 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION TECHNIQUE MEASURES USED BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS Definition Both terms refer to the same technique. This is a technique used to evaluate development projects. It uses a system of awarding points to a project based on performance standards and policies adopted by a public body. Approval of the project is contingent on the number of points the project earns when it is measured against these standards and poli- cies. If the project earns enough points it is approved automatically. The premise being that any project that earns the required number of points is an acceptable addition to the community. Basic elements of the system include: 1. Social. economic. environmental and public facili- ties goals developed to achieve the desired pattern. density. intensity and design of community areas. 2. Policies and standards are developed from goals to evaluate development impacts and provide the basis for awarding points to development proposals. There are two types of policies: a. Absolute policies - policies that must be addressed by the proposal. failure to do so results in denial. b. Relative policies - these encourage or dis- courage development features by assigning positive or negative performance points. 3. Performance points assigned for each policy are multiplied by an importance factor for an overall weighted score. Scores are totaled and a develop- ment proposal is approved if the total score is greater than "0" . 4. Increased density may be awarded as a bonus for total scores that exceed a certain minimum. Application This system constitutes a more flexible land use control than zoning. From this comes both its strengths and its shortcoming. When used. it is used instead of zoning. It provides a rational basis for evaluating each development proposal. It is flexible in that approval is based not on 40 the proposed use but the impact of the proposed use. This can result in uses that are much different than would be allowed within a zoning classification being allowed in the same general area. For communities that have firmly estab- lished values concerning development this will pose no problem. The system will provide a means of applying those values to development. For communities who rely on the predictability of an established zoning pattern. it may be considered an inadequate substitute. Such concern may be valid. If the system is to be successful it must be admin- istered by staff and commissioners who understand the give- and-take nature of the system and can take advantage of the opportunities it offers. References. "Point Systems: Keeping Score". Planninv , John A. Humphreys, October 1985 The Permit Systems A Guide to Reforming Your Community' s. Development Regulations. Kirk Wickersham. Jr. , 1981 41 •. RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION Evaluation of Implementation Measures Our purpose in preparing the Rural Buffer Study is to evaluate measures currently being used to implement the Rural Buffer, evaluate other measures with regard to their potential application towards Rural Buffer implementation, and propose implementation measures that will both achieve the Rural Buffer and reduce the undesirable effects of current implementation measures that concern County residents. Those concerns have been described, as have both currently used and other implementation measures. The next step is to evaluate current implementation measures for potential changes and other implementation measures for use in achieving the Rural Buffer. The following chart contains all of the implementation measures presented in this study. It indicated which might be changed or added to a Rural Buffer implementation program that addresses citizen concerns. A summary of each measure indicated is presented below. f- t f 42 -GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Currently Currently Possible Used Used Application Possible Change Acquisition/Land Banking X Purchase of Development Rights X (Conservation and Historic Preservation Act) Transfer of Development Rights X Adequate Public Facilities X Extension of Public Facilities X Environmentally Sensitive Areas X ( Flood prone areas) ( Public Interest District) Pollution Control X (Watershed Protection ) ( Soil Erosion) Conventional Zoning X X ( RB ) Overlay Zones x X ( MTC) (Watershed Protection ) Impact/Performance Zones X Floating Zones X ( PWI,) Planned Unit Development X ( Planned Development) Conventional Subdivision X Cluster Development X X Exactions X X (Recreation requirements) (Other site improvements) Municipal Service Pricing X Preferential Taxation X (Farm Use Taxation ) X Impact Fees X Performance/Points Systems, Land Use Intensity Rating System X ( Planned Development) 43 Possible Changes to Current Measures Conventional Zoning Two changes in the Zoning Ordinance could be made. The first would be to delete Article 11 .7 . 1 . It is the portion of the Non-conforming Lot provisions that require owners of undeveloped adjoining lots that are less than the required two (2) acres to recombine those lots into two (2) acre lots. Deleting this provision would permit development on existing legally platted lots less than two (2) acres in size. This would address a concern about property rights. The second change would require a complimentary change in the Subdivision Regulation. It is a change in the Rural Buffer (RB) Zoning District. It would create a class of lots whose creation would be exempt from the dimensional requirements of the RB zone." A lot created for use for a one-family residence by a child, or spouse of a child, of an owner of property zoned RB would be exempt from the dimensional requirements of the RB zone. Such a lot would be created in accordance with the dimensional requirements of the zoning classification on the property prior to the property being zoned RB . This exemption will apply only if the property owner can establish that he had legal title on or before January 5, 1987 and shall apply to only one such lot for each child of the property owner . This is patterned after a provision in the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program. It is not a growth management technique so it has not been described above. Overlay Zones (Major Transportation Corridor) The Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) zoning district could be applied to NC 86, Old 86, and NC 54 in the Rural Buffer . This would add the landscape, setback, and buffer requirements of the MTC to these major highways thereby adding a measure of visual buffering of development. This would help preserve the rural appear- ance of the Rural Buffer. The potential impact of this change would, however, be limited. The MTC does not apply to one and two family detached residential devel - opment. Since the Rural Buffer is intended to be developed in low density residential development, the MTC requirements would seldom, if ever, be applied. Changing the MTC to make it applicable to one and two family detached residences is not recommended. The benefit derived from application of MTC to low density residential development would be small compared to the cost.. Cluster Development The cluster development provisions of the Subdivision 44 Regulate-ons should f�O�mtheedimensional that requi�ementswhose of creation was exempt the RB zone could not uster further developmentreduced provisionsthroug creation under the cluster ' Current cluster provisions should aalso tbesrevised to of provide incentives in order to a gee aspect which development in the Rural Buffer . space for septih should be addressed is the use of open tank nitrification fields within a cluster development . ions Relative amendments to the Subdivision Reeul soils should include preservation of open space suitable for septic tank disposal are located and additional dimensional flexibility for lots being served by common septic tank drain fields . Exactions Potential expansion of current requirements of dedica- tion of land and/or payment of cash to satisfy tion requirements for suivisins o cl ude requirements for o P ud tiesSsi9ni signifi- cantly limited . Few public services are provided in the Rural Buffer . If the Rural Buffer succdserviceaccoml plishing its intended purpose, few public be provided in the Rural Buffer in the future. Other Measures with Significant Use Potential Acquisition/Land Banking le Acquisition of land as not means been widelyhusedng Thegprimary land use policies has h cost. Most local govern- ments for this is the high ments cannot commit the financial resources neCelsaryuso acquire enough land to effectively patterns. However, Orange County has a unique oppor- tunity to use acquisition as part oBuffer implementation program. Duke Forest comprises aHsignificantrporoion of theeRural Buffer north of Chapel Ate Forest Duke University does not plan to develop plit Interest lands. Application of Orange County District zoning classification to Duke Forest Publlld assure only very low density develop ic Interest District requires str minimum tlot flize of 500,000 square feet ( nd 11 . 5 acres) restricts this restriction on more than 1 .25% of lot size• Orange County could begin development in Duke For e$®Dents 9a form of purchase of acquiring, conservation agreements development rights) inlaaquisationnoftcriticalFpieces When necessary , outright of land could occur . By basing this program on Duke Forest land, an area of r 45 land large enough to constitute an effective buffer could be protected from development at a relatively low cost._ The cost would none-the- less still be quite high . This, and acquiring rights to enough land to constitute an effective buffer, are the major obstacles to imple- menting this measure. Purchase of Development Rights North Carolina ' s Conservation and Historic Preservation Act makes it possible to create "conservation agree- ments" . These agreements restrict development of agricultural , horticultural , farming, and forest land. Development rights may be restricted as in the form of a covenant or may be transferred to another person . Acquisition of the development rights may or may not be accompanied by compensation . Development rights may not be used on another piece of land. Since acquisition of development rights is less than fee-simple or outright acquisition of land, the cost is usually lower . If tax valuation takes the effect of development right restrictions into account in the land value assessment, the tax incentive could encourage creation of conservation agreements as well as reduce program costs . Use of this measure would also address property right, environmental , and tax liability concerns. Property owners would be compensated for restrictions on their land . So little development would occur on land under agreement that the potential problems related to water pollution would not result. With no development there would be little demand for public services that would require tax increases . The primary obstacles to suc- cessfully using this method to implement the Rural Buffer are the cost and being able to enlist the cooper- ation of enough property owners to make the program effective. Transfer of Development Rights Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) offers perhaps the best opportunity to both implement the Rural Buffer and address citizen concerns. Through implementation of this type of program overall development densities do not change, but there are significant changes in where development occurs. The Rural Buffer remains a very rural area, developed at extremely low density . Devel - opment is shifted outside the Buffer to areas where higher density can be accommodated through availability of necessary public services. But, while it holds much promise, major obstacles stand in the way of its use. Foremost is that TDR is not legal in North Carolina. A bill that was introduced in the 1986 session of the State Legislature would have established at least mmm 46 limited use of TDR. It was not adopted . Should TDR be permitted it would require extensive work prior to being established and continuous administration during actual implementation . Use of a TDR program in the Rural Buffer would involve rezoning the Rural Buffer to extremely low density, something like one dwelling unit per 10 acres or 25 acres . Development rights as a saleable commodity would be created and assigned to land so restricted . Owners of these rights would be able to hold or sell them in the same manner that other land rights such as mineral ✓ ights may be held or sold . A market for development ✓ ights would be created by designating "receiving areas" . These are areas where land can be developed at densities higher than that permitted by zoning through acquisition of development rights. An example: A 10 acre parcel in a receiving area zoned for one acre lots could be developed at one-half acre lots through pur- chase of development rights for 10 dwelling units. As indicated above, TDR has many desirable features. - It achieves the Rural Buffer . Property owners are compensated for restrictions on use of their land . - Very low densities reduce the potential for water pollution and the eventual need for public water and sewer. - Higher density housing created through transferred development rights should be lower in price and therefore more affordable. It should also reduce future tax liability . - By creating "receiving area" development is directed in a predetermined manner rather than uncontrolled " leap frog" development. The TDR concept functions best in areas where there is intense development activity . A high level of activity creates a market for development rights establishing TDR as a desirable part of the, development process . If TDR is to function successfully in Orange County it will be necessary to include the high growth area around Chapel Hill and Carrboro. It may also be necessary to expand the concept to a regional basis to include the Research Triangle Park area . Other Measures With Limited Use Potential Adequate Public Facilities The premise for use of this growth management measure is 47 that development will only be allowed when public facilities sufficient to support the development are present. In light of the policy that public facilities should not be extended into the Rural Buffer, allowing development only when public facilities are present would constitute a ban on development. That is not the intent of the Rural Buffer . A further problem exists. Linking development to the availability of public facilities infers that those facilities will eventually be provided. This could create the impression that the Rural Buffer will eventually be allowed to develop at suburban or urban densities . That is not the case. So linking development to the availability of public facilities may actually have a negative effect on the Rural Buffer . Municipal Service Pricing This is both a revenue production and _growth management technique. it attempts to influence development loca- tion by charging higher fees for development in unwanted areas. For example, within an area where a public service is available, a higher fee, say a tap fee for water, would be charged to a development that is not next to an existing developed area. The fee would be an incentive for compact development patterns. This technique suffers shortcomings similar to those described above under Adequate Public Facilities. A public service must be provided before the fee can be charged. Since public services such as water and sewer are not to be provided in the Rural Buffer, this is not a viable implementation measure. Impact Fees This is a revenue production technique. It shifts some of the cost of public services and facilities required by development to the development itself . Since it does not control development, it would not be effective in achieving the Rural Buffer. Special legislation would be required for Orange County to charge impact fees. Impact/Performance Zones This innovative type of zoning replaces the traditional zoning restriction-by-use with restrictions based on standards that measure the impact created by a proposed change in land use. Any use that meets the standards set for a zone is permitted. This provides more flexi- bility in permitted development. It does not appear that this would be more effective in implementing the Rural Buffer than the conventional zoning currently in use. Performance Systems/Points Systems 48 While a very interesting technique, it is not suited for achieving the intent of the Rural Buffer. It controls the -location, type, and density of development only to the extent that development proposals do not meet local _ policies . Presumably project densities or non- . , residential uses could be permitted in areas such as the Rural Buffer if offsetting features such as on-site amenities or off-site improvements are incorporated into the project. This would not be consistent with imple- menting the Rural Buffer . 49 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION Recommendations 1 . Retain the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. 2. Retain the policy prohibiting extension of water and sewer facilities into the Rural Buffer except in emergency situations. 3 . Delete Article 11 .7 .2 of the Zoning Ordinance, Non- Conforming Lots. The amendment would allow owners of adjacent, undevel oped lots less than two (2) acres in size to develop their lots without combining them to create conforming lots. 4. Amend Article 4.2. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, Rural Buffer (RB) Zoning District. The amendment would allow property owners of record in the Rural Buffer to create one lot for each child. Such lots would be exempt from RB dimensional requirements, but would conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-1 Residential zoning district. The proposed amendment would add the following paragraph to Article 4.2. 1 . c) Exempt Lots A lot created for use for a one-family resi- dence by a child, or spouse of a child, of an owner of property zoned Rural Buffer would be exempt from the dimensional requirements of the Rural Buffer zoning district. Such a lot would be created in accordance with the dimensional requirements of the Rural Residen- tial (R-1 ) Zoning District. This exemption will apply only if the property owner can establish that he had legal title on or before January 5, 1987 and shall apply to only one such lot for each child of the property owner. 5. Amend Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regula- tions, Cluster Developments The amendment would prohibit exempt lots created under Article 4.2. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance from being further reduced in size under the provisions of this Section . 50 The amendment would consist of the following -changes: Renumber paragraphs IV-B-10-C-a/b/c/d to IV-B- 10-C-b/c/d/e respectively . Add the new paragraph IV-B-10-C-a a. Exempt lots created in accordance with Article 4.2. 1 may not be further reduced in size by application of the provisions of this Section . 6 . Amend the Zoning Atlas by applying the Public Interest District (PID) Zoning District to appli- cable lands. 7 . Initiate a Purchase of Development Rights program by authorizing the Planning Department to prepare an Implementation Plan . 8 . Pursue special legislation to allow Transfer of Development Rights. 9. Amend Cluster Development provisions to encourage its use. 10 . Collect additional data on : a . environmentally significant areas; b . septic system failures; c . techniques to maintain visual quality . II 51 . 1 \ •- i i �. . % 0 V� \ ,\ / •,\- p, •,2 ii , . 1-....,; ,,....,....ite,if :,,,Ogo -it.. ..-ze.1 1,1......q....::,...,„a k ..„,--• 0 /..iii, , / ildrillP1.11 '- -4pri- I, • ,.. - 4' - illy. ma Orr % OAr - _ % .... . siii.,,,..,. ,_,,•,., _ if • Ailliritti;v-::i:r-mi. 16. , 1 .. rY- Ir- 10.-'47. 314 .:.,.,„.. ,-,..... \ r k Er rte; ,� , �t •-.., -- ' '- • f +„ . `! _. i...:t�a:, fir.r� .:•t '_i.4 . IDA Q "9.,C''' 7 . i 'Ike ,...74:::::: h. Mi. .28 j=:•• :--..' ;... 7 I - j:III- \ ( \.1 t -- ' ‘1""1111 Xi— -\_." '''''%.*:::::::5,-.gi.Yr '' (3. ' .' °°1 1 O p • •••• -4-7,� •Ilk- -,L,,-:.'_•• " r pf V.:: ,, _ .l .ry Ilk w tt• '. a. Lid%-Ct.:0:«S.. ri‘kizof- Isgviciiggi.7i.:::::::y 1, 6 2 11 N. rr- E. iv,/, / .~." 01, r4 .-ci_vuttko , ._ _al;::-....ipp.:::::::iliw..:711,p, . a , ; ..q. ---. — '‘._,..- .it.,,, , ' V:::::*.:::4.4.:::::::::..:41...; 1 •may Oki': 8 - '1-Ao..M011111:::::::::3.;21A. '- ',:iiiii:i ! *. g j . •••„1.-6. 1 . ':- 1111111 - '. 1 IPAArfir 17 ••'::::?.7:g71:74 669.. ,,,,, -17144C --.Q4aeri*:,;-7.;_- 111.1;-.1:74:, -4,r7717,_ '...liiiiii. ) 1 --rte t �'..t .. " . Atralircr .1'-vii._, ......:4-r4/-4111. , 2:- 1 ilika'.■,,r ....4Fis,:-.; 4 -,1 4.:::„ _ ji 1,..,....41/4., ,..e.„„..1 • - ,• .Ipet ,. • D ( , .-_ hi * ,, --- 'Ill ' "7". %. ''' 111- '-'_-'--7- I ................... . ./CA0ll im CgrKr . � ,17 • , • •1mm, •"••• elai APPENDIX A. STUDY OUTLINE or li 4 53 R U R A L BUFF E R STUDY DATA AND ANALYSIS r _ TASK: Review/update/collect, analyze and document data used as basis for Rural Buffer policies. Staff DATA MEW: Revigw Update Col/ect Assignment Water Resources Ground Water Basins X Brad T. Watershed Hydrology X Brad T. Well Contamination X Brad T. Soil Resources Soil Stability X Gene B. Septic Tank X Gene B. Suitability Septic Tank X Gene B. Failure Rates Agricultural Resources Farms in Use Value X Don P. Prime Farmlands X Don P. plant/Animal Resources Endangered Species X Brad T. Land/Mineral Resources Slope Analysis X Emily C. Topography X Emily C. Geologic Analysis X Emily C. Forest Resources Vegetative Types X Gene B. Aesthetic. Cultural And Recreational Respprceg Parks/Recreation X M.A.Black Cultural/Historic X Brad T. Visual Amenities X Emily C. Snf rastructure Water/Sewer Service X Brad T. Schools X Greg S. Police. Fire, Rescue X Greg S. Solid Waste Disposal X Gene B. 54 RURAL BUFF E R STUDY DATA AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) Staff DATA VEEDS: Review Update Called A.ssignMent Ci rc ula..i Dn Streets/Highways X Greg S. Railroads X Greg S. Transmission Lines X Greg S. Transit X Greg S. Comminity Development Existing Land Use X Gene B. Population/Housing X Brad T. . Development Activity X Greg S. PRODUCT: 1-2 page written summary of each element identifying the following: (1) Descriptive Data; (2) Quantitative Data; (3) Issues/Implications; and (4) Reference Materials. Map(s) displaying data; uniform base of 1" = 1,000" . DUE DATES: January 23 - Staff meeting/progress reports. January 30 - Staff meeting/summaries due/progress reports. R U R A L B U F F E R STUDY 55 POLICY ANALYSIS TASK: Review, analyze, update and document policies, plan proposals and standards for issues relevant to the Rural Buffer and which guide private and governmental action. DEFINITIONS: Policy: A specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment. Example: "Recreational uses in stream buffers shall be limited to those activities which are compatible with maintaining the environment with a minimum of disruption. " The ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable. Example: "To enhance the open space amenities of the community. " Qtdsatize: A measurable goal. Example: "To reduce peak hour traffic congestion to service level 'C' by 1984. " flan gQ l: An of how policies specifically apply y to an area. Example: "Establish a greenbelt along River X running from point Y to point Z. " Note: a plan proposal can also take the form of a diagram. Standard: A specific, often quantified guideline defining the relationship between two or more variables. Standards often translate directly into regulatory controls. Example: Three to six dwelling units per acre (moderate density residential) . MIEN: Current policies, goals. objectives, plan proposals and standards in Rural Buffer according to plan element. ***************************************************************** Element policy a2.41 Objective proposal Standard laad Uae X X X X X Circulation X X X X X Housing X X X X X Open $$ASS X X X X X ConsBrvajpn X X X X X Eealtbilsx X X X X X • ***************************************************************** 56 ANALYSIS: Comparison of "Current Policies" and "Issues/Implications" identified in Data and Analsisr including areas of similarity/divergence. UPDATE: Policies. goals, objectives, plan proposals and standards for Rural Buffer. PRODUCT: 1-2 page written summary of current policies. goals. objectives, plan proposals and standards for each Plan Element. including a list of reference materials for each. 1-2 Page written summary identifying similarity/divergence between issues and current policies. goals. objectives. plan proposals and standards. 1-2 Page written summary of proposed changes/additions to current policies. goals. objectives. plan proposals and standards for each Plan Element. • Map(s) displaying plan proposals (1" = 1.000") . STAFF GNMENT: Comprehensive Planning Division nu pATES: January 23 - Staff meeting/progress reports. January 30 -- Staff meeting/current policy summaries due/compare current policy with issues/implications/progress reports. February 6 - Staff meeting/updated policy due/progress reports. 57 R U R A L BUFF E R STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM TASK: Review, analyzer update and document a coordinated set of specific measures and actions to be used in carrying out the policy of the Rural Buffer plan. PEFINITIQNS: Implementation Proms: A coordinated set of measures to carry out the policies of the plan. Example: Open space action program for implementing open space policies. Implementation Measure: An action, procedure, program or technique that carries out plan policy. Example: "Develop a resource protection overlay zoning classification and apply it to all resource protection areas identified in the plan. " REVIEW: Current implementation measures used in carrying out the policies of the countywide Land Use Plan and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, including provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, and N.C. State Building Code. Implementation measures used by other jurisdictions, including but not limited toe the following: Implementation Measyle Juiisdictioq Planned Unit Development Cary, N.C. Loudoun County, Va. Montgomery County. Md. Prince George's County, Md. Transfer Development Rights Montgomery County. Md. Pinelands, N.J. Performance Zoning Bucks County. Pa. Points System Fort Collins. Col. Hardin County. Ky. Adequate Public Facilities Fairfax County. Va. Montgomery County. Md. Impact Fees Orange County. Fla. Orange County. Calif. Raleigh, N.C. Conventional Zoning Montgomery County, Md. • Prince George' s County. Md. 58 R U R A L B U F F E R STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Implementation Meapur. Jurisdiction Cluster Zoning Montgomery County. Md. Acquisition Montgomery County. Md. Boulder. Col. Urban/Rural Service Areas Salem. Oregon Montgomery County. Md. Prince George' s County. Md. Dedication/Payment Loudoun County. Va. Boulder. Col. ANALYSIS: Comparison of implementation measures. local and otherwise. with policies. goals, objectives. plan proposals and standards to: • (1) Determine effectiveness of current implementation measures; and (2) Identify measures used in other jurisdictions which are applicable locally. including an assessment of social and economic impacts. and legal and financial implications. UPDATE: Procedures. programs and techniques for carrying Rural Buffer policies. PRODUCT: 1-2 page written summary of each implementation measure currently used in carrying out Rural Buffer policies. including list of reference materials. 1-2 Page written summary of each implementation measure currently used by other jurisdictions. including statement of applicability to Rural Buffer. 1-2 Page written summary of proposed changes/additions to current implementation measures used in carrying out Rural Buffer policies. Draft ordinance amendments for proposed changes/additions to current implementation measures. STAFF : Current Planning Division Dag DATES,: February 6 - Staff meeting/current measures summaries due/progress reports. February 13 - Staff meeting/updated measures summaries due/progress reports. 5911 r \ 1111 4 ...-... Er faliSH •••,-. , 11, IM 41, 2 / 16. \‘ '‘fillY,Oi :\' - . m's. , . Si i T ; r 7 �■ •.rV r 1 li 1---.. - \ ; 111111rAiL Mk_ _ --iiii*s.),-_,Amir -,..,,,, ,,a ,... , irmusimpr 1 pr, N. w 10,--- ...c.,,,;,:::.,. Fr ,,...,... — . • �;e � J �- .r :7.,. ,� _ � it i :;:• ��4.1,, ; ! , Ica AL ,-, miu,,,, .ek *„ I 14" ' 4 -//i \ \.'t 5 IP, ififfi .,.\.,.. .:-:11::::•;:z:::::77:•::::::............................. :,.. (;:,..>: E3 ..._. .._....- ....., - „,,,,,ill'ff v,:f1:::_71.7.37-11,7110A:::::8„A'.a.111(--..„"...±:_-- • \ ... . , -I'l t l /..:..--, . •• d,4:.Piii:.eigiiiiiiipiiiiiii:- i.,‘ _At -0,- .. . ... .... ..::::::::::::'mfr f , Y r - •..,--147:77-.:;11::� �' 1 . . ..... : %, , ::•1 ' —1,- A, '--— - --11-wha *IL .4.::: 4 t r / • , ,... -. ,if I W ir T - ' AV , • AIIIN 1....ac��' /way—4E t -;-s -s''' ,m .- V -fir; ';q;, I . • :•: .. ti ckiiiiii y ' 7 •� It�:• ` ::, • 4 - , I "- '- PA. - ''.,'- -'7"i'' . ''tt k,,,..II:Z:41.•::::::::::::: :..'1 •' .::::::::: I ' ''6---/ , :) - ,11104 --,i, Ai „ 42 IP:P.c._:5_- : ..igg1:-= :I.:pi:7.4., . II> *pa: ::::: .. r.,.......,:::.4......::„:„::: :-.3k, , i ; , .._, i- 1 4 Illa6)... _:- IND 1., .,..,,,, b. 1&, ::rigi:4514:...-Z''6°10- "'IP tH-r-._::.-11-Milkit TIP-4-1111:1‘7 VI y _ •,:4 - o 2 lir -- i/ FP I I.V 1.•.• 4Zi I AL,""' 1 r/ 1.N...' 3 I A \ 1........., i / AAat ' " p:_79 , . • ................... . se .0 . ..1.,:,...0 ...4,.. .....�r1•u j .... bars • APPENDIX B. DATA SUMMARIES t 61 • APPENDIX B - DATA SUMMARIES Groundwater & Wells Soil Stability ( suitability matrix) Septic Tanks & Soil Suitability Agricultural Resources Biologically Significant Area Slope Topographic Relief Geologic Resources Vegetative Types Historic Sites and Areas Visual Amenities Water & Sewer Line Extension Schools Police, Fire, Rescue Solid Waste Disposal Streets/Highways Railroads Transmission Lines Public Transportation Existing Land Use Population Development Activity 62 • r, • - i a,r . g u n .,. r •l`.:' •flit r.“=, r� .i 63 GROUNDWATER & WELLS I. QUALITAT;YE DATA Groundwater pollution and well contamination does not seem to be a problem in the Rural Buffer. Only two areas within the Rural Buffer and one subdivision in the Transition area have had any recent groundwater quality problems. None of them have been serious enough to pose a risk to public health. The potential for problems does exist. A parallel exists between housing density and wastewater pollution due to septic tank failures. An increased use of systems. with an increasing number of failures. could increase the hazard to groundwater quality. - A more serious threat is posed by the Chapel Hill/Carrboro landfill as leachate. contaminated seepage. could potentially infiltrate into unprotected wells. Monitoring of wells in the Eubanks area during 1984 and 1985 indicated the presence of some pollutants in amounts higher than levels recommended as safe. II. QUANTITATIVE DATA Groundwater contaminants in levels higher than those recommended safe have been recorded in three areas of the JPA. Two of the three are in the Rural Buffer and all are on the north side of Chapel Hill. Additionally. complaints about odor and taste in water from a community well system in the Rural Buffer have been made. The area of most concern is the Eubanks area east and south of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro landfill. This area also includes the Northwood subdivision in the JPA Transition area. Water sampling in the area during 1984 and 1985 recorded higher than recommended safe levels of acidity and turbidity in some unprotected wells. The presence of coliform bacteria was noted in some samples. Technical analysis. though. indicated that the levels found did not pose a health risk and noted that the contamination problems could be easily remedied with proper protection and chlorination. In light of similar chemical and bacteriological results from samples taken countywide. the findings in the Eubanks area were not considered unusual by the Orange County Health Department. Leachate contamination is a potential problem for more than just the area immediately surrounding the landfill. The flow of groundwater tends to follow slope. The landfill sits near the head of the Old Field Creek sub-basin. Leachate contamination could thus pose groundwater_problems along the creek corridor towards its confluence with-New Hope Creek. 64 Another area of past problems in the Rural Buffer is the Falls of New Hope subdivision. Although posing no serious health risks. coliform bacteria has been detected in some samples. - Two additional groundwater problems have also occurred in the Rural Buffer. Both are unrelated to source pollution. The middle quarter of Hideaway Estates has had some problems with dry holes. Aside from this particular instance. availability of groundwater is not a problem in the Rural Buffer. The geologic condition in the Rural Buffer poorest for well yields. Triassic formations. are found only along the border with Durham County. Even that particular condition. however. has average yields which are well within acceptable limits. High levels of iron and manganese have been detected in area wells. Hardness is a natural occurance in Orange County groundwater. though. and these levels are probably unrelated to any contamination. The presence of these minerals. while posing no health risk. can present minor odor and staining problems. III. asummalissamma The overriding concern is the provision and maintenance of safe drinking water supplies to Rural Buffer residents. The question is whether this can be done with groundwater supplies in the face of increasing septic tank usage and potential leachacte problems in the area around the landfill. The implications of groundwater contamination in the area near the landfill center on extension of water lines into the Old Field Creek sub-basin. For other areas of the Rural Buffer the implications are less clear. The constant recharge and flow of groundwater will most likely dilute and eventually eliminate contaminants within a reasonable amount of time if the source of contamination is fixed and the amount of pollution is not so much as to overwhelm the groundwater system. Individual septic tanks can be repaired and individual wells treated and. to some degree. protected from further contamination. Water hardness can be remedied with conditioning equipment. Seepage from the landfill. though, poses a much greater and more long term problem than seepage from an individual septic tank. Extension of water lines is not an inexpensive proposition. The demand component base charge. acreage surcharge for a two acre lot. and tap-in fee to tie into an OWASA water line runs over $2100. with front footage costs adding at least $1400 more. These costs are exclusive of force main and waterline installation costs. which run a minimum of $22.70 per linear foot. IV. REFERENCES 1. Orange County Health Department comments. December 1985 65 2. Memo. Environmental Health Section to Orange County Board of Health, 18 April 1985. 3. Research & Analytical Laboratories, correspondence. 27 November 1984. 4. Office of Water Resources, NCDNRCD. "Upper Neuse River Basin Study, Phase I Report. " February 1983. 5. John R. McAdams Company. correspondence, November 1985. 66 "' ,�I/ r c I• 1 "w .�,,M' ' 1I1 lllll�j �� / :et 1//, . ,-1.-- ,i‘9 h ...- .2,... 'r . iy. _. ., 4! 4r / . '. 1111111 ! , , 11�•' ' D �' . . • - r> .....°- { •y `" ''•� _gig .s �" 4• ! ■ r./.° 4 . -. 1 tio 0%.ID *LA\;ktZ&: r1lalibL++. • 7 ". :'' . ' J cr--.1". 1 kilVe - 1100, 5 A5Cjti galigiP7 ::AX:filigilbli_ 1 L .....,_.,-..,. IIIIIIIPH!1LR: • fiT.„. _..: • 1.4._. :,.._,.:.,...,,,,. 1, .d.:.....Z'l :I''''''.•-, EIP / 11,--'',.. ` ; 1-r / J ` ;44. I,Pe ••.'41 '" _ ~: a ..fi -.. .. /'''. i ,,, ..: ill . = rw 4, l :4* 1 "014011 ,r '\ , V .:4•1'.' i'i7 r - ' '-_-"-:— : •-lolii ,'-... . _ ___,N - -,../,.,.A.„,4,0", : pia 1 i 2.-1,Thalo, , -,,,.7,..:,-.: 6_,m,,-.7149ii „,46. t ,'No A , 1 ; vipiiiiii -iffill'• \I.igii.,:ii:,...-.,....:::74.:::::.;,..,..f. � \ ti ` CNAG_ • HI�•,L '., �' ::: .: ::.' ... I 1 (0. ›:."-' 1 11...- _ ---..- ..*°"•,... 4 .1 - !tk 11:04f:7.1eiiiig.'?: ::„.:::.:? ....,....„............., v d-- : , 4 ," 'mg-- --- - lipluvtgi. .....:iiii...-:,:iii:v iiiiiiiii:. v iii.- \ \" ik.,4' 4'"IN II. ,.,......, 4,% ..... ...SI . A ii:1471.ifiligififiligiliii:. - .....:!:4'/Iii.i-..1:1 \ 4 -e.,. i 1 %- ''''.44., % i * 1 _,S... -.07.. . 4 Vill. i.:;;;I:4?:i;-P,:::: .... 1 . 1 . . 7,...,..r / ......_....•f- a.va ,ti, .. .,„0 or ": s ./-1 .,..kiiii....71::::::::::::: 1 'i a ear `L ' :y i ii� " l.mi Jt i , - .4:-,al••• TkMi_aAtoti"q°1 'Ittkit, figgli.li; - li ...'1!.i.: I v 1 --I A lik15, .'°'.- 1 ID lir4,SIIZ 60iiiitilr A.,,,,...„..„,., , , , , i .6 . , •,. .. _,„....,„. „.......:.. ...,...,:,„,.., .,,,...,.. .,..,711,::,,, , , (i,... 1 ,,, , , ''Nt'rt 0. lr . d**2-4'...::•:.:. „2:F.:1111.:11.117/11:::if/V.40-1 Jigiiill .:1 14. 1 \ Air. ,:-. .•' ‘,---• ,1 amilair-\?4".1.'" -.. j ''17,11):Ivii1/4, .0—a ' ( • '1 .rf ' w 1 it! ft I 13 ej %■ \ _ . ,, 46 , w . 1 ,ii •• qvi7r_.1' --T,..... ._ e• Chatham Comity • •me ••,.,. - 1. •�•� •�•�• . GROUNDWATER PROBLEMS -- Odor/taste problems repotted =AAA: . .•t. w. (1J ;) Z. -- Hardness problems reported ._ -- — .• III -- Other quality problems reported (pH, turbidity, bacteria) Ill -- Landfill site - 5; SOIL STABILITY I . DESCRIPTIVE DATA Soils was one of the three environmental parameters addressed in the preparation of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. 40 soil types were identified in the Joint Planning Area using the Soil Survey of Orange County_ Four constraining factors were evaluated . These were slope, plasticity (shrink-swell) , depth to bedrock, and depth to groundwater. Slope(s) is expressed in percent, i .e., ( rise/ run) x 100. Plasticity is expressed in terms of a numeric index . In the evaluation, soils with a Plasticity Index (PI) > 30 were viewed as having moderate constraints and those with a PI > 55 were rated as posing severe con- straints to development . Depth to bedrock is expressed in inches and soils where the average depth to rock was < 24" were rated severe. Depth to groundwater (GW) is expressed in feet and soils where the depth was < 2 ' were viewed as posing problems . Evaluation of soils was done by pairing the constraining factors (except for bedrock < 24" which stood alone) as follows : S < 5 and PI > 30, S < 5 and PI > 55, and S > 10 and GW < 2 . The constraints were combined with the 40 soil types in a matrix . Soils that did not possess any of the above factors received a score of zero and were rated as posing "slight" Limitations. Any soil that possessed one of the four constraint pairings was rated as posing "moderate" limitations . Soils having two or more of the constraint pairings were rated as posing "severe" constraints to devel- opment . II . QUANTITATIVE DATA Acreages and percentages of moderate and severe soils relative to the Joint Planning Area were as follows: CLASSIFICATION ACREAGE PERCENT OF JPA Moderate 2,676 7% Severe 1 ,138 3% TOTAL 3,814 10% • III . ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS Most of the soils coded as severe on the University Lake Watershed map were code incorrectly. These are Chewacla (Ch) soils and according to the evaluation matrix should have received a rating of "slight" . 68 The soils maps are the only environmental maps which cannot stand alone. They must be viewed in conjunction with the other environmental maps, otherwise, they are very misleading . For example, alluvial soils were mapped on the vegetative maps to define wetlands . On the soils maps they show up as posing "slight" restrictions and this clearly isn 't the case. In retrospect, the soil suitability matrix may have been too lenient in the ratings soils received, i .e., there are probably more moderate and severe soils than the maps indi- cate. This is due to the fact that soils had to rate poorly on 2 or more factors to receive a classification of moderate or severe. Some soils such as Creedmoor (Cr9) rate so poorly on one feature (depth to GW=1 ' ) that they should probably have been rated moderate or severe. IV . REFERENCES 1 . Soil Suitability Matrix, February 1985 . 2 . Soil Survey of Orange CountrA 1977. 69 SEPTIC TANKS AND SOIL SUITABILITY I . QUALITATIVE DATA In areas that are not served by sewer lines soils unsuitable for septic tank use are probably the major obstacle to development. While soils presenting moderate problems cover a majority of land in the Rural Buffer, soils presenting severe problems cover a significant portion . Soils presenting no septic tank suitability problems do not exist in the Rural Buffer. Four different suitability problems are associated with the soils in the Rural Buffer . Severe slopes, slow absorption, wet soils, and shallow bedrock . As such, the problem of wastewater disposal in the Rural Buffer is much more a potential one than an existing one. The poor soils that predominate in the Rural Buffer have precluded much development and, as such, have also precluded the problems that could occur with increasing use of septic systems. A parallel exists between housing density and pollution problems caused by failing septic tanks. Density in the Rural Buffer is relatively low at this time. . Correspondingly, while there are some existing problems, the numbers seem to be few . The problem of failures in the Rural Buffer, however, may be greater than apparent . Although a system may be falling, it is usually not reported to the Health Department until the problem creates a serious enough nuisance to the homeowner or neighbor. The great majority of past and current problems stem from installation in soils unsuitable for septic tank use. A small number of problems can probably be attributed to other reasons, including improper maintenance and the failure of some existing sand filter systems. The use of sand filters has not been allowed in many years and very few exist in the Rural Buffer . II . QUANTITATIVE DATA North of Chapel Hill the split between moderate and severe soils is about two-thirds to one-third. As with all areas in the Rural Buffer, creek corridors suffer from steep slope and slow absorption problems. Additionally, three large areas of severe soils exist; ( 1 ) A wide band extending from the University Lake watershed boundary northeast to the Southern Railroad line and Hideaway Estates . West of Old NC 86 the problem is evenly split between shallow bedrock and slow absorption . East of Old NC86 the problem is primarily slow absorption ; ( 2) Piney Mountain Creek sub-basin, which suffers primarily 70 from slow absorption; and, (3) The Raw Hope Creek area, primarily in and to the east of Duke Forest. The area suffers from steep slopes and slow absorption . Severe soils predominate in the Southern Triangle, mostly because of steep slopes and slow absorption . Only along Old Lystra Road,, Madison Womble Road, and in Hunter ' s Ridge are relatively large areas of moderate soils to be found . No particularly large areas of severe soils exist in the University Lake watershed . Even though severe soils cover about one-half the land area, they are scattered fairly uniformly throughout the area . The Health Department does not keep specific data on septic failures or failure rates, either by watershed or county-wide. Several problem areas in the Rural Buffer, however, have been identified . Most problem areas are located to the north of Chapel Hill in Chapel Hill Township. They include the area around the intersection of Sunrise and Oak Hill Roads ( including the Pine Tree Hollow subdivision) , Birchwood MHP, and part of Birchwood Lake Estates . Problems in the latter area have been remedied by the use of alternative systems. Other areas, such as Hills of New Hope subdivision, have lots remaining undeveloped specifically becuase of soils unsuitable for septic tanks . Additionally, one package treatment plant in the Rural Buffer, Carolina Friends School , has not been in compliance with State regulations for at least two quarters during the past year . The Health Department sanitarians did not indicate any problem areas in the Southern Triangle and one, the area around Hatch and Brookfield Roads, in the University Lake watershed . There are reportedly some sand filters still in use in that area. Not all sites of septic tank problems are in areas of severe soils. Much of the area around Oak Hill and Sunrise Roads is rated moderately suitable. Conversely, not all large areas of severe soils have had reported problems. iII . ISSUES/ IMPLICATIONS. At least three issues can be raised by the increasing use of septic tanks in the Rural Buffer and the preponderance of soils presenting severe problems for their use. First and probably foremost is the pace and amount of development . Quite simply, poor soils will prevent development in much of the area unless sewer lines are extended or use of an alternative system is approved . The second issue is groundwater quality . Although well contamination is not a problem in the Rural Buffer, the parallel between density and wastewater pollution could lead 71 one to assume that problems will occur in the future. The -third issue, ancillary to the second, is stream quality. Because of the small drainage areas of the streams in the Rural Buffer, groundwater discharge polluted with sewage effluent may comprise the total stream flow during drought and other low flow conditions. A 1976 Duke University study recommended sewer line extension as the best means to counter wastewater pollution in Orange County . The study, however, was conducted before Orange County required the use of two-chambered septic tanks, believed to reduce the chance of failure, and before extensive field testing of alternative systems had been conducted in Region J soil types. Field tests conducted by Triangle J COG have shown promise for some alternative systems and modifications to conventional systems. These systems can address some of the problems presented by severe soils and the failure of conventinal systems. Two types of alternative systems, mound systems and low pressure pipe systems, are currently used in small numbers throughout the county . They represent less than one percent ( 1 %) and five percent ( 5%) of all systems in use, respectively . Seepage problems have been reported, though, with some mound systems . Of three alternatives; sewer line extension, alternative systems, or modified conventional systems; sewer line extension is the most expensive, with its cost increasing as density decreases. The base component charge and acreage surcharge for a two acre lot to tie in to an OWASA line is over $1700. Front footage charges, if required, raise the total to over $3600, minimum. This is exclusive of sewer pipe installation which runs about $16.50 per linear foot. By comparison, a conventional system with 400' of pipe runs about $1600. A low pressure pipe system starts at $2100 and increases as the amount of pipe and size of the home increase. A modified conventional system using dual alternating fields would probably require the most land . The additional field itself would require about 10,000 square feet. Given the poor percolation of soils in the Rural Buffer lot sizes could conceivably increase in order to accommodate a second field. IV. REFERENCES 1 . Orange County Health Department comments, January 1987 . 2. TJCOG, "Overview of Septic Tank Usage and Problems in Region J , " June 1978 . 3 . Duke University School of Engineering, "Rural Wastewater Impact on Water Quality in Orange County, " 1976 . 4. TJCOG, "208 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan ' s Final Report, " February 1980 . 72 5 . John R. McAdams Company, correspondence, November 1985 . 6 . OWASA, -personal communications, January 1987 . 7 . Keith Liner ( Septic Tank Service Co. ) , personal communication, 31 January 1987 . 71 / 1 \` `� °� , % I '. - . 4`,. r �r 111 11111 1 rii� .'-- � �� -w `` 1�' _A$01" . • " �p 11111111 • . %1N ' '‘ *4;L - ` �1 �� ; 1. .a •5 / r-:, -1,,; -^' ■�• . . 1 r ! 1y g• q 'Pm ' II /V i Aft eft._ -If \''SIP,..011111thi.:;":-..:',6 .f„ ,...,.........,i.-.,. .0 .0 ig, • ) i . t-4,iy: —I. r :, • l'N, :i,.t...r.:'.:;:' ''':.::::::::',.:.;1.;,,,-. ; ;.--; -e/ i ! .... i 1 ).% Let*:-.17.4-..St . .j. Nts.....4.-'': A,.iti,- .'' . -ligaik"4111' i ''-Ar.'Ai.' k -;..1;: : _.: +4411 #4#1 ' 7 'y e . 1 . 40 .' ./ -...,::: .:s.... . , ... _ --10,,*7 __4N _-_,.... .0. -,213ges ,,•• - t . . . 1 \- it...._„,,zt 7../,.4,,,„way ! 1 iM i 1 rntliall,,/ , ,,r.... _.) i 1 ■'re,\ / . : Is 'wall' --.0/ \... :77:::::::g.7748:4:-4,vim: (,..ifii, ..F. .\ �` r C Id A.P is_ Hll L4 :;:. •::::_ ;::, �. 4.111 ..11•141.00 ......... - ia Vil':: e Witr:- :;;/114.% :,:liii14:filigs,\ Igit. : -� p r; l c ,,,,�, , ' . "�::: : ;.:.:,.• l . i ---' - :::. • '..-. s. . !Sig, i • ' ..,..-.A...., N. .,. it:11:::::::;.:.: i AIM Qmpur 1- re . ,:.1/...!:1:4 . ,• r -a .- •! E . • 4,,,, . .l. ilt - . ..".1:-;:i.:::'.., • � '• c °y; j ;: ".,/ )1 e, II'j `. tea . Ii:4 sa... ., 11,., itp...:...::;;::.. ....... 4 , mi.-, *. VV9910 -...Willi:: 4-r ...-!" " . (1 i • '' 'i j '4 /Pik'IlIPX01'.-\' ‘Al%--14',,,,-0. 1:05"0. :„. .,,-.....:_. ;,:i.::::.;,:it. , , , iy i7 ,, --,, . . -,„;,,,-,-,,-,.... „.....,4„,„‘„ ,,,,.„:„., 4:: • .. . :4 i -!:. .. :ipaisiiiiii:6''- .")Q4Z1.. I ,....r..... ,t. It, , ' 44L- � r : ' -''\\- -1., 41. 4 -Air:::' " ‘-' 14 • ../71Lillirr I r-- / _ 1 _r S ''. 0.7...-4r. . ( ( 1. iciAllill)1H"Pr■..... ■ I\ '' 10 ilfaci.j&,, 1 l' 11.1;.'d i; ► -• • ' - r �• ClIGIsi Carr . • r' ,� •� �7_" .�• .�• WASTEWATER PROBLEMS lica42: n O Septic system failures • ••• -- Non-compliant package treatment plants 74 75 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE JPA RURAL BUFFER ZONE A rather even distribution of farmland parcels occurs throughout the JPA Rural Buffer designation. These parcels range in size from 1 .07 acres to 509.40 acres . The greatest clustering occurs in the outer fringes or perimeter of the JPA boundaries to the north and west, as one would expect, as the character of the land takes on a more rural nature. The clustering aspect of contiguous farmland boundaries reveals a number of farmland parcels exceeding 1000 accumulative acres in size. These clusters lie primarily in the north/northwest rural buffer area, with one contiguous cluster approaching 1500 acres predominant in the University Lake Watershed, south of Highway 54. In determining prime farmland, each soil in the Rural Buffer was rated on its potential to produce crops. This rating is based mainly on groupings or combinations of soil quality, growing seasons, and available moisture needed to produce sustained high yields when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. Three major groups were defined for this study: 1 . Prime Farmland - Soils best suited for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. They have good soil qualities, are favorable for all major crops common to the County, have a favorable growing season, and receive needed moisture to produce high yields on an average of 8 out of every 10 years. Enon Loam, Georgeville Silt Loam with 2 to 6% slopes, Helena Sandy Loam and Herndon Silt Loam with 2 to 6% slopes were predominant in this grouping. 2. State and Lpgpllx Important Farmlands - These soils have either seasonal wetness, erosion or drought conditions that limit their suitability for some crops. Crops which are adapted to either wet or dry conditions, or if erosion is controlled, produce moderate to high yields if treated and managed according to modern farming methods . Georgeville Silt Loam with 6 to 10% slopes and Chewacla Loam and Congaree Fine Sandy Loam were most predominant in this grouping. 3. Other Lands - These soils are generally not suited to crop production without applying extensive 76 / management . These soils were primarily on slopes exceeding 7.5% . A total of 16,117 acres of farmland lies within the Rural Buffer Area of Joint Planning, 13,678 acres in Chapel Hill Township and 2,439 acres in Bingham. Of this total, 3,230 acres are comprised of prime farmland, i .e., soils best suited for producing food, etc, as noted in number 1 . Even though the total acreage of farmland tracts is somewhat less in the University Lake Watershed area as compared with north Chapel Hill, the quality of soils conducive to high yield farming approaches comparability (1482 acres of prime farmland in University Lake Rural Buffer, 1648 in North Chapel Hill Rural Buffer) . The Southern Triangle Rural Buffer contains 100 acres of prime, 95 acres , of state and important farmlands (number 2) , and 115 acres of other lands (number 3) . By elimination one can deduce that 12,887 acres of Rural Buffer farmland fall within categories 2 and 3, soils which require some degree of management and control in order to produce yields, or soils not suited for crop production at all . Category number 2 slightly exceeds number 3 in total acreage. It is felt that those Rural Buffer farmland tracts which fit the prime farmland category should be maintained as produc- tive land. First and foremost this would allow continuity of rural industry, farming, and entrust soil resources to those who know best the land ' s capacity. It would further maintain the heritage and tradition of farming so important to North Carolina generally and to farming families specifically. Lastly, it would meet the long-range planning goals of Orange County Planning to preserve the existing rural character of the land . This priority would apply in establishing zoning/ land use guidelines to all 16,117 acres of farmland in the Rural Buffer with the highest order of preservation applying to prime farm land. Particular scrutiny should be given the more isolated farmland tracts which dot the Rural Buffer, and a special effort made to preserve them in their entirety as rural productive land. They serve particularly well the aesthetic amenity criterion, in addition to their classification as crop yielding tracts. Sources include "Important Farmlands, A Supplement To Soil Survey Report of Orange County", Computer tabulations citing 1986 parcels in township 6-7 with land use exemptions, dated January 9, 1987, and JPA Base Maps scaled 1 :1000 for acreage calculations . 77 1 r --."11N4'1 1 qi: II 11114 e t,a ow • - : . imullitVw . , ,,.-:-.;:''',,--::-•-'..,,-1, t,----••:k.,*,. \ 10 Ai , • v ,..•:T., ; -- IP I ,.../ ear d 4:.:-r.' -i- 1-`'4U+�'go.'F• F > . '1' --w a - ® h t�;' ;�� 1, �.`h]7�''i' �:�'• _ „may Atli r., �.t s - ` ; - r . jy] (- f�y*,'r t'... •ra �' .i,.4 5Y•. :•-, ds , 1 • • J ' K\ t'jj .,/ •' ! l "' ,� +.,...4-7:,.- : Qa_ :.. Pe f R , M1 Ft�• `, „��••,,- .t .'. ._ Y ice ''`.1, � "1 J , ' 1'_ f' e . •*,,b rn . maw \•` ._.:ti :. :r'- �� 4-,• •• , . 04 / v:.-06- . t ',._:::-1::'''Y - 1 .-. 1.411q.1%9'... --.. ' 6.16 - " 4:">\•10, i e... Oil -" • �.T ••`:• mow.=: � � � � ::�.� rA ...F�,�•i::•.;.� yy _:.:' _ \ C 1114tIE,,. Ali 41 n'41) t, ofr,......... , ?....... ;0.6 : >408,:it:f i...1.:I.i.ifigilliiiii.:17/1.1.:: • .i.1 I liki F.../.7:14 a,- e. 1 %O.: t I W '' . t ....4....:4%. :.......... ix. . i,Li.,i1.1z ..-.: AIL- ,416 4 •-, trat.,. 1 , _. ...._,......,...,:„..,, .c_h_ „K„. ,e . oilt. ,:... 1/4C talk** k3h‘j'IN 'itli%Vp€43E1 A,,.104NA......'i.:1,..:.:is.qii;.. (I 2 r .` ' d Iti,4f q • i I� .� -4,3:,.,,,-...11:-. 'ice•. r �'1t.� t ';, tit 1 1--,,,,,,— - 1 .:0-.. ?-.•• . ,,'„,: ,:_rk.4.,:t' i .in• . k.,„,,, ,._ .f-.,:lipzil.:i.:Iiii:"• " ----::::., r '� ' w t; 1 i V� \ � r '•i - i /..• :7.,,,).,.',.4",-1,,,,A4t;-- •2 4grri: 4., ,Chatham Caul, • Sams •�• 4,4 ' ) --1.q.' • • ••r. sumo*1:.q1 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ,.g .�. i Land Taxed at Farm Value 78, , . r - ,• • 79 BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS I. DATA Four major sites in the Rural Buffer can be classified as biologically significant. At least one other site is known to be the habitat of an endangered/threatened species. The largest of the four areas is the Duke Forest, comprising approximately 2,760 acres in six areas of the ipuffer. Several areas of the forest, comprising 650 acres, have been designated as natural areas. The designation can stem from being the site of endangered or threatened species, exemplary plant communities, or unique species diversification. In addition to its biological importance, Duke Forest is also an important recreation area. Pickards Mountain, part of a 230 acre tract at the headwaters of Morgan Creek, has been identified as biologically significant by the NC Natural Heritage Program because of the plant community on the southeastern slope. The community consists of an extensive stand of mature hardwoods. including beech, poplar, chestnut oak, and white oak, with an understory of sourwood, dogwood, and blueberry. A horse trail runs along the ridge. Although the primary importance of University Lake is as a drinking water supply, it has been identified as biologically significant by the NC Natural Heritage Program. High species diversification has been recorded along with at least two endangered/threatened species. As with Duke Forest, University Lake is also an important recreational site. The fourth site, an area in private ownership north of Mt. Sinai Road, has been recorded by the NC Natural Heritage Program because of its exemplary plant community. The forest canopy consists primarily of hickory. oak, and beech, with a diverse understory and herb vegetation layer. Knowledge of biologically important sites in the Rural Buffer is incomplete. No areawide study has been done. It is believed that a large number of species considered endangered or rare species beyond those already recorded have habitats in Orange County. They include at least six species of plants, two species of invertabrates, two species of fish. and one each of amphibian and bird. Confirmation. however. does not exist. II. ISSUES/IMPLICATIONS The primary issues are whether or not development can occur in a manner that does not destroy ecologically fragile or important areas and, if so. how. Ancillary is the issue of whether current regulations provide an adequate level of protection. Watershed protection regulations, while having the 80 primary purpose of protecting drinking water supplies. also protect surfacewater habitats of endangered/threatened species and plant communities most dependent on surfacewater. There is no assurance. though. that biologically significant sites in the watershed, but outside the University Lake Tract, will be protected. Large lot sizes alone do not insure protection. This is especially true if the Planning Department does not know the exact location of significant plant communities or endangered/threatened species habitats. It may be possible to use undisturbed area requirements to protect significant habitats in the MCA. but only if the exact location of the habitat is known. Development on university and publicly held lands IA not an issue. Although not recorded in the Zoning Atlas, Pblic Interest District zoning provided for in the ordinance precludes development on those lands. Development outside the boundaries of those areas. however. still have some implications for those lands. _ Development activity in the Rural Buffer has two impacts on Duke Forest properties. Erosion and runoff from development activity upstream may lead to the degradation of surfacewater habitats. Increased development. not just in the Rural Buffer but throughout the Chapel Hill/Durham region also places increasing recreation pressures on the Forest. III. BEFEROCES 1. Orange County Land Use Plan (as amended) . 1986. 2. 208 Project Inventory of Existing Resources. TJCOG, 1976. • 1 ;� ..• 111 �� 1 Pt ` c , , �7 I 1 .... \ • �, ; ; ,.. ��.., . ' Ill lllll �) iiiiiii. .a t ,45. / .... ._,:rmi, -.......,j., ..- ..,.;,:n.,--;,.. ,.---— ,itik. , . , ,_. - q ; MEEllirria 11111Plik.- %#1019r....41=1W,4111EitA_...•-...immitra 11 • a ."..I AL.. al...I I j W ) 1 i «( 1i J M 7 ) I■t"...--\•.--#"; , ... A. ilk . . ...,',--: -:--: /-0:0 - . 9-.,Y-.4.zw.': , . .... -.- -0.*-._„.. •T1 S f € r �'1rYL7 �i` T., .Y :, r 1/1.,.. / I --.1--DrA" ,• • _ •._ k,„. .._,..iiter, . . _ . r., _ _..,4N , ,..-, ....•30,,n( ,r . t- \ ,,_ pgr fr 1 4044:85.!I r �fST7 ► � o-.-',/%-:::-ilzi./.:7:::::::::::.:firg:::-. .::::: ,,!. .-: 4 111, lAnititti::::::ril/i&7i/3 ,..„Ip figp,1 i, ....4,::i:::„..,... ....::.:..,,. :::.:. ii i:t- - I., ..i,(-4- 1....:, ',- ., , 1 il q.,..1-iA,Pg_ _....... ,L10-%(-- iffi) •%..,.::. ..:.,.::•::•::::..,:•.-•:,. ......•.: -:. ::,-z_ SO d- i .4' 1" v e......• .."-." i Ur i:ii.' $%...\:,Pgii. '12.6.17.7:11iiiii: giiii7:1 ...-.4. .- -::. ‘ : .....„.is % / b aro. • 1.............:!:.::://71-:.i: • '''%."....:1%._•!itgleli:WO\ . ow . • / ,AP .0" ca..40 ./.. if:41::::.,. 4:::::::::::::::FI:. "ife;:l...:::::, \ c iii,., ....,, k e„,..-... /,■ .. . • . .4 ..... M''1 i\-*tti... ,- 01:11111. Z:,.:4:1...1.3./.:,,I:....g.Z....14 i! , :,..:. „iiiikip:-, .g.*::..;:l.....,:::::k 2 . • ripe doit '... E, d er•-.1.:.:" -N ,,. i.. iii.7. 10.5.‘trwtp ,.. ..7:.:./.,......:.::...:;:i4:::p. ::::::• -• a . r i: t 'r. 1 lizatig 4 1 1, - Vti- . '',P4V.Iit"'-‘•I , , r� I !ter "•' / ��. 1'� a i I ��..:: ..,. Allik - A N-.1.• r . , it r ,f „,,.. `4, 1._1 414 • �.�p�•�. •,':. ��' ,gyp •�• - ',, , y •• 7 Chatham CpyMr • • -- ........., r',rr �• , ��rp •�• •�•� �� SCALE: • r�r r. `! ' 'r ---- BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT-AREAS - -- 82 8' LAND-MINERAL RESOURCES IN THE RURAL BUFFER DATA ANALYSIS: SLOPE • I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Slope or slope gradient is defined as the difference in elevation between two points as measured over the distance between them. horizontal percentage obtained from dividing the vertiicalldiff is b the horizontal distance and then dividing by . difference by g that number by 100. The existing slope analysis map is at a scale of 1"=1000 P of the Joint Planning Area The aslope The contour intervalais�20 gradients indicated on the map are 0 to 7 1/2% , 7 1/2 to 15% , and above 15%. II. FINDINGS: Area The general slope in the Joint Planning by the underlying rock formatiion. Mope is in g is characterized Most of thepJpA by steep sided undulating ridges dissected by streams flowing southeast. According to the map, most of of less than 7 1/2 percent. This suggests land slopes at a rate of slope, that portion of 99est,, that, on the basis most land that the Rural Buffer is suitable for industrial. including agricultural, residential, and area is located in floodhplainbe noted that some of the Sites in the Rural Buffer where slope is restrictive to development (over 15%) are located in the following areas: in the southeastern corner of the county, north and south of Mt. Carmel Church Road - along the major creeks and their respective tribu- taries south of Dairyland Road surrounding the prominent high points such as Blackwood Mtn. and Bald Mtn. III. ISSUES/IMPLICATIONS: By definition, slope is directly as well as to geology. �' related to topographic soil depths, septic tank 9Y� Degree of slope can affect as highway P locations, building sites, as well Y and railroad locations. erosion are also directly affected by Hydrology and soil Y slope. The issues surrounding slope resulting from development, inc ludiingderosionrecontrol, aan_h nd conservation of the steeper slopes. Slope was a P determinant in the designation of resource n the Joint Planning protection areas outlined in g Area Land Use plan. 84 IV. REFERENCES: 1. Existing map of slope analysis by Don Powell. 2. _ : - • - - • • - , t - • , ‘ • Carolina, Bulletin 81, published in 1968 by NCDCD Div. of Mineral Resources. Written by Eldon P. Allen and - William F. Wilson. 3. Begion_ J Geology:. A Guide for N.C. Mineral Resource Development and Land Use, Planning Regional Geology Series 1, by William F. Wilson and P. Albert Carpenter, III, 1975. Published by NC Dept. of Natural and Economic Resources, Div. of Resource Planning and Evaluation, Mineral Resources Sect. - t £5 LAND-MINERAL RESOURCES IN THE RURAL BUFFER DATA ANALYSIS: TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Topographic relief is defined as the variation in elevation of the land as measured above mean sea level. The map used for analysis of the Rural Buffer is from the United States Geological Survey 7.5 minutes series 1968--69/ maps of floodprone areas, enlarged to a scale of 1' =1000 ' . The contour interval is 10 ' , however/ the topographic relief is indicated at 50 ' intervals. The darker shades of grey and brown designate the lower elevations/ and these tones become lighter with each 50 ' graduation. The highest and lowest points are marked with asterisks. II. FINDINGS: The difference in elevation within the Rural Buffer ranges from approximately 237 to 782 feet above sea level. The majority of the area falls between 500 and 550 feet. The shape of the land (topography) is typical for the Piedmont region which is gently rolling upland made up of rounded hills and V-shaped valleys. Some of the high points are identified as Stony Hill/ High Hill, Big Hill, Laurel Hill, Currie Hill, Scarlett Hill, Blackwood Mountain, Bald Moun- taint McCauley Mountain, and Pickards Mountain. III. ISSUES/IMPLICATIONS: On a large scale basis, topographic relief affects climate ( i.e. temperature/ winds) which in turn affects vegetation. At an area/regional level, elevation applies to transportation patterns, especially locations of highways, railroads, and even the airport. Furthermore, on a per site basis, topographic relief influences visual character/ locations of proposed roads and structures/ and in part influences the extent of the flood plain. Topographic relief also has a direct influence on the water table including location of streams or waterways (all flow of water) . The issue regarding topographic relief would be any proposed changes or alterations which should be regulated by grading permits. Some prominent high points may warrant protection in order to maintain visual quality. IV. REFERENCES: 1. United States Geological Survey 7 .5 minute series 1968/69. Maps of Flood-Prone Areas. 2. Gep],ogy an Mineral $Qgourc $ of Orange County, North Carolina, Bulletin 81, published in 1968 by NCDCD Div. • of Mineral Resources. Written by Eldon P. Allen and William F. Wilson. • 86 87 LAND-MINERAL RESOURCES IN THE RURAL BUFFER DATA ANALYSIS: GEOLOGIC RESOURCES I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The geologic factors relevant to land use planning include existing mineral deposits which are actively being mined or those which have potential for commercial extrac- tion. in addition to areas where the soil depth is shallow (less than 5) over hard rock. Certain geologic formations such as faults. shear zones. and joint/fracture locations should also be considered. Most of these have been mapped on an overlay to the topographic relief map. II. FINDINGS: _ The following is a list of active or inactive quarries. prospects. and pits located in the Joint Planning Area: Chapel Hill Gravel Pits - Billy C. Merritt - (active) Laurel Hill Quartz Prospect - (inactive) Chapel Hill Quarry - American Stone Company (crushed stone) '- (active) Duke Forest Gold Prospect - (inactive) Mellott Gravel Pit in Univ. L. Area. Carrboro There are also numerous sites of shallow depth of soil over unweathered rock. In addition. there are two fault locations and a shear zone within the Rural Buffer. III. ISSUES/IMPLICATIONS: Geology affects many of the other natural resources. For example. topography• soil types and their erodibility are directly related to the underlying rock formations. Ground water movement and availability including location of aqui- fers are influenced by the texture of bedrock and by frac- tures and joints within the rocks. Faults and shear zones should be considered when locating dams. power plants. or industrial sites. Geology also affects solid waste disposal. Mineral resources in general are vital to industry. The existing gravel pits are important for road construction. Those sites where the soil depth is less than five feet over hard rock would be accompanied by increased construction costs. depending on the type of development planned. IV. REFERENCES: 1. Geology and liinera1 Resources_ of Orange County' N.C. , Bulletin 81. published in 1968 by NCDCD Div. of Mineral Resources. Written by Eldon P. Allen and William F. Wilson. 2. Triangle J 208 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan Inventory of Existing Resources. TJCOG. March 1976. • 88 89 _ VEGETATIVE TYPES I. DESCRIPTIVE pATA Vegetative cover was one of the three environmental parameters addressed in the preparation of the ,joint Plannina Ladd LIZA Plan.- Three broadly defined vegetative classes (wetlands, forest. and cleared areas) were mapped and used in conjunction with topography and soil stability to determine the development potential of land in the Joint Planning Area. In mapping vegetative cover. two primary sources were used. These were 1982 infrared aerial photos obtained from the Soil Conservation Service and the $oil survey DI Orange County which was used to determine wetlands, i.e. . alluvial soils. II. QUANTITATIVE DAP There are no substantive changes to report in the vegetative make up of the Rural Buffer. About 30 acres of the Blackwood Division of Duke Forest (in the vicinity of Old N.C. 86 and Eubanks Road) was logged this past year. This was part of the management program for Duke Forest and represents less than 1% of the total Duke Forest acreage in the Rural Buffer. The area is scheduled for re-forestation • in February, 1987. III. ISSUES 8ND ;MpLICATIONS, The various Duke Forest tracts comprise almost 10% of the Rural Buffer and are the largest unbroken areas of forest cover in the area. The fact that they are in single owner- ship would seem to offer advantages in preserving/protecting the forest. Judson Edeburn. Duke Forest Manager. said there are no current plans for any major changes in Duke Forest. Be did emphasize. however, the study of all Duke University lands currently being conducted by the Urban Land Institute and the possibility that recommendations for uses other than education. research. and recreation may be forthcoming. IV. BEFEREHCEa 1. Joint Planning. land Use Plan October 1986 . 2. Phone call to Judson Edeburn. Duke Forest Manager. 90 ' S • 91 HISTORIC SITES AND AREAS I. DATA The history of Orange County is not confined to its towns. Within the Rural Buffer are three State recognized historic buildings. over one dozen cemeteries that can be considered historic. and at least thirty archeological sites. Age, family or church association, and use status all have bearing on whether a cemetery is historically significant. North Carolina General Statutes provide some level of protection for all cemeteries and all but six in the Rural Buffer have some conditions attached to them that provide an additional level of protection. Those conditions include current usage. church ownership. or location in the Duke Forest. Two other abandoned cemeteries (abandoned merely indicating they are no longer in use) are surrounded by fully developed subdivisions. The most numerous historic sites in the Rural Buffer are archeological sites. Their protection is also the most problematic as the Archeology Branch of the Division of Archives and History does not consider their location public record. There is a fear that public knowledge of the sites could lead to their destruction by scavengers and state law allows for the withholding of information on location. Of the thirty-one known sites in the Rural Buffer six are in the Southern Triangle. five are in the University Lake watershed. and twenty are in Chapel Hill Township to the north of Chapel Hill. Two of the sites north of Chapel Hill have been recorded by the State as fully destroyed. both by the construction of I-40. One other site is recorded as partially destroyed by residential development. Two of the three buildings. Poythress House and Blackwood House, are private residences. The third is Damascus Congregational Church. None of the buildings are National Register sites. II. ISSUES/IMPLICATIONS. These sites are important to the heritage of Orange County. They are historical and educational resources and are deserving of some level of protection. The issue is how _ development can occur in a way that prevents these sites from being destroyed or desecrated. The issue is most problematic for archeological sites. The state. as a rule. will not provide information to the general public on the exact location of sites. This makes it very unlikely that individual landowners or developers will be aware of sites on a particular piece of property. Even though a list of sites in Orange County is on file at the Planning Department. it is also unlikely the Planning Department staff is aware of sites in relationship to particular properties being developed. 92 A second problem concerning archeological sites is that the present status of many sites is unknown. Rural buffer sites were recorded as long as thirty years ago. The state does maintain a project file of those sites that have been disturbed by public projects, such as I-40, and some major private projects. Knowledge of those sites will alleviate part, but not all, of the problem. Protection of rural historic buildings and cemeteries seem to be a problem, as long as the location of those sites is known. Protection for cemeteries can be as simple as . reminding developers that desecration of cemeteries, intentional or otherwise, is a felony unless authority of law or permission from next of kin has been granted to disinter. The location of all cemeteries in the Rural Buffer, however, is not known. A few cemeteries whose existence is recorded at the Register of Deeds had locations that were indeterminable during the time the Inventory amendment to the Land Use Plan was completed. III. RMEENcES 1. Archeology Branch, Division of Archives and History, NC Department of Cultural Resources, correspondence, May 1986 . 2. Office of the State Archivist, Division of Archives and History, NC Dept. of Cultural Resources, personal communication, Spring 1986 . 3. North Carolina General Statutes, Chapters 14 and 70. 93 l . .. " 1 . �� II g ,,�C ., R::---- -::- 1 ` , ,`tiff i r1,. --• 1�-, ii111 111111 K-' / "*",„%uind: i, . ..,-1.-. i'i,, .,-, ...- .;.'p..‘4." $ `.r 1 ' iuun r a 14''•� t 7iiib, %.. � ti ,... ..°74 . \ 4%3, . 0 ''''-.• . 1.4. I V - .0.0" 41 lib li ,_ ,s 1 ^gyp -�� ' i �. �� ,Ir ) �. 1.l , �� .. %4010.. 11110 /At iwriliXkid..-7 "--44116L ..., r=,"' ," wl' ' ,1 will, ` 1 .i ry _ elakrood ;� ;. -,�` ., ...... e• �. :,�i � ~ ` ,i /J St � � /8*--/:- *Aiwa-/ : 1 wit k 1 �imA t ,► �- u I "` /k . : 11W 10 ) .01-- -4 F- .4, i. *H PR._ N I Le �: ' ; :. :f: A �� -mfr it...„ �' y-- . ::•eli :V.. :.- iii 1 r. -% © �g M , „ ..:.::::-/ ilisiii. 4i," :•• Vit ji ''..:111 lk .• mg': .:::;ipzs-iiF!:.::::fiffi.i.::::,..iiss::::::... (; 8 4,...\ .0 -i. \iv ‘t7.... • 1 i,\ABlevilli G4:,•fli:i7/11171/;,:ii•.::::•7,..P.411/14.4 ji s1 0 1:. i-;:I...,:., .,..to.--.4 A„ (.,... ii. ......,....;_:.::',... . / 1 �k Tom' ► -•� "'g fil:::; r/•'.?::;:r.': li• - ne � �y i ` .. � - �� •;� �� - •. .., ��.); 1 r- / --. 1. ' / ;, 5 " - ,,,, V V. a _ I, k 4 # ulgc4V-, 4. -: 3 d 111611r% ( -: .+1. U__ ,-ii a. . W •• ... •�• .1"1" Chatham C r • . � • HISTORIC AREAS sC4.0: OL Archelogically important Sites • -- Cemeteries • -- Historic Buildings 94 95 J AESTHETIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE RURAL BUFFER DATA ANALYSIS: VISUAL AMENITIES I. Visual resources include everything that is seen. which can also be described as the land and any activities on it. The visual aspect of the land is considered a non-renewable resource since change in the landscape is irreversible even though it is a natural process. While the visual environment is most often disregarded during resource analysis. it should be emphasized for several reasons. Most importantly. the visual environment educates the viewer about possible problems in the physical environ- ment. Imbalances in the socio-economic system are also reflected in the visual environment. Unfortunately. many problems are not dealt with until they become visually evident. Similarly, everything that is seen affects human emotion and guides activities on the land. The analysis of visual resources found in the Rural Buffer currently includes the following: (1) a general photo survey of many distinctive views found throughout the Rural Buffer and (2) a map of visually sensitive areas where preservation or at least retention of visual resources is of primary concern during land use planning. II. FINDINGS: The overall image of the Rural Buffer is one of variety, which is most valuable in the visual environment. Visual variety with harmony not only is aesthetically pleasing. but it usually indicates a more ecologically stable community. Furthermore. an environment which has visual variety is more tolerant of visual change. Rural land can be classified into three groups: wild- lands. agrarian areas. and settlement areas. Wildlands are characterized by natural elements in a natural state or returning through succession. Agrarian areas are described as natural elements in an unnatural state such as planted fields or pasture. Settlement areas are dominated by man- made elements. The Rural Buffer has a variety of each type landscape. For the purpose of this study. an inventory was done of sensitive areas where development could have a negative visual impact. This analysis is a composite of the following inventories: prime farmlands. resource protection areas, public/private open space. biologically significant areas, historic sites. and prominent topographic relief features. • 96 III. ISSUES/IMPLICATIONS:, Again. visual resources are indicators of the social, economic. and ecological condition of an area. The Triangle J Council of Governments Regional Image Task Force has identified that the quality of life in the Triangle Area is a primary attraction to people and businesses which seek to locate here. Planning to maintain and enhance the quality of life is essential to the continued prosperity of the area. Everything that is done or built affects , the visual environment; therefore, the issues surrounding development have the same bearing on visual resources as on other natural resources. Consequently, many of the current policies which regulate development work in conjunction with maintaining visual quality. Some examples are: erosion control ordi- nance. tree protection requirements. sign regulations. watershed protection measures. building height restrictions and setbacks, land use intensity ratios. and resource protec- tion areas. The basic issue is whether or not development can occur in a sensitive. publicly acceptable manner- If development is permitted. planning should concentrate on the landscape' s ability to absorb change without adverse visual impact. IV. RF',FERENCES:, Epyironmental C9Aservation: A Citizens' Sourcebook by Piedmont Environmental Council. Warrenton. Virginia, December 1975. "Visual Resource Management" Landscape Architecture Technical Information Series Vol. 1. No. 2. Edward H. Stone. II. FASLA published by American Society of Landscape Architects. June 1978. "Visual Resource Management" United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Division of Recreation and Cultural Resources. Washington. D.C. 1980. edited by Smardon. Palmer. and Felleman. Wiley-Interscience Publication' 1986. 97 WATER & SEWER LINE EXTENSION I. DATA At present. no areas of the Rural Buffer are served by either the Town of Hillsborough or OWASA. Hillsborough service extends south to a point between Wildwood and the Chapel Hill Township line. OWASA's service area is entirely within the Chapel Hill and Carrboro ETJ. Two areas outside of the ETJ, however, are in the JPA Transition area. They are; 1. north of Eubanks Road and west of NC86; 2. the section of the Southern Triangle between Old Lystra Road and US 15-501. The Town of Hillsborough currently has no plans to extend water or sewer lines into the Rural Buffer. Given the distance from its southernmost extension and the topography of the area. extension would probably be prohibitively expensive. OWASA's current policy is not to extend water and sewer lines into the Rural Buffer without concurrence of the Board of County Commissioners. OWASA's strategic plans, though. include options that would extend water and sewer lines into the Rural Buffer. The option does not begin with the premise that extension is desirable. Rather. it accepts the premise that the area will reach a density/population requiring urban services. A 16" water line. owned by OWASA. runs through the Rural Buffer along State Road 1009 (Old NC86) . Its purpose is to allow Hillsborough to supply OWASA with water during drought conditions. With the completion of OWASA's pump station in the Calvander area. which will allow OWASA to supply Hillsborough. adequate pressure will exist to supply some of the Rural Buffer with water. The cost of providing water and sewer service is directly related to lot dimensions. OWASA's charge for water provision includes surcharges based on acreage ($320/acre with 4/10 of the first acre prorated out) and feet of frontage ($11/foot) . This does not include line installation which runs at least $20/linear foot nor a demand component charge that begins at $1270. Sewerage provision costs are similar to those of providing water. The acreage surcharge is $300/acre and front footage costs are $15/foot. The demand component charge begins at $840 while pipe installation can run more than $17/linear foot. 98 II. ISSSJES/IMPLICATIONS The issue of whether or not to extend water and sewer lines into the Rural Buffer has many implications. It has direct effects on development potential and the cost of water and sewage system provision. It could have a major impact on annexations and public health issues. To a large degree, it also removes the issue of soils unsuitable for septic tanks from the debate over what housing densities are desirable or proper in the Rural Buffer. The lack of soils suitable for septic tanks is the major impediment to development in the Rural Buffer. Providing sewer lines removes this obstacle to development. It also removes the need for septic system suitable soils as a variable in determining lot size. The most immediate impact. would be in subdivisions, such as Falls of New Hope, where undeveloped lots exist primarily because the soils are unsuitable for conventional septic systems. Extension of water and sewer lines makes annexation easier. Commitment and ability to provide services is one requirement for annexation. Areas considered for town/city initiated annexation must additionally meet certain criteria concerning existing land use and residential density. Extension of lines. if leading to higher densities, would make those areas of higher density more "ripe" for annexation. Health and safety issues can be raised if septic system failures or well contamination occurs in amounts that pose a serious health risk. While the potential is there, no major problems exist at this time. III. REFERENCES. 1. OWASA. personal communication. November 1985 and January 1987. 99 SCHOOLS I . 9UALITATIYE DATA The rural buffer contains attendance zones for two public school systems: Chapel Hill -Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools. Several private schools are also located in the area. II . OUANTITATIVE DALA All of Chapel Hill Township south of a line approxi- mately parallel to Whitfield and Eubanks Roads is in the Chapel Hill -Carrboro school system. The balance of the rural buffer in Chapel Hill Township as well as the rural buffer in Bingham Township are in the Orange County school system. A portion of the attendance zone for every Chapel Hill - Carrboro school except Estes Hills Elementary lies within the rural buffer. Carrboro, Ephesus, Frank Porter Graham, Glenwood, and Seawell Elementary Schools, as well as both Culbreth and Phillips Junior High Schools, and Chapel Hill High School service the rural buffer. Orange County Schools attendance zones for Grady Brown Elementary School , Stanford Junior High School , and Orange High School are in the rural buffer. III . ISSUES/ IMPLICATIONS Several schools serving the rural buffer are at or near their ideal capacity . Orange County Board of Education is evaluating the potential for a new elementary school to be sited in the northern part of the rural buffer. Chapel HiII - Carrboro Schools is evaluating the impact of growth on its schools. IV . REFERENCES 1 . Chapel Hill -Carrboro City Schools 2. Orange County Board of Education 100 1 101 POLICE, FIRE, RESCUE SERVICE I. QUALITATIVE DATE Police protection is provided by the Orange County Sheriff' s Department. Fire protection is provided by seven volunteer fire departments: Hillsborough. Eno. Orange Grove, New Hope. White Cross (Eli Whitney) . South Orange, and North Chatham. Rescue service is provided by Orange County and South Orange Rescue Squads. Emergency services are dis- patched through a central dispatch center. Service requests for all emergency services are made by dialing "911". II. QUANTITATIVE DATA The Orange County Sheriff' s Department serves the entire unincorporated portion of Orange County. Its main office is in Hillsborough and a satellite office has- been established in Chapel Hill. There are five patrol districts in the County. The rural buffer lies predominantly in one patrol district. Portions along the northern and western edges of the buffer are in other districts. A patrol car is assigned to each district. From one to three additional patrol cars will be assigned to supplement the regular patrol cars in the evenings and on weekends. • The service areas of the seven volunteer fire depart- ments are located in the rural buffer. Only two fire sta- tions are physically located in the rural buffer area. These are the two New Hope Fire District stations located on NC 86 and Whitfield Road. Other fire stations are located outside the rural buffer. One, the North Chatham Fire District station. is located in Chatham. with the exception of South Orange where service is provided by the Town of Carrboro. each department is respon- sible for its own district. A unit will not leave its district except at the request of another district. All units are dispatched from the central emergency center. The two rescue squads serve nights and weekends. A paid service provides for weekdays. There are two rescue units in each squad. One Orange County Rescue unit is stationed in Hillsborough on South Churton. The second unit is stationed in Efland. The South Orange Rescue Squad stations one unit at Roberson Street in Carrboro and the other at Fire Station #3 on Elliott Drive in Chapel Hill. There is no designated service area for either squad. When both units in one squad are busy. a unit from the other squad will go to Blackwood Station on NC 86 to take up a standby service position. All units are dispatched from the central emergency center. 102 III. ISSUES/IMPLICATIONS Continued development in the rural buffer will increase both the demand and need for increased fire protection. Since the rural buffer is not intended to become part of Chapel Hill or Carrboror the volunteer fire departments will be responsible for providing the increased protection. The same will be true for police and rescue service. The Orange County Sheriff' s Department and existing rescue service will be expected to provide increased service. IV. gEFTRENCES 1. Central Emergency Service 2. Y Sheriff' s Orange Count Sheriff' Department g P 103 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL I. DESCRIPTIVE DATA In January 1984, the Orange Regional Landfill Task Force recommended the purchase of the "Green Tract" based on a study conducted on alternative means of solid waste disposal for Orange County. In February 1984, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the resolution to authorize the purchase of the tract. It was purchased jointly by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange County with monies from the Orange Regional Landfill Fund. The Green Tract is located on a ridge south of Eubanks Road and directly west of the north-south railroad tracks. It is separated from the existing site by a 15 acre lot labelled "Neville Tract" which is proposed public/private open-space. The Green Tract has been designated "Potential Landfill -- Pending Further Study" to alert people of the potential for development as a landfill. However , use of the site for landfill purposes would entail the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit and a public hearing. The existing landfill opened for operation in 1972. It • accepts residential and commercial waste as well as inert matters such as brick, blocks, and wood products resulting from demolition and construction. It operates in accordance with state regulations for sanitary landfills which prohibit the knowing acceptance of liquids and classified hazardous materials. According to Public Works' estimates, the present landfill will reach capacity in approximately seven years. Thus , the purpose of the Green Tract is to serve as an additional landfill site in anticipation of the county 's future solid waste disposal needs. It has been recommended that the present landfill be used for outdoor recreation or other type open space when it reaches capacity. If the same use is also made of the Green Tract, a significant area of public open space will eventually be created in Orange County. II. OANIITALTILSAIL The Green Tract contains 169 acres and was purchased for 11608 ,400 , or 113 ,600 per acre. The close proximity of this tract to the present landfill was determined to be the most cost-effective location for a new landfill site. Its purchase has eliminated the need for transfer stations and new approach routes , thus avoiding the disruption of other areas of the county that an alternative site may have caused. 104 III. ISSUES AND IMPLICATION Since the purchase of the Green Tract, local residents have expressed many concerns about the potential landfill during public hearings, and through petitions and letters to the Planning Department. The threat of groundwater contamination is a major concern. The absence of an environmental impact study has led some residents to believe that alternative sites as well as alternative means of solid waste disposal have not been adequately explored. Illegal dumping in the present dumpsite has been observed by some residents, and this has further alarmed them about the prospect of a second dumpsite. Two other concerns of area residents are the proximity of the site to Chapel Hill High School and Seawell Elementary School and a possible decline in quality-of-life and area property values. Alternatives such as incineration, a combination shredding/landfill program, recycling, and the joint manage- ment of solid wastes with surrounding counties have been explored by the Task Force and continue to be evaluated on an ongoing basis. However, at this point, sanitary landfill remains the most cost-effective method available to Orange County. IV. azumaia 1 . Memorandum, "The Future of Solid Waste Disposal in Orange County" , from Orange Regional Landfill Task Force to Carrboro Board of Aldermen , Chapel Hill Town Council , Orange County Board of Commissioners, January 6 , 1984. 2. Minutes, Solid Waste Task Force, April 9 , 1986 . 3 . Minutes, Public Hearing, April 17 , 1986 . 4. Minutes, Planning Board Meeting, May 19 , 1986 . 5 . Correspondence, Margaret Scott, April 18, 1986 , Mrs. Thelma Duncan, April 18 , 1986 , Forrest M. Council , April 18, 1986 , John H. Lacey, April 18, 1986 , Janice P. Scroggs, R.D. , M.P.H. , May 1 , 1986 , W.A. Scott, April 17, 1986 , Marcia 011is, Liz Peters, Amy Wong , June 5 , 1986 . 105 STREETS/HIGHWAYS I. QUALITATIVE DATA The North Carolina Department of Transportation is solely responsible for the development, maintenance. and improvement of highways in the rural buffer. Since Orange County does not maintain a street system. streets serving individual developments are provided, owned. and maintained by individuals. II. QUANTITATZYE DATA The Thoroughfare Plan for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro portion of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro-Durham urbanized area contains highway projects in and near the rural buffer. The proposed Thoroughfare Plan for Hillsborough also contains highway projects in or near the rural buffer. The Transpor- tation Improvements Program for North Carolina contains additional highway projects. Projects that impact the rural buffer are: 1. Widen NC 86 - highest priority for widening will be between 1-40 and the present 5 lane section that ends at Homestead Road; the balance of NC 86 between I-40 and 1-85 will be widened as the need arises 2. Widen Old 86 - widen north of 1-40 to Hillsborough. purchase of additional right - of-way will precede widening 3. Davis Road (SR 1129) - extend eastward from Old 86 to NC 86. extend westward from Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to Borland Road (SR 1126) 4. Crossroad Church Cemetery Road (SR 2231) - extend eastward from dead end to Turner Road (SR 1130) 5. Weaver Dairy Road Extension - extend Weaver Dairy Road westward from NC 86 to Homestead Road (SR 1777) 6. Homestead Road (SR 1777) - relocate to south of Calvander and extend from Hillsborough Road (SR 1009) westward to Hatch Road (SR 1944) 7. Laurel Hill Parkway - construct an outer by-pass south of Chapel Hill and Carrboro by extending old Fayetteville Road (SR 1937) from Jones Ferry Road (SR 1942) to NC 54 at the Durham County line Since Orange County does not maintain a street system. streets serving individual developments are provided. owned, and maintained by individuals. o6 III. Funding is not available for all highway projects that have been identified as necessary to provide acceptable levels of highway service. As a results highway construction lags behind need. This is expected to continue. It will be a more serious problem in areas where rapid growth is occur- ring. The reliance on private roads will continue since the rural buffer is not intended to become part of Chapel Hill or Carrboro. IV. REFERENCES. 1. Thoroughfare Plan for Chapel Hill and Carrboro 2. Proposed Thoroughfare Plan for Hillsborough 3. North Carolina Department of Transportation 4. Transportation Improvement Program for North Carolina • 107 1 1 i ' l r 1 ,/.••••• r r•• it d 1 jun% I 1 1 K---''F'---- 111111111411111., lig . 1 1 r:1• i ri _ n ..• g ,it, ~ -,'" Q• : -Ik :.::‘ ••'.. i ) 0.4 L, tr...F.E. ,.,..1?.i::-,,i-::„._. J ■ l_:.Q :..... ,'•';.`, Zi5;; 1 RICO CPA MA St• w� �' p tip �n.-0. t - �. _i{ , •■ ; �,' r , - 11 I a lt", Z.,..- ...6.1%,\.4. , yi.fi tiN/U4551*;41 Olilik a..,,Ain . 5 •••' :liiib VW . ......T :,.. r'ft \ , . I IS *. '1'1g -fig . :::::::::: ,:,,,:.::.::: . it..::.:. . ..'''''F. mg. .N, -I 01AP F_ . Ili i Lf t_ iglif ... - ayL, 'N: \ 1 .,.. ......, .irr p ir,....0.qi,:i:•.-i J- *,:-- .%77;..ir::::4 \ ,--Iv '1% \ -,,,,. _ , .. :. .a. ., ."— " " .. t i ( .--' ,o' .... .,--7/"'. _ , ler 44:. 4:::1: 110t1 r;* Igitiilif I -,...- - ./ r.,1 1,61. ,, A.4 ......, '',• rt j��rrw ��tic_�� itAls..:::, .:.�.43'ta r -, 1�'.., g "�• ..eCIO4 .',. ,( 11. ..... iliklb . • �.�� p ., •., ., ..,- . :• :•• . ::•... , , ......0 , _ it . . '.... • N.,...„..„,_ 71::::..,:.,::: .... i, �j loth t— • - ♦ 1 ' 1 , >4-9 � 4 .,_..0,1„. 7 , ..-ks '-wirlikt, ;A, ,-, , I 1 �.r► ,� \. u . _ _ .� N. Chatham•L`. . • '.1i 111 •• • .�• •�•J Couray • scams: _ O STREETS HIGHWAYS • 'P° •• Under construction ■°• 1■1■ Proposed 108 109 RAILROADS I. QUALITATIVE DATA A spur of the Southern Railroad crosses the northern portion of the rural buffer. II. QUANTJTATIVE DATA A single track extends from the mainline of the Southern Railroad near 1-85 south to Carrboro. All crossings are at grade. Warning signals have been installed at busy crossings such as NC 86. Traffic volumes on this track are described by N.C. Department of Transportation as less than one per day. It • appears that traffic volumes are more accurately described as one train per week. The only regular customer of rail service on this track is the UNC Power Plant. One coal train per week provides fuel to the Power Plant. Other customers make incidental use of rail service. III. ISSUES/IMPLICATIONS. UNC is up-grading the Power Plant so the rail service for coal deliveries will be needed for the forseeable future. As automobile traffic increases at rail crossing. more warning signals will be needed. IV. REFERENCES 1. North Carolina Department of Transportation. Traffic Engineering Branch 2. Transportation Improvement Program for North Carolina Rio a i 111 TRANSMISSION LINES I , QUALITATIVE DATA Transmission Lines for electricity and natural gas cross the rural buffer . II . QUANTITATIVE DATA High voltage electrical transmission lines and sub- stations owned by Duke Power Company and Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation are located in the rural buffer . The locations of these facilities are shown on the attached map. A high pressure natural gas transmission line owned by Public Service Company is also located in the rural buffer. Its location is also shown on the attached map . A second natural gas transmission line is located in the right-of-way of US 15-501 through Orange County. It does not actually lie within the rural buffer. It does parallel the rural buffer boundary in southeast Orange County. Piedmont plans to extend its transmission north to the Eno substation. This extension will be parallel to Duke Power Company ' s 44000 kw line which is the western most of the two north-south Duke Power transmission lines . Utility transmission lines are located in rights-of- way. The width of the rights-of-way varies with the type and age of the transmission line. New electrical transmission lines are located on 100 ' or 150 ' wide rights-of-way. Older electrical transmission lines are located on narrower rights- of-way. The Duke Power Company transmission lines serving the Eubanks substation are an example of this . The right-of- way for those lines is 68' wide. The Public Service Company natural gas line that runs roughly east-west through Orange County is located in a 50 ' wide right-of-way. The width of the rights- of-way for the transmission lines located in the rural buffer are shown on the attached map. III . IMPACT/IMPLICATIONS While a necessary part of the provision of electrical and natural gas service, transmission lines consume a signi- ficant amount of land . Transmission line rights-of-way cannot be included ag. part of the buildable portion of a building lot . As such; subdivisions must be designed around the rights-of-way. ra" ` .. IV. REFERENCES 1 . Duke Power Company 2 . Piedmont. Electric Membership Company 3 . Public Service Company 112 /i■-) N■ ,.� i ; , 1 1 l \7' ++ ;..,4 , 111 11111•i°we 111 . ( � v ". , C a __,,,...L.,..„,:.H. . : 1:.' .7, \11 • III', ,--"'"i iwilis . ,i , ..-45' ,4. .irt- ... . .....,,, . IL::,:.:;..: -..., K"' 4E N—. pi I . , .. 0- *7 • } cr- -s 1'1' -..7%-:*''':'P 'r-Pc /--' 1./! ej° '11 ,dhlli ' ,triip so, 11, A'11.-_,. .„ 1. IP I 1.,-,.,;:.,,,,.::...,-:-,,,3 *t tk i ,f., r...-....,_-,, . WO - ,ig • ..,, i , r..1 .... \ 1..,--) 1 t / 4 f I Tarr.14,114r4.,„ .r.':':"!:. i i 47'. 44.:;4-4 :I f','..t,' '''' :d °mud al , j ass..04,4-' i AO ••• 1 i . 7,.„_,,imt ,:.;,,k:::::Ii.,:;;,. ..::., ..,.. II,...:,:f.:.A •'.' . 0,,.“t '•••"' /.,„ . I 411 �,,! d • ,.::N• V r. �• r... „1.. ' • / .,.. :1114 .-% .i, I reiL'- aiiiii& I ii ' ..4,...;,...„ -No NI 3 r"'aft k / , 1 .0 ., IR-mat'1 - ...- ...- :::::.17,%:::: . 111.:4 it N... ,... .t. . a%L., k,\N. `..k -i igt0t.„.' 0 g. solus, ii 1..._L i ....:::::.::.:: fill"----- I • "k liiii:711 jr-.:::,.:::'1,=•.°".•''......0_,LI ...:... f�\__iii 1 .� w nit b • / `ri 1 '�+ :4' • \.• ,•:�;:.r? :•f P•.Ki•„ ;.....:.:.yi 1...ii......i.::::::.*....i......:......:.*::::::::A.:...".11 .1 - i• I'•; 47::41.4.1.:I.:.• '* iiv.-itielk;d: II:.if./..140:::44::::y I. r 4 F r rtk...._.:_sy.:::://vi.:1.1::iii.i.;:f':zi,?!..i,,' . • *� �/ �' � „ :• Wi:1 i - 'i 1 +- • :�� . : ,� � �i-. . 111111(:10,4t4 �-►i iie 1 .l .e.fir \ r ' �' 1 .ter . ._\. !�. 1.. "'*8 .� a (,, .:1:ce1 .r �• \ \ -i- --- - • Ott i 1 <-...-.7- '1 . # ( ......._.... Chatham Caunfy r . 6,..m• ■r..... t., ;Jv • .gm, •rw.. ,MM• ■ •r • I0 T•RANSM1S::1.0N LINES �°�e` • qWr3 •sums D..ke Power Co. • -- I':Q dmont EMC ▪—mow Public Setvice Co. 113 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION I. giaTaThily1U26n Public transportation service in Orange County is provided by Chapel Hill Transit and the County Department on Aging. II. QUANTITATIVE DATA Regularly scheduled and demand responsive public trans- portation service provided by Chapel Hill Transit is not available in the Rural Buffer area. The transportation service provided by the Department on Aging, Coordinated Area Transportations is provided county- wide. The service is available to clients of several local social services such as OPC Mental Health Center. III. IMPACT/IMPILATIONS The low density development allowed in the rural buffer will make the provision of public transportation service in the rural buffer very unlikely. As a rule, the passenger and revenue producing capacity of low density development is insufficient to justify provision of public transportation service. Rideshare service and park and ride facilities may be considered at some point in the future. IV. REFERE1 S 1. Chapel Hill Transit 2. Orange County Department on Aging 3. North Carolina Department of Transportation. 114 x 115 EXISTING LAND USE I . DESCRIPTIVE DATA In May of 1985, a survey of existing land use in the Joint Planning Area was completed. Major land use categories utilized in the survey were Residential, Service, Trade, Production, Open Space, Undeveloped, and Other . Existing land uses were mapped at a scale of 1 "=1000 ' and a table of land uses and acreages was compiled for inclusion in the text of the Plan. II . QUANTITATIVE DATA Acreages and respective percentages for the various land uses were as follows: LAND USE ACRES PERCENTAGE Residential 3,565 8.1 Service 469 1 .1 • Trade 53 0.1 Production 178 0 .4 Open Space 21 ,459 48.9 Undeveloped 15,512 35 .4 Other 2,634 6 .0 TOTAL 43,870 100 .0 Building permits issued in Chapel Hill Township and the University Lake Watershed for 1985 (watershed only) and 1986 have been tabulated to determine land use changes in the area since the survey was completed. All changes were in residen- tial acreage with an increase of 569 acres . This represents a 16X increase in residential acreage for the two year period. III . ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS The building permits account for 157 dwelling units which averages 3.62 acres per unit for the period 1985 to 1987. While this is an average figure, the trends seem to indicate that residential development is occurring on lots larger than the zoning ordinance requires. IV. REFERENCES 1 . Joint Planning Land Use Plan& "Summary of Existing Land Use," p. 40, October 1986. 2. Tabulation of Building Permit Activity for Chapel Hill Township and the University Lake Watershed for 1985 and 1986 by Current Planning Division. 116 117 RURAL BUFFER STUDY POPULATION 6 FEBRUARY 87 I . QUANTITATIVE DATA Population projections for Chapel Hill Township, as presented in the current Joint Planning Land Use Plan, are presented in Table 1 . Also presented below are the projected populations of the unincorporated portion of Chapel Hill Township between 1980 and 2000, using the projections provided in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan . The figures imply heavy annexation between 1985 and 1990, with the township population increasing 14% while the population in the unincorporated portion of the township decreases 8% . Lesser amounts of annexation are implied between 1990 and 1995 and between 1995 and 2000. TABLE 1 : POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP AND ITS UNINCORPORATED PORTION YEAR TOWNSHIP UNINCORP. PORTION 1980 50, 572 11 ,017 1985 61 , 415 16,271 1990 70, 187 14,936 1995 77 , 620 15, 187 2000 86,973 14, 545 Exact JPA population figures do not exist because the population figures in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan follow a different geographic boundary than the rest of the plan . Chapel Hill Township is used as the population base. Census block and enumeration district boundaries do not reflect the JPA, but their use can provide a more accurate reflection of population in the JPA than currently exists. Enumeration district boundaries alter the current population boundary by removing two portions of Chapel Hill Township outside the JPA; north of the Rural Buffer east of University Station Road and north of Davis Road; and adding a portion of Bingham Township bounded by Davis Road, Orange Grove Road, Dodsons Crossroads, NC54, and Chapel Hill Township . As Table 1 indicates, the difference in population between Chapel Hill Township and the revised boundary is small . Estimates of growth in the University Lake watershed are made easier, however, by the inclusion of most of the Bingham Township portion of the watershed into the population boundary area . 118 TABLE 2 : POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP AND REVISED POPULATION BOUNDARY YEAR TOWNSHIP REVISED BOUNDARY 1980 50, 572 _ 50, 899 1985 61 , 415 61 , 812 1990 70, 187 . 70,640 1995 77,620 78, 122 2000 86, 893 87, 454 I I . ISSUESLIMPL JOII_QN1 The estimates of future growth are projections based on historical trends rather than forecasts based on a specific set of assumptions for the future. As such, the number tend to raise the issue only of whether the population figures represents levels and patterns considered acceptable. Acreage estimates and population projections in tl.e Joint Planning Land Use Plan use two separate sets of geographical boundaries . Acreage divisions between the municipalities and the JPA are based on extraterritorial jurisdictions . Population projections seem to be based on corporate limits, but no full explanation of the area definition is given . Confusion over the standards could have implications for timing of annexations of Transition Areas outside the ETJ . Subtracting the projected populations of Chapel Hill and Carrboro from either the Township or revised population boundary area shows a decrease in the population of areas outside the towns between 1985-1990 and 1995-2000 . The gain between 1990-1995 is marginal . Viewing population projections in light of the ETJ , rather than corporate boundaries, implies that Chapel Hill and Carrboro will conduct extensive annexation outside the ETJ before 1990 . Ill . REFERENCES 1 . Joint Planning Land Use Plan, October 1986 . 119 ir - ..L-.11.J./1. I. . i - J I. . '■ I rI ►1r , �. . ■5 +� \ .ter r �� • ; 1114 •i 11 �l r ` •. 1 f F� N._ �v w �� ` " rte. I t 1, ! ■iii _iii��, U � � .�.-- - . �... _/ - y_� �� e. ��;� �,c4 X71,' °�++ �• ,.nw i = '.wry, Zr.1. ii: �^ J �W ~K 1 . r _„ ~` .r. ! ter :-.,..-_,c - ..) i, ::, . .... '-x. ,L1, 04;011.. . ,. 4 ztene: - Xr nom` .0 1 , r 4 vt. , ,--,7. .t:r-- 1 aet-_,-.-- ..*:,--.,..._ ,_, 4 . 1 bu..mi.NiT li, — , -:-...- 1 qr. k _'414'. It ,Ir Nek 1 a l C '�s... � \ AP E Tf 1±,t_ � -to. _irka ~- .._•� �6 - v.' `� 'fir 't - \ ‘-. g i t /...... . k 4,- 01 . _,.4.74%4._ .i,__••••,__ _4;14.7.,,,till.714-3•41.;;r. :....,tAt _ 1 y ` - 1 �• ".aY.r .e i` ` �' :w: = •:::::...... ~`• �= : fir::•,. .„:::„... ....„.:-.... ,. .__:-.,, :::..A... 4;17.7P...•;... 1 VIF kr.. r• \' �- • , : r VAT '1:~ ▪ ~▪ 1='•• .1 `r i ti... ▪ ---.7.-4. p : . Wan f a, ". c IV %.;—CI;;4K a.( ( • ' '.. 1 0,,,, - _. „.... , ,-„..„ _::::......,_...4-...... - viii -,.,7-,A19. It.g '6-' i,--, --.-- .."..--. .z.: -,irr-" :.- "i.-.-.._,:. 1_. 1 I 11... 1 . i --,,.., fit . wt, ip ilitlaw-,;--..-- 44:::::-:::::: 7,-,..,--z---* -11 . , .4:: ,- • 11; 'kir-Air --'' ir "Pr' '141 . _. itilk?..illilir. *ris AL- ,6, . ---..„..L. . ,..,4 . 1, ,,,,,,_ .,If<-----"--- • --„ 401 *04"\VI •Olt ' je41- 114' - ... ....... . . .6 /I hip,iii,. -• " ill-' lama Chatham Cam - .. JPA POPULATION BOUNDARIES OliffR� straws: • .or 44 ..■=.._■_. Current Plan Boundary ■ • • • • • '.Adjusted boundary using Enumeration District Data 120 121 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY I . QUACITATIVE DATA The rural buffer, located as it is contiguous to either developed or developing areas in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, is the site of significant development . The type and amount of development reflects the influence of a number of factors . Among the most important of these factors is the absence of public facilities such as water and sewer service, constrain- ing characteristics of the land itself, the general areawide level of development activity, and public regulation such as zoning . II . QUANTITATIVE DATA Data that directly describes development activity solely in the rural buffer is not available. The rural buffer is a newly defined geographic area. As such- data compilations from previous years do not conform to the rural buffer. They define other geographic areas such as the University Lake Watershed or Chapel Hill Township (not including Chapel Hill 's and Carrboro ' s jurisdiction) . While this data does not exactly define the rural buffer, it does illustrate what is occurring in the rural buffer. An indication, not only of current development activity, but also development interest, is shown in subdivision activity. The following data described subdivision activity over the last three years. SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY NUMBER OF LOTS CREATED AVERAGE LOT SIZE CHAPEL HILL* UNIV. LAKE CHAPEL HILL* UNIV. LAKE TOWNSHIP WATERSHED TOWNSHIP WATERSHED ALL SUBDIVISIONS ALL SUBDIVISIONS 1984 76 38 2 .49 2.57 1985 115 67 2 .80 2.70 1986 218 199 1 .99 2.09 MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS 1984 28 21 3.10 2.88 1985 59 49 2 .40 2 .61 1986 171 181 1 .58 1 .92 122 MINOR SUBDIVISIONS MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 1984 48 17 2 .18 2 .19 1985 56 18 1.22 2 .93 1986 47 18 3 .50 3 .77 * Only includes subdivisions approved through Orange County subdivision regulations . Subdivision activity has increased over the last three years . This increase has occurred entirely in major sub- divisions . Major subdivisions occur when a Lot of record is divided into five or more lots . These subdivisions do not necessarily involve the creation of a large number of lots . The larger number of Lots being created is a result of a Larger number of subdivisions . The significant increase in the number of lots created in 1986 is a result of both more subdivision and larger subdivisions . Of these two factors, larger subdivisions was the most significant . An example of this is Laurel Springs subdivision . This 78 lot: subdivision is located in Chapel Hill Township and University Lake Watershed. Because of this, it is included in both sets of numbers shown. The average Lot size in Laurel Springs is 1 .51 acres . While other subdivisions with fewer lots had smaller average lot size, a subdivision as large as Laurel Springs significantly affect the overall average lot size for the township and - watershed. In this case the effect is a smaller average lot size. Another significant factor is that average lot size in minor subdivisions is much larger than in major subdivisions . While subdivision activity is an indication of develop- ment interest, building permits are an indication of actual development activity. The following chart shows building permit activity in the University Lake Watershed . BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED 1985 1986 PERMITTED ACTIVITY PW-II WQCA TOTAL PW-II WQCA TOTAL New Work 35 4 39 64 6 70 Mobile Home 21 0 21 29 0 29 Addition 4 1 5 17 0 17 Accessory 4 1 5 11 2 13 Other 0 0 0 3 0 3 Total 64 6 70 124 8 132 Note: PW-II = Protected Watershed II Zoning WQCA = Water Quality Critical Area Zoning 123 The sharp increase in building permit activity between 1985 and 1986 is best reflected in the increase in the number of permits issued for new work . These are all permits issued for the construction of single family residences. The 79% increase in construction of houses does not carry through to a similar increase in the number of mobile homes . While the 38% increase is still significant, it is considerably less than for houses . III. IMPACTS/ IMPLICATIONS A significant amount of development activity is occur- ring in the rural buffer. The amount of development is increasing and based on the number of subdivision lots being created should continue to increase. It is significant to note that this is occurring despite the absence of water and sewer service. It is also significant to note that this development is entirely residential . The data also suggests that the new two acre minimum lot size requirement will have a limited effect on development activity. It will have little effect on minor subdivisions . Only 8 of the 47 lots created by. minor subdivision in Chapel Hill Township were less than two acres in size . The effect will be most noticed with the larger major subdivisions . These, particularly, had lot sizes between one and two acres in size. They account for most of the 172 major subdivision lots that were created in Chapel Hill Township in 1986 that were less than two acres in size. It is likely that the two acre requirement will not stop new large subdivisions, but that these subdivisions will have fewer lots . IV. REFERENCES 1 . Orange County Development Records 124 \ - LIS MS eiov.7e5,S4 4 I MIIII 0 ..,•■ I \ . riot s it- ,\4'"... . ,...... y . . :- . / -4111I n w f ..er- ...., 17;--ga \.01/4.1, 0-- A . - l'ulino# ..,,e Y,,tkon,H. 711H7\1 1 i■ , 01 ,•';`•. '0 'ft ••,. r woe i --- "••■ : % . '. 4/1 likifird- 1 •Iiedilliktikip-iiini=iliprik ,i,,A0 /A4': k.4.1,1 MV,Jiti:i;' ,..2z.' :Z„)kaillate 1 wo t•k'•+.' $ ;11A1'' ,ea....„..-., -f, blintliFil'ul W_ tiliii -71 •r. ""; ''/-4F, - 47.:.;:c:.2tt...t:::t.ZZ:".,7;;;,".t..::,..:' .7-;:.I ,. ..,, _At' . . a :.......... , . .,..... . .- .a S . rr 4 -741141111, I •y ,,w •iia ,L' a �. • r, \11,' ' yy�� At e r w ;� • it / 111. - :iii- 16-fiatr_i . I. .,•\-.4 , ii ...L.:4 ' 1"-ak" \ 1 'i 5 11,1k ' will' 011141—i4:-.1::: ?::',71:::.....:iii.-V:.:71Y1F-... = - -." 1 • ...b2 47.aliii*ZI, ::::::..1,.E..a" '-'-` ,r,07 ... 1 , �# - ,0, ,. •• .%•. • .: : -' .=-�A •I l 111`,ri..r. /�� tic :::4 +a�VS, 41Cb :..`i•, T•▪ •7._ •' : ``vii: \ .. ;.1.:A. .� .-• L::?. ?5 ;;:..;: ' t:d •/1 r • A = � t ••- -+� _ _ .. • •a:▪•.w••.:. 1, :,»:5:::::• 7��ark':-17A ::.430-114,- ▪ r s r i�:1 • :• +▪ s Sr V + : ( fi 1 r _ _..iiilliSt)4 ke. ,:I t r� 1.•rr � •' • -r-..).TI j r '•• / Chatham =.. • . w _4x� • • + �• • DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 1984-1986 SCALE (ii: r 4�► II MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS - A MINOR SUBDIVISIONS 125 1 _ _ yy r" I -- , c w �r• I r / ' As . ` , — ` , ( . . -1'. ' %.:fr ON tillhi --''_ 4V• #.)* la 1 .mdmilliWik fa *. Al' ri IP_ _ -ii 7...-41iliak..1... ;', . .. lk ,k 0, ,,e k Y.. -, l--' ! ' di -.. - 9,10: - ....-..-:,,..-?--....,- , ".4 t., »" ■ * aria.p err. --(---- _ *-r I nia"4,7041;'/7. 1.• -/ : I 4.rn!I -'5--Z -•'-'-,-.- -.7 A,_ 'i J„t �4, li • 17 01.1„,\_ :. . rg 1-,'... ...\,i N bt:' P *.:fr. -.-.1,1q111,--;;_. .- Mr ..^ . • 4,:,,,:t:::. t a t. '''' :::: 40 - ••••,_ h* Y _ 1 J jyr .r 4 ~ • T W ° III 4. AV y mi.. -'"11A ,,,_„,!,--• redIANIMPAIIra 1.-..Lr2 iwIo.:it,_• _ %,,_. gm ' _,,,g/;>1"__, Ibiel,„ ,, ct .,. k.p1 _a � M 1 • ,_ _ +~rt L. f ";•:ire:.; 1‘ %_ i..... . :::::::::::::: . , 1 _, --...; --.1:4 , , ./ I. Iii iiit , , ( - -- li PR* . �. • twin --,- . per•~•�• • • ?lilt vp.:7/_. ••• / • .....1 I Chatham • '• 4 A • • .r- CourMy �•� • APPENDIX C. POLICY A N A LYS I II a- I 127 APPENDIX C - POLICY ANALYSIS Phase 1 - Compilation of Policies, Goals, Objectives, • Proposals & Standards Land Use Circulation Housing Open Space Conservation Health & Safety Phase 2 - Issues vs. Policies Land Use Circulation Housing Open Space Conservation Health & Safety Phase 3 - Proposed Changes to Policies, Goals, Objectives, Proposals & Standards Land Use Circulation Housing Open Space Conservation Health & Safety 128 1. 4.117 r 11 129 RU AL BUFFER STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 1 Compilation of Policies, Goals. Objectives. Proposals. & Standards ELEMENT: LAND USE • The numbers in parentheses following the policies. goals. objectives, proposals. and standards are keyed to the list of references at the end. POLICY (1) Designate the rural. low density land surrounding the urban areas, but beyond the Transition Areas. as Rural Buffer. This area will remain rural in character. will not require urban services and will maintain farming or rural non-farm residential development as the most appropriate land use. Future consideration will be given to designating Rural Buffer areas around other Towns in the County. (1) p. 3.5-3. (2) Prohibit new industrial uses in the area designated Rural Buffer. (1) p. 3.5-4. (3) The following Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes have been designated: Toler's Store (CG-3) ; Villine' s Store (CG-4) ; 'Walnut Grove (CG-5) ; Underwood's Store (LR-3) ; Berry's Grove (LR-4) ; Harris Crossroads (LR 5) ; Fairfield (CK-4) ; Lighthouse Church (CK 5) ; Bowman (CK-6) ; Buckhorn (CK-7) ; Coleman Loop (HB-1) ; 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 Station (CHT-7) . (1) p. 3.5-5. (4) The "southern triangle" area will develop only after all the suitable land south of and between the Duke Forest tracts has been developed. (1) p. 3.12-10. (2) p. 53. (5) The rural residential and agricultural character of the Township outside the Towns and adjacent transition areas should be maintained. (1) p. 3.12-5, (2) p. 52. (1) The management of growth so that it is directed to areas where growth is desirable and can be accommodated. (1) p. 3.5-2. (2) A land use planning process which is responsive to the citizens and communities of Orange County. (1) p. 3.5-11. (3) Orderly development which protects the natural environment and provides for attractive. appropriate location and compatibility of land uses with respect to each other. (3) p. 6. OBJECTIVE (1) Discourage development of land which is: 1) not contiguous to existing developed areas; 2) which would require significant extensions of water and sewer lines across undeveloped tracts; and 3) which would exceed existing capacities of public facilities and infrastructure. (3) p. 7. (2) Rural lands currently existing between the Chapel Hill/Carrboro urban area and Hillsborough (rural buffer) should be preserved. (2) p. 52. 13o PROPOSAL (1) RURAL BUFFER. The Rural Buffer extends from the western boundary of the 9rowns' planning jurisdictions to the outer edge of the University Lake 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. (1) p. 3.12-11. (2) Replace "Urban Residential" designations in Carrboro area with "Suburban Residential" classifications and extend "Rural Buffer" south to follow northern boundary of Homestead Highlands tract and UNC property. thence along Bolin Creek and Buckhorn Branch to Old N.C. 86 . thence down N.C. 86 to incorporate the William E. Blackwood. Berry Roberson and J.V. Brockwell properties located on the west side of Old N.C. 86. (4) p. 37 . (3) Change all area north and east of I-40 to Rural Buffer. (5) • (4) That a Rural Buffer be created around the Towns; that the . buffer be characterized and attained through the retention of large tracts developed at low densities with cluster development. together with the preservation of the Duke Forest Lands with conservation uses. (6) STANDARD (1) Density of one dwelling unit per two acres in the Rural Buffer adopted by County Commissioners on August 19. 1986. (7) (2) $yburbarl Residential . . .located in the Transition Areas where. . .housing densities range from one to five units per acres. (2) p. 79. (3) Ur an Residential . . .densities are higher. ranging from six to thirteen units per acre. (2) p. 80. (4) Surrounding the area , of urban development is a rural residential area projected for development at very low densities of one unit per two acres. outside the service area for water and sewer extensions. (8) REFER. NCES:, 1. Orange County Land Da plan. September 1981. 2. Joint planning Land flag Plant October 1986 . 3. Town of Chapel Hill. "Goals and Objectives". March 3, 1986 . 4. Orange County Board of Commissioners Agenda. August 19, 1986 . 5. Town of Chapel Hill resolution recommending adoption of a Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area. July 14. 1986. 6 . A resolution stating the Town of Carrboro' s recommendations on the Joint Planning Area Draft Land Use Plan. May 20. 1986 . 7 . Minutes, Orange County Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting. August 19. 1986 . 8. Town of Chapel Hill. DRAFT IliTEEN LAND IL" i, EARL June 17. 1986 . 131 RURAL SUFFER STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 1 Compilation of Policies. Goals, Objectives. Proposals, & Standards ELEMENT: CIRCULATION The numbers in parentheses following the policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards are keyed to the list of references at the end. pQLICY None GOAL (1) An efficient and balanced transportation system. (1) p. 3.5-9 (2) A road system which will accommodate the safe and • efficient movement of people and goods within the planning jurisdiction. and by joint agreement outside the planning jurisdiction, for public, private, and commercial vehicles from bicycles to buses and trucks. (2) p. 10. DBJECTIV$ (1) To provide for the orderly development of an adequate major street system as land development occurs; (2) To reduce travel and transportation costs; (3) To reduce the cost of major street improvements to the public through the coordination of the street system with private action; (4) To enable private interests to plan their actions. improvements. and development with full knowledge of public intent; (5) To minimize disruption and displacement of people and businesses through long range advance planning for major street improvements; (6) To reduce environmental impacts such as air pollution, resulting from transportation; and (7) To increase travel safety. (3) PROPOSAL L (1) The classification scheme used describes roads according to the following categories: Interstate, arterial. collector and local. The Interstate and arterial 132 highways provide the best service (shortest travel times) to and from important employment. shopping. educational and population centers. They are chatacterized by relatively high travel speeds with minimum interference to through movement. Collector roads provide areas with access to the major road system. Local roads are least important in terms of traffic movement. but provide the greatest service in terms of land area. 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. ,STANDARD (1) Street Classifications Matrix - too lengthy to enumerate. (2) p. 61. (2) Location Standards Matrix - Transportation Accessibility - too lengthy to enumerate. (2) p. 62. • REFERENCES:, (1) Orange County. Land nal Plc September 1981. (2) Town of Chapel Hill. "Goals and Objectives." March 3. 1986 . (3) Chapel gill/Carrboro Thoroughfare, plan, Draft. Phase I Report. September 30, 1982. • 133 RURAL FFF$ $TUD� POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 1 Compilation of Policies. Goals. Objectives, Proposals & Standards ELEMENT, HOUSING The numbers in parentheses following the policies. goals. objectives. proposals. and standards are keyed to the list of references at the end. POLICY (1) 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 available. Lower density (a minimum of one dwelling unit per acre) non-farm housing is most appropriate in rural and community areas outside of productive farmland areas. (1) p. 3.5-6. • (2) Discourage medium and higher density residential development in the rural areas of the County. (1) p. 3.5-7 . (3) Support the use of individual mobile homes as a useful housing resource in the County by affording these homes the same locational opportunities as single-family units meeting the State Building Code. (1) p. 3.5-7 . GOAL (1) Adequate. reasonably priced safe housing in an appropriate variety of types in proximity to jobs and daily activities for all citizens. (1) p. 3.5-6. OBJECTIVE None PROPOSAL (1) The combined acreage in all residential categories is 12,525. Subtracting out 15% of the area for streets and roads results in a net acreage of 10.646 . The total population which would reside in the Joint Planning Area if completely built out. would be 23.543 persons. (2) Population projections.. .indicate an estimated range of 15.000 to 38.300 persons residing in the Joint Planning Area. The holding capacity of the three residential categories designated on the Plan would approximate the 4 middle range of the population projections. (2) p. 81. 134 STANDARD (1) RUZAl Residential, . . .a low density area consisting of single family homes (mobile homes also) situated on large lots two acres in size or greater. The Rural Residential designation is identical to the Rural Buffer category. . . (2) p. 71. (2) Suburban Residential . . .includes single-family homes, du- plexes, apartments, condominium and townhouse projects. Housing densities. . .range from one to five units per acre. (2) p. 79. (3) Urban Residential . ..includes housing types identical to those found in Suburban Residential areas. However, densities are higher, ranging from six to thirteen units per acre. (2) p. 80. REFERENCES: (1) Orange County Land jbgg Plan , September 1981. (2) Joint Planning Land IISS P1an , October 1986. 135 RURAL MEER STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 1 Compilation of Policies, Goals, Objectives, Proposals, & Standards ELEMENT: OPEN SPACE The numbers in parentheses following the policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards are keyed to the list of references at the end. POLICY (1) Duke Forest tracts will not be developed over the period 1980-2000. (1) p. 3.12-10, (2) p. 53. (2) The existing open space system in Chapel Hill Township, which includes 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. (1) p. 3.12-15. (2) p. 52. GOAL (1) Maximum availability and use of recreational land. facilities. and open space land to serve citizens at both the County-wide and community level. (1) p. 3.5-10. (2) The rural residential and agricultural character of the Township outside the Towns and adjacent transition areas should be maintained. (1) p. 3.12-5. (2) p. 52. (3) Rural lands currently existing between the Chapel Hill- Carrboro urban area and Hillsborough (rural buffer) should be preserved. (2) p. 52. OBJECTIVE None EROPQSAL (1) 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. (1) p. 3.12-11. 136 (2) Resource Conservation., Four categories of land have been depicted on the Land Use Plan for resource conservation purposes. These categories include Resource Protection Areas, Public/Private Open Space Areas. Agricultural Preservation Areas and Water Quality Critical Areas. (Of particular relevance to OPEN SPACE are Resource Protection Areas and Public/Private Open Space Areas.) (3) Resource Protection Areas designated on the Land Use Plan include flood plains and wetlands along drainage tributaries and steep slope areas (15% or greater) . (4) Major land areas owned or controlled by both public and private interests in the Joint Planning Area have been designated on the Land Use Plan. These areas include the following: 1. Duke Forest; 2. University of North Carolina Lands; 3. U.S. Government lands associated with conservation areas around the Jordan Lake Reservoir; 4. Orange Water and Sewer Authority lands associated with conservation areas around University Lake and raw water storage in the former quarry site on N.C. Highway 54; and 5 . Camp New Hope Conference and recreational center. (2) pp. 82-83. ,^?TAWARD (1) LOCATIONAL CRITERIA: PUBLIC INTEREST AREA - too lengthy to enumerate (1) p. 3.4-7. (2) LOCATION STANDARDS MATRIX: RESOURCE CONSERVATION - too lengthy to enumerate - (2) p. 62. REFERENCES ` (1) Orange County, Land ILIA P, an, September 1981. (2) Joint planning, land all Elan, October 1986 . 137 RURAL, BUFFER STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 1 Compilation of Policies. Goals, Objectives. Proposals & Standards ELEMENT: CONSERVATION The numbers in parentheses following the policies, goals. objectives, proposals, and standards are keyed to the list of references at the end. POLICY (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) ; state or federally designated historic/archaeological sites; research oriented lands (Duke Forest) ; and lands placed by individual property owners into conservation easements. (1) p. 3.5-1. (2) Maintain and protect land which contains valuable renewable resources such as productive agricultural areas, managed forest areas and potential reservoir sites by directing incompatible development away from these areas. (1) p. 3.5-1. (3) Protect non-renewable resource lands from incompatible development and allow their use in a safe and reasonable manner according to performance _ standards designed to ensure a sufficient level of environmental protection. (1) p. 3.5-1. (4) Direct intensive land uses to existing urban areas designated Transition areas and away from areas which are suitable for continued agricultural uses and which are protected as water supply watersheds and water quality critical areas. (1) p. 3.5-2. (5) Minimize the relocation of bonafide farming operations caused by non-farm development. (1) p. 3.5-5. (6) 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 operations and concentrations of prime farmland. (1) p. 3.5-5. (7) 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. (1) p. 3.5-5. (8) Discourage the Iodation of new non-farm development, particularly more intensive _,.residential development. within farming areas to minimize the incidence of complaints and nuisance suits against farm operations. (I) p. 3.5-6. (9) Encourage more effective forest management practices with consideration to discouraging inappropriate clear cutting, providing renewable energy resources and protecting wildlife habitats. (1) p. 3.5-6. 138 GOAL (1) The conservation and protection of Orange County' s natural and cultural environments by means which are equitable to all citizens of the County. (1) p. 3.5-1. • Y (2) The conservation of natural resources in Orange County. (1) p. 3.5-1. (3) 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. (1) p. 3.5-5. OBJECTIVE None EMEGSAL (1) RgSource Conservation, Four categories of land have been depicted on the Land Use Plan for resource conservation purposes. These categories include Resource Protection Areas, Public/Private Open Space Areas, Agricultural Preservation Areas and Water Quality Critical Areas. (Of particular relevance to CONSERVATION is Agricultural Preservation Areas) . (2) During the compilation of background information, a land use survey was conducted of the Joint Planning Area. The survey = indicated those land areas currently in use for agricultural purposes. This information was further verified through the Orange County Tax Office to determine those farms which qualified - for, and were listed for, use value taxation purposes. (2) pp. 82 84. (3) The presence of these unique natural features in Orange County suggests that special efforts should be made to manage these areas and sites so as to conserve and protect those characteristics that make the site biologically or geologically important. This may include regulatory measures to insure protection or preservation of those features. (3) p. 64. None REFERENCES: (1) Orange County Lind jag Plan,. September, 1981. (2) ,hut planning Land QSg ,plan., October. 1986. (3) Orange County Board of Commissioners minutes. September 16 . 1986 (Amendments to pages 2.2-6 and 2.2-7 of the Land Use Plan) 139 RURAL BUFFE4 $TUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 1 Compilation of Policies. Goals. Objectives, Proposals, & Standards ELEMENT: HEALTH/SAFETY The numbers in parentheses following the policies. goals, objectives, proposals, and standards are keyed to the list of references at the end. POLICY (1) Designate land in water supply watersheds which encircles the water supply impoundment and which drains directly into the impoundment and into the main channels of trunk streams feeding the impoundment as Water Quality Critical Areas. not suitable for moderate to high density residential development or non-residential development. (1) p. 3.5-4. (2) Prohibit the establishment of public water and sewer services in the areas designated Water Quality Critical Area, except to address emergency situations. (1) p. 3.5-7. (3) Adopt and implement policies which specify land use patterns and intensities of development in water supply watershed and Water Quality Critical Areas that will minimize potential adverse impacts on water quality. (1) p. 3.5-7 . (4) Commercial and industrial uses are inappropriate in the University Lake watershed. (1) p. 3.5-8. (5) Allow on-site disposal in low-density and rural areas where soil conditions are acceptable. In rural areas with unacceptable soils. state-approved on-site sewage disposals systems will be required. (1) p. 3.5-8. (6) Prohibit package sewage treatment plants in the areas designated Water Supply Watershed. (1) p. 3.5-9. (7) University Lake water supply watershed will only be developed for very low density residential and agricultural purposes to protect the quality of the water supply. (1) p. 3.12-10. (8) The University Lake Watershed Area should be protected for reasons of water quality; development should occur only at low densities. and water and sewer lines should not be extended into this watershed. (2) p. 52. (9) That sewer lines be allowed in the University Lake Watershed; that government continue the present practice of having developers pay for and construct their own systems and that developments within the transition area be required to be served by public water and sewer service. (3) 140 GOAL (1) Clean and safe water supplies available and adequate to meet future needs of the residents of Orange County. (1) p. 3.5-7 . (2) Adequate and appropriate sewer disposal facilities for all current and future residents. (1) p. 3.5-8. (3) An efficient and effective solid waste collection and disposal system for Orange County citizens. (1) p. 3 .5 10. (4) An efficient and effective system of public safety in the County. (1) p. 3.5-10. OBJECTIVE (1) University Lake water supply watershed should be developed in a manner which will protect the quality of water supply. Very low density residential, low intensity commercial and agricultural land uses are appropriate in this area. (1) p. 3 .12-6. PROPOSAL (1) WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED., Land draining to existing reservoirs which serve as public water supplies for the County, or to potential reservoir sites which have been designated for protection against threats to the water quality of future water supplies. (1) p. 3.3-2, (2) p. 57 . (2) WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA, Land draining directly to existing or future water supply impoundments by overland flow and interflow, called shoreland, and draining into the main channels of trunk streams emptying into the impoundments called non-basin drainage areas. (1) p. 3 .3-2, (2) p. 57 . (1) The Critical Area includes all lands which drain directly to University Lake and to major trunk streams feeding the reservoir. Only low density residential uses are permitted in this area at densities not to exceed one dwelling per two acres of land. (2) p. 83. REFERENCES 1. Orange, County, Land 1i. Maas. September 1981. 2. Joint Planning Land Rag plan, October 1986 . 3. A Resolution stating the Town of Carrboro' s recommenda- tions on the Joint Planning Area Draft Land Use Plan, May 20, 1986 . 141 RURAL BUFFER STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 2 Issues vs Policies LAS iT�E The following land use issues were identified in the DATA & ANALYSIS phase of the study: (1) Residential development in the Rural Buffer Zone is occurring on lots larger than currently required by the zoning ordinance. The average subdivided lot size for Chapel Hill Township for the last three years is 2.43 acres. The required two acre minimum lot size may cause large subdivisions to have fewer lots but will have a limited effect on overall development activity. (2) Together with slope, topographic relief is a direct influence on the water table and the location of streams and waterways. as well as soil erosion. Therefore any alterations in topographic relief or slope gradient may have far reaching effects on the entire area. (3) There are probably more moderate and severe soils than indicated by the soil maps due to the soil suitability matrix used. (4) Areas with soils unsuitable for conventional septic tank usage present an obstacle to development. Alternative sanitation systems tend to cost more. require more land for operation or perform less effectively. (5) The largest unbroken area of forest cover in the Rural Buffer is comprised of Duke Forest tracts. The study by the Urban Land Institute which is currently underway may possibly yield recommendations for uses other than the present educational. research and recreational uses. (6) The Orange County Board of Education is evaluating the potential for a new elementary school in the northern part of the Rural Buffer because several of the schools serving the Rural Buffer are near or at their ideal capacity. (7) While addressing the problems of unsuitable soils and failing septic tanks. water and sewer line extensions would defeat the purpose of the Rural Buffer. They would promote development at urban densities and subsequently, annexation. Comparing/contrasting the issues with policies. goals, objectives, proposals. and standards identified in phase I of POLICY ANALYSIS yields: Issue 1 is addressed quite well. Policy 1. though it 142 was written in 1981. is still relevant. It defines very well the intent and purpose of the Rural Buffer. Policies 2 and 5 speaks to prohibiting conflicting uses and maintaining the "residential and agricultural" character of the Rural Buffer. Goals 1 and 3. though quite general in scope. are consistent 4 with the intent and purposes of the Rural Buffer. Objective 2 specifically addresses the northern portion of the Rural Buffer in a straight-forward manner. Proposal 1. like Policy 1, addresses very well the purpose and intent of the Rural Buffer. It also defines the geographical boundaries. Proposal 4 addresses the large lot and low density objectives. but diverges somewhat in emphasizing cluster development. Finally. Standards 1 and 4 address the two acre minimum lot size succinctly. Issue 2 is stated somewhat generally and is addressed in the same fashion. Goal 1 is relevant if given a very liberal interpretation. Goal 3 is a little more specific although it still deals in generalities. Issues 3 and 4 are not addressed. It is questionable whether they should be considered under LAND USE. They are probably more appropriately addressed under HEALTH & SAFETY., Issue 5 is addressed fairly well. Proposal 1 defines the Rural Buffer and clearly states that Duke Forest is part of it. Proposal 4 is direct and to-the-point in that Duke is a component of the Rural Buffer and should be preserved. Issue 6 is not addressed. It is questionable whether it is a relevant issue. Issue 7 is addressed very well by Objective 1 and Standard 4 . Proposal 1 is also relevant if water and sewer lines is read into the rather general term of "urban services" . 143 AURAL BUEEER STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 2 Issues vs Policies CIRCULATION The following CIRCULATION issues were identified in the DATA & ANALYSIS phase of the study: (1) Since funding is not available for all highway projects that have been identified as necessary, highway con- struction will continue to lag behind need. Reliance on private roads will also continue in the Rural Buffer since Orange County does not maintain a street system. (2) The low density development allowed in the Rural Buffer is not sufficient to justify provision of public trans- portation. Ride-share service and park-and-ride facili- ties may be considered in the future. Comparing/contrasting the issues with policies. goals, objectives, proposals. and standards identified in phase I of POLICY ANALYSIS yields: Issue 1 is addressed only in a very general sense by Objective 3. It can be implied that the construction of private roads will reduce the costs of street improvements (though not major ones) to the public. Likewise. this will be done in a coordinated manner since private roads require County review and approval. Issue 2 is not addressed. 144 145 RURAL BUFFER STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 2 Issues vs Policies HODS INQ The following housing issues were identified in the DATA & ANALYSIS phase of the study: (1) Residential development in the Rural Buffer Zone is occurring on lots larger than currently required by the zoning ordinance. The average subdivided lot size for Chapel Hill Township for the last three years is 2.43 acres. The required two acre minimum lot size may cause large subdivisions to have fewer lots but will have a limited effect on overall development activity. (2) Areas with soils unsuitable for conventional septic tank usage present an obstacle to development. Alternative • sanitation systems tend to cost more, require more land for operation or perform less effectively. • (3) Local residents feel that use of the second landfill site will lead to a decline in the local quality of life and area property values. Comparing/contrasting the issues with policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards identified in phase I of POLICY ANALYSIS yields: Issue 1 agrees generally with policy 1, i.e. , low residential densities in the rural areas, but diverges considerably in terms of minimum lot size (l acre vs 2.43 acres) . Policy 2 is very general as is its agreement with Issue 1. Standard 1 is quite specific with regard to Rural Buffer lot sizes and best addresses Issue 1. Issue 2 is not addressed. It is questionable whether it should be addressed under HOUSING. It is more appropriately addressed under HEALTH & SAFETY. Issue 3 is not addressed. It is questionable whether it should be addressed under HOUSING. Quality of life might be addressed better under HEALTH & SAFETY. Property values probably fits best under LAND USE. 146 147 MAL BUFFER STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 2 Issues vs Policies OPEN $PACE The following open space issues were identified in the DATA & ANALYSIS phase of the study: (1) The largest unbroken area of forest cover in the Rural Buffer is comprised of Duke Forest tracts. The study by the Urban Land Institute which is currently underway may possibly yield recommendations for uses other than the present educational. research and recreational uses. (2) Development activity in the Rural Buffer has two impacts on Duke Forest properties. Erosion and runoff from development activity upstream may lead to the degrada- tion of surface water habitats. Increased development, not just in the Rural Buffer, but throughout the Chapel Hill/Durham region also places increasing recreation pressures on the forest. Comparing/contrasting the issues with policies. goals, objectives. proposals. and standards identified in phase I of POLICY ANALYSIS yields: Issue 1 is addressed extensively and from practically all perspectives. Policy 1 makes a short. but direct, statement about no development occurring in Duke Forest before 2000. Policy 2 identifies Duke Forest as part of the open space system and makes the general statement that it should be protected from incompatible uses. Goal 2 makes a general statement about preserving Rural Buffer lands which includes Duke Forest. Proposal 1 addresses the uses of Duke Forest as well as the function it serves in separating rural and transition areas. Proposal 4 defines Duke Forest as part of the open space system. Finally. Standard 1 lists a detailed set of location standards by which Public Interest Areas (Duke Forest) are defined. Issue 2 is not addressed very well. In fact. Goal 1 conflicts with it by encouraging the "maximum availability and use of recreational land, facilities, and open space. . . " (of which Duke Forest is assumed to be a part) . X48 • 149 RURAL Bu ER STSIPX - - POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 2 • Issues vs Policies CONSERVATION The following conservation issues were identified in the DATA & ANALYSIS phase of the study: (1) Together with slope, topographic relief is a direct influence on the water table and the location of streams and waterways. as well as soil erosion. Therefore any alterations in topographic relief or slope gradient may have far reaching effects on the entire area. (2) The adequate protection of biologically significant areas and historic sites is increasingly important in light of recent and proposed development in the Rural Buffer. However, providing protection for such areas and sites is difficult since their exact location and present status is not always known. (3) Escalating land prices due to residential demand in the Rural Buffer is making it more difficult to keep prime farm land in agricultural use. (4) Development activity in the Rural Buffer has two impacts on Duke Forest properties. Erosion and runoff from development activity upstream may lead to the degrada- tion of surface water habitats. Increased development. not just in the Rural Buffer, but throughout the Chapel Hill/Durham region also places increasing recreation pressures on the forest. Comparing/contrasting the issues with policies. goals. objectives. proposals. and standards identified in phase I of POLICY ANALYSIS yields: Issue 1 is addressed in a very general fashion by Proposal 1. Resource Protection Areas are referenced and steep slopes are a component of these although such is not referenced in Proposal 1. It is questionable whether Issue 1 is a relevant issue. Issue 2 is addressed in several places. but only in a general fashion. It is addressed somewhat by Policy 1 although there are discrepancies. Policy 1 addresses his- torical/archaelogical sites, but does not mention biologi- cally significant areas. It also assumes the location of such sites is known whereas Issue 2 states this is not always the case. Policy 3 could also be considered applicable if given a very liberal interpretation. The term non-renewable resources generally applies to mineral resources. but could also (I think) be expanded to cover historical/biological resources. Goal 1 speaks of protecting natural and cultural 150 environments. but offers no specifics on how such protection is to be accomplished. Finally. Proposal 3 recognizes the importance of unique natural areas and states that regulatory measures may be necessary to protect them, no specific measures are identified however. Issue 3 is given the greatest coverage and is addressed in varying levels of detail. Goal 3 speaks in general terms about the " . . .continued use of agricultural land and the maintenance of the farming way of life. . ." . but relies on the policies to get more specific. Policy 7 addresses the issue head on by recognizing that non-farm development in farming areas can inflate farm land values and price farmers out of the market. It proposes separation of such conflicting uses to prevent escalating land values. Policies 4. 5. and 6 also recognize the impacts of non-farm development on farm land and recommend separation of uses as a means to protecting farm land. These policies do not,. however. address escalating land values as does Policy 7 .. Issue 4 is addressed reasonably well by Policy 1 which advocates protecting " . . .significant Public Interest Districts from adverse development impacts. . ." . It does not. however. address the types of impacts as does the issue statement. Policy 9 is a little more specific in advocating " . . .more effective forest management practices. . ." as a means to " . . .protecting wildlife habitats. . ." (of which surface water habitats is a viable component). Recreational impacts are not addressed. 151 RURAL MUER ,STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 2 Issues vs Policies HEALTU �, SAFETY The following health and safety issues were identified in the DATA & ANALYSIS phase of the study: (1) Together with slope, topographic relief is a direct influence on the water table and the location of streams and waterways, as well as soil erosion. Therefore any alterations in topographic relief or slope gradient may have far reaching effects on the entire area. (2) There are probably more moderate and severe soils than indicated by the soil maps due to the soil suitability matrix used. (3) Areas with soils unsuitable for conventional septic tank usage present an obstacle to development. Alternative sanitation systems tend to cost more, require more land for operation, or perform less effective. (4) The increasing use, and increasing density, of septic tanks contribute to the potential risk of groundwater contamination especially during low flow conditions. (5) Local residents have expressed concerns over the absence of an environmental impact study prior to the acquisi- tion of the potential landfill site. They fear a second landfill will be a potential source of groundwater contamination. (6) Continued development in the Rural Buffer will increase the need for volunteer fire protection and rescue service as well as for police protection from the Orange County Sheriff's Department. (7) In response to the acquisition of the potential landfill site, residents have expressed concern over its proximity to schools. Comparing/contrasting the issues with policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards identified in phase I of POLICY ANALYSIS yields: Practically all of the issues identified relate to the soil and its suitability/unsuitability for septic tanks and landfills. On the other hand, the policies, goals, objec- tives, proposals, and standards deal almost exclusively with University Lake Watershed and there is little common ground between the issues and policies. Issue 1, if given a very general interpretation, agrees fairly well with Policy 1. Issue 2 is not addressed. 152 Issue 3 is addressed most directly by the second sentence in Policy 5 . It is also addressed in part by Policy 6 and Goal 2 (in a very general sense) . Issue 4 is addressed somewhat by Policy 3. Issue 4 places its emphasis on groundwater contamination whereas Policy 3 is geared toward surface waters in identified watersheds. If water is looked at in a generic sense and no distinction is made between groundwater and surface water, then the policy addresses the issue quite well. Issue 4 is at odds with Goal 1. While the goal is general in scope, " . . .clean and safe water supplies. . ." could be interpreted to mean groundwater as well as surface water. Issue 5 is addressed in only the most general sense by Goal 3 which calls for an efficient and effective solid waste collection and disposal system. . ." . It is questionable if this is a relevant issue since the new landfill site is not in the Rural Buffer. As with Issue 5, Issue 6 gets only cursory treatment with Goal 4 which calls for "An efficient and effective system of public safety in the County." Issue 7 is not addressed. It is questionable if this is a relevant issue since the new landfill site is not in the Rural Buffer. 153 RURAL RE$ STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 3 Proposed Changes to Policies, Goals, Objectives, Proposals and Standards LAND D Following the evaluation of issues in Phase 2, Current and Comprehensive Planning staffs met and discussed the findings. Some issues were deemed to be extraneous or irrelevant and were removed from consideration in Phase 3 . Also in Phase 2 the same issue was often referenced under different elements. In Phase 3 issues are not repeated, but rather have been assigned to the single most appropriate element. In this final phase of Policy Analysis, the remaining issues have been evaluated to see if they- were adequately addressed in the existing policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards. Proposed changes/additions to the policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards have been made where deemed appropriate. Land Use issues 1, 2, and 7 were carried forward. Issue 1, at least in the way it is stated, may not be an issue in the strictest sense. However, it is a recognition that development in the Rural Buffer seems to be occurring in general conformance with Rural Buffer intent and standards. Issue 1 is one of the few issues addressed "in full" , i.e. , by policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards. Only minor changes are proposed for these. Inserting "Chapel Hill/Carrboro" between "the" and "urban areas" in the first sentence of Policy 1 would make it specific to the Joint Planning Area. Likewise, referencing the "New Hope Creek drainage basin" and the "Southern Triangle Area" in Proposal 1 would make it complete with regard to Rural Buffer geo- graphy. Issue 2 is addressed only generally, although steep slopes and the environmental sensitivity of such to develop- ment was one of the cornerstones of environmental assessment in formulating the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Along with floodplains and areas of wetland vegetation, steep slopes (greater than 15%) make up the Resource Conservation areas in the plan. A short policy statement to the effect, "Areas of greater than 15% slope are environmentally sensi- tive and development in such areas shall be in strict con- formity to applicable sedimentation and erosion controls, should be adequate." Issue 7 is covered generally well by objectives, pro- posals, and standards. However, a strong policy statement concerning water and sewer lines in the Rural Buffer is needed too. Something short and to-the-point such as "Water and sewer lines will not be extended into the Rural Buffer during the time period covered by the Joint Planning Area Land Use .Plan," would seem appropriate. 15L 155 RURAL BUFFER STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 3 Proposed Changes to Policies. Goals, Objectives. Proposals and Standards CIRCULATION Following the evaluation of issues in Phase 2, Current and Comprehensive Planning staffs met and discussed the findings. Some issues were deemed to be extraneous or irrelevant and were removed from consideration in Phase 3 . Also in Phase 2 the same issue was often referenced under different elements. In Phase 3 issues are not repeated, but rather have been assigned to the single most appropriate element. In this final phase of Policy Analysis. the remaining issues have been evaluated to see if they were adequately addressed in the existing policies. goals, objectives, proposals, and standards. Proposed changes/additions to the policies, goals, objectives. proposals. and standards have been made where deemed appropriate. Circulation Issue 1 has been carried forward to Phase 3. It is questionable how much of an issue it really is. In terms of accommodating "through traffic" the Rural Buffer seems adequately served by the existing interstate and arterial highway system. 1-40 diagonally traverses the northern portion of the Rural Buffer with interchanges at its northern and southern boundaries. Likewise, arterial high- ways (Erwin Road. NC 86, Old NC 86. NC 54, Greensboro Road, Jones Ferry Road, and Mt. Carmel Church Road) radiate outward from the urban area in a very evenly spaced pattern. There is not an extensive network of collector roads connecting the arterials, however. This. coupled with the reliance on private roads would seem to complement the low density and rural character objectives of the Rural Buffer. No further policies, goals, objectives, proposals, or standards relative to Circulation are proposed. 156 157 AURAL BUFFER ,STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS -- PHASE 3 Proposed Changes to Policies. Goals. Objectives. Proposals and Standards HOUSING Following the evaluation of issues in Phase 2. Current and Comprehensive Planning staffs met and discussed the findings. Some issues were deemed to be extraneous or irrelevant and were removed from consideration in Phase 3. Also in Phase 2 the same issue was often referenced under different elements. In Phase 3 issues are not repeated. but rather have been assigned to the single most appropriate element. In this final phase of Policy Analysis, the remaining issues have been evaluated to see if they were adequately addressed in the existing policies, goals. objectives, proposals. and standards. Proposed changes/additions to the policies. goals, objectives, proposals. and standards have been made where deemed appropriate. No relevant housing issues were identified for inclusion in Phase 3. Issue 3 under Health and Safety is closely related to Housing and was originally considered under that • element. However, in the final analysis, it was determined to be more closely related to Health and Safety. 15 8 • 159 RURAL snF ER STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 3 Proposed Changes to Policies, Goals. Objectives. Proposals and Standards OPEN SPACE Following the evaluation of issues in Phase 2. Current and Comprehensive Planning staffs met and discussed the findings. Some issues were deemed to be extraneous or irrelevant and were removed from consideration in Phase 3 . Also in Phase 2 the same issue was often referenced under different elements. In Phase 3 issues are not repeated. but rather have been assigned to the single most appropriate element. In this final phase of Policy Analysis. the remaining issues have been evaluated to see if they were adequately addressed in the existing policies. goals. objectives. proposals. and standards. Proposed changes/additions to the policies. goals. objectives. proposals, and standards have been made where deemed appropriate. Open Space is adequately addressed by existing policies. goals. objectives. proposals. and standards. 160 • • 161 MEAL L ER ,STPDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 3 Proposed Changes to Policies, Goals, Objectives, Proposals and Standards CONSERVATION Following the evaluation of issues in Phase 2, Current and Comprehensive Planning staffs met and discussed the findings. Some issues were deemed to be extraneous or irrelevant and were removed from consideration in Phase 3 . Also in Phase 2 the same issue was often referenced under different elements. In Phase 3 issues are not repeated, but rather have been assigned to the single most appropriate element. In this final phase of Policy Analysis, the remaining issues have been evaluated to see if they were adequately addressed in the existing policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards. Proposed changes/additions to the policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards have been made where deemed appropriate. Conservation issues 2, 3, and 4 are relevant for con- sideration in Phase 3 . Issue 2 is addressed reasonably well although there are three ways it can be addressed more adequately. First is adding "to include historical and biological resources, " - between 'resource" and "lands" in the first line of Policy 3 . Second, is a plan proposal to "apply the Public Interest Area plan designation to all areas and sites identified as bio- logically and/or historically significant." Finally, and most importantly, would be a policy of rezoning Public Interest Areas to the Public Interest District zoning classi- fication to afford them the maximum protection possible under the current zoning ordinance. Suggested wording for the policy is, "It shall be the policy of Orange County, to the maximum extent feasible, to apply the Public Interest District zoning classification to all areas and sites identi- fied as "Public Interest Areas" in the adopted Land Use Plan." Issue 3 is adequately addressed by existing policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards. Issue 4 is adequately addressed by existing policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards. 162 163 URAL, BUFFER STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 3 Proposed -Changes to Policies. Goals. Objectives. Proposals and Standards HEALTH $ SAFETY Following the evaluation of issues in Phase 2. Current and Comprehensive Planning staffs met and discussed the findings. Some issues were deemed to be extraneous or irrelevant and were removed from consideration in Phase 3. Also in Phase 2 the same issue was often referenced under different elements. In Phase 3 issues are not repeated. but rather have been assigned to the single most appropriate element. In this final phase of Policy Analysis, the remaining issues have been evaluated to see if they were adequately addressed in the existing policies, goals, objectives, proposals, and standards. Proposed changes/additions to the policies, goals. objectives, proposals, and standards have been made where deemed appropriate. Health and Safety issues 3. 4. and 6 are considered in Phase 3. Issue 3 is addressed only in a general sense by Policies 5 and 6 and Goal 2. One of the implications of this issue is that a property owner may be deprived of developing his property due to the nature of the soils. In an effort to be as equitable as possible, the following policy is proposed: "Orange County recognizes the right of individual property owners to develop their property to its highest and best use as long as such development is consistent with adopted land use plans. policies. and standards. In this regard, proper- ties with soils unsuitable for conventional septic systems will be allowed to develop with a state approved alternative sewage disposal system provided there is sufficient land area for the system and the owner documents his ability to afford and maintain such a system." Issue 4 is addressed fairly well by Policy 3. However. the policy is specific to the watershed and surface waters. Adding language that would make the policy applicable to the Rural Buffer in general. and University Lake Watershed in particular, and groundwater as well as surface water supplies would address the issue in a more comprehensive manner. Issue 6 is addressed only in the most general fashion by one goal. It is current practice for the Planning Department to solicit the input of public safety agencies and their ability to adequately serve new development during the development application and approval process. A policy of providing these agencies with maps of approved projects. and especially those occurring on private roads, would seem appropriate. The wording of such a policy could be. "It shall be the policy of Orange County to notify appropriate public safety agencies of the location and extent of approved land development projects so as to minimize emergency response times." 164 • 155 !! Is .�- $ r rw r aliN .,,,,,,... 1 ' } f ' ' j*T \ ie .- 7...-- %. 2 i .45 -it„ ,.. :q..h. : -.... -, -4C-- N tilliti°1A ) 4 it •:, , , _ „,.„,,,,, tz! ,, .,_ .... „a ,....,,„, , .....,, _ . .... _....,,......,. • •,... , .._ . , :.:•,_•0,,:•,,,i,t, .1--, ilifilligli gar lin 00, _. ..ifAr .1411tAiiiii;45,....".1,.ak . 1 1� .. ) ti _ 4 7 1, --r-,-- ) 6, - i o f ,,,,,,,. . ,i cor- 14%.....r-iix i ._ _ , :,44:3". , ji,L, j"{" - / \VS% ... . L,4 i .,,,,�� r � , V.!P. . ,.., i , 1/ :"..".• . :. ire .,„,...p...r. ..........._,,.........."4,4, . , ..... . ". \..V .1,, i k , i1 'I \A 4.1114-* ,,,_.., -411 i:7:1•ii•---...41- *- • '::-..:.-- •••- •:7"--::::.....*.--- I , h �.�i�ir+i•C.=�7//l��y •c "::•']�s.b� t�:i'�r�.ti.= z :h h.••~. 777.` .4. �,�'• k.■ 1. 1 ywh. -•:::-: y �" = a ,---,- :-.„- -w. s•$47.4i:::::':•. � spi-• -sil - 414` • ". i 1 Y � ai :� n ..... li la AIM 1 . •:4;4e1 7 �' " 4! tom. *f `1 r. , • Al ,,, ,,,,Litk, , ,,,,9_,_i . ,-, ... • ,,, • IMI Comfy WZ-••r• r. APPENDIX D. • IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 167 APPENDIX D - IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Rural Buffer (RB) Zone Public Interest District ( PID) Planned Development (PD) District Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District Protected Watershed II (PW- ll ) Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) Protected Watershed Industrial (PWI ) Non-conforming Lots Recreation Requirements Landscape/Screening/Buffer Requirements Cluster Developments Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance Thoroughfare Planning Water and Sewer Service Extension Farm Use Taxation 1 168 169 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Public Interest District (PID) Descrietion The Public Interest District (PID) is a zoning classi- fication in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the district is to preserve and protect from development certain public land and private educational lands that are deemed environmentally sensitive and of major scientific research significance. • ' To accomplish this, use of Land zoned PID is signifi- cantly restricted. Land zoned PID may be used for the location of • accessory uses to residential structures, botani- cal gardens and arboretums, parks, non-profit research Lands and installations, governmental facilities and office build- ings, and water and sanitary sewer pumping'st ations. After issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit by -the Orange -County Board of Commissioners, land zoned PID may be used for utility stations such as switching stations, telephone exchanges, and water and sewer treatment plants. Development in the PID is limited to Lots Larger than 500,000 square feet . The maximum permitted floor area of any such development is 1 .25% of the lot area. ARRiication The PID is to be applied to the following areas in Orange County: all Duke Forest lands, the Eno River State Park, all University of North Carolina lands, and all other public or private educational lands deemed to be environ- mentally sensitive and of major scientific or research significance. At present, the PID zoning classification has not been applied to any land in Orange County . References Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Articles 4.2.25, 4.3, 5.1 .2. 170 • 171 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Rural Buffer (RB) De2cti2ti20 The Rural Buffer (RB) is a zoning" classification in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. It was adopted to create a zoning classification that was consistent with and imple- mented the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. That Plan called for residential development in the rural. buffer area designated in the Plan to occur on lots no less than two acres in size. The purpose of the district is to provide Locations for rural residential developments and agricultural, silvicuL- tural, or horticultural uses which serve to buffer or sepa- rate more intensively planned and/or developed portions of Orange County. Development in the RB district is at Low density with the minimum lot size per dwelling unit .at two (2) acres. Individual wells and ground absorption systems provide for domestic water supply and sewage disposal since public services are not expected to be available for ten C10) to twenty (20) years. Uses permitted in the RB district are consistent with its desired low density nature. Single and two family residential units, family care and group care facilities, and mobile homes are permitted residential uses. - Non-residential uses such as botanical gardens, parks, churches, schools, and government facilities are also permitted uses. Special minimum gross land areas have been set for planned developments in the RB district . For residential planned developments the minimum area is four C4) , acres or 174,240 square feet . For mobile home park planned develop- ments, the minimum area is twenty (20) acres. These areas like the two (2) acre minimum lot size are consistent in that they are all double the minimum areas required in the Rural Residential (R-1) district in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. It is also consistent with, and thereby implements the Land Use Plan. A22ligation The RB district has been established in area specified in the Land Use Plan as rural buffer. This area encompasses approximately 38,000 acres to the north, west, and south of Chapel Will and Carrboro. References Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Articles 4.2.1 and 5.2.1 . • 172 173 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Planned Development Districts pescrigtion Planned Development (PD) districts may be -established in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. They may be established where tracts suitable in size and location for the proposed development are available to be planned and developed on a unified basis. This in- cludes areas covered by the Joint Planning Agreements and protected watersheds. A planned development is: 1 . land under unified control to be planned and developed as a whole; 2. a single development operations or a definitely programmed series of development operations, including all lands and buildings; 3. principal and accessory structures and uses sub- stantially related to the character and purposes of the district; 4. according to the comprehensive and detailed plans which include not only streets, utilities, Lots or building sites and the like, but also site plans and floor plans for all the buildings to be located, constructed, used, and related to each other, and detailed plans for other uses and improvements on the land as related to the build- ings; and S . with a program for provision, operation, and maintenance of such areas, facilities, and improve- ments as will be for common use by some or all of the occupants of the district, but will not be provided, operated, or maintained at general pubLic expense. Within this definition, planned developments must be developed in accordance with the requirements of the zoning classification with which they have been designated. For example, a planned development for housing may contain only the type and density of housing permitted by the residential zoning classification designated for the development. The PD requirements, however, allow a great deal of flexibility in how the permitted use is situated on the property. Rather than minimum lot area and dimensional requirements typical of conventional zoning, PD site plans are developed under a Land use intensity system. This system requires a PD site plan to provide a minimum area for open space, Liveability (improved 174 outdoor space) , recreation and that floor area not exceed a certain percentage of the gross land area of the project . As long as the site plan meets these and the other PD require- ments, the configuration, and in some residential zoning classifications the lot size, may be determined by the developer . In addition to housing, planned developments can be created for commercial and industrial projects as welt as mixed use projects and mobile home 'parks. White specific requirements for each type of project vary, each is developed under the land use intensity system which allows the develop- ment to be planned and constructed in a manner that suits the site. A property owner must apply for a PD district . . They are not. established prior to such an application. A Special Use Permit must be issued by the Orange County Board of Commis- sioners. The PD must be developed in accordance with the site plan approved by the Permit and in accordance with conditions specified on the permit. Agglication While PD districts may be established where suitable tracts exist, because it is expected that they will be Large developments, there are further restrictions on where the districts are allowed. They must be located near interstate highways, or collector or arterial streets. They should not access residential streets. They should be Located so that neither extension or enlargement of public utilities would be required in a manner that would result in higher net public cost or earlier incursion of public cost . PD districts should be served by necessary public services and facilities. The PD technique has been used most commonly for housing projects. These projects have included single family and multi-family residential projects and mobile home parks. References. Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Articles S and. 7 Orange County Development Records 175 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE a Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District Description The Major Transportation Corridor CMTC) is a zoning classification in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. It is • an overlay zone. That is, its requirements are added to the requirements of another zoning classification that has been applied to the land. The purpose of the district is to enhance attractive and orderly development of land adjacent to major transportation facilities. It does this .through a set. of development standards and regulations that are applied to public and private development of land adjacent to these corridors. . These standards are applied through the site plan review process . The MTC district is defined as 1 ,250 feet from the edge of the right-of-way measured along a line which is perpendi- cular to the edge of the right-of-way on each side of the roadway. At interstate highway interchanges the MTC district extends 2,500 feet from the edge of the right-of-way on each side of the intersecting road. The minimum Length of the district is the continuous distance along the thoroughfare within the County jurisdiction and outside the extra- territorial jurisdiction of any towns in Orange County. With two exceptions, no construction activity can begin in the MTC corridor until a site plan has been approved. The exceptions are single and two family residences and modifica- tion or enlargement of a building that existed prior to the creation of the district when less than 50% of the floor area is involved. Site plan approval involves verifying that it contains all of the items required for a site plan. Site plans for projects in the MTC must show compliance with landscape, buffer, and screening requirements. Landscape and screening must conform with Article 12 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. This basically involves use of landscaping to screen off-street parking from the public right-of-way and adjoining property. A 100 foot wide buffer is required along the right-of-way. Side and rear yards are required to be 50 feet wide except where they are adjacent to the right-of-way of an interstate highway. Then they must be 100 feet wide. Within the buffer area, necessary ingress, egress, and utility service may be allowed, but no other disturbance for site improvements is permitted. Application The MTC district has been established along the lengths of 1-40 and I-85 in Orange County. It, in conjunction with low density zoning classifications, will preserve the current rural settings along these highways. Along I-40, which crosses the rural buffer it will preserve the essentially undeveloped appearance of the corridor. 176 Although the MTC zoning classification has only been applied along interstate highways, it could be applied to any major highway where preservation of the visual character of the corridor has been adopted as a goal . References Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Articles 4.2.30 and 6.25 . 177 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Protected Watershed II (PW II) Descrietion The Protected Watershed II (PW II) is a zoning classifi- cation in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. It is an overlay zone. That is, its requirements are added to the requirements of another zoning classification that has been applied to the land. The purpose of the district is to regulate the use of Land and structures on that land in watersheds which drain to reservoirs supplying drinking water to the people of Orange County. • Both the permitted use of Land and regulation of Lot sizes in the PW II will be determined by the . underlying zoning classification. The PW II regulations will further define how these uses are permitted. These regulations cover several areas. They establish required. buffers along peren- nial streams . Stream buffers are located at the outer edge of identified floodplains and are measured in width as fifty (50) feet plus four (4) times the average rise in elevation measured perpendicularly 250 feet from the center of the stream. The maximum buffer width is limited to 150 feet. Uses within the stream buffer are limited to above ground and buried local distribution utility lines, farms, neighborhood utility facilities, public or private streets, bridges, and railroad rights-of-way. Existing vegetation in the stream buffer cannot be removed. Vegetation on the remainder of a lot in PW II is to remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. In order to promote infiltration of stormwater runoff into the soil, a Limit is placed on the area of a Lot that can be made impervious to the infiltration of water. This limit is set at 12% of the lot area when public water and sewer are not available and 30% of the lot area when they are available. Lots for non-residential uses are required to be larger in a PW II district . Commercial lots must be at least 80,000 square feet and industrial lots must be 200,000 square feet . Industrial uses are limited to light industrial uses. All new developments in PW II must install stormwater control measures to control the first one--half inch (112") of runoff from impervious surfaces. This initial runoff con- tains most of the pollutants that accumulate on-site. Its control on-site prevents their entering the water supply. Aeelication The PW II district has been applied to the watersheds of the Cane Creek and University Lake reservoirs, and to the zoned portion of the Upper Eno basin which includes the proposed Seven Mile Creek reservoir. Refetgnces Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Articles 4.2.28, and 6.23. 178 i 179 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) Description ', The Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) is a zoning classification in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. It is an overlay zone. That is, its requirements are added to the requirements of another zoning classification that has been applied to the land. The purpose of the district is to regulate the use of land and structures on that Land in the portions of water supply watersheds that drain directly into the reservoir and which drain into the main channels of trunk streams feeding into the reservoirs. The WQCA is similar to but more restrictive than the PV II . Stream buffers are required along both perennial and intermittent streams. Buffer width is measured as fifty (50) feet plus four (4) times the average use in elevation measured perpendicularly 250 feet from the centerline of the stream. The buffers are located at the outer edge of identi- fied floodplains . The maximum buffer width is Limited to 150 feet . Uses within the stream buffer are Limited to above ground and buried local distribution utility lines, farms, neighborhood utility facilities, public or private streets, bridges, and railroad rights-of-way. Existing vegetation in the stream buffer cannot be removed. Vegetation on the remainder of a lot in WQCA is to remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. No structures are permitted within t50 feet of the high water mark of the water supply reservoir. No new septic tank or its nitrification field is permitted within 300 feet of the water supply reservoir or a perennial or intermittent stream. In order to promote infiltration of stormwater runoff into the soil, a limit is placed on the area of a lot that can be made impervious to the infiltration of water. This Limit is set at 6X of the lot area. Residential lots are required to be at least 80,000 square feet. Industrial, office/institutional, and most commercial uses are not permitted in WQCA. All new developments in WQCA must install stormwater control measures to control the first one-half inch (1 /2") of runoff from impervious surfaces. This initial runoff con- tains most of the pollutants that accumulate on-site. Its control on-site prevents their entering the water supply. • 180 AeeiiSetign The 'WQCA district has been applied to the watersheds of the Cane Creek and University Lake reservoirs, and to the watershed of the proposed Seven Mile Creek reservoir. Where both WQCA and PW II districts overlap, WACA requirements apply. ReferenSes • Orange County Zoning Ordinance, ArticLes 4.2.28 and ' 6.24. • • y • 181 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Protected Watershed Industrial (PWI) Descri tion The Protected Watershed Industrial (PWI) is a zoning classification in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the district is to provide appropriately located and sized sites in a protected watershed area for limited industrial uses. Performance standards are used to minimize the effect of adverse impacts of the industrial use on the quality of water in the water supply watershed. The minimum lot size in a PWI district is 400,000 square feet . Sites must be located in a Protected Watershed II district . Access to the site must be directly from a street designated as an arterial or collector designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The developer must demonstrate that the existing streets are capable of handling traffic generated by the industrial development or enter into an agreement with NCDOT to upgrade the streets_ Sewage disposal for the industrial development will be appropriate for proposed use. Only industrial uses that are "dry' in nature are permitted in the PWI . Only industrial processes that do not use, produce, store, consume, or discharge any hazardous or toxic substances in excess of the amounts specified in the 1 current EPA list of Hazardous Substances and Priority pollu- tants are permitted . Agglication The PWI may be applied in a Protected Watershed II district . At present, the PWI classification has not been applied to any land in Orange County. Refere0221 • Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Articles 4.2.29 and 5.1 .2. 182 f 1R3 RURAL SUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Ron-Conforming Lota Description Article 11.7 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses how lots that do not meet the appropriate dimensional requirements may be developed. Single non-conforming lots may be developed as long as the development conforms to other requirements of the Ordinance. Two or more adjacent non-conforming lots are considered to be one zoning lot and must be recombined into lots that conform to the appropriate dimensions requirements. Special provisions of this Article allow two or three adja- cent lots to be recombined such that the lots created meet at least 80% of the appropriate dimensional requirements. Application Non-conforming lots will be created when zoning is initially placed on land or when zoning with more restrictive dimensional requirements is placed on the land. The non- conforming lot provisions require these lots to be recreated in conformance with the new requirements as a means of implementing those requirements. References Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Article 11.7 184 P 4 0 C 9 15 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Recreation Reguirements Dessrigtion The Orange County Subdivision Ordinance requires the provision of public recreation and/or open space by every major subdivision in the Joint Land Use Planning Area. The purpose of this requirement. is to provide for the Leisure needs of the subdivision residents and/or to preserve signi- ficant natural features and cultural resources. In residential subdivisions, the amount of Land that must be dedicated to recreation and/or open space is deter- mined by the number of dwelling units in the subdivision. At least one thirty fifth (1 /35) of an acre must be dedicated for each dwelling unit . If the land in the subdivision is located in a designated flood plain or is characterized by steep slopes (15% or greater) , then one twentieth (1/20) of an acre must be dedicated for each dwelling unit: The location of the land to be dedicated will be recommended by the County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council. The location will include areas designated in the Land Use Plan for recreation and/or open space and areas suitabLe for such use. In non-residential subdivisions, the amount of Land to be dedicated will be determined by a site analysis, the proposed uses, and the location of areas designated in the Land Use Plan for recreation and/or open space. As a mini- mum, the amount of land dedicated wilt equal the area that would be required by the Pedestrian/Landscape ratio in the Land Use Intensity System contained in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. An option exists for subdivisions Located where no Land has been designated in the Land Use Plan for recreation and/or open spaces. In such cases, instead of dedicating land for recreation and/or open space, the subdivider may, with the approval of the Board of Commissioners, make a payment-in-lieu of dedication or a combination of Land dedication and payment. When such a payment has been approved the amount of the payment wiLL be based on the number of acres that would have been dedicated and the current assessed value of the land. Application Application of this requirement is Limited to portions of Orange County where recreation plans have been adopted. At present, the Joint Land Use Planning Area is the only such area. Since its adoption, this requirement has been applied to several major subdivisions in the Joint Planning. Both dedication of land and payments-in-lieu of dedication have w • 186 been approved . When dedication has occurred it has resulted in enlargement of existing recreation areas or reservation of natural areas such as streams. An account has been estab- lished for the payments-in-lieu. These funds will be used for future acquisition of recreation .land. References Orange County Subdivision Ordinance, Section IV-El-7-b. Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Articles 5.1 .2 and 6.12. Orange County Development Records. • 1R7 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Landscape/Screening/Buffer Requirements Descri tion All subdivisions are required to provide landscaping and create buffers as described in the Orange County Subdivision Ordinance. Site plans for development of land are required to meet the landscaping and screening requirements of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. - Exceptions to this Latter requirement are developments for single family detached and duplex residences. The purpose of these requirements is to preserve existing vegetation; to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting the public right- of-way; to. require screening and buffers between. non- compatible land uses; and to protect, preserve, and promote the visual appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhood. _ The requirements that apply to subdivisions address three areas. The first concerns protection of existing vegetation. A plan must be submitted showing existing trees and those that will be preserved through completion of the project . Specific tree preservation areas must be designated and protective measures taken to minimize damage to existing vegetation. A landscaping plan must be developed to show where and how existing vegetation will be supplemented, if necessary, with landscape materials. Landscaping require- ments are specified for individual building Lots and other areas such as recreation facilities. These requirements essentially establish a minimum density for trees in building setback areas and recreation and open spaces. Finally, a schedule of buffers must be applied to the subdivision. This schedule determines whether buffers must be established along existing major streets and along lot Lines for adjacent property. The schedule also identifies what type of buffer is required. Buffers are described in terms of width and the degree of visual obstruction to be achieved. The landscaping requirements that apply to site plans use landscaping to screen off-street parking areas from view from public rights-of-way and from adjoining property. Landscaped areas including trees and hedges are required to screen off-street parking areas. Within the parking areas additional landscaping is required. Planted areas are required between at least every tenth parking space. Planted strips or medians are required between every fourth row of parking. AgglUcation The landscape requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance have yet to be applied in the rural buffer area. A mora- torium has been placed on their enforcement pending their 188 review and revision. The buffer requirements (which are in effect) have been Limited in application. The schedule of buffers is such that no buffers are required of most sub- divisions. No buffers are required between Land uses with lot sizes of 40,000 square feet or larger. Both previous and current zoning in the rural buffer required lots larger than 40,000 square feet . So few lots smaller than that exist and none can now be created. Within the schedule of buffers such land uses are considered compatible and no buffer is re- quired. Some buffers are required along streets and utili- ties. Similarly, very little development that would come under the landscape and screening. requirements in the Zoning Ordinance is occurring in the rural buffer, so the application of those requirements is limited. _ References Orange' County Subdivision Ordinance, Section IV—B-8. Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Article 12. • • 1539 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Cluster bevelo2ments Dgscrietion The Orange County Subdivision Ordinance contains provi- sions for clustered subdivision of land. Cluster develop- ments allow for greater design flexibility and originality, permit the reasonable use of land with difficult physical - conditions, respect the physical qualities of the Land, reduce the overall development and public costs, and preserve open space to serve recreational, scenic and public service purposes. Cluster developments permit the modification and variation of lot and yard requirements provided that the sum of reductions in lot area becomes common open and/or recrea- tion space for the benefit of all residents of - the cluster development or for dedication to public use. In modifying lot and yard requirements it is intended that a site plan can be developed that makes better use of the Land than would be possible with strict adherence to dimensional requirements. The number of lots allowed in a cluster development is determined by the underlying zoning district. The number of lots allowed by that district cannot be increased by using the cluster development provisions. AQQIil ion Cluster developments may be approved in any residential district where the provisions of the ordinance can be met. At present no cluster developments have been approved in Orange County. ReferenEgs Orange County Subdivision Ordinance, Sec. IV—B-10. 190 191 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Descrietion Flood hazard areas have been identified in Orange County. The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance restricts or prohibits land uses in these flood hazard areas. In doing so it prevents activity that would result in more severe flood hazards and reduces damage caused by floods by requiring Land uses in the flood hazard area to be protected against flood damage. It does this by prohibiting activity within an identified floodway from being developed in a way that would increase the elevation of a flood. This prevents floods from being made more severe. It reduces damage by requiring structures to be floodproof or built above the elevation of the projected flood. • Aggl2cgion Flood prone areas have been identified along every major stream in the rural buffer. These flood prone areas are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration. The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is applied to these areas. Additionally, stream buffer requirements in protected watersheds are predicated on identified flood prone areas. References Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Orange County. 192 • a 193 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance Description This ordinance places requirements on Land disturbing activity. The purpose of the ordinance is to control and prevent accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, prevent the pollution of water, prevent damage to public and private property, maintain the balance of nature, prevent the ob- struction of natural and artificial drainageways, inhibit flooding, and reduce the undermining of transportation facilities. • Before certain land disturbing activities are undertaken Erosion Control Plans must be prepared. There are two general sets of requirements . In areas that are not in the University Lake Watershed, such plans are required when the area disturbed is more than 20,000 square feet. In the University Lake Watershed, plans are required for any Land disturbing activity. The basic objectives of the Erosion Control Plan are to limit both the area exposed and the amount of time it is exposed, to control surface water and sedimentation, and to manage storm water runoff. The Plan achieves this by estab- lishing buffers along water courses, limiting disturbances, establishing ground cover as soon as possible, and designing erosion and sedimentation control measures. - Additional standards are placed on Land disturbing activity in the University Lake Watershed. These include additional requirements for Erosion Control Plans, protection of stream banks and channels, and additional restrictions on access and haul roads. There are some important exclusions to this ordinance. Farm activity, forestry activity, and activity by units of government are excluded from the ordinance. ARRLication While the ordinance is applied County-wide, it has obvious special applications in the University Lake Watershed portion of the rural buffer. It is one of the strongest measures available for protecting University Lake reservoir. Its ability to do so is significantly restricted by the exclusions to the ordinance. The rural buffer and the University Lake Watershed in particular contain extensive amounts of land used for farming and forestry. Successful retention of these activities in the rural buffer will continue to restrict the application of this ordinance. References Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, Orange County. 194 • • • 195 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Thoroughfare Planning Descri2tion Thoroughfare planning is a major element of a comprehen- sive planning program. An adopted thoroughfare plan is an important guide to the development of a highway system that is consistent with changing land use demands. The major purpose of a thoroughfare plan is to assess the capacity of the existing highway system in terms of future development requirements. The thoroughfare plan therefore becomes a statement of the intent to provide for the demands of future development . The Chapel Hill/Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan study area includes the eastern half of the University Lake Watershed which is in the rural buffer and a portion of the rural_ buffer roughly between I-40 and Whitfield Road. The 'study area for the proposed Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan includes a small portion of the rural buffer around Davis Road. The balance, and largest portion of the rural buffer, is covered by the Statewide Thoroughfare Planning activity of N.C. Department of Transportation. In sum, thoroughfare plans which involve the rural buffer contain three long range highway projects which are located in the rural buffer CI-40 not included since it is under construction) : 1) extension of Homestead Road to NC 54, 2) extension of Davis Road from Old 86 to NC 86, and 3) widening of NC 86 between I-40 and I- 85. As Long term projects they are not currently scheduled for construction, but are expected to be constructed during the next 20 years. Apglication Thoroughfare planning activity, which through several. plans covers the entire rural buffer, indicate that the existing highway network is expected to handle the needs of both existing development and development that is expected to occur in the next 20 years with few additional facilities. That is a very strong statement saying that provisions are not being made to handle traffic generated by large scale development in the rural buffer. Refer2OCes Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan Proposed Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan 196 • 197 RURAL BUFFER IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE Water and Sewer Service Extension Descrietion The development potential of land ' is determined by many factors. Among the most important of these factors is the availability of a water supply and availability of an accept- able means of handling sewage. When on-site provision of a water supply and sewage treatment are required, typically only low density develop- ment of land is possible. Location and spacing of water wells is determined by flow rates that can be sustained. While that can be a serious constraint, the more serious problem is usually on-site treatment of sewage. When on-site treatment is the only means available for handling sewage Low density development is all that the. Land is capable of handling. How low the density is will be determined by soil conditions. • 6221i1e1i20 No public water or sewer service is available in the rural buffer. This alone is a significant means for imple- menting the rural buffer concept . The actual restrictions that the absence of sewers places on development varies widely through the rural buffer. According- to the Orange County Soil Survey, all rural buffer soils are restricted with regards to septic tank drainage fieLd suitabiLity. So the range of variation only includes degrees of restriction. OWASA, the agency responsible for providing water and sewer service in south Orange County, has a policy not to extend water and sewer lines into the rural buffer without the consent of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. As long as that policy is in effect only Low density development is possible in the rural buffer. 1212E20221 Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan. Orange County Soil Survey. Water and Sewer Line Maps, Orange County PLanning Department . 198 .. • • • • • • • • TO: Greg Szymik, Gene Bell , Marvin Collins FROM: Brad Torgan, Planner II RE: Effect of minimum allowable lot sizes of unimproved land prices in the Rural Buffer ( revision of 4 March memo) DATE: 6 March 87 INTRODUCTION At various times during the Rural Buffer debate concerns have been raised regarding the effect of a two acre minimum lot size on the affordability and availability of unimproved land . In particular, it has been claimed that average parcel costs would increase dramatically and make the provision of affordable housing impossible. This memo provides some of the initial statistical analysis necessary to either confirm or deny the assertions . The purpose of the analysis was twofold . First, it sought to determine the effect of raising the minimum lot size on sales price of an unimproved lot in the Rural Buffer. The second purpose was to determine the extent to which "affordable" site built housing is and has been available in the buffer . The data concerning raw land prices confirms what one might intuitively expect. A positive correlation exists between size and cost and the effect of increasing the minimum lot size will be to increase average parcel price while decreasing price per acre. The affordability question is less clear . While affordable housing in the buffer is severely lacking, a change in the zoning designation from R1 to RB had little to do with it. DATA AND MODELS The model used for unimproved land prices is a simple linear regression equation, the results of which are listed in an attachment to this memo. It uses one dependent variable, parcel sales price, and one independent variable, parcel size, to which the dependent variable is tied. The observations for the model consisted of all unimproved lots sold in the Rural Buffer during the past two years and listed in the Sales Inquiry files of the Tax Supervisor ' s Office. Time of sale in relation to establishment of the Rural Buffer zoning district was not used as a variable. The classification is too recent and uncertainty still exists as to its continuation . Additionally, Sales Inquiry files only list mont-h of sale, not when the land was first offered . Instead, areas within the Rural Buffer were compared to the University Lake Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) . Prior to the creation of the RB zoning district the WQCA had 2 allowable densities half that of the rest of the buffer area,. Separate areas within the buffer; Northside/New Hope Basin, University Lake PW-- II , and Southern Triangle; were also compared to each other to determine if and to what extent other variables might impact sales prices in the buffer. The data used for to view affordability additionally consisted of construction cost estimates listed on Orange County building permits for the last quarter of 1986 . Construction costs were combined with raw land costs to come up with the cost for an average new home. Two other data, average size of a parcel sold during the time period and the number of observations less than two acres, while not part of the model , are included in the attachment. These should help gauge the number of parcels that are actually impacted by the change. FINDINGS : RAW LAND SALES PRICE The effect of new different minimum lot sizes on the cost of unimproved land tends to follow what has been asserted; 1 ) The effect of increasing the minimum lot size is to increase the average cost of a minimum sized lot but decrease the cost of larger lots. 2) There is a strong positive correlation between parcel size and parcel cost. Different regions within the Rural Buffer, though, have markedly different correlations, suggesting other factors have a significant influence on the price of unimproved parcels in parts of the Rural Buffer , At the old allowable densities ( 80,000 square feet for WQCA, 40,000 square feet elsewhere in the Rural Buffer) the average minimum sized lot would cost $29,300 in the WCQA and $17,400 elsewhere. The average incremental cost per acre is higher outside the WQCA, $5650 versus $3320 in the WQCA. The impact of different allowable densities is greatest on smaller lots. The average cost for a minimum sized lot under the old densities is 68% higher in the WQCA. For similar sized lots the difference is much less drastic. For two acre lots the difference drops to 27% and the difference between three acre lots drops the 13% . The average cost of a five acre parcel is actually greater outside the WCQA than inside. At this point, average parcel size becomes critical . If large lots are the norm then the differences in average parcel costs lose their importance. In fact, the average parcel sold in the Rural Buffer during the last two years approached five acres (4.6 acres outside the WQCA and 6.2 acres inside the WQCA) . For all new subdivisions created in the Rural Buffer from 1984 to 1986 the average lot size was about 2.5 acres. 3 sized lot prices vary widely within separate regions of the Rural Buffer. The correlation is strongest in the University Lake Watershed, with a correlation coefficient of about 0.9 (a coefficient r=-1 .0 is the strongest possible negative relationship, r=0 .0 indicates no apparent relationship, r=+1 .0 is the strongest possible positive correlation) . For the Northside, the correlation coefficient of 0.66, while still strong, is significantly lower than University Lake. In the Southern Triangle r=0.096, indicating almost no relationship between parcel price and size. This suggests that variables other than maximum allowable density and lot size impact lot price. Anecdotal evidence points to a strong demand component unrelated to Rural Buffer classification . One particular 40,000 square foot tract in the Southern Triangle was sold three times in a fourteen month period prior to the creation of the Rural Buffer . Each sale was approximately 20% higher than the prior sale. The average cost for a unimproved lot of minimum allowable acreage also varies within the buffer. An average 40,000 square foot parcel would cost $21 ,400 in the Southern Triangle and $20,200 in the University Lake PW- II but only $11 ,050 on the Northside. If parcel size was the only major variable then the equations and correlations would be similar for all areas. FINDINGS : AFFORDABILITY Implicit in the assertion that lower density requirements are inhibiting the building of affordable housing in the Rural Buffer are two claims. The first is that affordable housing was being built prior to the imposition of larger required lots and second is that raw land prices are the major culprit behind overly expensive housing. With a few notable exceptions, such as Habitat for Humanity ' s subdivision in Bingham Township, neither claim can be substantiated. Construction costs, not raw land prices, are the major inhibitor to site built affordable housing in the Rural Buffer . These construction costs seem to indicate that developers have targeted upper income consumers for housing in the Rural Buffer regardless of availability of land, negating the first claim. For the last quarter of 1986 the average construction costs for a site built home in Chapel Hill Township for which the county issued a permit was $105,000. This is almost five times the cost of the necessary raw land . When put on an average 40,000 square foot lot such a home would cost approximately $122,000. This would increase to about $127,000 if sited on an average two acre lot. Assuming interest rates of 10% and a rule of thumb that says a family can afford to spend thirty percent of its gross income on housing, it would require a family income of over $49,000 to afford that house. For an interest rate of 12% the required income Jumps to $56,000 and for an interest rate of 13% income requirements reach $60,000. 4 r By contrast, the average construction costs Iisted on permits issued during the last quarter of 1986 for elsewhere in the county were $44,000 per unit. Only 25% of the permits issued in Chapel Hill Township during that period listed construction costs of $40,000 or less. Over 45% of the new homes elsewhere in the county fit that category . Frequency distributions are attached to this report. The average home permitted in Chapel Hill Township is also larger than the remainder of the county . For the last quarter of 1986 the average size of a new house in Chapel Hill Township was 2600 square feet versus 1750 square feet in the remainder of the county . CRITICISMS OF DATA AND MODELS The regression equations for unimproved rural buffer lots are incomplete, sacrificing some accuracy for the sake of simplicity . The models only take into account that independent variable most easily determined, lot size. Other less quantifiable or easily determined variables will have their own effect on raw land costs. One independent variable that should be included in a more complete model is distance from a given point or land use, such as downtown Chapel Hill or the nearest shopping center. Increased distance from schools, shopping, and employment will probably suppress both the y intercept (constant) and the x •coefficient ( incremental cost per acre) . If this assumption were false, one would expect the equations for the Cane Creek WQCA and University Lake WQCA to be identical . In fact, both the constant and per acre cost are lower in the Cane Creek WQCA. The inability to use time of sale is, of course, another limiting factor . The comparison of the WQCA to other areas of the Rural Buffer prior to the buffer creation, however, allows for comparison of similar areas with different allowable densities and is adequate for indicating trends. The possible effect of a demand component has already been discussed. Other variables that could affect raw land price include speculative intent, potential for further subdivision, and access to the property. The major weakness of the construction costs data is that the costs are estimates supplied by the developers or contractors and may not accurately reflect final costs. Average sales price information available from Triangle J Council of Governments, though, are reasonably similar to county generated figures. Some may argue that the use of construction costs for a time period after the new minimum lot size went into effect is misleading, because larger lots warrant bigger and more expensive homes . While larger lots may warrant more expensive construction, the cry that once affordable housing will be no more is simply not true. Creation of the Rural Buffer did not eliminate housing affordable for middle income families nor will its elimination result in a spate of construction of 5 affordable housing, save for the few efforts being made by non-profit organizations . While construction costs for periods before the creation Rural Buffer have not been tabulated they can be if necessary . ADDITIONAL REFERENCES "Can 't Afford to Live Here, " Triangle J Council of Governments Regional Data Report. October 1986 . FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF NEW SITE BUILT HOMES, LAST QUARTER 1986 Chapel Hill Twp . Remainder of County <$30,000 6 .5% (2) 25. 5% ( 13 ) . $30,001 - 40,000 19 .4% (6 ) 19.6% ( 10) $40,001- 50,000 -0- 19 .6% ( 10) $50,001 - _ 60,000 -0- 11 .8% (6) $60,001- 70,000 3 .2% ( 1 ) 2.0% ( 1 ) $70,001- 80,000 9 .7% (3 ) 7 .8% (4) $80,001- 90,000 12.9% ( 4) 5 .9% ( 3) $90,001- 100,000 19 .4% (6 ) 2.0% ( 1 ) $100,001 - 125,000 12.9% (4) -0- $125,001 - 150,000 6 .5% (2) -0- >$150,000 6.5% (2) 5.9% (3 ) AVERAGE : $105,042 $44,000 STANDARD DEVIATION: $ 84,921 $46,328 a REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR RURAL BUFFER AREAS Univ . Lake (PW- II ) Northside Constant 16415.41 4542.651 Standard error of y 14722. 13 63279 .68 R squared 0.834448 0 .437662 # of Observations 60 66 Degrees of Freedom 58 64 x coefficient 4087 .836 7136.979 Standards error of coefficient 239 .0185 1013.069 avg. size of observation 3.50 acres 5.89 acres # of observations less than 2 acres 33 ( 55%) 25 (37% ) Equations: University Lake(PW- II )- Raw Land Parcel Cost=( parcel size in acres*$4088)+$16415 40,000 square foot parcel = $20, 170 Northside- Raw Land Parcel Cost=( parcel size in acres*$7136)+$4543 40,000 square foot parcel = $11 , 104 Southern Triangle Constant 20587.99 Standard error of y 6302 . 192 R squared 0.009123 # of Observations 6 Degrees of Freedom 4 x coefficient 869.85 Standard error of coefficient 4532.563 avg. size of observation 1 .43 acres # of observations less than 2 acres 4 (66%) Equation : Raw Land Parcel Cost=( parcel size in acres*$870 )+$20588 40,000 square foot parcel = $21 ,386 iw Univ . Lake WQCA All RB except WQCA Constant 23215.08 12244.8 Standard error of y 108089.35 46995 .74 R squared 0.817328 0.469004 if of Observations 19. 132 Degrees of Freedom 17 130 x coefficient 3320 . 111 5652.003 Standard error of coefficient 380 .642 527 .4575 avg . size of observation 6 .2 acres 4.6 acres II of observations less than 2 acres 1 ( 5% ) 62 (48%) Equations: University Lake WQCA- Raw Land Parcel Cost=( parcel size in acres*$3320)+$23215 80,000 square foot parcel = $29,310 All RB except WQCA- Raw Land Parcel Cost=( parcel size in acres*$5652)+$12245 40,000 square foot parcel = $17 ,435 r FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF NEW SITE BUILT HOMES, LAST QUARTER 1986 Chapel Hill Twp. Remainder of County <$30,000 6. 5% (2) 25.5% ( 13 ) $30,001 - 40,000 19 .4% (6) 19 .6% ( 10) $40,001 - 50,000 -0- 19 .6% ( 10) $50,001- 60, 000 -0- 11 .8% (6 ) $60,001 - 70,000 3 .2% ( 1 ) 2.0% ( 1 ) $70,001- 80,000 9 .7% (3) 7 .8% (4) $80,001- 90,000 12.9% (4) 5 .9% (3) $90,001- 100,000 19 .4% (6 ) 2.0% ( 1 ) $100,001 - 125,000 12 .9% ( 4) -0- $125,001 - 150,000 6 .5% (2 ) -0- >$150,000 6.5% (2) 5.9% (3 ) AVERAGE : $105,042 $44,000 STANDARD DEVIATION: $ 84,921 $46,328 REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR RURAL BUFFER AREAS Univ . Lake (PW- II ) Northside Constant 16415.41 4542.651 Standard error of y 14722. 13 63279 .68 R squared 0 .834448 0 .437662 I of Observations 60 66 Degrees of Freedom 58 64 x coefficient 4087 .836 7136.979 Standards error of coefficient 239.0185 1013.069 avg. size of observation 3 .50 acres 5.89 acres I of observations less than 2 acres 33 (55%) 25 (37%) Equations: University Lake(PW- II )- Raw Land Parcel Cost=( parcel size in acres*$4088)+$16415 40,000 square foot parcel = $20, 170 Northside- Raw Land Parcel Cost=( parcel size in acres*$7136)+$4543 40,000 square foot parcel = $11 , 104 Southern Triangle Constant 20587 .99 Standard error of y 6302. 192 R squared 0.009123 I of Observations 6 Degrees of Freedom 4 x coefficient 869.85 Standard error of coefficient 4532.563 avg. size of observation 1 .43 acres # of observations less than 2 acres 4 (66% ) Equation : Raw Land Parcel Cost=( parcel size in acres*$870)+$20588 40,000 square foot parcel = $21 ,386 Univ . Lake WQCA All RB except WQCA Constant 23215.08 12244.8 Standard error of y 108089.35 46995 .74 R squared 0 .817328 0 .469004 II of Observations 19 132 Degrees of Freedom 17 130 x coefficient 3320 . 111 5652.003 Standard error of coefficient 380 .642 527 .4575 avg . size of observation 6 .2 acres 4.6 acres if of observations less than 2 acres 1 ( 5% ) 62 (48%) Equations: University Lake WQCA- Raw Land Parcel Cost=( parcel size in acres*$3320)+$23215 80,000 square foot parcel = $29,310 All RB except WQCA- Raw Land Parcel Cost=( parcel size in acres*$5652)+$12245 40,000 square foot parcel = $17,435 NI \ • . ....„ .....,, ,r., „ 69 0 l -A\4q , NW . a ‘*'4V7F rni.;-';-..t /fil v 0,94 1f4�a yS- 'fwM t i„If .c4,..\*Allikatki,,:i --,ii , .,....--, 1^""illi-.4-'. !till.11191W • ) 1 ,--...V-1 -1-* .p'. "' • Vi”�r 1r' �.l �r Q • 4. r s' 1�\ i •C'"1 • R n � ip ' ,, Viiillig J ,,, 447-svit-v-- -':'"A...,' rit tip'` _'5 ie. ,. I ,* 1 1 1,,,,1 4,T-,-,44,,i,, r u I e::. .....1r r •� '01 .tt,_:.PI.zsi;x:711:7,44:iiii,:dir;i:, - .;.•-;:rr4 i/ ti + •„,,,, . i 74- -It i - • �, ��i�i w_' .r,/4l lg�Sc it',/,:',$4'14' i 3ka '�?'•r F� e tow 4 44, 1)11 li'tlicftw, .,.▪ :::::::: : --Ii1;1:' ::::::i.:1 J. d } w e .. =fir '' ▪_ ^:::`:F::�"1:. 1• b.” 1 II 11 I ip' -,,,-fell if:PIZ::::::::::::::::..e,r...,,,,_ 4:71e..iy.:11 ; ? !.. I) : 6 -,\ , "likw...1-IL k.' ' -`,.-:l':W.,,:: iri 711:11P:::-::...gig 111 } L( .:•'r r- Apt, rsir -;,‘ f_... .../.--..ri 14 i tii.A...-kfc,---#r '441W, • , _, I Alai Jr.___,:,e)t_ ''\s"-- ■ 4 417 "- 1 I— --. . 'ry \ ,s,, , , s s ( -- II ' ,, Aro _...:.; , , .,--%. \... . rt • ,__ t;?,etir r.:=. ,• ..................... Zama ..,_ C hathamCounty • `• �� • • . . ..... •ter •r •r ��•• Joint Planning Area ...,, RURAL BUFFER STUDY ,, ,, February, 1987 P2Y 4,6, _574 ,A.,we„/ 444gide-c- . PAIL: e - Srti /� 67 co 6- (2) CpLe44.0 . _1. 4._#.4zt, ,‘„,,i.ht 509 0,:.e✓ ems.~ eoz,0 r-- /571/9 2,74;07 agiceo-e-•(-- eevaYe7 ALL-f-, GAz-- �-• /`�`' ya, ash /e51, ,SV X,Lez.cea ge4740 /. X'Sw'; 1,1_34 a ileelOW"M- 41,0, 41><Ot) 4w1-j 1#1 6.6 eLotim4li e, 6q7."--1--°- / / . 1 .� 1-/ r ?/Ze, 2.104.1 S 7 . L10 / / 11, i/r1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . , . . . . . . . /22 . . . . • • • . . . . . ...... . . . . mom, (__ t Vee Vet"-70 _ _ 3~10 -2 March 8, 1987 ��- Planning Department Orange County Courthouse Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 To the Members of the Board: A letter to the Editor of the Chapel Hill Newspaper from Mary Ellen Priestly appeared in today's edition concerning the public hearing scheduled for this Tuesday evening. Because I will be unable to attend the hearing I would like to submit these comments to you about the development of our community, including rural space in Orange County which would be affected by the proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Ms. Priestly's letter is the first news I have encountered about this important issue. My father and I both grew up and live in Chapel Hill . My paternal grandfather, who was a member of the Sierra Club, imparted to my father, and the two of them to me, a deep appreciation of the natural environment and its inhabitants -- be these animal , vegetable, or mineral . This is my inheritance -- a valuing of nature, and in particular, of its expression in Chapel Hill , Orange County and North Carolina. To see our space with the varied life it supports squandered to promote short-sighted interests really hurts. When we begin by disregarding the integrity of this rural area we initiate a process which can lead to its disintegration altogether: "development." Ms. Priestly put it very well when she wrote, "We should all care about the trusteeship of our land; we won't get any more." Actually, the land constitutes our collective inheritance. This is why I request that the Board turn down the proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use elan which would compromise Orange County's rural area. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Margar P. Heath 405- estwood Drive Chapel Hill , NC 27514 copy sent to Mary Ellen Priestly 3 ),/,;),9„ii/A- NAME ADDRESS /`./��9 /-/P St* 2. iii A-- , LLL / './ 3- 2L,---c--)z / , ,- / J 6. i 4 = £ . S7 )1 , 71 e ,4 11-120-1-1"-CL-VX 8- ci Cikel) , g4, ..! .,1 .9- , ':. i 00 .// 10. /1_c /// 7 & P 1- _s--/ E -f 2-3 eL'Ll 'lt-q/ 11 - 3 Lo...sal tom,O.Bzx 3 8-43,D...r i...,, ,, 7----17 a Z 12. \—' - --'---- Z S.---, i3.,.4...-2.3 C----744-0.71-N-\\—''---`-- 13- / i a C,5 e aQ 7 s . P - 14. c is i j 3 i ff�� _ rc.:5, I 15. 'h ' a , „,,,,,- ,,,,, ,16. 1 c �� ,.1 _ - C a_ 1 t7 /. .0 i --4-(;/k (- I 18. • 14461,-p.e. / / 19:0•.--- °-- if 9': ', ' /‘/._,„12,7(.. e . 20. / 1 LI • al_ Pr/.// dttQl 21 . L. 1•+ M-Ev14-C " • h'1t /c r 23- / 7--/c) O ? .cff = 60. (_ /4 L 24. 25. lelee,ef 6 ,1-11 / .i C�/ ... ..... 26- „L., , v ge, itbo h e)-4c0-4! 27. a „ ' ikL-00-trO 6241 / -t (. 28. QQ.. 3Pr-'t ,i \1 15 C H Itt 29. 6- j" z C 14.7L - dt4, 30. _. dirt Wa6„._604,- ie`L. 5J D7�'/ Q3-- C'1 . 31 [ / . x3 00 1 ,e ,,, ,...-- 32 ....-,, .0,-. i- 'II- 33. -:-=� Z `== �,_ '- 60,4. _35- p4 f4/6 44.4 ci-ifril a 36. 16rad h/Q l .2 „a,.. ; ... . �� Rte. � l /(,<� tiC 37. /V'P.K- T Ny!orJ G /vV 3 4vi v444041.1 ai, 00‘413#4 N1` 38. NAME ADDRESS 1 • f / 2. 3- . (94.-2„„ >z_ejf,e_ . Zi-x_Z6C .)axe . Ap . 5, r ' (l�X�Rte- ./551 2, /q 0 �/ . 6.. / -0 *jut. F . # ' a/ 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 . 12. 13- 14. 15. • 16. 17- 1$. 19. 20. 21 . 22 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 2$. 29. 30. 31 - 32 33. 34. 35. 36- 37. 38. vGG�� . . . .. ie/ � �3 all '`f . C. 4 . .. .. .. . .. . . .. . _ .. .. . . . . . . . �u . . . . ... • •• •• . . .. ... ... x € s 2 • . _. . . . /vial . . . . . _ • . . . . • -• 4o 4 -Fe>rz- s-r 4.o •• . . . (u)-470e.v. C ! . c 0 ft---ok) • • • -74--f---FiF LA-/11/) (0 5 fitLIAJF /Zf cc /aw19 . dWL mU7 tk: 7-?-Slcr . . . • " . . • • \r"