Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-13-2017 1 APPROVED 3/7/2017 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 13, 2017 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Mark Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney) COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Dorosin noted the dual purpose of this evening's meeting: a quarterly public hearing and a Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) work session. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING — QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS NONE D. PUBLIC HEARING — LEGISLATIVE ITEMS 1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO regarding revisions and modifications to the Mobile Home Park Conditional Zoning District (MHP-CZD). The modifications would revise the district standards to also allow for Temporary Residential Units [namely, Recreational Vehicles (RVs)]. The zoning district would also be renamed Home Park Conditional Zoning District (HP-CZD). BACKGROUND: This amendment is in response to a BOCC work session item on February 18, 2016 reviewing current development regulations and discussing opportunities for allowing more flexibility with respect to residential development. During this work session, staff recommended modifying the existing MHP-CZ District to allow for temporary residential units within mobile home parks, including recreational vehicles (RVs) and tiny homes constructed to the RV standard. Information from the work session can be viewed at: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink8/0/fol/40558/Rowl.aspx. This item was presented to the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) at its November 2, 2016 meeting. As a result of various comments received on the proposal, staff has crafted an amendment that: i. Provides standards for Temporary Residential Units that allow for up to a 180-day 2 occupancy; ii. Balances the various state and federal construction standards for temporary and permanent units; and iii. Allows for a wider-range of housing types. The goal is to revise existing development standards in an effort to encourage purposeful growth and development within the county in a cost efficient manner while promoting varied housing options. The Comprehensive Plan text amendment involves modification of Appendix F to change references to the Mobile Home Park Conditional Zoning (MHP-CZ) district to Home Park Conditional Zoning (HP-CZ) district. For more background information please refer to Attachment 1. Proposed text amendment language for both the UDO and Comprehensive Plan changes can be found in Attachment 6 within a "track changes" format. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 5 and the proposed amendment package as contained in Attachment 6. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board originally reviewed this item at its December 7, 2016 regular meeting and voted 7-1 to recommend approval. Minutes from this meeting are contained within Attachment 3. Agenda materials can also be viewed at viewed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/12.7.16AgendaPacket.pdf After this meeting the County's Attorney office identified inconsistencies in the use of terminology and definitions within the amendment package. Staff revised the amendment and resubmitted to the Attorney for review. It was deemed necessary to have the Planning Board review the revisions and take additional action on the proposal. The Board reviewed the revised amendment package at its February 1, 2017 regular meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval. The Statement of Consistency for the amendment can be found in Attachment 4. The proposed amendment, as deemed legally sufficient by the County's Attorney office and as recommended for approval by the Planning Board, is contained in Attachment 6. Patrick Mallett, Current Planning, reviewed the Abstract and the Attachments, and noted a grammatical/graphical error in the Table of Permitted Uses (page 5-25, page 35 in the packet). He said there is an "x" through the Table of Permitted Uses, which covers a single- family residential use within the home park district. He said it is intended that this should be allowed for permitted use, in order to allow for a caretaker's residence at a mobile home park. Patrick Mallett made the following PowerPoint presentation: BOCC UDO Text Amendment Modification of Mobile Home Park Conditional Zoning (MHP-CZD) Creating Home Park Conditional Zoning District (HP-CZD) February 13, 2017 3 Overview • Orange County has approximately 90 mobile home parks scattered throughout the county. These home parks offer affordable housing and can serve significant needs in our community. • Residents have expressed greater interest in RVs and "Tiny Homes" as alternative housing types. These options are a temporary housing alternative to suit their family and/or medical needs. • The current UDO doesn't allow for RVs. • Staff has seen an increase in RVs in mobile home parks, which not consistent with State Codes and UDO requirements. • These units cannot be legally considered as permanent dwellings. All residential construction (including "Tiny Homes, Micro-Homes and/or cottages) must be classified and built as either a: 1. Manufactured (aka Mobile) Homes = HUD Standards; 2. RV = State Home Park Model Standards; 3. Single-family "Stick Built" = State Building Code; or 4. Single-family "Modular" = State Building Code. Mobile Home Park Locations (map) Goals of the Amendment • As directed by the BOCC on February 18, 2016, Planning staff is proposing amendments to the UDO, providing additional options for temporary and permanent housing. • Align with Housing and Land Use Goals in the Comprehensive Plan. • Address a petition by the Commissioners to encourage more flexibility and housing options in the County. • Ensure that UDO requirements are consistent with State and Federal Codes and guidelines. Objectives 1. Revise the Mobile Home Park Conditional Zoning District (MHP-CZD) and other applicable UDO Sections to allow for both permanent units (i.e. mobile homes) and temporary units (i.e. RV Parks and Trailer Models). 2. Rename MHP-CZD to HP-CZD. 3. Offer additional opportunities in the UDO that encourage flexible development in rural sections of Orange County. 4. Establish clear standards for temporary and permanent home park units. Benefits of Text Amendment • Addresses emerging needs. • Avoids non-conformities and illegal land uses. • Designed to solidify addressing and EMS issues. • Provides temporary housing options. What This Amendment Will Not Do • Provide a total solution for those interested in living tiny homes and/or RVs. • Allow for RVs as permanent residences. 4 • Permit such uses outside of a Home Park. • Define Tiny Homes. • Automatically allow in existing MHPs. Mobile Homes • Built to HUD standards. • Can be located in Home Park or on single-family lot. • Requires permanent utility connections. • Fixed in space with skirting or foundation. • Typically requires 5,000 sq. ft. of space. • Home Park spaces typically rented on a monthly basis. Recreational Vehicles • Technically a vehicle or a trailer. • Uses temporary utility connections. • Uses a drive through space. • Must be built to the RV Park Model Standard. Tiny Homes • Legally, there is no such thing as a "tiny home." • Must meet one of the following standards: - RV Park Model; - Mobile Home HUD; - Modular Construction; or - Single-family residence (aka "stick built"). Utility Connections • Mobile Homes require permanent connections, while RVs require temporary hook-ups • Each space must be designated and developed as one or the other Outreach • Issued press releases inviting Mobile Home Park owners and interested parties to participate. • Posted information on the Orange County and Planning websites. • Sent 90+ letters to existing Mobile Home Park owners. • Staff hosted numerous individual meetings with mobile home park owners November- December 2016. • Staff has continued dialogue with residents and design professionals vested in this amendment. • Staff shared materials with Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Mebane, and Hillsborough for peer review. Revision Highlights • Revised UDO Section 3.8 Mobile Home Park Conditional Zoning District (MHP-CZD) and retitled to Home Park Conditional Zoning District (HP-CZD). • Revised UDO Sections 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses and 5.5.4 Performance Standards for Mobile Homes. • Added/revised definitions in UDO Section 10. 5 Recommendations The Administration recommends the Board: 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and UDO as detailed in this abstract and attachments. 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments on the proposed amendments 3. Close the public hearing (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments at a later date are permitted). Decide on one of the following options: a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and Ordinance (Attachment 6) b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date; c. Refer this item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or d. Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 Effect of Denial on Subsequent Applications of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The one-year period begins on the date of denial.) Commissioner Price asked if the process, after the 180 days expires, could be outlined. Patrick Mallett said the time is set by the North Carolina building code, and after 180 days it becomes a permanent structure, and must meet certain guidelines. He said an RV is not designed to meet such deadlines. Commissioner Price said asked if it would be legal for the RV to move to the adjacent lot. Patrick Mallett said he believes so, from a legal perspective. He said there would need to be discussion regarding how the 180-day time limit would be enforced. Commissioner Jacobs asked if a manufactured housing community is fully occupied, will one be allowed to add onto the water and sewer system, and will there be some sort of certification of adequacy. Patrick Mallett said appropriate measures would need to be taken, whether the home is temporary or permanent. He said mobile homes would have a fixed system, whereas converted spaces, like the RV park model, would have different types of fixtures. He said all would be reviewed and approved by the Health Department. He said most mobile home parks have spaces that have not been utilized, which could be set aside for conversion for temporary units. Commissioner Jacobs said there are some mobile home parks with failing systems, and asked if these parks would be allowed to add units. Patrick Mallett said no; if there is a failing system, Environmental Health should be working with the park to get the systems up to speed and functioning safely. Commissioner Rich asked if the lack of a legal definition of a tiny home is an issue nationwide. Patrick Mallett said he does not know about the rest of the country, but in North Carolina, there is no legal definition or code for tiny homes. He said there are two main obstacles: is there a square footage that would qualify as a tiny home; and, in many cases, marketed tiny homes on a chassis cannot be built to the building code. Commissioner Rich asked if other states have been able to work around this issue. Patrick Mallett said the State requirements control what can and cannot be done. Commissioner Marcoplos said a national definition is lacking. He said a home on a trailer is an RV, and a home on a foundation is a home. He said the law seems to pertain to connections. He asked if one had an RV home on a trailer, with a solar panel and a battery and 6 a composting toilet, and gas cooking and heating capability; could one park in the RV lot without connection and not violate the UDO. Patrick Mallett said from the Planning perspective, there would need to be a plan indicating that this was a temporary residential unit. He said if a unit is off the grid, the classification defers to whether the electrical and composting toilet would match up with Environmental Health and building code requirements. Commissioner Marcoplos said the utility connection is not the only determining factor. Patrick Mallet said it goes back to specifics of building and health codes. Commissioner Price referred to page 51, section 2-C, which states: "no permanent mobile homes or temporary residential units, or other accessory structures shall be permitted within a home park space." She asked if this means there can be no temporary residential units. Patrick Mallett said permanent and temporary structures cannot be located on the same lot. Commissioner McKee said the wording is awkward. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Pritchard thanked BOCC for their questions about this topic. He said his parents founded Spring Hill Park in 1972, which currently houses RVs mostly. He said the Orange County Visitors Bureau has worked with his park for many years, and the park has done much good over the years. He said many people have come to the area to receive health treatment, and have moved into his park during their time here. He said some people stay longer than 180 days. He said the amount of income that this brings into the County is noteworthy, and his park uses significantly less water than a mobile home park. He said his park is clean, safe and quiet, offering a place where people can feel comfortable surrounding medical treatments. Planning Board Chair Lydia Wegman said a great deal of thought went into the recommendations from the Planning Board. Commissioner Marcoplos read a letter from resident below: Hi, My name is April Kemper. I live and work in Chapel Hill. I've been following the tiny house movement for years now. Like Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County, other communities are trying to provide affordable, energy efficient, sustainable housing for their residents. Tiny houses on wheels are one way to provide such housing. I would be happy to sit down with the Orange County Planning Staff to share what I have learned from other communities who have made tiny houses an option for their residents by revising their local zoning and building codes. Thank you for considering another affordable housing option for our community. Commissioner Price reiterated that section 2-C on page 51 was ambiguous. Patrick Mallett said this section can be stricken. Commissioner Rich said this is a good start, with solutions for RV homes. She said she would like to examine the tiny home trend a bit more, along with County ordinances. She said tiny homes could be a viable option for affordable housing, and she does not want to miss it. Patrick Mallett said this is one part of the discussion, and it should continue more completely. He said more thought needs to be given to a tiny home definition. Commissioner Rich said all options should be explored. Commissioner Marcoplos said it is interesting to hear that there are people who stay longer than 180 days, and this information should be passed onto State representatives with the intent that exceptions might be given for medical situations. 7 Commissioner Price agreed, and noted that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not recognize tiny homes. She said she would like to see this challenged, as tiny homes are a good option. Michael Harvey, Planning, reminded the Board that if it approves the amendment, it is approving the revision to page 46, and the striking of sub-section 2 on page 52. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to amend the amendment as stated below: The revision of page 46, allowing single-family residences in the home park, and to strike 5.5.4 subsection 2-C on page 56. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adopt the proposed amendments (as amended) by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and Ordinance (Attachment 6). VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by to Commissioner Burroughs adjourn the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS F. WORK SESSIONS ITEMS 1. Introduction to Potential Joint Planning Amendments — To receive a presentation on possible amendments to the Orange County— Chapel Hill — Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement. BACKGROUND: Planning staffs of the three local government jurisdictions that are party to the "Joint Planning Agreement," as it is commonly called, have been discussing possible amendments to the Land Use Plan to better align with various local government goals and policies, including the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) (WASMPBA is also the subject of a separate agenda item). The map in Attachment 1 depicts the possible amendments to the Land Use Plan (the current version of which is included in Attachment 4). A summary of possible amendments is as follows: • Chapel Hill Area: o Change the Millhouse Road Park (78.2 acres) parcels, three smaller parcels (6.3 acres) owned by the Town of Chapel Hill and located between Millhouse Road and the Millhouse Road Park parcels, and 2.2 acres of road right-of-way from Rural Buffer to Chapel Hill ETJ (Extraterritorial Jurisdiction). 8 • This modification would allow the planned park to eventually be served by public water and sewer systems, if WASMPBA is also amended. Service by public water and sewer is an important component of increasing the capacity of the park and its expected active recreation (possible soccer center) component, since a park served only by well and septic systems would have a more limited capacity. o Change the northern portion of the parcel on which the Town of Chapel Hill's Operations Facility is located from Rural Buffer to ETJ (32.2 acres). Change 66 acres of Chapel Hill Transition Area to ETJ. This area is located immediately south of Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Sunrise Road. o Change 207.8 acres from Chapel Hill Transition Area to Rural Buffer. This area is located in the southwest corner of the county between Highway 15-501 and Old Lystra Road. Staff's understanding is that this area was formerly part of Chapel Hill's Urban Service area before the WASMPBA "primary service area" boundary was established in 2001, thereby removing this area from urban utility access. • Carrboro Area: o Change 2.9 acres on Highway 54 West from Rural Buffer to Carrboro ETJ. This proposal involves six parcels and was discussed at the October 13, 2016 joint BOCC/Town of Carrboro meeting. The portions of the parcels located immediately adjacent to the highway are currently within Carrboro's ETJ while the northern portion of the parcels is designated as Rural Buffer. This change would designate all of the smaller parcels (five parcels) as ETJ while moving the ETJ line of a "flag lot" slightly further north. Because of the relatively small size on the overall map, a "zoomed in" map is provided in Attachment 2. The map in Attachment 3 shows the "primary service area" of WASMPBA overlaid on the geographic area. The Millhouse Park Road/Town Operations Center area would have to be designated as "primary service area" on the WASMPBA map in order to be served by public water and sewer. The 66 acres in northern Chapel Hill proposed to be designated as ETJ is currently within the "primary service area" for water and sewer services. The 207.8 acre area south of Chapel Hill's ETJ currently designated as "Transition Area" is outside of the "primary service area" and is proposed to be designated "Rural Buffer." The parcels on Highway 54West are outside of the "primary service area" and are not proposed for change in this regard. The following table summarizes the possible amendments in terms of acreage: Transition Area to Rural Buffer 207.8 acres Rural Buffer to ETJ 121.8 acres Transition Area to ETJ 66 acres Amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan would require approval of all three signatory local governments (Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro) subsequent to a joint public hearing (which includes mailed notifications to affected and nearby property owners). JPA public hearings can be held in the spring and fall of each year, generally the March and October joint meeting dates, which must be "converted" to joint public hearing dates on the governmental calendars. Craig Benedict, Planning Director, reviewed the background of this topic and the history of the Joint Planning Area (JPA). Perdita Holtz, Planner III, made the following PowerPoint presentation: 9 Introduction to Possible Joint Planning Area Amendments February 13, 2017 QPH Work Session Item F.1 Tonight's Purpose • To receive an introduction to possible Joint Planning Area amendments and provide feedback to staff Brief History of JPA • Land Use Plan and Agreement between Orange County and Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro • Initially adopted in 1986 • Outlines zoning requirements, development standards, development review and permitting, and limitations on annexations • All three jurisdictions must approve amendments to plan or agreement, after a joint public hearing o Joint public hearings held in March or October o Change joint meetings on calendar to joint public hearings • For many years, joint public hearing was a meeting date on adopted calendars, deleted in late 2000's because hearings were sometimes canceled. Decision made to have hearings on an as-needed basis by converting joint meeting dates to 3-party hearings. Current Joint Planning Area • Rural Buffer (approx. 37,000 acres) • Carrboro Transition Areas (1 and 2) (496 acres & 1,258 acres, respectively) • Chapel Hill Transition Area (274 acres remain, ETJ authority extended over Roger Road area in late 2015) Possible Amendments to JPA Map • Amendments are not interlinked • Being pursued together due to required process of joint public hearing and separate action by the three jurisdictions, including respective Planning Board recommendations • Four geographic areas: o Millhouse Road o Sunrise Road o Old Lystra Road o Highway 54 West Possible Map Amendments • Millhouse Road Park (78.2 acres), 3 parcels owned by Town of Chapel Hill (6.3 acres), and 2.2 acres of road right-of-way o From Rural Buffer to Chapel Hill ETJ o Would allow proposed park to be served by public water and sewer of WASMPBA is also amended • Town of Chapel Hill's Operation Facility, northern portion of parcel (32.2 acres) o Town staff expressed interest a few years back o Currently awaiting direction from Town Management/Council o From Rural Buffer to Chapel Hill ETJ 10 Chair Dorosin asked if water and sewer could only be extended to Millhouse Road Park area by changing the designation from rural buffer to Town of Chapel Hill ETJ. Perdita Holtz said yes. Commissioner Jacobs said, in the interest of openness, when the County had discussions regarding the boundaries of the historic Rogers Road community and what was the Rogers Road community. He said there were people that insisted that the whole area near Millhouse Road Park and the Chapel Hill Operation Facility was part of Rogers Road. He said, moving forward, there should be transparency with the community about the possible use of these lands. He said this area may be used for a transfer station or recycling facilities. Perdita Holtz resumed the presentation: • Chapel Hill Transition Area in vicinity of Sunrise Road (66 acres) o From Transition Area to Chapel Hill ETJ • Chapel Hill Transition Area in vicinity of Old Lystra Road (207.8 acres) o From Transition Area to Rural Buffer o No longer in Town's urban services area • Should likely have been considered for changes in early 2000s Commissioner Jacobs asked if these potential changes will affect the fire districts. Chair McKee said he was trying to work this out. Perdita Holtz said staff will look into this topic. She resumed the presentation: • Highway 54 West (2.9 acres) o From Rural Buffer to Carrboro ETJ o Discussed with Town of Carrboro at October 13, 2016 joint meeting Commissioner Jacobs referred to the BOCC fall meeting with the Town of Carrboro, and asked if there was an update regarding the 75% development of transition area one. Perdita Holtz said she spoke with Carrboro staff, and said there have been some preliminary calculations done, and the area is very close 75%. She said more specific calculations are being worked on currently. Commissioner Jacobs said there was some sentiment about discussing a more comprehensive look at the intersections of interest between Carrboro and the County on Highway 54, as far as updating land use. He said there was a string of lots on Highway 54 that could be reviewed comprehensively. He said he would like to reintroduce that concept. Perdita Holtz said she does not have an update on this topic. Chair Dorosin said to forward this as a petition, and he will follow up with the Manager and the Town of Carrboro. Perdita Holtz resumed the presentation: WASMPBA Primary Service Area • Millhouse Road area currently outside of Primary Service Area (PSA) • Sunrise Road area is within PSA • Old Lystra Road area was moved out of urban services area when WASMPBA was adopted in 2001 • Highway 54 West area is outside of PSA& proposed to remain outside (service by well & septic) Questions/Feedback • Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen received information as a Consent Agenda item on February 7 11 • Town of Chapel Hill staff determining process/date to inform Town Council • If jurisdictions wish to proceed, earliest joint public hearing date would be October 26, 2017 • Normal process mandated by State statutes would be required for Towns to extend ETJs • Questions and feedback for staff by BOCC Commissioner Price asked if the Town of Carrboro had this report on their consent agenda. Perdita Holtz said the Aldermen received the information and asked questions. Commissioner Price clarified that the Alderman just received the information and made no decisions. Perdita Holtz said yes, the Board of Alderman just received the information. Commissioner Rich asked if clarification could be provided regarding potential complications with the fire zone in the southern portion of the map. Commissioner McKee said with these maps, it is unclear whether changing the zoning will remove water from the fire zones. Commissioner Rich asked if this area of the map is solely residential. Perdita Holtz said mostly residential. Commissioner Rich said Chatham County is building right up to this area. She said this is a triangle of land that seems to be hanging out there, and she does not understand why it became the rural buffer. Commissioner Marcoplos said he totally agreed with Commissioner Rich, and asked if there is value in the triangle of the rural buffer. He said it is a unique land section, different from the rest of the rural buffer, and he would like to know more about it. Commissioner Jacobs said people in Chapel Hill wanted to preserve open spaces, and this piece of land may have served that purpose in anticipation of greater development. Chair Dorosin asked if staff could follow up on all these questions. Commissioner Rich clarified that it would be helpful to know the Town of Carrboro's land use plan for the aforementioned areas. 2. Introduction to Potential Amendments to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement—To receive a presentation on possible amendments to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement. BACKGROUND: Planning staffs of the three local government jurisdictions that are party to the "Joint Planning Agreement," as it is commonly called, have been discussing possible amendments to the Land Use Plan to better align with various local government goals and policies (this is a separate agenda item) and accompanying modifications to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) map. Additionally, during discussions regarding the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) that occurred in the fall of 2016, it was mentioned that it could be advantageous to the EDD to designate additional WASMPBA primary service area immediately south of the EDD to the Rural Buffer boundary. These potential amendments would change the designation from `long term interest area' to `primary service area' which would permit development in the short term. Also in the fall of 2016, OWASA and Town of Carrboro staff broached the potential idea of designating additional "primary service area" adjacent to Smith Level Road. The area is zoned R-10 (Residential, 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit) which is extremely small if onsite well 12 and septic service is necessary. There is water service in part of the area already (which may have started in 1969, according to OWASA pipe data) and a sewer line is stubbed out at Bixby Lane which could provide service to a portion of the properties; others would be served from lines adjacent to Smith Level Road. The maps in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 depict the possible amendments to the WASMPBA map (the current version of which is included in Attachment 4 with the possible changes overlaid). A summary of possible amendments is as follows: • Chapel Hill Area: o Designate 118.9 acres in the vicinity of Millhouse Road as "primary service area." These parcels include: • 78.2 acres Orange County owns for the planned Millhouse Road Park • Three smaller parcels (totaling 6.3 acres) owned by the Town of Chapel Hill, located between the railroad tracks and the Millhouse Road Park parcels. • 2.2 acres of road right-of-way. These three modifications would allow the planned park to eventually be served by public water and sewer systems. Service by public water and sewer is an important component of increasing the capacity of the park and its expected use as a soccer center since a park served only by well and septic systems would have a more limited capacity. • The northern portion of the parcel on which the Town of Chapel Hill's Operations Facility is located (32.2 acres). • Carrboro Area: o Designate 20.6 acres (comprised of 34 parcels, 3 partial parcels, and road right-of way) in the vicinity of Smith Level Road near Carrboro High School as "primary service area." • Hillsborough Area: o Designate 87.5 acres (comprised of 12 parcels, 2 partial parcels, and road right-of way) contiguous to, and south of, the Hillsborough EDD as "primary service area." Amendments to the WASMPBA would require approval of all three five signatory parties (Orange County, OWASA, and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough) through the regular agenda/decision process (a formal public hearing is not required). Craig Benedict reviewed this item with the Board. Chair Dorosin asked if the phrase "long term interest area" could be explained. Craig Benedict said it mainly refers to whose responsibility it would be if there was any crisis that occurred in the area, or maybe on the fringe, a minor expansion into that area. Chair Dorosin said it is like the water system's ETJ. Craig Benedict said yes. He said sometimes before amendments are made, small area plans need to be reviewed. He said the Efland-Mebane small area plan was completed in the mid-2000s, and included some area on the outskirts of Mebane. He said this area was changed from a long-term interest area to a primary service area, and is the current location of the Morinaga Factory. Commissioner Jacobs said one utility outlet, which has not been mentioned, is Orange/Alamance Water System (OAWS), and asked if this entity fits into this discussion. 13 Craig Benedict said Orange/Alamance Water System is located in Orange County, but serves parts of Alamance. He said they are not a signatory to this agreement, and there are no sub agreements either. He said there are annual meetings held with them to discuss economic development within the Efland area, as well as any long range plans they may have. Commissioner Jacobs asked if Orange/Alamance Water System has adopted a master plan. Craig Benedict said no, but staff is moving closer to presenting the Board with a water infrastructure integrity analysis. Commissioner Rich asked if the service area for Orange/Alamance Water could be defined. Craig Benedict said all of the residential within the unincorporated Efland area, and the Perry Hills neighborhood, as well as around part of Mebane's water system serving an area to the north and southwest of it. He said he is working in an ongoing fashion to stress that the water needs to not only be potable, but also a fire suppression system. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the Orange/Alamance Water Supply is exclusively from wells. Craig Benedict said no, part is an allocation from the Lake Orange Eno Capacity Use Agreement; part is from wells; and part is from interlocal agreements with Mebane/Graham Water System. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if OAWS has drilled any new wells in the last 10 years. Craig Benedict said not in Orange County but perhaps in Alamance. Commissioner Jacobs said OAWS is a wild card in the middle of the County. He said there is a history of a dysfunctional relationship. Commissioner Jacobs said a central public facility can be put in the rural buffer, to be served by water and sewer, like a school or a fire station, but it has yet to actually happen. Craig Benedict said the one time this topic did come up was the Solid Waste Administration Center. He said as the Rogers Road long range planning area is discussed, the topic of the rural buffer near Eubanks Road is sure to come up. Perdita Holtz made the following PowerPoint presentation: Introduction to Possible Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) Amendments February 13, 2017 QPH Work Session Item F.2 Tonight's Purpose • To receive an introduction to possible WASMPBA amendments and provide feedback to staff Brief History of WASMPBA • Five party agreement adopted in 2001 o Orange County, OWASA, and Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough o Amended only once— in 2010 • Defines Primary Service Areas and Long-Term Interest Areas o Primary Service Areas: areas where water and sewer either are provided or might reasonably be provided in the future, according to adopted plans and future amendments to adopted plans o Long Term Interest Areas: areas where water and sewer is not anticipated, but if such services are to be provided, they would be provided by the entity 14 designated for each long term interest area (e.g., OWASA, Town of Hillsborough, or Orange County) • All five entities must approve amendments o Formal public hearing not required o Can follow normal agenda/decision process Current Service Area Map • Primary Service Area and Long Term Interests o OWASA o Hillsborough o Orange County Possible Amendments — Northern Chapel Hill • Millhouse Road parcels that are proposed for possible addition to the Town of Chapel Hill's ETJ (118.9 acres total) • JPA-related land use amendments would have to occur first o Can run concurrently Possible Amendments — Southern Carrboro • Smith Level Road in vicinity of Carrboro High School (20.6 acres) o OWASA has provided water and sewer services to much of the area since the 1960s o Potential oversight in primary service area boundary when WASMPBA was adopted?? Possible Amendments — Hillsborough EDD Area • Old NC Highway 86 immediately south of existing Hillsborough EDD (87.5 acres) • Would also require concurrent amendments to Joint Hillsborough/OC Land Use Plan • Rezoning may also be desirable to reflect urban service boundary o Currently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) Land Use Plans — Hillsborough Area (map) Questions/Feedback • Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen received information as a Consent Agenda item on February 7 • Town of Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and OWASA staff determining process/date to inform governing boards • Questions and feedback for staff by BOCC Commissioner Rich said the big map shows that some of the area looks like they fall in the OWASA long term. Perdita Holtz said boundaries need to be firmed up. Craig Benedict said the rural buffer has to do with watersheds. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the two white bulges on the map, and clarified that these areas could possibly be amended and open to development of water and sewer. Perdita Holtz said yes. Commissioner Jacobs said, again, to be open with the public that there is a potential development that is waiting for this area to be rezoned. Perdita Holtz said this development application will be on the agenda for the May Quarterly Public Hearing. 15 Craig Benedict said an application was filed on February 3, and was found to be sufficient on February 10. He said a review of the application will proceed, and staff will get this information out to the Board. He said the public will also be informed about any changes in this general area. Commissioner McKee referred to the previous item, and the 200 plus acres south of Chapel Hill. He said this land is close to highway 15-501, and asked if the zoning ordinances for this area could be provided. Perdita Holtz said this is a transition area, and Town of Chapel Hill zoning would apply there. She said she would get complete information to the Board. Chair Dorosin asked if Commissioner McKee wants information on all the parcels of land, or just one. Commissioner McKee said it is difficult to tell if this is one parcel of land, or multiple. Perdita Holtz said it is 71 parcels. Commissioner McKee said he would just like a general idea about the area, and whether any are already zoned commercial. G. INFORMATION ITEM 1. Unified Development Ordinance—Tables of Permitted Uses—To receive an update on amendments to the UDO that would reorganize the Tables of Permitted Uses in response to the Byrd v. Franklin County judicial decision. ADJOURNMENT OF WORK SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Mark Dorosin, Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board