Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-21-2016 - F-1 229 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 21, 2016 Action Agenda Item No. F.1 SUBJECT: Report on Strategic Growth/Rural Conservation Planning Technique (AKA Transfer of Development Rights) DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. TDR Feasibility Study Overview Craig Benedict, Planning and Brochure (2005-06 Timeframe) Inspections Director (919) 245-2592 2. TDR Feasibility Study Overview Brochure Update (2008-09 Timeframe) 3. 2009 & 2011 TDR PowerPoint PURPOSE: To receive a brief history of Orange County's efforts to develop and implement a Strategic Growth/Rural Conservation program, as requested by a commissioner petition. BACKGROUND: SPECIAL NOTE: NC Legislation since the research (mid-2000's) on this topic has changed so this update is not intended to respond to the impacts of recent law and case law. During the development of the county's multi-element Comprehensive Plan in the early to mid-2000's, the necessary integration of various planning principles and public service models became more evident. They had, over time become `siloed' among departments. The process of evaluation the future `master plan' of the county with all of the associated supporting elements brought forward both compatible initiatives and in some circumstances competing concepts. The basis of the plan began with a data element which examined trends of demographic and socio-economic data and projected a future that could be shaped by goal and objectives in the comprehensive plan. The various elements (land use, economic development, housing, natural and cultural systems, infrastructure, public services and transportation) would need to be balanced and choreographed to maintain or bolster the quality of life appreciated by residents, farms and businesses. Inevitable growth would add pressures to our existing systems of farmland and environmental preservation and our desire to accommodate new residents and businesses in the appropriate place with supporting and efficient services. This sustainable model was the model for the Comprehensive Plan. Acknowledging the challenges ahead, various planning techniques were analyzed. One `pressure release' concept that could address the push to preserve and the pull to grow smart 230 related strongly to what is nationally known as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). After much community and elected official input and staff/consultant research about the topic, various options were explored for implementation, albeit with some caution related to our legal authority. The 2006 Phase II Report can be viewed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning and inspections/2006FinalTDRRepo rtPhasell.pdf The 2009 Phase III report is available for viewing at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning and inspections/2009FinalTDRRepo rt.pdf. The attachments to this agenda item explain the development of a program that was retitled Strategic Growth/Rural Conservation to respect the uniqueness sought in Orange County and within the limits of our legislative ability. Other states, in most cases, have more legislative flexibility in this area of transferable development rights. The goals of Strategic Growth/Rural Conservation taskforce were as follows: 1. Sustainably balance rural and urban areas; 2. Direct growth and development away from important natural and cultural resources and towards areas more able to support municipal services and urban densities; 3. Provide working farms with an alternative income potential; and 4. Link zoning densities to comprehensive plan goals and policies. Taskforce members were chosen from the following general sectors, including, but not limited to: local governments, advisory boards, banking and finance, private sector community/neighborhood groups, utilities, developers, lawyers, agriculture, planning, natural areas advocacy, real estate, and environmental protection. The goals listed were pursued during a multi-year period. The outcomes of the taskforce and consultant recommendations are noted in the attached power point. Although the principles of Strategic Growth/Rural Conservation still remain as a logical balance of interest, legislative authority began to diminish (varying opinions) in the early 2010's. The implementation was therefore muted with complementary yet separate aspects: a very successful Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) by the public sector with the extinguishment of development potential in agricultural/rural areas and the promotion of increases in intensity (non-residential square footage) and density (units) in appropriate urbanizing areas through pre- zoning. What was not accomplished is the Strategic Growth/Rural Conservation self-sustaining engine of the private sector paying and transferring development potential from farmland and environmental areas to lands in urban areas to accomplish up-zoning with associated conditions supporting other goals of the county. Admittedly, planning is a balance of goals. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact in receiving this report. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable to this agenda item: 231 Ensure Economic Self-Sufficiency The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents. Establish Sustainable and equitable Land-Use and Environmental Policies The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report. Attachment 1 232 For more information about Transfer of Development Rights and 0 the Orange County TDR Feasibility Study, please refer to the following resources: ORANGE COUNTY STAFF: CONSULTANT: Glenn Bowles,AICP,Planner II J.Scott Lane,AICP Orange County Planning Dept. The Louis Berger Group,Inc. 306F Revere Road 1513 Walnut Street,Suite 250 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Cary,North Carolina (919)245-2575 919.467.3885x14 gbowles@co.orange.nc.us slane@louisberger.com Internet Resources: Melissa Bledsoe,Joe Covert,Matt Freeman,William Jones,Autumn Rierson,Introduction to Transferable Development Rights, 1998. (http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/edu cation/etowa h/documents/pdf/tdr.p df) Ricky Pruetz,Transfer of Development Rights Update, 1999 American Planning Association Conference (http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedi Transfer of ngs99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM). Developm nl Books: Rig s: By for the most comprehensive research done on TDR programs is Feasibility Study Ricky Pruetz's Saved By Development: Preserving Environmental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks With Transfer Of Development Rights (1997). Although starting to become a bit Glenn Bowles,AICP,Planner II dated, the 1999 update Mr. Pruetz provided at the APA Orange County Planning Department Orange County,Nort ar na Conference (see Internet Resources,above) helps to freshen the 306F Revere Road 112 case studies that he presented in this book. The book is Hillsborough,NC 27278 available from the APA bookstore on-line at: TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FEASIBILITY STUDY (http://www.planning.org/bookservice/). II 233 ra sfer of K lopment Feasibility Study: Overview 2005 Project Schedule Orange County is conducting a feasibility study of creating a Transfer of finished, County Commissioners will decide whether to proceed with Development Rights (TDR) program for its residents. A TDR allows developing a more detailed plan for creating a TDR program for y landowners to sell the future rights of developing,iheir property v Orange County. > w permitting others to build new development in areas that can Is a -c', ' a o n support growth.Those people wishing to sell the future rights to develop Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs work by creating a O Z their property can continue to live, farr,r do any of the things that market for credits that are bought and sold by property owners and ti they would otherwise do with their land. ew development is directed developers. The three main concepts that must be understood are E away from farmland,water resource areas,important natural habitat sending areas,receiving areas,and TDR credits: 0 o and other places that the County and its citizens would like to see conserved. Landowners in the areas receiving additional development Sending Areas are those areas that the County would like to see t can profit by the allowance of higher densities and hence more profit. protected and conserved in the future.This could be prime farmland, Important tax base revenues from the development accrue to open space, forests, water supply watersheds, wetlands, historic H everyone in the County and allow the construction of more roads, places, or any other area that has important natural or man-made Cie parks, schools, water/sewer features.TDR programs were initially started N oo facilities, and other public in New York to protect historic landmarks, 0- m infrastructure without raising but are now being used by over 100 c O a taxes-and in places where the municipalities and counties across the Q c � new facilities are far less likely to country. Landowners in sending areas are m a� o O a o cause the need for more allowed to continue using their land for the oo a U o o infrastructure in the future. ° same uses as long as development density .A o;n w} N a Z is not increased; foregoing the ability to U N O O O -Water Supply Area ;a m Q p The County will appoint a increase density for development is -Productive Farmland a° E citizens'Task Force to work with compensated through the purchase of TDR o U c,C D -Natural Resource m ' Existing public services 0 0 p} h its consultants to explore various ......••••••. O O d d ,� ~ N p -Historic Resource -Developed edits. 0 m m c U a TDR options and prepare a -Excess capacity .� m m h h m h iv report on the feasibility of ReceNlh^rA oi1lace�4f IiD he D D a 0 a creating a TDR program in capacity to accommodate new LEGEND FOR MEETINGS Orange County. The public will C00development. In oeer to build at higher have two opportunities to learn densities than the current regulations allow, =Task Force I about TDR and provide in ut a developer must purchase TDR credits =Public Mee Cul e�i 'ty study.43e obtained from a sending area landowner. should take 9-10 months This arrangement can allow transit and to lete.Once the stud is other non-automobile modes of travel to P Y Landowners in Sending Areas receive financial compensation as they sell TDR credits to developers,who in turn use the TDR credits to build at higher densities work better in these areas as well as foster in Receiving Areas that can best accommodate new growth. revitalization. Attachment 2 234 For more information about Transfer of Development Rights and the Orange County TDR Feasibility Study, please refer to the following resources: ORANGE COUNTY STAFF: CONSULTANT: Glenn Bowles,AICP,Planner II J.Scott Lane,AICP Orange County Planning Dept. The Louis Berger Group,Inc. 306F Revere Road 1513 Walnut Street,Suite 250 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Cary,North Carolina (919)245-2575 919.467.3885x14 gbowles @co.orange.nc.us slane @louisberger.com What's On Our Website Now... fi Technical Report #1 that includes examples of other TDR i p programs, information about legal issues, O economic issues, and related matters :a Maps ::Overview of TDR:How it Works ::Task Force meeting summaries y www.co.orange.nc.us/planning r Other Internet Resources: Melissa Bledsoe,Joe Covert,Matt = a Freeman,William Jones,Autumn Rierson,Introduction to Transferable Transfer of Development Rights,1998. (http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/edu cation/etowah/documents/pdf/tdr.p Develop _e�nt df) Ricky Pruetz,Transfer of Development R! h s: Rights Update, 1999 American Planning Association Conference Glenn Bowles,AICP,Planner 11 Feasibility Stu y (http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedi Orange County Planning Department ngs99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM). 306F Revere Road Hillsborough,NC 27278 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FEASIBILITY STUDY Orange County, N(!; roli a Newsletter#2(May,2006) ! 235 SENDING AREA MODEL nff(Zr of 0 pmnt, t,f Foofibil t,lj SLu lj. Updot.lz, t 2 Orange County is conducting a feasibility study of creating c;Transfer of away from farmland,water resource areas,important natural habitats, ®3 d'< Development Rights (TDR) program for its residents. A TDR allows and other places that the County and its citizens would like to see rl 1 4 landowners to sell the future rights of developing their pr6'pefty,while conserved.Landowners in the areas receiving additional development of 5 permitting others to build new development in areas that an best can profit by the allowance of higher densities and hence more profit. al l 8 3 support growth.Those people wishing to sell the uture rights t&�, lop °t Important tax base revenues from the development accrue to E€ 7 a z their property can continue to dive, farm, op!dd any of the things that everyone in the County and allow the construction of more roads, M s t they would otherwise do with their land.New development is directed parks, schools, water/sewer facilities, and other public infrastructure =to without raising taxes-and in places where the 7. new facilities are far less likely to cause the need low ECONOMIC MODELING SCENARIOS for more infrastructure in the future. RECEIVING AREA MODEL Hypothetical '. Hypothetical Receiving Areas. Sending Area The County has appointed a Citizens'Task Force Scenario#1. to work with its consultants to explore various TDR Nine separate ,; options and prepare a report on the feasibility of potential This scenario receiving areas simply suggests creating a TDR program in Orange County. The were created that Sending Task Force has met five times, and has using economic I Areas are those 0 I development , . places that are developed the following products: V m and rural R X not included in Reviewed a technical memorandum from r n m x� development if any Receiving ii v J I I z"`r .,- nodes from the Area,resulting in the consulting team that has conducted U[ 3 `�`c;;..., Comprehensive maximum preliminary program research from t= 4 ;C y Plan. { _ coverage. _ P rY p eer p g other states already using some form of TDR. - 13 Z 7 Hypothetical Hypothetical ■ Discussed the characteristics of a good �j?? ,a w Sending Area Sending Area sending area, like the presence of Scenario#2. Scenario#3 ,f � t important natural resources, prime p Smaller than the __ This Scenario farmlands,and public water supplies. b area in Scenario - e�elusively on Lf� #t,this model ■ Discussed the characteristics of good _ those parts of focuses on those + receivin areas, such as having excess parts of Orange Orange County g g The two maps above indicate the relative that have the p County facing roadway capacity, available water/sewer \ merits of various lands within Orange County as development _ highest natural suitable receiving/bottom)and sending areas pressures. resource values. service,and other urban amenities. ^, (top).The stronger the color,the more criteria +. 5 is The Task ,Force also discussed other vl that the land area met during the assessment. Sending and receiving area criteria were __ _ ents of a hypothetical TDR program, collaboratively designed by the Citizen's Task i like legal issues, administration, and Force and consultant and focused on " coordination with municipalities. protecting natural resources(Sending Art_.) Taking the basic sending/receiving area models at left, the Task Force considered the development of various IL and making development more cost-efficient sending(3)and receiving(1)scenarios to conduct an economic feasibility of a TDR program in Orange County. (Receiving Areas). 0% ME NEF ME 4 w - f ONE m ' r r ON ON . Strategyg`rc -� - ; bean . � _ - C,c�ns ati� ik btu .�.-No ' . MIN m; NN NW-'N 0 JL No 0% MEN 1 0 0 MOM -00 *mom AL- ME ME ON NO a r MEME r' Or - i� unty VMrrnin g fmr� mm - ' OR - wo ME I A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Phased Study I. Case Studies and Research ll. Feasibility Study and Concept System lll. Program Design and Implementation Plan (not a zoning ordinance amendment . . . yet.) 238 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Goals • Preserve the: — Farm Economy — Environmental Resources — Cultural Resources — Water Resources — Rural Character • Focused Public Services and Infrastructure — Efficient — Well-planned — Location Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Objective Shift/Transfer Development Potential from Preservation Areas (sending) to Strategic Growth Areas (receiving) What aspects of Development Potential ? • Dwelling Units • Additional height or square footage • Affordable housing • Green Buildings • Impervious Surface Allotments • Nutrient Load Allowances 241 Zoning Authority • Road Dedications — NCDOT • Density Averaging — DWQ • Development Agreements • Impervious Area Sharing • New Legislation • Nutrient Sharing 242 Zoning Authority (cont. ) • Unified Development Ordinance — UDO • Paired conservation easement with upzoning • Conditional Zoning Districts/Unique Conditions • Special Use or Overlay Districts 243 Zoning Authority (cont. ) • PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) — Reduction in development — No commensurate increase (tax base) — Limited fiscal resources • TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) — Do not have Explicit Authority — Nor Express Prohibition 244 How could we do TDR? Create a Sending Area • Reduces Development Potential • Paper Zoning vs. Land Zoning • Aspects ➢Residential Units ➢Impervious Area Allotments ➢Nutrient Trading Potential • SGRC Recorded Certificate (Purchase) ➢Purchase by Developer ➢Purchase by Local Government? 245 How could we do TDR? Acceptance of Rights at a Receiving Area • Allows a Higher Development Intensity — Beyond Base Zoning • Residential or Economic Development Uses • Directed to the ` Right Place ' by Local Government Action 246 TABLE ESSENTIAL AND IMPORTANT A • PRESENT IN SUCCESSFUL TD PROGRAMS (From Pruetz's and r # +9 JAPA Article, V117,3t r of 1 Rights r Research and Practice). . :. ;_ -,• tizf K-,ru "y' ✓�,'.. 6��,s' rS 1�U'.�jrYi 7'�'''k�'rr � s� +ri`S"E`" � r�'* � Strong r©moiin ,�Str�ct � n SLY DenSi _ alt"s Certain 9 Simple TDR _ � t� evading Incentives public i5r `,< ; a dean € �k y to use rE_�: process ��.;. Bank �..., ,s,f �, Y;tk3 1i #areas �; , x rregs. support faca��rron h 3. .�.,u"^�',�.L [;. til CS��d r _.__�;'�'�%`�° a• .t ai--,` TDR Montgomery X X X X X X X County, MD New Jersey X X X X X X X X X Pinelands, NJ King County, X X X X X X X X X WA Calvert X X X X X X X X X County, MD Collier X X X X X X X X County, FL Boulder X X X X X X X X X County, CO Rather than adopt traditional TDR programs, several communities have adopted different regulatory programs—ones that aim to accomplish similar goals as TDR programs, but that operate much differently. Appendix 2 contains two examples from the state of Colorado; communities in other states, including Florida, Massachusetts, and Washington, have also adopted these types of alternative programs. 247 j`, SGRC Program A. Map Red — Strategic Growth 4 Green — Rural Conservation Areas IF 248 King County, WA (TDR) • Public Benefit Rating System • Since 2000 — 141 ,400 acres of Rural and Resource lands have been protected — 2,284 potential dwellings can be shifted to urban areas — 50 developers — 500 TDR' s bought and sold — $6.75 million . r. 0 ME I I : = r 0 MON ON 0 0 _f, or � r r. L Y J ME n ■ ■ 7 ME 0 NO J r • 1 0 NJ 0T7 r - • 7 � a� ■ 01 MON or ther Information contact Craig Benedict at 919 245 2585 or by email — cbenedict @co . orange . nc. 0 0 Clio No r MIN 0 N 250 CASNAELL Knop d L FL=ji Riyer R8BCIS Cr I I-Ekgt Boundary Y GIPIJWLM 14-DiqtBo�ndarV Ledge Cr UrbanAraa Little Rrver Beaverdar-Cr N-Ew Eno Rwr HW c-r59 f L dt C. S b* Cr H.xp-y U peer B al D-, Figure 1. Location of ffic Falb Lake Wmtershed Falls Lake Watershed — Source: Falls Lake Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF) Development report, NCDWQ. Estimated Nitrogen Loading in Stormwater 251 1 14 ZN 1 ❑ 100% Forest 10 ❑ Orange County ❑ Durham County 0 ❑ Typical Residential ■ Typical Commercial 4 2 0 r--F I Current 40% Reduction This graph shows estimated nitrogen loading calculated using current methodologies pursuant to the Neu se River Basin stormwater rule. The graph shows current estimated loading rates and the loading rate based on the proposed 40% reduction from the Falls Lake rules. Each category is defined below. 252 Nitrogen Loading Nitrogen loading (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs) Orange County — Current 1 .46 1785905 Proposed Falls Lake Rules 2006 Baseline 2 .89 3545135 Difference or credit? 1 .43 1759229 Nitrogen Loading Nitrogen loading (lbs/ac/yr)I (lbs) Existing 5-acre commercial site 15.0 75 40% reduction 9.0 45 Difference 6.0 30 253 Hypothetical Application of SGRC Concept 200-acre Sending Area parcel determined to have a 100-dwelling unit development potential . The owner, through the TDR process , desires to sell 90 of the possible 100 residential units for transfer into a Receiving Area. Hypothetical A of 5 Concept 20-acre Receiving Area site, zoned R-1 , with a 16-unit residential development potential. The owner/developer purchases the conservation easement from the Sending Area owner to increase the development density from 1 du/acre to 8 du/acre. Bonus Incentives 25% TDR/Development Baseline Incentive * 90 x 0.25 = 22 units 15% Affordable Housing Bonus** 90x0.15 = 13 units 10% Smart Growth Principles Bonus** 90 x 0.10 = 9 units Total Possible Incentive Bonuses 44 units Existing development potential 16 units Transferred development 90 units Total development density 150 units On 20 acres = 7.5 units/acre * Determination Based on Land Holding Capacity ** Draft Bonus Incentive Percentages The Potential for DR an f. TDRminspired Pro rams i ., Orange f Craig t�ti4 akn,ing Director April 27, 2011 . .ti ' ,5 k••'R`'a ;* `Gam-. 256 Orange County's Past and Current Research Efforts 1. Case studies and research ll. Feasibility study and concept system 111• Program design and implementation plan (not a zoning ordinance amendment. . . yet.) 257 r Possible - Sendin g & - s Receiving Areas Red : Strategic � yJa Growth Green : i Conservation 1 258 TOR- Inspired Programs Rather than adopt traditional TOR programs several communities have adopted different regulatory programs ones that aim to accomplish similar goals as TOR programs but that operate much differently -Pr uetz and Stanridge 2009 259 Potential for TOR-Ins ired Programs p that Improve Water Quality 4- c�awet KIQbY I Knep Ot FWt River Reeds Cr Legend D 11-Yg IUr,uPbrl i pm.Al L J 14-D .BAIM Lie Cr UitAln Ai011 ~ Little River � I #, BeiverdamCr s.rr.•. New Light Cr Eno Rwr XWAli:C I aWY,2 1' -1 1 Horse 0- Creek I 1 Lillie Lick Q vs zs ! µ6Y Lids Cr HonwyouttCr UpperBarton Cr Figure 1.Location or flu:Falls Lak c Watersh ed Source: Falls Lake Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework Development report, NCDWQ. 260 How Might Sending Areas Work in Orange County? • Credits that could be transferred • Residential Units • Impervious Area Allotments • Nutrient Trading Potential • Recorded certificate of credit transfer • Purchase by Developer • Purchase by Local Government? 261 How Might Receiving Areas Work? • Accepta nce of credits in receiving areas • Residential or commercial uses • Directed to the "right place" by local government action 262 Hypothetical Transaction • 200-acre sending area parcel • 100-dwelling unit development potential • Owner desires to sell 90 of the 100 residential units for tra nsfer into a receiving area 263 Hypothetical Transaction Cont . • 20-acre receiving area site • Zoned R- 1 , with a 16-unit residential development potential • Developer purchases the transfer credits to increase the development density from 1 du/acre to 8 du/acre 264 Hypothetical Transaction Cont. Bonus Incentives 25% TOR/Development Baseline Incentive 15% 90 x 0.25 =22 units Affordable Housing Bonus** 90 x 0.15 =13 units 10% Smart Growth Principles Bonus** 90X0.10 = 9 units Total Possible Incentive Bonuses 44 units Existing development potential 16 units Transferred development 90 units Total development density On 20 acres 150 units * Determination Based on Land Holding Capacity 7.5 units/acre ** Draft Bonus Incentive Percentages ■ R • • Y simEME WE _ r ■ . Triangle Luild ConservVn� •0 Ick Gonservati�n u " • im ■ r •7 . 1L October 23 , 266 � • I _ M- 0 MEN ME • • - • 1 • ME M 0 0 MJL 1 � . . _ • _ ■ r i 1 1 Mme■ 1 I :eMq•• r ;17 I 'm N I�k ME ■ NEE t ange Coun"Iy Strategic,Growth and Resovrce ME s ' • r, % Conservation SGRC Program ■ • Presenter: GlAn Bowles ME • _ ■ a • MEN ON MM 9 AM&L. 266 SGRC Goals and Objectives • Preserve the farm economy. • Protect drinking water resources. • Preserve environmental and cultural resources. • Preserve the character of rural Orange County- • Avoid excess public costs to provide water, sewer, and education services. • Objective — Direct growth and development activities away from important natural and cultural resources b Y shifting those activities to areas more able to accommodate them. 267 TDR Program Development Timeline • June 2004 — BOCC authorizes an RFQ to develop a TDR program. • September 2004 — Consultant interviews. • November 2004 — The Louis Berger Group & UNC Charlotte Urban Institute selected. • June 2005 -- BOCC appoints TDR Task Force. • June 2006 — BOCC receives Feasibility Study report and affirms Task Force recommendation that the program continue. • December 2006 — Formal notice to proceed with Phase III 268 SGRC Study Three Phases 1 . Background Research and Data Gathering 2 . Feasibility Study and Concept Plan 3 . Program Design and Implementation Plan First Two (2) Phases complete — June 2006 Third Phase term extended until Comprehensive Plan is adopted. 269 Sending Areas — Strategic Rural Areas • Properties with the following characteristics : — Not already protected by easement, — Not already developed to its max. density, — More than fifty (50) acres in size, — National Historic Register site, — In a Critical Area Water Supply watershed, — Within 150' of a lake, river or perennial stream, — Adjacent to an already protected property, or — Not in Strategic Growth Areas. Growth Management System 270 Urban and Rural Designated Areas Urban Designated-Property located within Transition Areas(10yr,20yr,and EDD) in Water/Sewer Boundary Agreement Service Areas Rural Designated-Property not located in Urban Designated areas i9 Rural N W f F Rural Urbanizing rbanizing ? 70A u r � Legend City Limits ETJ Urban Designated \ Rural Buffer 15 - Rural Designated 501 Rural Designated L 15 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department GIS Map Prepared by Miriam Coleman August 02,2004 Projection_State Plane 501 Datum. North American 1983 Map Adopted by BOCC 1115103 271 Receiving Areas (Strategic Growth Areas) • Economic Development Districts, • Urban Transition Areas, and • Rural Community Nodes, that are not: — National Historic Register sites, — Already protected as open space, or — In a Critical Area Water Supply. 272 Important Design Program Issues • Strictly Voluntary • For now, only County-to-County Transfers, • County will not Maintain a "Bank," • Call it Something Else (strategic Growth and Resource Conservation — a.k.a. TDR), • Use Existing Enabled Ordinances, - Zoning, Conditional Zoning, Development Agreements 273 Relationship to Other Programs • Minor changes to Zoning Text, • Small Area Plan within the Comprehensive Plan • Conditional Use Zoning • Lands Legacy Program Differs in that the present program severs and extinguishes development rights at the time of easement recording and — Provides anon-government revenue stream for rural preservation. Er M NEE 0 OEM 0% 1 0 M N ■ 1 ' ■ 7 No ON ■ 0 0 ■ ME, 1 ■ M ON 0 • , � �1 0 L r 7 ■ • . F ! . - • 1 J �• ti . . _ . - . ME ME ME ION M - _ r . . ■ r ME 1 � ■ ■ ME■ • ME — MEN ■ ■ ■ in, ■ • MEN 1 0 ME 0 ME ■ • •■ • ■ ■T f■ � ■ ■ ' • • ■ ONE "For more inTormation cgntact Glenn Bowle,$ at (1` 9) 245 2577 or gbowleskco.oran e.nc.us or 0 ME visit our website at co.oraUge.nc.us/planning/TDR MEN • ■Moor • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■MEN • ME � 0 NJ L ■ ' ■