Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Abstract - 01-30-2018 Assembly of GovernmentsORANGE COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS MEETING AGENDA ITEMS ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 30, 2018 SUBJECT: Assemblv of Governments Meetina Discussion Items DEPARTMENT: County Manager /Town Managers /County Planning ATTACHMENT(S): As noted in "Background" section 1 INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Hammersley, 245 -2300; Roger Stancil, 968 -2743; Eric Peterson, 732- 1270; David Andrews, 918 -7315; Travis Myren, 245 -2300; Craig Benedict, 245- 2575; Perdita Holtz, 245 -2575; Ashley Moncado, 245 -2575; Sherrill Hampton, 245 -2490 PURPOSE: To discuss topics of mutual interest between the governing boards of Hillsborough, Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County. BACKGROUND: 1. Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) — Discussion Regarding "Essential Public Facilities" for Future Millhouse Road Park Staffs of Orange County and Chapel Hill have engaged in discussions this year regarding the future development of a County -owned 78 -acre parcel of land on Millhouse Road for a park facility, sometimes referred to as Millhouse Road Park. The park is expected to have a sizeable active recreation component, including fields for sports such as soccer. For the possible intensity of an active park facility connection to a public water and sewer system is typical for restroom and other facilities, such as concession stands, fire hydrants, possible irrigation systems, etc. However, the parcel of property is located on the edge of the Rural Buffer and, therefore, is not within a "primary service area," (where public water and sewer is permitted) as depicted on the WASMPBA map (see attachments). Orange County is researching other private onsite water and sewer facilities and technologies that could accommodate peak water and sewer demands. No change in jurisdiction is being proposed. Subsequent to a suggestion earlier this year that the Town of Chapel Hill's ETJ (Extraterritorial Jurisdiction) could be extended and the WASMPBA Map could be amended to designate the proposed park area as "primary service area," staff was asked to instead investigate the possibility of using existing provisions in the WASMPBA that could designate park facilities as "essential public facilities." As is shown in the highlighted portions of the attached WASMPBA, essential public facilities are permitted within "Long -Term Interest Areas." Also of note (and highlighted) is language that restricts the size of lines into long -term interest areas such that only the intended use would be served. Park planning is not yet to the stage of having a concept plan or preliminary engineering (joint discussions have begun) completed, but the future Millhouse Road Park parcel is serviceable by OWASA's nearby water and sewer lines (see attached map). In keeping with possible options, service could occur in a few manners:: 1. The five signatory parties to the WASMPBA agree that the Millhouse Road Park facility is an essential public facility (no amendment to the WASMPBA would be necessary but passing formal resolutions (of this interpretation) would likely be best in order to have a formal record for the future), or 2. The WASMPBA is amended to specifically add "parks and associated facilities" (see definition in Attachment la for other uses) to the definition of "Essential Public Facility." (Would require adoption by the five signatory parties). 3. Continue with research of innovative onsite private water and sewer systems and match intensity of future operations accordingly. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues and provide feedback to staff related to this item as necessary. Attachment la — Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement Attachment lb — Map - Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement Attachment 1 c — Map - Millhouse Road Park Parcel & WASMPBA Attachment Id — Existing Water & Sewer Lines Near Millhouse Road Park Parcel 2. Orange County Food Council The Orange County Food Council (OCFC) began as a grassroots effort of local residents involved in the local food system. The first tangible product of this effort was a baseline Community Food Assessment created for the Food Council's initial Task Force in 2015- 16. Over 100 interested attendees participated in the first community meeting held in 2015. The efforts of that first gathering resulted in a one -time grant administered by United Way from the Burt's Bees Foundation, as well as seed funds from Orange County's Agriculture Economic Development grant program. The OCFC was officially formed and began meeting in May 2016. The Council currently operates as an outside agency using Orange County as its fiscal agent and receiving financial support from the County and the Towns. This funding supports a half time Coordinator position and a modest operating budget for workgroup activities and community outreach. The Council has evaluated different organizational structures to support its work, including a fiscal agent model, an independent nonprofit agency, and a publicly supported and hosted position. The Council has concluded that seeking collaborative governmental 3 funding from the County and Towns to support a County employee as its Coordinator was the most desirable choice. During the Council's presentation, Food Council leadership will discuss the history and purpose of the Food Council as well as a proposal for sustained support from the County and Towns. The proposal will involve multijurisdictional funding support based on the model used by the Partnership to End Homelessness which calculates each jurisdiction's contribution based on population. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues and provide feedback to staff related to this item as necessary. Attachment 2a — January 16, 2018 Memorandum — Orange County Food Council Background Attachment 2b — Orange County Food Council Action Plan 2017 -2018 Attachment 2c — Food Access Working Group 2017 -2018 Action Plan Attachment 2d — Local Food Economy Workgroup Action Plan 2017 -2018 3. Manufactured Home Parks For many years the Orange County Board of County Commissioners had a keen interest in addressing the vulnerability of residents living in mobile home parks and thus allocated funding to address land banking for mobile home parks and /or to assist in the acquisition of property for future residential development as an affordable housing alternative. Following this action by the BOCC, local housing partners, County staff and other interested constituents began to discuss and evaluate the opportunities and obstacles associated with re- developing an existing mobile home park or developing new affordable housing to address the needs of mobile home park residents at risk. Thus the Affordable Housing Land Banking /Mobile Home Park Work Group was formed. The presentation will provide an update on the work of the Affordable Housing Land Banking /Mobile Home Park Work Group and the recommendations that were approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners on November 20, 2017 in regard to mobile home parks in the County and proposed strategies for mitigating resident displacement and relocation challenges due to re- development efforts. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues and provide feedback to staff related to this item as necessary. Attachment 3a — Mobile Home Park Survey Report Attachment 3b — Mobile Home Park Recommendations 4. Report on Joint Planning Agreement The Joint Planning Agreement is an Interlocal Agreement between Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro. The Agreement was established in 1987 to establish a coordinated and comprehensive system of land use planning and to clearly identify where Towns are allowed to grow and where rural character is to be maintained. n The Agreement creates an urban growth boundary to concentrate density and development within Towns and curb urban sprawl. One of the primary features of the Agreement was to create the Rural Buffer and associated zoning regulations that promote rural character and agricultural support enterprises. The attached Summary of the Joint Planning Agreement provides more detail about the elements of the Plan. Three maps are also attached. The maps show the Joint Planning Area land use plan, the growth management system in place throughout the County designating urban from rural areas, and the collaborative agreements that are in place throughout the County between the County and its municipalities. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to these items as necessary. Attachment 4a — Summary of the Orange County- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement Attachment 4b — Map - Orange County- Chapel Hill - Carrboro — Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Attachment 4c — Map - Growth Management System — Urban and Rural Designated Areas Attachment 4d — Map - A County of Collaboration- Review Agreements Attachment 4e — Rural Buffer Retrospective 5. Greene Tract Update The Greene Tract is a 164 acre parcel of which 104 acres is jointly owned by Orange County/ Chapel Hill /Carrboro and 60 acres owned by Orange County (aka ` Headwaters Preserve'). Last year, local governments agreed to have the mayors and chair consider preservation and development options on the overall parcel. A joint staffs and management (with Rogers Road Community input) work group analyzed environmental /cultural features and development potential (including a school /park site). Staff will provide an overview of the options of land use location and density. The attachments explain and illustrate the process and options. Options were requested that exhibited three levels of development /preservation, high /medium /low. These options (in Attachment 5c; two sets of three options) illustrate the location and extent of land uses. In addition, another table (Attachment 5d) shows what residential varying density may produce. The total units are shown and since one strategy is for a private sector mixed income development, the potential of affordable housing as a percentage of the total is also hypothetically shown in Attachment 5e. The purpose of this item is to conceptually agree to a preservation /development option (i.e. high, medium, low) which would be incorporated into a revised Greene Tract Land Use Resolution (originally 2002). In addition, density, total units, and percentage affordable housing could be also considered. 5 The implementation of the above decisions and other next steps will return to the Boards in the spring /summer of 2018. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary. Attachment 5a — An Overview of the Preservation and Development Alternatives Attachment 5b — Environmental and Cultural Features Attachment 5c — Greene Tract Land Use Concept Plans (Two Sets of High, Medium, Low (HML)) (Special note regarding the second set - the elected official workgroup asked staff to consider reshaping the County owned 60 acre `Headwaters Preserve' to capture the best preservation area encompassing the three headwater basins.) Headwater Change Area Attachment 5d — Table - High, Medium, Low Alternatives; Land Use Acreage and Density Outcomes Attachment 5e — Table - Affordable Housing Potential 6. Information Item — Memorandum on Agricultural Support Enterprises in the Rural Buffer (Written Update — Not for Specific Discussion) Perdita Holtz with Orange County Planning has provided the attached memorandum with an update for the Assembly of Governments meeting on any applications for "agricultural support enterprises" (ASE) uses in the Rural Buffer. During discussions that occurred in 2014 -15 related to amendments to the Joint Planning Area Agreement to accommodate the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill requests that County staff provide an annual update. Orange County adopted ASE uses for the Rural Buffer on May 5, 2015. Attachment 6 — November 16, 2017 Memorandum - Agricultural Support Enterprises in the Rural Buffer SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no direct Social Justice Goal impact associated with the discussion of these topics. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with the discussion of these topics. There are no action items requiring formal decisions. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Managers recommend the governing boards discuss the topics listed and provide appropriate direction to the respective staffs. Attachment 1 a n. Amended October 5, 2010 (Appendix A Map; Add Appendix F map; Text changes to Section IV, subsection B and Section III) Amended June 26, 2017 (Appendix A Map) WATER AND SEWER MANAGEMENT, PLANNING AND BOUNDARY AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 3rd day of _December, 2001_ by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina; the TOWN OF CARRBORO, the TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, and the TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, municipal corporations duly created and existing under the laws of North Carolina; and the ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, a public water and sewer authority duly created and existing under Chapter 162A, Article 1 of the North Carolina General Statutes. WITNESSETH: In consideration of mutual benefits regarding the definition of water and sewer service boundaries and the management and planning thereof, the parties to this agreement hereby mutually agree as follows: I. PREAMBLE A. Charge to the Water and Sewer Boundary Task Force Since the mid- 1980's, several attempts to define water and sewer service boundaries for Orange County and the municipalities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough have been undertaken. In 1994, a Task Force was formed consisting of elected officials from Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County, as well as two members of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. The charge to the Water and Sewer Service Boundary Task Force is attached as Appendix B. B. Purpose of Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement 1. To provide a comprehensive, County -wide system of service areas for future utility development and interest areas for dealing with private water and wastewater system problems in areas without public water and sewer service. 7 2. To complement growth management objectives, land use plans and annexation plans in existing agreements, such as the Orange County- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement and Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan 3. To resolve in advance and preclude future conflicts about future service areas and annexation areas. 4. To provide for predictable long -range water and sewer capital improvement planning and financing. 5. To provide for limitations on water and sewer service in certain areas, as defined. II. HOW THE AGREEMENT WORKS A. Effective Date of the Agreement This agreement shall become effective upon execution by all of the parties and signature by the chief elected or appointed official. B. Term of Agreement This agreement shall remain in effect for ten (10) years from its execution, and shall be renewable as provided in the following subsection. C. Procedure for renewal At the end of each ten year term, the agreement shall renew automatically, unless written notice is provided of intent to withdraw as noted in subsection E below. D. Procedure for proposing and acting on changes in agreement including boundaries 1. Any change to the agreement (including boundaries) requires approval of all parties to the agreement. 2. The addition of other parties to this agreement shall be by consent of the current parties. E. Procedure for withdrawal from /decision not to renew the agreement 1. A party may not withdraw from the agreement, until it holds a public hearing on the proposed withdrawal followed by written notice to the other parties within 30 days of the public hearing. The withdrawal shall be effective one (I) year following receipt by the other parties of the written notice. 2. If a party to the agreement withdraws as provided above, the agreement remains in effect as to the other parties until all but one party withdraws in the manner provided for the in this agreement. F. Accountability of Future Parties Future utility providers that wish to become parties of this agreement must be financially and technically capable of providing water /sewer service to address public health emergencies or other identified public facility needs, as defined by the parties of the boundary agreement. The provider must have adequate system capacity, technical capability and financial assets to address system problems within its interest area without compromising service to current customers. G. Courtesy Review of Development Proposals Within Service and Interest Areas The water and sewer providers that are parties to this agreement will be provided courtesy review and the right to provide written input into utility design and the provision of easements for all new major subdivisions and other residential and nonresidential site plan approvals within their service area and interest area. The party to this agreement with development plan review authority shall retain approval authority for all development proposals within its planning jurisdiction. H. Linkage with the Orange County- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement and other future agreements This agreement shall be made part of the Orange County- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement, by reference, and to any future cooperative planning agreements that may be entered into among some or all of the parties. Termination of the Joint Planning Agreement or any other cooperative planning agreement does not terminate this agreement. Termination of this agreement can only be accomplished as provided in this agreement. Similarly, the withdrawal of a party from the Joint Planning Agreement or from any other cooperative planning agreement does not constitute withdrawal from this agreement. Withdrawal from this agreement can only be accomplished as provided in this agreement. 0 III. DEFINITIONS Primary Service Area: An area (as shown on the Water and Sewer Service Boundary Map, which is Appendix A) where water and/or sewer service is now provided, or might reasonably be provided in the future, according to adopted plans and future amendments to adopted plans (hereinafter referred to as "service area ")2. 2 As per the map in Appendix A. the Town of Hillsborough Long -Term Interest Area and Primary Service Agreement are combined and for purposes of this agreement is its Primary Service Area OWASA Long -Term Interest Area: An area (as shown on the Water and Sewer Service Boundary Map, which is Appendix A) within which public water and/or sewer service is not anticipated to be made, but if such services are to be provided, OWASA will be the responsible utility service provider. Long -Term Interest Areas are not service areas, and do not include areas outside of Orange County. OWASA's Long -Term Interest Area is hereinafter referred to as OWASA's "interest area." Orange County Long -Term Interest Area: The areas of Orange County planning jurisdiction (as shown on the Water and Sewer Service Boundary Map, which is Appendix A) not part of a Primary Service Area or another Long -Term Interest Area within which public water and /or sewer service is not anticipated to be made, but if such services are to be provided, Orange County will be responsible for coordinating the provision of utility service. Long -Term Interest Areas are not service areas, and do not include areas outside of Orange County. Orange County's Long -Term Interest Area is hereinafter referred to as Orange County's "interest area." Hillsborough Long -Term Interest Area: An area (as shown on the Water Added 10 -5 -2010 and Sewer Service Boundary Map, which is Appendix A) within which public water and /or sewer service is not anticipated to be made, but if such services are to be provided, the Town of Hillsborough will be the responsible utility service provider. Long Term Interest Areas are not service areas, and do not include areas outside of Orange County. Hillsborough's Long -Term Interest Area is hereinafter referred to as Hillsborough's "interest area." Essential Public Facility: A publicly -owned facility, or a facility wholly financed by Federal, State or local government (or a combination thereof) that provides a service for the health, safety and general welfare of County residents (for example, a school, fire station, public safety substation or solid waste convenience center). 10 Adverse Public Health Condition: An Adverse Public Health Condition exists in the case of a wastewater system(s) when it is (1) failing, (2) documented to be failing by the Orange County Health Department, and (3) no on -site repair is approvable or recommended by the Orange County Health Department; or, in the case of a well water supply system, it meets all of the following criteria: • the well water supply system is contaminated with a microbial, chemical or other agent which is known to cause disease or other serious health effects; • the well water supply system is not reparable to the point where the contamination can be eliminated; • the water from the well water supply system is not treatable prior to withdrawal to the point where the threat of disease or serious health effects is eliminated; . • there is no alternate location on -site for a new well water supply system which can be permitted under Orange County Health Department regulatory criteria in effect at the time of the contamination or an alternative site is unacceptable because widespread existence of contamination or because of the potential of contaminant migration to the alternate site. A description of these terms and their application is provided in Section VI of this Agreement. Public Water or Public Sewer Service: The provision of water and /or sewer service by a party to this agreement. This definition does not include consulting services and/or technical assistance services. Emergency Water Transfer: Any short-term transfer of raw water supply or finished drinking water supply from one service provider to assist another service provider in meeting water needs during: a) unanticipated disruptions or emergencies relating to raw or finished water supply. Such disruptions or emergencies may result from events including, but not limited to: (i) human error; ii) equipment or power failure; iii) supply contamination; iv) major fires, floods, droughts or other disasters; and v) operations or facility maintenance activities, or b) periods when temporary, short -term disruption of water supply or finished water service may occur as a result of planned or unplanned maintenance of major water supply, pumping, transmission, treatment, or storage facilities. Non - Emergency Water Transfer: Any transfer from one water service provider to another water service provider of raw water supply or finished drinking water supply which is not an emergency water transfer. 11 Wastewater Transfer: Any transfer from one wastewater service provider to another wastewater service provider. Water and /or Sewer Provider: A municipal corporation, county, private non- profit water system, or public water and sewer authority under the N.C. General Statutes that provides water and /or sewer service to the public. IV. BOUNDARIES A. Service Areas and Interest Area Boundaries The service area and interest area boundaries are as shown in Appendix A. B. Adherence to Boundaries 1. The boundaries on the map (Appendix A) define the areas in which the parties may provide water and sewer service, and no parry to this agreement shall extend service beyond the designated boundaries, except as provided in this agreement. In no case shall service be extended beyond the boundaries of Orange County without the approval of the elected boards which exercise planning jurisdiction on either side of the County boundary. Any extension of lines or service into Chatham County requires the approval of Orange County, Chapel Hill or Carrboro, and OWASA. 2. OWASA presently provides water and sewer service outside of the OWASA Service Area shown on Appendix A as follows: Location service provided Heritage Hills Subdivision water and sewer Rangewood Subdivision water and sewer Piney Mountain Subdivision sewer only OWASA may continue to provide water and sewer service and may extend water and sewer service within these subdivisions provided it does so consistent with OWASA policies and interlocal agreements related to these services that exist on the effective date of this agreement. Any change to those policies and interlocal agreements after the effective date of this agreement can only be accomplished by an amendment to this agreement. 12 Added 10 -5 -2010 3. The Town of Hillsborough presently provides water service outside of the proposed Hillsborough Primary Service Area shown in Appendix A as follows (see Map in Appendix F for precise locations): 1. Along NC 86S to slightly south of New Hope Church Road 2. Joppa Oaks, Byrdsville, Wyndfall, and Strayhorn Hills neighborhoods 3. Wayside Baptist Church area 4. Lands across Strouds Creek Rd from Mars Hill Baptist Church and Pathways Elementary School 5. Portions of the Watkins Rd, former Mill Run subdivision and Perry farm 6. Along Orange Grove Road southwest of Interstate 40 and along New Grady Brown School Road to Dimmocks Mill Road and along Old Grady Brown School Road The Town of Hillsborough may continue to provide water service to these areas but may not extend water service in these areas or outside of the Primary Service Area. V. PROCEDURES FOR PROVIDING SERVICE A. Policy Issues Planning and growth management issues are influenced by the location of water and sewer. This agreement is not intended to supersede other land use agreements made by the local governments. B. Procedures for the provision of service within the Service Areas and Interest Areas 1. When water and sewer service provision is required to address an adverse public health condition, or to provide service to an essential public facility, the designated provider for the service area or interest area shall have the right of first refusal to provide such service. 2. Within the service areas and interest areas, the water and sewer provider will agree to provide service, as defined in this agreement, as system capacity, financial resources, and other reasonable utility considerations allow, and as provided in this agreement. C. Policy of "first- refusal" 13 1. The designated water and sewer provider within a service area or interest area has first right to provide service if an adverse public health condition or essential public facility service need is established, and public water or public sewer service is determined to be required to address the adverse public health condition. 2. If the designated water and sewer provider declines to provide service, it must notify the other parties to the agreement with a statement of rationale. 3. The designated water and sewer provider may contract with another service provider to address the situation, in the manner prescribed in Section VI of this agreement, upon consultation with other jurisdictions. 4. If no other water and sewer provider is available, Orange County retains the right to address the adverse public health condition or essential public facility need in the manner prescribed in Section VI of this agreement. VI. LIMITATIONS ON SERVICE A. Prohibitions and Limitations on Extension Into Interest Areas The development of land within interest areas is not projected to occur at urban densities, and therefore, public water and sewer service shall be prohibited in these areas, except as provided in this agreement {Section VI.B, VI.C, VI.D, VLF, VILA, VII.B, VILC }3. Individual onsite and small /community -scale alternative water supply and wastewater treatment systems not physically connected to central systems will be the primary methods of meeting the water and sewer service needs of existing and future development. 3. ibid. B. Adverse Public Health Conditions An exception to the prohibition of public water and sewer service in interest areas may be made to allow the extension of lines in the event the Orange County Health Department documents an "adverse public health condition." An adverse public health condition exists where: 14 1. In the case of existing wastewater system(s), it meets all of the following criteria: • the wastewater system is failing; • the wastewater system is documented to be failing by the Orange County Health Department; • there is no on -site repair approvable or recommended by the Orange County Health Department. The following terms used in the criteria above mean: Failing Wastewater System: A wastewater system is failing when sewage -or effluent is seeping or discharging to the ground surface or to surface waters. A permitted, properly - functioning non - discharge wastewater system (e.g., a spray - irrigation system) and a permitted, properly - functioning discharge system are not failing wastewater systems. Approvable On -Site Repair: An approvable on -site wastewater system repair that can be completed in a designated repair area which is approvable under Orange County Health Department regulatory soil /site criteria in effect at the time of the needed repair. Recommended On -Site Repair: A recommended on -site repair is one that is not an approvable on -site repair, but is one that in the best professional judgment of the Orange County Health Department will reasonably enable the system to function properly. A recommended on- site repair may incorporate engineered design (a design certified by an engineer to overcome all soil /site limitations in the particular situation), site or system modification, flow reduction or other measures calculated to improve functionality of the system. 2. In the case of an existing well water supply system(s), it meets all of the following criteria: • the well water supply system is contaminated with a microbial, chemical or other agent which is known to cause disease or other serious health effects; • the well water supply system is not reparable to the point where the contamination can be eliminated; • the water from the well water supply system is not treatable prior to withdrawal to the point where the threat of disease or serious health effects is eliminated; • there is no alternate location on -site for a new well water supply system which can be permitted under Orange County Health Department regulatory criteria in effect at 15 the time of the contamination or an alternative site is unacceptable because widespread existence of contamination or because of the potential of contaminant migration to the alternate site. The following terms used in the criteria above mean: Well: A well is any excavation that is cored, bored, drilled, jetted, dug or otherwise constructed for the purpose of locating, testing, developing, draining or recharging any ground water reserves or aquifer, or that may control, divert, or otherwise control the movement of water from or into any aquifer. Well Water Supply S,, sue: A well water supply system is any well that is intended for use or is usable as a source of water supply for domestic use (including household purposes, farm livestock, or gardens) and the pump and pipe used in connection with or pertaining thereto, including well pumps, distribution pipes, plumbing pipes, tanks, fittings, and water treatment devices. The Orange County Health Department shall make the determination as to whether an adverse public health condition exists, and shall make a recommendation on the appropriate remedy to the governmental entity(ies) in the appropriate interest area. The final decision to use any particular means or tool for rectifying any particular adverse public health condition remains, through zoning regulations or other land use ordinances, with the governmental entity or entities having zoning or planning jurisdiction over the area where the adverse public health condition exists. In the Orange County- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning Area, the Joint Development Review Areas shall be used to determine which of the JPA parties shall jointly decide on the appropriate means or tool for rectifying an adverse public health condition. Public water or public sewer .lines extended to provide service to an adverse public health condition or essential public facility cannot be used for other purposes or other parties, except as provided in Section VLD. C. Sizing of Lines Extended Into Interest Areas The extension of public water or public sewer lines into an interest area shall be sized so as to comply with State technical and engineering regulations and only to serve the intended use, as defined in this agreement. However, in the case of a public water line extension, 16 provisions shall be made to address adequate line sizing for pressure and volume considerations. D. Controlling Access to Lines In Interest Areas Public water or public sewer lines extended to provide service to an adverse public health condition or essential public facility cannot be used for other purposes or other parties, except to remedy another adverse public health condition. E. Siting of Essential Public Facilities Within Interest Areas The location of some essential public facilities, particularly schools, requires special consideration for access to public water and sewer lines. Where possible, schools shall be sited in a manner that promotes the efficient use of existing water and sewer service. Preferably, a set of criteria governing such situations would be developed based on consultations between the appropriate school boards and the elected officials of affected jurisdictions, and applied as necessary. Publicly - owned facilities other than a public school shall be located in a manner that promotes the orderly provision of water and sewer service. The preferred method of connection is to lines that already exist, or in a manner that would minimize the need to extend existing lines. F. Water and Sewer Service Into /Out of Orange County Water and sewer service of any of the service providers that are parties to this agreement shall not be extended outside of the boundaries of Orange County without the approval of the elected boards which exercise planning jurisdiction on either side of the County boundary. Any extension of lines or service into Chatham County requires the approval of Orange County, Chapel Hill or Carrboro, and OWASA. This approval is not required when water and sewer service is required as a condition of annexation by the towns of Chapel Hill or Carrboro. VII. WATER TRANSFERS AND WASTEWATER TRANSFERS A. Emergency Water Transfers (This subsection shall not apply to any system operated by a municipality) Emergency water transfers are transfers that: 17 1. Are made for short-term duration. For the purpose of this Agreement, short-term duration shall be reviewed at 30 days, 60 days and 90 days, with subsequent 90 -day intervals up to one year, as per the following process: a. After 30 days duration, a memo from the chief administrative officials of the service providers will be sent to the managers of the jurisdictions that are parties to this Agreement. The memo shall document the emergency, steps being taken to address the situation, and notify the managers of the potential for a longer period of the emergency water transfer. b. At 60 days, the service provider sending the water shall notify it- elected board (or, in the case of OWASA, the member government elected boards) on the status of the emergency and provide opportunity for the boards to review and comment on the situation. The receiving provider shall provide similar information. C. Between 60 days and 90 days from inception of transfer, the elected boards which exercise planning jurisdiction on either side of the boundary in which the service is provided shall review and approve or not approve the continuation of the transfer beyond 90 days. If continuation of the transfer is approved, it may continue for an additional 90 -day period. Approval shall be required for each subsequent 90- day period, with a maximum emergency water transfer duration of 365 days from inception. Lack of action by the elected boards as provided in this subsection constitutes approval for the subsequent 90 -day period. d. At the 30 -day point, the service provider shall determine that adequate water and other resources and facility capacities are available to support the extended emergency transfer without adversely affecting the quality and quantity of water supply and services to customers within its service area, and without adversely affecting environmental quality within its service area; RA ►O 2. Are not intended to provide raw or finished water supply necessary to support new growth and development within the service area of the service provider receiving the transfer. Neither party shall, in im planning for future growth and associated increases in water supply needs, rely upon water from the other parry supplied under this agreement to serve such growth. a. A service provider experiencing a water emergency and receiving emergency water transfers must agree to act expeditiously and adequately to mitigate and remove the causes of the emergency conditions. B. Non - Emergency Water Transfers (This subsection shall not apply to the Town of Hillsborough until January 1, 2005.) Non - emergency water transfers are only permitted with the approval of the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the elected or appointed boards of the service providers providing and /or receiving the transfer. If OWASA is the service provider, approval must come from the OWASA Board of Directors and the elected boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County. C. Wastewater Transfers Wastewater transfers are only permitted with the approval of the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the elected or appointed boards of the service providers providing the transfer. If OWASA is the service provider, approval must come from the OWASA Board of Directors and the elected boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County. VIII. LINKAGE TO OTHER AGREEMENTS Linkages to Other Agreements There are a number of existing agreements among the parties to this agreement that are relevant to the management and planning of public water and sewer service. In addition, this agreement and those listed below should all be read together. Where inconsistencies exist, this agreement shall control, except as otherwise provided by law. Included among these relevant agreements with linkages are: • Hillsborough - Durham Service Area Agreement • OWASA- Durham Service Agreement • Eno River Capacity Use Agreement • Hillsborough/Orange- Alamance Water Systems Agreement • OWASA- Hillsborough Service Agreement 19 • OWASA- Hillsborough Bulk Water Transfer Agreement • Chapel Hill- Durham Annexation Agreement • Mutual Aid Agreement • Jordan Lake Allocations from NC DEHNR • OWASA Agreements of Purchase and Sale between 1) OWASA and Carrboro, 2) OWASA and Chapel Hill, and 3) OWASA and UNC • OWASA Agreement and Policy related to extensions of water and sewer into University Lake Watershed (applicable to water and sewer service to Rangewood Subdivision and Heritage Hills Subdivision) • OWASA- Orange County Agreements related to Piney Mountain Subdivision sewer service IX. APPENDICES App. A Amended: A. Water and Sewer Service Boundaries Map 10 -5 -2010 6 -26 -17 B. Charge to the Water and Sewer Boundary Task Force C. Toolbox of Remedies for Adverse Public Health Conditions D. Joint Planning Area Boundary Map E. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Maps for all Orange County local governments, and of Chatham County Added 10 -5 -2010 F. Town of Hillsborough Existing Water Service Outside of Primary Service Area THIS AGREEMENT E NTERED t. LL Le L-'U'i' , pF County T oarl [if "' 'Crl INTO THE S � DAY OF I b) L ta e i C-4apc Dill 117 b Aiie�fK T0'v'm Cl c. n Of -cafiiib� I S; 1 1-1 1 1 1 il:rj�f , I If I H T o4 -Eb'd 11, ll-ibom u4h Lj1� 1&40 0- .1 ti -7 7 �u rd F Commiss'L01110ES WA .-JaybIr, Town Df Cl -opal Hill - I Lk, Nfa),(vr. Town c,)f Cw7bere Mayor, Town of Flillsbgreug b Chair, 01- SSA BDard DfDlrclrloys 20 Appendix A Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Effective data 6/26/17 rough Long -Term Interest Area rough Primary Service Area A Long -Term Interest Area a County Primary Service Area A Primary Service Area a County Long -Term Interest Area suffer Boundary 1 2 3 4 Miles 1 inch = 3 miles Planning and Inspections Department imary Service Area, Brian Carson 626/17 i -Term Service Area, Miram Coleman, 1015110 ....,., ,r Primary Service Area, Miriam Coleman, 1015110 Updated Hillsborough Primary Service Area, Miriam Coleman, 10122108 Updated Streets, Miriam Coleman, 2002 Revised Map to show retracted Chapel Hill Urban Service Boundary, Carne Whitshill, 11/14/01 Original Map Prepared by Beth McFarland, 04117197 Millhouse Road Park Parcel & WASMPBA Millhouse Rd Park Parcel OWASA Long -Term Interest Area OWASA Primary Service Area 22 1 in = 1 miles 0 0.5 Miles Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (11/6/2017) 23 Existing Water & Sewer Lines Near Millhouse Road Park Parcel 636 Y 6pti a �s SAS Lo o p CD �LS 8oS v V `` ID ti g09 d o 0 5�6%' • bSb Q�d � cD`�' a d j A �`• n° � 08b �6,L �q'� N 560 s' S 558 � �^ ° S2 SS6 pv� / � Sq8 SSq s 550 �6 _ • • . • ' ' 8Lb pV� � vL•4 q8q . �;v ggV • cn v5 24 To: Chapel Hill Town Council; Carrboro Board of Aldermen; Hillsborough Town Board CC: Orange County Board of Commissioners From: Orange County Food Council Re: Orange County Food Council background Date: January 16, 2018 Prior to our meeting to discuss the Orange County Food Council with the Assembly of Governments, we wanted to share some background information. We hope it will be helpful in understanding how the mission of our Food Council fits within an emerging civic engagement movement to improve food access, equity, and sustainability. Food Councils: An Overview Around the country, food councils are actively supporting local government in policy and systems -level work to structure local and regional economies around an overarching vision of a just, healthy and sustainable food system. Though food councils have existed since the 1980s, recent years have witnessed a dramatic increase in their numbers. From 2010 to 2012, the number of food councils almost doubled, from around 111 to 193, and by now there are more than 300. In North Carolina, 30 food councils cover 36 counties.' Food councils -- sometimes called food policy councils - -do not provide direct services. The work of food councils is not to directly provide food to people in need. Rather, food councils identify gaps within the local food system and seek ways to address those gaps by bringing the right people to the table to determine solutions. This may take the form of match - making of public - private partnerships, making policy recommendations or conducting educational campaigns. Food councils can be administered at the city or county level, or as a partnership of the two. They function much as our Partnership to End Homelessness does, to facilitate and coordinate the work of agencies and practitioners who do provide ' "Food First: Exploding Myths & Inspiring Change," a national network and think tank on food systems https://foodfirst.org / publication/ food - policy- councils - lessons - learned /; "Good Laws, Good Food: Putting Local Policy to Work for Our Communities" (toolkit for food policy councils), Harvard Food Law & Policy Clinic, July 2012, https://www.chli2i.org / /wp- content /ui2loadsj2013 /12 /FINAL - LOCAL- TOOLKIT2.pdf; Food Policy Networks, http :/ /www.foodpolicynetworks.orgl; Community Food Strategies (web site on North Carolina food councils), https :l /communityfoodstrategies.com. 25 direct services. The Upper Neuse River Basin Association - of which Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough are members - is another example of jurisdictions joining together to pursue a common policy interest, in that case to work collaboratively to meet state - mandated water quality rules. It's important to emphasize the policy aspect of a food council. What is "food policy "? The definition offered by the Asheville- Buncombe Food Policy Council provides a good working start: Broadly defined, food policy is a set of collective decisions made by governments at all levels, businesses, and organizations that affect how food gets from the farm to your table. A food policy can be as broad as a federal regulation on food labeling or as local and specific as a zoning law that allows city dwellers to raise honeybees ... a vast food system generates many policies, and for the most part, the average resident doesn't have much of a role in shaping them. Food Policy Councils provide a pathway to address this lack of participation by bringing together all stakeholders in a community food system and organizing a voice to construct systems that reflect our shared values! Food councils address the entire food cycle: from production and processing through distribution, consumption, and waste recycling. They are concerned, for example, with the real impacts of the "farm -to- table" movement; for as our own Andrea Reusing recently noted, as this popular concept "has slipped further away from the food movement and into the realms of foodie -ism and corporate marketing, it is increasingly unhitched from the issues it is so often assumed to address." To wit, Reusing's experience teaches her that "our food system is built on inequality and requires it to function."' Attacking that inequity at every possible point along the cycle is one of the primary missions of a food council. Here are some examples of the work of food councils: • Asheville - Buncombe Food Policy Council: Advocated for passage of a number of policies, including allowing agriculture structures on residentially zoned properties with no home structure; allowing farm stands in residentially zoned areas; allowing livestock and fowl on urban lots with a permit; and planting edible landscaping on city -owned property. z Asheville- Buncombe Food Policy Council, http:/ /www.abfoodpolicy.org. 3 "Farm -to -table may feel virtuous, but it's food labor that's ripe for change." Interview, NPR. https: / /www.npr.org/ sections /thesalt/ 2017 /07/30/539112692/a- chefs -plea 26 • Savannah Chatham Food Policy Council: Assisted in the creation of a policy to develop a city -run program to collaborate with interested parties to build ....community gardens on city -owned property. • Santa Fe Food Policy Council (Santa Fe and Santa Fe County): Collected information from seniors regarding needs and challenges of food access; performed an analysis of their "foodshed," yielding information on the area's food culture and access issues to recommend policy changes. Stakeholders who often find a seat at the food council table include farmers, chefs and restaurant owners, local grocers, educators, food justice advocates, nonprofit and university partners, as well as government officials. Food councils serve as both a platform for community education and a forum for exploring and coordinating innovative solutions to particular issues. Against a national and international backdrop of increasing consolidation of economic power in the food industry, these conversations are necessary and urgent. The Orange County Food Council The Orange County Food Council (OCFC) began as a grassroots effort of local residents involved in the local food system -- chefs, health and nutrition experts, people working on food scarcity, farmers, farmers' market managers, county extension agents, and Carrboro town staff. The first tangible product of this effort was a baseline Community Food Assessment created for the Food Council's initial Task Force, in 2015 -16. This report was created with the support of a microgrant from UNC as part of its pan- university Food For All initiative. The Food Assessment provided a wealth of data on food - related issues within the county, and has served as a useful starting place for identifying gaps and developing an action plan. Over 100 interested attendees participated in the first community meeting, held in 2015. The efforts of that first gathering resulted in a one -time grant administered by United Way from the Burt's Bees Foundation, as well as seed funds from Orange County's Agriculture Economic Development grant program. The OCFC was officially formed at this point, and it began meeting in May 2016. The new council had four urgent tasks for that first year -- hosting community forums, forming work groups that could begin taking the actions all the partner organizations are /were eager to undertake, deciding the organizational structure of the Council in the long term, and hiring a part -time coordinator. Two work groups - -Food Access and Local Food Economy - -have been established. The workgroups' priorities emerged from two community forums held in February and March of 2017. Over 100 community members, representatives of area organizations, farmers, small business owners, chefs, and elected officials attended 27 these forums, held in Chapel Hill and Cedar Grove. The workgroups have convened community members and area partner organizations (including groups like TABLE and the Inter -Faith Council) to help inform the workgroup action plans. For example, the Food Access Workgroup is creating an educational campaign that will inform people about, among other things, the alarmingly high rate of food insecurity among students in the CHCCS and Orange County public school systems. Already delivering on its mission to provide food policy advice to local government, the OCFC recently responded to a request from the Carrboro Board of Alderpersons to comment on a potential ordinance regulating animal processing within town limits. As to the organizational structure, three possible avenues emerged. The OCFC could continue as is - -not an official 501(c)(3) but using a fiscal agent for banking and fundraising purposes; it could convert to a 501(c)(3); or it could pursue the possibility of recurring local government funding, possibly multijurisdictional funding, while finding a home within local government. The fiscal agent model was deemed unsustainable in the long term. It provided several barriers to funding, not least the fact that the OCFC is not a direct services organization. The majority of the organizations and agencies that receive funding through the Orange County /Carrboro /Chapel Hill Outside Agency /Human Services funding mechanisms provide direct services (hours of mentoring, number of meals etc...). A food council does not do so. This has proved confusing for advisory board members, staff and elected officials when determining whether the food council should receive these funds. Though we were able to convince the county and the towns to fit the square peg in the round hole for two grant cycles, the OCFC recognized that was not likely a sustainable funding option. The Town of Hillsborough, which no longer provides direct services grants, has also directed funds to the OCFC for the last two fiscal years. Forming an official 501(c)(3) was deemed undesirable for several reasons: the creation of a new nonprofit is an enormous task, and there was concern that all the momentum the Council had gained would be lost after months of the grind of forming a nonprofit. The Council is also cognizant of the sizeable array of local nonprofits related to food (and doing great work) and did not want to be perceived as competing with those groups, which the Council actually seeks to convene and have as partner organizations. Seeking collaborative governmental support from the County and the municipalities emerged as the most desirable choice. Though farming and food production are primarily rural pursuits, the local economies and cultures of the towns in Orange County are very much dependent on the success of rural Orange. A number of interdependent factors, including the following shared goals, suggest the appropriateness of a multi - jurisdictional approach to funding: NEI • Supporting the availability of local food for our communities, including restaurants interested in local sourcing • Supporting local farmers • Supporting local entrepreneurs (both in the direct food business and in indirectly related businesses) • Ending food scarcity and food insecurity (by, among other things, increasing food access to populations experiencing homelessness or at risk of experiencing homelessness) • Eliminating food deserts and food swamps • Providing local and nutritious food to schoolchildren (which is known to improve school attendance and performance as well as health) • Promoting agritourism and related economic interests • Lowering the volume of food waste While these goals are broadly acknowledged, and many if not all are being actively pursued in various ways, the value that the OCFC proposes to add is the ability to coordinate efforts to achieve the most effective use of available resources, as well as to heighten public awareness and therefore amplify advocacy for food justice. Participating in the larger state and national networks of food councils to learn and contribute to best practices, will enhance these efforts. The OCFC can convene conversations, find where goals and interests meet, and achieve collective impact. In coming to the realization of how closely interconnected these goals are, the OCFC began to think that the model provided by the Partnership to End Homelessness could work well. The OCFC was leaning this direction, but was not completely decided, when its leaders met with the County as part of the Human Services grant cycle. The County Manager surprised OCFC leaders by sharing a job description for a food council coordinator and asking if the group was interested in being housed in the County, with the hope, if it could be worked out, of a multijurisdictional funding arrangement. The leadership was not ready to make that commitment without more discussion among its members. At that juncture, the OCFC elected to continue with the County as our fiscal agent while internal discussions continued. In the end, after much weighing of pros and cons, the OCFC decided to pursue the manager's suggestion. As a result, the Board of County Commissioners recently approved a budget modification to provide bridge funding for the Food Council's activities until a decision about a shared multijurisdictional funding model is made. The bridge funds will pay for a significant portion of the coordinator's hours, workgroup activities and community outreach events. The county's commitment is to supplement the 29 funding already in place (from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough) to fund the coordinator position at 20 hours /week through June 2018. Our Request We look forward to talking with you about the potential for your municipality's participation in establishing the Orange County Food Council as a multijurisdictional project, starting in the next fiscal year, funded according to the same formula used for the Project to End Homelessness. In recognition of the multi - pronged action plan the Council is developing and the activities we are currently carrying out, our preference is for funding of a full -time coordinator position. This is based on what we know of the workload of the current coordinator who currently works part -time. The County has said that the expected cost of a full -time coordinator (including salary + benefits) would be between $65,000 and $70,000. Supported by a full -time coordinator, the food council is poised to have significant impact on the wellbeing of our community. We all need each other to manifest prosperous and equitable communities where the farm -food economy is thriving and everyone has enough fresh, local food to eat. We look forward to learning your thoughts on whether and how Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough could become a essential partners in this project. 30 'poll Orb ORANGE COUNTY ® FOOD COUNCI L The Orange County Food Council's Action Plan for the 2017 -2018 fiscal year is organized by 5 categories: I. Organizational Development II. Membership III. Communications IV. Partnerships and Network Development V. Workgroups Organizational Development • ✓ Secure funding for a coordinator position, workgroup initiatives, and outreach events • ✓ Meet with County and Municipal administrators to prepare for the transition of the coordinator role into a County employee position • ✓ Develop bylaws • ✓ Develop council action plan • ✓ Take a regional leadership role among Triangle area food councils II. Membership • ✓ Promote membership application and encourage a diverse group of applicants • ✓ Fill 3 open council seats III. Communications • ✓ Form a Communications Committee to improve the council's outward communication • Develop a new website that includes a blog, resource page, workgroup information, community calendar, and all of the council's meeting minutes - ongoing • Increase information and resources shared by social media and Food Council website - ongoing Orange County Food Council Action Plan 31 IV. Partnership and Network Development • Work with local organizations, community stakeholders, and elected bodies on Orange County food system initiatives o Partner with the Orange County Board of Health to research successful policies that provide incentives and help subsidize purchasing healthy, fresh foods. Focus on policies that are not prescriptive but empowering. Help draft policies with the BOH Strategic Plan Manager and the BOH Physical Activity and Nutrition Sub - Committee if a policy proposal is considered a necessary next step. Employ the Racial Equity Toolkit to assess disparate impact of any policy before adoption - ongoing o Develop a report for the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on best practices related to urban agriculture and livestock (specific focus on raising and processing chickens). Work in partnership with the Family Success Alliance to include community input in this report - ongoing • Collaborate with regional and statewide food councils • Convene regional food councils (Durham Food and Farm Network, Capital Area Food Network, and Chatham Community Food Council) - ongoing • ✓ Participate in a statewide campaign by collecting signatures from organizations and stakeholder groups in District 4 to support keeping SNAP and other federal food assistance programs in the Farm Bill V. Workgroups I. Food Access • ✓ Convene monthly meetings • Recruit practitioners and community members - ongoing • Create a 2018 action plan - ongoing • Develop and share resources related to food access in Orange County - ongoing II. Local Food Economy • ✓ Convene monthly meetings • Recruit practitioners and community members - ongoing • Create a 2018 action plan - ongoing • Develop and share resources related to the local Orange County food economy - ongoing Orange County Food Council Action Plan 32 'poll lOrb ORANGE COUNTY c �r@LJ ® FOOD COUNCIL %. 0 ;o_°, Food Access Working Group 2017 -2018 Action Plan I. Food Access Workgroup Overview II. Workgroup Goals III. Action Items for 2017 -2018 History An Orange County baseline community food assessment created in 2016 helped the Orange County Food Council identify 2 focus areas to strengthen our local food system: Food Access and Local Food Economy. These two focus areas became the council's first workgroups. The workgroup priority areas are a direct result of feedback received during two community forums held by the Orange County Food Council in February and March of 2017. A diverse group of Orange County food system stakeholders attended these forums including: local and state elected officials, practitioners, non - profit agencies, county and town representatives, and general community members. The top 3 priorities were defined and transformed by workgroup members and partner organizations at the first official workgroup meetings in April 2017. Food Access Workgroup Mission • For all Orange County residents to have access to healthy, affordable, local food and for there to be equitable participation in the Orange County food system • To raise awareness about Orange County food access and insecurity issues, efforts, programs, and policies • Develop and post a comprehensive resource database that includes information about organizations, non - profits, county /town offices, and other entities with programs that address food access issues • Advocate for policies and actions in Orange County (municipalities and county) that address food access Definitions • Priority = long term goals and actions of the workgroup • Current actions = short term actions that help the workgroup achieve the long term mission • Timing = ideal timeline for starting and completing actions • Outcome /Measurement = how the workgroup tracks and measures progress Orange County Food Coun( Food Access Action Plan 33 Long Term Priorities Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Education Campaign about Create and maintain a Explore a Living Wage Food Access in Orange County comprehensive Food Access Campaign SEE. CARE. ACT. Database Goal Current Actions Goal Timing Outcome/ Priority Key Status of Measurement Stakeholder Goal Workgroup April - Workgroup has n/a n/a Ongoing Development: Dec. regular meeting establish regular 2017 times meeting times, established, an create a workgroup active listserv, listserv, define regular member workgroup roles, and attendance, develop an action some defined plan leadership roles, and first draft of an action plan Create an outline October Document that 1 Food Access First draft and timeline /plan for 2017 outlines Workgroup completed the education education members and campaign campaign plan partners and timeline Assign roles and January Everyone knows 1 Food Access Complete tasks for education 2018 their role and Workgroup campaign this is clearly members and documented in partners the action plan Develop an outreach February 1) Identify key 1 Orange Partially plan to direct service 2018 stakeholders County direct complete - providers, nonprofits, 2)Assigned roles service Ongoing and partners working for outreach providers, around food access 3)Receive nonprofits, to gain input on the feedback /input elected education from key officials, and campaign's stakeholders community audience, purpose, stakeholders and intended working outcomes in /around food access Post education March Resources from 1 Orange campaign materials 2018 education County on OCFC website, campaign are on Community Orange County Food Council Food Access Action Plan 34 printed and the Food including disseminated Council's residents, through social media website and practitioners, printed versions elected have been made officials available to partners and participating groups Review existing January All existing 2 guides and create a - April guides and comprehensive food 2018 databases for access database Orange County that is accessible via have been the OCFC website reviewed. A single database and additional resources are linked on the OCFC website. Share database of April - Database is sent 2 Orange food access May to Food Access County resources and 2018 and Orange nonprofits, programs in Orange County Food direct service County with local Council listservs providers, and nonprofits, direct and feedback is practitioners service providers, requested. and practitioners to (Some of this receive feedback outreach may about the database take place in person and via phone calls) Incorporate May- Database is 2 Orange feedback and June updated County additional resources 2018 residents, into the database nonprofits, and update website direct service to reflect this providers, and practitioners Review how the June- Convene 1,2,3 Orange education campaign July community County "See. Care. Act" 2018 stakeholders, community philosophy can practitioners, stakeholders, transform into and direct practitioners, advocating for service providers and direct policies /initiatives to create an service that address food advocacy plan providers access Orange County Food Coun( Food Access Action Plan 35 'poll Orb ORANGE COUNTY �, r@ 6 ® FOOD COUNCI L %� 0 -ov, Local Food Economy Working Group 2017 -2018 Action Plan I. Local Food Economy Workgroup Overview II. Workgroup Goals III. Action Items for 2017 -2018 History An Orange County baseline community food assessment created in 2016 helped the Orange County Food Council identify 2 focus areas to strengthen our local food system: Food Access and Local Food Economy. These two focus areas became the council's first workgroups. The workgroup priority areas are a direct result of feedback received during two community forums held by the Orange County Food Council in February and March of 2017. A diverse group of Orange County food system stakeholders attended these forums including: local and state elected officials, practitioners, non - profit agencies, county and town representatives, and general community members. The top 3 priorities were defined and transformed by workgroup members and partner organizations at the first official workgroup meetings in April 2017. Local Food Economy Workgroup Mission • Grow the Orange County food economy • Advocate for policies and actions in Orange County that support local farmers, producers, farmworkers, and food entrepreneurs • Support profitability of local food producers and business owners, with particular attention to socially disadvantaged populations (cultural, racial, gender) • Increase procurement of local foods by Orange County institutions Definitions • Priority = long term goals and actions of the workgroup • Current actions = short term actions that help the workgroup achieve the long term mission • Timing = ideal timeline for starting and completing actions • Outcome /Measurement = how the workgroup tracks and measures progress Long Term Priorities Orange County Food Council Local Food Economy Action Plan 36 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Develop relationships with Increase procurement of local Support profitability of local food elected officials to provide foods by Orange County producers and business owners, information and policy institutions, such as public with particular attention to recommendations on local food schools, universities, and socially disadvantaged and farms hospitals populations (cultural, racial, educational gender) Current Actions Action Timing Outcome /Measurement Priority Key Status of Stakeholders Goal Create brief Fall 2017 1 -page fact sheet 1 Actors in the Complete educational Orange County but will be document that food economy updated provides an again in overview of local summer farm economy 2018 Assist with public Fall 2017 Local political candidates 1 Chapel Hill and Complete forums to ensure will discuss their priorities Carrboro the food and farm for a local food and farm residents, is a topic of economy; increase candidates, discussion awareness within the and elected community officials Identify farmers Fall /Wint List of farmers that (once 2 Orange County Complete that are interested er 2017 GAP certified) could grow farmers in GAP for OC /CHC schools certification Present Ag Trust Spring Additional funds are 1,3 Orange County Fund proposal to 2018 contributed to the current farmers, county using Orange County Farmer County deferred tax Grant program administrators, dollars from PUV and elected program officials Compile Winter Assess current state of 3 Orange County Ongoing information for 2017 diversity in the local food farmers, food food producers, and farm economy in producers, and restaurant owners Orange County. food business and other food owners businesses that are owned by POC Identify additional Spring 2 Orange County institutions to 2018 farmers, food encourage, producers, and engage, challenge area Orange County Food Council Local Food Economy Action Plan 37 regarding institutions and procurement (ex. food CHC schools, businesses UNC, jail) Host dinner with Spring Expanded relationships; 3 Orange County diverse group of 2018 work group recruitment; farmers, food food increase awareness of entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs workgroup activities and actors in (growers /producer the local food s, retail, supply chain processing, distribution, etc.) Familiarize and Spring Create partnership in 2 University of meet with Real 2018 increasing institutional North Carolina Food Challenge procurement for local Real Food group at UNC. foods. Challenge Identify ways to group collaborate. (post dinner) Spring/ Gain a better 3 Orange County Conduct an early understanding of the farmers, food informal summer current assets and entrepreneurs, assessment with 2018 barriers to owning a food and actors in food business the local food entrepreneurs supply chain from a diverse background (race, religion, SES, gender) Create Spring 2,3 Orange County procurement guide 2018 farmers, food for restaurants that businesses, are interested in area purchasing local institutions, foods and actors in the local food supply chain Orange County Food Counc Local Food Economy Action Plan Mobile Home Park Survey 10/9/2017 Orange County Health Department Family Success Alliance 39 Acknowledgments Deepest thanks and appreciation go first and foremost to the residents of the mobile home parks in Orange County for their time and participation. We would also like to thank the following people: Survey Collectors Antonia Cortes Brittany Bulluck Claudia Yerena Erika Cervantes Munoz Mariela Hernandez County Manager, Bonnie Hammersley Deputy County Manager, Travis Myren Data Team Coby Jansen Austin Dominika Gazdzinska Meredith McMonigle Kiana Redd Juliet Sheridan Orange County Planning and Inspections Department, especially Ashley Moncado We Executive Summary A survey was conducted of 8 mobile home parks in Orange County identified as high risk for displacement and /or because of an interest in general information about residents and living conditions. 96 surveys were conducted by Navigators from the Family Success Alliance. Almost all families were Hispanic, very low income, and own their own homes, but rent space from the mobile home park. Most of the families are satisfied living in their current mobile home and prefer not to move. Residents often look to their neighbors for assistance with child care, transportation, and other services. Many also rely on public transportation to get to medical appointments, work, and school. Although residents are generally satisfied, many residents also feel they don't have many options other than living in their mobile home; their low income limits their ability to move elsewhere, and they prefer not to move because of the schools, public transport, and proximity to services. The residents were also very clear that moving into an apartment complex is not a preferred option —they commented that in addition to the huge difference in cost, there's a lack of privacy and concern about limited places for children to play. Although not collected in the survey, documentation status was also an issue raised by many families as a significant obstacle in securing affordable housing. The biggest concerns residents had about the parks themselves were infrastructure in the mobile home parks and the age and condition of their mobile homes. Many of the homes are very old —the newest home was manufactured in 2002, and residents are concerned about limitations on moving their homes based on the age and condition of the home and the cost to move it. When it comes to management, residents commented that many of the mobile home parks need infrastructure maintenance, especially for roads and landscaping, e.g., filling in potholes with gravel, for dead trees to be cut down, fixing drainage issues. The Navigators, who administered the surveys, noted that residents often seemed proud of their homes and hoped to stay there long -term. Many residents also shared that they are carpenters, electricians, and construction workers and discussed their ability to contribute their extensive skills to the building or repairing of homes and the park. In summary, many of these mobile home parks consist of tight -knit communities of families with children, who are proud of their homes and where they live. They own their own homes and would like to own their land as well. Because of their documentation status and their income, many of these families feel they have no place to go— that they can't afford to move and are afraid that they won't qualify for assistance, if developers displace them. 41 Table of Contents Acknowledgments........................................................................................................... ..............................1 ExecutiveSummary ......................................................................................................... ..............................1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... ..............................3 SurveyMethodology ....................................................................................................... ..............................3 Results............................................................................................................................ ............................... 4 SurveyOverview ......................................................................................................... ..............................4 Demographics............................................................................................................ ............................... 4 Annual Household Income .......................................................................................... ..............................5 Current Mobile Home Information ............................................................................. ..............................5 CostInformation .................................................................................................... ............................... 6 Owningor Renting Their Home .............................................................................. ..............................6 Services...................................................................................................................... ............................... 7 PublicTransportation .............................................................................................. ..............................7 Services.................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 Internet.................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 Relocation.................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 MobileHome Conditions ............................................................................................ ..............................8 ParkManagement ...................................................................................................... .............................10 Improvements to the Mobile Home Park .............................................................. .............................10 Management Responsiveness to Resident Concerns ............................................ .............................10 Additional Observations by the Survey Team ........................................................ .............................11 Appendix A: Letter to Residents ................................................................................... .............................12 Appendix B: Final Survey in English ............................................................................... .............................13 Appendix C: Final Survey in Spanish ............................................................................. .............................19 2 W Introduction For many years, there has been interest in addressing the vulnerability of residents living in mobile home parks in Orange County. The Board of Commissioners allocated funds in the FY 2015 -16 and FY 2016 -17 budgets to address land banking of mobile home parks and /or to assist in the acquisition of property for future residential development as an affordable housing alternative. An ad hoc committee of local housing partners and county staff began meeting last fiscal year to discuss and evaluate the opportunities and obstacles. The voices of mobile home residents were not a part of this initial process, and the committee recognized the need for their input. Therefore, Navigators with the Family Success Alliance, who have personal and programmatic connections to mobile home park residents, partnered with the county manager's office to visit various mobile home parks during a four -week period in August and September to conduct a survey and gather input from residents. Survey Methodology Out of approximately 100 mobile home parks in Orange County, 8 parks were selected by the Planning Department as areas of special interest owing to developer activity or an interest in general information about residents and living conditions. These parks were assigned to FSA Navigators, who had a goal of a 33% response rate, or around 100 surveys total. In Table 1, each of the eight priority mobile home parks are listed, with the goal and actual number of surveys collected. The Planning Department's selections for those parks at high risk of displacement were mostly in Chapel Hill and Carrboro; although these parks represent a small fraction of all parks in the county, these parks are overrepresented in the survey. In early August, a letter was sent to residents of the selected parks to notify them that surveys would be conducted (see Appendix A). Survey piloting and data collection took place from August 9, 2017 to September 11, 2017. Each survey took between an hour to an hour and a half, and 82% of them were conducted in Spanish. Families who participated were given a $10 gift card to Walmart. The Navigators used snowball sampling —each of them had contacts within the mobile home parks, and enlisted those contacts in helping them find other families who would be willing to participate. They also waited at the school bus stop, mailboxes, and other gathering areas in order to begin conversations with residents and encourage their participation. This sampling method means that there may be selection bias in terms of who agreed to undertake the survey. The Navigators did knock on doors cold, but some families refused to open the door or refused to participate. Specifically, because sometimes the maintenance workers live in the mobile home parks, they received the introductory letter explaining the survey and asking for participation. Many of the residents expressed fear that the maintenance workers had told their landlords about the survey and would retaliate against them if they responded. This fear was especially prevalent in some mobile home parks compared to others. Despite the best efforts of our Navigators, some families refused to participate. 43 Results Survey Overview There were 96 surveys completed, with some mobile homes reaching higher rates of participation than others. # Mobile Home Street Address City Purpose/ Approx. # Actual # Park Name Average Members of Household Objective Survey Occupied Surveyed Sampled Percent with Children (0 -17 y /o) in Household 76% Percent with Seniors (62+ y /o) in Household 8% Goal Sites (32.5 %) 1 Airport Road 1575 Martin Chapel Hill Displacement 10 33 23 70% Luther King Jr Blvd 2 Byrdsville 1801 Old NC 10 Hillsborough General 15 47 13 28% Feedback - Hillsborough 3 Caroline 4931 Howe St Durham General 21 66 16 24% Feedback— Eno Area 4 Homestead 6421 NC 86 S Chapel Hill General 3 9 4 44% Feedback— Orange County 5 Lakeview 1000 Weaver Chapel Hill Displacement 10 33 6 18% Dairy Rd 6 Rocky Brook 500S Carrboro Displacement 13 41 13 32% Greensboro St 7 Tarheel 1208 Martin Chapel Hill Displacement 23 72 14 19% Luther King Jr Blvd 8 Village AKA 1660 Martin Chapel Hill Displacement 7 24 7 29% Wright's Luther King Jr Blvd 102 325 96 30% Demographics Overall, most of the participants were Hispanic (89 %), with 8% of participants who were African - American, and 4% of participants who were white. Here is a table of the main demographics: Race /Ethnicity % (number) Hispanic 88.5%(84) African - American 8.3%(8) White 4.2%(4) Household Information Average Members of Household 4.1 Average Number of Children 1.8 Average Adults Contributing to Household Costs 1.4 Percent with Children (0 -17 y /o) in Household 76% Percent with Seniors (62+ y /o) in Household 8% 4 MA School District Attended (if children in household) Orange County Schools 40.3% Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools 59.7% Annual Household Income The families in this study were almost entirely very low income. Almost all families (87 %) make less than $30,000 per year. 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Annual Household Income, % of Respondents Less than $14,999 $15,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $44,999 $45,000 to $59,999 $60,000 to $74,999 Looking at Area Median Income, HUD defines AMI for a family of 4 in Chapel Hill as $73,300. Given that the average members of the households for families in our study was 4.1, almost all of the families (85 %) represented are at or below 40% of AMI, with 2 in 5 families at or below 20% of AMI. Current Mobile Home Information 59% of respondents live in mobile home parks located in the Town of Chapel Hill, 14% in the Town of Carrboro, 3% in the Town of Hillsborough, and 24% in Orange County, outside of town limits. When asked how long they had lived in their mobile home, a quarter had lived there 1 -4 years (25 %), more than a quarter for 5 -9 years (28 %), one fifth for 10 -14 years (22 %), and 12% for 15 -19 years. The majority of families owned their home (83 %) but rented their park space (89 %). Overall, almost all of the residents were satisfied or very satisfied with their current mobile home (95 %). 5 What do you like most about your current home? Own Your Own Unit Cost Safety Close to School Close to Shopping and Services Close to Work Neighbors Close to Family and Friends Close to Public Transportation Comfortable Space The Park 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 45 60% 70% Cost Information Most families own their own home, which means they pay for their mobile home space, water, electricity, and assorted other costs. The average rent for the mobile home space was $342; once the average cost for utilities is included, the total cost of housing is approximately $568 per month. For families who do not own their homes, the average total monthly cost for renting the mobile home is $489 per month. When added to the others costs those residents pay, which in some cases includes space rental and usually includes utilities, is approximately $787 per month. It is important to remember that very few families rent their homes: only 17% of families are bearing this higher cost. A majority of families (70 %) said that rent has increased at least one or more times in the last 12 months, and on average, rent increased $44 dollars, with a maximum increase of $90 dollars. These costs are broken down below: Type of Bill Average Cost per Month Minimum Cost Maximum Cost Mobile Home Mortgage $489 $200 $850 Mobile Home Space $342 $280 $450 Water $64 $20 $200 Electricity $158 $50 $350 Other (Including internet, cable, and cellphone) $192 $18 $400 Owning or Renting Their Home Almost all of the families preferred to own their homes in the future (95 %), and almost the same number of families wanted to own their land in the future (94 %). When asked about selling their mobile home that they currently own, around half of families (56 %) said that they would sell if they could. More 0 M. families who live in the County instead of in town limits indicated that they would sell their homes compared to those who live in the city limits (61% vs. 54 %). Services Public Transportation 40% of families used public transportation. Of these families, the most common reason to use public transportation was for medical appointments or health services (74 %). Getting to work (68 %) and school (58 %) were also common responses. If the family did not use public transportation, all of them except one family said that they have a car and drove themselves (96 %). Services When families were asked about where they went to access services, the service a majority of families mentioned that they would ask their neighbors were child care (52 %). The next most common areas where residents would reach out to their neighbors were for transportation (42 %), carpenters (40 %), and electricians (30 %). Most other services, including computer repair, lawn care, car repair, medical care, and produce or food were sought outside the mobile home park. Internet Almost three - quarters of the mobile home parks had access to the internet (72 %), and 80% of families living in those parks are connected to the internet in their homes. Of the 28% of families who do not have access to the internet, half of them access it through their cellphones. One fifth of those families access the internet at the library, and around the same number don't use the internet (equivalent to less than 6% of all respondents). Relocation When asked about their preferences for their ideal living situation, 87% of families agreed that a detached single family home would be ideal. Similarly, 82% of families said that a multi - family or apartment building would be their least preferred option. Some families said that they would never choose to live in an apartment building. A majority of families selected a mobile home as their second choice (62 %), and 59% listed an attached single family home like a townhome or duplex as their third choice. Chapel Hill and Carrboro residents were asked if they would be happy relocating to outside of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro area. More than three fourths of families (80 %) responded that they would not want to relocate outside of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro area. Only 1 in 5 families indicated that they would be willing to move outside CHC. When asked why they would not want to relocate outside of the Chapel Hill and Carrboro area, almost half of the families cited the school system as the primary reason they would not want to leave. That reason is closely followed by being close to work and the store and liking the area. Almost 20% of families said that they depend on the public transportation system, as they can't drive. 7 47 If the mobile home park closed, most families didn't know what options they had (43 %), although another park in town or an affordable house in town were common responses. It is important to note that almost a third of families said they didn't have another option if their park closed (29 %). Options Families Would Consider if Park Closed Don't Know Other Park In Town Affordable House in Town Have No Option Affordable House in County Other Park in County Move in With Family Different County 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Most families do not want to move from their current mobile home park (85 %). The most common priorities influencing families' decisions to move were the school system, proximity to family and friends, affordability, home ownership options, and proximity to stores and services. When asked if funding was available to move their existing mobile home, 68% of families would apply, but some families expressed reservations about whether they would qualify and that their mobile home might not be moveable. Additionally, they mentioned that some parks required that homes be less than 10 years old in order to move in; none of the survey respondents would meet that requirement. Mobile Home Conditions All of the mobile homes in the survey were built before 2002. The majority were built in the 1990's (42 %), with around a quarter built in the 1980's (27 %). The oldest house was built in 1960, the most common year of manufacture was 1996, and the median year was 1986. Almost all of the homes (94 %) were single -wide homes. In addition, two - thirds of homes had modifications like additions, porches, decks, or ramps. When asked about issues, the most common responses were windows, doors, heating and cooling, mold, flooring, and the roof. W Windows Cooling Heating Doors Mold Flooring Roof Plumbing Structural Flooring Water Appliances Foundation Weatherproofing Electrical Wastewater Problems with Mobile Homes 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Overall families' greatest concerns about their home were related to repairs, utilities and cost. Safety and transportation were also mentioned as concerns. Repairs Utilities Cost Safety Transportation Families' Greatest Concerns Related to Their Home 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Approximately half of the families stated that their homes would not be able to relocate without significant damage (50 %), and 40% of families said that their homes could be relocated; 10% did not answer the question. There were differences in condition of the home between respondents in the Chapel Hill - Carrboro area and the Hillsborough and greater County area. In the Chapel Hill - Carrboro area, 49% of families said that 0 EEO their homes could not be moved without significant damage, compared to 65% of families in the County who could not move their homes. When asked if they would apply for funding to repair and maintain their homes, 84% of families would apply. Park Management Only 17% of families were dissatisfied with current park management, although families had many suggestions for how to improve the mobile home park. They were asked about their greatest concerns related to their mobile home park, and their answers were overwhelmingly related to infrastructure problems: Families' Greatest Concerns about Their Mobile Infrastructure Landscaping Fire Hazards Traffic Management Crime Waste Common Areas Home Park 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Improvements to the Mobile Home Park When families were asked how the mobile home park could be improved, the most common responses were to improve and fix the roads, with more than double the responses of other issues. Those suggestions included adding gravel in places, repaving areas, and fixing potholes. Other common concerns included adding green areas and a park or playground for children, having more space between homes, adding more lighting, and improving the quality of the water. Living conditions in the parks have mostly stayed the same over the past three years, with 69% of families experiencing approximately the same living conditions. For those residents where conditions had changed, more of them had changed for the worse rather than the better, although they were around the same (16% worsened, while 14% improved). Management Responsiveness to Resident Concerns In the past, 2 in 5 families have tried to contact management with a problem about the park. Of those families, more than half of them (55 %) were dissatisfied with management's responsiveness. 10 50 When asked about retaliation, only 20% of families were concerned about the manager and /or owner getting back at them for complaints or requests. Of those families, all except one identified as Hispanic. On the other hand, 63% of families would file an anonymous complaint if that was available, signaling that retaliation may be a larger concern than the original data would suggest. One resident told the following story: "We complained about the potholes in the road for a long time. Finally, our manager bought gravel and filled in the holes. However, a few months later, rent went up a lot for everyone. We could never prove that it was because of gravel, but now we're afraid to complain about anything." Additional Observations by the Survey Team During survey administration, many families discussed the following concern with the survey team: Documentation Status: Although not collected in the survey, many families expressed that documentation status can be a significant obstacle, even for those families who have "mixed status" (the children are citizens, but the parents are not). The lack of legal status for parents can restrict the services that they are eligible to receive and can complicate other issues. For example, some mobile home residents have the signed title from the previous owner, but in order to put the title in their name they need a North Carolina driver's license, which they can't get if they're undocumented. Families are very interested in programs where they could put in work to buy a home and the land it sits on, but are concerned they may not qualify because of their documentation status. They are afraid that there may be similar limitations on alternatives offered through other government programs because of their status. There are also fears about benefitting from governmental housing support more generally, even if they qualify, because of the potential implications of publically recognizing their status. 11 51 Appendix A: Letter to Residents [Date] [address line 11 [city, state zip] Dear Orange County Resident: I am writing to invite you to participate in the 2017 Survey of Mobile Home Residents, a process that is being conducted by Orange County. This assessment is part of an effort to increase housing that is affordable for Orange County mobile home park residents. In Orange County we are aware of the challenges of having good housing that is affordable. Housing costs continue to rise and some residents struggle to make ends meet. The County is involved in efforts to increase housing that is affordable and to respond to the priorities of residents living in mobile home parks. We need the voices of mobile home residents in this process. To do this, we are conducting a survey to learn more about your experiences. Members of the Family Success Alliance, an Orange County Health Department initiative, will visit various mobile home parks in the coming weeks to conduct a survey and will share the results of this survey with the County to help determine what actions can be taken to support our mobile home park communities. The survey is completely voluntary, and it should take no more than 30 minutes to complete. There are no right or wrong answers. You may refuse to answer any question you don't feel comfortable with. Your answers will be completely confidential. The information you give us will not be linked to you in any way. Thanks in advance for your participation. In the upcoming weeks someone may come to your door and ask you to complete this survey with us. If you have any questions or comments about this assessment we would be happy to talk with you. You can call Meredith McMonigle at 919 - 245 -2071 or email mmcmonigle @orangecountync.gov. Thank you very much for helping with this assessment. Sincerely, Bonnie Hammersley County Manager 12 52 Appendix B: Final Survey in English Mobile Home Park - - E01 (park ID) (nav ID) (survey I)) Date: Time: 1. Where is your mobile home park located? A. In the Town of Chapel Hill C. In the Town of Hillsborough B. In the Town of Carrboro D. In Orange County, outside of town limits 2. What do you like most about your current home? (Please select up to five) A. Own your own unit G. Close to work B. Cost /affordability H. Close to schools C. Comfortable living space /size of the unit I. Close to family and friends D. Safety J. Close to public transportation E. Neighbors K. Close to shopping and services F. Mobile home park L. Other (Specify) 3. How satisfied are you with your current mobile home? A. Very satisfied C. Dissatisfied B. Satisfied D. Very dissatisfied 4. Please provide the total number adults, seniors, and /or children in your household below: # of adults (18 and older) _ # of seniors (62 and older) _ # of children (17 and under) 5. If you have children in the public school system, which school district do your children attend? A. Orange County B. Chapel Hill — Carrboro City C. N/A Schools Schools 6. What is your total annual household income? (select one) A. Less than $14,999 F. $75,000 to $89,999 B. $15,000 to $29,999 G. $90,000 to $104,999 C. $30,000 to $44,999 H. $105,000 to $124,999 D. $45,000 to $59,999 I. $125,000 to $149,999 E. $60,000 to $74,999 J. $150,000 or more 7. How many members of your household contribute to housing costs (mortgage and /or rent)? A. 1 D. 4 B. 2 E. 5 or more C. 3 8. What race(s) or ethnicities do you identify yourself with? (select all that apply) A. American Indian or Alaska E. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Native F. White B. Asian G. Other C. Black or African American D. Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin 9. How long have you lived in your mobile home? A. Less than 1 year C. 5 to 9 years E. 15 to 19 years B. 1 to 4 years D. 10 to 14 years F. 20 or more (Please specify: years) 10. Do you own or rent your mobile home? A. Own B. Rent 13 11. Do you own or rent your mobile home park space? A. Own B. Rent 12. What is the approximate monthly cost for your mobile home and mobile home park space? Home $ Space $ 13. How many rental increases have you experienced in the last 12 months? A. None D. 5-6 B. 1-2 E. 7 or more C. 3 -4 In total, how much has your rent increased in the last 12 months? $ Please provide additional monthly costs. If these are included in your monthly rental fee please indicate that. Water $ Sewer /Waste Water $ Electrical $ Trash $ Other Costs (Specify below) $ Included in monthly rental fee? Yes /No Yes /No Yes /No Yes /No Yes /No 14. Would you prefer to own or rent your home in the future? (select one) A. Own B. Rent 15. Would you prefer to own or rent your land in the future? A. Own B. Rent 16. If you own your mobile home and could sell it, would you? A. Yes B. No 17. If your preference is to own, what keeps you from buying a home? (Select all that apply) A. Not enough income D. Lack of a down payment B. Poor credit E. Legal issues C. Lack of affordable housing F. Other (Please specify) options Services 18. Do you regularly use public transportation (i.e. Chapel Hill Transit, Orange Public Transportation)? A. Yes B. No If yes, where to? (Select all that apply) C. Work F. Medical Appointments /Health Services D. School G. Personal E. Shopping H. Other (Please specify) If no, how do you get around? A. I have a car and drive myself D. I bike B. Someone in my household E. I walk drives a personal car F. Other (Please specify) C. I get rides from neighbors or family members 53 14 54 19. When you are in need of or require the services listed below, do you most frequently ask your neighbors in the mobile home park or service providers outside of the mobile home park? (select all that apply) 1. Carpenter A. Neighbors B. Outside 2. Child Care A. Neighbors B. Outside 3. Computer /Technology Repair A. Neighbors B. Outside 4. Electrician A. Neighbors B. Outside 5. Lawn Care /Landscaping A. Neighbors B. Outside 6. Mechanic A. Neighbors B. Outside 7.Medical /Health Care A. Neighbors B. Outside 8. Produce /Food Sales A. Neighbors B. Outside 9. Transportation A. Neighbors B. Outside 20. Does your mobile home park have access to internet? A. Yes B. No If yes, is your home connected to internet? A. Yes B. No If no, how do you access the internet when you need to? (Please specify) Relocation 21. Please rank which housing type would be your ideal living situation, regardless of potential costs. (1 being the option you prefer the most, 4 being the option you prefer the least) Detached single family home (i.e. a standalone house that is a free - standing residential building) Mobile home Attached single family home (i.e. townhouse, duplex) Multi- family (i.e. apartment) 22. For Chapel Hill and Carrboro residents: If you were to relocate, would you be happy relocating to a community outside of the Chapel Hill and Carrboro area? A. Yes B. No If no, please specify why? 23. What potential relocation options would you consider if your mobile home park was to close and residents had to leave? (Please select up to four) A. Move to a different park in town F. Move in with family B. Move to a different park in the county G. Have no option C. Move to an affordable apartment or house H. Don't know in town I. Other (Please specify) D. Move to an affordable apartment or house J. in the county E. Move to a different county 24. Do you prefer to move from your existing mobile home and park? A. Yes B. No If you prefer to move, what priorities influence your decisions about where to live? (Please select up to four) A. School system B. Proximity to public transportation G. Pedestrian /bike friendly H. Affordability 15 55 C. Proximity to family and friends I. Home ownership options D. Proximity to shopping and services J. Rental options E. Proximity to jobs K. Other (Please specify) F. Safety 25. If funding was available to move your household and your existing mobile home, if it can be moved, would you apply? A. Yes B. No Mobile Home Conditions 26. What year was your mobile home manufactured /built? 27. Is your mobile home a single wide or double wide? A. Single B. Double 28. Have modifications been made to your mobile home? (i.e. additions, porches, decks, ramps) A. Yes B. No 29. Does your mobile home have issues with any of the following? (Please select all that apply and provide any additional comments or details on the next page.) A. Water (well /public water) K. Heating systems B. Wastewater (septic /public sewer) L. Cooling systems C. Electrical M. Plumbing D. Roof N. Flooring E. Windows (including leaks) O. Installation /weather proofing F. Doors (including leaks) P. Appliances G. Flooring /carpeting Q. Other (Please specify) H. Structural I. Foundation /insulation /set up J. Mold Additional Comments or Details: 30. Greatest concerns related to your home? (Please select up to three) A. Housing costs (including home and space) D. Feeling safe B. Home repairs E. Lack of convenient transportation C. Paying for utilities F. Other (Please specify) 31. Would your mobile home be able to relocate or move to another location without resulting in significant damage? A. Yes B. No 32. If funding was available for repair and maintenance to your existing home, would you apply? A. Yes B. No Park Manaeement 33. How satisfied are you with current park management? A. Very satisfied C. Dissatisfied B. Satisfied D. Very dissatisfied 34. What are your greatest concerns related to your mobile home park? (Please select all that apply and provide any additional comments) 16 A. Fire hazards (abandoned homes, inoperable vehicles) B. Landscaping (grass, overgrown vegetation, weeds) C. Traffic (busy streets, lack of access points, speeding) D. Solid waste collection (trash, junk, recycling) E. Crime and safety F. Park infrastructure (roads, lighting, fencing, stormwater, flooding) G. Common area maintenance (playgrounds, laundry, swimming pools) H. Park management I. Other (Please specify) 35. If you could improve one thing within your mobile home park, what would it be? 36. How have living conditions in the park changed in the last three years? A. They have worsened B. They have stayed the same C. That have improved 37. In the past, have you attempted to contact management regarding a problem? A. Yes B. No If yes, how satisfied are you with management's responsiveness? A. Very C. Dissatisfied satisfied D. Very dissatisfied B. Satisfied Did management resolve the problem and how? (Please specify) 38. Are you concerned with issues of retaliation from the mobile home park manager and /or owner? A. Yes B. No 39. If there was a resource to file an anonymous complaint on a mobile home park manager and /or owner, would you? A. Yes B. No Please provide any additional comments: 56 17 57 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: Navigator Notes (if notes relate to a specific question, please indicate the question number.): Appendix C: Final Survey in Spanish Mobile Home Park - - (park ID) (nav ID) (survey ID) Date: Time: 7 40. Donde se encuentra ubicado el parque de casas moviles donde usted vive? A. En la ciudad de Chapel C. En la cuidad de Hillsborough Hill D. En el Condado de Orange, fuera de los limites de la B. En la ciudad de Carrboro ciudad 41. Que es to que mas le gusta de su vivienda actual? (Seleccione hasta cinco) A. Es dueno de su propia unidad G. Cerca del trabajo B. El costo /la accesibilidad H. Cerca de las escuelas C. El espacio es comodo /el tamano de la unidad I. Cerca de familiares y amigos D. La seguridad J. Cerca del transporte publico E. Los vecinos K. Cerca de las tiendas y otros servicios F. El parque de casas moviles L. Otro (especifique) 7 42. Que tan satisfecho esta con su casa movil actual? A. Muy satisfecho C. Insatisfecho B. Satisfecho D. Muy insatisfecho 43. Por favor a continuacion escriba el numero total de adultos, adultos mayores y ninos en su hogar: # de adultos (18 a 61 anos) _ personas de 62 anos o mas _ ninos (17 anos o menos) 44. Si tiene ninos en el sistema escolar publico, a que distrito escolar asisten sus ninos? A. Orange County Schools B. Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools C. N/A (No Aplica) Es�cuelas del Condado de Orange Escuelas de las ciudades de Chapel Hill- Carrboro 45. Cual es el ingreso anual total de su hogar? (selecta uno) A. Menos de $14,999 F. $75,000 a $89,999 B. $15,000 a $29,999 G. $90,000 a $104,999 C. $30,000 a $44,999 H. $105,000 a $124,999 D. $45,000 a $59,999 I. $125,000 a $149,999 E. $60,000 a $74,999 J. $150,000 o mas z 46. Cuantos miembros de su hogar contribuyen a los costos de la vivienda (hipoteca y/o alquiler)? a. 1 B. 4 b. 2 C. 5 o mas c. 3 7 47. A que grupo racial o etnico se identifica mas? (Seleccione todas las que apliquen) A. Nativo Americano o Nativo de Alaska E. Nativo de Hawai u otra Isla del Pacifico B. Asiatico F. Blanco C. Negro o Afroamericano G. Otro D. Origen Hispano, Latino, o Espanol 48. Cuanto tiempo ha vivido en su casa movil? A. Menos de un ano C. 5 a 9 anos E. 15 a 19 anos B. 1 a 4 anos D. 10 a 14 anos F. 20 o mas (Por favor especifique: anos) 49. Su casa movil es propia (es el dueno) o es alquilada? A. Propia B. Alquilada 19 59 5o. Posee (es el dueno) o alquila el espacio de aparcamiento de su casa m6vil? A. Es propio B. Lo alquilo 51. Cual es el costo mensual aproximado de su casa m6vil y el espacio de aparcamiento? Casa $ Espacio de aparcamiento $ 52. Cuantos aumentos del alquiler ha experimentado en los 61timos 12 meses? A. Ninguno D. 5-6 B. 1-2 E. 7 o mas C. 3-4 ? En total, cuanto ha aumentado su renta en los 6ltimos 12 meses? $ Por favor proporcione los costos mensuales adicionales. Si estos costos estan incluidds en su cuota de alquiler mensual, solo marque poniendo un ganchito (�) de verificaci6n. Esta incluiado en la 53. Si actualmente alquila, en el futuro preferiria ser dueno o alquilar? (selecta uno) A. Duero B. Alquilar 2 54. Si actualmente es dueno, en el futuro preferiria ser dueno o alquilar? A. Duero B. Alquilar 7 55. Si es dueno de su casa m6vil y pudiera venderla, fa venderia? A. Si B. No 2 56. Si usted prefiere tener vivienda propia, que le impide comprar una casa? (Seleccione todas las que apliquen) A. No tengo ingresos suficientes B. Mal credito C. Falta de opciones de vivienda asequible Servicios D. Falta del pago inicial (down payment) E. Asuntos legales F. Otro (por favor especifique) 57. Otiliza el transporte p6blico? (por ejemplo, Chapel Hill Transit, Orange Public Transportation) A. 7i B. No Los outobuses de Chapel Hill El transporte p6blico de Orange Si contesto si, para it a d6nde? (Seleccione todas las que correspondan) A. Trabajo D. Citas medicas /Servicios de Salud B. Escuela E. Asuntos personales C. De compras F. Otro (Por favor especifique) 58. Cuando necesita o requiere los servicios listados a continuacion, con mayor frecuencia los pide a sus vecinos en el parque de casas m6viles o a proveedores de servicios fuera del parque de casas moviles? (Seleccione todas las que apliquen) 1. Carpinteria A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera 2. Cuidado de ninos A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera 3. Reparacion de computadora /tecnologia A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera 20 renta? Agua (water) $ Si /No Alcantarillado y Aguas Residuales (Sewer /Waste Water) $ Si /No Electricidad (Electrical /Electricity) $ Si /No Basura (Trash) $ Si /No Otros costos (por favor especifiquelos a continuacion) $ Si /No 53. Si actualmente alquila, en el futuro preferiria ser dueno o alquilar? (selecta uno) A. Duero B. Alquilar 2 54. Si actualmente es dueno, en el futuro preferiria ser dueno o alquilar? A. Duero B. Alquilar 7 55. Si es dueno de su casa m6vil y pudiera venderla, fa venderia? A. Si B. No 2 56. Si usted prefiere tener vivienda propia, que le impide comprar una casa? (Seleccione todas las que apliquen) A. No tengo ingresos suficientes B. Mal credito C. Falta de opciones de vivienda asequible Servicios D. Falta del pago inicial (down payment) E. Asuntos legales F. Otro (por favor especifique) 57. Otiliza el transporte p6blico? (por ejemplo, Chapel Hill Transit, Orange Public Transportation) A. 7i B. No Los outobuses de Chapel Hill El transporte p6blico de Orange Si contesto si, para it a d6nde? (Seleccione todas las que correspondan) A. Trabajo D. Citas medicas /Servicios de Salud B. Escuela E. Asuntos personales C. De compras F. Otro (Por favor especifique) 58. Cuando necesita o requiere los servicios listados a continuacion, con mayor frecuencia los pide a sus vecinos en el parque de casas m6viles o a proveedores de servicios fuera del parque de casas moviles? (Seleccione todas las que apliquen) 1. Carpinteria A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera 2. Cuidado de ninos A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera 3. Reparacion de computadora /tecnologia A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera 20 59. AN 4. Electricista A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera 5. Cuidado del cesped /arreglo del patio A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera 6. Mecanico A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera 7.Servicios medicos o de salud A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera 8. Venta de productos o alimentos A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera 9. Transporte A. Vecinos B. Persona de afuera z Su parque de casas moviles tiene acceso a servicios de Internet? A. Si 7 B. No Si contesto si, esta su casa conectado a los servicios de internet? A. Si 7 B. No Si contesto no, Como obtiene acceso /se conecta a Internet cuando to necesita? (Por favor especifique) Reubicacion 60. Por favor clasifique que tipo de vivienda seria su situacion de vivienda ideal, sin tomar en cuenta los costos potenciales. (1 seria la opcion que mas prefiere, 4 la opcion que usted menos prefiere) Casa unifamiliar separada (es decir: una casa independiente que es una residencia individual) Casa movil Casa unifamiliar unida (es decir, casa adosada /unida, duplex) Edificio de multiples - familias (por ejemplo, un apartamento) 2 61. Para los residentes de Chapel Hill y Carrboro: Si fuera a reubicarse /mudarse, seria feliz reubicandose a una comunidad fuera de la zona de Chapel Hill y Carrboro? A. Si B. No 7 Si contesto no, por favor especifique por que? 62. Clue opciones potenciales de reubicacion consideraria si su parque de casas moviles cerrara y los residentes tuvieran que mudarse? (Por favor, seleccione hasta cuatro) A. Moverme a un parque diferente en la ciudad F. Irme a vivir con familiares B. Moverme a un parque diferente en el condado G. No tengo opcion C. Moverme a un apartamento o casa asequible en H. No to se la ciudad I. Otro (Por favor especifique) D. Moverme a un apartamento o casa asequible en J. el condado E. Moverme a otro condado 63. Prefiere mudarse de su actual casa movil y parque? A. Si 7 B. No Si prefiere mudarse, que prioridades influyen su decision sobre donde vivir? (Por favor, seleccione hasta cuatro) a. Sistema escolar g. Apto para peatones y bicicletas b. Proximidad al transporte publico h. Asequibilidad (costo razonable) c. Cercania a familiares y i. Opciones para tener casa propia amistades j. Opciones para alquiler d. Cercania a servicios y centro de k. Otro (Por favor compras e. Cercania a trabajos B. f. Seguridad especifique) 64. Si hubiera financiamiento disponible para mover a los miembros de su hogar y su casa movil actual, si la casa movil puede moverse, aplicaria usted para ese financiamiento? 21 65. 66. 67. 68. 61 A. Si B. No idiciones de la Casa M6vil En que ano fue fabricada /construida su casa m6vil? Es su casa m6vil de anchura sencilla (single wide) o doble (double wide)? �. Sencilla (Single) B. Doble (Double) Se han hecho modificaciones a su casa m6vil? (adiciones, porches, terrazas /plataformas, rampas) �. Si B. No Su casa m6vil tiene problemas con algo de to siguiente? (Seleccione todo to que aplique y proporcione comentarios adicionales o detalles en la pagina siguiente). A. Agua (pozo /servicio de agua publica) K. Sistemas de calefacci6n B. Aguas residuales (tanque septico /alcantarillado L. Sistemas de refrigeraci6n(aire publico) acondicionado) C. Electricidad M. Plomeria D. Techo N. Suelos /pisos E. Ventanas (incluyendo filtraciones o fugas) O. Instalaci6n /impermeabilizaci6n F. Puertas (incluyendo filtraciones o fugas) P. Electrodomesticos G. Pisos /alfombras (moquetas) Q. Otro (por favor especifique) _ H. Estructura I. Fundaci6n/ aislamiento(insulation) /montaje (set -up) J. Moho Comentarios o Detalles Adicionales: 69. Cuales son las mayores preocupaciones relacionadas con su casa? (Por favor, seleccione hasta tres) A. Precio de vivienda (incluyendo casa y D. Sentir seguridad espacio) E. Falta de transporte conveniente B. Reparaciones de la casa F. Otro (por favor especifique) C. El pago de las utilidades 70. Podria su casa m6vil ser trasladada o movida a otra ubicaci6n sin que sufra danos significativos? A. Si B. No 71. Si hubiera fondos disponibles para reparaci6n y mantenimiento de su casa, aplicaria usted? A. Si B. No 72. Que tan satisfecho esta con la gerencia /administraci6n actual del parque? A. Muy satisfecho C. Insatisfecho 9. Satisfecho D. Muy insatisfecho 73. Cuales son sus mayores preocupaciones relacionadas con su parque de casas m6viles? (Por favor seleccione todas las que apliquen y proporcione comentarios adicionales) A. Riesgos de incendio (casas abandonadas, vehiculos inoperables) B. Las areas verdes (cesped, vegetaci6n frondosa, malezas) C. El trafico (calles muy frecuentadas, falta de Was de acceso, exceso de velocidad) D. Recolecci6n de residuos s6lidos (basura, chatarra, reciclaje) E. El crimen y la 22 seguridad F. La infraestructura del parque (calles, iluminacion, cercas, aguas pluviales, inundaciones) G. El mantenimiento de las areas comunes (area de juegos infantiles, lavanderia, piscinas) H. Los administradores del parque I. Otro (por favor especifique) 74. Si usted pudiera mejorar algo dentro de su parque de casas moviles, e mejoraria? M 75. Como han cambiado las condiciones de vida en el parque de casas moviles en los ultimos tres anos? A. Han empeorado B. Se han mantenido igual C. Han mejorado 7 76. En el pasado, han intentado ponerse en contacto con la administracion con respecto a algun problema? A. Si B. I�o Si respondio si, que tan satisfecho esta con la capacidad de respuesta de la administracion? C. Muy satisfecho E. Insatisfecho 9. Satisfecho F. Muy insatisfecho Resolvio el problema la administracion y como to resolvio? (por favor especifique) 77. Esta preocupado por cuestiones de represalias de parte de la administracion o el propietario del parque de casas moviles? A. Si B. No 78. Si hubiera un recurso para pre$entar una denuncia anonima sobre la administracion o el propietario del parque de casas moviles, presentaria usted una denuncia? A. Si B. No Por favor comparta cualquier comentario adicional: 23 63 Attachment 4 MOBILE HOME PARK RECOMMENDATIONS [Not in County's ownership] [Partner with existing owners] [County management] Background ■ Information collected on existing mobile home parks identified several issues with aging park infrastructure and mobile homes. Many mobile home park owners are faced with expensive infrastructure improvements and ongoing repair issues that they are unable to address. In some cases, mobile home parks owners may be forced to permanently vacate a space and /or mobile home due to a failed septic system or maintenance issue that may be too costly to repair or residents are living in unsafe conditions. Due to maintenance issues, deteriorated infrastructure, and aging homes, families are displaced, owners experience a loss of income, and Orange County residents lose an affordable housing unit. Recommendations ■ In order to address these issues, one recommendation is to establish a loan program for mobile home park owners to improve and /or expand their existing parks. This strategy would be part of an overall Rental Rehabilitation Initiative for investor - owners with 25 or less properties. In addition, it is also recommended that up to $500,000 from the Affordable Housing /Land Bank Set -aside in the approved Capital Investment Plan be used to initially fund this Initiative. o One function of this program would offer low- interest loans and other types of assistance to mobile home park owners wanting to improve or enhance their existing park. In return, this program would require an agreement between the mobile home park owner and Orange County to maintain a specific set of standards related to maintenance and upkeep and require the mobile home park owner to keep the park in operation for an established period of time. Funds may be used to invest in infrastructure maintenance or upgrades for water systems, waste water systems, drainage, or other improvements (i.e. roadways, internet access, etc.) that would improve and prolong the life of the mobile home park. In addition, the County may explore the logistics and opportunity to lease mobile home park spaces from owners requesting loan funds. Outcome ■ Orange County develops a loan program for mobile home park owners for necessary improvements and /or expansions, including infrastructure. The funds would strive to improve and expand the available supply of affordable housing in Orange County, as well mitigate the displacement of low income residents due to the sale and redevelopment of mobile home parks. If the Board of County Commissioners endorses the recommendations, staff will proceed with the design and implementation of a loan program for mobile home park owners to improve and /or expand their existing parks with the proposed initial funding source. J I Mitigate Displacement I I Preserve Existing Stock I J I Increase Supply • , MOBILE HOME PARK RECOMMENDATIONS rNlot i- ow- ership] [PertreC with eyisti ,fix management] Background ■ As the recent mobile home park survey indicates, many of the mobile homes were built in the 1990s and are in need of repair. An overwhelming number of the low income residents occupying these units do not have the funds necessary to repair their mobile homes. In addition, some mobile homes given their condition cannot be repaired. Therefore, due to the condition of the aging mobile homes and cost of needed repairs, low income individuals and families are in threat of displacement. Recommendation The second recommendation from the Working Group is to establish a repair and /or replacement program component for mobile home residents within the County's existing Single - Family Rehabilitation and Urgent Repair Programs capitalized with local funds only. Presently, assistance for mobile home repair is only available under the County's Urgent Repair Program for persons who own their homes, as well as the land. In addition, there is no provision for the replacement of a substandard mobile home under the Single - Family Housing Rehabilitation Program. This program does not address mobile homes at all. The proposed assistance would be available to individuals occupying a mobile home, whether rental or owner- occupied. o This recommendation focuses on providing assistance to address maintenance and repairs specifically for low income individuals and families owning and /or occupying a mobile home. Assistance would be in the form of grants, forgivable loans, as well as low- interest loans. The registered owner of the mobile home must enter into an agreement with the County. Replacement activities would be undertaken when the unit cannot be repaired or the cost of repair exceeds the after -rehab value of the unit. Outcome ■ Displacement would be mitigated and the preservation of affordable housing units would be achieved. The quality of life for low income individuals and families would be enhanced. If the Board of County Commissioners endorses the recommendations, staff will proceed with revising the programmatic guidelines and implementing a repair and /or replacement program component for residents occupying a mobile home within the County's existing Single - Family Rehabilitation and Urgent Repair Programs. ✓ I Mitigate Displacement I ✓ I Preserve Existing Stock I I increase Supply 65 [County or third party /non - profit ownership] [County or third party /non - profit management] Background ■ Throughout the process, the Work Group examined the need to provide for safe and long -term affordable housing in areas of the County with access to public transit, employment, goods and services, and public water and wastewater infrastructure. Recommendation Due to a lack of existing available mobile homes and spaces and increasing housing costs in the Towns, the Work Group recommends Orange County use designated funds to pursue the development of a mobile home park and /or mixed housing development on an undeveloped parcel with access to transportation, employment, goods, services, and public water and wastewater infrastructure in the County. o A new mobile home park would increase the number of mobile home sites in the County and provide affordable housing units for residents facing potential displacement as a result of development. A mixed housing development would act as a viable source for affordable housing, increase the number of affordable housing units in the County, and provide affordable and sustainable housing units for all low- income residents facing potential displacement as a result of redevelopment. The recommendation may also incorporate additional affordable housing goals and objectives and allow for a mix of housing types including multifamily, townhomes, cottage homes, mobile homes, modular units, and stick built construction. This would then provide for viable, long -term housing that would appreciate over time. • Due to financial constraints and development pressure in the Towns, the Work Group examined long -term solutions that may be pursued in the northern portion of the County, specifically the Eno and Efland areas. These areas of the Orange County may provide for access to employment centers, education, and everyday goods and services via public transit. In addition, these areas may have the capacity to connect to public water and wastewater infrastructure, compared to other areas of the county. This would allow for greater density and additional affordable housing units. • This recommendation may allow for the County to work with an existing mobile home park owner to expand their existing mobile home park with the County's purchase of an adjacent, undeveloped parcel. o If this recommendation is pursued, the County shall explore opportunities for non - profit or third party ownership, development, and management in the immediate future. This may require the County to initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, similar to the RFPs initiated for the 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Funds. Potential Funding Source: Funds allocated by the BOCC for land banking opportunities. Outcome ■ Orange County would purchase and pursue the development of a mobile home park and /or mixed housing development on an undeveloped parcel in Orange County. This would allow for safe and long -term affordable housing for displaced mobile home park residents in the future. If the Board of County Commissioners endorses the recommendations, staff will proceed with identifying and evaluating parcels in Orange County for future mobile home park and /or affordable mixed housing development. Mitigate Displacement I I Preserve Existing Stock I ✓ I Increase Supplv M [County or third party /non - profit ownership] [County or third party /non - profit management] Background Throughout the process the Mobile Home Work Group discussed the need to locate displaced mobile home park residents close to their existing communities in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Based on results from the survey, existing mobile home park residents prefer to stay within their existing communities and the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools District. The Work Group identified the need and significance of locating affordable housing opportunities in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, but was aware of the financial constraints and costs of purchasing land for development in the Towns. Recommendation With the goal of retaining displaced mobile home park residents in their community, the Work Group recommends Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro elected officials and staff continue to explore affordable housing opportunities on the Greene Tract, with a focus on displaced mobile home park residents. o This recommendation would include at least the 18.1 acres previously set aside for affordable housing in the resolution and concept plan approved by the Chapel Hill Town Council in 2002. • The recommendation may incorporate additional affordable housing goals and objectives and allow for a mix of housing types including multifamily, townhomes, cottage homes, modular units, mobile homes, and stick built construction. • If this process is pursued, County funds allocated for mobile home parks may be put towards infrastructure improvements, site preparation, construction, and /or housing. This recommendation would result in permanent affordable housing in a key location with access to public transit, education, employment, and goods and services. • The county shall explore opportunities for non - profit or third party ownership, development, and management in the immediate future. This may require the County to initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, similar to the RFPs initiated for the 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Funds. Potential Funding Source: Funds allocated by the BOCC for land banking opportunities. Outcome Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro elected officials and staff continue efforts currently underway regarding the development of affordable housing on the Greene Tract, with a focus on displaced mobile home park residents. Pursuing this recommendation would allow for potentially displaced residents to remain in their community. If the Board of County Commissioners endorses the recommendations, staff will proceed with planning discussions and efforts for the Greene Tract with a focus on providing affordable housing options for mobile home park residents facing displacement in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Mitigate Displacement I I Preserve Existing Stock I ✓ I Increase Supply 67 Attachment 4a SUMMARY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY, CHAPEL HILL, CARRBORO JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT What is the "Rural Buffer "? The Rural Buffer is a planning and zoning area that was created by a Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) between Orange County / Chapel Hill / Carrboro. What does the JPA do? It's an Interlocal Agreement that: 1. Delineates urban areas from rural areas and defines land use, service expectations and community /rural character. 2. Creates a future Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that becomes an annexation limit. 3. Serves as an alternative to Municipal Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) expansion by using the following methods: ➢ Development review and courtesy review processes and notifications. ➢ Representation of residents by those they elect prior to land use changes that alter the planning status of their property and environs. ➢ Representation of residents of unincorporated areas on review boards of the future municipality. 4. Determines new Urban Transition growth areas where specific areas will transition to urban because of proximity to the urban area. 5. Establishes Rural Buffer zoning regulations that support rural character by allowing fewer homes per acre on private well and septic and agricultural support enterprises. Many farms exist in agricultural use value. 6. Reduces urban sprawl and creates more urban investment in areas where infrastructure and transit are already available and /or can be efficiently expanded. W 7. Acknowledges that inside and outside the UGB responsibilities exist to create a comprehensive growth and conservation program that is mutually beneficial by promoting urban densities inside the boundary and watershed/natural area protection areas outside of the boundary. 8. Creates awareness of goals, rules, and regulations to foster collaboration among governments that acknowledge the comprehensiveness of sustainable decisions where planning does not stop at a boundary line. How big is the Joint Planning Area? The Joint Land Use Plan covers 40,487 acres originally. The attached map includes: ➢ Rural Buffer (37,350 acres) under Orange County planning jurisdiction ➢ Transition Areas (Urban) under • Chapel Hill (274 acres) • Carrboro (1753 acres) How does the JPA affect growth and conservation patterns? ➢ The Plan explains intended land use categories, creates a process of planning collaboration, and creates a land use map outlining general use categories to be implemented by local government through more specific zoning. Other `small area' plans and studies focused on specific areas and environmental issues. Are there any Collateral Agreements that reinforce the JPA? ➢ Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) This agreement reinforces the urban growth and public utility service boundary. This notes the focus on service area but also acknowledges the larger region and efforts of watershed protection whether it is Cane Creek, University Lake, Falls Lake, or Jordan Lake on behalf of municipal densification. American Stone Quarry located in the rural buffer is planned to be recycled into another reservoir at its completion. lir"La I JIM, WHOSE A r4.L%�ATmdi7F',"—. � 0 —I j Oil IL �4 1 I OP, , Z ro 1, . �_JIPWWI-tzlK J�:Ssij& 91W j LYVI 40offAr MO� -O"W! V — A 'Lop 14"'.44 _.,61,40P #1 154 Fr _401 20 VA m Iff ffi'� 0 RIL A;41 " kX. erb Mr 4 rg ov, qp�, Q Fir V�X, AW WN A r p wo f II.i t .0, Yip mr, I4 II it, "6 "00" lie ,A SRI, IWWArl Ali 13 PrIff, Growth Management System Urban and Rural Designated Areas Urban Designated - Property located within Transition Areas as identified in the Land Use Plan. Rural Designated - Property not located in Urban Designated areas N W+ E S nd Rural Buffer (14.5% part of rural designation) Rural Designated (84.4 %) City Limits (8.5 %) Extra - Territorial Jurisdiction (3.5 %) County Urban Designated (3.6 %) Chapel Hill /Carrboro Transition (Not part of Growth Management System) (0.8 %) °��n e 1 2 3 v Miles 1 inch = 3 miles 'fanning and Inspections Department 3 Prepared by Brian Carson. ent System adopted by BOCC 11/5/03 Printed 11/6/2017 71 A County of Collaboration / Review Agreements Caswell I ` i Chatham Person 7L' q Ilsborough 70A V L Durham _ Hillsborough Primary Service Area Rural Buffer Mebane Buckhom Utility Agreement Rural Buffer QJoint Planning Agreement Courtesy Review City Limits* ETJ* Chapel Hill Orange County /Hillsborough Courtesy Review 15 I Courtesy Review Area Boundary (Review sai by Hillsborough) j Orange County /Durham Courtesy Review Durham County (Reveiw by Orange Carrboro County) I 54 Orange County (Reveiw by Durham County) Joint Planning Agreement Courtesy Reveiw 15 Carrboro Transition (Reveiw by Orange County) 1 501 Chapel Hill Transition (Reveiw by Orange County) * Hillsborough is the only area where Orange County performs Courtesy Review in the Town Limits and ETJ. 1 in = 3.1 miles 0 1 Miles Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (11/7/2017) 72 Rural Buffer Retrospective —November, 2017 Celebration of the Rural Buffer How did we get here? As North Carolina and the nation emerged from a period of recession and explosive interest rates in the late 1970's, Orange County experienced significant growth pressures. Across the Research Triangle Area, it was common to see farms and undeveloped land turned into subdivisions and suburban -type shopping centers. Downtown areas were losing vitality as sprawl patterns of land use began to spread. At the same time, southern Orange County was dealing with an archaic set of land use regulations. Municipal boundaries were expanding as annexations became commonplace. Thirty years previously, the NC General Assembly had drawn lines in southeastern Orange County to define extraterritorial jurisdiction areas (ETJ), where development of land outside of Chapel Hill and Carrboro's corporate limits would be regulated by Chapel Hill and Carrboro zoning ordinances. The original purpose of ETJ areas was to achieve transition objectives, such that land immediately outside of corporate boundaries that would likely be annexed would develop in accordance with municipal regulations. The problem was that corporate boundaries had already gone past the 30 -year old ETJ lines, and the municipalities were seeking expansion of the ETJ areas. Another problem was that non -urban residents in the ETJ areas were increasingly dissatisfied with the situation of land use decisions that affected their properties being made by those whom they had not elected. There were commonly held objectives that were being threatened by these circumstances, including high value placed on: (1) The existence and proximity of rural areas and open space; (2) Cultural identity and character related to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and to rural Orange County; and (3) The water supply independence of southern Orange County - - resulting from purposeful growth management, and successful preservation of water supply watersheds. These conditions in the mid- 1980's called for creative responses and, as has always been the case for these communities, collaboration and forward thinking resulted in development of a strategic framework. Drawing upon best practices and lessons from around the nation in the delineation of urban growth boundaries, elected and appointed officials from Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County came together to draft a customized mutual agreement that created what is now known as the Rural Buffer. Addressing issues of land use patterns, transportation systems, topography, and public facilities, lines were re -drawn to designate areas where urban growth would be targeted and where it would be discouraged, along with policies governing where public facilities would and would not be extended. And the Agreement provided a voice for non -urban residents in land use decisions regarding these areas. The result has been a dramatic and successful growth management system that encourages municipal growth, preserves nearby rural character, protects water supply watersheds, and provides a level of certainty to property owners, residents, and developers about future development patterns. Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County have taken pride in effective governance systems that have provided leadership and vision, and this Agreement has been a grand illustration of the value that can be achieved by working together. The Rural Buffer boundaries have now been in place for 30 years, and have helped Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and surrounding portions of rural Orange County to thrive while preserving their unique characters and cultures. 73 2018 Greene Tract Conceptual Plan (Preservation and Development Scenarios Overview At the May 17, 2017 Managers, Mayors, and Chair (MMC) meeting, staff was requested to examine the development potential of the existing Greene Tract and provide three alternatives illustrating high, medium, and low development options. The MMCs requested that each alternative include specific elements including, but not limited to, a site for a future elementary school, a site for a future park, highlight environmental and cultural areas of significance, development potential, and preliminary road network and infrastructure. The three alternatives included a project area of approximately 164 acres (104 acres in joint ownership and 60 acres in County ownership, as requested to be added to a comprehensive review) of land divided into sections based on the project area's environmental conditions, elements of the 2002 Joint Governments Resolution, Rogers Road Task Force report, Mapping Our Community's Future report, and previous land use discussions. The alternatives proposed various land uses and elements based on feedback from the community, previous planning efforts, staff, and local government leaders' objectives for the Greene Tract. • Environmental Features: All three alternatives strive to protect areas of environmental concern including upland hardwood forests, wetlands, intermittent streams, and perennial streams located. These features are identified as areas of preserve which would not be developed in the future on all three alternatives. In addition to the acreage proposed for preserve, approximately 10 — 20% of the acreage proposed for development will be utilized for open space to provide areas of on -site preserve and connections to other areas of offsite preserve. Throughout the process, environmental staff from the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, and Orange County provided feedback to develop alternatives which protected environmental areas and habitats located on the Greene Tract. Conceptual plans also included areas which may provide stormwater protections to the site. • Cultural Features: Alternatives incorporated the location of cultural resources (i.e. footbridge, significant tree, historic homestead) in order to examine the protection and incorporation of these features in the future site design. For example, historical road beds and existing trails may be incorporated into the site design as a future greenway or trail system connecting the areas of preserve throughout the site. • Elementary School Site and Recreational Facility Site: A school site is proposed on the southern portion of the Greene Tract. The original school site was originally proposed as part of the 18 acres designated for development in the Rogers Road Task Force Report. However, due to environmental constraints, the school site was relocated and is not included as part of the original acres identified for development. The proposed recreational facility site is also located on the southern portion of the Greene Tract in order to provide access to the future elementary school students. Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools staff was included in the process and provided support for the proposed school site and recreational facility site, which could also support community usage. • Development: The proposed alternatives include areas for development in the short term. The location for future development was determined based on site elevations and proximity to existing public infrastructure. The proposed location focused on the northwest section of the site which was identified for housing (possible mixed -use) in the Rogers Road Task Force Report, but the program of density and affordability integration is a later stage. 74 • Land Banking: Alternatives include areas without critical environmental concerns or constraints for future land banking. These areas would remain undeveloped and preserved, but may be evaluated for development in the long term (10 — 20 years) depending on the needs of the community and planning partner approvals at that time. • Road: The preliminary roadway design was based on existing environmental features and elevations contained on site. The proposed roadway network is similar to the 2017 concept plan, excluding the railroad crossing to Weaver Dairy Extension. Staff has explored the opportunity for an at -grade crossing to Weaver Dairy Extension Road with Norfolk Southern Rail. A new crossing at Weaver Dairy Extension would require the closing of possibly two to three at -grade crossings in other locations along the rail line. The proposed alternatives recognize a need for additional roadway connections similar to all previous planning efforts. Purefoy Drive would not be able to provide the only access to the site. Therein, future access to Eubank Road, Homestead Road, and second access to Rogers Road is noted. • Further evaluation related to infrastructure (i.e. additional roadway connections), zoning standards, land use regulations, environmental features, cultural resources, and development decisions will impact and alter the proposed alternatives in the future. August 30 Managers, Mayors, and Chair (MMC) meeting During the August 30 MMC meeting, attendees provided comments and recommendations regarding the proposed alternatives. One recommendation was for staff to examine the reconfiguration of the joint owned and county owned tracts. The purpose of this request was to determine the feasibility in adopting a revised resolution supporting the reconfiguration of these tracts. The 60 acres which are county owned will be established as prime preservation areas and be connected to the future joint owned preserve areas of the 104 joint owned lands. As a result, staff has amended the proposed conceptual plan based on the proposed reconfigured joint owned and county owned tracts. The amended plans and reconfigured tracts were drafted with environmental staff from the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, and Orange County in order to create new parcels which endeavored to protect environmental features and habitats located on site. Greene Tract - Environmental & Cultural Features 75 �1 LIZZIE L Ni ........................... O + X I z + W II O CL II PUREFOYII R Z i � II C7 i � II W 1 m n 0 Z i Q II �i II �i II �� 0 J 0 �1 ■ ■■■■ Access Trail Easement ® Upland Hardwood Forest Historic Site Wetlands Parcels QGreene Tract 'Joint Owned Property (104 ac.) Ephemeral Stream O QCounty Owned Property (60 ac.) Intermittent Stream Foot Bridge QProposed Headwaters Preserve (County Owned) Perennial Stream Proposed Joint Owned Property (104 ac.) —'— Unknown Stream © Mature Hardwood Historic Road Bed Orange County and Chapel Hill = Buffers/Wetlands ® Mixed Hardwood /Pine Forest © Significant Tree .^. Cultural and Envrionmental Features Data Source: Town of Chapel Hill Stormwater Management (Oct. 2017) 1 in = 400 feet 0 200 MENEM== Feet 76 Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan -Alternative 1 (High) (Headwaters Existing) 1 60 ac —5 X z W O = 1.2 ac �a PUREFOY DR 5.7 ac Fir_7 w -- m 0 z a U) 20.8 ac 10.8 ac Additional Preserve Elementary School Site Headwaters Preserve (County Road Owned) Land Banking —Proposed Joint Owned Preserve Approximate Land Area Needed for Stormwater Development Management 46.2 ac 1.9 ac 6 ac Ephemeral Stream Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream Unknown Stream Parcels Wetlands 4.7 ac MIMI 111111 1 ,, f- 0 200 mmmmz= Feet 77 Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan -Alternative 2 (Medium) (Headwaters Existina) = Additional Preserve Road Headwaters Preserve (County Land Banking Owned) Approximate Land Area Needed — Proposed Joint Owned Preserve for Stormwater Management Development Additional Wetland Buffer Elementary School Site 177771150')(recommended by environmental staff) Ephemeral Stream Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream — Unknown Stream Parcels Wetlands 1 in = 400 feet 0 200 MENEM== Feet 78 Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan - Alternative 3 (Low) Three alternatives were drafted which included a project area of approximately 164 acres of land divided into proposed land uses based on the project area's environmental conditions, elements of the 2002 Chapel Hill Resolution, Rogers Road Task Force report, Mapping Our Community's Future report, and local government leaders' objectives for the Greene Tract. All three proposed alternatives are based on possible modifications to the Headwaters Preserve areas. Alternatives must provide three levels of development and incorporate: – School site – Recreational facility site – Park space – Natural preservation areas – Development – Road network and infrastructure – Environmental buffers – Cultural areas of significance Additional consideration will be required for several elements of the Greene Tract: – Roadway design – Site infrastructure (i.e. water, sewer, fiber) – Open space, recreational facility, and tree canopy preserva- tion – Environmental (i.e. wetlands, streams, buffers, stormwater regulations) – Low Impact Development – Cultural and historical features – Density, land use, and zoning regulations – Transit • Further evaluation will impact and alter the proposed alternatives in the future • Site plan review process will address additional land use issues and help shape the plan for the Greene Tract Land Use Categories Proposed Joint Owned Preserve: Includes areas of existing wetlands and streams located on the Greene Tract. Wetland and stream information is based on information collected from Town of Chapel Hill, Town of Carrboro, and Orange County staff. Buffer standards were determined based on a review of the Towns' and County's standards and utilizing the most restrictive. Additional analysis and delineation will be required moving forward. These areas would not be developed, but will remain as natural preserve areas in the future. Additional Preserve: Includes areas for future preservation and upland hardwood forest which are not contained in the required preserve areas. In addition to the acreage proposed to be preserved, approximately 10 – 20% of the acreage pro- posed for development will be utilized for open space to provide areas of on -site preserve and connections to other areas of offsite preserve. Proposed Headwaters Preserve (County Owned): Includes the original 60 acres designated for preservation by the Towns and County. Elementary School Site: Includes acreages allocated for a future elementary school site. The proposed school site has been relocated to the southern portion of the site due to environmental constraints and is not included as part of the original 18 acres designated for development in the Rogers Road Task Force Report. Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools staff has re- viewed the proposed alternatives and provides support for the proposed location. Development: Includes areas proposed for development in the short term. The location for this category was determined based on site elevations and proximity to existing infrastructure. In addition, the proposed location for development in- cludes the original 18 acres identified for affordable housing in the Rogers Road Task Force Report. Includes possible loca- tions for on -site stormwater facilities. Road: The preliminary roadway design was based on existing environmental concerns and elevations contained on site. The proposed alternatives recognize a need for additional roadway connections in the future. Land Banking: Includes areas without environmental concerns and access to infrastructure which may provide an oppor- tunity for future development. These areas will remain undeveloped in the short term, but may be evaluated for develop- ment (i.e. residential, commercial, health services, and /or park /recreational facility) in the long term (10 -20 years) depend- ing on the needs of the community and planning partners at that time. Possible Modifications to Headwaters Preserve Arch VA FS 7- - LIZZIE LN 0 X — z — W O 2 - a PUREFOI Z J C7 W 0] Q Z Q Cn Possible Modifications to Headwaters Preserve Area 81 Total Preserve Area 21 ac. Proposed Headwaters Preserve (County Owned) Proposed Joint Owned Property Proposed Joint Ownership Preserve Parcels 60 a 0 1 in = 400 feet 0 200 Feet Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (11/30/2017) 82 Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan -Alternative 1 (High) Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan -Alternative 2 (Medium) 84 Greene Tract Land Use Conceptual Plan - Alternative 3 (Low) (Headwaters Modified) 1�4� 22.5 ac LIZZIE LN 60 ac X c X z W O X CL PUREFOYIDR z 0 w JIM a z a N 3.6 ac 24.6 ac 5.7 ac 2.5 ac - Additional Preserve Road - Ephemeral Stream Proposed Headwaters Preserve Land Banking Intermittent Stream (County Owned) Approximate Land Area Needed Perennial Stream - Proposed Joint Owned Preserve for Stormwater Management Unknown Stream Development Additional Wetland Buffer ® (150')(recommended by Parcels - Elementary School Site environmental staff) 0 Wetlands Recreational Facility 1 �l 1 in = 400 feet * #" mmmmK== 0 200 Feet Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (1/11/2018) Preserve Development OD Land Banking 20.8 ac. 20% 78.5 ac. 75.5% 4.7 ac. 4.5% Alternative 1 Based Low Density Medium Density High Density Illustrates a high development option with the greatest amount of acreage designated on (4 -6 units /acre) (6 -10 units /acre) (10 -20 units /acre) for development compared to the other alternatives. 59.1 acres 236-354 354-591 591-1182 Pros Cons — More acreage designated for development in the — Additional stormwater treatment will be needed due to greater short term amount of potential development and increased impervious surfaces — Provides greatest opportunity for highest number of — Protects the least amount of mixed hardwood /pine forest from short affordable housing and market rate housing to help term development meet housing demand in the urban area — Only allows for the required 80 foot wetland buffer — More acreage available for development to offset — Depending on density, may have greater traffic impacts to Purefoy infrastructure costs Drive and Merin Road — Allows for double road frontage to offset road and infrastructure costs — More development and residential units to support transit Alternative 2 Preserve Development Land Banking Illustrates a moderate development option by shifting acreage away from the develop- 23.8 ac. 22.9% 66 ac. 63.4% 14.2 ac. 13.7% Based Low Density Medium Density High Density ment land use with the transfer of acreage to additional preserve and land banking. Al- on (4 -6 units /acre) (6 -10 units /acre) (10 -20 units /acre) so allows for a 150 buffer along a portion of the existing wetlands located onsite. 47 acres 188-282 282-470 470-940 Pros Cons — Proposes 150 foot wetland buffer adjacent to wildlife corridor — Allows for additional areas of preserve — Provides opportunity for a mid -range of affordable housing and market rate housing to meet the general housing demand — More acreage available for development to offset in- frastructure costs — Allows for double road frontage to offset road and infrastructure costs Preserve Development Land Banking Alternative 3 34.3 ac. 33% 43.6 ac. 41.9% 26.1 ac. 25.1% Illustrates a low development option by shifting additional acreage away from the Based on Low Density (4 -6 units /acre) Medium Density (6 -10 units /acre) High Density (10 -20 units /acre) development land use category to the addi- 24.6 tional preserve and land banking. acres 98-147 147-246 246-492 Pros Cons — Proposes 150 foot wetland buffer adjacent to — Less acreage is available for development in the short term wildlife corridor — Provides lowest opportunity for affordable housing and market rate — Allows for additional areas of preserve housing to help meet housing demand in the urban area — Strives to protect the existing wildlife corridor and — Less acreage available for development to offset infrastructure costs provide for landscape connectivity — Does not allow for double road frontage to offset road and infra- - Protects the greatest amount of Mixed Hardwood/ structure costs Pine Forest from short term development — Less development and residential units to support transit — Depending on density, may have less traffic impacts to Purefoy Drive and Merin Road :. Affordable Housing Potential M Alternative I (High) — Potential Number of Residential UnitsA� Unit Low Density Medium Density High Density Based on 4 - 6 units /acre 6 - 10 units /acre 10 - 20 units /acre 59.1 Acres - 236 - 354 units 354 - 591 units 591 - 1182 units 24.6 Acrree s 35 — 53 units 53 — 88 units 88 — 177 units 15% 20% 47 — 70 units 70 —118 units 118 — 236 units 35% 82 —123 units 123 — 206 units 206 — 413 units WAlternative ?_(Medium) — Potential Number of Residential Unit Low Density Medium Density High Density Based on 4 - 6 units /acre 6 - 10 units /acre 10 - 20 units /acre 47 Acres 24.6 Acrree s 282 - 470 units 470 - 940 units 188 - 282 units 98 - 147 units 147 - 246 units 70 — 141 units 15% 28 — 42 units 42 — 70 units 20% 37 — 56 units 56 — 94 units 94 —188 units 35% 65 — 98 units 98 — 164 units 164 — 329 units Alternative 3 (Low) — Potential Number of Residential Units Low Density Medium Density High Density Based 4 - 6 units /acre 6 - 10 units /acre 10 - 20 units /acre 24.6 Acrree s 98 - 147 units 147 - 246 units 246 - 492 units 14 — 22 units 22 — 36 units 36 — 73 units 15% 20% 19 — 29 units 29 — 49 units 49 — 98 units 35% 34 — 51 units 51— 86 units 86 — 172 units Attachment 6 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Special Projects 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245 -2575 Suite 201 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Assembly of Governments FROM: Perdita Holtz, AICP, Planner III DATE: November 16, 2017 SUBJECT: Agricultural Support Enterprises in the Rural Buffer During discussions that occurred in 2014 -15 related to amendments to the Joint Planning Area Agreement to accommodate "agricultural support enterprises" (ASE) uses in the Rural Buffer, the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill requested that County staff provide an annual update for the Assembly of Governments meeting on any applications for ASE uses in the Rural Buffer. Orange County adopted ASE uses for the Rural Buffer on May 5, 2015. To date, there have been no applications for the conditional zoning district (ASE -CZ) anywhere in the county, including in the Rural Buffer. Additionally, although there have been inquiries (only for parcels outside of the Rural Buffer), no applications for by -right ASE - related uses have been submitted. This may partially be due to the fact that uses exempt from local zoning regulations have been expanded through legislation at the State level in recent years if the uses occur on bonafide farms. Most recently, Session Law 2017 -108 further defined /expanded the types of uses that are exempt from local zoning regulations if occurring on farms. Notably, the State legislature defined "agritourism" to mean: "...any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, ranching, historic, cultural, harvest- your -own activities, or natural activities and attractions. A building or structure used for agritourism includes any building or structure used for public or private events, including, but not limited to, weddings, receptions, meetings, demonstrations of farm activities, meals, and other events that are taking place on the farm because of its farm or rural setting." Staff is aware of several farm stands operating in the Rural Buffer. Because farm stands, which allow farmers to sell products on the farm site, are not subject to zoning regulations and are not required to apply for a zoning compliance permit, the exact number of farm stands located on bonafide farming operations is not known. Orange County staff will provide the next update on this topic for the 2018 Assembly of Governments meeting.