Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-23-20181 APPROVED 2/6/2018 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING January 23, 2018 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to pull item 8-e, and move it up on the agenda between items 4 and 5. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The following items were at the Commissioners’ places: - PowerPoint for Item 6-a, Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) - PowerPoint for Item 6-b, Multi- Purpose County Campus - White sheet: addendum to item 6c (Millhouse Road Park Site) - White sheet: for Item 6-c, information letter from Mayor Hemminger - Map for item 6-c - White sheet: information from Commissioner Jacobs - Comment for Item 8-e: public comment - White sheet: MST comments from public - Lavender sheet: Item 11-a, ballot for nominees for the Go Triangle Citizens Advisory Committee Arts Moment – 2018 Piedmont Laureate Nancy Peacock 2018 Piedmont Laureate Nancy Peacock has been writing since fourth grade. She is largely self -taught and well mentored. Ms. Peacock is the author of the novels Life Without Water (chosen as a New York Times Notable Book), Home Across the Road, and The Life and Times of Persimmon Wilson, as well as the memoir and “writing-in-the-real-world” guide A Broom of One’s Own: Words on Writing, Housecleaning and Life. Ms. Peacock runs writing workshops and retreats for women. Her free Prompt Writing Class has been active since 2003, and continues to gain in popularity. Ms. Peacock believes that telling stories, our own and those we invent, is a human right that we must all claim to heal our hurt world. She invites you to visit her website: www.nancypeacockbooks.com Ms. Peacock read an essay from her mother. 2 PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda None b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members Commissioner Burroughs had no comments. Commissioner Marcoplos said he attended an information session on Highway 54 West project improvements. Commissioner Marcoplos said he has a petition, for the Board of County Commissioners’ (BOCC) consideration, about “no idling” in Orange County. He said the topic of drive thrus circles around periodically, and the County should craft a campaign to educate the public about the environmental effects of running cars in drive thrus. He suggested engaging the help of the arts community and schools. Commissioner Rich referred to the recent snow event, and said she received several calls from residents about the removal of ice and snow from sidewalks. She said she knows the County does not do this, but it should insure the snow is cleared in front of its own buildings, like the Visitor’s Bureau (VB). She said the Town of Carrboro said has a process in place to clear sidewalks, and suggested asking the Town to clear the VB sidewalk in the future. She asked if Bonnie Hammersley would follow up on this. Commissioner Rich asked if staff would provide an update on the General Assembly’s new rules on tiny homes and the zoning laws. Commissioner Rich said Chapel Hill transit is doing a study to see if their buses are on the best routes, and she asked if the BOCC could receive updates on this study. She asked if Orange County’s opinion on the 420 bus could be added to this study. Commissioner Price said Beaufort and Durham Counties have passed a resolution on how judicial judges are chosen, and asked Orange County to do the same. She said she and Commissioner Jacobs would work on a draft. Commissioner Price petitioned staff and the Board of Elections (BOE) to make a concerted effort to inform the public about the upcoming elections, and the procedures and processes by which to vote. Commissioner Price petitioned the Board to direct staff to provide a report of ways and options for how to abate junkyards. Commissioner Price referred to the mandate to reduce class sizes in grades K-3, and said she forwarded information to the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC), with the help of Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). She said the NCACC will be considering the proposal about class size, and meeting next week to talk about some of the potential impacts of legislation. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Marcoplos about idling cars and drive thrus. 3 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the informational hand out at the Commissioners’ places about Bayard Rustin, and proposed naming the new detention center for him. He said this is a petition. Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to see more lights in the Hillsborough parking deck. Commissioner Jacobs spoke to those in attendance for the Settler’s Point item, and said there is an item at the end of this evening’s agenda, under information items, about re-zoning properties on Davis Road on March 8th. He encouraged the audience to attend the public hearing on that date. Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC has written 2 resolutions on off shore drilling, but he suggested writing a third. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board will be talking about economic development at its retreat on Friday, and he said 10 years ago Economic Development created a strategic plan, which he will email to all of the Board of County Commissioners tomorrow. Commissioner McKee petitioned to return to having a stand-alone meeting between the BOCC and the Fire Departments. He said to conduct this meeting at the beginning of a work session in the fall. Chair Dorosin said the Frederick Douglass bicentennial has been rescheduled for this Thursday at United Church on Homestead Road. Chair Dorosin recognized Bonnie Hammersley, who introduced two new Department Directors: Public Health Department, Quintanna Stewart; and Solid Waste Department, Robert Williams 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board Update Presentation The Board received a brief presentation from representatives of the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board and to provide any feedback or questions. ABC General Manager Tony Dubois, and ABC Board Chair Gregg Jarvies made the presentation. Tony Dubois highlighted their impact on the community. He reviewed the updates on their store and locations. He said the ABC Board was just recertified as a Living Wage Employer. BACKGROUND: The ABC Board provides an annual update to the Board of Commissioners at the beginning of each calendar year. Gregg Jarvies, Chair of the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, and Tony Dubois, Orange County ABC Executive Director, will provide a brief presentation on ABC Board activities, operations, and external audit services update, and will also respond to any questions. Under North Carolina General Statute 18B-701, the ABC Board is required to distribute its entire net income after deducting amounts required for law enforcement and education and retaining proper working capital, to the General Fund of the County, which represents a financial benefit to the County. The ABC Contribution to the County’s General Fund had been set at $400,000 up through FY 2016-17. Based on State-wide benchmarking of other ABC Board’s contribution to their respective governments, the County requested an additional funding of $150,000 for FY 2017- 18. The ABC Board approved an increase of $100,000 to the County’s General Fund from 4 $400,000 to $500,000 for FY 2017-18. The first attachment indicates the ABC FY 2017-18 appropriation. b. Presentation on Opioids and Legal Issues The Board received a presentation from attorneys representing some North Carolina local governments, and some local governments across the country regarding litigation against opioid manufacturers and distributors and provided direction to staff if appropriate. Attorneys: • Jake Daniel • Amy Quezon (one of the national litigators with the McHugh Fuller Law Firm based in Hattiesburg, Mississippi), • Paul Coates (one of our lead local NC counsel attorneys with the firm Pinto, Coates, Kyre, & Bowers, PLLC based in Greensboro, NC) BACKGROUND: There is a significant amount of information being disseminated to county commissioners, managers, and attorneys on the topic of opioid litigation. The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) Board of Directors was briefed on this issue and had a robust discussion on the importance of ensuring that county interests are protected in any litigation or potential settlements related to the opioid epidemic. As a result of that discussion, the NCACC organized a November 15, 2017 forum to ensure that county attorneys had access to information on the topic. Attorneys representing some North Carolina local governments and other local governments across the United States will make a presentation on the litigation against opioid manufacturers and distributors. Jake Daniel introduced Amy Quezon. Amy Quezon said the BOCC has been provided with a great deal of information in its abstract. She reviewed current statistics relating to the sharp rise in opioid related problems. She said Appalachia and the rural south have been most affected. She said the number of opioids being pumped into various part of the country is suspicious, and clearly not all are warranted. She said the majority of the blame has been placed on pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributers, who failed to alert the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) about suspicious opioid orders. She said the damage model is three-fold: provide age specific education to children about the dangers of abusing opioids; law enforcement; and treatment for addicts and infants, the youngest victims. She said there are five law firms working on this across the nation, in partnership with each other, and all cases are worked on a contingency basis. Commissioner Price asked what the recovery will look like, as tobacco payouts were underwhelming. Amy Quezon said the tobacco litigation was handled by the states, and, in this case, the damage model would be specific to Orange County. She said if there was a settlement, the Board of County Commissioners would determine the best way to spend the monies. Commissioner Price asked if it is known how the money would be distributed. Amy Quezon said the damage model would not look at the specific individual, but rather at the totality of the damages with EMS, Sherriff’s Department, Social Services, etc.; the increase of overall service costs because of the opioid epidemic in a particular county. She said they have heard from other counties that a treatment center could possibly be built and shared among counties, as an example. 5 Commissioner Jacobs clarified that experts would be brought in to assess the damage in our specific county. Amy Quezon said yes, there are some epidemiologists on board, who would come to do the assessments. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a time frame for this process. Amy Quezon said it is moving at a fast pace now, and it is hard to give an exact time frame now, but they are looking at an early resolution. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a time line for when Orange County could expect to have information back from the experts regarding Orange County. Chair Dorosin clarified that experts would not be brought in unless Orange County agreed to sign on the litigation. Amy Quezon said that is correct, and it would be at least a couple of months out. Commissioner McKee said he expects this would be a long drawn out event, and asked if there are any timeframes at all. Amy Quezon said not at this time, but the Federal Judge assigned to this multidistrict litigation (MDL) has asked all clients represented by counsel, and all of the Attorney Generals, who intend to file, to be present within the next month. She said the Judge is looking towards a quick resolution, but this is not certain. Chair Dorosin asked if the litigation has been filed, and, if so, where has it been filed. Amy Quezon said over 200 cases have been filed, and have been consolidated in Ohio, as an MDL. She said an MDL is like a class suit, but each individual’s damages are different. Chair Dorosin clarified that, if Orange County proceeds, it would be joining a lawsuit that already in process. Paul Coates said this is not a class action suit, but rather Orange County’s lawsuit. He said the suit will be consolidated in Ohio for discovery purposes only. He said if the damages case is tried, it will come back to the federal court in North Carolina and have a jury trial. He said Orange County would be in charge of the lawsuit. Commissioner Rich asked if the process of working with the Attorney General could be clarified, given that individual counties would be filing lawsuits. Amy Quezon said Orange County has been affected differently than the state, and the damages are separate for each. Commissioner Rich asked if local and state damages could be awarded. Amy Quezon said yes, but that is up to the Attorney General. Mr. Daniels (father) said state monies have to go through the legislature and it determines where funds go, but local damages would come to Orange County, and the BOCC would determine their use. Chair Dorosin said the Board will consult with its attorney after the meeting, as to what it would like to do. MOVED ITEM: Item 8-e: Property Tax Refund Request – 107 Boulder Lane, Chapel Hill The Board considered a refund request for the property owned by Ms. Doris Tippens at 107 Boulder Lane, Chapel Hill. PUBLIC COMMENT: Tom ODwyer read the following comments: Dear Commissioners: 6 It’s been 4.5 months since I came to you requesting help with correcting Doris Tippen’s over payment of taxes due to staff errors. Information I’ve recently received by staff does not include documented values of Doris’ house. I explained to Mr. Brinson I was available to meet with him and the County Manager two months after I approached you. For the 4th time, I’m being given incrementally increased values only partially addressing a sizeable and admitted error. Everyone’s polite, but I’ve had to be persistent for the sake of my 89-year-old mother in law. I’ve made multiple efforts to work with staff. Mr. Brinson is the only one who communicated with me. The only time things happened since September is when I’ve made personal appearance with Mr. Brinson, left messages, emailed him, or contacted a Commissioner. I’ve not been invited to meet with the County Manager, or asked for the documentation supporting my accounting. To reiterate: Because of multiple errors and multiple efforts starting in 2016 (I can document), it hasn’t been fruitful or apparently objective for staff to decide the outcome. This is why I asked the board for help. The Board handed my request back to staff and we are still nowhere near amounts fairly representing reimbursement to Doris for over-charging. Like Doris said in her original letter to you, “we need your help” (that is, the County Commissioners). We need these errors to be properly corrected according to accounting principal, not reverse speculative values. The numbers I submitted can be substantiated and I have documentation to support it. I don’t understand why staff, or the County Manager, has left me and our documentation out of a request by the Commissioners to address this issue and my request to participate. Doris Tippens wishes for this to be resolved by the County, and we don’t understand why there isn’t open communication or utilization of our documentation. As I reported to you in September, we simply want these errors to be fully corrected and request again the Board apply sound ethics and the Golden Rule in helping us. Is there any way one of you could act as an ombudsman for this situation, in an attempt to resolve this before it advances further? I have a 2016 appraisal with a house inspection report and estimates for repairs, and there is on record, two sales of this property for: $208,000 in 2006 and $191,000 in 2017. The latter sale was to a family member, but supporting documents can show it was not sold to the advantage of the buyer, or to the disadvantage of Doris Tippens or Orange County. The house was in disrepair and continued to be so until family took it over and invested $65,000 in repairs and improvements in order to be able to sell it on the open market. I’d be happy to walk through those repairs in person with anyone onsite. In the meantime, I have professional documentation available that should be used for this effort. Please, please help us. Thank you for hearing me Your fellow citizen, and dutiful son-in-law, Tom ODwyer (for Doris Tippens/107 Boulder Lane error) Chair Dorosin said staff has recommended a refund in the amount of $1,678.89 for the 5-year period, which is statutorily correct. 7 Dwane Brinson, Tax Administrator, said his department has tried to get this resolved, but the statutory requirements only go back 5 years. He said the total yearly refund amount due is $1678.89. He reviewed information in the abstract. Commissioner Marcoplos said he is curious about the penalty related to the 5-year statute; asking what would be the penalty if the County went beyond the five years. John Roberts said there is not a specific penalty, but statutorily any taxpayer could then sue the County if the Board voted to grant a refund outside the 5-year time frame, and each member could be liable for the refund amount. Commissioner McKee asked if Tom ODwyer could be given additional time to speak. Tom ODwyer said there is a discrepancy between Mr. Brinson’s numbers and his own numbers, and the tax office has omitted information. Commissioner Jacobs asked John Roberts if it is the machinery act that governs this. John Roberts said yes. Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC has put this act in it legislative agenda every year, because it recognizes the unfairness of it. He said it is repeatedly turned down, and it is beyond the Board’s authority and purview. Commissioner Price asked if this appeal was first brought to the County’s attention in 2016. Dwane Brinson said it was brought to his office in 2016. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve statutorily supported refund for tax years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 for the property owned by Ms. Doris Tippens at 107 Boulder Lane, Chapel Hill. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Rich) 5. Public Hearings a. Zoning Atlas Amendment: Conditional Zoning – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point The Board continued to review, and receive additional comments on, the Settlers Point Master Plan Development – Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) application. This item was heard at the November 14, 2017 Quarterly Public Hearing and was referred back to the Planning Board for additional review/discussion on the possible modification of several conditions and consider the following Manager recommendations. Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, said there were three items at the Commissioners’ places: - the staff’s PowerPoint presentation - the Applicant’s PowerPoint presentation - a letter received by staff on January 19, 2018, from the Applicant indicating that they accept all the recommended conditions associated with the approval of the master plan development conditional rezoning project. Michael Harvey said this item has 11 attachments, and highlighted attachments 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11. BACKGROUND: As the BOCC is already aware, a request has been submitted from Old NC 86 Partners LLC to rezone approximately 195 acres of property: 8 From: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2); Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4); Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing (EDH-5); Rural Residential (R-1); Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. To: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point; Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. for the purpose of developing Settlers Point. During the Quarterly Public Hearing, items were referred back to the Planning Board for additional discussion: 1. Conditions: a. CONDITION 13 – LAND USES – BOCC members asked the Planning Board to review the proposed land uses within the project and determine if they were acceptable. STAFF COMMENT: At its December 18, 2017 and January 10,2018 regular meetings, the Planning Board reiterated support for the proposed land uses indicating the applicant had proposed uses consistent with the provisions of Section 5.2.3 of the UDO as well as pending revisions as proposed by staff as part of the table of permitted use project. Staff’s response to the proposed land uses within Settlers Point is contained within Attachment 3. Minutes from the December 18, 2017 Planning Board meetings is contained within Attachment 4. A synopsis of comments from the January 10, 2018 Planning Board meeting is contained in Attachment 5. b. CONDITION 6 – The applicant objected to granting approval/denial authority to the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department and suggested modification of the recommended condition to allow review of development proposals while maintaining approval authority with the County and Town Fire Marshal. STAFF COMMENT: At its December 18, 2017 regular meeting, the Board voted unanimously to approve the revised condition as suggested by the applicant. The Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department will offer review comment(s) on all site plans but will not have approval authority. For more information please refer to Attachment 11. c. CONDITION 13 (h) (vi) Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) BUFFER – the BOCC expressed concern over the proposed clearing of the MTC buffer and indicated their preference to restrict clearing to what is currently allowed within Section 6.6.4 (A) of the UDO (i.e. clearing only 50% of the MTC Buffer). STAFF COMMENT: The applicant supplied the requested schematic (Attachment 7) providing additional detail on the requested clearing. There is approximately 2,800 feet of Interstate frontage for property located within District 1 and 3,082 feet for property located within District 2. The MTC buffer in District 1 shall remain undisturbed. With respect to District 2, the applicant is proposing the following: 9 1. Reduce the width of the MTC from 100 feet to 50 feet in width, specifically beginning at the intersection of Old NC Highway86 with the Interstate 40 on-ramp, extending approximately 2,000 feet east. This will allow for development of necessary utility infrastructure, internal roadways, parking areas, stormwater features, etc. in support of the project. STAFF COMMENT: The total area encumbered by the MTC Buffer in District 2 is 308,200 square feet (3,082 feet of linear frontage along Interstate 40 multiplied by the standard MTC Buffer width of 100 feet). Approximately 154,100 square feet of MTC Buffer could be ‘cleared’ per Section 6.6.4 (A) of the UDO (i.e. 50% of the buffer). The applicant is proposing to reduce the MTC Buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet for approximately 2,000 linear feet; reducing the required buffer by 100,000 square feet (2,000 feet of linear frontage along Interstate 40 multiplied by the 50 feet MTC Buffer reduction) Further clearing, as discussed herein, is proposed with said areas to be re-vegetated. 2. The remaining 1,082 linear feet of Interstate frontage will have an MTC Buffer width of 100 feet STAFF COMMENT: This area includes property encumbered by an existing 150 feet wide utility easement (i.e. overhead power lines). Foliage within this easement has already been eliminated. 3. Within the 2,000 linear feet of reduced MTC Buffer area, the applicant is proposing to create 1,100 linear feet of visual breaks for the project. These areas would be re-landscaped with ‘low-growth landscaping’ to a width of 50 feet including shrubs achieving a height of 4 to 6 feet and canopy trees achieving a height of no more than 12 feet. 4. The applicant indicated during the December 18, 2017 Planning Board meeting that a 100 foot wide land use buffer shall be maintained along the southern boundary of District 2, exclusive of the utility easement, to provide additional noise and visual buffer(s) for the project. Discussion of this condition occurred at both the December 18, 2017and January 10, 2018 Planning Board meetings resulting in the following recommendation: i. A 100-foot wide land use buffer shall be established/preserved along the southern boundary of District 2. ii. Clearing of the MTC buffer be allowed as requested by the applicant and recommended for approval by Planning Department staff. iii. Re-vegetation of visual breaks shall be required as proposed by the applicant and recommended for approval by Planning Department staff. 10 For more information please refer to Attachment(s) 4 and 5. Attachment 11 contains the revised condition language recommended for approval by the Planning Board. d. CONDITION 13 (k) SIGNAGE – Staff and BOCC members requested the submittal of a rendering of the landmark and entry portal signs for consideration. STAFF COMMENT: Renderings, and proposed location, of signage was submitted by the applicant for review at the Planning Board’s January 10, 2018 meeting. The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed landmark and entry portal signage as depicted in the submitted rendering(s). For more information please refer to Attachment 5. The sign rendering is contained within Attachment 7. e. CONDITION 13 (k) (iii) (2) (e) ILLUMINATION OF SIGNAGE - A BOCC member requested clarification on the method that will be used to illuminate signage. A recommended condition indicated all signs shall be internally illuminated while language indicates external lighting would be allowed for entry portal signs. STAFF COMMENT: This was an error on staff’s part and has been corrected. For more information please refer to Attachment 4. f. LAND USE – SCHOOLS, Elementary, Middle, and Secondary: There was general discussion on allowing for the development of a school (i.e. elementary, middle, high school, etc.) within the project. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has reached out to the Superintendent and Chair of the Orange County School District to inquire on the need for a school south of Interstate 40. The applicant, after conferring with the Director, has removed the SCHOOLS, Elementary, Middle, and Secondary as an allowable land use within the project. The conditions of approval, as contained in Attachment 11, have been updated accordingly. g. UTILITY CONDITION(S): There was general discussion on the imposition of conditions associated with the extension of utilities to serve the project in general. A BOCC member asked staff to review the recommended condition(s) to ensure potential issues had been addressed. STAFF COMMENT: At its January 10, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed utility conditions as contained in Attachment 11. 2. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA): On December 4, 2017 the applicant submitted a revised TIA providing additional detail on anticipated traffic impacts/required improvements associated with the project. This was in response to staff requests for additional detail. A summary of recommended improvements as contained within the revised TIA (Attachment 6) is as follows: Recommended improvements for the 2020 Build Phase are: 11 a. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 & I-40 westbound, required for Certificate of Compliance of any square footage build. b. Construct the second lane of the I-40 East on ramp, and re-stripe the southbound lanes of Old NC 86 at the I-40 East ramp for dual left turns, at any level of build. c. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 & I-40 eastbound, required for Certificate of Compliance of any square footage build. d. Install a continuous right turn lane on south bound Old NC 86 between the I- 40 East off ramp and the Service Road, at any level of build. e. Construct a continuous right turn lane on north bound Old NC 86 between the Service Road and the I-40 East on ramp, at any level of build. Construct a right turn lane on the Service Road at Old NC 86 with 200 feet of storage and taper, for initial construction of facilities, at any level of build. f. Construct a left turn lane on northbound Old NC 86 at the Service Road with 150 feet of storage and taper, at any level of build. g. Construction of a left-in/right-in/right out access for the Service Road at Old NC 86 upon construction of greater than 900,000 square feet of warehouse facility. h. Construction of a super-street type U-Turn bulb intersection to be located approximately 1,000 feet south of the Service Road on Old NC 86, with 200 feet of storage and taper, upon construction of greater than 900,000 square feet of warehouse facility. i. Construction of a right turn lane on Old NC 86 southbound at Davis Road with 150 feet of storage and taper, upon construction of 900,000 square feet of warehouse facility. Recommended improvements for the 2022 Buildout Phase are: i. Construct a full access on Old NC 86 at the location of the U-Turn intersection installed under the 2020 Phase I Build, with two exiting lanes and one entering lane. Construct a right turn lane with 125 feet of storage and taper on the westbound approach, a thru-right turn lane on the northbound approach with 200 feet of storage and taper, and a second southbound left turn lane with 300 feet of storage and taper. ii. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old NC 86 new retail access/U-Turn intersection. iii. Construct an additional lane on Old NC 86 southbound, continuous between the Service Road and the new Retail Dr. intersection. Re-stripe the inside lane for left turns at the signalized intersection. iv. Construct an additional lane on the Old NC 86 northbound, continuous between the new signalized Retail Drive and the Service Road. v. Construct a right-in/right out access for the retail/office/hotel parcels on Old NC 86 approximately 500 feet south of the Service Road. STAFF COMMENT: In consultation with the applicant, the Director has recommended the imposition of the following additional condition: Development of District 1 shall utilize Service Road to obtain access to Old NC Highway 86. At the time development exceeds allowable traffic trips, as defined within the Master Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), requiring a restriction/prohibition on left turn(s) off of Service Road onto Old NC Highway 86, an alternative 12 traffic alignment/improvement shall be required to serve District 1 allowing for both left and right turn access onto Old NC Highway 86. This alternative shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County and the NC Department of Transportation and shall be installed prior to the approval of additional site plans in District 1 beyond the defined threshold in the original/amended TIA. Acquisition/dedication of additional right-of-way may be required to accommodate intersection designs as detailed in the supplemental/amended TIA contained within Attachment 6. Existing recommended conditions, already agreed to by the applicant, all right-of-way acquisition shall be in accordance with applicable NC Department of Transportation requirements. At its January 10, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed conditions associated with internal and external roadway development consistent with the supplemental TIA. For more information please refer to Attachment 5. 3. Revisions to project concept plan: a. The BOCC had requested a concept site plan denoting the anticipated location of parking areas, access roads, stormwater features, landscaping, building(s), etc. for District(s) 1 and 2. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 7. b. A tree survey shall be required denoting the location of ‘specimen trees’ in District(s) 1 and 2. The survey should provide the location of significant foliage (i.e. species, height, width, etc.) within the various development areas. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has indicated they can provide a tree survey at the time of the Site Plan application submittal to Orange County following approval of the project. c. A more detailed buffer plan denoting proposed/required project buffers (i.e. perimeter, MTC, stream AND floodplain, roadway, etc.) including widths, explanation of existing vegetation (i.e. pictures of the existing foliage being preserved) or more detail (i.e. cross section and rendering) on how required buffers would be replanted if necessary. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 7. 4. Other Consideration(s): a. A condition was recommended limiting the number of outdoor lighting features being left on after local business operations close for the evening. There were also additional suggestions the signs be required to be extinguished after hours as well. This was to address concerns over light pollution. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant agreed with the suggested condition to limit the number of outdoor lighting fixtures left on after normal business hours, with the understanding that projects within Settlers Point must follow the appropriate industry guideline standards including, but not limited to: IES/ANSI, OSHA, etc. in order to maintain safe lighting 13 conditions for employees, business owners and the public. For more information please refer to Attachment 11. At its January 10, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed lighting conditions. For more information please refer to Attachment 5. b. Including of language within the conditions encouraging/promoting water reuse for landscaping. STAFF COMMENT: There is language in the narrative indicating the applicant would engage in same. This was added to the resolution of approval as contained in Attachment 11. c. A condition was recommended limiting the percentage of retail operation(s) allowed in District 2 to address Town of Hillsborough concerns over potential impacts of retail development within Settlers Point on existing redevelopment efforts within the Town. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has suggested a condition be imposed on the project reading as follows: ‘Retail – limited to 30% of the allowable floor area of the District (i.e. District 2) not to exceed 78,540 square feet of total cumulative floor area’. The Town of Hillsborough has suggested/requested a limit of allowable retail area to 20,000 square feet or approximately 8% of total allowable floor area for District 2. At its December 18, 2017 and January 10, 2018 meetings, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed condition limiting retail to 30% of allowable floor area in District 2. For more information please refer to Attachment(s) 4 and 5. The 30% floor area limitation on retail development in District 2 has been included within the resolution of approval contained within Attachment 11. d. A BOCC member suggested a condition on the potential to limit the hours of operations for non-residential land uses locating within the project. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant’s response to this condition read as follows: At this time the developer would like to remain flexible with the potential hours of operation and address this possible condition during the Site Plan approval process. An operational restriction of this type during the early stage of approvals would infringe on the marketing potential for the project. At its January 10, 2018 meeting refer to Attachment 5. Staff is also not in favor of enacting such a condition on the project. e. At its January 10, 2018 regular meeting, the Planning Board recommended a condition requiring the reservation of 1% of required parking spaces, exclusive of any hotel development, within District 2 to support vehicle-charging stations for electric cars. 14 The applicant agreed to the imposition of the condition at the meeting, which is now contained within Attachment 11. An excerpt of the approved November 14, 2017 Quarterly Public Hearing minutes is contained within Attachment 2. A summary of issues discussed at the public hearing is contained within Attachment 3. The Planning Board reviewed suggested/recommended modifications to conditions at its December 18, 2017 and January 10, 2018 regular meetings. Agenda materials from the December 18, 2017 regular meeting can be accessed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/DecemberPBAgendaPacket.pdf. An excerpt of the approved minutes is contained within Attachment 4. Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director continues to recommend approval of the application with the imposition of the new conditions referenced herein, as detailed in Attachment 11, summarized as follows: ‐ Fire Marshal approvals (Town and County). ‐ Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer, pursuant to existing UDO which allows 50% clearing but with replanting/landscaping if for vehicular use. ‐ Signage - No ground lighting, architectural monument. ‐ Public School Land Use, not permitted in District 1 or 2. ‐ Utilities - Utility design to serve project and EDD area within industrial and retail design parameters. ‐ Transportation - Various improvements as detailed in Attachment 7, summarized herein,for 2 build phases (2020 and 2022) which includes approximately 14 specific road development criteria (both roadway and signalization) ‐ Master Concept Plan - More detailed concept plan within the districts. ‐ Environmental - Preservation of floodplains and buffers consistent with FEMA and the UDO, as well as, a specimen tree. ‐ Lighting inventory - Adherence to County’s existing lighting ordinance as well as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques. ‐ Land Use Non-Residential - Land uses are consistent with the Orange County and Town of Hillsborough joint land use plan which identifies the interstate interchange area as an employment center with supporting retail uses for daytime employees (to create internal pedestrian and traffic capture) and other interstate retail users to promote day and night business sustainability. Retail is suggested to be limited to 30% of total allowable square footage in District 2 or approximately 78,540 square feet. Note: this is relatively minor percentage of total proposed square footage (~5% of Industrial floor area) of the entire project (District 1 and 2). Planning Board Recommendation: At its January 10, 2018 regular meeting, the Board voted unanimously to again recommend approval of the project with a revised Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 10, and the revised conditions as detailed in Attachment 11. 15 The Planning Board’s signed Statement of Consistency is contained in Attachment 9. Agenda materials from the January 10, 2018 regular meeting can be accessed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/JanuaryAgendaPacket2.pdf. Michael Harvey made the following PowerPoint presentation: PUBLIC HEARING Agenda Item 5-a: Zoning Atlas Amendment – Settlers Point Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) District Orange County Board of Commissioners January 23, 2018 BOCC Direction: November 14, 2017 Public Hearing – BOCC referred application back to Planning Board to comment on specific areas, namely: 1. CONDITION 13 – LAND USES – Review proposed land uses, determine if they’re acceptable (Agenda Item 5a – page 163). Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed land uses. 2. CONDITION 6 – Condition requiring approval of Orange Rural Volunteer Fire (Agenda Item 5a – page 158). Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend revision requiring review/comment (no approval). Approval still by County and Town Fire Marshal. 3. CONDITION 13 (h) (vi) Major Transportation Corridor – Determine if request for clearing was acceptable (Agenda Item 5a – page 169). Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend conditions as proposed by applicant and staff. 4. CONDITION 13 (k) SIGNAGE – Applicant was asked to provide renderings of specific signs (Agenda Item 5a – page 172). Planning Board determined renderings were appropriate and voted unanimously to recommend approval. 5. CONDITION 13 (k) (iii) (2) (e) ILLUMINATION OF SIGNAGE – Staff has clarified condition to require signage to be internally illuminated (Agenda Item 5a – page 172) . 6. LAND USE – SCHOOLS, Elementary, Middle, and Secondary – Eliminated at applicant’s request. Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend elimination of use from the Project. 7. CONDITION 3 UTILITY CONDITION(S)– Planning Board asked to take final review of recommended conditions. Additional condition to ensure proper water pressure for proposed uses added. Applicant accepted (Agenda Item 5a – pages 156-157). Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of all utility conditions. 8. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) – Planning Board asked to review recommended conditions. A new condition was added by staff addressing access issues off of Service Road (District 1). Applicant agreed to the condition (Agenda Item 5a – pages 158- 159). Planning Board reviewed all recommended conditions voted unanimously to recommend approval. 16 9. Tree Survey – BOCC member suggested a tree survey be completed identifying all significant specimen trees. Applicant suggested survey shall be completed as part of typical site plan submittal. Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval. 10. Condition limiting number of lights left on after normal business hours – Applicant suggested number of lights left on after hours be minimum necessary per industry standards (i.e. IES/ANSI, OSHA, etc.) for public safety purposes (Agenda Item 5a – page 172). Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of condition. 11. Percentage limit on retail operations – Applicant suggested a 30% limit (78,540 sq.ft) in District 2 (Agenda Item 5a – page 165). Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of suggested condition. 12. Limit on hours of operation – Planning Board did not recommend the approval of such a condition based on applicant’s concerns. 13. Planning Board Recommended Condition – Planning Board recommended 1% of total required parking in District 2 (exclusive of hotel development) be reserved to support development of electric charging stations. Applicant agreed (Agenda Item 5a – page 171). Planning Board voted 6 in favor 5 against to recommend approval of condition. Conclusion • Staff continues to recommend approval subject to issuance of all conditions. – STAFF COMMENT: Regulations embodied within the UDO will have to be adhered to unless explicitly ‘modified’ as part of this application. In most instances the applicant is being more restrictive (i.e. allowable floor area, utility connections, building architecture, etc.). • Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval subject to issuance of all conditions. • Applicant provides additional specificity in pending presentation. Recommendation 1. Receive the additional information on the application as detailed within abstract and attachments. 2. Accept additional comments from the staff, Planning Board, and the general public. 3. Close the public hearing. 4. Decide on one of the following options: a. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date; b. Adopt the Statement of Consistency for proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment(s) (Attachment 10), the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas and imposing conditions (Attachment 11); or c. Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The one-year period begins on the date of denial.) Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is known what would happen to trees. Michael Harvey said specimen trees have to be preserved, and the Applicant said they will comply with the UDO regulations. Commissioner Price asked if there will be warehousing. 17 Michael Harvey said according to the conditions, as provided in attachment 11, storage and warehousing is permitted within buildings. Commissioner Price referred to page 163 in the packet, and asked if this will this align with new categorization of permitted uses. Michael Harvey referred to attachment 3, and said these uses are consistent. Commissioner Price asked what would happen if the list of permitted uses is changed. Michael Harvey said the identified uses are consistent with the anticipated modifications for the global table of permitted uses. Commissioner Price asked if there are plans for a gas station. Michael Harvey said that is a permitted use, but it is unknown at this time if one will be developed. Jim Parker, Summit Design and Engineering Services, who is the Applicant, made the following PowerPoint presentation. Settlers Point Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning Overall Site & Buffer Plan (map) Master Planning Approach Advantages • The approach of the design for Settlers Point is to view this area with a broad perspective for the best use of the property with respect to the health, safety and welfare of the public and the Economic Growth of the County. • By assembling 10 parcels together and treating them as one single parcel, the Settlers Point project provides a higher quality of development than if each parcel was developed individually. • This approach provides a comprehensive design for the development standards of Transportation/Access Management, Erosion Control, Stormwater Management, Stream Buffer Protection, Flood Prevention and Open Space areas. • Transportation Impact Benefits of Master Planning: o Current County regulations only require a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) if proposed traffic trips for a single land use exceed 800 trips per day. o Settlers Point is currently providing a TIA for the overall Master Plan and is also proposing to require a TIA for each Site Plan approval for the project as it is developed, regardless of the proposed number of daily trips. This will ensure a continued evaluation of the traffic devices and improvements needed for the area. o Under current regulations you would have 10 individual parcels developed independently from one another with little or no authority to promote connectivity or universal traffic improvements. Proposed Land Uses • The proposed Land Uses for the project are consistent with what the County has identified as being permitted within the MPD-CZ Zoning District and in accordance with Section 5.2.3 of the UDO. • With respect to expanding acceptable land uses within this area of Orange County, the proposed land uses are consistent with the direction provided to planning staff by elected officials and the Planning Board. 18 Development Limitations • District 1 o Currently zoned EDH-5 would allow for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.65 or approximately 28,100 sq. ft. of floor area per acre of the property. Settlers Point is only proposing to allow for a FAR of 0.2 or approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of floor area per acre of the property. • District 2 o Currently Zoned EDH-2 and EDH-4 would allow for a FAR of between 0.45 and 0.65 or approximately 19,600 sq. ft. to 28,100 sq. ft. of floor area per acre of the property. Settlers Point is only proposing to allow for a FAR of 0.13 or approximately 5,600 sq. ft. of floor area per acres of the property. • The following Exhibits indicate hypothetical development sketches for each district. District 1 – Hypothetical Sketch District 2 – Hypothetical Sketch Proposed MTC Buffer Provisions • District 1 o Approximately 2,800 linear ft. of I-40 Interstate frontage o A 100-ft. MTC buffer is required along this frontage o The entire MTC buffer within District 1 shall remain undisturbed • District 2 o Approximately 3,082 linear ft. of I-40 Interstate frontage o A 100-ft. MTC buffer is required along this frontage o The southern portion of this 100-ft. buffer (approx. 1,082 linear ft.) shall remain entirely undisturbed o The remaining portion of the MTC buffer to the north shall meet the provisions of Section 6.6.4 (A) of the UDO according to the following description and Exhibit: • District 2 o Per the allowances of the ordinance under Section 6.6.4 (A), up to 50% of this buffer length can be cleared. The total area of the buffer is 308,200 sq. ft., so this amounts to an allowable area of clearing of 154,100 sq. ft. o Approximately 2,000 linear ft. of the buffer from the I-40 on-ramp at Old NC Hwy 86 will be reduced to 50 ft. in width for development of necessary infrastructure, internal roadways, stormwater management features, etc. in support of the project. This amounts to 100,000 sq. ft. o The remaining 54,100 sq. ft. of allowable area to be cleared will be by means of breaks within the previously mentioned 50-wide buffer. While not required, these breaks will be re-vegetated with low growth landscaping according to Condition 13 of the rezoning petition District 2 MTC Buffer Exhibit Existing MTC Buffer Conditions Existing MTC Buffer Pic-1 Existing MTC Buffer Pic-2 Existing MTC Buffer Pic-3 19 Proposed Signage Examples Landmark Monument 60’ Height (max) 25’ width (max) Portal Monument 36’ Height (max) 22’ Width (max) Noted Conditions • The developer has agreed to a condition to limit the percentage of lights left on after normal hours of business • The developer has agreed to reserve 1% of the required parking in District 2 (exclusive of hotel parking) to support electric charging stations. • The project is consistent with the County and Town of Hillsborough Joint Planning Land Use Plan as reported by staff at the November 14, 2017 public hearing. 2020 Phase I – Build- map 2022 Buildout – map In Summary Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an estimate of the breakdown of district 2; perhaps 30% retail and rest hotels or offices. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the final map, and said it is hard to see what is being proposed on such a small map. Commissioner Jacobs referred to phase 1 and the 2020 service road, and said there is a left turn lane in, and asked if there is a left turn lane out of the service road. Ed Sirgany, Traffic and Technology Engineer for Summit Engineering, said there is a proposed left turn lane for phase one. He said the drawing is not to scale, and it may be hard to see. He said the lane goes in and out. He said the recommended improvement was a 200- foot storage lane, to allow rights and lefts to split out. He said in the 2022 build out, this is extended from 200 to 500 feet long. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this would have a traffic light in phase one. Ed Sigany said no. Commissioner Jacobs asked if up to 900,000 square feet of space would not generate enough traffic to warrant a light. Ed Sirgany said the final revision removed the residential component, and took the district one growth down to a more manageable traffic level. He said the traffic level is in line with the Department of Transportation (DOT) targets. Michael Harvey reminded the Board that it could find the same maps on pages 99 to 113 in this evening’s packet Commissioner Jacobs referred to the west side of old 86, and asked if the property extends to the service road only, and not to the south of it. Ed Sirgany said they do not have any options on property south of the service road. Jim Parker said that is correct, but there is sufficient right of way to add a lane. Commissioner Jacobs said he was thinking of moving it farther from I-40. He said DOT breaks rules when it is desirable for DOT. 20 Jim Parker said this may occur at some point, but 900,000 square feet was the chosen number so as not to require a light, or risk being told no by DOT if one was warranted. Commissioner Jacobs said he had trouble following the super street construct down by the retail, which was going to convert to something else later on. Ed Sirgany said a draft version may have circulated earlier, but this is the final version being presented this evening. He said there is no turn around or restrictions on the turns out of the service road. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there will be restrictions out of the east side. Ed Sirgany said in the 2022 build out it will be signalized, and it will be a standard full- signalized intersection. Commissioner Jacobs said theoretically 1.1 million square feet of space will be put on either side of road, and there will not be a signal required at the end of Davis Road. He said a right turn lane will not be sufficient. Ed Sirgany said their original plan had a residential component, which met the warrant for a signal; but with no residential plan now, and reduced traffic, it does not warrant a signal. Commissioner Jacobs said the issue of warrants has come up before, and what they require and what common sense requires is different. He said this should be anticipated as a potentially dangerous situation. Jim Parker said this is just a framework fort a starting point, and each site plan has to have a TIA, and changes may need to be made down the line. Commissioner Price asked if there will be bike lanes. Jim Parker said there will be 14-foot lanes to allow bike lanes. Commissioner Price asked if DOT agrees. Jim Parker said DOT has only looked at the TIA. He said each time the site plan triggers the traffic that complies with the TIA, there will be DOT involvement. Commissioner Price said she is concerned about connectivity, and hopes DOT will understand. Jim Parker said there are sidewalk conditions on both sides of the internal streets. Commissioner Marcoplos said he noticed that a continuous vegetated buffer on the south side of district one has not been added, despite his request for it at the November 14th meeting. Jim Parker said they are agreeable to this, and they can come up with an addition to the condition. He said it would be supplemental landscaping along the district one southern border, which has a 100-foot, undisturbed buffer. Commissioner Marcoplos said he is most concerned about providing some isolation for residents. Jim Parker said asked if he can work with staff to resolve this. Commissioner Marcoplos said where it impacts residences, or future residences, this would be an important addition, and he would trust all involved to work this out. Jim Parker said they would agree to a 15-foot additional planted buffer if clearing and disturbance came within 15-feet of the 100-foot buffer. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if this would be a continuous wall of vegetation. Michael Harvey said specifics are needed. He said the Board can suggest a condition as a recommendation and a motion, and the Applicant can agree or disagree, or the Board can refer to staff and bring it back later. He said there is a 100-foot buffer that is mandated along the southern boundary, left in its natural and undisturbed state; and if the Board does not believe this is sufficient, then it can make a motion to add 15 or 20 feet of buffer, but the Applicant has to agree to the specific condition. Commissioner Marcoplos read minutes from the last meeting, and said Jim Parker did agree to this at that meeting. 21 Jim Parker said that is correct. Chair Dorosin asked if Commissioner Marcoplos is requesting more plantings to the existing buffer. Commissioner Marcoplos said he wants dense planting to create a wall of vegetation. Chair Dorosin clarified that Commissioner Marcoplos does not want to extend the 100- foot buffer, but rather wants to add more plantings to the existing natural buffer, so as to create a denser wall of vegetation. Commissioner Marcoplos said a line of uninterrupted vegetation. Jim Parker said this is unclear, and suggested utilizing the landscaping requirements for parking areas to be the guide for this buffer. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if they are close together. Jim Parker said over time they will grow closer together, but will probably not be opaque. Commissioner Marcoplos said he was thinking of Leland Cypress trees. Jim Parker said he could agree to line a Leland Cypress trees to create an opaque buffer. Commissioner Jacobs said this can be done with evergreen trees, and the main thing is that the trees are close enough together and they are evergreen, as they will create an opaque buffer. Commissioner Marcoplos recalled that a botanist warned him against the use of Leland Cypress trees, but he would favor any appropriate evergreen that would provide an opaque buffer. Jim Parker agreed to a single line of evergreens that will create an opaque buffer over a normal growth period. Chair Dorosin asked if this is enough specificity. Michael Harvey said he needs as much specificity as possible. He said the Board of County Commissioners is asking for a solid evergreen buffer, but has not said at what distance. He said he needs quantifiable specifics, and suggested a 15-foot wide buffer along the southern boundary property line of district one to create an opaque evergreen buffer, in addition to the 100-foot district buffer. He suggested a motion be made to ascertain if there is interest in amending the conditions to add this change, and have the Applicant go on record to agree to the imposition of the condition. He said if there is a motion to approve attachment 11 conditions, it would be to approve as amended, with the Applicant’s concurrence. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this would be done now or after the public has the opportunity to speak. Michael Harvey said that is up to the BOCC. Chair Dorosin suggested waiting, as there may be additional changes made. He asked the County Attorney if this is acceptable. John Roberts said yes. Commissioner Marcoplos said there has been discussion about advancing alternative energy, and he understands it is too late to require any specifics, but asked if there can be a condition to require the building owners to meet with a local solar provider to understand the specific economic and resiliency benefits and get a detailed assessment for that particular business. Jim Parker said the application indicates that solar panels are allowed, and he finds Commissioner Marcoplos’ request to be reasonable. Commissioner Marcoplos requested that such assessments be shared with the county as it would be useful general information. Michael Harvey said that is not a land use issue, and he cannot require a meeting to take place, or verify that one has. He said it will become an enforcement problem. Chair Dorosin asked if a public education campaign could be an option. 22 Commissioner Jacobs said to recommend solar panels, and have the sustainability coordinator to meet with each building owner during construction to discuss the feasibility of installing solar. Commissioner Marcoplos said he would prefer that a local solar business do this. Commissioner Jacobs said the solar business could go with the sustainability coordinator. Commissioner Marcoplos said that would work. Jim Parker said this is reasonable, and he would be happy to promote solar. Chair Dorosin said this is not a condition. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bob Bundschuh said he spoke at November 14th meeting, where he expressed concerns over this process and the lack of an actual plan, and the impact on the area. He said the community received a lot of gloss over down to what species of tree, and debates over signs, which missed the whole idea of the bigger picture. He read information from the October 4th Planning Board minutes, where staff said that the public cannot affect the outcome of decisions. He referred to buffers, and said that Jim Parker said businesses and motorists do not care about the buffers. He said this is not true, and people do care, and he is glad that the buffer was discussed in greater detail. He said this is an interstate exchange, to serve those passing through, but it is the local residents will have to bear the burden of it. He said the left turn is also an issue. He said if any Commissioner votes in favor of this tonight, it will show that the public is not being put first. Samona Dunn read the following comments: To: Orange County Board of Commissioners, Hillsborough, NC Date: January 23, 2018 Re: Settler’s Pointe Vote Good evening Board of Commissioners. As a Hillsborough resident and a resident of Cornwallis Hills, I share my main concerns about the Settler’s Pointe proposal. 1. Mr. Dorosin, I heard you speak at the occasion of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. program on Monday, January 15th. Your words of concern for the equality and rights for all in Orange County were lovely. I think that concern needs to carry over to how planning is done by planners and developers and how the Board of Commissioners vote, since the Board represents the community at large. In the case of Settler’s Pointe, I think there have been injustices. 2. Justice is imperative for peaceful living. a. Town Meetings: At the previous meeting in November, I heard that a number of public town meetings regarding this development were held. I never heard of any of these meetings and believe they were advertised in such a way that would allow for the LEAST number of people to attend so that the majority of voices could NOT be heard. I believe this is unjust. Who is responsible for setting them up and advertising them? How can they be made to be more responsible to the community? b. Residents near the development site: Many of the residents who spoke and many who did not at the last meeting felt angry, un-empowered, and without time or ability to take any recourse about the development. There was no real broad attempt of education of us citizens ahead of time. It makes one believe that the 23 actions were underhanded and it causes lack of trust. This is not how developers and a commissioned board, working for the good of all, should behave. How can this behavior be changed? c. I maintain my concern about noise pollution. Since the developments of the Durham Tech Campus, the UNC Hospital, and the Waterstone Estates the noise pollution from I-40 has rung louder than ever. I can hear cars and trucks at all times of day and night with all the windows closed in my house. No doubt those that live closer hear it even louder. This noise pollution on I-40 will become greater. I have heard that repaving parts of I-40 with different materials may decrease the noise. What will be done about this? Has anyone checked into re- pavement? d. Light pollution: Light pollution from tacky signage also makes noise and is unhealthy. e. Recusal of Earl McKee from the vote: With all due respect, how is it legal that Earl McKee should not be recused from voting on this development since he is employed by Summit Design and Engineering? Does he stand to profit financially from it? What does the Attorney General, Josh Stein, say on this matter? f. No Food Swamp- Please DO NOT vet companies who use preservatives in their food. That would include most fast-food companies we know of. No one NEEDS them. They’re big, noisy, and bad for our health. How about only vetting healthful restaurants run by locals? g. In Retrospect: I understand that the way things have been done for a long time is for the developer to buy up land bit by bit to later sell off, have developed, and make a profit. But this way is actually backwards to maintaining community health, happiness, and peace. It only thinks of financial profit of one person or a company. It is respectful and just for the surrounding community to consult and be consulted with ahead of time about perceived needs and long term plans for an area, BEFORE parcels are bought with a development in mind. Individuals would not feel as though they were tricked or simply being ignored and plowed over. That is the old and oppressive way of doing things. Despite the fact that development plans for the county and even the town of Hillsborough were written a while ago, most people do not know about them. Not all plans should be kept. What will the Commissioners do to try to make EVERY citizen of this area aware of what these plans are and how will EACH citizen be able to offer input BEFORE the plans are finalized? Perhaps a more egalitarian and Socratic and Consultative Method could be utilized. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Simona Dunn Commissioner McKee referred to page 37 in the packet, which includes the statement from the County Attorney regarding whether or not Commissioner McKee has a conflict of interest in the item, and whether or not he can vote. Alyse Polly said most people that spoke at the last public hearing were against this development, and she is concerned about a food swamp around this exit. She said there are already places in town for development. She asked the BOCC not to approve this tonight. 24 Michael Harvey said regulations embodied within the UDO will have to be adhered to, unless specifically modified. He said in most instances, the Applicant is being more restrictive. He said if these ten parcels were developed under current County land use policy there would be three times more building area that could be permitted on each parcel than the Applicant is proposing. He said there are more restrictive utility conditions associated with this project than currently required under section 6.20 of the UDO. He said there are specific allowances governing building and architectural development, and as Commissioner Marcoplos has pointed out, there are conditions in this proposal encouraging the development of solar facilities. He said the Planning Board has voted unanimously to recommend approval, subject to the issuance of conditions. He said he spoke with some Planning Board members, who recalled the vote on the condition associated with electric charging stations to be 7 ayes, 4 nays. Michael Harvey reviewed the recommendations: Recommendation 1. Receive the additional information on the application as detailed within abstract and attachments. 2. Accept additional comments from the staff, Planning Board, and the general public. 3. Close the public hearing. 4. Decide on one of the following options: a. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date; b. Adopt the Statement of Consistency for proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment(s) (Attachment 10), the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas and imposing conditions (Attachment 11); or c. Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The one-year period begins on the date of denial.) Commissioner Jacobs asked if Michael Harvey would clarify the quote given during public comment, in which he stated that the public cannot affect the outcome. Michael Harvey said that referred to site plan reviews, which the public cannot influence. He said the public can comment to staff on the review of a permitted use, but cannot influence the outcome, as staff must follow the ordinance as it prescribes development should and should not occur. Commissioner Rich asked if Michael Harvey would review how the County contacts residents to invite them to any public meetings. Michael Harvey said notification materials were included at the November 14th public hearing for a neighborhood information meeting at UNC Hospital, where staff and the Applicant were present to discuss the process and the project. He said the Applicant held two additional neighborhood meetings. He said notices of the Planning Board meeting were sent out to all properties within 1000 feet of this project, as well as of the public hearing. He said signs were posted on the property in accordance with the applicable standards of the UDO, advertising the neighborhood meeting, the Planning Board meeting and the public hearing. Commissioner Jacobs said there are several things about this process that are frustrating: one is that the County and Town of Hillsborough are not the same. He said they try to work together, but sometimes they are not in sync; secondly, when planning, there are rules made before there is anything to judge. He said the Board and staff are listening, but there are sets of standards to go by, and the Applicant has abided by them. He said the best way to be involved in change is by serving on a board such as the Planning Board, but most people are not aware of such things, until it is their life that is affected. He said this is the situation in which we now find ourselves. He said staff is listening, but there is a set of standards before them, and the Applicant has provided its vision of how to make the standards work to their and the 25 community’s benefit. He said it is frustrating to come in towards the end of the process and not be able to “stop” things, but this is how planning works. He said if the Applicant meets the standards, then the BOCC must decide which conditions in may want to make, and whether or not to approve. He said the BOCC is empathetic to the public, and is not ignoring them, but at this point it is not an up or down vote by the public. Commissioner McKee said he wanted clarification on Commissioner Marcoplos’ condition on the buffer. He asked if this additional condition is to be added prior to the adoption of attachment 11, or as part of. John Roberts said “as part of” and the Applicant has indicated agreement. Commissioner McKee asked if this condition would have to be specifically numerated. John Roberts said the language would need to be so that Michael Harvey could enforce it. Chair Dorosin said it was not be an extension of the buffer, but rather along the southern border of the 100-foot buffer of district 1 would be a planting of evergreen trees, every 15 feet. Jim Parker said it would be the northern line of the buffer on district 1, along the southern property line. Jim Parker said he feels it is important to clarify that if they clear within 15 feet of the northern line of the buffer, then he would be willing to add the row of plantings. He said if it is further away than that, the plantings seem unreasonable. Commissioner Marcoplos said the length would depend on species of trees, and he suggested language that within three years it would grow to form a continuous line. Commissioner Jacobs said he is trying to get to the thrust of Commissioner McKee’s question, and it is not that the trees are planted 15 feet apart, but that the effect is going to be a continuous buffer 15 feet wide. Commissioner Marcoplos said the plantings do not need to be 15 feet wide, but rather a continuous, lateral, opaque row. Jim Parker said it if they get that close to the buffer, plantings must be added. Chair Dorosin asked Michael Harvey if he could clarify specific language. Michael Harvey said there is a 100-foot buffer, and if there is land-disturbing activity that encroaches within 15 feet of the 100-foot buffer, the Applicant shall install an opaque buffer of evergreen trees along the boundary of the northern portion of the southern buffer. Jim Parker agreed with Michael Harvey’s wording. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for the Board to close the public hearing at 9:47 p.m. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments at a later date are permitted.) VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Price said the BOCC has heard enough opposition from the public that the Board needs to come to some resolution with the residents surrounding this area. She would like to see as much buffer as possible around thru ways, etc. She said she would also like to know what type of businesses will be going in here. She said it is hard to approve the process without more information. Commissioner Burroughs said these Economic Development Districts (EDDs) have been here for decades, and the job of the BOCC is to balance competing values. She has heard concerns about natural beauty and the environment, but has heard no concerns about jobs and revenue. She said the County has big financial challenges with its revenue streams, and parts of the structural deficits are connected with the anti-development thinking that has 26 been present for many decades. She said the Applicant brought what the Board of County Commissioners wanted in this area, and she will support this project. Commissioner Marcoplos said he has heard many in support of using the EDD for its intended purpose. He said Orange County has a 20% poverty rate, and the County does a lot to help people in need, but nothing helps them better than having a job. He said the County must create employment for residents, and this project does that, as well as offer tax benefits. He said the County is burdened with unfunded mandates from the state, so they need to look at the big picture. He said the County has tried to do its best to protect the residents with this project, and it is a plus to have a local developer as the Applicant. Commissioner Price said she wants to see economic development, but the type of jobs that this project will create have not been clearly discussed. She said her concern is that the BOCC at least try and make an environment that is satisfactory for the residents in the area, and she wants more information as to what businesses are going to go in this development. Commissioner Rich said she does not ignore people. She said the concerns that she had were discussed at the Planning Board meeting. She said the public meetings are open to the public, and the Board is available by email. She said the County has a UDO that serves as a guide. She said the developer was very responsive to the Planning Board and to the Board of County Commissioners’ questions and concerns. She said the process may need to change, and that would happen at the very beginning at the Planning Board. She said she will be voting for this project with the buffer amendment. Commissioner Jacobs said the power lies in the ordinances, and the person who writes these shapes future decisions. He said the Applicant has been responsive to the Board and the Planning Board, but the lack of specificity on the retail side is disquieting. He said Orange County was trying to reach a higher quality on the retail side. He said he lives close enough to the I-40/I-85 merge that the level of noise raised astronomically when it was widened. He said I-40 will be widened soon, and the buffer will have the single most benefit of anything the BOCC can do. He asked the Board to not allow the buffer to be limited on the I-40 side, and asked the Applicant if he could identify what he envisions on the east side, as far as retail. Jim Parker said the process is difficult and frustrating. He said all of the parcels are by right to be developed with most of the land uses that he has requested, as well as some of the land uses that the County intended to add. He said, by right, all of these properties could be developed without the public hearing process, but it would be a mismatch of connectivity and services. He said they have assembled these properties, and collectively come to the BOCC with the desire to develop them over a short period of time, and the BOCC has asked for the impact on traffic, utilities overall, and how they will be addressed. He said this is what he has done, and what will end up on the land is that which he has requested. He said if this process is approved, then they will get interest from potential businesses, and there will be a give and take going forward. He said at this point, the process is so far above specificity, but the UDO dictates how buildings will sit, landscaping, parking allowances, etc. He said the plan will not rape and denude the land, and buildings will be spaced very well. Jim Parker said the 100-foot buffer on district one will not be touched. He referred to the 100-foot buffer on district 2, on the southern portion, and said it will not be touched. He said a 100-foot buffer has been added along the southern boundary of district 1, but for about 1000 feet of the buffer in district 2, next to the ramp, it is imperative for them to be able to thin it for 50 feet, and revegetate it. Commissioner McKee said EDDs have been here for a long time, and Morinaga came into the Buckhorn EDD a few years back, and it was a benefit to the County and created employment opportunities. He said this development will provide jobs, and the businesses that the County is trying to attract need a place to go into. He said there may be a mixture of restaurants, and hopefully a higher end hotel to accommodate tourists/visitors in this area. He 27 referred to the buffer, and understands the concern over it. He said the buffer being undisturbed all the way along district 1 offsets the reduction in district 2. He said he did some residential development a few years ago, where he removed some trees and replanted new ones to improve the aesthetics of the property. He said the new plantings can make the entrance to the project more attractive. He said he will be voting in favor of this project. Chair Dorosin said he appreciated everyone’s comments, and the BOCC does hear the public. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the Board to Decide on one of the following options: a. Adopt the Statement of Consistency for proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment(s) (Attachment 10) VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs asked what would happen if the BOCC made an amendment to which the Applicant did not agree. Chair Dorosin said that amendment would not go into the ordinance, and the BOCC would vote on the ordinance to the extent upon which it has been agreed. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to leave the major transportation corridor 100 foot buffer along the eastern boundary of phase 2, other than on the entrance ramp to I-40, as originally stipulated in the UDO. Chair Dorosin asked if this motion could be clarified. Commissioner Jacobs said he understands the Applicant’s request to be to take a 100- foot buffer and make it a 50-foot buffer, as well as to be allowed by right to clear up to 50% of the buffer for visual purposes, and then go back in and put lower vegetation in the openings after it has been cleared. He said there will be 50% clearage no matter what, because it is allowed, but instead of having it on a 50-foot buffer, he would like to leave the 100-foot buffer the way it is in the UDO. Commissioner Marcoplos said he thinks they are discussing 1000 feet that is being considered for this trimming of the buffer. Chair Dorosin read the following from the abstract “the buffer is 3,082 linear feet, and 1,082 linear feet will be left entirely undisturbed, and the remaining 2000 feet will be reduced to 50 foot in width for development of necessary infrastructure, internal roadways, storm water management, which amounts to 100,000 square feet; and the remaining 54,000 square feet will be cleared by means of breaks with previously mentioned 50 foot wide buffer. While not required those breaks will be re-vegetated”. Michael Harvey reviewed the summary of the Applicant’s proposal on page 3 of the abstract. Commissioner Jacobs said as he understands it, between what is allowed and what is proposed, this buffer section will be reduced by three-quarters from what it would be if it were undisturbed. He said part of it will be replanted up to twelve feet, which may look similar from the interstate, but will not reduce sound for the residents. He said he agrees with the BOCC about the importance of economic development, but if the BOCC is trying to ameliorate the impact on residents, this is a tangible item that will have a large impact on residential quality of life. He said hotels will be visible above the trees, and the clearings that are allowed in the buffer can be lined up with the buildings that want to be seen from the interstate. He said he 28 does not see why leaving the buffer would be a burden, and the benefit to the residents is obvious. Chair Dorosin asked what will happen if this motion passes, and the Applicant does not agree to it. John Roberts said that portion of the ordinance would be invalid. Michael Harvey said there is 1082 feet of MTC buffer that will remain at 100 feet, and there is also the 100 foot buffer to the south of district 2. He said there is also a power line easement, where there has already been some clearing to accommodate overhead power lines. Commissioner Marcoplos said there was mention of some clearing that could occur on the district one side that will not occur, and asked if this is accurate. Michael Harvey said the Applicant has indicated that it is not interested in clearing the MTC buffer in district 1. Commissioner Marcoplos said to add the two together, and take the net. Michael Harvey said you are dealing with two different districts, and he would not want to net the footage. He said district one has 2800 linear feet of frontage along the interstate that will remain undisturbed. He said, by the code, the Applicant could clear 50% (1400 linear feet) of that, which it is not. He said in district 2 there is 3082 of linear frontage, and the Applicant is proposing to reduce 2000 linear feet of the buffer in width from 100 to 50 feet. He said doing so eliminates 100,000 linear feet of required buffer. He said then the Applicant would clear the additional visual breaks, allowed by the UDO, and re-vegetating the areas with shrubs (4-6 feet in height) and canopy trees (12 feet in height). He said this can be found on page 169 of attachment 11. John Roberts said he reviewed the case law, and the scenario, as outlined by Chair Dorosin, would invalidate the entire agreement, not just the one amendment. Commissioner Burroughs said she has lived near I-40 for 20 years, and the amount of buffer that Commissioner Jacobs is trying to save will not make any difference. Commissioner McKee said the additional clearing in district 2 is offset by the lack of any clearing in district one. VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Price); Nays, 5 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Marcoplos). Motion failed. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to adopt the Ordinance as amended as stated by Michael Harvey, and agreed upon by the Applicant: amending the Zoning Atlas and imposing conditions (Attachment 11), as recommended by the Planning Board and staff and agreed to by the applicant; or VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Regular Agenda a. Approval of Planned Mountains to Sea Trail Map/Route Through Orange County The Board considered approving a map and planned route for the portions of the North Carolina Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) within Orange County, as directed on December 12. David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) Director, reviewed the following background information, and PowerPoint presentation: 29 BACKGROUND: At the December 12 BOCC meeting, the Board discussed a petition received at its December 4 meeting. As a result of that discussion, staff was directed to bring back the Proposed Trail route map for possible Board action at the January 23 meeting. The North Carolina Mountains to Sea Trail is a part of the North Carolina State Parks system, and work is actively underway in many parts of the state to complete the unfinished segments of the MST. On September 19, 2017, the Board received a report on the trail planning process authorized in 2016, which included a map with a Proposed Trail route for “Segment 11” (from Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area to Alamance County). At that time, the Board provided direction to the County Manager and staff on next steps for work on this project. The attached December 12 information item memo contains a summary of these steps. Note: There are two segments of the MST in Orange County. Segment 11 from the Statewide Master Plan begins at the Alamance County line and continues to Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area. Segment 12 begins at Occoneechee Mountain and continues east through Hillsborough and into Eno River State Park to the Durham County line. In preparing the attached map of the proposed MST route, staff has added “Segment 12” of the trail (from Occoneechee Mountain through Hillsborough to Durham County) to the original Segment 11 map, in consultation with State Parks officials. Segment 12 of the MST was not part of the trail planning public process, since almost the entirety of the MST in this part of the county will be either the Hillsborough Riverwalk, adjoining public trails on properties owned by Classical American Homes, or within Eno River State Park. As such, the trail corridor for Segment 12 has been known for some time, and no trail routing was needed. It should be noted that the proposed MST route through Eno River State Park is subject to revision and alteration as State Parks finalizes which of its network of trails within the park will host the MST. For current purposes, the MST is shown following the Eno River. Funding for the few acquisitions needed for Segment 12 will come from State funds. The attached map continues to show the Proposed Route (Segment 11) from the September 19, 2017 BOCC report, with one addition to reflect a proposed second access point into Alamance County. The Proposed Route, from northeast to southwest, begins at Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area and crosses Interstates 85 and 40 to connect to the Seven Mile Creek Nature Preserve (part of the Upper Eno Nature Preserve). This phase of the project is the first scheduled for activity and funding, and work is now underway based on prior Board direction. The trail continues southwest towards the upper reaches of Cane Creek and thence to Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) owned land and other properties north of Cane Creek Reservoir. Finally, the Proposed Trail connects along NC Highway 54 and would cross that highway at the Oaks intersection (which is to be signalized in the next few years), before heading west toward Saxapahaw in Alamance County. As has been noted in many prior discussions, the stretches of the Proposed Trail that would traverse private property will be negotiated with willing landowners along the route. Since this is a multi-year project, it is possible or even likely that the trail route may shift from the identified line on the map based on landowner interest. Trail easements or other acquisitions for the MST will be conducted only with willing landowners. In some cases, stretches of the trail may remain incomplete for a period of time, with hikers using nearby roads to connect to sections of the trail (as is currently the case in other parts of the state). 30 The December 4, 2017 petition to the Board – in addition to asking the Board to adopt a trail route – also asked that the County accept offered easements in the Cane Creek Reservoir area, and establish a relationship with the Friends of the MST for trail construction and assistance. As noted in the December 12 memo, work is underway on both of these fronts. In terms of other Board direction from September 19, 2017, the Manager and staff would note that a meeting with the OWASA Executive Director and staff is being scheduled to discuss OWASA conditions and expectations of how the MST construction would come to OWASA. In terms of the “parallel track” discussion for the Multi-modal Trail concept, the County Manager has initiated this by first convening as group of County department directors to research the topic and review in the context of other related pedestrian needs, such as sidewalks. This information gathering is underway. Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) Possible Route Approval for Orange County Segments January 23, 2018 The N.C. Mountains to Sea Trail • Part of the State Parks System • Clingman’s Dome to Jockey’s Ridge • Connects State Parks, Open Spaces • Much of Trail Exists – But Not Eastern Piedmont Segment 12 • Hillsborough Riverwalk • Trails on Historic Sites to East • Remainder Within Eno River State Park* • Segment is Already Identified…thus… • Not included in planning process Segment 11 • Occoneechee Mountain Trails • Southwest to Seven Mile Creek Preserve • Cross-country to Cane Creek and Cane Creek Reservoir • Exits County toward Saxapahaw • Would Occur in Three Phases Trail Planning Process 2016-17 • January 2016 – Staff directed to implement community meetings and trail planning • Community Meetings – April and September 2016, March 2017 • Facilitator meetings with neighborhoods and small groups (spring/summer 2016) • Report to Board of Commissioners September 2017 • September 19 – Staff directed to begin work on first part of Segment 11 (Occ Mtn) and follow-up in other areas • December 4 – Petition presented to Board asking staff to work with expressed willing landowners at Cane Creek and adopt trail route • December 12 - Staff updates on work underway, adoption of route slated for January 23 The “Proposed Route” Line 31 • From 2016-17 discussions/meetings, MST master plan swath, map analysis • Work with willing landowners • Have spoken with landowners both interested and not interested • Actual trail may vary, or have “connector” along public road for some period of time FAQ • Process: 2 years, 3 community meetings, 5 facilitator meetings, 3 Board reports • Liability: State law provides protection to landowners from trespassing • Costs: Much of the cost of the trail will be from State grants and in-kind trail work • Emergency Services Plan required first Recommendation • Approve the map with Proposed/Existing Trail line • Report back on Multi-Modal Trail and OWASA conversations • Provide regular updates and information PUBLIC COMMENT: Brenda McCall read the following letter: Dear Commissioners: Despite repeated requests to be removed from the MST route, we all just recently received letter indicating that the County wants to move forward with the MST, routed along our properties. We are writing to once again request that our properties (listed below) be removed from the map and that the trail be re-routed. We represent a block of landowners along Cane Creek from Borland Road to Buckhorn Road and will not give the County permission to route the trail on our land. Therefore, it is inconceivable for the project to move forward along the proposed route. Please note that some of our properties have been in continuous family ownership for generations, We do not oppose the overall project. We are simply uninterested in hosting the trail. That said, after years of discussions with the County, facilitators and others, and repeated requests to be removed from the map, the map has not changed and alternatives have not been explored. There has never been a working session exclusively with neighbors. Instead we are repeatedly asked to attend meetings dominated by MST advocates drowning out the voice of local impacted property owners. Please appreciate that this community has already done a great deal for Orange County. We have given up thousands of acres of heritage farmland, and property development rights in order to protect Cane Creek Reservoir. As currently conceived, the trail provides little benefits to us but the risks are high. There are alternative routes and uses (especially for cyclists) that would serve more people and be safer for everyone. Sadly there has been little attempt to explore them. So once again, we will not give the County permission to route the trail on our properties and therefore would like the trail to be routed elsewhere. Please reject the proposed routing for the MST and direct staff to explore alternatives. We would be happy to assist staff in working with neighbors to plan alternatives. 32 Thank you, Michael and Susan Debartolo 4403 Mystic Lane Jack and Colleen Gilbert 4325 Sugar Ridge Road Jack and Colleen Gilbert 4587 Bradshaw Quarry Road Jack and Colleen Gilbert 4601 Bradshaw Quarry Road Daniel and Dee Gura 4529 Mystic Lane Bonnie Hauser 4301 Sugar Ridge Road Tommy Holmes 4311 Bradshaw Quarry Road T. Truitt Holmes B&H Drive (via Tommy Holmes) David Holmes 4517 Bradshaw Quarry Road Fletcher Holmes 4516 Bradshaw Quarry Road Robert Idol 4801 Bradshaw Quarry Road Michael Kirk 4310 Bradshaw Quarry Road Gray Loeblein 4312 Mystic Lane Ben and Susan Nichols 6614 Orange Grove Road Jeff Stephens 4515 Mystic Lane Kathleen Teague 4317 Sugar Ridge Susan Debartolo showed a map and said the neighbors, who signed the letter read by the first speaker, are opposed to the MST on their property. She said they are willing to help find another area for this trail. William Charles said he is a property owner in Cane Creek subdivision, and he asked the Board to delay the MTS route. He said they are opposed, and will block this route. He said the easier routes are through Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) property, but this has legal problems, and OW ASA said they did not want to host a standalone trail, and a southern or northern leg would have to be completed to gain OWASA approval. He said to find a route that works, and then approve it. Edward Mann asked the BOCC not to adopt the route, and asked staff to listen to the community and create a route that is doable. Alan Green said he would like to stay focused on what is actually being requested: approval of a route that runs from Saxapahaw to Occoneechee Mountain that utilizes public roads as an interim route from Saxapahaw to the OWASA property, and north to Occoneechee. He said this does not require any landowners to involuntarily surrender their lands. He said the goal is to secure connectivity from Saxapahaw to segment 12 in Orange County. Ed Johnson said he is for the trail route, and eager to grant an easement across his property to Buckhorn Road. He said he hoped the BOCC would endorse the broad outline. Justin Veneza said he represented a lot of people in his community along Bradford Ridge Road who are against the trail route for many reasons, including the number of young children that live in this area. Terri Buckner thanked the BOCC for acknowledging their petition, and when Commissioner Jacobs made the motion to accept their petition, it was to be a conceptual map only, not tract level. She said the Friends of MST would work with DEAPR and community members to support this, and not to impose the MST on those who do not want it. Commissioner McKee said to David Stancil that he keeps hearing some are opposed and some are in agreement with projected path of trail, but he is unclear on the exact numbers who favor or oppose it. He said in order to be able to be informed and vote on it he would like to know how many actual landowners support it and how may oppose it. He said he has asked repeatedly for this information. 33 David Stancil said he can only speak to those who have contacted his department, and it is a mixed bag. He said the dilemma in Orange County is that there is no natural boundary to follow. He said if there is a gap in the trail, perhaps it should be left as a gap. He said there is not an immediately plausible trail that can be put on a map and guaranteed. He said there will need to be flexibility, and that may mean putting a line on a map and nothing happens for 20 years; or putting certain lines on a map, and leaving gaps where they may be. Commissioner McKee asked if it would be reasonable to put a put a 2-3 mile corridor rather than a line. David Stancil said the discussion started with a half-mile wide corridor, and in certain areas, this may still be the case. He said landowners change, and people change their minds. Commissioner McKee said drawing a line on a map crosses certain properties, but a mile wide swath is better to work with as every landowner can be approached to ascertain interest and willingness. He said calling it a proposed route does not bring comfort to those who oppose it. David Stancil said he understands that, and perhaps better language is needed. Commissioner Marcoplos said he thought it was a corridor all along. He said the County will not force this on anyone, and they need to have a general route as a starting point to talk to property owners. Commissioner Rich said Laurie Paolicelli, Visitors’ Bureau Director, already left, but she was here to support the conceptual plan. She said Orange County is the missing link in the MST, and this concept map would help so it can be discussed more often from a tourism standpoint. Commissioner Jacobs said he runs a non-profit, and he has no conflict of interest in this trail. Commissioner Jacobs asked if David Stancil could identify when the County began working on the MST. David Stancil said in 2012, but officially in 2016. Commissioner Jacobs said he understands the concerns, but the County is not going to force this down anyone’s throat. He said this is the step the BOCC asked staff to take. A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs for the Board to adopt the attached map “Orange County Mountains to Sea Trail Route” which shows as the planned MST Trail route the lines indicated as “Proposed Trail” and “Existing Trail”; and that staff report back at a later date on information gathered on the Multi-modal Trail and on discussions held with OWASA. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner McKee) b. Potential Acquisition and Development of a Multi-Purpose County Campus The Board considered ratifying the Manager’s recommendation to pursue the acquisition of approximately 21 acres located with the Hillsborough Highway 70/Cornelius Street corridor known as the “Hwy 70 Site Assembly” for the development of a County Campus site that addresses multiple County Capital Investment Plan initiatives; and authorizing the Manager to continue the site due diligence and examination process to include pursuing necessary future land use and zoning amendments with the Town of Hillsborough. Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Services Director, reviewed the background information below: BACKGROUND: 34 In the spring of 2017, the County began to investigate alternative locations for the new Detention Center after ground lease negotiations with the State failed to produce acceptable lease terms on the Orange Correctional site. During the same springtime period, the Board asked staff to investigate potential sites along the Highway 70/Cornelius Corridor (the area around Highway 70 between West Hill Avenue and Saint Mary’s Road) for the Environment and Agricultural Center as an alternative to remodeling the current facility. The Detention Center site assessment initially included two sites in downtown Hillsborough, the existing jail location and the parking lot adjacent to the Courthouse. However, preliminary findings revealed several significant challenges related to those sites, so the assessment area was expanded to include sites outside of the downtown area. Based upon this analysis and recommendation, the County has entered into Purchase & Sale Agreements (Attachment 3) with the owners of the parcels, subject to and contingent upon a rigorous examination period and final BOCC approval to settle the transaction and acquire the property. Jeff Thompson made the following PowerPoint presentation: Multi-Purpose County Campus Site Update January 23, 2018 Purpose • Ratify County Manager’s recommendation to pursue purchase of the “Hwy 70 Site Assembly” that addresses multiple County Capital Investment Plan initiatives; • Authorize the County Manager to continue site due diligence to include the pursuit of necessary future land use and zoning amendments with the Town of Hillsborough Background • BOCC direction: -Detention Project site study of downtown sites -Environment and Agriculture Center Study (Cornelius Corridor) -Expansion of Detention site study • Analysis and recommendations discussions in late 2017 Analysis and Recommendation Summary (pg. 1-3 of abstract) 1. Existing Detention Site 2. Site adjacent to Justice Facility Both incur excessive costs, no expansion ability, challenging zoning compliance and permitting process 3. Coleman Loop Site Challenging sewer extension cost, expensive acquisition cost, existing facility oversized, removal from commercial tax base 4. Hwy 70 Site Assembly (recommended) – Shared, accessible infrastructure – Site versatility, efficient location for operations – Expansion capability, shared site and utility costs for multiple uses – Supported by Hillsborough (see abstract attachment #2) Ongoing Site Analysis (pg. 3 of abstract) • Land Records Assessment • Physical Investigations 35 • Land Use Amendment Process (Hillsborough) Timeline/Next Steps (pg. 4 of abstract) 1/23 – Public notice of intent regarding parcels 1/26 – Area mailing-1000 feet of parcel boundaries 2/6 – County Information Session 2/15 – Hillsborough Public Hearing 3/15 – Hillsborough Planning Board March-April: - Hillsborough Town Board - BOCC approval to acquire Spring-Fall 2018: - Design, Pricing Winter 2018-Fall 2020 – Construction Financial Impact (pg. 4 of abstract) • Adequate Capital Investment Plan appropriations - Detention, EAC • Most efficient construction outcome would recommend Park Operations Base future appropriation to move forward • $28.1 million contemplated funding includes site acquisition and contingency funds Manager’s Recommendation • Ratify County Manager’s recommendation to pursue purchase of the “Hwy 70 Site Assembly” that addresses multiple County Capital Investment Plan initiatives; • Authorize the County Manager to continue site due diligence to include the pursuit of necessary future land use and zoning amendments with the Town of Hillsborough Detention Center Siting Feasibility Discussion December 12, 2017 Purpose • Present and discuss options for siting new Detention Facility; and Agriculture & Environmental Center (AEC) • Gather feedback for final staff recommendations to the Board in December, 2017 Background • Early 2017 – State Decision regarding Ground Lease • Disallowance of Detention Facility as collateral for financing – Existing Site Feasibility Study with Designer • Two options: – Existing Detention Site (north of Margaret Lane) – Adjacent to Justice Facility (south of Margaret Lane) • Staff feasibility work through summer, fall • Board small group discussions in November, 2017 Potential Downtown Detention Sites (photo) Potential Downtown Detention Sites (photo) Advantages 36 • County owned property • Proximity to courthouses, law enforcement center • Prescribed land use • Potential for courts related space improvements Disadvantages: • Detainee relocation costs • Deconstruction costs • Challenging Hillsborough entitlement process • Space restricted site; lack of expansion Potential Downtown Detention Sites (photo) Advantages: • County owned property • Proximity to courthouses, law enforcement center • Prescribed land use • Potential for courts related space improvements Disadvantages: • Need to relocate DA, Price Market House • Required two level facility • Parking replacement • Perceived River Park obstruction; historic markers • Challenging Hillsborough entitlement process • Lack of expansion Potential Downtown Detention Sites (map) Additional Background – Ag Center • March 2017 – Board Direction for Cornelius Corridor Siting of Ag Center, Park Operations Site • June 2017 – Appropriation of Revere Road Site Major Renovation as option to consider • Staff work on Cornelius Corridor through summer, fall Potential Perimeter Sites (map) Potential Perimeter Sites (map) Major Business Forms (map) Advantages: • 21 acre parcel (expansion availability of other uses) • Prescribed land use • County planning jurisdiction • 40,000 sq. ft. existing facility • Under contract to purchase $2.3 million • Hillsborough support Disadvantages • Needs est. $700K sewer extension investment • Age, layout of building 37 Major Business Forms – W&S Boundary (map) Potential Land Plan – MBF (Detention only) (map) Potential Land Plan – MBF (Detention, EAC, Park Ops) (map) “DMV” Property (map) Advantages: • 20.5 acre parcel (expansion availability of other uses) • Water and sewer present • Excellent access to Justice Facility, roadways • Hillsborough support • Under contract $394,050 ($18,500/acre) Disadvantages: • Needs land use code revision for code Potential Land Plan – DMV Water and Sewer Service Boundary (map) Potential Land Plan – DMV (Detention only) Potential Land Plan – DMV (Detention, EAC, Parks Ops) Advantages of Detention and Ag Campus • Shared Land Acquisition • Shared Infrastructure – Storm water management – Utilities – Site amenities – Security • Shared common areas (storage & training areas) • Lower cost advantage for shared elements • Master planning advantages • Expansion capabilities • Potential for Park Ops on site Cost Comparisons (chart) Key Factors Comparison (chart) Estimated Timeline • December – Contract site control • December-January – Continued land planning, schematic design, land use amendment process, physical due diligence • Spring-Summer 2018 – Site acquisition, design, site plan approval process, pricing exercises, bidding • Fall-Winter, 2018 – Final design, bidding, construction start 38 • Winter, 2018—Fall, 2020 – Construction, commissioning, transition, occupation Next steps • Discuss options and answer questions • Receive feedback • Continue due diligence process • BOCC action for future meeting PUBLIC COMMENT: Billy Holloway said he is here with his family, and they live on neighboring land to one of the sites being considered. He said the map put up by Jeff Thompson inaccurately shows his property line. He said no one wants a detention center next to his or her home. He has livestock that will be disrupted. He said this is agricultural land, and has always been so. He said he does not want activity going on at all times of the day and night. Jennifer Hall said she lives at 1109 Highway 70 West. She said she and her family have lived on this land for three generations. She said the family is trying to keep their farm and traditions alive: cattle, horses, bee keeping, etc. She said it is a way of life the family is trying to preserve. She humbly asked the BOCC if it would pick another site for the detention center. She said this is the first she has heard of this proposal, and all are very concerned. Lisa Hall said this land has been her family farm for a very long time, and she is very upset, as this is not right. She said this is about her animals, her family, and their way of life. She asked the BOCC to please pick another location. Another resident said he lives on the adjoining land, and no one wants a detention center in his or her back yard. He said he has children, to whom he plans to pass his property on to. He said much of the community is not aware the property has been sold, much less that the County is considering putting a detention center on it. He asked the Commissioners if any of them would want a detention center 1000 feet from their homes. Billy Holloway spoke again, and said this land has always been used for agriculture. He said the family is trying its best to preserve what his grandfather passed along to them, and that is how it ought to be. Mike Holloway said he lives at 1012 Highway 70 West, and his grandfather purchased this land eight decades ago to support his family and to use it for farming. He said the family wants to see it stay that way. He said his house was broken into three years ago. He said since that time, he and his wife have installed an alarm and security system, purchased dogs, obtained concealed carry permits, and purchased weapons to protect themselves. He said the County is considering sentencing his family to a life of fear and anxiety by putting a detention center 200 feet from their home. He said they have taken precautions against another random break in, and the County wants to house known criminals next door. He said this is family land, and they cannot simply move to another neighborhood. Commissioner Price referred to the map mentioned by Billy Holloway that is reportedly inaccurate, and asked if staff has looked into this. Jeff Thompson said staff just got survey back today, and this is part of the due diligence that will go into the study. Commissioner Price said she thought landowners were offering this property. Jeff Thompson said one parcel is being offered by one landowner, and two parcels being offered by another landowner. He said it is his understanding that the landowners are family members of the Holloways. Commissioner Price asked if they live to the east or the west of the site. Jeff Thompson reviewed the map, and the family pointed out their parcels of land. He said in this particular schematic plan, the family’s properties would be closer to the Park 39 Operations and the Ag Center. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if it is known which actual structures would be closer to the family land, and what opportunities exist for good design barriers of any kind. He asked if Jeff Thomson could explain how the Holloway land would realistically be affected if this plan moves forward. Jeff Thompson said this is very preliminary, and the examination and due diligence process has just started. He said if it moves forward into design, Hillsborough, as the authority in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), would have a lot of say in this. He said there are many ways to buffer the property line, and the Ag Center would be closer to them. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the separation between the detention center and the rest of the property could be explained. Jeff Thompson said the detention center would as far NW as possible. He said it is a detention center, but it can be designed with care. The family said there is currently a pond on that part of the land. Chair Dorosin said this is in a very preliminary stage, and many questions by the family members may need to come later. Family member wanted to know why they were not notified about this meeting tonight. Bonnie Hammersley said it is so early in the process that notification was not sent out, but there will be a County information session on February 6th, and a public hearing later on in Hillsborough, which requires notification to anyone within 500 feet of this property. She said the County has asked if Hillsborough would notify any property owners within 1000 feet of the property, for which the County will reimburse the Town. She said if the County were to purchase the land, the closing would be in April. Commissioner McKee asked staff if they could please gather information about the security of the detention center, and measures taken to protect neighboring properties, for the information session on February 6th. Sheriff Blackwood said yes. He said this will be the Sheriff’s Detention Center, not a state correctional facility. He said he fully understands the family’s concerns. Bonnie Hammersley said the February 6th information session will be set up somewhat like a charrette. Jeff Thompson said staff is available to meet with the family prior to that meeting. Commissioner McKee said to keep the adjoining landowners informed. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs for the Board to: 1) Ratify the Manager’s recommendation to pursue the acquisition of approximately 21 acres located with the Hillsborough Cornelius Street corridor known as the “Hwy 70 Site Assembly” for the development of a County Campus site that addresses multiple County Capital Investment Plan initiatives; and 2) Authorize the Manager to continue the site due diligence and examination process to include pursuing necessary preliminary future land use and zoning amendments with the Town of Hillsborough. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline and Schedule – Millhouse Road Park Site Zoning Atlas Amendment 40 The Board considered approving process components and schedule for a government- initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas regarding the rezoning of the Millhouse Road Park site from RB (Rural Buffer) to Home Park Conditional Zoning District (HP-CZD). If approved, Orange County staff will pursue the hiring of a professional consultant/design firm to submit the required conditional zoning district application. Craig Benedict, Planning Director, presented this item: BACKGROUND: For many years, there has been interest in addressing the vulnerability of residents living in manufactured home parks in Orange County. The Orange County Board of Commissioners allocated $1 million in the FY2015-16 budget process to address preservation and retention of manufactured homes parks and/or to assist in the acquisition of property and land banking for future residential development as an affordable housing alternative. During the FY2016-17 budget process, the BOCC allocated another $1 million to the land banking program. Following the establishment of the land banking program and designated funding from Orange County, local housing partners began to discuss and evaluate the opportunities and obstacles in redeveloping an existing manufactured home park or developing new affordable housing addressing the needs of park residents at risk. Orange County Habitat for Humanity invited interested, local individuals to form an informal ad hoc committee that became known as the Mobile Home Park Work Group. At the November 20, 2017 BOCC Meeting, the Mobile Home Park Work Group presented the Mobile Home Park Survey Report and mobile home park recommendations to the Board. These items both identified the need of providing affordable housing options in the Towns and to locating displaced manufactured home park residents close to their existing communities in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Sherrill Hampton, Orange County Housing Director, is leading this effort. More recently, due to the potential redevelopment of existing parks in the Town of Chapel Hill, Orange County has explored the opportunity to locate displaced manufactured home park residents on County owned property near the town. One site identified for a future manufactured home park is the Millhouse Road Park site which is north of Eubanks Road and south of NC 86. Currently, this 78-acre site (comprised of two parcels) is zoned RB (Rural Buffer). In order to accommodate a future manufactured home park on this site, the following options are available: 1. Approval of a subdivision creating individual lots allowing for the placement of structures on each separate parcel of property, OR 2. Rezoning of the property, or portion thereof, to Home Park Conditional Zoning District (HP-CZD) to allow for the development of a home park which would not have separate parcels, but ‘spaces’. Orange County has identified interest in pursuing a rezoning of this property to accommodate a temporary home park for displaced residents. The property is bound by density limitations detailed within the Joint Planning Land Use Plan limiting residential development to one dwelling unit per two acres of property. Orange County will pursue the recombination of the two parcels which make up the 78-acre Millhouse Road Park site. Depending on the number of spaces sought to be created through the rezoning, the overall acreage necessary to achieve this unit count through ‘clustering’ will be determined. For rough estimation purposes, only eight 41 to ten acres of the entire site will be used for the temporary home park. Attachment 1 contains additional information regarding the proposed amendment. FINANCIAL IMPACT: It is expected that a portion of the $2 million the County has allocated for affordable housing purposes will be used to retain a consultant to prepare the conditional zoning district application/plans, create the temporary home park, and assist existing residents with relocation. The precise financial needs are in the process of being determined but staff estimates consultant costs to prepare the rezoning application/plans will be between $25,000 and $40,000. The anticipated consultant contract would adhere to the established process/thresholds (it would be approved by the BOCC if the contract amount exceeds $90,000). Consideration and approval of the rezoning will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid from FY2017-18 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. As this project involves modifying the Zoning Atlas, staff will notify property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject parcels of the Planning Board meeting and Public Hearing where the item is reviewed. Costs for the mailings will be paid from FY 2017-18 Department funds budgeted for this purpose. Signs will also be posted on the parcel(s). Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required to process this amendment. Chair Dorosin said this is in the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA), and asked what would happen if Chapel Hill says no. Craig Benedict said this is in the rural buffer in Orange County’s jurisdiction, and land densities are not being changed, so it stays within the County’s purview. He said Chapel Hill’s thoughts and recommendations will be considered as a partner in the process, but the County has jurisdiction. Commissioner McKee said the Assemblies of Government (AOG) meeting is a week away, and considering that this is on the boundary of Chapel Hill, as well as in the rural buffer, he would think that the denser the units the better, requiring sewer and water, in order to have the highest and best use of the property. He asked if there should be a preliminary discussion at the AOG before moving forward with this vote tonight. Craig Benedict said the water and sewer boundary agreement will be on the AOG agenda. He said this topic may come up. He said this project could be achieved without water and sewer, using innovative systems. Commissioner McKee asked if the possible density of tiny houses per acre, with this system, is known. Craig Benedict said probably 6-8 units per acre. He said the total land could accommodate 38-39 units if clustered down. Commissioner Rich asked if the County needs to talk to the Town of Carrboro and OWASA as well. Craig Benedict said if the County pursues this rezoning, formal notification will be sent to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro before the public hearing. He said OWASA can be a part of the process, but it is not mandated. Commissioner Rich said she is not convinced that water and sewer in needed this area, but she does want to make sure there is public transportation in this area. Commissioner Jacobs said he does not want water and sewer in this area, and favors a community system. He said the County is not interested in changing the character of the rural 42 buffer. He said OW ASA should be included, and he does not want the County to delay at all with this. He said public information sessions should begin. Commissioner Marcoplos agreed with Commissioner Jacobs. He said this does not preclude anything that Mayor Hemminger wanted to do. Commissioner Price agreed that moving forward is the best course of action. She said the abstract mentioned the word temporary, and asked if this will in fact be a permanent site Craig Benedict said the Board of County Commissioners will determine how temporary or permanent it is. He said the conditional zoning is not a temporary zoning district, so it can last as long the Commissioners like. Commissioner asked if the people and the housing would only be there temporarily. Craig Benedict said the BOCC will set parameters on how people move into the park, leases, etc. Commissioner Price said the County should move forward, but it should confront Chapel Hill as this responsibility is shared. Chair Dorosin said perhaps this space could be used for rapid relocation, with displaced peoples. He said there should be a broader strategy on relocation. PUBLIC COMMENT: Delores Bailey, EmPOWERment Inc. Director, said she is attending Chapel Hill’s Town Council meeting tomorrow with residents from the mobile home park that are being displaced; to talk with the Town about where they will go in two years, when the developer buys this property. She said this proposed property that Orange County is considering is the perfect place for these residents. Bonnie Hammersley said staff has been working with Chapel Hill, and Orange County’s housing director will be identifying roles and responsibilities’ going forward with the Town’s housing director. Pam Hemminger, Chapel Hill Mayor, shared the following comments earlier in the evening (7:34 p.m.), and had to leave due to illness: On behalf of the Town of Chapel Hill I am writing with regards to your consideration of possible Zoning Atlas amendments to the Millhouse Road Park Site as a possible solution for Mobile Home Park displacement. (Item 6C on tonight’s agenda). The Chapel Hill Town Council is very passionate about working together with the county to help our mobile home residents remain in affordable housing. We applaud the BOCC for wanting to take immediate steps to help with this situation. With imminent redevelopment pressure threatening to relocate 90 families living in three mobile home parks*, we share your sense of urgency and have been reaching out to these residents to learn more about the challenges. Unfortunately, most of the trailer units in these parks are over four years old and are valued very low (some under $1,000). Most of the units cannot survive being moved even if a new site were found. Furthermore, recent studies have identified other issues associated with mobile home ownership – including the fact that, because mobile home units are depreciating assets and have low energy efficiency – they often leave their owners in worse financial shape than had they rented. These studies also identified the reasons that residents choose to live in mobile homes – including their interest in single-family living and desire to be part of a community. 43 With these things in mind we would like to ask that you take a broader approach to solving this problem that: • Considers multiple locations • Expands the definition to include tiny homes and manufactured housing • Makes our mutual permitting codes more flexible as other communities have done following changes to the IRC Appendix V 2018 Standards; and • Includes the town, as partners, to find a longer-term resolution. As you consider taking action tonight, we would like to request that you form a subcommittee to work together quickly. Additionally, we are concerned that discussions about the rural buffer and water/sewer boundaries will be lengthy and, therefore, ask that you direct the county manager to work with our town staff to find multiple options for solutions. Working together, I am confident that we can arrive at timely solutions that will address the needs of these families and make room for others. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the attached Amendment Outline form and direct staff to proceed accordingly. (Attachment 1) VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Reports a. Report on the Orange County Tax Equity Study The Board received a report on the Orange County Tax Equity Study completed by David Mitchell, CCM Economics, LLC. BACKGROUND: In 1987, the County was engaged in a study of tax equity between the County and each of the municipalities within the County. That study, known as the Wicker Study, examined the different levels of municipal and county taxes that residents of Mebane, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Chapel Hill paid relative to the levels of government provided benefits that they received. Residents of Orange County who did not reside in a municipality were also examined. In 2017, the County contracted with David Mitchell, Ph.D. of CCM Economics to update the previous tax equity report. This report has updated and expanded upon the previous study of tax equity. The CCM report examines the budgets of local and county governments and combines this information with data from other data sources from the federal and state level to determine how much, on a per capita basis, each citizen is paying in taxes. This tax expenditure is then compared to the level of government provided benefits that each citizen is receiving on a per capita basis. A survey of Orange County residents was also employed to understand which government provided goods and services are being utilized and by whom. Dr. Mitchell will explain the methodology employed in his study, the intricacies of measuring tax equity, the results of the resident use survey, tax expenditures per capita, and the services received by residents of the County on a per capita basis based on where each resident lives. 44 David Mitchell made the following PowerPoint presentation: Orange County Tax Equity Study BOCC Meeting January 23, 2018 Hillsborough, NC Outline of Presentation • Information about myself and my firm • Understanding the issue of tax equity • Area of Study—Orange County • Approach to analyzing the issue of tax equity • Results • Questions CCM Economics, LLC • David M. Mitchell, President • Ph.D. in Economics in 2001 • Economic analysis, forecasts, economic impact studies for 17 years • Recent Past Clients: National Park Service; US Census Bureau; State of South Carolina; State of Missouri; Estero, Fl; Gainesville, Fl, Cheraw, SC; University of SC; Understanding Tax Equity • Benefits Principle—pay taxes commensurate with the benefits received • Ability-to-pay principle—higher income household can afford to pay more in taxes, so they should • Consider two households, Poor and Rich, with incomes of $25,000 and $150,000 • Local government provides one good, local education, which costs $7,000 per student per year • Benefits principle—both households pay $7,000 in taxes. Poor household pays 28% of their income and rich household pays 4.6% of their income. Is this fair? Both paying and receiving the same dollar value of output, but paying different percentages for it. • Ability to pay principle—poor household pays 5% of their income ($1,250) and rich household pays 10.2% of their income ($12,750). Is this fair? Poor household is receiving an extra $5,750 of value that they didn’t pay for ($7,000-$1,250) and rich household is losing $5,750 that they paid for but didn’t get ($12,750-$7,000) • Consider the US Income Tax • Top 1% of all income earners earned 20.6% of AGI but paid 39.5% of federal income taxes • Bottom 50% of all income earners earned 11.3% of AGI but paid 2.8% of federal income taxes • The only way to have completely equitable taxes is for every household to earn an identical income and every household to have identical preferences for the consumption of government services Area of Study – Orange County- map Area of Study – Orange County- graph (percent population change 1987-2015) 45 Area of Study – Orange County-graph (per capita income distributions) Approach to analyzing the issue of tax equity • Survey of Citizens • Helps to determine who is using what • Parks, Libraries, recycling, public transit, senior center, wifi/technology, health care • Survey sent out over postal and email, facebook, etc. • Examining taxes paid and government services received by citizens broken down by city and incorporated area • Federalism issues • Public vs. private goods (excludable/non-excludable & rival/nonrival) • Examine city and county budgets, socioeconomic data, tax data, etc. • Snapshot methodology—some tax revenues collected today are shifted to reserve funds to be spent in the future. This makes ‘taxes collected’ look bigger than ‘service provided’ Approach to analyzing the issue of tax equity 2016 Government receipts and spending in billions Approach to analyzing the issue of tax equity (pie chart) (Orange County Revenues and Expenditures) Approach to analyzing the issue of tax equity (pie chart) (Hillsborough Revenues and Expenditures) Approach to analyzing the issue of tax equity (pie chart) (Mebane Revenues and Expenditures) Approach to analyzing the issue of tax equity (pie chart) (Carrboro Revenues and Expenditures) Approach to analyzing the issue of tax equity (pie chart) (Chapel Hill Revenues and Expenditures) Approach to analyzing the issue of tax equity (map) (Property and Income Taxes) Survey results (chart) Survey results (chart) Results (chart) (Monies paid out by citizens per capita) Results (chart) (Services received by citizens per capita) Results 46 • Can we know how much citizens are paying for each individual service relative to what they are getting from each individual service? No, Not really. • For example, citizens of town A are paying $50 for the library and getting $30 worth of services while citizens of town B are paying $10 for the library and getting $15 of services. • In essence, citizens of town A are subsidizing citizens of town B. • Abe buys an airline ticket for $400 and Barb buys an airline ticket for $600. Both are on the same flight. • With one purchase of one good we can say that Barb paid $200 more than Abe. • In essence, Barb is ‘subsidizing’ Abe’s trip. • But consider the following. Abe and Barb don’t buy individual airline tickets, but buy a package that includes airfare, hotel, food, drinks, and activities. • Both Abe and Barb pay $2,000 for the vacation package. Who subsidizes who? • In the first scenario, Abe is ‘subsidizing’ Barb’s hotel while Barb is ‘subsidizing’ Abe’s airfare • In the second scenario, Abe is ‘subsidizing’ Barb’s airfare, while Barb is ‘subsidizing’ Abe’s hotel Results • The same thing applies in Orange County • Ignoring charges and specific taxes, for the most part taxpayers are paying into a general fund, which is spent on many different services. • Different amounts of monies can be spent in different cities for identical services, but you can’t assign individual weights to both the taxes and the expenditures. • You can only determine the summation of the value of all services relative to the total tax since citizens receive one tax bill not a separate tax bill for each service. • If one spends different amounts in different cities for the same service, you are a priori choosing the percentage of tax revenue spent on a service. In essence by picking different amount to spend, you are picking how much citizens pay for that service. • Citizens of town A and B pay a tax bill of $500. Town A spends $30 on the library while town B spends $15 on the library. Results (chart) (Services received by citizens per capita) Results • Notice that the summation numbers are negative. You will also notice that some cities are more ‘negative’ than others. Does this mean that some cities are subsidizing others? Not necessarily. • Recall that services received and taxes paid are occurring in the same year. • All of the city and county governments are moving current tax year receipts into ‘funds’ for future expenditures • One can think of these ‘funds’ as savings accounts—hence the ‘negative’ numbers • Different cities also have different amounts being paid into reserve funds. • Some county level programs are less evenly distributed than others. For example, economic development dollars are more concentrated in the cities than the unincorporated parts of the county 47 • But county cooperative extension dollars are distributed more towards unincorporated areas than the cities. • Other things include payments from Carrboro to Chapel Hill to help fund public transit. • Other programs have slight variations in them depending upon where the service is located. • Also recall that there are other differences such as differences in property taxes due to differences in property valuation. • All of these factors combine to make these small differences in the per capita numbers between the cities. • It does not appear though that there is a concerted effort at the county level to subsidize one part of the county over the other • Finally, recall that these numbers are a ‘snapshot’. If tax dollars are being saved into reserve fund ‘X’ that would mostly benefit town ‘Z’, then today it might appear that town ‘Z’ is paying more and getting fewer services. • But if this study was repeated in a few years from now when the reserved fund dollars are being spent, than it might appear that town ‘Z’ is paying less and getting more services. • Notice that whatever inequity exists at the jurisdiction level is driven largely by inequity in the federal tax system and not the local tax system Questions 8. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda - Item 8-e by Commissioner Marcoplos. This item was discussed earlier in the evening, between agenda items 4 and 5. • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from December 4 and 12, 2017 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for seven taxpayers with a total of seven bills that will result in a reduction of revenue, in accordance with the NCGS. c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for three taxpayers with a total of seven bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board considered nine untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for nine bills for the 2017 tax year. 48 e. Property Tax Refund Request – 107 Boulder Lane, Chapel Hill The Board considered a refund request for the property owned by Ms. Doris Tippens at 107 Boulder Lane, Chapel Hill. f. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Amendment #5 The Board approved budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2017-18 to the Department on Aging; the Health Department; Emergency Services; Library Services; Social Services; Criminal Justice Resource Department. g. Amendments to Sections of the Code of Ordinances – Multiple Issues The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, amending sections of the Code of Ordinances (Code) which are out of date, no longer relevant, or not in compliance with state or federal law. h. Referral of Design Teams for Consideration by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen for the 203 S. Greensboro/Orange County Southern Branch Library Project The Board referred CRA Associates/JSA Architect Joint Venture of Chapel Hill/Carrboro, NC, and Perkins + Will of Durham, NC to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen for a final selection for the architectural and engineering professional services firm for the 203 S. Greensboro/Orange County Southern Branch Library project. i. Construction Bid Award for Passmore Center Expansion The Board awarded a bid to H.M. Kern Corporation of Greensboro, North Carolina in the amount of $494,820 for the construction of the Passmore Center Expansion; authorize the Chair to sign the necessary paperwork upon final review of the County Attorney; and authorize the County Manager to execute change orders for the project up to the project budget. j. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2018 The Board considered one change to the Board of County Commissioners’ regular meeting calendar for 2018 to add an Assembly of Governments Meeting to the meeting calendar for Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 7:00pm at the Whitted Building, 300 West Tryon St., Hillsborough, NC. 9. County Manager’s Report DEFERRED Projected January 26, 2018 Board Retreat Items • FY2018-19 Budget – Five Year Financial Plan, Budget Drivers, Budget Exercise, etc. • Economic Development Districts – SWOT Analysis, etc. Projected January 30, 2018 Assembly of Governments Items • Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) – Discussion Regarding “Essential Public Facilities” for Future Millhouse Road Park • Orange County Food Council • Mobile Home Parks • Report on Joint Planning Agreements • Greene Tract Update • Information Item: Memorandum on Agricultural Support Enterprises in the Rural Buffer 10. County Attorney’s Report DEFERRED 11. *Appointments ALL DEFERRED 49 a. Go Triangle Transit Citizen Advisory Committee – Recommendations The Board will consider making four (4) recommendations for appointment to the Go Triangle Transit Citizen Advisory Committee and to select one (1) liaison from the 7 BOCC members. b. Agricultural Preservation Board – Appointment The Board will consider making an appointment to the Agricultural Preservation Board. c. Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau – Appointment The Board will consider making an appointment to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau. d. Commission for the Environment – Appointment The Board will consider making an appointment to the Commission for the Environment. e. Human Relations Commission – Appointment The Board will consider making an appointment to the Human Relations Commission (HRC). 12. Information Items • December 12, 2017 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector’s Report – Numerical Analysis • Tax Collector’s Report – Measure of Enforced Collections • Tax Assessor's Report – Releases/Refunds under $100 • Memorandum - Update on Expansion of Hillsborough Area Economic Development District (EDD) • Memorandum - SPOT 5.0 Local Input Point Process – TARPO and DCHC MPO • Memorandum - Orange County Commuter Options (OCCO) Program and TDM Coordinator Introduction • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from December 12, 2017 Regular Meeting 13. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to go into closed session at 12:33 a.m. for the purposes below: “To discuss the County’s position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property,” NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(5). “To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body,” NCGS 143-318.11(a)(3) VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to reconvene into regular session at 12:53 a.m. 50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 14. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to adjourn the meeting at 12:53 a.m. Mark Dorosin, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board