HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-12-2006-9cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 12, 2006
Action Agenda.
Item No. q ~ C
SUBJECT: Hillsborough-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan: Phase One
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Draft Minutes -Nov. 20, 2006 QPH
2. 12-01-06 Memo from Roger Waldon re:
"Post-Hearing Revisions to SGP"
3. Notes from Dec. 6, 2006 PB Meeting
4. Revised Town of Hillsborough/Orange
County Strategic Growth Plan - (Under
Separate Cover)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Planning Director
245-2592
PURPOSE:; To consider a decision on Phase One recommendations contained in the jointly
prepared Hillsborough and Orange County Strategic Growth Plan.
BACKGROUND: Phase One includes the `Small Area Plan Report.' Small area plans set the:
• General purpose of the planning study area;
• Examine the present conditions of planning issues such as land use patterns, utility and
roadway infrastructure, etc. and trend future conditions;
• Plan for the future within the sustainability constraints of resources (natural, fiscal, and
public service) which are then programmed for location and intensity;
• Jurisdictional planning review guidelines to promote an efficient and coordinated orderly
pattern of growth - in this case, a cooperative planning agreement between the Town of
Hillsborough and Orange County; and
• Implementation strategy, but not the actual regulatory land use and zoning changes or
interlocal agreements which are the next formal. stage (i.e., Phase Two).
Overall, Phase One is the master concept plan for urban and surrounding rural areas and
associated planning jurisdiction processes..
Growth pressures within the Town of Hillsborough, as well as in adjacent areas of Orange
County jurisdiction where the Town provides water and sewer services, prompted the Town and
County to enter into a joint planning process to develop a `Small Area Plan' (SAP). There are
limitations to water resources, so the efficient and locational allocation of these and other
resources are paramount. A Town of Hillsborough and Orange County Steering Committee
has worked for the past year with the assistance of planning consultants (Clarion) to prepare the
Strategic Growth Plan. The Plan is intended to clarify the most desirable rate, timing, intensity
and location for growth occurring over the next 20 years within and around the Town of
Hillsborough.
An executive summary is on page one of the report..
a
The Plan is divided into two phases and intended for presentation over two quarterly public
hearing cycles. Phase One of the Plan was presented at the November 20, 2006 Quarterly
Public Hearing in Orange County and on November 27 in the Town of Hillsborough. It involves a
"big picture" view and defines five key areas. Areas 3, 4, and 5 are part of a future Phase Two
Cooperative Planning Area Agreement. These areas are noted below with brief comments as to
proposed changes and are identified on the attached map.
Conceptual Areas
1. Town limits: No chances.
2. Town Extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ)
• . Minor changes -Hillsborough to divest itself of some ETJ (i. e., return to Orange
County Planning jurisdiction) to west for additional ETJ to east and south of town.
• County has basic courtesy review in area.
3. Hillsborough Urbanizing
• Part of Cooperative Planning Area.
• New Cooperative Land Use Plan (previously Orange County's10 and 20 Year
Transition Areas and EDD).
• Substantial changes -County to transfer of day-to-day administration of zoning and
subdivision activity to Town; County approval required'for land use plan amendments
and zoning changes.
• County has detailed courtesy review of projects in area.
• Possible area for Transfer of Development Rights.
4. Orange County Urbanizing
• Part of Cooperative Planning Area.
• New Cooperative Land Use Plan (previously Orange County's 10 and 20 Year
Transition and EDD on the outer edge of Hillsborough Urbanizing).
• Moderate changes -County retains day-to-day administration of zoning and
subdivision activity in area, but Town approval required for land use plan
amendments; outer boundary of area will become annexation boundary.
• Town has detailed courtesy review of projects in area.
• Possible area for TDR.
5. Central Orange Rural Buffer
• Part of Cooperative Planning Area: .
• New Cooperative Land Use Plan (primarily areas identified as Orange County
Agricultural Residential and Rural Residential bordering Orange County Urbanizing).
• Contains three sub-areas:
- 5a -outside Orange County Urbanizing and inside Water and Sewer Management,
Planning and Boundary Agreement (WSMPBA) boundaries as Town of
Hillsborough Long Term Interest Area;
- 5b -area southeast of Town outside Orange County Urbanizing and inside
WSMPBA served with Town water, but annexation not proposed; and
- 5c -areas to east and west in Lower Eno and Upper Eno Watersheds,
respectively outside WSMPBA primary service areas.
• Minor changes -County presently responsible for day-to-day administration.
• Town has basic courtesy review in area.
• No annexation possible.
Comments were-received from the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board, and public at the
November 20 Quarterly Public Hearing, especially as it relates to the content of Phase One
versus Phase Two issues. Draft minutes of the hearing are included as Attachment 1. A
response by the consultant, Clarion, is included as Attachment 2.
The Planning Board discussed Phase One of the Strategic Growth Plan at their meeting on
December 6, 2006 and adopted the following (see also meeting notes, Attachment 3):
Motion: Judith Wegner made a motion containing the following steps:
1. Recommend in concept, Phase One;
2. That we specifically go on record that we have not had the opportunity to view the details
to where any lines on the illustrative map might finally be situated nor have citizens in the
areas really had an opportunity to look at that fully so that we want the record to show
that we are not buying into the details of the map at this point to be binding on us or
anybody else in the future;
3. That we understand that In Phase Two there would be extensive outreach to people in
those communities with ample opportunities informally and formally to ask questions and
find out more about densities or other factors, about how this might in fact be
implemented and direct that the Planning staff bring back to us specifics on how this
might be done effectively; and
4. Finally, that the details of the conversation and questions and comments from the Board
be submitted along with this motion to the Board of Commissioners.
Second: Craufurd Goodwin
Vote: UNANIMOUS
If the above Phase One jurisdictional recommendations are approved, then
A Phase Two Implementation Program will be presented at a future quarterly public
hearing, perhaps as early as February 26, 2007. Key features to include:
• Specific land use and density recommendations for areas 3, 4, and 5 (see page 13) -
NOTE: this will include formal and legal public notification;
• Interlocal Agreement between the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County;
• Modified Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement; and
• ETJ amendment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No County financial impact at this time with human resources being from
existing Planning Department staff and consultant services covered by $25,000 in the FY 2005-
06 budget.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends: 1) that Phase One be approved,
and 2) Phase Two implementation Program (to include outreach) be initiated by the existing
consultant for work product review in February 2007.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45~
46
47
48
49
50
51
DRAFT MT.~TtTTES 1
DRAFT
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
November 20, 2006
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the F.
Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Valerie
Foushee, Moses Carey, Jr., and Alice M. Gordon
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Stephen H. Halkiotis
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Rod Visser, and Deputy Clerk to
the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Crauford
Goodwin, Michelle Kempinski, Sam Lasris, Renee Price-Saunders, Judith Wegner, and Jeffrey
Schmitt
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Dobyns, Bernadette Pelissier, Joel
Knight, Sandra Johnson-Quinn, Brian Crawford
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order. He asked Planning Board Chair Jay Bryan to
preside over the public hearing.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Planning. Board Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Director Craig Benedict said that there will be six public hearing items on this
agenda. There are also four informational items.
Craig Benedict introduced Planner Michael Harvey to address the first item.
1. Zoning Atlas Amendment: Request by Brian and Lydia Gilmour to rezone a portion of
their property at 6500 Yarborough Road (TMBL 3.54.2A) from Existing Commercial-V (EC-
5) to Agricultural Residential (AR).
Planner Michael Harvey introduced this item. He said that EC-5 was created at the advent
of comprehensive Countywide zoning in an effort to make existing commercial operations conform
to ordinance requirements. Mr. Gilmour approached staff about the possibility of subdividing his
5
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3S
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
4S
46
47
48
49
SO
Sl
DRAFT MINUTES 2
property, and it was discovered that a portion of the property was zoned EC-5. Mr. Gilmour
expressed concern and shock since there is no commercial operation on the property. Staff did
research and could not determine why a portion of this property was ever zoned EC-5, as there
has never been a commercial operation to begin with. In talking with a neighbor, staff was
informed today that she believes that the previous owner in the early `80's had requested to
operate a gunsmith and gun shop operation on the property. Staff believes that an EC-5 was
designed in order to allow that business to develop, and it was not developed. Staff
recommended that Mr. Gilmour submit a zoning atlas amendment to correct the problem.
Staff is recommending that this property be rezoned to AR.
Chair Jacobs argued that a pasture is not vacant property. He suggested saying that it is
undeveloped instead of vacant because "vacant" is a real estate term.
There was no public comment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
refer the proposed rezoning request to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to
the Board of Commissioners no sooner than February 6, 2007.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Hillsborough and Orange County Strategic Growth Plan Report: A Town of
Hillsborough and Orange County Steering Committee has worked for the past year with
the assistance of planning consultants to prepare the Strategic Growth Plan. The Plan is
intended to clarify the most desirable rate, timing, and location for growth occurring over
the next 20 years within and around the Town of Hillsborough.
Jay Bryan recognized Hillsborough Town Commissioner Mike Gering, who was in
attendance.
Craig Benedict recognized Clarion Associates, who will do a PowerPoint presentation.
Also, Hillsborough Planning Director Margaret Hauth was in attendance. This is a joint project
with the Town of Hillsborough that was partially funded by Orange County and Hillsborough about
a year ago. A steering committee was formed to develop recommendations, which are included.
The Town of Hillsborough will be having a public hearing a week from this meeting starting
at 6:30 p.m. at the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom.
Roger Walden from Clarion Associates gave a PowerPoint presentation.
HILLSBOROUGH=ORANGE COUNTY
STRATEGIC GROWTH PLAN
Building on Past and Current Work
- Orange and Hillsborough Land Use Plans
- 2001 Water-Sewer Boundary Agreement
- Hillsborough Vision 2010
- 2005 Urban Transition Task Force
- Existing Interlocal Agreement
- Churton Street Corridor Study
- TDR Study
Goals of the Plan
- Preserve and Enhance Core Areas
- Preserve Cultural and Natural Resources
- Coordinate Growth with Water/Sewer
- Grow in a Fiscally Responsible Way
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
DRAFT MTL~~I.TTES 3
- Keep Businesses Healthy
- Assure Continuity in Public Services
Maps -Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement, Planning Area,
Regional Context
Water Constraints
- 3 MGD Now, Can Increase to 4.5 MGD
- Current Demand, 1.9 MGD
- Demand Will Reach 3.0 MGD in 2009
- With Expanded Capacity, Can Accommodate Additional Development Equivalent to 1,900
Dwellings and 1.65 Million Square Feet Non-Residential
Transportation Constraints
- Limited Opportunity for New Roads
- Churton Street Over-Capacity
- Destinations are South and East
- Any Additional Residential Development North of Downtown Makes Problem Worse
Map -Developable Land
Alternative Scenarios
- Status Quo
- Planning Emphasis
- Market Realities
- Unconstrained Growth
Public Comment
There were informal opportunities for public comment at Hillsborough Hog Day and a Last Friday
event. The two formal public-hearings are tonight and next week.
Main Conclusions
- Focus Residential Growth to the South
- Pull in Utility Service/Annexation Areas
- Take Advantage of Interstate Access
- Consider Growth Drivers to the South
- Encourage Mixed-Use Development
- Coordinate with Existing SE Rural Buffer
Map -Chapel Hill/Carrboro Rural Buffer
Roger Waldon said that one of the key things to make this happen is to rethink the
interlocal agreements -how Hillsborough and. Orange County are sharing interests in jurisdiction
in these areas.
Craig Benedict took over the presentation at this point. He pointed out a map of the new
annexation boundary (shown in purple). Hillsborough is considering either abandoning or
exchanging some of the extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is in the Eno River Critical Area for new
extraterritorial jurisdiction in various sections within its existing limits. The orange area is a
Hillsborough transition area. He pointed out other parts of the map that would be part of the
interlocal agreement.
DR:.AFT MINUTES 4 ~;
1 Craig Benedict said that this plan is in two phases. The first phase is the master plan on
2 jurisdictional issues. Phase two would be the different planning areas around Hillsborough and
3 what would be the exact use. .
4
5 Summary
6 - ,Stay Within Water Constraints
7 - . Define a Firm Service Area/Annexation Line '
8 - Minimize Residential Growth to the North
9 - Adjust Land Use Plans
10 - Execute Interlocal Agreement
11
12
13 Commissioner Gordon asked if the Planning Board has looked at this and Craig Benedict
14 said yes, that at every meeting of the Planning Board, there are reports on the various advisory
15 boards.
16 Commissioner Carey asked some clarifying .questions about the map with interlocal
17 agreement recommendations and Craig Benedict answered.
18 Judith Wegner asked about the characteristics of the land (could not hear her). Craig
19 Benedict repeated her question: What is the rationale for the urban service line within which
20 occurs the likelihood of public water and sewer and are there characteristics of the central Orange
21 rural buffer that would lead it not to be serviced by public water and sewer? He said that the
22 urban service line is all that could be serviced by existing public water supplies that Hillsborough
23 has at this point. There are a lot.of critical watershed. areas along the western portion -Upper
24 Eno, Seven Mile Creek -and there are a lot of holdings of environmental lands to the south.
25 These areas have less development potential and would be of lower density.
26 Renee Price-Saunders asked about the possibility of increasing the capacity from 3 million
27 gallons a day to 4.5 million gallons a day. Margaret Hauth said that the Town owns additional
28 land around the existing West Fork reservoir, and if the spillway is raised, along with other
29 improvements, the capacity can be increased. This is a capital expense that the Town has
30 planned for.
31 Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about the urbanizing areas and Craig
32 Benedict answered. In general, the areas that will be developed first are the ones closer in to the
33 urban area.
34 Michelle Kempinski asked for clarification on what is coming back to the Planning Board.
35 Craig Benedict said that tonight's item is the booklet with statistics, etc. and boundary lines. What
36 will not be part of the determining factor in the next couple of months is land uses in the area. He
37 said that the areas noted as Hillsborough Urbanizing and Orange County Urbanizing are also
38 potential areas for transfer of development rights (TDR).
39 Several other clarifying questions were asked by the Planning Board members and
40 answered by Craig Benedict.
41 Commissioner Gordon made reference to phase 1 and 2 and said that she did not see
42 anything about phases in the rrraterials. Craig Benedict said that the abstract has a disclaimer
43 that it is packaged less any specific land uses within the area. Phase 1 will be.the boundaries of
44 the different jurisdictions and who has planning authority over each one.
45 Commissioner Gordon verified with Craig Benedict that the approval for this meeting is
46 only conceptual approval of the boundaries. She would like the Planning Board to mull this over
47 in a thorough way.
48
49 Public Comment
50 Chris Borst said that some of these boundary lines need tweaking, especially on the north
51 side.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
DR:.AFT MINUTES
Steve Yuhasz is a land surveyor and attorney in Hillsborough. He asked about the overall
density of development in the undeveloped parts of Hillsborough that will populate this area. He
verified that the plan would be to use water from existing reservoirs. He asked if there would be
any plan to develop additional water supply reservoirs. Craig Benedict said that this plan would
support Hillsborough's interest to stay within its reservoir ideas. Part of the area has to do with
Orange-Alamance Water System and he does not know what it will do in the future.
Margaret Hauth said that the density will be different in different areas. This will be
decided in the second phase.
Commissioner Gordon said that if there is consideration given to going beyond the 4.5
million gallons per day, then this would be putting pressure on the rural buffer.
John Macaulay lives on Queen St. in Hillsborough. He is thrilled with the cooperative
planning between Hillsborough and Orange County. He is concerned about what appears to be a
disconnect between the statement of common goals. He has seen very little information about
goals one and two. The first goal is to preserve and enhance the core area of Hillsborough. He
said that one of the primary detriments to the quality of life in Hillsborough is the high volume of
traffic on Churton Street. He found it interesting that one of the logical reasons for emphasizing
residential growth to the south was the fact that this problem is not going to get solved. He said
that the Town of Hillsborough and the County have the power to solve this problem and it is a
shame that the strategic plan is being run on the inability to solve the problem. He is also
concerned about residential development to the north because I-85 and I-40 are south of
Hillsborough. If there is no residential in the north, industrial development will move up there and
the traffic from there will have to drive through Hillsborough to get to the interstate. He said that
this is a great deficiency in the plan. The second goal is to preserve significant cultural and
natural resources. He said that he not seen a clear statement in the plan of a commitment to
preservation of natural resources. He would like to see this plan aggressively set out natural
resource areas. He said that this plan will sell Hillsborough out to suburbia and it will turn into
Chapel Hill.
Chair Jacobs said that part of the derivation of the interest in working together was halfway
to preserve and the confusion that arose over where and how Hillsborough could serve the 50-
yearcircle that surrounds it. He said that this is a good attempt to try and bring some order and
predictability for the way in which Hillsborough will grow. Some of this, because it is in
Hillsborough's jurisdictions, is not within the County's purview to discuss as part of the public
hearing. He said that some of the items on the maps, such as the Durham Urban Growth Area,
have been on the maps for 20 years, and some things are new, such as Carolina North. He said
that he thinks that the plan is highly successful in preserving cultural and natural areas in ways
that have not been done before. He said that this does mean that there are going to be no more
water supply reservoirs built in Orange County. He said that this has been generally assumed
without being explicitly stated. He said that he cannot see, as long as he is on the Board, that
there will be any more water supply reservoirs.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey that
the proposed Phase One (as defined above) recommendations be referred to the Planning Board
for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board of Commissioners no sooner than
December 12, 2006.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: Text Amendment to Section 6.23 entitled 'Extra
Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts' to align the text with the
Zoning Atlas boundaries for the Upper Eno Watershed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
DRAFT MINUTES 6
Craig Benedict showed some maps. He said that this is being brought forward due to
some ambiguity in the existing zoning text regulations pertaining to watershed overlay.zoning
districts. A question came forward from a properly owner about 6-8 months ago regarding
whether their lands were within a water quality critical area of the Upper Eno Watershed. The
question went to the Board of Adjustment regarding the location of the boundaries. The Board
of Adjustment ruled that, as staff interpreted the boundaries in the text, and as the 1994 maps
depict, the property was in the critical area. The Board of Adjustment asked that further review
of the critical watershed boundaries be forwarded to the Planning Board and the Board of
County Commissioners. The Planning Board saw presentations on this. He explained some
areas of the map. Options 1, 2, and 3 were discussed with the Planning Board. Option 1 is to
leave it the way it is now, which is that the text says something a little different from the zoning
map in 1994, and try to make interpretations or go to the Board of Adjustment on a case-by- .
case basis. Option 2 is to modify the text to explain the new flood pools and leave the zoning
maps (Administration recommendation). Option 3 is to change the text and also change the
zoning map. The Planning Board asked the staff to examine option 3. The recommendation is
somewhere between option 2 and option 3, which is to change the text to as close as possible
to what is known as fact in the short-term, and change the map as needed to address things
such as the Hillsborough Strategic Growth Plan, Efland Small Area study, nature preserve area,
etc. ,
Michelle Kempinski said that in the Board's packet the minutes for the October meeting
were missing. The October meeting included a motion recommending option 3.
Jeff Schmitt said that this whole issue came up because of inconsistencies between the
language and the existing map. He said that if the Planning Board were to adopt what is being
recommended, a developer will still potentially have an inconsistency in the language and map.
Craig Benedict said that changing the text would diminish the inconsistency. Option 3
would entail first class notifications to every property owner that would be affected by this. The
preliminary numbers show that there would be thousands of mailings. The staff thought that the
maps could be addressed on a small area-planning basis.
Judith Wegner said that the Board should note that there is a disagreement between the
staff and Planning Board. She said that many would say that the map is what people will look
at. She thinks that it would be better to deal with the County as a whole as opposed to piece
meal.
Jay Bryan said that one option would be for the Board to refer both options back to the
Planning Board.
Renee Price-Saunders said that the Planning Board was aware that option 3 would
entail thousands of mailings, but it felt that this was the only way to make it right.
Chair Jacobs asked Geof Gledihll, understanding what the Planning Board is
recommending, why the administration is recommending option 2.
Geof Gledhill said that he does not think the administration has made a recommendation
of substance for this yet. His view is that there is an immediate problem that the text and the
map do not match. He said that there needs to be a fix to this problem. He would recommend
writing the text to give way to the 1994 adopted map, because the map created the overlay
watershed protection districts that are in question. This would solve the immediate problem. He
said that the Planning Board is doing what it should be doing by looking in the long-term to
update the map. He does not disagree with this, but he is concerned that the purpose of the
water supply protection regulations is to protect the water supply. Also, this problem exists with
the County's entire protected water supply watershed and it is a fairly substantial undertaking to
notify all of the property owners. He thinks the County should consider doing this eventually,
but it is not an immediate fix that he would urge the Planning Director and County
Commissioners to consider.
~o
DRAFT MT.NUTES 7
1 Public Comment
2 Steve Yuhasz commented on this public hearing process. He said that the text
3 amendments are complicated and it is difficult to prepare comments when the amendments
4 were not available until the Wednesday prior to the public hearing. He said that if this is the only
S opportunity for the public to comment, then that is not enough time. He said that he was
6 involved with the question that arose with the text and the maps for this item. It seems to him
7 that the real problem is which is given precedence -the text or the maps. He said that the text
8 ought to hold rather than the maps regarding overlay districts where the district is well-defined
9 by the text. He said that if the maps are viewed as illustrative rather than controlling, there is
10 not a problem. He made reference to the definitions where it talks about "potential reservoirs"
11 and then talks about "proposed reservoirs" in the same definition. He asked that this be
12 consistent. In contributing watersheds, he pointed out that, included in this is a redefinition of
13 . the critical area for both Cane Creek and University Lakes. This definition is "one-half mile from
14 the normal pool elevation or the contributing watershed divide, whichever is greater." He said
1S that it is possible, with this definition, for a piece of property to be both in the Cane Creek Critical
16 Area and in the Back Creek Protected Watershed. He does not think that this is intended. He
17 urged the County Commissioners to look at the text rather than the maps because the text is
18 specific.
19
20 Geof Gledhill made reference to Mr. Yuhasz's comments about Cane Creek and said
21 that the only thing in front of the Board tonight is the Upper Eno.
22 Chair Jacobs encouraged Mr. Yuhasz to submit any additional comments in writing for
23 the Planning Board to be able to consider as part of the record.
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
2S refer this to the Planning Board to return a recommendation to the Board of County
26 Commissioners no sooner than February 6, 2007. No option was specified.
27 VOTE:. UNANIMOUS
28
29 Discussion ensued on the Planning Board's recommendations. Chair Jacobs assured
30 the Planning Board that the Board takes the recommendations under advisement and reads the
31 minutes, etc.
32 Geof Gledhill said that his recommendations were in no way stiff-arming the Planning
33 Board, but only a measured response to a measured problem.
34 Commissioner Gordon made reference to the abstracts and said that it would be helpful
3S to distinguish between what is being considered and what is not (i.e., Eno or Cane Creek).
36 Also, she agrees that the text should be available when the ad goes out.
37
38
39 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: Staff initiated amendments to Sections 6.23.7
40 through 6.24.3 -Stream Buffers - to include new regulations establishing formal stream
41 buffer replacement standards and creation of new regulations allowing for minimal
42 disturbance within an identified stream buffer for specific types of development.
43
44 Michael Harvey made this presentation. He said that this is a modification of existing
4S .standards on the ordinance governing the protection of stream buffers. He read the definition of
46 stream buffers. The County has had these regulations since 1982 and there have been several
47 amendments. Most notably, in 1994, stream buffers were extended to cover the majority of the
48 County. In the ordinance, there are references to standards that govern the reestablishment
49 and the replanting of a buffer that has been illegally or accidentally disturbed. The staff, over
SO the last several months, has identified several concerns within the existing ordinance. There is
Sl a lack of a uniform comprehensive and centralized planting standard within the ordinance that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
DRAFT MINUTES 8
people are held to who have disturbed the stream buffer or for property that may have been in a
forestry program or part of a bona fide farm that is seeking to develop into another use where
stream buffers would be required. The present standards would require the planting of 436-681
trees per acre. Staff's concern is that this does not establish a viable or pertinent buffer within
the required time to guarantee water quality. The second problem is that there is a lack of
appropriate mitigation standards. Another problem is that there is no flexibility within the
ordinance allowing for minor encroachment into the required stream buffer for non-invasive,
passive uses of the property. Finally, staff is concerned that there is no effective way to work
with a property owner to address changes in location and size of stream buffers resulting in a
change.
Staff is proposing that a comprehensive replanting standard be established in cases
where the stream buffer has been disturbed. The proposal is that the standard be ten trees for
every 1,000 square feet of disturbance and also that a property owner could install bushes on a
ratio with the required trees in order to reestablish the buffer. Staff is also recommending that
formal mitigation standards be established to regulate development of the stream buffer.
Finally, the staff is recommending expanding on the types of uses allowed within a regulated
stream buffer to include such uses as: archaeological activities, drainage ditches, water
dependant accessory structures (i.e. decks, piers, etc.), accessory structures intended to allow
property owners to enjoy scenic views of a water feature (i.e. gazebos), trails and walkways,
and other similar uses/activities consistent with current DWQ regulations.
Planning staff submitted this proposed ordinance change to several internal departments
and external agencies (Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough; OWASA; Commission
for the Environment). There has been some feedback from Erosion Control, Division of Water
Quality, Environmental Health, and other County departments requesting clarification of
revisions. The recommendation is for this to be forwarded to the Planning Board for
consideration and also that the Planning Board solicit input from Commission for the
Environment.
Commissioner Gordon said that she was present at the Commission for the Environment
meeting and there were several comments about wanting to provide input.
Chair Jacobs made reference to page 9 and the Table of Allowable and Allowable with
Mitigation Uses/Activities, and he read, "Functionally dependent structures that are water
dependent such as docks, piers, public and private boat ramps, boat houses over the water,
walkway." He asked if boat ramps and boathouses are allowed with mitigation and it was
answered yes. He said that he does not understand the statement on page 6, item b, "No
matter the classification of the proposed activity, all uses/activities shall observe a 25-foot
setback from the top of the banks of the stream of water feature. This setback area shall remain
in a natural, vegetative state." He asked how a dock could be set back 25 feet.
Michael Harvey said that the intention is that water dependent structures would not have
to meet the setback requirement. He said that the staff could provide an exemption on the
activities and Chair Jacobs agreed.
Chair Jacobs asked why there would not be a differentiation of mitigation based on
illegal activity between mitigation on someone that has to do an activity that disturbs the stream
buffer. Michael Harvey said that there would still be disturbance of the stream buffer and the
interest is• to reestablish it in the quickest time possible.
Geof Gledhill said that the legal answer is that there can be a differentiation.
Chair Jacobs encouraged discussion with Forestry.
Chair Jacobs made reference to page 12, "Temporary roads intended to allow access to
a property for development purposes." He asked who permits a temporary road and who
makes sure that when the development is completed that the road no longer exists. Michael
Harvey said that this was added because of a recommendation from the Division of Water
~a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
DRAFT MINUTES 9
Quality. It would be permitted through the County's zoning permit process if it was a
subdivision. The County would make sure that the road would no longer exist.
Chair Jacobs made reference to page 20 where it says, "Proposal expands on the
number of uses allowed within a stream buffer to be consistent with DWQ requirements." He
said that this makes it sound like the number of uses is being liberalized because that's what
DWQ allows. Michael Harvey said that this is saying that DWQ allows for certain uses that the
County sees are reasonable. Chair Jacobs said that sometimes DWQ's requirements seem to
be watered down to fit the development community's interest. Michael Harvey assured Chair
Jacobs that this is not the intention.
Chair Jacobs suggested that the language include "low impact" as opposed to a passive
building.
Commissioner Gordon said that she would hope that the Planning Board would look very
carefully at all of these uses that are being allowed. She said that some of the uses are pretty
intrusive. Michael Harvey said that one of the reasons for all of the uses is to see what the
County Commissioners see as acceptable.
Jay Bryan asked if there was a hurry with this and Michael Harvey said no, but the
existing standards are lax. There is no immediate need, but the problem needs to be fixed.
Public Comment
Lynette Hartsell said that she owns property at Lake Orange and Cane Creek. She said
that she thinks this is a very poor plan. She said that she has been listening to the comments
tonight that the property owners are committing illegal acts on property that they somehow think
they own. She said that it is because she paid money for the property and she has a deed that
says she owns it. She understands that there has to be a relationship with the Planning Board,
County Commissioners; and people who are moving in that want water. She said that she
wants clean water just as much as everyone else. She said that none of them are criminals, but
they are property owners and taxpayers. She said that this is a stealth conservation easement
and the common person cannot read it and understand how to get a mitigation plan through.
She said that the plan is vague and gives staff power that the County Commissioners should not
give. She said that, in the end of the document, it says that the agreement must be recorded as
an easement deed. and continues in perpetuity as an easement. She said that there is
something wrong with her giving the County her land, if it lets her use the land. She
understands the need for erosion control, but she is perplexed at the need for erosion police.
She said that if the 25-foot buffer is allowed to go untended, there will be an enormous vermin
control problem. She said that this plan should be pitched and the Planning Board should start
over and work with the landowners in a more symbiotic relationship and create something
synergistic rather than something antagonistic.
Pete'Wehr lives on Lake Orange. He asked if this affects Lake Orange and it was
answered that it affects all of Orange County. He said that the landowners there should be
consulted because they are great stewards of the lake. He said that he resents someone telling
him how the landowners can better keep the lake clean. He feels insulted by the ordinance. He
said that the landowners there should be exempt from the ordinance, and if not, then the County
should buy the buffer and lower their taxes.
John Macaulay lives on Queen Street. He suggested that the remediation include native
plants.
Commissioner Gordon said that she appreciates the public comments. She said that
this would be a good time to try and work with the landowners and get feedback on this.
Commissioner Carey agreed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey that
the Stream Buffer Text Amendments be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to
be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than February 6, 2007.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
DI~:AFT MINUTES
10
Commissioner Gordon encouraged the Planning Board to incorporate landowner
comments.
Tom Eakes asked to make a comment. He lives on Lake Orange. He said that the
people on Lake Orange, as well as the people on the other lakes and streams around town,
would like to know how. staff will police this and what kind of actions.will be taken.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Jacobs pointed-out that there have been two meetings of the Eno River
Confluence -and there was an effort to bring together people that had interest in the Upper
Eno, and there was never representation from Lake Orange residents. There will be another
one in April. He encouraged the residents to leave information with the Clerk so that they can
be invited.
5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments: Planning Board and staff initiated
amendments to Section IV-B, Conservation-Cluster Option, to modify the perimeter buffer
standards to distinguish and develop comparable dimensions between urban versus rural
design subdivisions.
Planning Supervisor Robert Davis introduced this item. Orange County has three flexible
development options -Estate Lot, Conservation Cluster, and Village. This amendment will only
affect the conservation cluster option and only the buffer standard and the types of ownership of
the buffers. There were modifications in 1999 that placed a 100-foot perimeter building setback
buffer on this development option. The original intent of the 100-foot setback was to lessen the
impact of higher density clusters of housing on the surrounding, lower density.dwellings. The
setback has presented challenges in smaller acreage subdivision and also irregularly shaped
tracts. There was a situation in Ashwick where an accessory structure could not be built because
of the setback. The proposal is to go from the 100-foot setback to a 60-foot setback owned by the
homeowner's association. The 100-foot setback requirement will remain in rural areas along
roadways. The staff would like to get this back to the Planning Board to set up an Ordinance
Review Committee to review this more thoroughly.
Chair Jacobs said that his initial impression is that in the urbanizing areas, it seems to
make more sense. He suggested putting the map in the abstract and giving the County
Commissioners more information on the buffer requirements.
Chair Jacobs questioned the faith that the Homeowner's Association will solve a problem.
He said that part of this is based on the assumption that if the Homeowner's Association
controlled the buffer; that it would be less likely to be disturbed. Based on his experience, it is just
as likely to be the other way around.
Robert Davis said that his experience is that people do less encroachment from a
structural standpoint when the homeowner's association owns it.
Jay Bryan said that he does not recall anything else asking for anything other than just
looking at how to prevent the immediate issue in Ashwick. He does not remember it being
expanded to a larger policy issue.
Robert Davis said that he recalls that the motion was to consider ways for this not to
happen again.
Public Comment
Steve Yuhasz said that he is not opposed to these buffers, but he thinks that this is
indicative of the need to review the entire flexible development process. He said that the proposal
of 60 feet would not qualify for any credit as open space to meet the requirements. He thinks that
the proposal can work, but it needs to be part of a larger evaluation of the buffer requirements.
I~-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
DRAFT MTN-CTTES 11
He said that he is working with a subdivision now where he will have to provide less open space
than he would want to in order to meet the requirement that the lots touch on open space. He
said that the subdivision regulations have been written without any input from the practitioners,
and this is bad practice.
Mark O'Neal lives near Pleasant Green Road and works with Pickett-Sprouse Real Estate.
He has a lot of experience with well and septic tank development. He echoed Steve Yuhasz's
comments. He said that with wells and septic tanks, a lot more flexibility is needed. He said that
he is very much against the requirement of the common ownership. He agreed with Chair Jacobs
that this is not always the best solution. He also does not approve of discriminating against rural
landowners and does not see why the buffers should be required in every case.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer
the proposed text amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the
Board of County Commissioners no sooner than February 6, 2007.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Jacobs pointed out that the Ordinance Review Committee is a great place to bring in
people and have a conversation about an ordinance before it gets approved.
6. Cultural and Archaeological Survey Required for Special Use Permits: To add
provisions to Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the requirement of a
Cultural and Archaeological Survey as a submittal requirement of a Special Use Permit.
Robert Davis said that the actual Cultural and Archaeological Survey Ordinance is not up
for the public hearing, but the placeholder to be advertised to make the survey preliminary work a
submittal requirement before an applicant comes forward with a special use permit or a planned
development rezoning. He made reference to the memo in the packet from the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources about why the areas are to remain secret and private.
Administration recommends that the proposed ordinance text, which is the portion that maintains
a placeholder in the zoning ordinance that requires that there be a letter from ERCD indicating
that there are no sites of any significant findings on a particular site, and the development
application can be filed.
Chair Jacobs made reference to the two samples at the County Commissioners' seats,
which are two cultural and archaeological surveys done for the County -Fairview Park and Twin
Creeks. He thinks the secrecy question is way overdone. He said that one issue is whether the
surveys are necessary and another is whether it is onerous. Also, he thinks that it should include
a more in-depth environmental survey. He suggested having the Planning Board review it more
thoroughly because of all of the additional information.
In answer to a question from Judith Wegner, Craig Benedict said that the County has tried
to set standards for smart growth and investigation of these types of resources on properties that
it owns. With private property, there are not the same standards, but there could be some
resources.
Geof Gledhill said that he has a number of concerns with the way this is put together, and
he will address them in a letter.
Jeff Schmidt asked to have the Historical Preservation Commission involved.
Public Comment
Torn Magnuson said that the County should consult experts when putting this together.
He said that there are plenty of archaeologists in the area. He said archaeology is information
and not just items for display. He said that archaeological theory says to leave it in the ground as
long as possible because technology changes continuously and more information would be
extracted in the future than now. He recommended finding good experts to help with this because
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT MINUTES
12
there are national and state standards for saying whether something is important enough. He
said that there should be County standards.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee that
the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned to the BOCC either along with or after the adoption of a Cultural
and Archaeological Survey Ordinance; that the draft Cultural and Archaeological Survery
Ordinance be referred to ERCD staff and to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and
comment; and that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed
Cultural and Archaeological Survey Ordinance after ERCD and the Historic Preservation
Commission have made comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Items below were not covered.
D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group Update: The Focus
Group has been identifying implementation measures to be pursued for each of the plan
recommendations. Depending on the order of implementation, it is possible that some
regulations could. be presented at the February 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing.
2. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance: The NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Land Quality Section has completed a technical audit of the
County's Erosion Control program and suggested 15 amendments. A strategy and
timeline for addressing the proposed amendments will be presented.
3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: In support of the Churton Street Revitalization
Project, Staff suggests general amendments to Article 9 (Signs) and Article 12
(Landscaping and Buffer Requirements) and a timeline for completion.
4. Traffic Impact Requirements: Text amendments to Zoning Ordinance (Article 13) and
Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-B-3-e) to lower the threshold at which a traffic
impact study is required (currently 80 lots or 800 trips per day) and possible
transportation improvement standards. Possible presentation at February 2007
Quarterly Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
adjourn the meeting at 10:53 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Donna S. Baker
Clerk to the Board
l~
i~
Clarion Associates
1526 East Franklin. Street, Suite 102
Chapel I~11, NC 27514
919.967:9188 phone
919.967.9077 fax
Memorandum
To: Margaret Hauth, Hillsborough Planning Director
Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director
From: Roger Waldon
Date: December 1, 2006
Re: Post-Hearing Revisions to Strategic Growth Plan
This memorandum responds to questions, comments, and discussion at two recent Public Hearings on the
November draft of aHillsborough-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan. We offer comments and suggested
revisions in response. The hearings were held on November 20, 2006 (Orange County Board of
Commissioners) and November 27, 2006 (Hillsborough Town Board).
The draft Strategic Growth Plan recommends revision of jurisdictional boundaries and designations in the areas
surrounding the Town of Hillsborough, and preparation of an Interlocal Agreement to implement the
'recommendations. Work on the Plan is jointly sponsored by the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County.
Summary of Comments
Citizens attended and spoke at both Public Hearings. Following is a summary of key comments:
• Support for the concept of designating a firm annexation boundary for Hillsborough, surrounded by a
low-density Rural Buffer.
• Support for the boundaries suggested to delineate growth areas from low-density Rural Buffer areas.
• Support for cooperative action between Hillsborough and Orange County.
• Concern about land use designations contained in the draft Plan, suggesting uses and densities for
individual parcels of land.
• Concem that the proposed boundaries are not restrictive enough.
• Cc~ncem that the proposed boundaries are too restrictive.
• Concem about potential negative impacts of building Elizabeth Brady Extension.
• Concern that Elizabeth Brady Extension is needed but might not get built.
• Request that some area shown as Joint Interest on the map, to the south of Town limits, be designated
as Extraterritorial Jurisdiction instead.
This memorandum offers comments and revisions in response to these concerns and discussions.
Recommended changes are described below, and in key areas replacement pages for the Plan are attached.
~~
~J
Phasing of the Plan
The key issue that resulted in consensus direction at both public hearings is that the designation of specific land
uses for individual parcels within the Plan area needs more study and discussion. It was suggested that this
initiative be split into two phases. Phase 1 will be establishing boundaries (annexation boundary, Rural Buffer,
areas of joint concem), with general land use principles (e.g., mixed use in the areas south and southeast of
Hillsborough), and the construction of a ftamework for Interlocal Agreements. With adoption of the Strategic
Growth Plan by both Hillsborough and Orange County, there would. be clear policy guidance on these
boundaries and the means to implement them.
Phase II would move to implementation of the Plan, and preparation ofparcel-specific Land Use designations.
Included in Phase II would be work to prepare and adopt a Land Use Plan for Hillsborough (a Town
responsibility), and a Land Use Plan for the transition areas outside Hillsborough (a Joint responsibility). This
Phase II work would include negotiation and execution of an Interlocal Agreement as suggested in the Plan,
specifying jurisdiction and procedures for land use planning, zoning, and development review. Phase II work
would also include examination of priorities for transportation improvements within the Plan area (e.g., Elizabeth
Brady Extension, Western Bypass}, and identifying key implementation strategies:
Several adjustments to the Plan document are necessary in order to clarify this Phase I -Phase II approach.
Additional language is needed in the Executive Summary (page 1) to explain the phasing concept. And the
Implementation section beginning on page 19 needs adjustment. In particular, the Proposed Land Use Plan on.
page 12 needs to be removed, and replaced with a map that shows the jurisdictional changes that will take
place (e.g., swap of ETJ areas so that Hillsborough will have jurisdiction over areas most imminently to be
developed and annexed.)
Accordingly, new replacement pages are attached fo this memorandum as follows:
• Revised Executive Summary (page 1); and
• Changed Land Use section to eliminate Land Use Map, replaced with jurisdictional map, along with
narrative describing a phased approach to developing specific Land Use designations (pages 11-14);
and
• Adjustment to Implementation section (pages 19 to 22 and 24} to reflect this approach.
Adoption of this Strategic Growth Plan with these adjustments will result in a clear set of policies regarding the
limits and future locations of Hillsborough growth, annexation, and utility extension, and regarding establishment
of a rural buffer outside this boundary. Adoption will establish a policy that an Interlocal Agreement be executed
that results in shared jurisdiction of key transition areas. This adopted Plan will set the foundation for this
Interlocal Agreement by indicating the locations and nature of areas for which jurisdiction is to be shared.
Land Use Plan
As indicated above, this Phase I of the Strategic Growth Plan does not recommend specific land uses (type and
intensity of use) for specific parcels of land; but Phase I does identify the areas for which growth will be
targeted, and into which public services are intended to be extended. Further, this Phase I document includes,
as a starting point and foundation, a list of the categories of land use that are to be considered for these targeted
growth areas. Those categories of land use are to be included on page 13 of the Plan, attached here as a
replacement page.
i7
(a
It is expected that, once this Phase I document is extended, Hillsborough will undertake preparation of a parcel-
specific Land Use Plan for areas shown as gray on page 23 of this document (existing Town limits and newly
adjusted Extraterritorial Area). Hillsborough and Orange County will jointly prepare aparcel-speck Land Use
Plan for the area shown in orange and blue on this same map, areas of joint interest. The policies contained in
this Phase I document will seine as a starting point and foundation for designation of parcel-specific land use.
Water Consumption
It was pointed out at the November 27 Public Hearing that a recent report presented to the Hillsborough Town
Board contained information about present water consumption that is different from the information contained in
the Strategic Growth Plan document. The Strategic Growth Plan describes a current peak daily consumption
rate for Hillsborough of 1.9 million gallons per day. The recent report (dated November 17, 2006) describes a
current average daily use of 1.195 million gallons per day.
The main reason for difference between these numbers is the difference between average use and peak daily
use. Peak daily use is higher than average use. Both numbers are important for planning purposes. The peak
number is the one to use in calculating needs for additional facility capacity. The November 17 report describes
current peak use as 1.77 million gallons per day, a more current figure than (but close to) the 1.9 figure referred
to in the Strategic Growth Plan report. Accordingly, we have adjusted the text of the Plan to use this most
current 1.77 figure. The slight difference between the 1.77 and 1.9 fgures does not alter the Plan's policy
conclusions nor recommendations.
Process for Approvals
The recommended process for review and approval of development applications is described in the
Implementation section of the Strategic Growth Plan report (pages 19-22) and also in the Summary (page 14).
It was pointed out that, in several paragraphs of those pages, approval authority was described in different
ways.
We have corrected the text of those pages of the report to achieve consistency in the language. The key
concepts are as follows, with reference to the map on page 23 of the Plan:
Gray areas: Unilateral Town jurisdiction over zoning and approvals (existing Town limits and ETJ).
Orange areas: Joint interest. Legal authority for zoning will remain with the County. Fi~llowing joint
adoption of a land use plan for those areas, the County will (through the Interlocal Agreement) .
delegate authority for administratioh of zoning to the Town. Accordingly, for review and processing
of development applications in these areas, the process will be the same as if the area were in the
Town's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. For proposed rezonings in these areas, joint approval by both
the Town and the County would be required.
Blue areas: Joint interest. Legal authority for zoning will remain with the County. Following joint
adoption of a land use plan for those areas, the~County will (through the Interlocal Agreement)
agree to joint review of development and rezoning applications. Approval of such applications
would remain a County function:
Yellow areas: Rural Buffer. Unilateral County jurisdiction of zoning and approvals, with information
exchange procedures established with the Town through the Interlocal Agreement.
The final adopted Plan will consistently reflect this approach, and an executed Interlocal Agreement will be the
instrument that formally and legally puts the approval process in place.
ao
{} /3
Requested Change of Designation for Specific Properties
One request was made, at the November 27 Hearing, for a change to the map on page 23 of the Strategic.
Growth Plan. An area currently shown in orange (meaning joint interest with development approval authority
delegated to the Town but rezoning authority remaining with the County) was requested to be changed to
Hillsborough ETJ (gray). The area in question is shown below.
An argument in favor of the request is that the area in question would be surrounded almost completely by ETJ
area, and that it has characteristics most similar to that adjacent ETJ-designated area. An argument against is
that this Plan has attempted to keep the area of Hillsbarough ETJ approximately equivalent to present-day
levels, by giving up ETJ in areas where it is not appropriate and extending ETJ in areas most ready for
development and potential annexation; adding this area as additional ETJ would shift that balance slightly.
This is apolicy-decision and arguments both in favor of adjustment and leaving as-is have merit. It is critical
that both the County and the Town refer to identical maps as each acts to approve the Strategic Growth Plan,
and any changes to the recommended map should be approved by both bodies.
Summary
The attached replacement pages, along with revisions to the text of the Strategic Growth Plan, as described in
this memorandum, respond to comments and discussions at the November 20 and November 27 Public
Hearings. If the Hillsborough Town Board and the Orange County Board of Commissioners agree with the
adjustments outlined in this memorandum, it would be appropriate for the action of these two bodies to be
adoption of the November draft of the Strategic Growth Plan, as presented at the November 20 and 27 Public
Hearings, modified as described in this memorandum.
Attachment
Suggested Replacement Pages for pages 1, 11-14, 19-22, and 24 of the November Strategic Growth Plan draft
a~
®RANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting -December. 6, 2006
Summary of Discussion and Action
Prepared by: Gene Bell, AICP, Planning Systems Coordinator
Members Present: Jay Bryan, Chair, Brian Crawford, Brian Dobyns, Craufurd
Goodwin, Joel Knight Forrest, Sam Lasris, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee A. Price-
Saunders, Sandra Johnson Quinn, Jeffrey L. Schmitt, and Judith Wegner.
Members Absent or Excused: Michelle Kempinski
.Agenda Item #9b. Hillsborough-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan: Phase One
Presented at November 20, 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing -DRAFT minutes attached.
Summary: Planning Director Craig Benedict clearly discussed the aspects of a Phase
One report and recommendation as requested by BOCC at the November 20, 2006
Quarterly Public Hearing. Phase One includes the `Small Area Plan Report.' Small area
plans set the:
• .General purpose of the planning study area;
• Examine the present conditions of planning issues such as land use patterns,
utility and roadway infrastructure, etc. and trend future conditions;
• Planning for the future within the sustainability constraints of resources (natural,
fiscal, and public service) are then programmed for location and intensity;
• Jurisdictional planning review guidelines to promote an efficient and coordinated
orderly pattern of growth - in this case, a cooperative planning agreement
between the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County; and
• Implementation strategy, but not the actual regulatory land use and zoning
changes or interlocal agreements that are the next formal stage (i.e., Phase
Two).
In addition, he referred to the attached letter to the agenda from the consultant, Clarion,
that addressed specifically in the text which clarifications have been made.
He reiterated that the report is a product of the approved Town of Hillsborough/Orange
County Urban Area Transition Task Force (2004-2005) and the consultant driven Town
of Hillsborough70range County Strategic Growth Plan (2005-2006) steering committee,
both of which included citizen and elected official appointments as well as community
outreach.
Phase One of the Small Area Plan was differentiated from Phase Two by virtue of future
formal land use and zoning actions and interlocal agreements where additional public
outreach is conducted.
A lengthy (one-hour) discussion by the Planning Board ensued.
as
Questions (Q) and comments (C) by Planning Board with answers (A) where
applicable:
Q: Size of proposed Central Orange Rural Buffer in relation to size of Joint Planning
Area Rural Buffer?
A: Map shown.
Q: Clarification on areas 3 and 4, would they be annexed into Hillsborough and not be
ETJ? -
A: On a case-by-case basis, but possible.
Q: Day-to-day activity in these areas -covered by a joint planning type agreement?
A: Yes.
Q: Who eventually pays for extending services to these areas? The Town and Orange
County or will it fall on the people there?
A: Multiple cases.
Q: Who currently has jurisdiction in areas 3,4, -and 5?
A: Orange County.
Q: What is implication for people in area 5a who thought they were in a water-sewer
service area?
A: Town of Hillsborough has on a case-by-case basis told property owners that it was
unrealistic.
Q: Concerning areas 3 and 4, how do you decide what goes to whom (apparently Town
or County)?
A: Infrastructure analysis and near term growth potential.
Q: Portion related to Hillsborough boundaries looks well planned; stunned by Rural
Buffer proposal, didn't realize this was part of it! Moving forward quickly, too far west to
be a Rural Buffer for Hillsborough. What about areas north of proposed Rural Buffer?
Will they be more dense or less dense? Recall maps from years ago of decreasing
density away from town. Question the speed at which this is being done, can't support
at this time.
A: Central Orange Rural Buffer protects both from urban expansion and from rural
growth at sprawl levels.
Q: Any more room for public comment? Not sure county residents had much say or
knew about.
A: Phase One is study findings and Phase Two includes additional implementation
hearings.
C: Lives in area 3 and to her knowledge no one there invited to meetings.
2
~3
C: We can say we've met, requirements, but if people don't know about will come back
to "bite" us.
C: Thinks Rural Buffer is an illusion... Hillsborough will annex choice areas.
C: There were outreach methods at various meetings, newspaper, Hog Day, Last
Friday open meeting before hearing...not sure what else can be done.
C: I hear concerns about process and outreach. There is a belief that some of this has
gone forward without people in these areas being aware of.
C: E-mail comments from Noah Ranells (attached) read into the record.
C: Seems that area southeast of the study area of Efland-Mebane. Small Area Plan
currently water quality critical area is being replaced by Rural Buffer.
Motion: Judith Wegner made a motion containing the following steps:
1. Recommend in concept, Phase One;
2. That we specifically go on record that we have not had the opportunity to view
the details to where any lines on the illustrative map might finally be situated nor
have citizens in the areas really had an opportunity to look at that fully so that we
want the record to show that we are not buying into the details of the map at this
point to be binding on us or anybody else in the future;
3. That we understand that In Phase Two there would be extensive outreach to
people in those communities with ample opportunities informally and formally to
ask questions and find out more about densities or other factors, about how this
might in fact be implemented and direct that the Planning staff bring back to us
specifics on how this might be done effectively; and
4. Finally, that the details of the conversation and questions and comments from the
Board be submitted along with this motion to-the Board of Commissioners.
Second: Craufurd Goodwin
VOte: UNANIMOUS
3
Page 1 of 2
a~-
Greg Wilder
To...
Cc...
Bcc...
Subject: FW: Hillsborough -Efland Buffer
Attachments:
From: ficklecreek [mailto:ficklecreek@mebtel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:22 AM
To: Craig Benedict; Jay Bryan
Cc: Debra Graham
Subject: Hillsborough -Efland Buffer
This note is to provide public comment and input to the Hillsborough (- Efland) Buffer discussion at the 6 Dec
2006 Planning Board meeting.
Greetings,
I write this note from the perspective of a resident of Bingham township and the thoughts herein represent my
personal comments on the Hillsborough (- Efland) buffer.
At a recent Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Group meeting, the proposed Hillsborough Buffer
was discussed. I was unable to attend the first part of the meeting, but inquired before the close of the meeting
about this issue. 1 became aware that this was discussed but the group did not provide any formal comment on
this issue. I was also informed that i could make comments to the Planning Board and the BOCC at their
upcoming meetings that will address this topic. My comments are below.
1. It appears that this is in actuality aHillsborough-Efland Buffer and additional consideration to the
deliberations of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan may be appropriate
2. The western boundary of the proposed buffer seems arbitrarily drawn at the i-85-70 connector. This 4-lane
road offers great opportunity to the county as a potential mixed use development that could attract commercial
development and contribute to county revenue. Without the ability to determine the "developable area" in the
parcel(s) immediately east of the connector after consideration is given to current county ordinances related to
open space and buffers, a decision regarding this border of the buffer does not appear to be in the best
interests of the county.
3. Without additional information, 1 am concerned about the buffer boundary south of i85.
Sincerely,
Noah Ranells
4122 Buckhorn Rd
Efland, NC 27243
Fickle Creek Farm
Efland NC
919-30-GOATS (304-6287)
Selling eggs, meats, chicken, & vegetables at Farmer's Markets in Chapel Hill (EarthFare), Durham, &
Hillsborough
hops:// 10.253.0.7/exchange/gwilder/Drafts/FW: %20Hillsborough%20-%20Efland%20Buf... 12/7/2006