HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 0702141
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING
131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004)
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
3-4
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for July and August
3. 5-8
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 4, 2014 Regular Meeting
4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
5. PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
Public Charge
The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board asks
its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board
and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of the Board or any resident fail
to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting
until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair
will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is
observed.
6. CHAIR COMMENTS
1
2
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
7. 9-130 PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN: To review and comment upon
Orange County’s draft Parks & Recreation Master Plan. At the June 3,
2014 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the BOCC referred the
draft plan to several advisory boards for review and comment.
Comments are due no later than August 31, 2014.
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator and
Department of Environment, Agriculture, and Parks & Recreation
(DEAPR) staff
8.
COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment
9. ADJOURNMENT
IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE MAIL FOR
PERDITA HOLTZ (919-245-2578).
2
*Planning Board Member Attendance Required
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
July 2014
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
August 2014July 2014
Ju
n
2
9
-
J
u
l
5
Jun 29 30 Jul 1 2 3 4 5
6:30pm
ORC
7:00pm
*PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(West
Campus
Office Bldg )
HOLIDAY
Ju
l
6
-
1
2
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ju
l
1
3
-
1
9
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
7:30pm Board
of
Adjustment
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
Ju
l
2
0
-
2
6
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Ju
l
2
7
-
A
u
g
2
27 28 29 30 31 Aug 1 2
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
3
*Planning Board Member Attendance Required
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
August 2014
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
September 2014August 2014
Ju
l
2
7
-
A
u
g
2
Jul 27 28 29 30 31 Aug 1 2
Au
g
3
-
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7:00pm
*PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(West
Campus
Office Bldg )
Au
g
1
0
-
1
6
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
7:30pm Board
of
Adjustment
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
Au
g
1
7
-
2
3
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
7:00pm
OUTBoard
Meeting
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
Au
g
2
4
-
3
0
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Au
g
3
1
-
S
e
p
6
31 Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
4
D R A F T
1
MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JUNE 4, 2014 3
REGULAR MEETING 4 5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill 7
Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove 8
Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; 9
Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Laura 10
Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; 11
12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Vacant-At-Large; 14
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Patrick Mallett, 17
Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 18
19
20
OTHERS PRESENT: Terry Boylan, Glenn Futrell 21
22
23 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 24
25
26 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 27
a) Planning Calendar for June and July 28
29
30
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 31 MAY 7, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 32 33 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the May 7, 2014 Planning Board minutes. Seconded by James Lea. 34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 35 36 37 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 38 39 40 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 41 42 Introduction to the Public Charge 43
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 44
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 45
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 46
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 47
future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 48
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 49
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 50
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 51
52
53
54
5
D R A F T
2
AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 55 56
Pete Hallenbeck: I would like to mention that part of being on the Planning Board is attending the Quarterly Public 57
Hearings. We have had a few close calls. We need to be able to contact you in case we do not have a quorum. I 58
would like Michael to remind us of the ground rules. 59
60
Michael Harvey: The last Quarterly Public Hearing we began to review the Class A Special Use Permit application 61
for a solar facility off Mount Sinai Road. The hearing ran about four and one half hours when it was determined that 62
the BOCC wanted the applicant and the adjacent property owners who were expressing concern over the project to 63
submit additional information. They adjourned that public hearing until the September 8 regular quarterly public 64
hearing. That means the public hearing is still technically open. It has not been closed. Remember that special 65
use permits are reviewed in a quasi-judicial setting which means they are based on sworn testimony and material 66
evidence has been introduced into the records by those in favor or against by public application. There is a 67
prohibition in you engaging in communication meaning you should not talk to anyone about the project. It is 68
reasonable to ask myself or my staff for information that you need. 69
70
Craig Benedict: You are like the jury so that any information that is presented to you is what you base your 71
decision on. 72
73
Pete Hallenbeck: These meetings normally start and stop in one evening. 74
75
Tony Blake: Fortunately, this is the first quarterly public hearing I have missed. What is my position in the next 76
quarterly public hearing? 77
78
Craig Benedict: If you looked at all the evidence in the hearing, you could read the minutes and ask questions. 79
You had to attest that you have read everything that was in the documents to vote. 80
81
Pete Hallenbeck: Quasi-judicial means everyone gets sworn in and give evidence and you will have all the 82
evidence available to read so when you get to the next quarterly hearing, you will have the same as everyone else. 83
84
Craig Benedict: Our Unified Development Ordinance allows someone to provide written documents to the planning 85
board and they can read that script. The reason we ask for written documents is that when it comes back to the 86
BOCC, they see that specific information. 87
88
Buddy Hartley: For the Chair’s information, I was ready and on call if I needed to be there. 89
90
Michael Harvey: The question was asked if members are prohibited from visiting locations where special use 91
permits applications are being reviewed. My opinion is there is no technical prohibition on a member visiting the 92
site after the public hearing is held but you cannot engage, or allow yourself to be engaged in, conversation with 93
anyone. I believe that site visits can be helpful but if you have not done so, I would ask that you don’t. 94
95
Pete Hallenbeck: If you do see the site, you can’t say I saw the site and I think this. 96 97 98 AGENDA ITEM 7: MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN: To review and make a decision on an major subdivision 99
concept plan application seeking to sub-divide a 25.33 acre parcel of property into 14 single-100
family residential lots with 16.29 acres of common open space near the intersection of 101
Stroud’s Creek Road and NC Highway 57 in Hillsborough Township. 102 Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 103 104
Patrick Mallett: Presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed abstract. 105
106
James Carter: Where is that fence and will it remain there? 107
108
6
D R A F T
3
Patrick Mallett: That was installed by the school. 109
110
Michael Harvey: As covered in our abstract, one of the reasons you are seeing lots of this size is because water and 111
sewer service is being provided. That is the only way this project was allowed to get these smaller lots, which is in 112
accordance with the provisions of Article 7. The other comment is that you will recall previous major subdivisions, 113
applications are typically required to submit a conventional and flexible development options. 114
115
Pete Hallenbeck: There is a power line easement and it goes and disappears. Is there a power line in that easement 116
now? 117
118
Pat Mallett: There is a power line that goes through here and extends north. 119
120
Pete Hallenbeck: Currently the power line does not go through. 121
122
Terry Boylan: It does not go through. That is a tree line from when it did before. 123
124
Pete Hallenbeck: What about the dual water line fees? 125
126
Pat Mallett: They are proposing a fire service line with two hydrants. 127
128
Terry Boylan: There are two different lines. 129
130
Tony Blake: Craig, wouldn’t this be part of Hillsborough’s ETJ? 131
132
Craig Benedict: Just outside of that. 133
134
Tony Blake: By state law they could petitioned to be annexed? 135
136
Craig Benedict: Yes. Most likely as part of the water/sewer agreement. 137
138
Pat Mallett: They are interested in selling water and sewer and not annexation. 139
140
Tony Blake: How large are the houses? 141
142
Terry Boylan: The setbacks will allow 3,600 square foot. 143
144
Pete Hallenbeck: What could the residences do with the light green space? 145
146
Pat Mallett: You have building setbacks on the roadside, 35 foot buffer. There was originally a concept plan that had 147
two lots there. 148
149
Terry Boylan: We have a 100 foot or setback off this property line and that gives us this set back here for lot 14. 150
151
Pat Mallett: I think it is not so much what can be built there but what is held in common. 152
153
Pete Hallenbeck: It seems like a setup for a wonderful neighbor war. 154
155
Herman Staats: Why was the open space left open and not part of Lot 14? 156
157
Terry Boylan: It could conceivably be part of Lot 14. 158
159
Pete Hallenbeck: That is an issue for you as the developer. 160
161
Pat Mallett: Typically you want to see like to like. 162
7
D R A F T
4
163
Terry Boylan: That is one reason it is not so much larger than the other lots. 164
165
Glenn Futrell: We, my wetland consultant, we had all the wetlands reevaluated and we received that report last 166
week. We comply with all the setback requirements and we are not changing anything previously to what was done 167
six or seven years ago. 168
169 MOTION by Maxecine Mitchell to recommend approval to the BOCC. Seconded by James Lea. 170 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 171
172
173 AGENDA ITEM 8: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 174
a. Board of Adjustment 175
176
177 AGENDA ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT: 178
179
8
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: July 2, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Master Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Perdita Holtz, 919-245-2578
Craig Benedict, 919-245-2592
Ardra Webster, DAEPR, 919-245-2664
David Stancil, DEAPR, 919-245-2510
PURPOSE: To review and comment on the draft Parks & Recreation Master Plan.
BACKGROUND: Orange County’s draft Park & Recreation Master Plan was presented at the
June 3, 2014 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meeting. Staff of the Department of
Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) are the lead County staff members on
this project. At the June 3 meeting, the BOCC referred the draft plan to a number of advisory
boards for review and comment, with comments due by August 31. The Planning Board is one
of the advisory boards to which the draft plan was referred.
Additional information regarding the draft plan is available as part of the June 3 BOCC meeting
materials available at: http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/140603.pdf. Planning Board
members are encouraged to review the materials prior to Planning Board meeting to become
familiar with the background information provided.
Ardra Webster of DEAPR will attend the Planning Board meeting to present the highlights of the
draft master plan and answer any questions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact in reviewing the draft Parks & Recreation
Master Plan and providing comments.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board review the draft
Park & Recreation Master Plan and provide any comments by the August 31, 2014 deadline.
9
10
Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Orange County, North Carolina
2030
Public Hearing Draft—June 3, 2014
11
Orange County
Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030
Board of County Commissioners
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Earl McKee, Vice-Chair
Mark Dorosin
Alice Gordon
Bernadette Pelissier
Renee Price
Penny Rich
Parks and Recreation Council
Neal Bench, Chair
Eric Roeder, Vice-Chair
Joel Bulkley
James Carter
Denise Dickinson
Erin Dillard
Allan Green
Betty McDade Khan
Jamie Paulen
Tori Williams Reid
Robert Robinson
Staff Master Plan Team (Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation)
Marabeth Carr
Dan Derby
Lynn Hecht
Rich Shaw
Chris Sousa
David Stancil
Lori Taft
Ardra Webster
Beth Young
Renisha Howard, Graduate Intern (UNC MPA)
Staff Resources Group
Myra Austin (Department on Aging)
Donna King (Health Department)
Meredith Stewart (Health Department)
Brian Carson (Planning and Inspections Department)
Perdita Holtz (Planning and Inspections Department)
Margaret Jones (Tax Administration)
Laurie Paolicelli (Chapel Hill-Orange County Visitors Bureau)
Yvonne Scarlett (Economic Development Commission)
Michael Talbert (Assistant/Interim County Manager)
Special Thanks to: Dr. Nancy Gladwell and Dr. Erick Byrd, UNC-Greensboro; John Stock and Vicky Wilson, Orange
County SportsPlex; Durham Technical Community College
12
TOC- 1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Summary of the Plan
Chapter 2 Overview of Existing and Previous Plans
Chapter 3 Inventory/Assessment of Facilities
Chapter 4 Recreation Programs and Services
Chapter 5 Demographics and Driving Factors
Chapter 6 Community Needs Assessment and Public
Chapter 7 Linkages with 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Other County Plans
Chapter 8 Economic, Health and Environmental Impacts of Parks and Recreation
Chapter 9 What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories,
Research, and Input
Chapter 10 Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations
Chapter 11 Issues for Further Study
1-1—1-12
2-1—2-4
3-1—3-22
4-1—4-4
5-1—5-7
6-1—6-14
7-1—7-6
8-1—8-10
9-1—9-14
10-1—10-15
11-1—11-6
13
TOC- 2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Table of Contents
This page left blank intentionally
14
1—1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1
Summary of the Plan
In July 1988, the Orange County Board of
Commissioners adopted the County’s first master
plan for the provision of parks and recreatfon
services. This document, the “Master Recreatfon
and Parks Plan” included on its opening page the
following introductfon:
“The growing population of America has more
leisure time than ever before, a factor encouraging
greater participation in recreational activities…As a
consequence, federal, state and local governments
are challenged with providing adequate recreational
activities for an expanding population. This
challenge is heightened by the fact that urbanization
is reducing existing open space. Increased demand
often results in the overuse of existing facilities
which in turn leads to mis-use or deterioration.”
What was true in 1988 appears true or even
exacerbated in 2014. Greater demand for a wide
range of recreatfonal opportunitfes is stfll evident.
The past 25 years have seen further dramatfc
changes in Orange County, where almost 50,000
additfonal residents have come to reside since
1988. Urban and suburban development has
changed the landscape of much of the natfon, the
state and our county.
This same quarter-century has also been a period of
dramatfc change in the degree of park facilitfes and
recreatfon programs in the county – especially in the
past 15 years. Since 1998, Orange County has
funded, constructed and opened six new parks, and
witnessed substantfal increases in recreatfon and
athletfc program partfcipatfon. The facilitfes and
programs available in 2014 offer opportunitfes
beyond those envisioned in 1988, into program
areas and types of facilitfes only opaquely seen at
that tfme. Likewise, the linkages between public
parks, recreatfon programs and public health has
become an issue of natfonal significance, and
interest in healthier lifestyles (whether through
athletfc events on playing fields or opportunitfes to
commune with nature on an interpretfve trail) is of
heightened awareness.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030
contained herein is, in essence, an attempt to:
examine the lessons and experiences of the
past,
identffy current issues and challenges, and
project community needs and desires into a
vision for the future – a future that ensures a
legacy of parks and public open spaces for
current and future generatfons.
To provide for these places, the County embarked
on an innovatfve and proactfve Lands Legacy
Program which works in part to acquire future park
sites, many of which were identffied back in the
1988 plan.
Background and Inventory – Why a New Plan
The 1988 Master Recreatfon and Parks Plan was
Orange County’s first vision for a future of park
facilitfes and recreatfonal opportunitfes, and it has
served the County well. The fact that so many of its
organizing concepts, goals and identffied facility
needs contfnue to be the basis of actfvity and policy
is testament to its service.
However, there can be no questfon that many things
have changed since 1988. New residentfal subdivi-
sions, schools, populatfon growth, interstate
highways, and changes in community infrastructure
are just a few of the many changed conditfons from
the 1988 plan. In order to accurately represent the
vision for the future, plans must be updated, and
goals and objectfves revisited and adjusted. This
plan looks to both the ideas and goals of the old
plan, and the espoused community needs and
interests of the present and future.
While Orange County adopted a system master plan
in 1988, in reality, very little actfvity toward achiev-
ing the vision of that plan occurred in the first
decade after its adoptfon. However, beginning with
new planning efforts and a voter-approved bond
referendum in 1997, the next 15 years would see
15
1—2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1
the fulfillment of some of the vision from 1988 with
a dramatfc increase in new park facilitfes, acquisitfon
of public open space for future parks and nature
preserves, and increases in recreatfon program
opportunitfes. Before Efland-Cheeks Park opened in
1998, Orange County operated no true parks. Only a
few individual playing fields/playgrounds at County-
owned sites were in use. The 1997 Parks and Open
Space bond provided funds for the constructfon of
Efland-Cheeks Park and two parks in Chapel Hill.
Between 2001 and 2010, Orange County acquired
1,000 acres of future parkland, nearly erasing the
1,245 acre “parkland deficit’ identffied in a key 1999
report. Over that same period, six new parks were
opened.
Chapter 3 of The Master Plan includes an in-depth
assessment of all Orange County existfng parks,
recreatfonal facilitfes, and future parks or nature
preserve sites. More than a million visitors (many
return patrons) are welcomed each year into Orange
County parks, programs or facilitfes.
As a county with four municipalitfes within its
borders (a very small portfon of a fifth, Durham, also
slices inside the County line), any planning for the
future of parks and recreatfon needs must include a
parallel view with the context of system master
plans of the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill,
Hillsborough and Mebane, and a synopsis of these
community’s facilitfes and plans is provided in
Chapter 2. Fortunately, each of the jurisdictfons has
community master plans that are fairly recent.
Through coordinatfon efforts and multf-jurisdictfonal
planning groups such as the Intergovernmental
Parks Work Group, towns and County are more
aware of each other’s facilitfes and plans than in
previous decades, and the County’s new plan
included here is developed with the knowledge and
projected future actfvity from these town plans - to
avoid duplicatfon of services and offer opportunitfes
for coordinatfon going forward.
Inventory of Facilities & Recreation Programs/
Services
As noted, at present Orange County owns and
operates six (6) parks (including the Eurosport
Soccer Center) as shown in the inventory of facilitfes
in Chapter 3. One of the parks, Little River Regional
Park and Natural Area, is a unique joint venture with
neighboring Durham County. Orange County
operates this park owned by the two countfes,
which includes 391 acres in both countfes, under an
interlocal agreement. The County also operates and
Armed with informatfon and needs assessments
from a series of four reports on parks and open
space needs and opportunitfes created between
1996 and 2000, the stage was set for the single
largest catalyst for creatfon of a parks system in the
county - the County’s most-aggressive effort to
acquire and develop its park system – a $20 million
Parks and Open Space Bond, which was approved by
voters in November 2001. It is worth notfng that the
passage of this bond – less than two months after
the shocking natfonal tragedy of 9/11/2001 – serves
as a testament to county resident’s strength of
commitment to parks and open space as important
functfons in the community.
The 2001 bond provided funding for a variety of
different projects – and enabled creatfon of such
diverse places as Cedar Grove Park, Fairview Park,
Eurosport Soccer Center, the Adams Tract Preserve
in Carrboro and the Homestead Aquatfc Center and
Southern Park in Chapel Hill.
16
1—3
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1
Recreation Programs/Services
Orange County has provided local recreatfon
programs long before the County owned and
operated any parks, datfng back to the 1960’s.
Current areas of program offerings include:
Instructfonal programs
Youth Athletfc programs
Adult Athletfc programs
Summer Enrichment programs
Special Populatfons programs, and Special
Events
The special events include traditfonal community
events such as the annual Egg Hunt, Halloween
Spook-tacular, Daddy-Daughter Dance and Fishing
Rodeo as well as newer actfvitfes such as Movies in
the Park and Earth Evening.
maintains the Jones Creek Greenway (which is also
Phase I of Twin Creeks Park), and two recreatfon/
community centers in Hillsborough and Efland (the
Central Recreatfon Center in Hillsborough also
includes a playing field and playground). Orange
County further owns an indoor sports facility in
Hillsborough, the Orange County Sportsplex, which
includes ice rink, swimming pools and a fitness
center and is operated contractually by a
management firm.
In 2013, there were over 4,800 partfcipants in
Orange County recreatfon programs and events.
Most of the programs at present are targeted to
children and youth (ages 5-17), as has been
historically the case, although there are some adult
programs and actfvitfes.
The County also offers a variety of recreatfon and
leisure facilitfes that are available for reservatfon by
the public, including community centers, picnic
shelters, gymnasiums and sports playing fields. In
2013, over 2,000 reservatfons were scheduled for
County facilitfes.
It is important to note that recreatfon offerings for
seniors is not a part of this plan, and is coordinated
by the Orange County Department on Aging through
two existfng senior centers. Orange County
Sportsplex also offers a wide variety of recreatfon
opportunitfes, including many optfons not otherwise
available in the County.
There are additfonal future park sites that have been
acquired for future use. Two of these have had park
master plans prepared (Blackwood Farm Park and
Twin Creeks Park) and a master plan has also been
adopted for the Hollow Rock Access Area (another
joint multf-jurisdictfonal venture) within the larger
New Hope Preserve. Another nature preserve, the
Upper Eno Preserve, has substantfal land acquired
and informal plans for two Access Areas.
Finally, there are two additfonal park sites
(Northeast Park and Millhouse Road Park) where
parkland has been acquired, pending master plans
and future constructfon.
As noted in the inventory, several of the existfng
parks also have future phases, or will need facility
improvements, in the coming years.
17
1—4
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1
Orange County Profile
Before chartfng a course for the future it is always
important to ground ourselves in the past and
present. It is crucially-important for an effectfve
future parks and recreatfon plan to understand both
the nature of the resident populatfon and the future
trends that appear evident – even with the under-
standing that such trends and projectfons will
change.
As of 2012, Orange County has 138,000 residents -
likely 140,000 as of the writfng of this plan in early
2014. Much of the county populatfon is urban and
located in southeastern Orange County. Nearly
76,000 county residents (or just under 55% of the
populatfon) live within the municipalitfes of Chapel
Hill and Carrboro in that quadrant of the county. The
Town of Hillsborough’s share of the county popula-
tfon is 4.6% (6,271), around 1.5% of County resi-
dents (around 2,000) live inside the City of Mebane.
The remaining 39% of county residents (53,751 in
2012) live outside of the municipal boundaries.
There are some unique components to the County’s
overall populatfon makeup. Orange County is among
the most-educated countfes in the natfon, with
almost 55% of the populatfon over the age of 25
holding a bachelor’s degree or higher. The presence
of the University of North Carolina within the county
infuses the local populatfon with a high number of
persons from 18-25 years of age. Orange County’s
median family income of $56,055 in 2011 was 22%
higher than the state average. Even so, this masks
another statfstfc of note, that almost 17% of the
populatfon resides below the federal poverty level.
Planning and identffying service areas for a county is
somewhat more complicated than for distfnct,
defined urban areas. With the municipalitfes of
Mebane, Chapel Hill and Carrboro having their own
Parks and Recreatfon Departments and offering
their own parks systems and recreatfon programs,
the County’s traditfonal service area for its parks and
recreatfon programs has been the populatfon of
unincorporated Orange County and the town of
Hillsborough. In 2012 this totaled approximately
60,000 persons combined.
The geographical breakdown of this populatfon, as
well as age, gender and racial compositfons of the
populatfon may be found in Chapter 4.
Looking to the future, three different scenarios of
growth have been projected for the County in the
2008-adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan
2030. While no one knows what the future rate of
increase will be, the projectfon model with the
closest fit for the period 2008-2010 indicates that
Orange County could expect (and should plan) to
include 154,000 persons by the year 2020 and
173,000 persons by the plan target year 2030. This
would equate to an increase of another 35,000
persons by the end of the plan tfmeframe.
Public Input / Community Needs Assessment
Perhaps the most important component in the new
Parks and Recreatfon Plan 2030 was the gathering of
community input. This multf-faceted process
included a statfstfcal random sample “Community
Needs Assessment” survey, a follow-up online
survey, a youth survey, surveys to increase minority
partfcipatfon, and a series of focus groups, forums,
open houses and other opportunitfes to gauge
interest and solicit feedback.
Specifically, the following public input initfatfves were
undertaken:
1. An informal youth survey of camps and camp
counselors was conducted by a UNC graduate
student in the early stages of the plan process.
2. A random-sample scientffic survey of 4,100 Orange
County households (paper mail survey with paid
return mail, and follow-up postcard).
3. An online survey (identfcal to the mail survey
above) publicized through email master lists and
news releases.
4. Targeted paper surveys (identfcal to above) shared
at minority events and meetfngs.
5. A series of focus groups on selected topics of
interest with identffied stakeholders.
6. Two rounds of public input sessions (Fall/Winter
2012-13 and Spring 2014).
7. A radio interview, postcards, flyers and other word-
of-mouth publicity.
8. Open houses, Expos, and other informal outreach
efforts in early 2014.
18
1—5
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1
The results of these efforts are shown in Chapter 6.
As noted therein, the three surveys conducted (2, 3
and 4 above) have been collated to provide for a
more representatfve and balanced assessment of
the survey results (the ratfonale for this is explained
in more detail on pages 6-2 and 6-3 of the plan).
A total of 835 persons (including a 12.5% response rate
for the random-sample survey) responded to the
questfonnaires. Generally, the survey results indicated:
Strong support for the types of facilitfes and
programs, facility safety, maintenance and
accessibility.
Strong support for expanding actfve and low -impact
recreatfon opportunitfes.
High recognitfon of the role parks and rec programs
play for the economy and public health.
Moderate support for more indoor recreatfon or arts
facilitfes.
A need to create or expand trails linking areas of the
county.
The highest interest categories for future program
areas are hiking, swimming and walking.
The highest interest for future facility needs are for
walking/hiking/nature trails, swimming pool and
greenways.
Preferences for funding new facilitfes through grants,
donatfons, voter-approved bonds and existfng taxes,
and a lack of interest in funding through increasing
local (non-property) taxes.
Economic, Public Health and Environmental
Linkages
Providing parks, open space and recreatfon
programs is a key component in quality of life
measurements for communitfes, and often an
important fact in economic development decisions,
in the health and general welfare of a community
and its natural environment. To this end, research
was conducted to evaluate economic, health and
environmental components of parks and recreatfon.
A 2011 natfonal study indicated that every $1
invested in land conservatfon (including parkland)
returned $4 in economic value – not including
potentfal jobs and tourism. Additfonal research
performed for this master plan by UNC-Greensboro
found that “preserving parks and recreatfon funds
can actually reduce the need to allocate funding” for
other purposes. This supports other studies that find
parks “are a good financial investment for a
community” – by enhancing residentfal property
values, generatfng jobs and tax revenue, and
attractfng retfree incomes and small businesses.
Tourism, through special recreatfon events and
sports tournaments, has also been shown to benefit
from investment in parks and public open spaces.
Orange County has already seen the benefits of local
soccer tournaments (some of which have been
shown to generate nearly $1 million in economic
benefit) and their spinoff economic impact on
restaurants, lodging and other segments of the
economy.
Likewise, there is strong research to support the
importance of parks and recreatfon programs on
public health and quality of life. This is important to
combat several natfonal trends in public health.
Seven of every 10 deaths among Americans each
year result from preventable chronic diseases –
diseases that would benefit from more exercise. In
Orange County, 53% of adults and 33% of high
school children are not within healthy weight
ranges. Natfonally, persons who report access to
walking/jogging trails are 55% more likely to be
actfve.
Of the 835 survey respondents:
31% came from unincorporated Orange County,
29% from Hillsborough,
27% from Chapel Hill,
7%Carrboro and
6% from Mebane
Focus group meetfngs to delve into more specifics on
targeted issues were held on:
Soccer Facilitfes
Trails and Connectfvity
Public Health Benefits
Park Facility Needs
Recreatfon Programs
Nature and Environmental Programs
County/Town Coordinatfon, and
Sportsplex Coordinatfon
19
1—6
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1
Focus groups conducted as part of the Orange
County Health Department’s Community Health
Assessment in 2011 spoke highly of the quality of
parks and open space resources, but 75% agreed
that lack of access to parks and recreatfonal oppor-
tunitfes is a problem in Orange County – partfcularly
in areas outside of the towns. A number of
initfatfves to encourage more healthy lifestyles exist
and could be enhanced through greater access to
parks, and more healthy design within parks. Across
the natfon, dialogues on parks, public health and
planning disciplines are of foremost importance.
Finally, the role that parks and public open spaces
play in protectfng our common natural resources is
very important. Parks provide habitat for certain
animal and flora species. Their natural areas help
filter pollutants from streams and enhance water
quality, offer wooded areas that improve air quality
and provide important breaks in the impervious
surfaces to lessen the effect of reflectfve heat and
the myriad of issues caused by this increasing issue.
Parks also include not only natural resources, but
cultural and archaeological resources…old buildings,
roadways, burial grounds and other significant
features of the county’s past. There are many such
examples of these features within parks in Orange
County, such as Blackwood Farm Park and Eno River
State Park.
“Overarching Goal: Regionally-coordinated park and
recreation facilities that provide healthy opportuni-
ties for recreation and exercise for all citizens of Or-
ange County, and that preserve important cultural
and natural resources.”
Goal 1: Provide adequate parks and recreational
facilities for all citizens within the county regardless of
age, gender, race or disability.
Goal 2: Create a partnership among regional recreation
providers and facility owners/managers including the
appropriate co-location and sharing of school facilities
that meets the County’s recreation needs.
Goal 3: Provide recreational facilities for public use in a
manner that is multi-generational and accessible to all
County citizens at both the county-wide and community
level.
Goal 4: Promote healthy lifestyles, quality of life and
community building through the provision of a variety
of affordable recreational facilities and choice of leisure
activities, while responding to the changing needs and
interests of County residents.
Goal 5: Ensure that park and recreational facilities are
environmentally-responsible, and where cultural and
natural resources and open space within these sites are
protected.
Goals and Objectives
In the case of this master plan, goals and objectfves
have already been identffied through the adopted
2030 Comprehensive Plan. These five goals, and
objectfves toward the goals, are listed in Chapter 10.
The goals are:
The goals and the objectfves towards these ends in
Chapter 10, are interwoven into the findings and
recommendatfons of this master plan. Also within
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan 2030 are
eight goals in other chapters that have relatfonships
to parks facilitfes and recreatfon programs. These
goals, including such areas as energy conservatfon,
agriculture and forestry, cultural and archaeological
resources and landscapes, and sustainability and
natfve plant species, may be found on page 7-1.
Finally, the relatfonship of County parks and open
spaces to other regional facilitfes is of importance.
Places like public school facilitfes, the State Parks
(including Eno River State Park and the Mountains to
Sea Trail) are critfcal to factor into planning for the
future of Orange County’s overall vision.
20
1—7
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1
One of the important distfnctfons between a county
park system and a city park system is that smaller
park types – such as mini-parks or neighborhood
parks – best serve and are most easily-provided by
municipalitfes where the populatfon density,
transportatfon networks and public transit, water
and sewer infrastructure and walking/driving tfme
makes these smaller facilitfes more practfcal. In a
large county of 400 square miles, with most of the
areas of a rural nature, this plan concludes that the
most effectfve service provision scale is to focus on
district and regional parks and nature preserves. In
additfon, where special communitfes and needs
exist, community parks have been provided and may
be appropriate. This is, in fact, the way the County
park system has evolved over the past 16 years,
working in conjunctfon with its sister systems in the
towns and with State Parks.
Master Plan Summary and Findings
The new Master Plan to guide parks and recreatfon
decisions through the year 2030 is a synthesis of the
many reports, studies, surveys and needs
assessments conducted to date and/or contained
within. In review and comparison with the 1988
Master Plan, many of the same values and principles
enumerated at that tfme remain valid in 2014.
However, many conditfons have changed since
1988.
The county populatfon has grown by 56% since
1988, and is expected to grow again by 25% by
the end of this master plan period.
The county, fueled by public support, has
passed two parks and open space bonds to
acquire and construct new parks and public
open space, with six County parks now
open, nature preserves protected, and several
municipal parks funded.
Most of the parks called for in the 1988 plan
are now either built, or land has acquired for
future constructfon.
Recreatfon programs are more numerous and
diverse, branching into areas barely envisioned
in 1988.
The County owns a successful indoor sports
facility in the Sportsplex, and has engaged in
partnerships with other recreatfon providers for
camps, athletfc leagues and other facilitfes.
By any measure, Orange County is in a very different
place in 2014 in terms of its parks, public open space
and recreatfonal offerings. However, despite the
accomplishments, many things remain to be
completed – including future facilitfes secured but
not yet constructed or opened.
At a macro level, Orange County’s parks and
recreatfon needs in 2014 as enumerated in this
document are more aligned to finishing planned
improvements than embarking on massive new
facilitfes planning.
This is reflected in the assessment of park
classificatfons, standards and service delivery in
Chapter 9. Table 9-2 illustrates the nature of the
park classificatfon system that has evolved and will
be needed going forward:
School Parks – Opportunitfes to utflize school play-
ing fields and facilitfes for public recreatfon at
existfng and future facilitfes.
Community Parks – Parks generally between 40-75
acres that serve smaller sub-areas of the county
and offer a mix of actfve and low-impact
recreatfon needs.
District Parks – The primary park for each of the
County’s four larger designated districts as
identffied in 1988 (Northeast, Cheeks/
Hillsborough, Bingham and Chapel Hill Township),
these are usually 75-125 acres in size and also
include actfve and low-impact recreatfon facilitfes,
but also may include amphitheaters and water
features, among other facilitfes.
Regional Parks – Large areas of 150 acres or more
that serve all or most of the County, these typically
feature miles of trails of different types and have
picnic areas, water features and other natural
exhibits or facilitfes.
Nature Preserve Access Areas – These are portfons
of County Nature Preserves that are or would be
accessible to the public for camping, hiking, wild-
life viewing and other low-impact actfvitfes. These
areas are defined sites within a larger natural area,
located in less-sensitfve portfons of large areas of
natural land, where the primary purpose is to
protect significant natural or cultural resources
present in the area.
21
1—8
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1
The creatfon of the Lands Legacy Program in 2000
gave the County a mechanism to not only acquire
land for future parks, but the ability to identffy and
work to acquire lands for future nature preserves (as
well as protect riparian buffer lands, prime and
threatened farmland and cultural resource lands –
other focus areas for Lands Legacy). One component
that is emergent in this master plan, but was identf-
fied as a priority as far back as 1999, is the role that
nature preserves can play in providing not only
protectfon for the County’s most significant natural
areas but also the ability for public access in
proximity and on the edges of these areas. Over the
past 12 years the County has worked to secure
important lands within the two nature preserves,
and a possible third preserve may exist (working
with municipalitfes and UNC). With careful design
and ecological sensitfvity, it is possible to provide
public access at these nature preserves, buffered
from the most-sensitfve natural segments of the
site, and plans toward this end are underway.
The current best practfce in using park standards to
frame park needs is to rely on a community-needs
based approach. This involves many of the tools
used in this plan, survey and assessment of
community desires and preferences, mapping of
future known facilitfes and transportatfon networks.
This approach is recommended and used for this
master plan. However, the mathematfcal populatfon
-based standards are recommended to be used
periodically as a valuable benchmark or “double-
check,” as they may show when a certain type of
park need is under-represented at a macro county-
wide scale.
Similarly, defining park service areas in a rural
jurisdictfon is very different than in an urban setting.
The master plan uses housing patterns,
transportatfon networks, other geographical factors
and awareness of the municipal park networks to
identffy service areas. As noted in the 1988 master
plan, even a diligent set of calculatfons based on
populatfon, socioeconomic and transportatfon
factors may not include intangibles that affect how
residents view which parks serve their needs. In
some cases, it is again community needs and
preferences that are the true determining factors.
The locatfon of future parks in the 1988 plan looked
at these populatfon and transportatfon factors, but
ultfmately it was the existence of other public lands
or natural features that was the real determinant for
identffying the general locatfon where district parks
should be located, for example. These parks were
proposed in 1988 (and later acquired between 2000
and 2007 through the Lands Legacy Program).
Maps in Chapter 9 show how a service area radius
applied to existfng and planned community parks
and district parks would look. Once again, in a
county system the awareness of and coordinatfon
with planned and existfng municipal parks is a factor
that helps define effectfve park service areas.
Standards
In years past, community parks and recreatfon mas-
ter plans would rely heavily on populatfon-based
standards to help identffy the number of needed
future parks and their locatfons. This approach has
fallen from favor in the last 20 years both natfonally
and locally, as it often led to a mathematfcally-
indicated park need that may or may not fit with
actual community needs. For example, a formulaic
calculatfon of the number of community parks
needed based on populatfon growth might call for
parks to be built without confirmatfon or acknowl-
edgement from the community about actual needs.
22
1—9
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1
Findings of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Based on the informatfon gathered in the master
plan process, a set of 20 findings or statements was
identffied. These findings are shown on pages 9-13
and 9-14 of the plan and are summarized below:
County residents overwhelmingly approve of the
way parks and recreatfon facilitfes are operated
and maintained, and they find them safe and easily
accessible. The County’s parks and recreatfon facil-
itfes meet a variety of needs, but maintenance and
facility repairs and renovatfons are on the horizon.
The County’s parks program has secured parkland
and constructed parks, and has built parks in low-
income and/or minority communitfes - helping
meet physical actfvity and social needs, both
individually and in groups. Residents see County
parks and recreatfon facilitfes having a positfve
impact on the economic, physical and mental
well-being of the county, and that these parks and
programs help reduce crime.
Strong interest is indicated by residents for
expanding both actfve recreatfon and low-impact
recreatfon opportunitfes – especially for hiking and
biking trails and a swimming pool. Residents are
less sure about the need for new indoor facilitfes
for arts/leisure actfvitfes, but do favor more indoor
athletfc facilitfes.
Among those expressing an opinion, a significant
majority of residents surveyed see a need for new
athletfc programs and parks, although some were
unsure on this topic. The most desired program
areas were for walking, hiking, biking, swimming,
summer camps and yoga. The most-desired park
facilitfes were multfple types of trails, a swimming
pool and water parks.
In funding new facilitfes, residents were almost
universally supportfve of grants and corporate
donatfons, strongly supportfve of voter-approved
bonds or existfng local taxes. Less support existed
for user fees, and increasing local (non-property)
taxes did not receive strong support.
The County’s proactfve approach to parkland
acquisitfon has enabled the acquisitfon of all but a
few parks identffied in 1988, and has plans for four
new parks to be constructed on acquired sites in
the coming three to nine years. In a related vein,
the work toward creatfng and protectfng nature
preserves around some of the most significant
natural areas in the county has created
opportunitfes for public access and low-impact
recreatfon at these sites.
A number of opportunitfes and challenges are on
the horizon for the County. Recent efforts on
partnerships with other recreatfon providers have
been successful and should be contfnued. Like-
wise, there may be unprecedented opportunitfes
for coordinatfon with the towns and the schools
for new parks or facility use. These opportunitfes
provide for financial as well as community-building
benefits and opportunitfes. The contfnued
desirability of Orange County as a place to live will
result in more populatfon, an expected additfonal
35,000 persons between 2012 and 2030.
Due to the proactfve steps taken, most of the
projected park needs may be met by current or
planned parks, although one portfon of the county
– Bingham Township – is as of yet unserved.
23
1—10
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1 Recommendations
Using the 20 Findings identffied in the master plan,
and assessing the current status of park planning via
the framework of the park system as has been
developed over the past 15 years, the Master Plan
makes nine recommendatfons moving forward to
the year 2030:
Recommendation 1 - Protect and Enhance Invest-
ment in Parks and Open Spaces:
The County currently operates six parks repre-
sentfng an investment of over $9 million, and has
helped fund municipal parks by contributfng over
$6.5 million to these facilitfes. Future phases at the
six open County parks are planned, and some of the
facilitfes built will begin to age out over tfme.
Operatfon and maintenance costs are ongoing and
critfcally important to the park experience. The
County should contfnue to protect its investment in
the existfng parks by funding facility replacement,
future phases and operatfng costs.
Recommendation 2 – Build the Planned Future
Parks:
Because the County has been so proactfve in
identffying and acquiring future park sites, several
future sites have been secured for future use and
these new park projects are included in the County’s
Capital Investment Plan. Orange County should
commit to opening the planned new parks as shown
in Table 10-1 within 10 years (by the year 2024),
with two of the parks opened within 5 years (by
2019).
Recommendation 3 – Complete the Protection of
Identified Nature Preserves and Create Access
Areas and Trails Within the Preserves:
Working through the Lands Legacy program and
other conservatfon partners, the County has three
identffied locatfons where nature preserves exist or
have been started with the possibility of expansion –
the Upper Eno preserve, the New Hope Preserve
and the Jordan Lake Headwaters Preserve. The
primary purpose of these preserves is to protect
important natural lands, but opportunitfes exist –
and should be pursued – to provide for public access
on the less sensitfve portfons of the sites through
careful site planning.
Recommendation 4 – Formalize and Build Support
Structure for Multi-Partner Capital Facilities:
Over the past 16 years, the towns and County have
worked together to construct a number of parks and
open space areas, primarily County funding toward
constructfon of town-owned and operated facilitfes.
Similarly, the use of school facilitfes for recreatfon
programs occurs in some locatfons. Greater
opportunitfes for joint ventures appear both possi-
ble and prudent. In some cases, towns are running
out of land for new parks, and the County owns
parkland nearby. Design of new school facilitfes
could occur with joint use in mind, rather than after
the fact. In additfon, opportunitfes with OWASA,
state parks and the two local educatfonal
instftutfons (UNC and Duke) appear to exist. All of
these partfes have mutual interests that may be
served by greater collaboratfon, and the tfme may
have come to make this collaboratfon more formal.
Recommendation 5 – Develop a Master Plan for
the Orange County segment of the Statewide
Mountains-to-Sea Trail:
The Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) is part of the State
Parks system and will link Clingman’s Dome in the
Great Smoky Mountains to Jockey’s Ridge on the
Outer Banks. While many portfons of the trail
network have been developed and are in use, the
eastern Piedmont segment remains the most
complicated due to the need to traverse an area
without natural features (rivers) or public lands. The
plan for the MST calls for it to enter Orange County
at the southwest from the Haw River Trail, and con-
nect via Hillsborough into Eno River State Park and
thence to Falls Lake. The MST, which in rural areas
may be only a natural path a few feet wide, contains
a planned segment from OWASA-owned lands
around Cane Creek Reservoir to the Upper Eno Pre-
serve near Hillsborough. This segment will require
careful planning with property owners and utflitfes.
A master plan for the trail is needed to pinpoint the
trail’s path through this area. A solutfon should be
identffied (whether on private lands, public roads or
some combinatfon thereof) so that Orange County
does not become the gap in the NC MST.
.
24
1—11
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1
Recommendation 6 – Build More Trails and
Connect Open Spaces:
One of the clear messages of the Community Needs
Assessment surveys is that county residents want to
get out into nature and walk, hike and bike more.
There are several mechanisms in place that will help
with this, buy virtue of building the planned future
parks (see Recommendatfon 2). Determining a
solutfon to the MST segment in Orange County, and
providing trails at nature preserves are additfonal
measures that are planned/proposed. Additfonally,
there may be ways to connect trail systems that
exist in Duke Forest and Eno River State Park to
town and county parks and trails. The local
governments that would mutually benefit from a
connected trail system should look at joint funding
mechanisms.
Recommendation 7: Improve Access to Parks and
Trails, and incorporate Healthy Lifestyles Design:
Over the last 15 years, most parks have been
constructed with an eye to providing access to the
public, and actfvitfes for individuals to develop and
maintain healthy lifestyles. However, an emerging
issue in the fields of public health and parks
planning is the integratfon of these concepts at the
design level – parks designed with an eye to
maximize opportunitfes for enhancing public health.
Likewise, the potentfal for public transportatfon
access to County parks is a consideratfon, but in a
rural county with a need to provide service to
different portfons of the county, this type of access
is problematfc. Working park-and-ride lots into
future parks, and looking at parks as possible transit
stops are two mechanisms that warrant closer
examinatfon and should be part of future planning
for new parks.
Recommendation 8 – Look to Add Programs in
Areas Where Residents Have Identified needs,
Consider Partnerships:
Flexibility and responsiveness is critfcal to providing
public recreatfon programs. Needs and interests
change over tfme, and systems must be prepared to
change with the tfmes. While it is not practfcal to
provide every program that is desired by members
of the community, the Community Needs Assess-
ments provide a look at current needs and desires.
Follow-up surveys should be conducted to deter-
mine the depth of interest in new program areas,
and at the same tfme, existfng programs should be
evaluated to see if resource allocatfon should be
altered. The County has partnered in recent years
with private non-profit recreatfon providers for
certain programs. A “partnership template” being
developed will help determine whether a partner-
ship is desirable or warranted, and opportunitfes
with the school systems in this area may be fruitiul.
Financing and Capital Investments
As shown in Table 10-1, Orange County has
positfoned itself through careful and proactfve
planning to know what park and recreatfon facilitfes
are needed, and through its Capital Investment Plan
(CIP), a possible sequence of constructfon to fulfill
the master plan outlined within these pages may be
glimpsed. The funding needed for parks and
recreatfon opportunitfes includes: new constructfon
of planned parks, future phases of existfng parks,
replacement and repair of aging facilitfes, and
operatfng and maintenance funding. Approximately
$10 million in park and public open space funding is
identffied in the current CIP through 2018, and an
additfonal $36 million is expected to be needed
beyond 2018 to complete the vision of the park
system outlined in this plan. An additfonal $467,000
within two years, and $923,000 in two to five years,
is projected to be needed for renovatfons and
improvements or repairs. As future financial
planning is undertaken, the manner in which these
needs may be funded will become more clear, as
will the potentfal sources (including several potentfal
grant projects).
25
1—12
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 1 - Summary of the Plan 1
Recommendation 9 – Examine the Role of
Community Centers in Providing Public Recreation
Opportunities:
Orange County currently operates one community
center (Efland-Cheeks), and is poised to own two
additfonal centers by the end of 2015. In recent
years, considerable interest has been expressed by
residents in these communitfes about the level of
service provision and operatfng hours for these
centers, and it is expected that this issue will contfn-
ue to be a challenge. The County may wish to take a
comprehensive look at the current and planned
future centers, the level of service that is financially
and socially practfcal, and the role that these centers
play in community life.
Issues for Further Study
As with many plans for the future, some
examinatfons lead to more questfons. The master
plan identffied seven “Issues for Further Study:”
1. Ultfmate Level of Service (scope of the parks
system)
2. Review of Land Dedicatfon / Payment-in-Lieu
Provisions
3. Coordinatfon between Sportsplex and County
Programs
4. Need for a Public Pool?
5. Timing for Future Community Needs Assess-
ments / Master Plan
6. Artfficial Turf Playing Surfaces
26
2—1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 2 - Overview of Existing and Previous Plans 2
Overview of Existing and Previous Plans
Background
Orange County and the Towns of Hillsborough,
Chapel Hill and Carrboro have made parks and
recreational facilities an important priority among
local and County government services. This is
exhibited by the strong interest and effort to plan
for recreational amenities in the county.
There are a number of existing and previous plans
and reports that support the efforts of the parks and
recreation programs in Orange County, including the
County’s initial master plan completed in 1988 and
more recent plans completed by the other local
jurisdictions.
A. Master Recreation and Parks Plan for
Orange County (1988)
Orange County’s Master Recreation and Parks Plan
called for dividing the responsibilities for providing
parks among municipal and county governments,
quasi-public entities (e.g., OWASA, UNC Chapel Hill),
and private entities (e.g., Duke University), with
public entities taking on most of the responsibility.
The plan recommended cooperation among the
County, the two school systems, OWASA, University
of North Carolina, Duke University, and the munici-
palities. In 1988 recreational facilities were mainly
provided by the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro,
while the County focused on providing programs.
The 20-year master plan recommended that the
County provide four types of park and recreation
areas and facilities: 1) community parks, 2) district
parks, 3) greenway trails, and 4) swimming pools.
Community Parks (4) - should provide active
and low-impact recreation opportunities for
the entire family. These parks serve the more
densely-populated, unincorporated areas.
District Parks (4) - should be accessible to the
public within a 1/2-hour drive, with same
amenities found in community parks plus an
indoor recreation building and a pond or lake.
Greenway Trails (1 per township minimum) -
should link recreational spaces with residential
areas and other compatible land uses.
Swimming Pools (2) - ideally these would be
located at the [then] two county high schools
located in Hillsborough and Chapel Hill.
The plan recommended 447 acres of community
parks for Orange County by 2005, 70% (313 acres) of
which was to be provided by public agencies.
The master plan called for 895 acres for district
parks, 70% (626 acres) to be provided by the public
sector. The master plan also noted that a regional or
countywide park might become necessary by 2008,
but noted that in 1988 that need was being filled by
Eno River State Park and Duke Forest.
27
2—2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 2 - Overview of Existing and Previous Plans 2
Hillsborough Recreation and Parks Master Plan
(2009)
Hillsborough’s Parks and Recreation Board updated
the town’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan in
2006. The plan included a revised inventory of
existing and proposed resources, an updated needs
assessment, and recommendations for the planning
of recreation facilities and resources. The master
plan was updated again in 2009, taking into account
additional recreational resources created since
2007, revised park districts, updated demographic
information, and progress made with local and
regional partnerships. The Parks and Recreation
Board strives to revisit the master plan annually to
make updates and recommendations to the staff
and board of commissioners.
The Town of Hillsborough owns over 65 acres of
community and neighborhood parks and has over 15
additional acres of parks proposed. Another four
miles of greenway trails are planned. The volunteer
Parks and Recreation Board makes decisions
concerning its town-owned parks. Hillsborough
does not have a parks and recreation department;
the Planning and Public Works departments work
together to maintain over 65 acres of community
and neighborhood parks and recreation facilities.
B. Current Municipal Parks and Recreation
Master Plans
Carrboro Recreation and Parks Comprehensive
Master Plan (2006)
Carrboro’s Recreation and Parks Comprehensive
Master Plan emphasizes partnering with Chapel Hill
and Orange County to help meet the needs of its
residents. Homestead Pool, Southern Community
Park, and the planned Twin Creek Park are examples
of facilities Carrboro residents are likely to use.
Carrboro plans to acquire land to construct
additional greenway trail and bikeway facilities,
focusing on the Bolin Creek and Morgan Creek
corridors for connecting with existing greenway
segments in Chapel Hill. Carrboro also aims to link
its planned trail system to a broader network of
greenway trails in the Triangle region. The Town of
Carrboro (in 2014) has approximately 112 acres of
parks and recreation facilities and approximately
three miles of bike paths and greenways.
28
2—3
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 2 - Overview of Existing and Previous Plans 2
Chapel Hill Comprehensive Park Plan (2013)
The Town of Chapel Hill updated its Comprehensive
Park Plan in May 2013. The master plan provides a
10-year vision (2013 – 2022), and includes a
comprehensive inventory and assessment of its park
system, the results of a community survey, a
description of future needs for park acreage and
recreation facilities, and ways the Town could
interface with the other recreational providers in
the community.
The Chapel Hill park system includes 14 parks on
over 247 acres of developed property and 833 acres
of additional public open space. Many of the parks
and open spaces are connected through the Town’s
greenway system, which includes 13.4 miles of
greenway and natural surface trails. The Town
provides a wide variety of indoor recreational facili-
ties including gymnasiums, recreation centers,
indoor aquatic facilities, and an arts center.
Mebane Recreation and Parks Master Plan (2014)
The City of Mebane completed its first comprehen-
sive recreation and parks master plan in 2014. The
Town inventoried Mebane’s existing parks and
recreational facilities (as well as what Alamance
County and local private groups offer), and
determined what improvements are needed to ex-
pand current facilities and develop new ones in the
next 10 years.
Current park facilities include a soccer complex, ath-
letic fields, and tennis courts. Lake Michael is a 200-
acre park located east of town limits that features
boating, fishing, picnic shelters, and hiking trails.
The 2014 master plan recommended that over the
next 10 years Mebane should expand the trails and
ADA accessibility at Lake Michael (a regional park),
develop a district park on existing land that Mebane
holds on south side of the city, develop an additional
community park, and establish several new
neighborhood parks and mini-parks.
The master plan also recommends developing addi-
tional tennis courts, athletic fields, and playgrounds.
Finally, the plan recommends that the Town address
the growing interest in walking and biking trails in
the community, as demonstrated by the telephone
surveys and public meetings that occurred during
the master planning process.
Chapel Hill Greenway Master Plan (2013)
Chapel Hill’s Greenway Master Plan prioritizes
greenway section development and emphasizes
regional connections in order to grow an
interconnected network of greenways beyond Town
limits. The plan projects an eventual trail program
that will require construction of over 28 miles of
both unpaved and paved trails to be used for
recreation and transportation, and lists priorities for
completing planned trail segments over the next 20
years.
29
2—4
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 2 - Overview of Existing and Previous Plans 2
The following is a list of other plans and reports completed during the past 20 years that support the parks and
recreation programs in Orange County.
• 1991 New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan
1993 New Hope Corridor Master Plan Proposal Linking Duke Forest and Eno River State Park
1996 Report of Orange County’s Recreation and Parks Work Group
1996 Payment in Lieu/Dedication Legislation and Report
1997 Report on Coordination of Recreation and Parks Services
1999 Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report
2000 A Lands Legacy Program for Orange County
2000 Joint Capital Funding for Parks Report
2001 A New Era for Parks
2005 Recreation and Parks Strategic Operations
2006 Carrboro Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Master Plan
2009 Hillsborough Recreation and Parks Master Plan
2013 Chapel Hill Comprehensive Park Plan and Greenway Master Plan
2014 City of Mebane Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Plan
A brief summary of each document and its recommendations is provided in Appendix 2-1.
30
3—1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment
Park Inventory and Assessment
Introduction: Orange County residents and visitors have benefitted from bond referenda approved by voters
in 1997 and 2001. These bonds provided $20.6 million for the purchase and preservatfon of land and the
development of Parks, Recreatfon and Open Space facilitfes. Of this, $13.5 million was dedicated to use with-
in Orange County jurisdictfon. The remainder was provided for the municipalitfes. More than $2 million in
grant funding has been received for Orange County and partner projects, and additfonal millions of dollars in
funding from alternatfve sources have also been used. Between 2000 and 2011 the majority of this funding
has been put to use in the purchase of property and the development of the propertfes identffied on the map
and described within this chapter. Efland-Cheeks and Central Recreatfon community centers were already in
place, but improvements and expansions were made to the facilitfes. Currently more than 1,500 acres of
publicly-held and protected land is included within the Orange County park and preserve inventory. More
than one million people are welcomed each year into Orange County Parks and Recreatfon facilitfes.
Orange County
Parks and Preserves
3
31
3—2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park
Size:
Land Area: 60 Acres
Existfng Structures:
Former School: 30,000 sq. ft.
Picnic Shelter with Restrooms: 1,560 sq. ft.
Maintenance Shed: 860 sq. ft.
Overview:
Orange County’s 1988 Master Recreatfon and Parks Plan envi-
sioned a future park co-located with the County’s Northern
Human Services Center on NC 86. The Center was built in the
1950s as the Cedar Grove School for African-American
children, but when the school closed in 1976 it was converted
to a County facility. A baseball/softball field was constructed
in the 1980s for County recreatfon programs, and other
programs took place in the building’s gymnasium and class-
rooms. In 2001, Orange County voters approved a Parks and
Open Space bond that included $1,200,000 for enlarging the
park. A park master plan was adopted in 2005 and Phase 1 of
the park opened in April 2009.
Location / Users:
Located in a rural area six miles north of Hillsborough, Cedar
Gove Park attracts baseball and softball teams from around
the region as well as day users from the nearby communitfes
of Cedar Grove, Carr, Schley, and Caldwell.
Funding for Phase 1:
$1,200,000 County Open Space Bonds;
$500,000 NC Parks & Recreatfon Trust Fund
$148,000 County “Payment-in-Lieu” Funds
Types of Programs Offered:
Baseball Leagues / practfces and games
Soft Ball Leagues / practfces and games
T-Ball Leagues / practfces and games
Softball Tournaments
Baseball Tournaments
Reserved Facilities or Uses:
Picnic Shelter
Playing Fields
Special Features and Amenities:
2 Lighted Adult Ball Fields
1 Multf-Purpose/ Youth Ball Field
2 Lighted Basketball Courts
2 Playgrounds
Picnic Shelter with Restrooms
Paved, Lighted Walking Track (1/3 mile)
Fishing Areas
Hiking Trails (2 miles)
Annual visitors: 35,000— 40,000
Cedar Grove Park - 5800 NC 86N, Cedar Grove
3
32
3—3
General Conditions and Adequacy for Intended Purpose and Uses:
The park requires and receives a moderate level of
maintenance by onsite staff.
Some programs and facilitfes desired by the community
could be developed with the completfon of Phase 2 ,
and the new Community center.
Planned Future Phase:
Phase 2 of the Park as will include additfonal features
and amenitfes:
1 Adult Ball Field
2 Tennis Courts
2 Picnic Shelters
Extended Drive / Additfonal Parking
Restroom Facility
Additional Notes:
The former school is scheduled for upgrades.
Currently a small gym, catering kitchen and meetfng
room, along with storage and an office are housed within.
The renovated center proposal includes some of the
same amenitfes, as well as an Internet Café, Multf-media
room, Recreatfon room and Conference room.
Cedar Grove Park - 5800 NC 86N, Cedar Grove
3 Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park
33
3—4
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park
Size:
Land Area: 27 Acres
Existfng Structures:
Large Picnic Shelter: 2,080 sq. ft.
Small Picnic Shelter: 600 sq. ft.
Community Center: 3,400 sq. ft.
Funding for Phase 1:
$861,000 1996 Parks Bond
Funding for Phase 2:
$250,000 2001 Parks Bond
Special Features and Amenities:
1 Lighted Adult Multf-purpose
Field
1 Youth Ball Field
2 Lighted Basketball Courts
1 Playground
2 Picnic Shelters
Paved, Lighted Walking Track
(1/3 mile)
Types of Programs Offered:
Baseball, Softball and T-Ball Leagues / practfces and games
Summer Camps
School Classes and Actfvitfes
Football Practfces and Games, Soccer pick-up play
Indoor Classes and Programs, Special Events
Reserved Facilities or Uses:
Picnic Shelter
Playing Fields
Community Center Rooms
Overview:
The Efland-Cheeks Community-School Park campus was developed in phases between 1991 and 2006. The
elementary school was constructed in the late 1950s and expanded in the 1970s. Following the purchase of
an adjacent parcel the Community Center was constructed in 1992. Phase 1 of the new park was completed
in 2000, and consisted of a multf-purpose playing field, paved walking track, picnic shelter, two lighted
basketball courts, and parking areas. Phase 2 was completed in 2006 with a playground, small picnic shelter,
lightfng for the ball field, and additfonal parking. Since then County staff developed a walking trail through
the adjacent woodlands and a youth ball field north of the school.
Location / Users:
Efland-Cheeks Community–School Park is located adjacent to Efland-Cheeks Elementary School in a rural area
six miles west of the Town of Hillsborough. The park is heavily used by the school and attracts mainly day
users from the Efland, Mebane, Buckhorn, Cheeks and Hillsborough communitfes.
Efland-Cheeks Community/School Park - 117 Richmond Road, Efland
3
34
3—5
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park
The park requires a moderate level of maintenance
from a mobile crew.
Structures are frequently subject to moderate to high
levels of vandalism.
Increased programming and staff presence at the
community center are in the development process, as
requested by leadership within the community.
Potential for Expansion:
There has been some recent interest among officials
in expansion of the community center.
Adopted Master Plan
General Conditions and Adequacy for Intended Purpose and Uses:
Efland-Cheeks Community/School Park - 117 Richmond Road, Efland
3
35
3—6
Overview:
This special facility was conceived and designed to accommodate the growing need for soccer fields in Orange
County. A master plan was prepared in 2004 when an opportunity arose during the planning for the adjacent
middle school. Planning and pre-constructfon for a co-located park and school took place during 2005 and
2006. Funding to complete the project was authorized by the Board of County Commissioners in Spring 2007.
Constructfon was completed with funding assistance from Sports Endeavors, Inc. in exchange for naming
rights. The Eurosport Soccer Center opened in August 2009, and since then has been embraced by
community soccer players and regional tournament organizers alike.
Location/Users:
Eurosport Soccer Center is centrally located off I-85 in the western part of the county adjacent to the Gravelly
Hill Middle School. The Center hosts many regional and natfonal tournaments, while also serving as a home
base for local youth and adult clubs.
* Eurosport is a subsidiary of Sports Endeavors, Inc., headquartered in Hillsborough, NC
Size: Land Area: 34 Acres
Existfng Structures:
Concession Stand with Restrooms;
Offices and Garage: 3,280 sq. ft.
Shade Shelter: 792 sq. ft.
Funding for Phase 1:
$2,267,000 Alternatfve financing
$1,350,000 2001 Soccer Superfund Bonds
$350,000 2004 2/3 Debt Reductfon Bonds
$50,000 US Soccer Foundatfon Grant
Special Features and Amenities:
5 Full Size Soccer Fields (360' x 225')
1 Youth field (120' x 240’)
Paved Walking Track (1/2 mile)
1 Shade Shelter
1 Concession Stand with Restrooms
Types of Programs Offered:
Soccer tournament venue, leagues,
camps, games and practfces
Ultfmate Frisbee Tournament venue
Tournaments hosted:
CASL Carolina Classic Boys and Girls
Soccer Showcase
RBC Classic
Natfonal 3 v 3 Live!
UNC/Duke Natfonal MBA Tournament
Spring and Fall Rec Fests
NCSA Adult Amateur Tournament
Southeast Regional 3 v 3 Live!
TFDA Ultfmate Frisbee Tournament
USA Women's’ Ultfmate Frisbee
Tournament
Annual Visitors: 65,000-70,000
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park
Eurosport Soccer Center - 4701 West Ten Road, Efland
3
36
3—7
Eurosport Soccer Center - 4701 West Ten Road, Efland
General Conditions and Adequacy for Intended
Purpose and Uses:
The Soccer Center requires and receives a high
level of maintenance by onsite staff
Regular demand for and use of the fields is beyond
normal best management practfces for Bermuda
grass surfaces.
Additfonal fields and support facilitfes, as well as
artfficial surfaces, would address programming
and usage needs.
Planned Future Phase:
Phase 2 of the Park includes the following additfonal
features and amenitfes:
6 Tennis Courts
Play Area
Potential for Expansion:
There has been some recent interest in expansion
of the Soccer Center.
Adopted Master Plan
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park 3
37
3—8
Fairview Park - 195 Torain Street, Hillsborough
Size:
Land Area: 50 Acres
Existfng Structures:
Picnic Shelter with Restrooms: 1,560 sq. ft.
Funding for Phase 1:
$850,000 County Open Space Bonds
$500,000 NC Parks & Recreatfon Trust Fund
$175,023 County “Payment-in-Lieu” funds
Special Features and Amenities:
1 Lighted, Adult Ball Field
3 Lighted Tennis Courts
2 Lighted Basketball Courts
2 Playgrounds
1 Volleyball Court
2 Horseshoe Pits
Picnic Shelter with Restrooms
Paved, lighted Walking Track (1/4 mile)
Picnic Area
Types of Programs Offered:
Softball and baseball games and practfces
Summer camps
Instructfonal tennis programs
Special events such as Fairview Live! and
Fairview Forward
Shelter reservatfons for reunions, birthday
partfes and holiday events
Overview:
Fairview Community Park was developed as a partnership between the County and the Town of Hillsborough.
The original idea for the park was conceived in 1983 when Orange County acquired the land as part of a
Northern Fairview Community Redevelopment project. A conceptual plan for a community park was
completed in 1986 and was included in the County’s 1988 Master Recreatfon and Parks Plan. Orange County
developed a picnic area, playground and parking in 1990, but further constructfon was halted when a series of
severe storms struck the area and portfons of the property were used for the storage of storm debris and yard
waste. The Fairview Public Campus Master Plan Committee developed a master plan in 2005. Park
constructfon began in late 2009 and the new Fairview Park opened in June of 2011.
Location / Users:
Located in the Fairview Community within the Town of Hillsborough. Fairview Park attracts mainly day users
from the adjacent community.
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park 3
38
3—9
Adopted
Master Plan
General Conditions and Adequacy for Intended
Purpose and Uses:
The park requires a moderate level of
maintenance by a mobile crew.
Structures are frequently subject to moderate to
high levels of vandalism.
Some of the special events are larger than antfci-
pated and would benefit from additfonal parking.
Future Phase:
Phase 2 of the Park will include additfonal features
and amenitfes:
Additfonal Driveway and Parking
Natural Surface Trails
A picnic shelter near the meadow
Additional Notes:
Fairview Park is located on property adjacent to
the Hillsborough Police Substatfon and the Orange
County Public Works propertfes.
Fairview is a gated park.
The Fairview Community
Watch is actfve in park
actfvitfes and events.
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park
Fairview Park - 195 Torain Street, Hillsborough
3
39
3—10
Little River Regional Park - 301 Little River Park Way, Rougemont
Overview:
The Little River Regional Park and Natural Area was established through a unique partnership that resulted in
the protectfon of 391 acres with abundant natural and cultural resources. The park provides a wide variety of
outdoor recreatfon opportunitfes while protectfng much of the natural and rural character of the land. The
park is owned jointly by Durham and Orange countfes, with portfons of the property situated in both jurisdic-
tfons. Visitors can enjoy the natural beauty of the area by hiking and biking over 14 miles of trails built by
volunteers and staff. Several historic structures from the former tobacco farm have been restored for use as
park amenitfes, including a corn crib, pack house, and 1,000-stfck flue-cured tobacco barn. Since the park
opened in December 2004 the annual visitatfon has increased from 24,000 to 35,000. The park hosts the
annual Little River Trail Run (7K and 10-mile races), as well as astronomy nights, bird counts, and a wide variety
of environmental programs.
Location / Users:
Little River Regional Park and Natural Area straddles the Orange/Durham county line and is located approxi-
mately 12 miles northwest of the City of Durham and 10 miles northeast of Hillsborough. A park user survey
conducted in 2012 found that 53% of the visitors came from Durham County and 46% from Orange County.
Size: Land Area: 391 Acres
Existfng Structures:
Large Picnic Shelter: 1,800 sq. ft.
Small Picnic Shelter: 800 sq. ft.
Restrooms: 560 sq. ft.
Park Office: 900 sq. ft.
Maintenance Shed: 360 sq. ft.
Caretaker House: 1,980 sq. ft.
Historic Farm House: 1,400 sq. ft.
Funding for Phase 1:
$370,000 NC Clean Water Mgmt. Trust Fund
$262,000 Land & Water Conservatfon Fund
$250,000 NC Parks & Recreatfon Trust Fund
$ 50,000 NC Recreatfon Trails Grant Program
$170,000 Triangle Land Conservancy and
Eno River Associatfon (joint campaign)
Special Features and Amenities:
Large Open Field
Picnic Shelters (2) and Restrooms
Playground
Walking Track (1/4 mile, paved)
Hiking Trails (7 miles)
Bike Trails (7 miles, single track)
Birding Trail
Butterfly Garden
Group Campsite
Types of Programs Offered:
Environmental
Running and Biking Events
Annual Visitors: 35,000-40,000
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park 3
40
3—11
General Conditions and Adequacy for Intended
Purpose and Uses:
The park requires and receives a high level of maintenance
by onsite staff.
Potential for Expansion:
Additfonal Parking
Additfonal Trails
Updated Play Structure
Additional Notes:
Little River Park is a gated facility.
A caretaker who assists with park operatfons resides in a
house within the park.
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park
Little River Regional Park - 301 Little River Park Way, Rougemont
N
O
R
T
H
R
I
V
E
R
L
I
T
T
L
E
F
O
R
K
3
41
3—12
River Park - 144 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
Overview:
River Park has long been a gathering site for public actfvitfes and special events in the heart of Hillsborough.
The park is bordered by Churton Street to the west, the Eno River and Hillsborough’s “Riverwalk” to the south,
the Orange County Link Center and Annex to the east; and the Orange County Justfce Facilitfes to the north.
River Park features a Farmer’s Market Pavilion, restrooms, parking, paved and natural surface trails, two open
play fields, an Occoneechee Village exhibitfon, and the Stfllhouse Creek restoratfon area. The park hosts the
Eno River Farmers’ Market (Saturdays), the annual Hillsborough “Hogg Day,” and Orange County Earth Evening
events. It has also been the site for the Orange County Jazz Festfval and many Easter Egg Hunt festfvitfes as
well as hostfng the movies in the park series. The Riverwalk (also part of the NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail) links
River Park to many interestfng natural and cultural sites located to the west and east of this locatfon.
Location/Users:
River Park is located in downtown Hillsborough. Although centrally located for Hillsborough residents the
park is used by a wide variety of county residents who attend the many different events held here.
Size: Land Area: 16.3 Acres
Existfng Structures:
Picnic Shelter: 3,800 sq. ft.
(Other County facilitfes are
located adjacent to this site.)
Funding for Phase 1:
$250,000 in County General Funds
and Federal Grant Funds
Special Features and Amenities:
Picnic Shelter/ Farmers’ Market
2 Open Fields
Paved Walking Trail (part of
Hillsborough’s Riverwalk and NC
Mountains-to-Sea Trail)
Restrooms (available in nearby
County facilitfes)
Events held here:
Hillsborough Hogg Day
Easter Egg Hunt
Earth Fair
Earth Evening
Farmers’ Market
Movie in the Park
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park
Justice
Facility
and
Sheriff
Farmers’
Market
Pavilion
District
Attorney’s
Offices
Link
Center
Link
Center
Annex
Doctors
Office
E N
O
R
I
V
E
R
3
42
3—13
General Conditions and Adequacy for Intended Purpose and Uses:
The park requires and receives a moderate level of maintenance
by a mobile crew.
Future Phase:
Phase 2 of the Park is expected to include these additfonal features
and amenitfes:
Event/Performance Gazebo
Fencing improvements
Bridge and Trail improvements
Additional Notes:
Planning is underway for a crosswalk/sidewalk connector from
the west side of Churton Street into the park.
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Existing Park
River Park - 144 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
E N
O
R
I
V
E
R
3
43
3—14
Size: Land Area: 6.75 Acres
Existfng Structures:
Recreatfon Center; 19,000 sq. ft.
Types of Programs Offered:
Basketball and volleyball youth and adult
leagues, instructfonal programs and camps
Drop-in Basketball, walking and badminton
Music, Art , Cooking and Science Programs
Exercise Programs
Summer Camps
Special Events
Reserved Facilities or Uses:
Gymnasium
Multf-Purpose Field
Actfvity Rooms
Special Features and
Amenities:
1 Multf-Purpose Field
2 Actfvity Rooms
Recreatfon Offices
1 Gymnasium
1 Playground
Annual visitors: 30,000-35,000
Overview: Formerly part of historic Hillsborough High School, the gym building
(or “annex”) was built in 1957 as an additfonal amenity to the adjacent school
building. Orange County purchased the entfre parcel following the opening of
the new Orange High School in 1963. Central Recreatfon Center was dedicated
to Recreatfon and Parks and opened in 1975. In 2002 the building underwent
renovatfons including HVAC upgrades, new flooring and paint. During the 2005-
2008 period, upgrades were made to some offices and the restrooms. The win-
dows and exterior doors were replaced, and other improvements were made.
Central Recreatfon Center hosts over 4,000 partfcipants annually in over 160
recreatfon programs. In 2012, 47 actfvity reservatfons were made by groups and
individuals within the community, with an estfmated 2,050 attendees.
General Conditions and Adequacy for Intended Purpose and Uses:
The Center requires and receives a high level of maintenance
The gym and actfvity rooms are fully scheduled with actfvitfes and
programs 7 days per week. An additfonal, centrally-located gym
or actfvity space would benefit the community and reduce wait
listfng frequency.
Potential for Expansion/Improvements:
Bleacher replacement
Elevator replacement
Office and Lobby upgrades
Central Recreation Center & Park - 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Recreation Facility 3
44
3—15
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Parks and Recreation Inventory/Assessment/ Recreation Facility
Proposed Cedar Grove Community Center - 5800 NC 86N, Cedar Grove
(Former Cedar Grove School)
In 2013 the Northern Human Services Center -Community Center Work Group, consistfng of citfzens who vol-
unteered, were charged by the County Commissioners to work with staff and consultfng architects to provide
recommendatfons on renovatfon and reuse of the former center that would best serve the residents of
Orange County. The Board asked that the recommendatfons include, but not be limited to:
Recognitfon of the rich cultural and historical significance of the former Cedar Grove School;
The content of past public input for the facility, and public comment during the Work Group’s duratfon;
The previous Board of County Commissioner decisions regarding the deconstructfon of the classroom wings
and the adaptfve re-use renovatfon to yield an estfmated 10,000 square foot community center facility on
the site within a Capital Investment Plan project budget of $2,250,000;
Physical and operatfonal limitatfons to the site and the property, to include but not be limited to sanitary
sewer constraints that govern the intensity of use for the facility in a manner consistent with a community
center use.
Planning is underway and constructfon is expected to begin in 2014 with the center opening in 2015.
3
Proposed Floor Plan
Size:
Existfng School: 32,000 sq. ft.*
Proposed Community Center: approx. 10,000 sq. ft. * It Includes:
Multf-Purpose Room/ Small Gym: 3,364 sq. ft.
Meetfng Rooms: 4,724 sq. ft.
Kitchen: 371 sq. ft.
Offices: 392 sq. ft.
*Approx. 22,000 sq. ft. of existfng facility is planned to be minimally
renovated to preserve the facility for future use/renovatfon.
45
3—16
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Parks and Recreation Inventory/Assessment/ Recreation Facility
Efland Cheeks Community Center - 117 Richmond Rd., Efland
The Efland Cheeks Community Center was constructed and opened in 1992, before much of the park around it
was completed. The Center housed a senior nutritfon and actfvity site, community based grant offices as well
as recreatfon programs and events for many years. Once the new Central Orange Senior Center was
completed in Hillsborough, senior nutritfon and programming was all centralized at that locatfon.
In 2013, renovatfons and reorganizatfon occurred, which are providing the opportunity for revitalizatfon of
the center. Beginning in the fall of 2013, drop in use was scheduled at no cost for Orange County residents
throughout the week. Computers are set up with internet access, games and actfvitfes are available for
children, adults and seniors.
Future Rogers Rd. Community Center—Purefoy Dr., Chapel Hill
In 2012 a multf-jurisdictfonal task force was formed and
asked to investfgate a contractual agreement with Habitat
for Humanity to construct a Rogers Road Neighborhood
Community Center that would serve the residents of the
Rogers Road Neighborhood. The center would be owned
by Habitat and leased to Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood
Associatfon (RENA) for $1 per year. The property selected
for the center is located on Purefoy Dr. and owned by
Orange County. Chapel Hill and Carrboro are also involved
as partners in the project.
In 2013 a contractual agreement was reached which pro-
vided for operatfon and use of the new center by RENA.
Plans and constructfon drawings are currently under devel-
opment for the center. The planned center includes
classrooms, multf-purpose rooms, a library/computer
room, a food bank, and full kitchen as well as office and
storage space. Constructfon is expected to begin in 2014.
3
Size:
Total Facility: 2,600 sq. ft.
Multf-Purpose Room: 1,200 sq. ft.
Game Room: 160 sq. ft.
Kitchen: 100 sq. ft.
Offices: 180 sq. ft.
Computer Lab: 130 sq. ft.
Rogers Road Com-
munity Center
parcels (.54 acres)
46
3—17
Size: Land Area: 18.3 Acres
Existfng Structures:
Fitness Center; 80,900 sq. ft.
Types of Programs Offered:
Ice Skatfng
Hockey
Swimming
Exercise classes
Summer Camp Programs
After School Care
Strength and Cardio Training
Reserved Facilities or Uses:
Ice Rink
Pools
Actfvity Rooms
Special Features and Amenities:
Competftfon Pool
Recreatfonal Pool (ADA)
Baby Pool
Ice Arena
Fitness Center
Concession Stand
Senior Center (adjacent)
Swim, Fitness, Hockey/Skatfng Retail
Annual Visitors: 500,000 Overview: The Orange County (Triangle) SportsPlex is one of North
Carolina's largest recreatfonal facilitfes. With 90,000 square feet of
space, the SportsPlex is one of only two facilitfes in the United States
to offer an ice arena, aquatfcs center, and fitness center all under one
roof. SportsPlex is operated for the County by Recreatfon Partners,
Inc., under a contractual agreement. The County’s Central Orange
Senior Center is located adjacent to the SportsPlex, providing conven-
ient access for senior citfzens.
General Conditions and Adequacy for Intended Purpose and Uses:
The facility has undergone renovatfons and added spaces and
rooms for additfonal programs and actfvitfes.
The facility is serving record-high numbers of members and patrons,
with a high level of service and expanded program offerings.
Orange County SportsPlex - 101 Meadowlands Drive, Hillsborough
Future Phases: Substantfal upgrades are
planned, in three phases over the next 5
years, to add mezzanine fitness, an indoor
turf field, and a basketball court. These
improvements will primarily be funded by
increased revenues. Additfonal land for
parking and other uses has been acquired.
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Recreation Facility
SportsPlex
Senior Center
3
47
3—18
Existing Jones Creek Greenway & Future Twin Creeks* Park - 7906 Old NC 86, Chapel Hill
Size: Land Area: 193 Ac
Existfng Structures:
Farm House: 2,095 sq. ft.
Large Barn: 5,000 sq. ft.
Smoke House: 268 sq. ft.
Milk House: 174 sq. ft.
Tenant House: 172 sq. ft.
Chicken House: 196 sq. ft.
Granary: 1,400 sq. ft.
Current Facilities: Jones Creek
Greenway: 3/4 mile portfon
Planned Facilities Include:
4 Lighted, Full-size Soccer Fields
2 Lighted Baseball/Softball Fields
4 Lighted Tennis Courts
4 Lighted Basketball Courts
4 Picnic Shelters
4 Lighted Volleyball Courts
3 Play Areas
1 Spray Play Area
1 Lighted Roller Hockey Rink
2 Bocce Courts
3 Horseshoe Pits
1 Croquet Area
Hiking Trails
Concession Stand/Restrooms
Parks Base/Office
Reuse of Existfng Farmstead
Meadow with trails and pond
Adopted Master Plan
Priorities of the Master Plan Include:
Provide a mix of low-impact and actfve recreatfonal opportunitfes
Rehabilitate the historic farmstead buildings
Preserve natural resources
Retain the scenic vistas
Location and proximity to the greatest number of users:
This property is a 193-acre parcel on Old Highway 86, north of the town of Carrboro. It was acquired with voter
-approved bond funds in 2001 for use as an educatfonal campus of multfple schools for the Chapel Hill -
Carrboro City School system and one of four district parks to be developed by Orange County. The planned
park is a balance of actfve and low-impact recreatfon. The educatfonal campus provides for an elementary
school (Morris Grove Elementary School completed 2008), a middle school and a third (undetermined) facility.
In 2009, the Orange County BOCC voted in favor of revising the Twin Creeks Master Plan to include a .75-mile
greenway running from the Morris Grove Elementary School to the southern boundary of the County’s proper-
ty. It was completed in 2011, and is now part of the Jones Creek Greenway.
Types of programs anticipated:
When completed, this park is expected to host numerous events
and actfvitfes of all types.
Anticipated Cost: $15,000,000
* Also named “Moniese Nomp“, which means “Twin Creeks” in the Tutelo-Saponi
language; to honor the Occoneechee Natfve Americans who lived in this area
before European settlement. It is pronounced mo-nee-ay-say-nom-p.
Future School
Facility Site
Future School
Facility Site
3 Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Future Master Planned Park
48
3—19
Future Blackwood Farm Park - 4215 NC 86S, Hillsborough Size: Land Area: 152 Acres
Existfng Structures:
ca.1827 Farm House: 1700 sq. ft.
Chicken House: 288 sq. ft.
Smoke House: 264 sq. ft.
Corncrib: 256 sq. ft.
Large Barn: 3,540 sq. ft.
Milk House: 294 sq. ft.
Milking Shed: 520 sq. ft.
Garage: 792 sq. ft.
Planned Facilities Included:
Environmental Learning Center
Sustainable design for the property
Reuse of the farmstead
Agricultural demonstratfon areas
Picnic Shelters
Amphitheatre
Community Gardens
Playground
Fishing Dock
Hiking Trails & interpretfve signage
Potentfal Bike Trails
Informal multf-purpose field
Scenic Overlook
New entrance and parking area
Parks Operatfons Base and Office
Priorities of the Plan Included:
Rehabilitate the historic farmstead
Preservatfon of agricultural heritage
Preservatfon of natural resources
Retaining the scenic vistas
Overview:
This property was purchased by Orange County in 2001 through its
Lands Legacy program. The former Blackwood family farm was
acquired to protect this historic and scenic property for a future park
in the New Hope/University Statfon area, consistent with the Coun-
ty’s 1988 Recreatfon and Parks Master Plan. A master plan was
developed by 14-member committee for a park that will feature low-
impact recreatfon areas (trails, picnic areas) and retain the natural,
scenic, agricultural and historic character of the former farm. The
master plan was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in
March 2011.
Location and proximity to potential users:
The future park is located at the intersectfon of NC 86 and New Hope
Church Road, midway between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. It is also
located in close proximity to New Hope Elementary School, Stanback
Middle School, and the Orange County Campus of Durham Technical
Community College.
Types of programs anticipated:
The proposed master plan takes a low-impact approach to address
recreatfon, and to protect the agricultural heritage, historic
resources, scenic vistas and opportunitfes for environmental educa-
tfon at the site.
Anticipated Cost: $5,800,000
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Future Master Planned Park 3
49
3—20
Future Hollow Rock Access Area - Pickett Road, Durham
Size: Land Area: 75 Acres
Existfng Structures:
Equipment Shed: 2,000 sq. ft.
Special Features and Amenities:
New Hope Creek
Hanging Rock
Open Field
Natural and Historical Heritage
Trails (2 miles plus connectfng
offsite trails)
Overview:
This 75-acre preserve serves as a northern access point and major trail head to the New Hope Creek open space
corridor, a multf-jurisdictfonal effort of the City of Durham, Durham County, Orange County and the Town of
Chapel Hill. The trail system will link to public trails in Duke Forest, located adjacent to this site. All four jurisdic-
tfons partfcipated in the purchase of the property, and private donatfons added more than $225,000, demon-
stratfng the public’s interest for this area to be preserved and developed as a trail access. The property is
already highly used with informal trails, posing risk issues since the site cannot be opened and managed for
public use untfl the installatfon of parking, signs, and bridges. In late 2013 the site was awarded a $200,000 RTP
(Recreatfonal Trail Program) Grant along with Durham and Orange County each pledging $ 25,000 in matching
funds to construct four bridges, a parking area and install some signage. Constructfon is antfcipated in 2015.
Location and proximity to the greatest number of users:
Ideally situated along the border of Orange and Durham countfes,
within 7 miles of Chapel Hill and 6 miles of downtown Durham.
Types of programs anticipated:
Environmental and Historical Heritage educatfon.
Anticipated Cost: (Including Durham County’s contributfon)
Phase 1: $384,000 (Entrance Drive, Parking Area, Bridges, Signage, additfonal Cultural
& Archeological Survey work)
Phase 2: $275,000 (Barn Renovatfon for Environmental Ed programs,
Restroom, Bridges, Overlook Platiorms)
Phase 3: $140,000 (Parking on Pickett Rd, Roadbed Top-dress, Signage)
Total = $799,000
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Future Master Planned Park
N
E
W
H
O
P
E
C
R
E
E
K
Adopted
Master Plan
3
50
3—21
Size: Land Area: 306 Acres
Overview: Orange County protects this large property for a future
nature preserve. Some of the land was acquired by the County in
the 1970s for water supply watershed protectfon purposes. Later
additfons were to establish the larger preserve for a wildlife sanctu-
ary and low-impact public recreatfonal uses. The property is
managed by DEAPR, which is working on opening the eastern por-
tfons of the property for use beginning in late 2013. Other portfons
will open pending further acquisitfons and facilitfes development.
Size: Land Area: 63 acres
Overview: Orange County acquired this property from Duke University in 2000
for a future nature preserve. The planned McGowan Creek Preserve helps to
protect the Upper Eno watershed and preserves an area of open space between
Hillsborough and Efland. Located at the confluence of McGowan Creek and the
Eno River, the preserve will provide a natural area and low -impact recreatfonal
facilitfes for people to enjoy.
Funding for acquisition:
$ 148,000 from Orange County (School/Park Capital Reserve Fund)
$ 143,000 from NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund
Anticipated facilities include: The site will feature a rustfc picnic area (and possible restroom facility), along with
two miles of trails through a mature forest that overlooks nearby Corporatfon Lake.
Location and proximity to the greatest number of users: Located one mile west of Hillsborough town limits on
the north side of US 70; the future McGowan Creek Preserve will attract day users from central and northern
Orange County and occasional visitors enjoying a rest stop along US 70.
Types of programs anticipated: The preserve will be open to the public from dawn to dusk. Occasional guided
tours of the natural and cultural resource will be programmed by the DEAPR staff.
Anticipated Cost: Not Known
Anticipated facilities include: Parking area, hiking trails, interpretfve areas, group camping (by reservatfon),
Mountains-to-Sea Trail segment. Visitors may also want to visit the adjacent Moorefields property, which is
owned and operated by the Historic Moorefields Foundatfon.
Location and proximity to the greatest number of users: Located about three miles southwest of Hillsborough
between Mt. Willing Road and Moorefields Road (Cheeks Township). The main entrance to the site is from his-
toric Moorefields located at 2201 Moorefields Road. The future Seven Mile Creek Preserve will attract day users
primarily from central and northern Orange County, as well as through hikers on the Mountains -to-Sea Trail.
Types of programs anticipated: The preserve will be open to the public from dawn to dusk. Occasional guided
tours of the natural and cultural resources will be programmed by the DEAPR staff. Some programs may be
offered in conjunctfon with the historic Moorefields site.
Anticipated Cost: Not Known
Upper Eno Preserve—Seven Mile Creek Access Area -2201 Moorefields Road, Hillsborough
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory / Assessment / Future Preserves without Master Plans 3
Upper Eno Preserve -McGowan Creek Access Area - US 70 West, Hillsborough
51
3—22
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 3 - Park Inventory /Assessment / Future Park Sites without Master Plans
Future Northeast District Park -3981 Schley Road, Hillsborough
Size: Land Area: 143 acres
Overview: Orange County acquired this property in 2007 following an
extensive search for a site that would meet the identffied needs for a
district park in north-central Orange County, which dates back to the 1988
Master Recreatfon and Parks Master Plan. This property is being “land
banked” for future park development. A park master plan will be devel-
oped using a collaboratfve process that includes community input. The
property is currently leased to a local farmer for cattle and hay productfon.
Future Millhouse Road Park - 6823 Millhouse Road, Chapel Hill
Size: Land Area: 79 acres
Overview: Orange County acquired this property in 2004 and 2007
through it’s Lands Legacy Program. The property includes the former
Blackwood family farmstead. The buildings are generally well preserved
and have recently been up-fit for the temporary housing of the Orange
County Parks Operatfons Base. The site is located within the Rural Buffer
and is a neighbor to Duke Forest, sharing prime forest land and an identf-
fied Natural Heritage Area. The property is bounded to the east by
Millhouse Rd. and the nearby Chapel Hill Town Operatfons Center. Large
open fields and pine stands in the center of the property would be suitable
for actfve parks and recreatfon facility development.
Anticipated facilities include: The future district park is expected to feature a combinatfon of actfve and low -
impact recreatfon, including lighted playing fields. Much of the western half of the property is forested and is
expected to have nature trails and picnic areas. An indoor recreatfon center has been discussed and may be in-
cluded in future planning.
Location and proximity to the greatest number of users: The property is located about one mile north of the
Town of Chapel Hill and less then a 1/2 mile from I-40. The area is primarily rural in character. The expected
primary users will be residents of central and southern Orange County.
Types of programs anticipated: Predominantly actfve recreatfon. Specific programs will be identffied with the
development and adoptfon of a park master plan.
Anticipated Cost: Not Known
Anticipated facilities include: The future district park is expected to feature a combinatfon of actfve and low -
impact recreatfon, including playing fields on the open sectfons of the site. Much of the southern half of the
property is forested and is expected to have nature trails and picnic areas. A small portfon of the site
(approximately 5 acres) may be suitable for co-locatfng a solid waste convenience center for residents in the
northeast part of the county. The entrance to that center would be from Mincey Road.
Location and proximity to the greatest number of users: The property is located about five miles northeast of
Hillsborough and 1/2 mile east of NC 57. The site is bounded to the north by Schley Road and to the south by
Mincey Road. The area is primarily rural in character. The expected primary users will be residents of north -
central Orange County.
Types of programs anticipated: Some combinatfon of actfve and low-impact recreatfon. Specific programs will
be identffied with the development and adoptfon of a park master plan.
Anticipated Cost: Not Known
3
52
4 - 1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 4 - Recreation Programs and Services
Youth Athletic Programs Ages
Served
Number of
Participants
Basketball League - Summer & Winter 5 - 15 804
Cheerleading 7 - 12 24
Golf Instruction 6 - 16 40
Lacrosse Instruction 7 - 12 15
Ready, Set, Run 8 - 12 42
Soccer League - Fall & Spring 5 - 15 716
Start Smart Sports Programs 3 - 5 183
Tennis Instruction 4 - 12 60
Volleyball League - Spring 9 - 16 94
Volleyball Instruction 7 - 12 55
Recreation Programs and Services
A. Current Recreation Programs
Orange County works to provide affordable recrea-
tion programs that support community recreation
needs and services for all levels of users, age groups,
and user types. These programs allow members of
the community to enjoy leisure opportunities with
family and friends, participate in activities that
enhance their way of life and create lifelong skills,
health benefits and memories. As program demands
change with increases in population, changes in
demographics, cultural interests, and national
trends, the County will continue to solicit feedback
and provide the opportunity for open dialogue
between members of the community, program
participants and the department. This will foster the
development of a wide variety of programs helping
to meet the changing needs of the community.
Instructional Programs Ages
Served
Number of
Participants
Science and Environmental—Tiny Trek-
kers, Discovery Club, 321 Blast Off,
Attracting Wildlife, etc.
3 - 12 148
Life Skills—Cooking, Babysitting
Certification 6 - 13 96
Arts—Creative Arts, Budding Artists,
Winter Art Explosion 4 - 12 136
Exercise—Dance, Yoga, Tai’ Chi,
Tai Kwon Do, Karate 6 - Over 480
Music— Guitar, Choral Instruction,
Piano 7 - Over 127
Instructional programs are offered for males and
females of all ages. Interest in science and environ-
mental programs remains strong, as does enrollment
in musical programs. Cooking and art classes contin-
ue to fill, especially with the youngest age groups.
The Youth Basketball Leagues have drawn heavy
enrollment since the 1990s. Youth Soccer has
increased in popularity each year since 2006.
Coaches and Parent Training provided by staff, as
well as criminal background/sexual predator checks
have helped make programs both safe and fun.
Adult Athletic Programs Ages
Served
Number of
Participants
Basketball League - Summer & Winter 16 - Over 264
Co-Rec Volleyball League - Winter 16- Over 156
Co-Rec Softball League - Fall 16- Over 48
Couch to 5K 16 - 55 19
Tennis Instruction 16 - Over 33
Table 4-1: Current Programs
Table 4-1: Current Programs (cont.)
Table 4-1: Current Programs (cont.)
4
53
4 - 2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 4 - Recreation Programs and Services
Summer Enrichment Programs Ages
Served
Number of
Participants
Arts—Piano, Dance, Ballet, Theatre,
Messy Art, Creative Art, Choral, Chef,
and Cooks Around the World
4 - 12 234
Science—Fizz, Muck, Bubbles & Goo,
Einstein Science, Let’s Build Something,
Environmental, Ecology, 321 Blast Off,
Little Science, Explore Outer Space,
Model Building, and Intro to Lego
4 - 12 156
Sports—Soccer, Baseball, Football, Bas-
ketball, Volleyball, Olympics, Tae Kwon
Do, Golf, 5K Running, Sports Sampler,
Cheerleading, and Tennis.
7 - 12 455
Adventure—Teen Adventure, Preteen
Adventure, Gone Fishing, Variety, and
Police Academy
10 - 16 238
Orange County residents continue to demand high
quality, affordable summer enrichment programs.
Camp programs are designed to expose the
participants to the arts, sciences, sports and
adventure entertainment venues around the
Triangle. Onsite camp programs are operated at the
Central Recreation Center and sports field and also
at Efland-Cheeks Community Center and sports
field. Camp programs typically are fully enrolled,
and they meet or exceed revenue projections, but
they also exceed current space and staff and
resources.
Table 4-1: Current Programs (cont.)
Special Events Ages
Served
Number of
Participants
Egg Hunt All Ages 1700
Fishing Rodeo All Ages 300
Halloween Spooktacular All Ages 1000
Santa's Calling 2 - 9 100
Movie in the Park - Fall & Spring All Ages 700
Friday Pizza and a Movie All Ages 60
Daddy Daughter Dance All Ages 100
Earth Evening All Ages 200
Rec Fest 5 - 16 4000
Orange County Recreation Division offers personalized
Inclusion Services for participants of all ages.
Special Populations Ages
Served
Number of
Participants
Top Soccer Ages 4 - 19 9
SP Holiday Party All Ages 50
SP Halloween All Ages 100
SP Talent Show All Ages 50
Table 4-1: Current Programs (cont.)
Table 4-1: Current Programs (cont.)
4
54
4 - 3
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 4 - Recreation Programs and Services
95%
91%91%
93%
91%
94%
Youth Teen Adult Family Camp Facility
Facility Type Reservations Attendance
Activity Rooms 123 3,007
Picnic Shelters 158 7,938
Gymnasiums 132 6,308
Sports Fields 822 57,199
Outdoor Tennis/Basketball 188 855
B. Current Recreation Services
Table 4-2: Shows increased usage of online registration
Program Registration
Trends 2013 2012 2011 2009 2010
As of 9/15
Recreation Division
Total Enrollment 3,883 4,374 4,003 1,813 2,475
Online Registrations 1,564 1,787 317 0 0
In 2011, Orange County residents were introduced
to online program registrations and facility
reservations via RecTrac software. Today, online
enrollment represents 40% of all program
registrations, providing convenience and
accessibility. Total program enrollment has
increased by 41% from 2009 to 2013 with the larg-
est increases occurring in youth soccer and summer
enrichment programs. Facility use reservations are
shown below.
Table 4-3: Facility Reservations by type
Table 4-4 : Customer Satisfaction
In Fiscal Year 2011-2012 over 1,000 Customer Satis-
faction Evaluation Surveys were received from pro-
gram participants and facility users. The evaluations
were broken into six categories: youth programs,
teen programs, adult programs, family programs,
camps, and facilities. Satisfaction was over 90% in
all categories as shown in the table below.
C. Other Public Parks, Recreation and Related
Services Offered by Orange County
Orange County Department on Aging offers
programs and services to older adults in Orange
County. Programs and services are offered in two
senior centers. Program areas include arts & crafts,
athletics, enrichment classes, Senior Games and
special events. More information about these
programs may be found at the Department on Aging
website: http://orangecountync.gov/aging/index.asp
and the Senior Times publication.
The Orange County Cooperative Extension offers 4-H
Development and Health and Nutrition training. The
Orange County Library programs include Storytime,
school-aged programs and a teen center with oppor-
tunities to be a teen volunteer. The Health
Department covers areas such as health care/
nutrition services and health education. For more
information on the Orange County Departments’
programs listed above visit: http://oangecountync.gov
The Orange County SportsPlex is owned by Orange
County while the operation of the facility is managed
by a private contractor. Programs and services
offered include camps, figure skating, hockey,
aquatics and fitness programs. The Central Orange
Senior Center located adjacent to the SportsPlex,
provides convenient access for senior citizens. More
information about Orange County SportsPlex may be
found at: http://www.trianglesportsplex.com/
CUSTOMERS SATISFIED AND ABOVE FY 2011-2012
4
55
4 - 4
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 4 - Recreation Programs and Services
C. Other Public Parks and Recreation
Services Offered in Orange County Continued
The Town of Chapel Hill Parks & Recreation pro-
grams and services include Aquatics, Athletics, Festi-
vals and Events, Adapted Recreation & Inclusion and
Special Olympics. The Town has many parks, green-
ways, and trail systems in addition to indoor and
outdoor swimming pools.
For more information go to:
http://www.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us/index.aspx?page=74
Chapel Hill’s Homestead Aquatic Center (above) was
partially funded with $4.9 million from 2001 and
1997 Orange County alternative financing and voter-
approved Parks and Open Space bonds.
The map below shows in gray, the town limits for
each of the municipalities within Orange County.
Each town has parks and recreation facilities and/or
programs. The towns make up 61% of Orange
County’s total population.
The Town of Carrboro’s Department of Recreation
and Parks offers many of the same types of activities
including Athletics, Special Events, Classes for Youth
and Teens, Classes for Adults, Senior Programs,
Hikes and Day Trips, Special Recreation and Senior
Games.
Carrboro’s website includes more information at:
http://www.carrbororec.org
The Town of Hillsborough does not have a parks and
recreation department but the Town operates
several parks. Hillsborough relies on its volunteer
Parks and Recreation Board to provide guidance on
Town-owned parks. To locate Hillsborough parks
visit:
http://www.ci.hillsborough.nc.us/content/parks-recreation
Map 4.1 searched for facilities with:
Baseball / Softball fields
Picnic Facilities
Measured Walking Paths
Map 4.1 Online Parks and Recreation Facility
Locator Map
This map allows a multi-jurisdictional search for up
to three park activities/amenities in the county. The
interactive map includes parks/recreation facilities
for the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough,
Mebane (Orange County portion) and Orange Coun-
ty. The map can be found at:
http//server2.co.orange.nc.us/ParkLocator/
4
The City of Mebane Parks and Recreation offers
many leisure opportunities that include Athletic Pro-
grams, Exercise Classes, Music Concerts and Special
Events/Festivals. Lake Michael Park, in Mebane, is
located in Orange County. To learn more about the
City of Mebane Recreation and Parks visit:
http://www.cityofmebane.com/parks.asp
56
5—1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 5 - Demographics and Driving Factors 5
Demographics and Driving Factors
Background
The population of Orange County is 138,000 persons
(137,941) as of July, 20121. Approximately two-
thirds (2/3) of the population resides within the
boundaries of the municipalities of Chapel Hill
(55,474 within Orange County) and Carrboro
(20,433). Almost 10,000 of Chapel Hill residents are
students living on-campus at the University of North
Carolina (UNC).
The town of Hillsborough is home to 6,271 persons,
while Mebane’s population of 12,685 includes
approximately 2,000 persons on the Orange County
side of this city. Table 5-1 shows the relative
population change by locality in the last 12 years.
Municipality 2000 2010 2012
Orange County - Total 115,531 133,801 137,941
Carrboro 16,782 19,582 20,433
Chapel Hill (part)2 46,019 54,397 55,474
Hillsborough 5,446 6,087 6,271
Mebane (part) 675 1,793 2,000
Durham (part) 39 30 32
Unincorporated
Orange County 46,570 51,912 53,731
*Around 2,950 Chapel Hill residents in 2012 live in the
Durham County portion of town. Most of the residents of
Mebane (12,685) and Durham (239,358) are in Alamance
and Durham counties, respectively.
Table 5-1: Orange County Population 2000 -2012
In general terms, the population of the combined
towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro urban area (i.e.,
the town populations plus those persons living on
the town fringes) stands at around 81,000. The
Town of Hillsborough “urban area” includes
approximately 10,000 persons, with another 6,000
persons living in the Efland to Mebane corridor of
the county west of Hillsborough.
Approximately 41,000 persons live in the rest of
“rural” Orange County. As a general benchmark,
roughly half of these persons reside south of
Interstate 85, and half north of this highway - that
bisects the county.
While the U.S. Census Bureau updated some
population data for July 2012, other demographic
data was not updated. For these data, the 2010 US
Census remains the most-recent information. As
such, the most recent population at the township
level is from the 2010 Census. As shown in Table
5-2, Orange County has seven townships with widely
-varying populations. The townships include
populations within municipalities that lie within the
township borders.
Table 5-2: Population by Townships and
Municipalities within Orange County
Municipality 2010
Bingham Township 6,527
Cedar Grove Township 5,222
Chapel Hill Township3 87,971
Chapel Hill (part) 54,397
Carrboro 19,582
Unincorporated 13,992
Cheeks Township 9,313
Mebane (part) 1,793
Unincorporated 7,520
Eno Township 7,501
Hillsborough Township 13,809
Hillsborough 6,087
Unincorporated 7,722
Little River Township 3,458
Orange County - Total 133,801
57
5—2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 5 - Demographics and Driving Factors 5
A. Population Density
The population density of the county is, as may be expected, most tightly clustered in Chapel Hill and Carrboro,
and to a lesser degree, along the Hillsborough to Mebane corridor. The town of Carrboro is among the most
densely-populated communities in the state.
Outside of these urban towns and suburban corridors, other areas of moderate-density suburban-type
population may be found in several parts of the county:
The triangular area between Interstate 85 and Interstate 40 in Chapel Hill and Eno townships
Areas east and northeast of Hillsborough, including the St. Mary’s Road corridor
The area along the Durham County line north of Interstate 85,
Areas of Bingham and Chapel Hill townships, west and northwest of Carrboro
Areas along US 70 both east and west of Hillsborough, and
The area south of Chapel Hill and Carrboro bordering the Chatham County line.
Map 5-1: Total Population—2010 Census
58
5—3
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 5 - Demographics and Driving Factors 5
B. Age, Gender and Racial Composition
In the 2010 Census, 52.3% of the county population
was female, a number generally consistent with
previous Census results from the last 30 years. This
is slightly higher than the 51.3% for the entire state.
This ratio of male to female holds fairly constant in
the different areas of the county, with Chapel Hill
slightly higher at 53.4% and Hillsborough slightly
lower at 50.6%.
In terms of the age, the table below shows the
breakdown of persons in 2010 in three categories :
1) Under Age 5,
2) Under Age 18, and
3) Over 65.
By comparison, the figures for the state overall are:
6.4% (Under 5),
23.4% (Under 18), and
13.8% (Over 65).
Table 5-3: Population by Age Groups – 2010 Census
Age Orange County
(all)
Chapel Hill Carrboro Hillsborough Mebane
Under 5 4.9% 4.2% 5.8% 7.3% 7.7%
Under 18 20.4% 17.4% 21.5% 24.0% 26.6%
Over 65 10.3% 9.2% 5.3% 12.2% 10.8%
18-65 64.4% 69.2% 67.4% 66.5% 54.9%
As shown below, the overall county and Town of
Chapel Hill numbers are fairly consistent with each
other. By contrast, the towns of Carrboro,
Hillsborough and Mebane4 are markedly younger,
with a higher percentage of the population both
Under 5 and Under 18. Carrboro also reflects a
considerably smaller proportion of Over 65 persons.
This age group of 5-17 is the largest current service
population for Orange County recreation and
athletics programs. Map 5-3 shows the distribution
of the percentage of persons in this age grouping
(5-17) within the county. Such information will likely
be of value in identifying programs and locational
needs.
Maps for other age groupings are included with
additional demographic information in Appendix
5.1.
59
5—4
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 5 - Demographics and Driving Factors 5
Map 5-2: Total Population -2010 Census
Map 5-3: Total Population 5-17 yrs old -2012 Census
60
5—5
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 5 - Demographics and Driving Factors 5
B. Age, Gender and Racial Composition (cont.)
The racial and ethnic distribution of the County
population has seen two important changes in the
last 20 years:
A marked growth in persons of Hispanic origin
A marked growth in persons of Asian descent
Table 5-4 shows the racial and ethnic origin
population of Orange County as of the 2012 US
Census estimates (county) or the 2010 Census
(towns).5
Comparing the 2010/2012 data to that of the 2000
Census, one sees that for Orange County as a whole,
the Asian and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander
categories (previously one category in the 2000
Census) have increased from 4.1% of the population
to 7.4% in only 12 years. In Chapel Hill, the Asian
population has grown from 7.6% in 2000 to 11.9% in
2010 (it was 1% in 1980). The Black or African-
American and White population percentages of the
total population have decreased during the same
timeframe.
Likewise, the number of persons of Hispanic or
Latino ethnicity has grown from 4.5% of the county
population in 2000, to 8.2% in 2012. It is important
to note that some of the racial categories used by
the Census Bureau have changed since the 2000
Census, so comparisons should be drawn carefully
to make sure consistent groups are being
considered.
Table 5-4: Race/Ethnic Origin – 2010 / 2012 Census Estimate
Race/Ethnicity Orange
County (2012)6
Chapel Hill
(2010)
Carrboro
(2010)
Hillsborough
(2010)
Mebane
(2010)
Black or African-American (alone) 12.2% 9.7% 10.1% 29.5% 20.4%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5%
Asian (alone) 7.3% 11.9% 8.2% 1.7% 1.2%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (alone) 0.1% 0 0 0 0.1%
White (alone) 77.4% 72.8% 70.9% 62.9% 73.5%
Two or More Races 2.5% 2.7% 2.9% 2.1% 2.6%
Hispanic or Latino7 8.2% 6.4% 13.8% 6.6% 6.0%
C. Other Notable Demographic Data and Trends
Additional information may be found in Appendix
5-1. Some other items worthy of note for this plan
include:
Orange County is among the most highly -educated
counties in the United States. Just under 25%, or one in
four, of the county’s adult residents hold a bachelor’s
degree or higher. When that calculation is changed to
include “persons of age 25 and over between 2007 -
2011,” the figure increases to 54.6% with a bachelor’s
degree or higher. While such comparative tabulations
are no longer kept by the US Census Bureau, in 1990,
Orange County was the 8th most-educated county in the
U.S. Almost 30% of the adult population of the county
has attained a graduate or professional degree
(compared to 8.5% of the state’s adult population).
The County also has a higher-than-average median
family income. The median household income measured
from 2007-2011 in Orange County was $56,055, almost
$10,000 (and 22%) higher than the state median house-
hold income of $46,291.
However, this high median income figure masks an un-
derlying issue - the county also has 16.9% of its persons
living below the federal poverty level. It is important to
note that this figure is skewed by the presence of large
numbers of college students in and around UNC, but it
also represents a polarized income structure within the
county which includes substantial cohorts of both high
income and low income persons and households.
In 2005, private industry employed slightly over half of
the Orange County population. The state government
generates nearly half of the annual wages in the county,
mainly due to the County’s largest employers -
University of North Carolina and UNC HealthCare.
61
5—6
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 5 - Demographics and Driving Factors 5
D. Population Projections to the Year 2030
In the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan for Orange
County, Section C of the “Orange County Profile
Element” contains an assessment of population
projections. Several different methodologies were
examined in that section, all of which yielded some-
what different projections for the future. This
analysis was done prior to the existence of the 2010
U.S. Census data, so it is now possible to look at how
the different methodologies performed for the first
decade of 2000-2010.
Table 5-5 shows the projected population by
township for Orange County in 2010, 2020 and 2030
– which is also the target date for this plan.
The methodology which most-closely matched the
actual Orange County population growth through
2010 is the “average 10-year linear” projection
model. This method, the “medium” set of projec-
tions among the three examined, predicted that the
Table 5-5 – Orange County Population Projections 2010-2030
County would have 134,770 persons in 2010 (actual
was 133,801), and predicts 154,009 for the year
2020 and 173,248 persons by the year 2030.
This data is reflected in Table 5-E (replacing the 2010
projections with actual 2010 US Census data):
Two important caveats must be added about these
population projections. First, population projections
are expected assumptions based on past historical
trends, and may be affected by economic changes,
migration and mobility, and other factors. Even
though the methodology used above was the closest
fit to the actual county results in 2010, it may not
hold true for future decades, and as such, all
projections must be used with an understanding
that actual results will change. It is possible that the
projected 173,248 figure for 2030 may be lower or
higher depending on long-term trends and driving
factors.
Township
(Municipality)
2010
(US Census)
2020
Projection
2030
Projection
ORANGE COUNTY - TOTAL 133,801 154,009 173,248
BINGHAM TWP 6,527 8,409 9,523
CEDAR GROVE TWP 5,222 6,694 7,576
CHAPEL HILL TWP 87,971 102,584 115,587
Town of Chapel Hill (OC pt) 54,397 56,166 62,198
Town of Carrboro 19,582 26,048 30,681
Unincorporated 13,992 20,372 22,711
CHEEKS 9,313 9,308 10,430
City of Mebane (OC pt) 1,793 971 1,119
Unincorporated 7,520 8,337 9,311
ENO TWP 7,501 7,734 8,555
HILLSBOROUGH TWP 13,809 14,679 16,199
Town of Hillsborough 6,087 7,874 9,088
Unincorporated 7,722 6,807 7,114
LITTLE RIVER TWP 3,458 4,601 5,376
62
5—7
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 5 - Demographics and Driving Factors 5
Conclusion
Orange County, as home to the University of North
Carolina and UNC Health Care with proximity to the
Research Triangle Park and Duke University,
continues to see positive population growth as it has
for the last century, and especially the last 50 years.
While growth rates have slowed somewhat in recent
years with the “Great Recession” economic
downturn of 2008-2010, the county continues to see
population increases both within its municipalities
and in the rural parts of the county. Particularly
noteworthy is the current and projected future
growth in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area, the
Mebane to Hillsborough (and Cheeks Township)
corridor, and other locations across the county –
including west of Carrboro and the I-40/I-85
“wedge” in eastern Orange. Overall, an increase
of another 40,000 persons from 2010 to 2030 may
be expected.
The county is seeing changes in its demographics
with an influx of persons of Asian descent and of
Hispanic or Latino origin – especially in the urban
areas of southeastern Orange. The county is among
the most-educated counties in the nation, and has a
high median household income – a figure which
masks significant numbers of low-income house-
holds. The major employers in the county are UNC,
UNC Health Care and private industry, much of the
latter of which is located outside of the county
boundaries.
Note: Additional graphics, maps and end notes on
Orange County demographics may be found in
Appendix 5.1
Secondly, as can be seen in table 5-5, while the
projection methodology did a very good job of
anticipating the total county population, this was
not always the case at the township and
municipality level. For example, while the
projection for Chapel Hill Township as a whole was
close to the mark, the breakdown between Chapel
Hill, Carrboro and the unincorporated part of the
township over projected the latter and under-
projected the town of Chapel Hill. In Cheeks
Township, annexation and more-rapid growth by the
City of Mebane and in the township occurred
between 2000 and 2010. Other differences of a like
nature may be noted. Overall, however, the
projection methodology did match closely to the
actual growth of 2000-2010. Time will tell whether
this growth pattern will be the best 20-year
approximation of population increase.
Note – for the Town of Chapel Hill and the City of
Mebane, the above numbers represent only the por-
tions of those municipalities within Orange County.
63
5—8
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 5 - Demographics and Driving Factors 5
This page left blank intentionally
64
6—1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
Community Needs Assessment
and Public Input
Introduction
One of the most important components of a master
plan is to assess how residents feel about existing
services and facilities, future needs, and other
important considerations.
Over the past year, County staff and UNC-
Greensboro consultants worked to create a
compendium of comments, remarks and opinions as
part of a Community Needs Assessment or CNA. This
CNA takes several forms, as will be identified and
discussed below – from statistical sample surveys to
informal comments and opinions expressed at
community focus groups and public input sessions.
As noted in Appendix 6-1, CNA’s are conducted for
several reasons, including:
1. To provide county residents the opportunity to
express their views regarding parks and recreation as
part of community life;
2. To provide county residents the opportunity to
express their views relative to satisfaction with
existing park and recreations area, facilities,
programs, and services;
3. To identify county residents’ interest regarding the
implementation of new programs and services that
meet the needs of the county and respond to new
trends in parks and recreation;
4. To avoid unnecessary duplication and over -provision
of programs and facilities;
5. To identify county residents’ interest in the develop-
ment of future park and recreation areas and
facilities;
6. To provide public officials with the information
needed to prioritize future park and recreation area
and facility development;
7. To justify capital improvements, quite often as part
of a grant process;
8. To identify funding mechanisms that are acceptable
for parks and recreation area and facility
development; and
9. To foster ownership of park and recreation programs
and facilities by county residents.
The purpose of this assessment was to determine
the leisure interests and preferences of Orange
County residents. The information presented herein
will help to determine the interests and preferences
of residents regarding recreation programs and
services, and will become a key building block for
the master plan recommendations for park and
recreation program and facility development for
Orange County.
In order to attempt to develop a robust assessment
that included all components of the county popula-
tion, a random-sample survey was augmented with
other “Supplemental Surveys” to provide for a more
comprehensive assessment.
A. CNA and Public Outreach Methods
1. Youth Survey
Young people are an important part of the constitu-
ency for parks and recreation programs, so gaining
insight into their opinions is appropriate and valid.
To this end, in summer 2012, UNC Master of Public
Administration intern, Renisha Howard, met with a
series of County and Cooperative Extension summer
camp counselors and campers to ask their thoughts
about our needs and existing programs.
The full report on the 2012 Youth Parks and
Recreation Survey may be found as Appendix 6-2 to
this document.
65
6—2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
The campers and their responses were broken into
two categories, pre-teen (ages 7-12) and teen (13-
16). In summary, the pre-teen youth listed Fairview
Park among their favorite County parks, and they
appreciated that park’s diversity of equipment and
amenities. The favorite activity among this group
was basketball (many of those surveyed were in a
basketball camp), followed by biking and playing on
“monkey bars.” Among the park improvements they
would like to see, responders noted newer volleyball
nets and more basketball courts at Fairview Park,
and more trails at Efland-Cheeks Park. The favorite
recreation programs were basketball, doll-making in
arts camp, and field trips for bowling and roller
skating. Their wish list for the upcoming year was
more basketball scrimmages, more biking and hiking
in adventure camps, and more painting and drawing
in creative arts camps.
The Teen youth surveyed listed Efland-Cheeks as the
County park closest to them. While many indicated
they did not go to the park much, their favorite
activities were swimming, playing basketball and
volleyball, ping-pong and picnics. Bike trails, athletic
fields and volleyball courts were the most-used park
facilities in their estimation. There was little
response to favorite recreation programs, except a
desire for music classes at the Central Recreation
Center. The facilities these young people most want-
ed to see repaired or built included tennis and
volleyball courts, soccer fields, playgrounds and
mountain bike trails.
2. Community Needs Assessment Survey
The Community Needs Assessment Survey was
administered in three different manners, including a
statistical random-sample survey, between October
2012 and July 2013. This multi-pronged approach
was undertaken and deemed necessary due to the
following factors:
As indicated below, a statistical random-sample sur-
vey was conducted and provided a valid statistical
survey of community needs and interests about
current and possible future parks and recreation
programs and facilities. This survey yielded 520
responses. There were, however, two important
shortcomings in the random-sample Community
Needs Assessment survey that warranted further
exploration and survey outreach:
a. Many of the households sampled were
residents of the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro,
and were largely unfamiliar with County parks and
programs (since these towns offer their own
programs and facilities). A follow-up attempt was
deemed desirable to solicit feedback from those
persons who do frequent County parks and
participate in county programs.
b. The random-sample survey responses received
under-represented minority groups – African-
American, persons of Hispanic origin and Asians –
warranting further efforts to solicit feedback from
those cultural and/or ethnic communities.
The following is a brief summary of the three survey
results that were eventually undertaken including
the original random-sample survey.
3. Statistical Random-Sample Survey CNA
In the summer and fall of 2012, Orange County staff
worked with consultants from the University of
North Carolina at Greensboro (UNC-G) to develop
and administer a statistical random-sample survey
of 4,200 households in Orange County
(approximately 10% of the total households in the
county). The survey was conducted by UNC-G via US
mail with postage-paid return envelopes. A follow-
up postcard was sent to survey recipients that had
not responded within three weeks. The surveys
were collected and analyzed by the consultants in
November 2012-January 2013, and the results
reported and evaluated in a report received on
January 31, 2013. After discussion with the
consultant and among staff, the decision was made
not to stratify the sample on the basis of geography
(i.e., the random sampling for the surveys was of the
entirety of Orange County without adjusting for
residence).
Note: The full report and results of the Community
Needs Assessment statistical survey, and the survey
instrument, may be found as Appendix 6-3.
66
6—3
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
In all, a total of 520 county residents responded to
the survey, which is a response rate of 12.2% and a
valid statistical sample. Typical response rates for
surveys of this type are approximately 10%.
The Community Needs Assessment asked 47
questions of the survey recipients, which were
broken down into six areas:
a. Parks and Recreation Facility Usage
b. General Information
c. Recreation Activity Participation
d. Future Recreation Programs / Activities
e. Future Parks and Recreation Facilities
f. Financing Recreation and Park Facility
Development
4. Supplemental Community Needs Assessments
As noted above, the statistical random-sample
survey, while a valid statistical survey, was in need
of elaboration due to high proportion of persons
unfamiliar with County facilities, and under-
representation of minority populations.
For example, of the surveys received via the
statistical random-sample and online surveys that
answered demographic questions, only 42 or 5.7%
were African-American respondents. This compares
to 12% of the county’s total population. Thus, efforts
were needed to try and add additional surveys from
the African-American community to have a more
representative sample.
To address these concerns, a multi-faceted
approach was made for Supplemental Community
Needs Assessments. These supplemental efforts
attempted to solicit responses (to the same
questions from the random-sample survey), via the
following methods:
An online version of the survey was created and
links to the internet survey were publicized to recre-
ation and parks mailing lists and open to the general
public. This survey was also promoted via news
release, social media and email1. This approach
yielded an additional 307 responses. The results of
this survey may be found in Appendix 6-4.
A targeted survey release to Hispanic community.
Sixty copies of the survey (in Spanish, with a link to
an English version) with self-addressed, stamped
return envelopes were distributed at El Centro
Latino in Carrboro and via a summer camp for His-
panic children in Hillsborough. Surveys were also
handed out at a Movie in the Park event in Efland.
However, very few of these surveys have been
received to date.
Targeted surveys to African-American community.
Copies of the survey with self-addressed, stamped
envelopes were handed out at multiple events in
Efland and Cedar Grove to a predominantly African-
American audience. Thirteen additional surveys
were received by this approach.
A Focus Group is being scheduled with members of
the Asian community. The results of these focus
groups were not part of the survey responses, but
are included in the data, findings and recommenda-
tions in the Plan. The results of these focus group
conversations are included as Appendix 6-5.
Some of these outreach efforts remain underway to
try and reach target response rates.
67
6—4
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
The following section tabulates all of the responses
together, for a full picture of what these two
cross-sections of county residents had to say about
the questions asked in our survey. NOTE: For
brevity, the statistical random sample survey is
abbreviated as the “SRS survey.”
1. Parks and Recreation Facility Usage Questions
The most frequently-used facility in both the
random-sample and online surveys was the Triangle
Sportsplex, which was visited by 46% of the
respondents in the past year. Central Recreation
Center was next with 28%, followed by Little River
Regional Park and Natural Area (20%), Eurosport
Soccer Center (19%), River Park/Farmers Market
Pavilion (19%) and Cedar Grove Park (18%). These
figures reflect an average of low visit rates among
those in the SRS survey, and much higher rates of
stops for those who took the online survey of the
targeted surveys. This includes the substantial
number of SRS survey respondents who were not
familiar with County facilities as noted previously.
When asked what facilities were used most-
frequently, the answers were similar across the
different surveys - Triangle Sportsplex, Central
Recreation Center, Eurosport Soccer Center and
Little River Park were the largest vote-getters in that
order. Many of the responses listed more than one
facility as a frequent stop.
Forty-five percent (45%) of respondents traveled
outside of Orange County to visit a park or
recreation facility on either a quarterly or annual
basis. Twenty-three percent (23%) indicated they
never leave the county for parks and recreation
facilities.
2. General Information
Surveyed households were asked about current
facilities, maintenance, service provision and the
impact of parks and recreation programs on health,
safety and the economy. Table 6-1 on the
subsequent page shows the respondent answers to
these 15 questions.
B. Comprehensive Community Needs Assessment
Survey Results
The following section presents a summary of the
combined survey results, totaling 835 respondents.
As noted above, the individual surveys results can be
found in Appendix 6-3 through 6-5:
A total of 835 Community Needs Assessment
surveys were received through the statistical
random sample (520), the online survey (301) and
the supplemental targeted surveys for African-
American and persons of Hispanic origin (14). While
the means of collecting the data, and the responding
populations, are different, the survey administered
was identical. A comprehensive review of the
combined results would be appropriate with this
caveat – especially since the online survey and the
statistical survey appear to have reached different
component audiences within the county, both in
terms of geography and in knowledge of County
parks and programs. The differences in the survey
cohorts is elaborated on at the conclusion of this
section after the reporting of survey results.
68
6—5
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
Table 6-1: General Parks and Recreation Information Questions – OVERALL RESULTS (Agree/Disagree)3
Statement Strongly
Agree/Agree
Strongly
Disagree/Disagree
Don’t Know
(SRS Survey)
Orange County provides quality parks and recreation
opportunities
567 (94%) 34 (6%) 129 (125)
Orange County needs to expand active outdoor recreation
opportunities
493 (82%) 108 (18%) 157 (139)
Orange County needs to expand low-impact/passive
outdoor recreation opportunities
507 (79%) 132 (21%) 136 (113)
Orange County needs to provide indoor facility for arts
and leisure pursuits
319 (58%) 236 (42%) 214 (155)
Orange County needs to provide an indoor athletic
complex
390 (64%) 222 (36%) 154 (127)
Orange County should expand or provide trail system
linking various areas of the county
543 (89%) 65 (11%) 117 (87)
Orange County parks and recreation facilities are safe 549 (94%) 34 (6%) 184 (168)
Orange County parks and recreation facilities are
well-maintained
534 (91%) 55 (9%) 177 (168)
Orange County parks and recreation facilities are easy
to get to
550 (86%) 87 (14%) 133 (129)
Orange County recreation programs and events are
well-run/operated
437 (89%) 55 (11%) 275 (257)
Orange County parks and recreation facilities are
accessible for use by people with disabilities2
265 (84%) 51 (16%) 459 (334)
Orange County parks and recreation staffs are helpful
and professional2
471 (94%) 28 (6%) 269 (253)
Public parks and recreation programs enhance the
economic health of Orange County4
344* (93%) 27* (7%) 116*
Public parks and recreation programs enhance the
physical and mental well-being of Orange County
residents
652 (96%) 29 (4%) 87 (75)
Public parks and recreation programs help reduce crime
in Orange County2
315 (81%) 75 (19%) 279 (269)
*This question was inadvertently omitted from the online survey
69
6—6
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
A strong majority of the cumulative respondents like
the quality of existing facilities, agree that more
active and low-impact facilities are needed, and
believe in an expanded trail system linking various
areas of the county. Support for indoor facilities for
arts and leisure and athletics is not as strong, but
still a majority. Respondents gave very high marks
for safety, maintenance, access and friendliness of
staff (94% Agree/Strongly Agree). The vast majority
of all respondents believe that parks and recreation
programs enhance the economic health of the
county, enhance physical and mental well-being and
(to slightly lesser degree) reduce crime.
3. Recreation Activity Participation
In this case, over half (58%) of respondents
identified athletic leagues or programs they had
participated in during the previous year. Most of
these were respondents to the online survey.
Considerably fewer persons in the SRS survey had
experience participating in a County recreation
program in the past year. The most popular pro-
grams by participation in the past 12 months were:
1. Youth Soccer (35%)
2. Youth Basketball (30%)
3. Open Gym (9%)
4. Little River Trail Run (6%)
5. Volleyball (5%)
Most popular instructional programs in the online
survey were Start Smart Soccer, Zumba, Tennis
(both adult and youth), Golf (youth and adult) and
Creative Arts. The full list and breakdown of
participants may be found in Appendix 6-6.
The most popular environmental programs were the
County’s Earth Day event (34%), followed by Under
the Stars (17%) and Tiny Trekkers (17%) programs at
Little River Regional Park and Natural Area. The Little
River Park Bird Counts also received 11% of the
votes. In response to the question “How often do
you or members of your household travel outside of
Orange County to participate in recreation pro-
grams,” 471 respondents (62.4%) indicated they
never traveled outside of the county for programs.
In looking at the sum total of all surveys received in
Table 1, one of the most striking things about the
responses is that the respondents in the SRS , online
and targeted surveys are all fairly similar in their
view of County facilities, programs and value. This is
particularly noteworthy as the online survey is a
younger, more Hillsborough and rural Orange
County located cohort., whereas the SRS survey has
a high response from urban southern Orange
County, and is older in general. The SRS survey
answers to each question range around
5-7 percentage points higher in the agree/strongly
agree category than the online survey. (Please see
Appendix 6-3 and 6-4 to compare the two survey
results). The number of “Don’t Know” responses is
listed in the final column, and in parentheses the
number of those that came from the SRS survey is
shown. As can be seen, in many cases the vast ma-
jority of persons answering “Don’t Know” were in
the SRS survey, which further validates the previous
note about respondents in these areas being less
familiar with County facilities and programs since
they include a majority of respondents from the
towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
In summary, the combined survey results shown
here track with most of the “Agree/Disagree”
aggregate response rates from the other individual
surveys. Online survey participants were somewhat
more interested in expanding active outdoor
recreation opportunities and were also slightly less
certain about a trail system linking various areas of
the county. However, the rate of “Agree” responses
stayed fairly consistent between the surveys.
70
6—7
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
4. Future Recreation Programs / Activities
In the next series of questions, participants were
asked to select their “Top 5” programs or activities
they would like to see offered or expanded for the
future. Combining all of the surveys, 775 of the 832
respondents replied and selected the following Top
Ten:
1. Hiking (21%)
2. Swimming (20%)
3. Walking (20%)
4. Yoga (14%)
5. Biking (14%)
6. Summer Camps (14%)
7. Gardening (13%)
8. Tennis (12%)
9. Dog Obedience (12%)
10. Afterschool Programs (11%)
A significant number of persons were still unsure
whether the county needs more recreation
programs. Almost 57% said they were not sure,
followed by 28% who answered “Yes” and 15%
responding “No.” Excluding the “Don’t Know’
responses, 65% answered “Yes” and 35% “No.”
5. Future Parks and Recreation Facilities
This section asked those surveyed about needs for
future parks and/or recreation facilities. When asked
“Does Orange County need additional parks?” 36%
answered “Yes,” with 18% “No” and 46% “Not
Sure.” Among those expressing an opinion, 67%
responded in the affirmative and 33% negative.
The survey also asked whether the county needed
additional recreation facilities and centers. This
question was inadvertently omitted from the online
survey, but of the 476 other respondents who did
weigh in, 24% said “Yes,” 23% said “No,” and 53%
answered “Don’t Know.” Among those expressing an
opinion, 52% indicated “Yes” and 48% “No.”
If new facilities were to be developed, the following
facilities were the highest rated – respondents were
asked to pick their “Top 5” facilities desired. Ninety-
four percent (94%) of respondents answered this
question, and they indicated the following
preferences:
1. Walking/Hiking Trails (45%)
2. Nature Trails (34%)
3. Swimming Pool (28%)
4. Greenways (28%)
5. Water Parks (22%)
6. Amphitheatre (22%)
7. Indoor Athletic Complex (18%)
8. Nature Center (14%)
9. Playgrounds (13%)
10. Tennis courts (13%)
Other facilities that got at least 10% listings include
picnic areas, dog parks, performing arts studio, teen
center, creative arts studio, and community centers.
Of note, many of the same facilities were chosen in
both the online and SRS surveys, though there is
Thirteen percent (13%) travel annually to for
programs, and less than 25% travel quarterly,
monthly or weekly.
Respondents who had tried and been unable to
participate in programs were asked about obstacles
to their participation. The most common reasons
were “inconvenient time/day” (33%), “not offered
for the needed age group I needed” (24%) and
“program was full” (15%). Only 6% of respondents
had been wait-listed and unable to participate in a
program.
The most popular camps participated in during the
past 12 months were Basketball, Soccer, Adventure
(Teen and Pre-Teen) and Creative Arts camps. The
most participated in Special Events were:
1. Egg Hunt (28%)
2. Halloween Spooktacular (25%)
3. Fishing Rodeo (16%)
71
6—8
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
some difference in prioritization (please see Appen-
dix 6-3 and 6-4). A swimming pool and water parks
were more-strongly supported in the online survey
than in the SRS survey.
The above responses are very similar across the
different survey offerings. In all cases, respondents
showed very strong support for state and federal
grants and private donations, and moderately-
strong support for existing local taxes (other than
property taxes) and voter approved bonds. User
fees were slightly less favorable, and there was
substantial disfavor with the strategy of increasing
local taxes (other than property taxes).
7. Overall Demographic Overview
When put together, the 835 surveys received
showed that most respondents (75%) came from
households of between two and four persons. Ten
percent (10%) were in households of five persons,
and 4% in homes of six or more.
In terms of age groups within households, 51% of
the respondents had at least one person under and
up to 12 years of age in their household, and
another 23% had a person in the home aged 13-18.
The largest single age cohorts identified were 36-55
years (61% of households) and 6-12 years (35%).
Almost 6% of the responding households had at
least one person over 76 years of age.
The vast majority of respondents owned their own
residence, which held true among all of the different
survey types (to varying degrees). The SRS survey
was very much a survey of homeowners.
Overall, 7% of respondents were African-American,
2.5% Asian-American groups, and 2% of Hispanic
origin. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the respondents
were White (non-Hispanic).
Funding Strategy Strongly
Agree/
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
“New recreation and parks
facility development should be
financed, at least in part by:”
Private/corporate donations 95% 5%
State and federal grants/funds 94% 6%
Existing local taxes (other than
property)
73% 27%
Voter-approved bonds 70% 30%
Existing local property taxes 70% 30%
Charging user fees (resident
and non-resident)
68% 32%
Increasing local taxes (other
than property)
34% 66%
6. Financing New Recreation and Park Facilities
The final section of the survey attempts to
determine public opinion regarding different means
of financing future recreation and park facility
development. Participants were asked to respond
whether they “strongly agree,” “agree,” disagree,”
or “strongly disagree” with the following eight
approaches. As was done in the General Information
section, the “agree” and “strongly agree,” and
“disagree” and “strongly disagree” responses have
been aggregated together in the table below to
indicate preferences shown:
Table 6-2: Funding Strategy Responses
72
6—9
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
The place of residence question, answered by 767
persons, showed the mix of survey respondents
geographically:
Unincorporated Part of the County 31%
Hillsborough 29%
Chapel Hill 27%
Carrboro 7%
Mebane 6%
In terms of income level, twenty-two percent (22%)
of those responding had an annual household
income of $60,000 or less, 43% were in the $60,000
– $119,999 range, and 36% reported income of over
$120,000 per year. At the same time, six percent
(6%) had an annual income of under $30,000, and
3% reported annual income of over $300,000.
Examine the facilities outside the county that
respondents visited – what do they have that our
facilities do not?
Look at a trail system that links various areas
within the county.
The vast majority recognize that parks and
recreation programs enhance physical and
mental health of county residents. Make this a
prominent part of marketing efforts.
Likewise, the vast majority recognize the impact
on the county’s economic health from parks and
recreation – conduct an economic impact study
to see what parks and recreation “gives back” to
the community from a fiscal perspective.
Use the awareness of the above two benefits in
branding the department.
Almost one-third of respondents did not know
about services provided, and most did not partici-
pate in programs. Look at the effectiveness of
current marketing and promotional strategies.
There is an opportunity to better inform county
residents about what the County does, its
accomplishments, and the recreation needs for
the county.
Determine additional marketing and promotional
strategies for programs, parks and facilities and
their benefits.
The greatest interest for both programs and
facilities was for walking/hiking/biking trails.
Evaluate current trail systems and determine
possibility of adding new trails.
Seek grant funds from state and federal levels, as
well as corporate donations, to help finance
future facilities.
In developing and renovating parks consider
landscapes that provide large areas of open
space for low-impact recreational activities.
Frequently-requested characteristics included
shade, picnic tables and places to walk.
C. Consultant Recommendations – Statistical
Random-Sample Survey
As a part of their review of the 520 statistical
random-sample surveys, the UNC-Greensboro
consultants who conducted this survey drew a
number of recommendations from these findings,
summarized here and shown in full at the conclusion
of Appendix 6-3.
It is important to note that while these findings may
have validity across all of the different survey tech-
niques, they were written specifically to address the
results of the SRS survey:
73
6—10
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
D. Focus Groups and Additional Outreach Efforts
Subject Area Focus Groups
An additional method of public outreach was the
convening of eight focus groups. These groups were
developed to examine, in more detail, several
known topics or issues that the master plan would
need to address. For these focus groups, staff
contacted 8-12 representatives and/or subject
matter experts for a focused 120-minute discussion.
The following is a list of the focus groups and the
summary of their findings. The full tabulation of
comments recorded in the focus groups may be
found in Appendix 6-7.
1. Soccer Facilities (January 22, 2013)
Fourteen persons attended this focus group to talk
about soccer facilities. A substantial amount of time
was spent on the sufficiency of soccer fields in the
county and the types of facilities needed. The pros
and cons of artificial turf fields was another key area
of discussion. Generally, the group saw need for the
creation of artificial turf fields, but felt that these
would be better co-located at certain locations
rather than “mixed and matched” with natural
surface fields at different sites. The timing and avail-
ability of fields was another major topic of discus-
sion. Opportunities for use of school playing fields
when not in use by schools was highlighted.
In general, the group identified a need for playing
fields in the late-winter and late-fall, after most
fields have closed for the season. The Eurosport
Soccer Center was lauded as a success, but interest
in creating a like facility at the Millhouse Road site
was also expressed. It was noted that Orange
County, because of its location, is an ideal location
for tournaments. At the same time, soccer group
representatives noted the importance of having
sufficient playing time for local youth programs and
games, and that the interest in tournaments is
balanced with this need. Corporate sponsorships
were discussed and seen as ideal, but unlikely to be
a major funding source. Some soccer organizations
may be willing to help fund fields and improve-
ments.
2. Trails and Connectivity (February 7, 2013)
Thirteen persons attended this session to talk about
the role of trails and the connectivity among
different parks, open spaces and trails.
The group reviewed and discussed a map showing
existing and planned trails and greenways in
Orange County. Participants identified some public
trails at Lake Michael and some of the public
schools that could be added to the map and data
base.
Participants supported the development of the NC
Mountains-to-Sea Trail through Orange County,
and recommended running sections of the trail
adjacent to roadways (outside NCDOT right of way)
on an interim basis, until trail easements are se
cured through interior properties.
Participants discussed the importance of providing
certain facilities/amenities to support trail users,
such as parking, signage and restrooms; also trash
receptacles in certain heavy-use areas only.
Participants recommended trails be constructed
using sustainable trail construction practices, and
that the master plan prescribe some kind of pre
ferred design standard.
Participants expressed in interest in the County
opening up some of its future park properties
(currently “land banked”) for some limited interim
use, such as natural trails with adequate signage.
74
6—11
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
3. Maximizing Public Health Benefits of Parks and
Recreation (April 22, 2013)
Nine persons attended this session, and the primary
discussion area was the important linkage between
public health (e.g., childhood obesity, mental
well-being) and parks and open space or programs.
The group identified the need for parks to have a
variety of different types of movement opportuni-
ties and flexible open space within them. The
importance of connecting open spaces and parks
with trails was noted.
Facility needs identified included swimming pool,
walking track at Fairview Park, flexible spaces that
allow children to create their own play experiences,
and community gardens to help educate about local
foods. Offering parks tours or open houses, and
creating unstructured play opportunities were seen
as keys to getting the public to use parks for healthy
lifestyles. The County should also be aware of at-risk
populations and try to work with the schools to pro-
mote using parks to promote childhood health.
4. Evaluating Our Park Facility Needs
(April 18, 2013)
Seven persons attended this focus group meeting.
Attendees indicated that they primarily visited
County parks to enjoy nature, walk dogs, socialize
and meet friends, and hold events. Outdoor
classrooms and environmental education programs
were listed as a main attraction, as well as sports
and special events.
The facilities that were deemed most desirable
included:
Amphitheaters
Hiking and biking trails
Access to water features (ponds)
Diverse features, with each park offering a
primary theme or unique opportunities
Attendees indicated more bilingual signage was a
need in the parks, and specifically cited the former
Occoneechee Village at River Park as needing work.
Better signage was also suggested, especially along
wooded trails. The group felt that partnerships with
schools, UNC and Duke should be pursued, and
working with neighboring towns and counties was
desirable. In terms of financing facilities, the group
felt that there is an expectation that park facilities
and services will be free, but understanding
the many hidden costs suggested corporate
sponsorships, bond referenda and fundraisers may
be a good way to help fund the parks. More public
awareness of what is offered in the parks was noted
as a need – contact via email newsletters and social
media should be used to publicize future park plans,
events and features.
5. Recreation Programs –
Successes and Opportunities (April 17, 2013)
Nine persons attended this focus group at the
Central Recreation Center in Hillsborough, including
representatives of other recreation providers and
community groups. The following is a summary of
the group discussion:
What are the strengths of current recreation
programs and services?
Programs are affordable
Offer a great variety of programs
Accessibility to locations and information
Breadth of programs show we are
responsive to community needs
Variety Camp was great
What are the most essential recreation programs in
the county?
Youth and Teen programs
There has been a loss of teen participation–
ability to bring back programs
Ask what services the community needs
Don’t rely on technology alone to
communicate – advertise in churches
Ongoing “after-school” activity – consistent
programming
What role does recreation programming currently fill
in the community?
Leadership programs
Programs that integrate the total family
(inter-generational)
Programs that strengthen social skills
(e.g., Daddy Daughter Dance, cooking class)
Non-sport programs for kids
75
6—12
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
What improvements/changes would you make to
current recreation programs?
Have county and other providers of
programming work together (Baseball was a
success story with the sharing of fields)
Build on organizations strengths – find ways
to complement each other
Expand camp
Don’t focus on too much at one location
Organizations work together on offerings
Cross publicize
(program guides and brochures)
Annual programs discussion between
providers – information sharing
Include a user friendly calendar in program
guides
Too much text can be overwhelming and
scare away or make information hard to find
It is possible to have too many programs at one
time
What areas are not served?
Use community centers more – variety of
locations and community will feel ownership
Health Issues – reach families at community
centers
Work with partners to teach at centers
(e.g., Health Department, Sheriff)
Special events at multiple locations
(e.g., Movie in the Park)
Conduct survey in the community and try new
programs
Who are potential partners?
Other County departments
YMCA
SportsPlex
Get seniors involved (e.g., RSVP)
6. Nature and Environmental Programs
(April 25, 2013)
Six persons attended this focus group held at
Durham Technical Community College - Orange
Campus. The group discussed current nature and
environmental programs offered by the County
(primarily at Little River Regional Park) and by the
Orange Soil and Water Conservation District to the
schools.
A number of different ideas for future programs and
facility enhancements for nature programs were
identified. These include:
Signage identifying certain trees and flora at
park sites to help educate about our native
vegetation
Produce a seasonal guide, ‘What’s in Bloom”
about the natural features at selected parks,
particularly those with substantial natural areas
and open space
Look at programs about water and wastewater
for educational purposes (e.g. "Where does our
water go?”)
Offer more adult programs
(e.g., bird-watching, spring flora tour)
Look for opportunities to use water features
at parks for nature programs (people are
drawn to water)
Look at the possibility of creating a nature
center, perhaps with a water focus (McGowan
Creek Preserve was suggested as a possible site)
Consider working with the Town of Hillsborough
on programs at Gold Park, and generally
collaborate with other jurisdictions and entities
such as the NC Botanical Garden
Look at having “clean-up” opportunities at
parks with streams, and consider creating pro
grams that teach people how to live in
harmony with nature and basic skills
(e.g., flint making)
Programs on camping (e.g., learn to camp) and
plants (e.g., edible plants)
76
6—13
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
There were also a number of ideas about what a
desirable nature center might entail. Participants
noted the opportunities to reach out to local
entrepreneurs, universities, and other partners to
help build and program such a facility. Energy
efficiency and renewable energy was suggested as a
theme, along with water, local animals and things
that appeal to children. Little River Regional Park
was lauded as a good model. Finally, the group
agreed that a nature center wherever located
should have an environmentally-sensitive design
and systems.
Opportunities to pursuer more camping opportuni-
ties at County parks and preserves were noted, and
the potential to work with OWASA on their
recreational facilities at Cane Creek and University
Lake was cited as an opportunity.
Moving forward, the group agreed that joint capital
funding of new park facilities is an area for further
exploration, as each jurisdiction has needs and in
some cases, very little land for new parks remains in
the towns. The issue of County contribution to town
budgets was raised, as was promoting the ethic of
parks and recreation throughout municipal and
County governments.
Substantial opportunities exist to work with other
departments, especially the Health Department.
More effort to educate local government employees
and residents about offerings and opportunities was
identified as a need. The need for a tourism-based
“app” or booklet about local recreational opportuni-
ties was discussed, as was the existing Interactive
Parks Locator Map, an example of existing
collaboration.
Updates on projects and programs in each
jurisdiction were provided.
7. County-Town Parks and Recreation Coordination
(August 21, 2013)
The directors and staff from the Parks and Recrea-
tion Departments of the towns of Carrboro, Chapel
Hill, and Hillsborough met with County staff to
review coordination and discuss their perspective on
the County’s programs and parks, and areas for
possible collaboration.
As shown in Appendix 6-8, the group agreed that the
other jurisdictions were appreciative of the
programs that the county runs. The idea of working
together to market each other’s programs better
was identified, and it was noted that rental fees are
now the same among all of the jurisdictions for the
first time.
77
6—14
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 6 - Community Needs Assessment and Public Input 6
8. SportsPlex and County Parks and Recreation
(April 18, 2013)
This meeting was held with John Stock, managing
partner of RP, Incorporated, the managing entity for
the Triangle SportsPlex, an indoor recreation facility
located in Hillsborough, and staff.
This group discussed both the Sportsplex and
County current and future program and capital
improvement plans. All parties agreed that there
was a shared interest and ongoing opportunity to
offer programs and facilities that were complemen-
tary of each other. For instance SportsPlex offers pre
-school and afterschool programs and Parks and
Recreation does not. The County and SportsPlex
management agreed to meet periodically and keep
each other abreast of any planned changes in
programs and facilities and look for opportunities to
continue to work together in tandem to provide
service to county residents.
See appendix 6-9 for Endnotes
78
7 - 1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 7 - Linkages with 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Other County Plans 7
Recreation Element (Chapter 7 of the Comprehen-
sive Plan) provides guidance and direction for
recreation facility and park planning efforts in the
unincorporated areas of Orange County. The goals
and objectives serve as the foundation for establish-
ing future parks and recreation policies and action
strategies undertaken by the County, its advisory
boards, and its staff. The Parks and Recreation
Element identifies one overarching goal and five
goals. These goals emphasize the inclusion of every
county resident by recognizing and responding to
the changing needs of different age groups, genders,
ethnicities, and abilities.
OC Comprehensive Plan Goal Parks and Recreation Linkage
Energy conservation, sustainable use of non-polluting
renewable energy resources, efficient use of non-
renewable energy resources, and clean air.
[Natural & Cultural Systems Goal 1]
Park facility design and maintenance can support this goal by employing
energy-efficiency strategies and principles in designing buildings and
grounds as well as equipment use. Locating parks closer to populations
or on public transit lines will reduce car trips to park facilities. Also, by
creating walking trails that link communities to schools, parks, commu-
nity centers and other public gathering places.
Economic viability of agriculture, forestry, and horticul-
ture and their respective lands.
[Natural & Cultural Systems Goal 2]
Parks and recreation planning can support these entrepreneurial activi-
ties by considering the presence of highly productive lands that support
agriculture and forestry in land acquisition activities.
Infrastructure and support systems for local and regional
agriculture.
[Natural & Cultural Systems Goal 3]
Parks and recreation planning can support this goal by being aware of
agricultural systems and possibly offering contracts to farmers for some
maintenance of parklands.
Preservation of historic, cultural, architectural and archae-
ological resources, and their associated landscapes.
[Natural & Cultural Systems Goal 4]
Park development and operations can support this goal by preserving
and protecting (and when appropriate, restoring) cultural resources on
parkland such as historic structures and archaeological sites.
Awareness and appreciation of the diverse cultural history
and heritage of Orange County and its residents.
[Natural & Cultural Systems Goal 5]
Park and recreation design and programming can increase public aware-
ness of past cultural uses of the land by protecting and interpreting cul-
tural features on parkland.
Sustainable quality and quantity of ground and surface
water resources.
[Natural & Cultural Systems Goal 6]
Parks and recreation can support this goal by employing environmentally
sensitive management and design principles for turf, trails, rooftops,
parking lots and other facilities that could affect water quality through
impacts from stormwater runoff and groundwater infiltration. This man-
agement includes abatement or reduction of nutrient and sediment
pollution as well as other ecosystem stressors such as pesticides.
A balanced and healthy diversity of native plant and ani-
mal populations.
[Natural & Cultural Systems Goal 7]
Parkland acquisition efforts and management of dispersed recreation
areas that are integrated with and aware of the coverage of ecosystem
types protected in Orange County will support this goal.
Networks of protected natural, cultural, and agricultural
lands.
[Natural & Cultural Systems Goal 8]
Parkland acquisition that is integrated with regional and statewide con-
servation efforts of natural and cultural resources will contribute to the
county goal of creating networks of protected lands.
Linkages with 2030 Comprehensive Plan
and Other County Plans
A. 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan
The Orange County Board of Commissioners
adopted the Comprehensive Plan in November
2008. The plan will guide Orange County’s growth
and development through the year 2030. The
document includes goals and objectives that County
officials use to guide policy and funding decisions.
Unlike previous County plans that focused on
distinct components of county planning, the 2030
Comprehensive Plan addresses a wide range of
interrelated planning areas, each dealt with
in separate chapters (or “Elements”). The Parks and
Table 7-1: 2030 Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Goals and Linkages
79
7 - 2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 7 - Linkages with 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Other County Plans 7
The plan aims to promote healthy lifestyles and
improve quality of life while being sensitive to
environmental and cultural amenities. Additionally,
these goals outline the importance of inter-
jurisdictional cooperation with entities such as
schools, municipalities, non-profits, private land-
owners, as well as state and federal agencies.
The Parks and Recreation Element goals and
objectives complement those in the Land Use
Element and the Natural and Cultural Systems
Element by identifying the need to acquire and
retain publicly-owned of land for parks, open space,
and habitat conservation. The Parks and Recreation
Element goals also link with the Services and
Facilities Element goals to identify opportunities for
coordination with school systems and other entities
for shared use and jointly-funded projects.
Action strategies for achieving parks and recreation
goals and objectives are provided in Chapter 11.
The following are parks and recreation linkages to
other County goals found in the Natural and Cultural
Systems Element of the comprehensive plan.
B. The Nature of the County Parks System
Orange County has a variety of recreational
opportunities including state and local parks as well
as trails and greenways. The County and its
municipalities have collaborated on recreational fa-
cility and park planning efforts to deliver regionally-
coordinated services to all Orange County residents
while protecting cultural and natural resources and
providing safe recreational and educational
opportunities.
Table 7-2: Parks and Recreation Planning in Orange County
The Orange County Department of Environment,
Agriculture and Parks and Recreation manages
county parks and recreation facilities bringing envi-
ronmental education as well as programming in
recreation and athletics to Orange County residents.
C. Town Parks and Recreation Systems
Orange County and the municipalities of
Hillsborough, Mebane, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill
coordinate efforts to provide a full range of recrea-
tional opportunities. The Intergovernmental Parks
Work Group has facilitated inter-jurisdictional
linkages by recommending a number of cooperative
measures in order to minimize redundancy of
recreational offerings and optimize use of recreation
departments’ resources. Key linkages include the
Comprehensive Countywide Parks Plan, coordinating
land acquisition, identifying green corridors, siting of
parks and schools, and providing facilities that serve
both municipal and county residents.
Highlights of cooperation include:
Homestead Park and Aquatics Center
Southern Community Park
Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) Park and Educational
Campus (planned)
Smith Middle School and Cedar Falls athletic fields
Jurisdiction Adopted
Park Plan?
Year
Adopted
Current Parks
Acreage
Other Related Plans
Carrboro Yes 2006 112 Morgan Creek Greenway Plan, Bolin Creek Greenway Plan
Chapel Hill Yes 2013 350 Greenways Master Plan
Hillsborough Yes 2009 65 Community Connectivity Plan
Mebane No 2014 200 Lake Michael Park Master Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Orange County Yes 1988 500* Lands Legacy Plan, Joint Master Recreation & Parks Report
*Includes 255 acres of Little River Regional Park & Natural Area located in Durham County; managed by Orange County
80
7 - 3
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 7 - Linkages with 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Other County Plans 7
Carrboro
Carrboro’s Recreation and Parks Comprehensive
Master Plan (2006) emphasizes an interest in
partnering with Chapel Hill and Orange County to
help meet the needs of its residents. Homestead
Aquatics Center, Southern Community Park, and the
planned Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) Park are
examples of facilities that Carrboro residents are
likely to use although not operated by Town of
Carrboro.
Carrboro has about 112 acres of parks and
recreation facilities and three miles of greenway
trails and bike paths. The Town intends to acquire
land for additional greenway trails that would
connect with the Bolin Creek and Morgan Creek
Greenway segments developed in Chapel Hill.
Moreover, Carrboro aims to link its planned trail
system to a broader network of greenways in the
Triangle region.
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Park Plan (May 2013)
identifies future needs for park acreage and
recreation facilities, and describes how the Town
could interface with the other recreational providers
in the community. The plan notes that although
Orange County offers a variety of parks and
recreation opportunities throughout the county,
there are no developed County parks serving the
Chapel Hill area. The plan states that many of the
residents in the underserved areas of the county
utilize Town of Chapel Hill facilities to meet their
recreational needs.
The plan recommends that the Town and County
work together to minimize duplication and explore
opportunities for joint development and use of
facilities. Examples include the coordination of the
trail systems and to initiate development of the
County-owned parkland on Millhouse Road and
Eubanks Road. The plan recommends the Town
explore the possibility of forming an agreement with
the County to develop a sports complex on
Millhouse Road.
The plan also describes how Chapel Hill partners
with Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (via joint-use
agreements) to develop outdoor and indoor
facilities that serve the needs of both the schools
and area residents. The plan also notes that the
Town has a unique opportunity to partner with the
University in providing recreation opportunities to
Chapel Hill residents and students.
81
7 - 4
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 7 - Linkages with 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Other County Plans 7
Mebane
Mebane adopted its first
comprehensive Recrea-
tion and Parks Master
Plan in January 2014.
The City inventoried its
existing parks and recre-
ational facilities, and
determined what additions are needed to meet the
expected demand over the next 10 years.
The master plan recommended collaborating with
other nearby recreation providers, including Orange
County, Alamance County, City of Burlington, and
City of Graham. The plan also recommended
strengthening the City’s agreements for the joint use
of school and municipal recreation facilities, and
building new relationships with Alamance Communi-
ty College and Alamance Regional Medical Center.
Finally, Mebane will consider developing a greenway
master plan to complement the findings of the City’s
new Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
D. Public School System Fields and Facilities
The 27 public schools within Orange County’s two
school systems have a variety of recreational
facilities including playgrounds, playing fields as well
as courts and gyms. Policies indicate that organized
groups may rent school facilities. There are several
examples of the County co-locating recreation
facilities with or adjacent to school facilities. One
such example is the Efland-Cheeks Park and Commu-
nity Center. This 11-acre park is co-located with
Efland-Cheeks Elementary School. Facilities include
picnic shelters, a multi-purpose field, a playground,
a community center, trails and basketball courts.
Additionally, the Eurosport Soccer Center near
Efland features six lighted playing fields located next
to Gravelly Hill Middle School. Finally, the future
Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) Park includes a
segment of the Jones Creek Greenway (completed
2011) that links the nearby residential communities
to Morris Grove Elementary School and future
school facilities.
Hillsborough
Hillsborough’s Recreation and Parks Master Plan
was updated in 2009. The Town’s Parks and
Recreation Board is responsible for implementing
the master plan, including cooperating with Orange
County to facilitate shared use and responsibility for
publicly-owned land.
The current plan identifies the following concerns or
deficiencies the Town intends to address:
Uncertain relationship with school board for use
of school property
Town does not have a parks and recreation
department
Lack of existing town-owned and -maintained
recreation facilities
Many population groups in need of recreation
facilities
Very limited funding for recreation resources
from town
Loss of open/green space as land is developed
No official coordination between town and
county for recreational needs
Priority recommendations for Hillsborough’s parks
system include improving pedestrian/bicycle
connectivity throughout the town to improve access
to parks via sidewalks, road improvements, or
greenways, consistent with Town’s 2009 Community
Connectivity Plan. Other recommendations involve
strengthening partnerships with Orange County and
coordinating with other municipalities to address
regional connectivity and recreation issues.
82
7 - 5
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 7 - Linkages with 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Other County Plans 7
E. State Parks System
The North Carolina State Park system includes Eno
River State Park, most of which is located in Orange
County; the eastern portion is in Durham County.
This park follows a linear park model in order to
protect an important Piedmont watercourse. Its
satellite park unit, Occoneechee Mountain State
Natural Area, is near Hillsborough. Park facilities
provide low-impact recreation opportunities such as
hiking, canoeing, picnicking, and camping. The
planned NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail will travel
through Eno River State Park. A map showing Eno
River State Park is provided as Figure 8-1.
campers. Other activities include opportunities to
hike, canoe/kayak, and fish. Interpretative programs
as well as the annual Festival for the Eno (in Durham
County) are among the activities visitors may enjoy
at the park. Annual visitation is about 500,000.
Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area
This area’s conservation is the result of over 40
years of efforts involving Orange County, The Town
of Hillsborough, The Nature Conservancy, the Eno
River Association, North Carolina State Parks, and
countless individuals. This satellite unit of Eno River
State Park, dedicated in 1999, has several ponds as
well as approximately three trail miles on 190 acres
through oak forest, river habitats, and heath bluff.
Current expansion plans include the acquisition of
approximately 60 acres of land in order to provide
greater protection of more of the regionally signifi-
cant plant communities on this property. This site is
located just southwest of Hillsborough’s town limits.
Eno River State Park
The Eno River State Park is comprised of 3,900 acres
in Orange and Durham counties and includes
multiple tracts of land fronting the Eno River.
Approximately 75% of the park and 16 miles of trail
are located within Orange County, as well as 12
primitive campsites that accommodate about 100
Figure 8-1: Eno River Sate Park Map
83
7 - 6
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 7 - Linkages with 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Other County Plans 7
NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail (planned)
The Mountains-to-Sea Trail will link Clingman's
Dome in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
to Jockey's Ridge State Park on the Outer Banks. This
priority of the North Carolina State Trails Program
has a planned section crossing Orange County begin-
ning at the Haw River in the county’s southwest
corner. Trail plans involve paralleling Cane Creek
through OWASA’s Cane Creek Reservoir property
and continuing on a northeasterly direction until it
connects with the Occoneechee Mountain State
Natural Area near Hillsborough. It will then follow
the Eno River through the Town of Hillsborough’s
Riverwalk, private conservation lands owned by the
Classical American Homes Preservation Trust, and
Eno River State Park—totaling approximately 25-28
miles in Orange County. This initiative will rely on
willing landowners to provide trail easements
through rural and suburban settings as well as state
and local government cooperation.
There will be opportunities for other public trails
and greenways to link to the NC Mountains-to-Sea
Trail (MST), including the Chapel Hill and Carrboro
greenway systems, and the Town of Hillsborough’s
planned Cates Creek Greenway. A map showing the
planned MST segment through Orange County and
the aforementioned potential linkages is provided as
Map 7-2.
Map 7-2: NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail Corridor Orange County Section
84
8—1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 8 - Economic, Health and Environmental Impacts of Parks and Recreation 8
Economic, Health and Environmental
Impacts of Parks and Recreation
Background
The provision of parks and open spaces, and of
recreation programs, events and opportunities, offer
a variety of benefits to the health safety and general
welfare of Orange County residents. Among these
are benefits to the county’s economy, to the overall
public health, and to the local and regional natural
environment. Evidence of those public benefits is
described below in two papers written by
consultants from the University of North Carolina –
Greensboro, supplemented with complementary
information received by DEAPR staff.
A. Economic Benefits of Parks, Recreation and
Open Space
A 2011 study by the Trust for Public Land (TPL)
determined the return on North Carolina’s
investment in land conservation through its four
conservation trust funds. The TPL study found that
every $1 invested returns $4 in economic value
from the kinds of natural resource goods and
services, such as water quality protection by
wetlands and air pollution removal by forests. The
study did not, however, include how investments in
land conservation benefit the economy through
jobs, taxes, tourism, and other revenue.1
Locally, a comprehensive review of those benefits
was conducted for Orange County by a team of
researchers from the University of North Carolina at
Greensboro. Their findings, as well as the national
research mentioned previously, support the idea
that although county budgets need to be cut during
economic downturns, “…preserving parks and
recreation funds can actually reduce the need to
allocate funding to other public departments.”2
The benefits that parks, recreation, and open space
have on individuals and communities are well
documented. Numerous studies have examined the
positive impacts that parks and recreation participa-
tion has on a person’s physical and psychological
health and wellbeing. In recent years, increased
research has focused on the impact of parks, recrea-
tion, and open space on a community’s economy.
“At the bottom line, parks are a good financial
investment for a community.”3
The following are ways that parks, recreation, and
open space positively benefit the economic health
of our cities, states, and country.
Enhances residential property values
Research consistently shows
parks have a positive impact on
the value of properties located
close by. Studies further demon-
strate that many people will pay
more for a home that is located-
near a park, a nature preserve, or community open
space. Economists call this influence hedonic value
while real estate agents and homebuilders call it
‘location, location, location.’ Determining the
correlation between parks and property values is
not a recent phenomenon. According to a report of
the American Planning Association, “From 1856 to
1873 he [Frederick Law Olmsted] tracked the value
of property adjacent to Central Park, in order to jus-
tify the $13 million spent on its creation. He found
that over the 17-year period there was a $209
million dollar increase in the value of property
impacted by the park.”4
85
8—2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 8 - Economic, Health and Environmental Impacts of Parks and Recreation 8
Attract GRAMPIES (Growing number of Retired
Active Monied People in Excellent Shape)
According to the US Census Bureau, by 2050 approx-
imately 1 in every 4 Americans will be 65 years of
age or older. Many of these older adults will be
aftfuent due to fiscal benefits such as Social Security,
pension plans, investments, and military pensions.
Many are mobile and move to various locations
around our country. A study of retirees conducted in
1994 found that the top three features of a
community that influenced the decision to relocate
were scenic beauty, recreational opportunities, and
mild climate. When retirees relocate to an area they
bring expendable income, increase the tax base, are
“positive” taxpayers because they use fewer
community services than they pay for through taxes,
and oflen deposit significant assets into local
financial institutions.
Attracts business, especially small businesses
Parks, recreation, and open space have a strong
influence attracting businesses to a community.
“Corporate CEOs say that employee quality of life is
the third most important factor in locating a new
business. Small company owners say recreation,
parks, and open space are the highest priority in
choosing a new location for their business.”10
According to Crompton, Love, and Moore (1997),
parks, recreation, and space amenities were
identified as the three most important factors that
contributed to quality of life mentioned above.11
Increases property tax revenues
As real property values increase, so do property
taxes. This is particularly important since property
taxes are the most important revenue source for
many cities and counties. A study conducted in
Mecklenburg County (NC) determined “that over the
past four years [2007-2010] there was 3.3% ‘park
effect’ – or an additional $8,032 in average sale
value per unit due to proximity to the park.
Combined, this was over $10 million. This is direct
revenue generated by parks for individuals who sold
homes near parks.”5 According to the National
Association of Homebuilders, “parks and recreation
areas may enhance the values of nearby land up to
15-20 percent.”6 This data has even greater signifi-
cance considering the economic weakness of the
real estate market throughout the United States
during the study period. Higher property values and
subsequent higher property tax revenues may help
offset the need for a city or county to reduce
services or increase tax rates.
Generates jobs and federal, state, and local tax
revenue
The 2012 Outdoor Recreation Economy Report
(commissioned by the Outdoor Industry Association)
stated that “outdoor recreation is big business in
this country, to the tune of: 6.1 million direct
American jobs, $646 billion in direct consumer
spending each year, $39.9 billion in federal tax reve-
nue, and $39.7 billion in state/local tax revenue.”7
The same study conducted in 2006 determined that
outdoor recreation added $7.5 million to North
Carolina’s economy. In addition, it supported 95,000
jobs, created $430 million in state tax revenue, and
produced $6.1 million in retail sales and service
across the state.8 A conclusion of the research was
“active outdoor recreation creates sustainable
long-term economic growth and community
development throughout North Carolina.”7
86
8—3
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 8 - Economic, Health and Environmental Impacts of Parks and Recreation 8
B. The Linkage of Public Parks and Recreation
with Community Tourism (UNC-Greensboro)
Crompton explains that “[m]any regard tourism as a
commercial phenomenon concerned with economic
development that is rooted in the private domain. In
contrast, parks and recreation typically is viewed as
being concerned with social and resource issues and
being rooted in the public domain.”12 In this light,
some may not see the connection between public
parks and recreation and tourism. However, there is
a clear and strong relationship between public parks
and recreation facilities and services with a
community’s tourism potential. To better under-
stand this relationship it is important to begin by
defining tourism. There is oflen a misconception
that tourism is a simple process commonly associat-
ed with “going on vacation,” “being a tourist,” and
“staying in a hotel.” The truth is that the process is
more complex, and involves much more than a
person traveling. Tourism is defined as the
“processes, activities, and outcomes arising from
the relationship and the interactions among tourist,
tourism supplies, host governments, host
communities, and surrounding environments that
are involved and hosting of visitors.”13
Figure 8-1: The Tourism Destination System (modified from Gunn & Var, 2002)
As the definition indicates, tourism encompasses
much more than the economic and financial aspect
of a person traveling. Tourism is the processes and
activities, the relationships and partnerships of its
stakeholders, and the impacts of these processes
and activities on the host community. Because of
this, tourism is best understood as a system with all
its components and the interaction of those
components.14 15 Figure 8-1 illustrates that tourism
system has two main drivers: demand and supply.
Demand is based on the visitors’ demand for a
leisure experience in a place that is away from their
home. The supply can be broken into multiple
elements that work together to provide the tourism
(leisure) experience. This system also includes, but is
not limited to, impacts of tourism (social and
environment), spatial planning and policy
development, programming of activities, the part-
nership development, and enhancement of the
quality of life for all stakeholders.
87
8—4
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 8 - Economic, Health and Environmental Impacts of Parks and Recreation 8
Destinations have multiple levels and types of
products and services (i.e., hotels, restaurants, gas
stations, attractions) that are brought together to
form the overall tourism experience. Each
component or element of the destination is a
product in and of itself. “The attractions of a
destination constitute the most powerful compo-
nent of the supply side of tourism.”14 Most public
parks and recreation facilities and services fall into
the attraction category. Crompton (2010) explains
that in many communities, most tourism attractions
are developed and/or operated by the public and
nonprofit agencies, many of which are parks and
recreation related. Therefore, tourism in most
communities is heavily reliant on public park and
recreation agencies.12
Most of the outdoor recreation space that is utilized
by tourists in the United States is owned by a
governmental agency (federal, state, or local). Many
of the historical and cultural attractions in a
community are located at a public park or in a public
facility.15 Public parks and recreation facilities and
services are a vital part of the tourism offerings in a
community.
For example, athletic fields used to host
tournaments will draw players and fans from areas
outside the local community. Those individuals
traveling to the community to play in the
tournament will need basic tourism services such as
lodging and restaurants. The tournament, which
may be run by the local parks and recreation agency,
is the attraction. The facilities (i.e., fields, locker
rooms, picnic shelters) that are being used are a
requirement for the tournament to be held and are
also considered attractions.
One of the emerging trends for travelers is the
desire to stay healthy and fit while traveling.
Tourists oflen desire places to run, walk, bike, swim,
and play. Local parks and recreation facilities
provide tourists with these opportunities. It could be
as simple as a tourist running on one of the local
parks and recreation department’s maintained trails,
playing basketball at the local park, or taking part in
a group exercise class. Other examples of tourists
using park
and recreation facilities could include: having a
picnic at a community park, attending a festival,
taking a nature walk. The main difference between
parks and recreation facilities that are attractions
and those that are not is the manner in which they
are managed. For a facility or service to truly be
considered an attraction it must be managed with
an understanding that tourists may use the facility
and therefore policies and practices must be in place
to make the tourist welcome.
88
8—5
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 8 - Economic, Health and Environmental Impacts of Parks and Recreation 8
C. The Role of Parks and Recreation in Improving
Public Health
Many studies over the years have indicated the
strong relationship between parks and public health.
Whether providing opportunities to commune with
nature and meditate, or access to safe spaces for
physical activity and recreation to fight childhood
obesity and chronic disease, access to parks and
recreation areas and programs have consistently
been shown to improve quality of life and increase
positive health outcomes.
Here in Orange County, well over 90% of persons
responding to the Community Needs Assessment
Surveys in Chapter Six agreed or strongly agreed
with the statement “Public parks and recreation
programs enhance the physical and mental
well-being of Orange County residents.”
The role of parks and recreation in improving health
is especially important considering national and
local trends in public health. As the following
statistics illustrate, we know the burden of disease
and death in the United States is due to preventable
diseases resulting from physical inactivity, tobacco
use, and poor diets.
Seven out of 10 deaths among Americans each year
result from preventable chronic diseases, including
heart disease, cancer, and stroke.
Nearly half of American adults suffer from at least
one chronic illness.
One in three American adults is obese-and almost
one in five children.
Arthritis is the leading cause of disability, with
nearly 19 million Americans reporting activity
limitations.
Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure,
non-traumatic lower-extremity amputations, and
blindness among American adults.
In Orange County, local data reflects the national
epidemic of preventable chronic disease. Fifly-three
percent of adults and 33% of high school students in
Orange County are not within healthy weight
ranges, which increased access to park improves.
Only 45% of adults and 48% of high school students
meet the minimum recommended physical activity
requirements.16 17 Orange County does yet not meet
the established North Carolina 2020 targets for adult
exercise (60.6%) or healthy weight high school
students (79.2%).
Individual Behavior versus Influential Systems
Looking at these numbers alone, it would be easy to
attribute these negative health outcomes to
individual choice, willpower, or lack of knowledge
about healthy behaviors. However additional data
on the health effects of our physical, political, and
cultural surroundings provide deeper insight on how
our decisions are affected by elements beyond
individual control. Some national examples include:
Seventy percent of African –American neighbor-
hoods and 81% of Hispanic neighborhoods lack
recreation facilities, compared to 38% of White
neighborhoods.18
People who report access to walking/jogging trails
are more 55% more likely to be active.19
Children living within 2/3 mile of a park with a
playground can be five times more likely to have a
healthy weight.20
People who live within walking distance of trails,
parks or stores report higher walking than those
who do not.21 But the distance matters. Forty-six
percent of people are willing to walk to church or
school if it is one mile away, but only 1% are willing
when the distance is 3-4 miles.22
Youth in neighborhoods with seven recreational
facilities were 26% more likely to be active than
those in areas without facilities.23
The number of children who are physically active
outside is 84% higher when schoolyards are kept
open for public play.24
This clearly shows that where someone lives and
what parks and recreation facilities they have access
to directly affects their ability to meet physical
activity guidelines and to achieve the associated
positive health incomes. It is important that all
residents have access to recreation and physical
activity opportunities, the natural environment,
health food, and healthcare.
89
8—6
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 8 - Economic, Health and Environmental Impacts of Parks and Recreation 8
Local Experiences
The national and state data above are reflected in
the everyday experiences of Orange County
residents. The 2011 Orange County Community
Health Assessment points out that despite the
strong overall parks and recreation programs within
the county there are many unmet needs. Residents
were asked what they like most and least about
living in the county. Of 12 topics, 17% of those
surveyed mentioned transportation and the built
environment infrastructure (biking lanes, complete
streets, parks and recreation facilities) as an area
that most needed improvement. When specifically
asked whether a lack of access to parks and
recreational opportunities is a problem in Orange
County, 75% of those surveyed agreed. Qualitative
focus groups spoke highly of the quality of these
resources, but mentioned increasing access to park
resources as an ongoing need, particularly urban
versus rural access.
Map 8-1:
90
8—7
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 8 - Economic, Health and Environmental Impacts of Parks and Recreation 8
work, or community destinations. The Orange
County Community Health Assessment found that
during the period 2005-2009, 5.4% and 1.6% of
county residents walked or biked to work, respec-
tively.25 In Chapel Hill, 11.2% of commuters walked
and in Carrboro, 3.0% walked to work. This suggests
a much lower percentage of walking and cycling as
active transport to desired destinations in rural
Orange County, due in large part to the higher
density and greater transportation infrastructure in
the municipalities.
Connecting parks and recreation facilities with
community efforts to increase the walkability and
bikeability of Orange County will help residents’ use
their everyday travel to achieve their regular
physical activity milestones using time they already
need to devote to reaching destinations.
The following are local examples of the gaps in
access for Orange County residents. First, there is
only one free, public swimming pool—the A.D. Clark
Pool located at the Hargraves Community Center in
Chapel Hill, which operates only from Memorial Day
to Labor Day. Second, despite the abundance of
parks in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Hillsborough
vicinities, there is insufficient recreational space or
athletic sports fields in the rural parts of the county,
particularly in the southeast and northern areas.
Thus, the rural populations do not have access to as
many free recreational spaces as urbanites. While
rural populations may have an abundance of beauti-
ful open spaces they may lack accessibility to formal
recreation areas. This lack of recreational opportu-
nities in the northern and southwest regions of
Orange County was identified in the 2011
Community Health Assessment.
Therefore, residents without the financial means to
pay for unsubsidized recreation have to use free
recreation opportunities, which may be difficult to
access depending on their location in the county.
Furthermore, most of the community centers and
exercise facilities that offer physical activity classes
in the county require payment, isolating indigent
members of the population who may need more
group encouragement to partake in physical activity.
Finally, gaps in recreation access are further
compounded by lack of private and public transpor-
tation. They are limited to opportunities reachable
by public transportation or personal means like
walking or biking. For rural residents, public
transport access to parks is, for the most part, infea-
sible. As one way to operationalize access, consider
that 3,400 Orange County households do not have
access to vehicles, with roughly 3,000 of them
farther than one mile from a bus stop (which are
primarily located near Chapel Hill, Carrboro and
Hillsborough).25 This issue of access also highlights
the increased national emphasis on incorporating
parks and recreation areas into broader community
changes to facilitate active transport to school,
91
8—8
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 8 - Economic, Health and Environmental Impacts of Parks and Recreation 8
Current Programming
In addition to the provision of facilities to allow
opportunities for active living, parks and recreation
departments play an integral role in programming
for exercise and recreation. Zumba and yoga classes
are among the most popular classes offered by
Orange County, and survey results indicate a desire
for more hiking and biking opportunities. Athletics
programs teach discipline and team-building in
addition to physical training.
The Orange County Health Department (OCHD),
through its Healthy Carolinians of Orange County
program, sponsors and promotes a number of other
programs that encourage citizens to participate in
physical activity and recreation, including Eat Smart
Move More and Preparing Lifelong Active Youth to
Move More.
Orange County Preparing Lifelong Active Youth
(PLAY) to Move More is a partnership between
HCOC, Orange County Schools (OCS), and UNC
Campus Recreation to increase youth physical
activity during aflerschool. UNC Sport Club athletes
visit OCS middle schools twice a month to teach
youth sports related skills, and provide opportuni-
ties for structured play.
The program encourages OCS to enhance physical
activity for students during after school programs.
Teachers strive to dedicate at least 30 minutes of
after-school time to activities that get students mov-
ing. Be Active NC trains teachers to engage students
in physical activity that promotes learning and well-
being of both students and teachers. Healthy Caro-
linians hopes to have PLAY adopted throughout the
school district.
The Eat Smart Move More (ESMM) campaign asks its
partner organizations to use various strategies to
promote a different key ESMM health message each
month to various audiences within their organiza-
tions. Individuals and families are encouraged to
think differently about what they eat and how much
they move.
Ensuring “Health in All Policies”
While designing parks and recreation facilities with
public health in mind has been accomplished on a
basic level in Orange County, it has not been fully
integrated into the design process for parks in a
formulaic or fundamental design tenet. There has
been a national movement towards “Health in all
policies.” Health in all policies means that health
consideration are clearly defined and addressed in
all policy making and programming across sectors,
and at all levels, to improve the health of all commu-
nities and people. Recently, a number of North Car-
olina state divisions have formally expanded their
missions to include public health considerations in
all programs, plans, and policies.26
92
8—9
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 8 - Economic, Health and Environmental Impacts of Parks and Recreation 8
With the clear connections between public health
and parks and recreation, it will be important that
Orange County includes key public health considera-
tions in design of parks and recreation programs,
policies, or projects. A number of national and state
documents provide guidance on these considera-
tions, and outline recommended strategies and goals
to increase active living in communities.26 27
Some of the considerations mentioned in these
documents include:
1. Proximity of recreation facilities to homes,
schools, or other frequented areas
2. Accessibility of recreation facilities to public
transportation
3. Cost of recreational facility use
4. Safety, or perceived safety, of recreational
facilities
5. Hours of operation of recreational facilities
6. Safe pedestrian/bike facilities connecting parks
and recreation facilities
Inter-Disciplinary Collaboration
Similar conversations are occurring in parks and
recreation, public health, and planning communities.
In November 2012, an article on trends in parks and
public health further noted the following28:
Indeed, leaders from both the public health and park and
recreation fields make compelling arguments that custodi-
ans of our green spaces, trails and greenways, recreation
facilities, community centers, and playgrounds hold the
keys to our most widely accessible dispensary of national
health solutions:
Doctors really ought to prescribe parks and public recrea-
tion programs to their patients most at risk for obesity -
related illnesses.
Communities should seek to identify and address
“recreation deserts” and connect residents with un-
der-utilized recreational spaces through bike and
walking trails.
Community-led studies of public health consequenc-
es should inform and guide changes to the built envi-
ronment—and parks should play key roles.
Organizations chartered to fight chronic diseases
should partner with the caretakers of local walking
trails and greenways.
And, we should all agree to keep parks tobacco-free.
Future Opportunities for Parks and Public Health
These considerations, and the preceding discussion
emphasize that access to and use of parks and
recreation facilities are an integral part of an active,
healthy community. Communities that support
active living through parks and recreation, accessible
transportation, bike and pedestrian infrastructure
improvements could prevent up to 1.7 pounds of
weight gain per year, lower risk of obesity by 35%,
and increase life expectancy by 4 years.29 However,
the goal of such an active, healthy community and its
benefits cannot be attained without collaboration
from diverse community, government, and business
partners. Only when these partners all recognize and
strive towards active living as an integrated way of
life, and not simply an individual choice to be made
each day, will we achieve the health, economic, and
other benefits we desire.
93
8—10
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 8 - Economic, Health and Environmental Impacts of Parks and Recreation 8
Many of our parks also include remnants of our
past, such as former homesteads, old roadways, or a
burial ground. These historically and culturally
significant areas can add a great deal to the visitors’
interest and they provide opportunities for
educational programs and site interpretation. In
some cases they can add to the heritage tourism in
the community. Examples of parks with historically-
significant amenities in Orange County include the
former Patterson Mill dam in Duke Forest, the
Piper-Cox House within Eno River State Park, the
historic Ayr Mount property managed by Classical
American Homes Preservation Trust, and the historic
farmstead at Orange County Blackwood Farm.
D. Parks, Recreation and the Environment
In addition to the important role parks and recrea-
tion programs play in public health, parks also are an
important part of protecting our shared natural
environment. Parks and open spaces constitute an
important part of the county’s “green infrastruc-
ture." As noted above, they help protect water
resources by filtering pollutants from streams, pro-
tect air quality by offering large wooded areas that
help absorb airborne pollutants, and provide
important breaks in impervious surfaces and built
areas to lessen the effect of reflective heat and the
resultant impacts on air quality and climate.
Parks can also host a variety of flora and fauna.
Most parks include undeveloped areas that
surround the athletic fields, picnic shelters, parking,
and other facilities. The preservation of these “green
spaces” can also help protect native plant and
animal species that have lost their habitat in
surrounding developed areas. These areas may
include nature trails or they may be set aside as
natural areas with no trails or other recreational
amenities. Many of the areas located inside our
parks and nature preserves are recognized as
significant natural heritage areas by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. These special areas include unique and
exemplary terrestrial and aquatic habitats that
critical for supporting important animals, plants and
ecosystems. As of 2009 there were 6,206 acres of
Natural Heritage Areas in parks or other protected
open space in Orange County.30
See Appendix 8-1 for Endnotes.
94
9—1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
What Does It All Mean:
Summary and Findings from Inventories,
Research, and Input
Introduction
In the preceding chapters, we have learned about
existing and previous plans for parks and recreation
in Orange County; reviewed the inventory of current
parks and recreation facilities, as well as planned
future facilities; considered current programs and
services; reviewed population estimates and
projections and other demographic “driving
factors”; examined the results of several distinct
surveys of community needs, both statistical, online,
and targeted to ethic and special populations;
looked at the relationship and linkages with this plan
and the County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and
explored the impacts of parks and recreation on the
county’s economy, the public health and our natural
and cultural environment.
Having examined the above data and information, it
is now possible to begin to draw some conclusions
that will help illuminate possible future needs and
efforts.
In this section, we will explore the changing needs
that appear to have emerged in the past 25 years,
along with opportunities to meet these challenges.
A look at the use of standards for future needs will
also be presented, both from a population-based
formula and a needs-based version from the
opinions shared in the different surveys of commu-
nity needs. This exercise will enable the examination
of service areas and service delivery, and the
potential for meeting needs both at the County level
and in conjunction with other partners.
This analysis, plus all of the prior data and
information presented in this plan, will enable us to
draw a number of conclusions, or findings, that may
help establish the plan for parks and recreation
going forward to the year 2030.
A. Changing Needs and Conditions
Many things have changed with the passage of 25
years since the 1988 master plan. It would be
impossible to list all changed conditions that affect
the method and means of parks and recreation
provisions, but some of the most relevant include:
The county population has grown from 88,000 to
137,000 persons (56% increase).
Orange County passed parks and open space bonds
in 1997 ($6 million) and 2001 ($20 million) for
acquisition of parkland and construction of parks and
recreation facilities.
Orange County opened its first park in 1998 (Efland-
Cheeks Park), built with bond proceeds from the
1997 bond. Park facilities in Chapel Hill, Carrboro,
Hillsborough and Mebane have also been
constructed to serve those communities.
Most of the parks and facilities called for in the 1988
Master Recreation and Parks Plan are now built or
the sites secured.
There has been a greater emphasis at the federal,
State and local level on building trails and protecting
identified natural areas.
Recreation program offerings are more numerous
and considerably more diverse as community needs
have evolved. This is true both for Orange County
and its municipalities.
The County acquired an indoor sports facility, the
Triangle SportsPlex, which includes a swimming pool,
ice rink and fitness areas among other amenities.
The County has engaged in partnerships with non-
profit recreation providers for summer camps and
sports leagues.
The internet and means of electronic communication
have greatly altered how people receive information
about parks and recreation services.
95
9—2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
These changed conditions and needs, along with the
community needs assessment and inventories of
existing facilities and programs, are major driving
factors for future parks and recreation program
provision, and determinants for the nature of what
the parks system both has become, and will evolve
into over the coming years. All of these past and
current plans and activities, and the assessment of
what has changed and what community needs and
priorities are, help the county determine the type
and style of future parks needs and how these
services should be delivered.
B Park Classifications, Standards, Service Delivery
Local, regional and state parks and recreation
providers across the nation regularly engage in
master planning efforts such as this one. A key
question for all of these plans is – how to translate
the existing facilities, prior plans and expressed com-
munity needs into a formula for determining how
these needs should be met.
Historically, one of the most common methods of
quantifying these needs has been through the use of
park standards. As we shall see in this chapter, the
very nature of that process has undergone
significant change in the last 25 years, leading away
from more of a community needs-based approach.
Type of Park Acreage
Needs
Population
Served
Service Area Example Amenities/Facilities
(designs)
Mini-Parks Less than 1
acre
500-2,500 Sub-neighborhood Picnic table, game tables, benches
Neighborhood Park 5-20 acres 2,000 – 8,000 ¼ to ½ Mile One ballfield, courts, picnic shelter, play-
ground
Community Park 25-74 acres 10,000 – 50,000 1 to 2 Miles 2 ballfields, trail, courts, picnic shelter,
playground, concessions,
amphitheater
District Park 75-199 acres Up to 50,000 Within 30 minute
drive time
Community park plus multi-ballfield com-
plex, trails, nature center, camping
Regional Park 200 acres + Entire population
small community
Within 60 minute
drive time
Multiple trails and picnic areas, water
features, boating, camping, Fishing
Unique or Special Areas No standard * * *
Table 9-1: below shows the park classification system from the 1988 Master Plan (found in Table 5 -1 of the 1988 Plan).
Type of Park Acreage
Needs
Population
Served
Service Area Types of facilities or amenities
School Park As available 10,000* School district Playing fields, picnic shelters, trails, play-
grounds, walking track
Community Park 40-75 acres Up to 10,000 Approx. 5 mile radius Playing fields, picnic shelters, trails, play-
grounds, courts, outdoor classroom
District Park 75-125 acres Average 30,000 10-mile radius Community park plus multi-field complex,
nature kiosk, amphitheater, water fea-
tures May include a community center.
Regional Park 150 acres plus Average 75,000 20-mile radius Multiple trails and picnic areas, water
features, boating, camping, fishing, nature
center, special exhibits
Nature Preserve
Access Areas
Case by case NA NA Camping, hiking, wildlife viewing, exhibits.
*Based on elementary school average population in rural Orange County.
The basic framework of the types of parks is still valid in 2013, and consistent with the park classifications seen
in other jurisdictions. However, some changes are needed for flexibility and changed in priorities, needs and
existing conditions of the parks system.
Table 9-2: shows recommended changes based on the data, inventory and information gathered.
96
9—3
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
1. A Park Classification System
In its 1988 Master Recreation and Parks Plan,
Orange County set forth a framework for the type of
parks that would meet community needs. While
times have changed since 1988, part of this basic
framework of park styles remains valid for the
County, while the evolution of park design, actual
park construction and operation, and the changed
conditions and need since 1988 warrant the
revisiting of this classification system.
One of the lessons learned since 1988 is that smaller
parks are better suited to be provided by municipal
or urban park systems, and are inefficient and lack
economies of scale for a larger countywide scope of
parks. In an urban setting, with clusters of homes
close by, mini-parks and neighborhood parks serve a
valuable role. These type of parks are designed for
the service of close-by neighborhoods with a range
of urban services and public transportation that may
not exist in the rural or suburban areas of the
county. As such, the County has made a conscious
decision over the last 15 years to forego mini-parks
and neighborhood parks, and focus on the larger
community, district and regional parks where
economies of scale for operation and maintenance
may be expected and the rural and suburban
community needs better met. In fact, the 1988
master plan, while listing these as types of parks, in
Section 6 came to a similar conclusion, recommend-
ing that mini-parks and neighborhood parks be
developed by the municipalities. Accordingly, no
parks of this type were recommended for
acquisition and construction.
Another changed situation relating to the type and
style of parks and public open spaces is the County’s
embarkation in April, 2000 on a program to
conserve important natural and cultural resource
lands through the Lands Legacy program. This
program has not only acquired a number of different
park sites that fit into the classes listed above, but
also has worked to protect important natural lands
and accumulate them in nature preserves in two
key areas of the county (the Upper Eno River
corridor, and lower New Hope Creek). While the
main focus of the nature preserve is the protection
of the flora, fauna and wildlife habitat, it is possible
to build in human interactions with the natural areas
by working on the edges and fringes of the preserve
to offer opportunities for trails, camping and wildlife
viewing. To this end, a series of Public Access Areas
(PAA’s) are envisioned and in some cases, underway
in conjunction with these nature preserves. These
places should be designed with care and in harmony
with the natural environment, and as such do not
have specific acreage needs, service area or popula-
tion standards. These would be designed on a
case-by-case basis with the specific site.
97
9—4
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
Strategies to Develop Community-Specific Standards (UNC Greensboro)
Elicit residents’ (who use County programs, services and facilities offered) input regarding their parks and
recreation needs via such methods as focus groups, public hearings, and needs assessment;
Elicit residents’ (who do not use programs, services, facilities offered by DEAPR) input regarding their parks
and recreation needs via such methods as focus groups, public hearings, and needs assessment;
Prioritize residents’ needs based on current/future capital and operational funding;
Consult the county’s mission, vision, and goals;
Evaluate residents’ access to parks (walking radius);
Assess residents’ perception of current programs, services, facilities offered by DEAPR;
Appraise residents’ satisfaction level with current programs, services, facilities, and areas provided by DEAPR;
Calculate a user level of service for current programs, services, facilities, and areas offered by DEAPR;
Identify residents’ perception of programmatic and facility deficiencies;
Identify DEAPR staff’s perception of programmatic and facility deficiencies;
Inventory current programs, services, facilities, and areas offered by DEAPR;
Inventory current programs, services, facilities, and areas offered by other municipalities in Orange County;.
Inventory current programs, services, facilities, and areas offered by the non-profit sector (e.g., YMCA);
Inventory current programs, services, facilities, and areas offered by the commercial, for -profit sector;
Inventory current programs, services, facilities, and areas offered by offered by the State of NC and US federal
government;
Inventory current programs, services, facilities, and areas offered by like counties (e.g. SCORP, see attached); and
Examine current programs, services, facilities, and areas offered by for Class II (population 100,001 – 250,000)
NRPA National Gold Medal Award winners for Excellence in Park and Recreation Management.
2. Review of the Use of Standards for Parks and
Recreation Plans
As noted above, the use of standards to determine
park and facility needs has historically been a key
component of master plans, including the County’s
existing 1988 plan. However, thinking about the
use of formulaic standards has changed in the past
decades. The County’s consultants from UNC-
Greensboro were asked to prepare a brief on the
current thinking on the use of standards for parks
and recreation planning.
The following is their report on the current validity
of standards for parks and recreation planning in
2013 (emphasis added).
Standards for Parks and Recreation
After a thorough review of the literature, search of
the internet, and discussions with professionals and
consultants in the parks and recreation field, it was
concluded that national or state standards regarding
program, service, facility, or area needs for parks
and recreation no longer exist.
Over the past 2-3 decades it has been determined
that national or even state standards do not address
the unique nature of individual communities.
Common practice today is for communities to
develop the community-specific standards that re-
flect the parks and recreation needs of their resi-
dents. The following are examples of strategies that
would enable the Department of Environment, Ag-
riculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) to develop
community-specific standards:
98
9—5
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
With the lack of national or state standards, and the
move to community needs-based standards to
recognize the unique nature and desires of
individual communities, the County must attempt to
determine these community needs. Fortunately,
many if not most of the recommended methods for
exploring these needs have been accomplished by
this master plan:
The community needs assessment (CNA) surveys
(statistical random-sample, online and targeted)
solicited information of many of the bullet items
listed above.
The County has an established set of goals and
objectives from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to
help frame the context of future planning.
The surveys reached both frequent users and
persons who were not familiar with the County’s
parks and programs. They asked about satisfaction
with and perceptions of current facilities and
programs, and interests for the future needs.
The County’s Capital Investment Plan offers a time
line and plan for future parks and nature preserve
investments. (This will be explored in greater detail
in Chapter XII).
Existing facilities and programs offered by the
county and other providers have been inventoried
as part of this project.
New partnerships with non-profit recreation
providers have enabled an understanding of how
their programs and facilities are run.
However, there are a few areas of additional
research listed by the consultant that may be useful:
Examination of programs and facilities by the State
and for-profit recreation providers
Examination of programs and facilities offered by
similar counties
Examination of programs and facilities from NRPA
award-winning parks and recreation systems of a
comparable size.
No NRPA award-winning systems were identified
that were comparable to Orange County. Almost all
systems were municipalities or large counties or
regional park districts that bear little resemblance to
Orange County. The following is a brief case study of
a similar county and its approach to parks and
recreation programs:
With the lack of national or state standards, and the
move to community needs-based standards to
recognize the unique nature and desires of individu-
al communities, the County must attempt to
determine these community needs. Fortunately,
many if not most of the recommended methods for
exploring these needs have been accomplished by
this master plan:
3. Guiding Principles for the Use of Park Standards
Given the lack of a national set of standards for use
but the historical practice of using this as a
measuring tool for park needs, and mindful of the
case studies and information gleaned from the
outreach conducted as part of this plan, a set of
guiding principles would be useful to govern how to
use and develop standards and determine future
needs. The following “Proposed Guiding Principles
for Park Standards” attempts to balance the expec-
tation of a community needs based approach with
the population-based standards of the past as a
check or comparative tool. It also includes the Park
Classification Scheme outlined previously in this
chapter.
99
9—6
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
C. Proposed Guiding Principles for Park
Standards – Orange County NC
Section I – Parks Standards
1. The use of national standards for parks and park
facilities is no longer a common practice. Most
communities now develop their own standards based
on local needs and driving factors.
2. The County should periodically convene a series of fo-
rums to develop community-specific standards that
reflect the unique needs of the county residents. These
forums should occur no less that once every four years.
For the purposes of this master plan, the community
needs assessments, focus groups, relevant staff and
deliberations of the Parks and Recreation Council and
the Board of County Commissioners should determine
the strategies for future facilities and programs.
3. As a county park system, certain types of parks are best
provided by urban or municipal park systems. These
include mini-parks (1 acre or less) or neighborhood
parks (defined here as 20 acres or less). These types of
parks are designed for the service or close-by
neighborhoods with a range or urban services and
transportation that may not exist in the rural or
suburban areas of the county.
4. In keeping with established practice of the last 15
years, Orange County will seek to create the following
types of parks:
a. School Parks – Opportunities exist for the creation
of school parks for playing fields and other open
spaces at current and future Orange County
Schools. The size of these parks would be variable,
depending on the opportunity. The joint use of
these facilities would allow for school resources and
needs to be met, while also enhancing community
recreation needs at publicly-funded and built
playing fields and school facilities. (Efland Cheeks
Park is a current example of a School Park)
b. Community Parks – Parks of 40-75 acres in size
which provide for the recreation and open space/
leisure needs for a defined collection of neighbor
hoods, subdivisions and residential areas within a
section of the County. Community Parks should
generally be within a 5-mile radius of the area to be
served. (Cedar Grove Park is an example of a
Community Park).
c. District Parks – Parks of 75-150 acres in size which
provide for a wide range of recreation and open
space leisure needs (or may have a specific theme
of use) for a defined section of the County, In some
cases, townships may be districts. District Parks
should general be within a 10-mile radius for the
service area, and contain a larger palette of
facilities and recreation opportunities. (the future
Twin Creeks Park (Moniese Nomp) would be an
example of a District Park – and a School Park)
d. Regional Parks – Parks of 150 acres or more which
provide for a unique natural or low-impact
orientation and nature-based outdoor activities.
Regional parks serve the entire county and should
be within a 20-mile radius, and may serve multiple
counties as part of the potential service area, and
are thus conducive to multi-jurisdictional partner
ships. (Little River Regional Park and Natural Area is
a Regional Park).
e. Nature Preserves – In certain cases, topography,
geology and hydrology may combine with
identified natural areas to create opportunities for
nature preserves. A nature preserve’s primary
focus is the protection of the natural resources
present, but also allows for limited public access
for low-impact recreation.
5. While community-specific needs assessment will be
the driving factor in planning for future facilities and
programs, the use of population-based standards is
still appropriate as a “benchmark” and double-check
of potential needs.
6. For purposes of standards calculation, the process
should be initiated with examination of the entirety of
the County with a subsequent assessment of munici-
pal parks that exist or are planned which may help
address the identified need. These existing or planned
municipal parks can then be subtracted from the total
county need to identify needs that remain for the
County.
Example – If Orange County calculated standards reflect a
need for 1200 acres of district parks to meet the current
population of the county. If approximately 600 acres of
district parks exist within the towns of the county, and 400
acres exist or are planned in the County system, the need for
the County parks system is 200 acres.
7. In addressing parks needs for Orange County, signify
cant coordination is needed with municipal systems
both in terms of calculating countywide needs, and in
coordinating future plans and park development.
100
9—7
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
Section II – Recreation Program Standards
1. Because of the variability and periodic change in
community needs and desires for recreation pro-
grams, it is recommended that planning for future
recreation programs be wholly accomplished via
Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation staff
research and recommendations and periodic needs
Example: Number of District Parks Needed (using 1988 Master Plan Standards)
Issue: Determine how many district parks are needed for: (a) 2012 (present), and (b), the plan target year of 2030.
Standard: 5 acres per 1,000 population, servicing an area between 10,000 to 50,000 persons
(design population = 30,000). District parks are 81-160 acres in size (design size = 120 acres).
Current Needs
2012 Orange County Population: 137,941
Calculated Acres Needed for District Parks in Orange County (2012 population): 689.7 acres
Number of District Parks based on Design Size:
Number of District Parks, High End of District Park Size:
Number of District Parks, Low End of District Park Size:
Number of District Parks Needed, Service Area Population:
5.75 district parks
4.31 district parks
8.52 district parks
4.59 district parks
How Many Acres of Existing District Parks/Parkland?: Acres
Orange County 404 acres
(includes Cheeks/Hillsborough1; Twin Creeks Park
(acquired/future); Northeast District Park (acquired/
future); Millhouse Road Park (with Chapel Hill?)2
Chapel Hill3 None
Carrboro3 None
Mebane None
Grand Total 404 acres
Calculated 2012 Need (Standards) 690 acres
Surplus/Deficit - 286 acres (or 2.38 district parks)
Projected 2030 Needs
2030 Orange County Population***:173,248
Calculated Acres Needed for District Parks in Orange County (2012): 866.2 acres
Number of Parks based on Design Size: 7.22 district parks
Number of Parks, Largest Park Size (160 ac)= 5.42 district parks
Number of Parks, Smallest Park Size (81 ac)= 10.7 district parks
Number of Parks Needed by Service Area Population 5.78 district parks
Current Need (Standards) 866 acres
Currently Existing District Park Acres (from above) 404 acres
Surplus/Deficit: - 462 acres (or 3.85 district parks)
Using the same current/future land-banked sites listed above, assuming no new unplanned or not yet acquired district park sites.
assessments of the population to determine actual
desired programs.
While moving toward a more-flexible community
needs-based approach, the use of the population-
based formula may still offer a valuable “reality-
check” or benchmark. The following example shows
how a population-based standard may be used:
101
9—8
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
D. Service Areas and Service Delivery
Defining service areas for parks in a county system
is a bit more-complicated than for urban
municipalities. With closely-packed neighborhoods
and generally similar ranges of housing density, the
use of driving time or distance as a service area
definition is a valid determinant of what areas can
reasonably be served. Many of these areas are
walkable or have access to a comprehensive public
transportation.
In Orange County’s case, outside of the towns,
population densities and the location of residential
subdivisions is considerably more sporadic and
less-dense. Only limited public transportation along
major roadways is in existence or planned for the
next 10-15 years. The road network is arterial, with
side rural roads and private roads. In some parts of
the county the road network is more developed and
features good connections in all directions. In other
areas, roadways are more dispersed and may only
traverse certain directions, requiring trips tangential
or away from the ultimate destination before reach-
ing a main arterial roadway. These rural areas of the
county continue to see moderate residential
subdivision growth, but the areas are projected to
remain rural for the plan period through 2030.
As such, a 5-mile radius from a given park site in
rural Orange County may be a five minute drive for
someone along an arterial roadway, or a 15-minute
drive for someone who lives down a long private
lane in a more sparsely-populated area. Service
areas cannot easily be defined by distance, and
travel time is highly variable.
In 1988, the Recreation and Parks Master Plan and
subsequent reports examined to some degree trans-
portation patterns and networks in attempting to
define the four “districts” within which park needs
were identified (see Map 9-1). However, as seen in
Section 6 of that plan, the recommended location of
the four District Parks was based primarily on
existing open space and water bodies, and opportu-
nities with public lands or other public or
quasi-public open spaces. Of the four district park
locations identified at that time, two were proposed
to be located with new reservoirs, one near Duke
Forest and the County landfill in the Eubanks Road
corridor, and only one (northern Orange) in an area
without public open space or State parkland nearby.
Therefore, it can be said that in the 1988 plan,
opportunity and existing public lands was the
ultimate driving factor in the location of district
parks, and not driving time and geographic
distances.
For a point of reference, however, Map 9-2 shows
the location of the County’s current parks and the
proposed “service area” radius if this were to be the
locational determinant. Map 9-3 shows these parks,
plus the service areas for planned new parks in the
County’s Capital Investment Plan. As can be seen,
there is substantial overlap using this definition, and
almost all of the county is covered. Map 9-4 shows
the regional park coverage, which is even more
extensive.
Another very different factor that should be taken
into consideration in determining the location and
service areas of future facilities is one that is not
physical – the desires and needs of the communities
within Orange County, the opportunities to enhance
public health and economic development, and the
social consideration of accessibility to low-income
and at-risk households. These important considera-
tions may not easily be mapped, but they are
important to the recreational, natural resource,
public health and social goals of the County.
102
9—9
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
Map: 9-1 Orange County Park Districts
103
9—10
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
Map: 9-2 Existing Community Parks Service Area
104
9—11
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
Map: 9-3 Existing and Future District Park Service Area
105
9—12
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
Map: 9-4 Existing Regional Parks Service Area
106
9—13
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
3. Service Areas and Other Jurisdictions
It should be noted that careful attention and
planning should be undertaken by the towns and
County to ensure that overlapping service areas are
not unknowingly created.
Municipal park service areas are different than those
of the County due to population density, transporta-
tion networks and other factors. Ongoing
coordination and communication may identify
possible economies of scale and joint needs, and at
the least avoid duplication of facilities.
4. The Inventory, Data and Surveys
Trying to capture a snapshot of “what it all means”
is by nature a task that tends toward generalization.
Some indicators are not clear. Sometimes the data
and survey results appear to point in multiple
directions. There are no guarantees that the
projections and assumptions about future growth
and driving factors will hold true. In fact, sometimes
the most accurate thing that can be said is that
some of these things will change. Some factors,
some needs, some opportunities will morph and
change in the 16-year period 2014-2030 that is the
scope of this document. That is a given.
However, the purpose of the plan is to provide a
sense of the most-likely needs and challenges and
opportunities, based on the best available
information (including the information gathered in
this document).
Using all of the preceding chapters and information,
one starting point toward identifying future
recommendations and actions is the statement of a
number of evidentiary conclusions, or “findings.”
These findings should be supported by the data and
information in the plan, and help illuminate an
important area to be addressed in the
Recommendations section of this document.
The following Findings have been identified by the
data, inventories and information gathered, and
elaborated on by public input sessions and the
deliberations of the Orange County Parks and
Recreation Council and the Department of
Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
staff.
A. Parks and Recreation Master Plan-Findings
From the information gathered in this report and
associated documents, it appears the following
findings may be safely stated. These have been
grouped by topical area:
Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities
1. County residents overwhelmingly approve of
the way current parks and recreation facilities
are operated and maintained. They feel safe in
these facilities, and find them easy to get to
and accessible. County staff are seen as
helpful and professional.
2. In the 15 years since the County opened its
first park, existing park facilities and recreation
centers have been created which serve a
variety of community needs - and get high
marks for providing quality opportunities to
recreate - but maintenance and equipment
replacement needs are on the horizon for
some facilities.
3. The County has successfully acquired parkland
and constructed parks in low-income and
minority communities over the past 15 years,
providing a needed outlet for physical activity,
reflection in nature and outdoor recreation
that meets social, mental and physical needs f
or both individuals and groups.
4. Residents strongly believe that park facilities
and recreation programs
A. Enhance economic health of Orange
County;
B. Enhance physical and mental well-being of
residents, and
C. Help reduce crime.
Future Park and Recreation Facilities
5. There is strong interest among County
residents to expand both active recreation and
low-impact recreation opportunities (espe-
cially including hiking, walking and biking
trails, and a swimming pool).
6. Residents are less sure and largely split on
whether the County should pursue indoor
facilities for arts/leisure activities, but some
what more in favor of additional indoor
athletic facilities.
107
9—14
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 9 - What Does It All Mean: Summary and Findings from Inventories, Research, and Input 9
7. Some residents are unsure about whether
future athletic programs or parks are needed,
but among those expressing an opinion, a
significant majority favor new programs and
parks.
8. The highest levels of interest in new/expand-
ed programs are for walking, hiking, swim
ming, biking, summer camps and yoga.
9. Likewise, the top choices for new parks
facilities desired are walking trails, nature
trails, biking trails, greenways, a swimming
pool and water parks.
10. Residents are almost universally supportive of
funding new parks and recreation facilities
through grants and corporate donations.
11. Residents express strong support for financing
future parks and recreation opportunities
through voter-approved bonds or existing
local taxes. There is less support for charging
user fees, and increasing local taxes (other
than property taxes) was not a desired
solution.
12. The County has successfully acquired sites for
new parks identified in the 1988 Master Plan,
with the exception of the Bingham District;
and four new parks are projected in the Count
y’s Capital Investment Plan, along with
additions and improvements to existing parks.
13. The creation of nature preserves in important
natural areas of the county offers an
opportunity for both public access and low-
impact recreation and protection of important
natural and cultural resources being
protected.
B. Opportunities and Challenges
14. The County has been successful in recent
years in pursuing public/private or public/
non-profit partnerships for new facilities, and
should continue to explore these opportuni-
ties and engage where mutually-beneficial.
15. With the County having land-banked several
park sites for future use, and little room for
new parks inside the town borders, there may
be unprecedented opportunities for partner
ships between the County and towns for new
park or recreation facilities.
16. There are likely also financial benefits to
coordination and collaboration among the
towns and County for future parks.
17. While not growing at the rate of the 1970’s -
1990’s, the County continues to be a very-
desirable place to live with a high quality of
life, and population growth is expected to
continue, adding another 36,000 residents
by the year 2030. These new residents will
likely be split between those in the towns
and those in the rural and suburban areas of
the County.
18. The County’s Lands Legacy Program has
wiped out the parkland deficit identified in
1999, and secured a number of future park,
open space and nature preserve sites at
strategic locations for future needs.
19. The adopted 1988 Master Recreation and
Parks Plan served the County well as a blue
print for future needs, and most of the
facilities and programs anticipated in that
plan have been built, secured or implemented.
Many of the basic philosophical and physical
tenets of that plan are still valid. However, a
solution to a park site for Bingham Township
remains to be addressed.
20. Many opportunities for coordinated school/
park planning with the school systems appear
to exist.
See appendix 9-1 for Endnotes
108
10-1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations
Introduction
The 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan
identffied a comprehensive list of goals and
objectfves that were adopted for Orange County’s
parks and recreatfon interests. Goals are defined as
“general directfon-setters” intended to express an
ideal future end state for the community, such as
providing adequate parks and recreatfon facilitfes
for all citfzens. Objectfves define the intermediate
steps needed to reach a partfcular goal.
These goals and objectfves, augmented by the find-
ings of this plan, are the basis for recommendatfons
about the future. The following sectfon lists the
goals and objectfves from the Parks and Recreatfon
chapter (or “element”) of the Comprehensive Plan,
followed by a series of recommendatfons for the
future of parks and recreatfon services in Orange
County.
A brief assessment of the progress made toward the
goals and objectfves, and further “actfon strategies”
for achieving each objectfve, may be found in Ap-
pendix 10-1. Those actfon strategies were also
incorporated into the recommendatfons sectfon that
closes this chapter.
A. Orange County Comprehensive Plan 2030 –
Parks & Recreation Goals and Objectives
(From the Orange County Comprehensive Plan 2030)
Overarching Goal: Regionally-coordinated park
and recreation facilities that provide healthy
opportunities for recreation and exercise for all
citizens of Orange County, and that preserve
important cultural and natural resources.
Goal 2: Create a partnership among regional rec-
reational providers and facility owners/ managers
including the appropriate co-location and sharing
of school facilities that meets the County’s
recreation needs.
Goal 1: Provide adequate parks and recreational
facilities for all citizens within the County,
regardless of age, gender, race or disability.
Objective 2.1 - The County will serve as the lead coordina-
tor of regional open space and recreatfon facility providers
in the County (including OWASA, UNC-CH, and Duke
Univ.), and coordinate regional efforts including future
parkland and recreatfon facility planning acquisitfons and
operatfons/maintenance of community, district and
regional park and recreatfon facilitfes.
Objective 2.2 - Develop a methodology to be used by
regional recreatfonal providers in determining the number
of recreatfon and park facilitfes needed. The agreed upon
methodology should address countywide and community-
specific service areas and how needs are determined
within those service areas, such as linking facility needs to
populatfon growth.
Objective 2.3 - Develop a program for land dedicatfon/
recreatfon payment that is effectfve and comprehensive.
Objective 2.4 - Establish a mechanism to promote shared
use of existfng public and instftutfonal buildings and
grounds for public recreatfon, as well as for their primary
uses.
Objective 2.5 - Adopt criteria for evaluatfng potentfal land
acquisitfons for recreatfon and park facilitfes in coopera-
tfon with other regional park providers.
Objective 2.6 - Develop a Memorandum of Agreement
among the local governments on joint capital and/or oper-
atfonal funding for future parks and recreatfonal facilitfes.
Objective 1.2 - Acquire and/or retain lands suitable for
sitfng both indoor and outdoor actfve recreatfon facilitfes
to serve all Orange County residents.
Objective 1.3 - Develop a land use planning mechanism for
securing new parks through the development approval
process.
Objective 1.1 - Acquire and/or retain public ownership of
parks, recreatfon facilitfes, open space, and conservatfon
areas that will serve Orange County.
109
10-2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
Goal 3: Provide recreational facilities for public
use in a manner that is multi-generational and
accessible to all County citizens at both the
county-wide and community level.
Goal 4: Promote healthy lifestyles, quality of life
and community building through the provision of
a variety of affordable recreational facilities and
choice of leisure activities, while responding to
the changing needs and interests of County
residents.
Goal 5: Ensure that park and recreational facilities
are environmentally-responsible and are where
cultural and natural resources and open space
within these sites are protected.
Objective 3.1 - Locate parks and recreatfonal facilitfes
close to residentfal areas and transportatfon nodes, to
increase public knowledge and accessibility to these facili-
tfes including alternatfve transportatfon modes.
Objective 3.2 - Implement individual park master plans.
Objective 3.3 - Create a new Parks and Recreatfon
Facilitfes Master Plan Map to guide future parks planning
and to help leverage outside funding.
Objective 4.1 - Developers shall provide for adequate and
appropriate open space suitable for actfve/low -impact
recreatfon in residentfal developments.
Objective 4.2 - Investfgate the potentfal for public and/or
private commercial partnerships and recreatfonal facilitfes
needed to serve Orange County’s residents.
Objective 4.3 - Work to keep recreatfonal facilitfes and
services affordable and sustainable to the general public.
Objective 4.4 - Periodically survey the public and conduct
needs assessments on recreatfon services.
Objective 5.1 - Locate parks and recreatfonal facilitfes
close to residentfal areas to encourage informal interac-
tfon with nature, encourage walkability, and create areas
of wildlife habitat with appropriate recreatfonal facilitfes
within the more populated areas.
Objective 5.2 - Landscape parks and recreatfonal facilitfes
with natfve vegetatfon and minimize water use where
practfcal. Prohibit the use of known invasive non-natfve
species in County facilitfes, and take steps to eradicate
occurrences of the same.
Objective 5.3 - Ensure public access to County-owned
parks and nature preserves, but direct facilitfes and trails
away from the most ecologically sensitfve sites.
Objective 5.4 - Encourage development of a system of
private open spaces and conservatfon areas, including na-
ture preserves, parks, linear parks, and scenic vistas com-
patfble with the character of Orange County.
Objective 5.5 - Develop linear parks and rustfc trails in the
rural buffer and explore opportunitfes for preservatfon and
connectfvity along other identffied stream corridors.
110
10-3
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
B. Recommendations
Having reviewed the County’s goals and objectfves
identffied in 2008 for parks and recreatfon, and as
seen in the preceding chapters, there is strong
interest in parks and public open spaces, and in
recreatfon facilitfes and programs in Orange County.
This interest is validated in the high park attendance
and recreatfon program partfcipatfon rates witnessed
for the past decade. In additfon to providing
recreatfon opportunitfes, residents feel strongly that
parks and recreatfon programs enhance the
economic health of the county (93% agreement) and
the physical and mental well-being of the residents
(96% agreement).
Knowing all of this, how does one then plan for the
future of such important components of the quality
of life? Planning for the future always carries an
element of risk. No one can say for certain how many
residents will call Orange County home in the year
2030, what athletfc programs will be in vogue, what
new park facilitfes will be desired and needed by the
populace. Developing a master plan for the next 16
years requires reliance on quality forecastfng and the
best available data; informatfon and preferences
shared by county residents about their desires and
needs; and the flexibility to alter the course and
change plans as the next two decades unfold.
Based on the informatfon contained in this plan and
in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan 2030,
using data and findings gathered from a variety of
sources and in a variety of ways, the following rec-
ommendatfons are offered to address the 20 Findings
listed in Chapter 9 and the goals and objectfves listed
earlier in this chapter, as well as other identffied
needs and issues:
1. Determining When New Facilities and Programs
are Needed
How does the County determine when and where
new facilitfes are needed, with a new emphasis
on community-specific standards as the major
determinant, and populatfon-based standards used
only as a back-check and benchmark?
As noted in Chapter 9, community-specific standards
are now recommended as the best way for countfes
and citfes to truly determine their facility needs. To
facilitate this, a set of Guiding Principles for Park
Standards is suggested. These standards include the
types of parks and public open spaces the County
should focus on going forward. Because of this, the
key to answering the questfon above is through more
frequent check-ins with county residents on their
needs and interests, matched with strategic capital
and infrastructure planning (and opportunitfes for
working with the schools, etc). A combinatfon of
community needs, populatfon distributfon and
transportatfon helps to determine future needs.
Public forums, surveys, focus groups and other
techniques conducted on a regular basis
(recommended every five years) should identffy
needs for facilitfes, and analytfcal tools via strategic
and capital infrastructure plans will work in
conjunctfon with these feedback mechanisms to
explore needs and optfmal locatfons for any future
facilitfes.
Likewise, as the public’s interest in recreatfon
programs change over tfme, these feedback
mechanisms will also serve to alert staff to changing
conditfons and the potentfal for changes in program-
ing needs. Recreatfon staff already has a process to
monitor program efficiency and satfsfactfon, and this
will offer another tool to offer programming that
meets the needs of Orange County residents.
Even with this new approach to community needs
and standards, there are some existfng parameters
that will help the County know what types of facilitfes
are needed and where to locate them.
111
10-4
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
For example, the County already has four park
districts that are the basic level of service provision.
This district-level service model has been in place
since 1988. Changing away from existfng and
planned district park service models would constf-
tute a major disruptfon to the operatfon of existfng
parks and the planning for new ones. This district
park approach is also the basis for the “land dedica-
tfon/payment-in-lieu of land dedicatfon” program
that has been in place since the 1980s. Park planning,
parkland acquisitfon and constructfon of new
facilitfes in the last 15 years has been based on this
premise. Most of the district park sites have been
acquired and await funding for future constructfon.
Only in the Bingham district of southwestern Orange
County is there no identffied and land-banked district
park site, and efforts are underway to secure that
locatfon.
It is possible to realize, from prior master planning
and 15 years experience in operatfng parks, the types
of parks needed. Recognizing that there needs to be
some level of flexibility to address special cases, and
that some park sites warrant a different level of
treatment, the five types of parks and public open
spaces noted in the Guiding Principles of Chapter 9
provide a framework that is consistent with previous
planning and park constructfon, and a filter for iden-
tffying and categorizing future needs:
Community Parks
District Parks
School Parks
Regional Parks and
Nature Preserve (Public Access Areas)
The maps in Chapter 9 identffy the locatfons of
existfng and future parks, and the service areas
associated with them. It is important to note that the
concept of service areas, in a county with significant
rural areas, is more-accurately read as an area within
which a park is considered to be well-located or
“convenient.” It is not the intentfon of this plan to
imply that all areas not within a defined service area
are not served. Not all areas must fall within a
service area circle. To do so would require embarking
on an extensive and somewhat arbitrary plan of re-
quiring parks in outlying areas where service areas
overlap and the populatfon may be served ineffi-
ciently. Community park service areas already over-
lap due to community needs and existfng facilitfes.
For example, the fact that the Cedar Grove Park
service area does not capture the very northwestern-
most corner of Orange County should not be read to
mean that another park is needed to cover this
“gap.” Indeed, there is nothing magical about the
five-mile community park radius that is used and
mapped. County residents living six miles away can
and do use the park, and stfll may choose to frequent
any of the area parks for that matter. Similarly, an
additfonal two-minute drive tfme outside of a service
area circle does not constftute the need for an addi-
tfonal park facility (unless other community-specific
factors through the master plan review process indi-
cate otherwise). Service area boundaries are shown
primarily as a way to identffy the homes and resi-
dents that are within a defined distance.
Additfonally, the County’s four district parks, when
completed, have actual districts served based on
transportatfon and land use patterns. These do not
conform to a 10-mile radius from the park locatfon.
Residents in Bingham Township may, for example,
find it more convenient to visit and frequent the
future Twin Creeks District Park (the Chapel Hill
Township district park), and vice-versa. Service area
definitfon is simply another tool to consider
geography and immediacy, rather than the limits of
residents who are served by a park. In fact,
geographical service areas are better suited to
municipal park planning than county park systems, as
municipalitfes generally have more uniform levels of
populatfon density, more expansive and multf-modal
transportatfon networks, and walkability standards
making parks within fixed distances (or the elimina-
tfon of service area gaps) a more valid approach to
urban parks planning. For that reason, a set of count-
ywide parks standards is not practfcal, but rather,
coordinatfon and consistency between the municipal
and county standards is highly encouraged.
112
10-5
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
Finally, the Lands Legacy Program’s criteria for parks
and nature preserves, along with the guidance in the
2030 Comprehensive Plan, helps to guide future
acquisitfons of parks and public open space. Careful
attentfon should contfnue to be paid to coordinatfng
service areas with the towns to avoid duplicatfon of
facilitfes. This is an area where the Intergovernmen-
tal Parks (IP) Work Group, and the coordinatfon of
the town and county advisory boards for parks and
recreatfon, may be of great service. The IP Work
Group, to this end, created a “Composite County-
wide Plan for Parks and Trails Map” that shows town
and county existfng and planned facilitfes, so that
future facility planning may take into account other
jurisdictfonal facility locatfons. This important map
should be updated periodically and used by all juris-
dictfons for individual and joint planning efforts.
2. The Vision – Parks, Nature Preserves and Public
Open Spaces for 2030
It is now possible to outline a vision for the County’s
parks and recreatfon system through the year 2030
based on the assessment of community needs,
desires and the vision outlined in the past commit-
ment to capital facilitfes, and the expressed goals
and objectfves of the Comprehensive Plan. This
vision is illustrated in this and subsequent sectfons.
Recommendation #1: Protect & Enhance Our In-
vestment in Parks and Open Spaces
Orange County, since 1998, has made a substantfal
investment in providing parks and public open
spaces for all county residents. Facilitfes in excess of
$9 million have been constructed at seven park
locatfons across the county, in many cases leveraging
state and federal grant funds. Another $6.5 million
has been invested in municipal park projects in the
towns.
Additfonal facilitfes of $14 million (including $8-10
million at Twin Creeks Park) are planned as future
phases of these parks, and the County should look to
build the future phases of the facilitfes, as reflected
in the Capital Investment Plan, to protect the
investment already committed, and enhance the
recreatfonal opportunitfes for residents – actfons
that also promote economic development and help
foster healthy lifestyles.
In additfon, some of the facilitfes constructed in the
1998-2010 tfmeframe have begun (and will contfnue)
to show the signs of wear and tear on existfng facili-
tfes, be it playground structures or picnic shelters
and restrooms, before we reach the plan year of
2030. Maintenance and replacement of dated
facilitfes has not been an issue for Orange County
due to the newness of its facilitfes, but this will
change in the coming 10-15 years. Funding for
maintenance and replacement and/or renovatfon of
structures and facilitfes will be needed – as will
adequate funding for park operatfons. Operatfng
costs are the unseen critfcal need for park facilitfes,
as without adequate operatfng funds, the best equip-
ment and newest facilitfes will not yield the desired
recreatfonal experience for the public.
113
10-6
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
Recommendation #2: Build the Planned Future Parks
Orange County has been very prescient in its
approach to parks planning by incorporatfng a
progressive, even visionary, component of its
program – the acquisitfon of future park sites
through the award-winning Lands Legacy Program.
The foresight shown by this and previous Boards of
Commissioners has likely saved millions of dollars by
acquiring antfcipated park sites between 2000-2005
at prices considerably less than subsequent or future
market value, using both local voter-approved bond
funds and leveraging state and federal grants.
Because of this foresight, the County is poised to
move straight into final design and constructfon at
five land-banked sites strategically-located across the
county. The acquisitfon of these sites included a
thorough analysis of the locatfon for transportatfon,
land use planning, and other factors. Funding to
construct these facilitfes is programmed in the
adopted CIP for the period 2014-2023. The 2001
Parks and Open Space Bond resulted in constructfon
of several new parks between 2005 and 2010. The
tfme has now come to begin to construct the other
needed facilitfes as planned, and open these parks
for the enjoyment of Orange County residents.
Recognizing that the cost of opening these facilitfes is
substantfal, phasing of constructfon may be prudent
to ensure financial sustainability in the context of the
County’s total capital needs. Efforts should also be
made to ensure that the facilitfes are
multf-generatfonal in appeal, in ways that meet
needs of different age and ethnic groups and also
offer opportunitfes for community-building. Parks
should also, unless specifically targeted for special
use (such as soccer centers), contain a mix of actfve
and low-impact recreatfon amenitfes. Sensitfve
natural and cultural areas should be protected in
park design and constructfon (and identffied by the
use of biological and archaeological surveys, using
where possible the volunteer services of the local
experts in this field), and sustainable landscaping
practfces should be used during park operatfon.
An ecologically—sensitfve approach should be the
guiding framework for all park designs. Many of
these facilitfes have been identffied as needed parks
since 1988, and others have emerged as promising
new opportunitfes. In some cases, there are opportu-
nitfes for interlocal collaboratfon for park construc-
tfon, such as at the future Twin Creeks Park and Mill-
house Road Park. State and federal grant funds may
also be available to establish certain parks.
It is suggested that Orange County commit itself to
constructfng and opening the new parks shown in
Table 10-1 within 10 years (by the year 2024), and
opening two of the parks within five years (by 2019).
Recommendation #3: Complete the Protection of
Identified Nature Preserves and Create Public Access
Areas and Trails
Through the Lands Legacy Program, working with a
number of other conservatfon partners, Orange
County is often predicted to be the “green” corner of
the Triangle. These efforts to date by all of the
conservatfon partners have created three locatfons
where nature preserves either exist or have the
potentfal to grow:
Upper Eno Preserve – along the upper segment of
the Eno River and its main tributaries (such as
Sevenmile Creek and McGowan Creek), in conjunc-
tfon with Duke Forest, the Eno River Associatfon and
Eno River State Park;
New Hope Preserve – along the New Hope Creek
corridor adjoining and in conjunctfon with Duke For-
est, Triangle Land Conservancy, Durham County, the
City of Durham and other conservatfon-minded
neighbors (including the Hollow Rock site); and
Jordan Lake Headwaters Preserve – in the south-
eastern corner of the county incorporatfng significant
natural heritage areas, the Corps of Engineers Jordan
Lake gamelands, and other conservatfon lands
owned by University of North Carolina and the
Botanical Garden Foundatfon.
114
10-7
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
Additfonal opportunitfes may exist over tfme, such as
the New Hope Creek uplands, which is near the
Blackwood Division of Duke Forest (and two county
parks).
While the primary purpose of these nature preserves
is the protectfon of important species of flora and
fauna and surface water quality, there are ways to
accomplish this priority while stfll managing and
providing for public access. Each of these nature
preserves should have designated public access areas
for hiking, primitfve camping and wildlife viewing,
designed to minimize adverse impacts on the most-
sensitfve portfons of the preserve. These preserves
may be an excellent locatfon for more hiking and
biking trails, which were identffied as a priority in the
Community Needs Assessment survey. Equestrian
trails may also be desirable, targeted at certain spots
meetfng the special needs of this recreatfonal use.
The County should work to complete land acquisi-
tfons necessary to complete or establish these
nature preserves, develop master plans for the
public access areas at each locatfon, and plan for the
opening of these areas for public enjoyment. These
facilitfes can be accomplished at very low cost,
compared to actfve recreatfon facilitfes, and are al-
ready planned at two of the preserves listed above
(New Hope and Upper Eno). The County should work
with UNC and the NC Botanical Garden to ensure
public access at the Jordan Lake Headwaters
Preserve.
3. The Vision – We’re Not an Island – the
Importance of Planning and Coordinating with
the Towns and Schools
Recommendation #4: Formalize and Build Support
Structure for Multi-Partner Capital Facilities (with
towns, school systems, other partners)
A number of opportunitfes appear to exist for joint
efforts to acquire land and develop facilitfes for
future parks and recreatfon. At a planning level, the
Intergovernmental Parks Work Group provides a
mechanism for the local government elected boards,
staffs and advisory boards to come together quarter-
ly to explore matters of mutual interest, and this has
facilitated several joint ventures. The County has a
history with its municipal partners in the funding,
land acquisitfon, and constructfon of park and
recreatfon facilitfes, from Homestead Park and the
Homestead Aquatfcs Center, to the Adams Tract in
Carrboro, to Southern Community Park, and the new
artfficial turf field at Cedar Falls Park in Chapel Hill.
The County has also made a significant investment in
facilitfes in and around Hillsborough, and provided
financial assistance to Mebane for Lake Michael Park.
Little River Regional Park and Natural Area and the
Hollow Rock Access Area (part of the New Hope
Creek Preserve) are examples of collaboratfon with
Durham County. Orange County and Durham County
have operated Little River Park (parts of which are
owned by each county) for 10 years, working under
an interlocal agreement. A similar arrangement is
antfcipated at Hollow Rock, and the potentfal for
collaboratfon with the Town of Chapel Hill may exist
for the proposed Millhouse Road Park.
In 2000, a “Joint Capital Funding for Parks” report
was created for the Assembly of Governments, which
proposed methods and roles for joint capital funding
of parks facilitfes among the towns and countfes. It is
suggested that this report be reconsidered for
relevance given the likely greater potentfal for joint
projects in the future. Memoranda of understanding
may be a vehicle for future joint capital funding to
ensure that the needs of all jurisdictfons are met.
115
10-8
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
One area of future collaboratfon that seems partfcu-
larly well-tfmed is that with the school systems. As
the Twin Creeks District Park and Educatfonal
Campus comes to fruitfon in the next 10-15 years
with multfple schools co-located with a 96-acre park,
opportunitfes for “cross-pollinatfon” would appear to
be numerous between the schools and the park.
Opportunitfes to work more closely with the Orange
County Schools – both in the design of future schools
that may be able to serve community and educatfon-
al needs, and in the constructfon and operatfonal
sharing of recreatfonal facilitfes – would greatly
enhance both community recreatfon and school
purposes. The Intergovernmental Parks Work
Group’s Community Use of School Facilitfes issue
paper notes the opportunitfes that could be served
by such cooperatfon. Co-locatfon of the Eurosport
Soccer Center and Gravelly Hill Middle School is one
example of such a result, and collaboratfon on future
auxiliary gymnasiums, playing fields at schools, and
schools in proximity to parks (such as Blackwood
Farm) are opportunitfes that should be seized to
optfmize the investment of public dollars. There may
also be an opportunity for a new school park near
Mebane. Notably, both school systems recently up-
dated their facility use policies to allow more oppor-
tunity for coordinated usage for recreatfon purposes.
Finally, there are opportunitfes to work more closely
with large public and private instftutfons, such as
Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), N.C.
State Parks, UNC and Duke to meet future recreatfon
needs. Sponsorships and capital investment partner-
ships should also be explored with the private sector,
which benefits from safe and healthy outdoor
exercise and recreatfonal areas and may be a willing
partner.
The County should schedule a meetfng with the
other local governments within the county to discuss
future joint capital funding and possible memoranda
of agreement for such purposes. A similar meetfng
with the two school systems could identffy ways of
incorporatfng recreatfon needs into planning for
future school projects and codifying joint facility
usage arrangements (some of which already exist).
Mutually-beneficial design standards for new school
facilitfes may enable greater use by the public of
these important recreatfonal assets.
Renewal of the Orange County Conservatfon
Alliance, an annual meetfng of conservatfon partners
including Triangle Land Conservancy, Eno River
Associatfon, Duke, UNC, Eno River State Park and
OWASA, should enable coordinated future planning
and the identfficatfon of joint opportunitfes among
these agencies and instftutfons.
Finally, regarding collaboratfon with private firms,
the County should complete its “partnership
template” to identffy mutually-beneficial partner-
ship arrangements and use this as a tool to explore
working with existfng and future employers to find
ways where private investment and sponsorships
may help enhance recreatfonal opportunitfes.
D. The Vision – Trails, Connectivity and Access
One of the stronger messages resultfng from the
Community Needs Assessment surveys was the
desire among residents for more hiking, walking and
biking trails. Natfonally and locally, walking and
hiking are popular modes of outdoor exercise and
fitness, and biking is another popular recreatfonal
outlet as well as for meetfng exercise goals. Whether
they are located within a park, or for connectfng
parks and open spaces (also strongly supported in
the surveys), residents are interested in seeing the
County increase the availability and accessibility of
trails.
Recommendation #5: Develop a Master Plan for
the Orange County Segment of the Mountains-to-
Sea Trail, and Work Towards Its Completion
The NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST for short) is a
part of the North Carolina State Parks system that
connect Clingman’s Dome at 6,643 feet along the
North Carolina-Tennessee border to Jockey’s Ridge
State Park on the Outer Banks and Atlantfc Ocean.
The trail is a multf-modal route, meaning that it may
be a paved greenway as it runs through an urban
setting, or simply a five-foot-wide natural surface
path in rural areas.
116
10-9
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
Portfons of the MST have already been built on
publicly-owned lands around the state, and through
the use of other trails and connectfng greenways.
Other segments have not been built, and this has led
to the identfficatfon and promotfon of
alternate routes over the last 25 years - to allow
hikers to traverse the state using roadways and other
temporary corridors untfl the actual trail could be
built. Many of these uncompleted segments are in
the eastern Piedmont region, including Orange
County.
Orange County’s segment of the trail includes a
planned sectfon through Eno River State Park and the
Town of Hillsborough’s Riverwalk along the Eno
River. This includes sectfons of trail through
Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area (part of
Eno River State Park) and through private historic
propertfes along the Eno River. Orange County’s
Upper Eno Nature Preserve is in close proximity to
Occoneechee Mountain and would also host a
portfon of the trail. (Figure 8-2 in Chapter 8 on page
8-6 shows the planned MST corridor through Orange
County.)
As shown in Figure 8-2, the remainder of the MST in
Orange County is proposed for a corridor that
connects the Upper Eno Preserve southwest to
OWASA-owned lands at Cane Creek Reservoir before
following Cane Creek to its confluence with the Haw
River at the County line, connectfng with Alamance
County’s Haw River Trail (which is also the MST).
This segment may be one of the more-challenging in
the state, in that it requires a way to cross from the
Neuse River basin (Eno River and tributaries) into the
Cape Fear River basin (Cane Creek, Haw River). As
such, this sectfon of the trail must travel “cross coun-
try,” up and over the ridgeline separatfng these two
basins, which does not have a natural feature to
distfnguish it. At present, this southwestern segment
of the planned trail is only a one-mile-wide “swath”
on a map, an uncharted sectfon that will need
clarificatfon and refinement. The possibility of finaliz-
ing plans for this segment has generated considera-
ble concern by some property owners in the vicinity
and strong support for completfng the trail by some
of the trail proponents. Orange County is scheduled
to undertake a master plan to identffy and refine the
proposed trail segment later in 2014.
The County should facilitate the creatfon of this seg-
ment and work diligently to undertake a thorough
review of the possible routes through the corridor
between the Haw River and OWASA Cane Creek
lands, and between the OWASA Cane Creek lands
and the Upper Eno Preserve. The master plan pro-
cess should include public meetfngs and discussions
with landowners about the realitfes of a natural sur-
face path through this area, and address security and
other concerns raised. The County may wish to as-
sume trail oversight in these areas if amenable to
landowners for consistency. Long-distance trails such
as the MST require “way statfons” or nodes along the
route where some very basic level services are avail-
able (parking, signage, campsite, potable water). The
County and OWASA should look at the possibility of
creatfng such a way statfon at the Cane Creek and
Seven Mile Creek access areas (on land owned by the
two entftfes) and developing parking and trailheads’
on a select few public roads. Since primitfve camping,
water and sanitatfon facilitfes are critfcal for hikers,
the County should identffy locatfons within County
parks along the route where overnight camping is
allowed.
Orange County should find a solutfon to the MST cor-
ridor, whether on private lands, public roads or some
combinatfon of the two – so that this important
statewide recreatfonal facility is planned and
eventually constructed in harmony with nature. Or-
ange County should not become the “gap” in the
North Carolina Mountains-to-Sea Trail.
117
10-10
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
Recommendation #6: Build More Trails, and
Connect Open Spaces
As noted above, based on the results of the
Community Needs Assessment surveys, Orange
County residents want to get out into nature and
walk, hike and bike more. Creatfng more trails will
happen through several different methods:
Building the future parks and future phases of
existfng parks, which will add significant trail
loops and corridors (an estfmated 10 miles of
additfonal trails).
Complete the Mountains-to-Sea Trail through
Orange County, which will add another
approximately 30 miles of trail.
Create public access areas within the nature
preserves described above.
Look for opportunitfes to connect existfng trails,
such as connectfng the trails in Duke Forest to
those in Eno River State Park, connectfng town
greenways to county trails, and working with
private developers as part of new developments.
These same methods and actfvitfes will also provide
for connectfvity. The Mountains-to-Sea Trail, for
example, will link OWASA Cane Creek lands to the
County’s Upper Eno Preserve to Eno River State Park
and the Hillsborough Riverwalk. The Hollow Rock
Access Area will connect the New Hope Preserve to
the Duke Forest trail network and to a series of trails
extending south to Jordan Lake. Other efforts on
short segments may be undertaken to connect the
Town of Chapel Hill and Town of Carrboro greenways
to Duke Forest and the New Hope trail network.
As with joint capital funding for parks, the different
potentfal partners (local governments and
quasi-public entftfes, instftutfons, trail organizatfons)
that would benefit from enhanced trails should look
at potentfal joint funding mechanisms for trails that
cross jurisdictfonal boundaries to help “share the
cost.”
Recommendation #7: Work to Improve Access to
Parks and Trails and Incorporate Healthy Lifestyles
Design
As noted in Chapter 9, there is a strong relatfonship
between parks, recreatfon programs and public
health. Where residents live in proximity to parks
and trails, personal health is improved. Transporta-
tfon and income play a key role in access and thus, in
maintaining a healthy lifestyle. For some residents,
the ability to drive to a park or trail, or to pay for
access to a program or a swimming pool is a great
challenge. In the 2011 Community Health Assess-
ment, 75% of respondents identffied an apparent
lack of access to parks and recreatfonal opportunitfes
as a problem in Orange County.
This is a challenge easily addressed in urban areas
where public transportatfon is more readily available,
and where populatfon densitfes create a market for
parks within walking and biking distance. Orange
County’s rural areas, however, are projected to
remain rural into the long-term future, with the bulk
of future residentfal development to occur in the
towns and in “transitfon areas” with urban
infrastructure near the main east-west roadways.
There are two things the County could do to improve
access to parks, nature preserves and trails for all
residents. The County, working in conjunctfon with
other transportatfon providers, could work to
improve public transportatfon along major roadway
corridors in the rural parts of the county, with stops
at current and future parks. Secondly, the County
could incorporate (more formally) healthy lifestyle
facility design into its park design process. Design of
parks that include facilitfes that promote fitness
already occurs on an ad hoc basis, but with emerging
standards and early design interventfon, more-
productfve facility design could be achieved by look-
ing at public health facility design components as a
regular, intrinsic part of the overall master planning
process.
118
10-11
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
5. The Vision – Recreation/Athletics Programs
Recommendation #8: Look to Add Programs in Are-
as Where Residents Have Identified Needs, Consider
Partnerships
The County should contfnue to be flexible and
responsive in the provision of recreatfon programs
(which includes athletfcs). Part of being flexible and
responsive is examining the needs identffied by the
Community Needs Assessment, and finding ways to
offer programs if practfcable from a financial and
staff resource standpoint.
Residents indicated interest in learning how to hike,
walk and bike, practfce yoga and in swimming
lessons and summer camps. The recent economic
downturn has increased interest in County summer
camps as a low-cost optfon for youth and children
summer enrichment. Orange County’s standard for
offering programs has been to achieve 100%
recovery of direct costs for youth and adult
programs. If this model is contfnued, most of the cost
for new youth/children’s programs could be
recovered by partfcipant fees, but some portfon
(indirect costs) would contfnue to be subsidized,
requiring additfonal funding but also meetfng
important societal and community needs.
County staff should conduct follow-up surveys to
determine the depth of interest in programs identf-
fied in the Community Needs Assessment, and if
sufficient partfcipatfon appears likely, offer new
programs. While assessing new program opportuni-
tfes, staff should also evaluate existfng programs and
whether some of the resources allocated to
low-partfcipatfon programs should be redirected to
new prioritfes.
Programs teaching hiking techniques, walking for
fitness, and mountain-biking should be feasible
within the current program structure. Offering
swimming lessons, however, will present challenges
from a facility and risk management perspectfve.
The County should look at the potentfal for partner-
ing with SportsPlex management or other local
pools for swim lessons, or partner with existfng
organizatfons that already offer lessons. At present,
SportsPlex offers swim lessons, but these fill up
quickly due to popularity and cost more than most
County programs. Surveys have also shown the
desire for a public swimming pool. If an outdoor pool
were constructed, this could enable more offerings
for swimming lessons and water safety for those who
cannot afford private lessons. Careful attentfon
should be paid to coordinatfng and complementfng
existfng organizatfons that offer these programs,
rather than creatfng competftfon.
The County has taken positfve steps toward
providing complementary and not competftfve
programs, such as the recent partnership with
Hillsborough Youth Athletfc Associatfon (HYAA) to
offer youth baseball and softball, rather than offering
a competfng program in the same service area.
Partnerships, however, must also take into consider-
atfon that the County is often the provider of services
for those who cannot afford private or non-profit
programs, and may play an important role in provid-
ing recreatfon opportunitfes for those who might
otherwise be unable to partfcipate. The creatfon of a
“partnership template” would be an instructfve tool
to help assess potentfal partnerships and their
benefits.
One partfcularly fruitiul area for program
collaboratfon appears to exist with the school
systems. Efforts are currently underway to address
Community Use of School Facilitfes for Recreatfon,
and it is hoped that Orange County and the school
systems may find – as many other countfes and
school systems have – ways to maximize the
availability of school recreatfonal facilitfes for public
use. Finally, there may also exist opportunitfes for
the County to coordinate more closely with the
towns on programs going forward. Opportunitfes for
hiking and other nature programs in conjunctfon
with Duke Forest, Eno River State Park and other
public or publicly-accessible open spaces should also
be explored.
119
10-12
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
6. The Vision – Review of Planned Financing and
Capital Investments
In 2007, Orange County began including all planned
park projects in its Capital Investment Plan (CIP). A
CIP is a comprehensive schedule of projected capital
investments, typically including non-recurring capital
investments above a certain dollar threshold that
requires partfcular attentfon for planning of funding
and in some cases, debt issuance. It is important to
note that the CIP is working document and a blue-
print for the future. Actual funding appropriatfons
are made on an annual basis as part of the annual
County budget adoptfon. A CIP may most accurately
be viewed as a schedule of funding “intentfons,” one
that is reviewed and adjusted annually.
Orange County’s CIP is a five-year plan that also iden-
tffies expected projects for as second five-year peri-
od. As of the date of this master plan, the current
Category / Project
Master
Plan?
FY 2013-2018
($)
FY 2018-beyond
($)
Total Funding
($)
Start
Year
Completfon
Year
New Planned Parks
Blackwood Farm Park X 0 4,400,000 4,450,000 2013 2019
Bingham District Park 0 7,000,000 7,000,000 2019 2021
Millhouse Road Park 6,500,000 3,000,000 9,500,000 2016 2020
Northeast District Park 8,000,000 8,000,000 2020 2022
Existing Parks – Future Phases
Cedar Grove Park – Phase II
(Community Park)
X 0 1,600,000 1,600,000
(3,408,000)
2019 2021
Eurosport Soccer Center –
Phase II (Soccer Complex)
X 1,600,000 4,550,000 6,150,000
(8,350,000)
2015 2021
River Park – Phase II X 250,000 0 250,000
(300,000)
2015 2016
Twin Creeks Park - Phase II
(District Park)
X 0 8,000,000 8,000,000
(11,800,000)
2018 2025
Little River Regional Park and
Natural Area
X 175,000 250,000 425,000
(1,946,000)
2015 2022
Natural Preserves
Upper Eno Nature Preserve 440,000 440,000 880,000 2015 2021
New Hope Preserve – Hollow
Rock Access Area
X
550,000
165,000
640,000
2013
2022
Trails
Mountains-to-Sea Trail 0 500,000 500,000 2018 2025
Land Acquisition
Lands Legacy – Parks and Public
Open Space Portfon
1,200,000
1,000,000
4,400,000
2014
2025
TOTAL $10,715,000 $38,905,000 $49,620,000
Table 10-1: Park and Public Open Space Projects – FY 2013-18 Capital Investment Plan (adopted)
adopted Orange County CIP is the “FY 2013-18
Capital Investment Plan.”
Due to having an existfng master plan, and a Lands
Legacy Program that has acquired several future park
sites, almost all of the recommended parks projects
in this plan are already included within the FY 2013-
18 CIP. The projects have been scheduled based on a
combinatfon of the following factors:
previously-identffied need,
the existence of a master plan for the facility,
possible funding partners, and
potentfal availability of funds (as best can be deter-
mined one to five years in advance).
Table 10-1 lists the parks and public open space
projects that are part of the approved FY 2013-18 CIP
(listed in alphabetfcal order). Table 10-2, which
follows, outlines the operatfng and equipment costs
that are associated with the same projects.
120
10-13
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
Fortunately, the list of planned facilitfes includes all
of the top prioritfes identffied in the Community
Needs Assessment, with the exceptfon of a
swimming pool. As shown in the preceding tables,
significant funding will be needed over the next
10-12 years to bring the planned and needed new
parks and future phases of existfng parks to
completfon. More funds will be needed to address
renovatfons and replacement of equipment and
facilitfes as existfng parks begin to age and facilitfes
become worn or outdated. Additfonally, the
importance of the Central Recreatfon Center and
Efland-Cheeks Community Center, and the new
community centers at Cedar Grove and Rogers Road,
should be factored in as these facilitfes are likely to
see increased usage for a variety of purposes, and
increased usage over tfme will require replacement
Table 10-2: Parks, Recreation and Public Open Space Projects – Renovation/Replacement Improvements
(Through 2030) (does not include new constructfon costs from Table 11-1)
and renovatfon funding. The Central Recreatfon Cen-
ter in Hillsborough, the former gymnasium for Hills-
borough High School, was built in 1957. While some
upgrades have been accomplished, many more are
on the horizon. Since this facility is a recreatfon locus
in the town of Hillsborough, it may be worthwhile to
examine possible joint Town/County ventures to
invest in this facility.
Most of the funds for park and recreatfon facility
constructfon are projected for beyond 2018. Funding
from grant sources and potentfal partners is
expected, and this would substantfally lessen the
County’s share of this funding. Public-private
partnerships and sponsorships may also offer an op-
portunity for leveraging private dollars to help
enhance public facilitfes that meet interests of both
the public and the private sector.
Project Within 2 years 2-5 Years 5-Year Total
Existing Parks Renovations/Improvements
Cedar Grove Park $6,000 $150,300 $156,300
Efland Cheeks Community School Park $31,100 $150,200 $181,300
Eurosport Soccer Center (West Ten) $66,000 $191,500 $257,500
Fairview Park $27,400 $100,300 $127,700
Little River Regional Park and Natural Area $2,000 $18,500 $20,500
River Park $200 $23,500 $23,700
Central Recreatfon Center and Park $105,300 $205,000 $310,300
Existing Land Banked Properties Improvements/Repairs
Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) Park $60,000 $60,000
Blackwood Farm Park $25,000 $25,000
Vincent Property (adj Cedar Grove Park) $19,000 $19,000
Future Millhouse Road Park $61,000 $61,000
Sevenmile Creek Access Area $22,000 $22,000
Sub total $425,000 $839,300 $1,264,300
Planning and Design for above (10%) $42,500 $83,930 $126,430
Projected Costs for Improvements $467,500 $923,230 $1,390,730
Figures do not include personnel, operatfons or equipment costs.
* - There will be replacement, repair and renovatfon costs in the 6-10 year tfmeframe as well. These estfmates are more general
and costs less certain due to the extended tfmeframe and lack of concrete estfmates. A listfng of these needs may be found in
Appendix 10-2
121
10-14
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
An awareness should be developed and reflected in
future County budgets that new parks will being the
need for additfonal operatfng costs, and additfonal
staffing needs. Some staffing needs, such as the need
for a “trails ranger” as trails open at the nature
preserves, is included in the CIP, and the CIP now
includes projected operatfng costs associated with
new facilitfes and improvements. Equipment, oper-
atfng and future staffing needs will not be insignifi-
cant, and while increasing the enjoyment of county
residents and providing positfve health, societal,
economic and environmental benefits, the costs of
achieving these desired goals does have an
associated cost to be borne.
Recommendation #9: Examine the Role of
Community Centers in Providing Public Recreation
Opportunities
Indoor facilitfes offer a wide array of optfons for
leisure, daily life actfvitfes and self-improvement
capabilitfes. Care should be taken to tailor the center
design, and the programming opportunitfes, for
these centers to ensure that they are serving the
priority needs of the residents in the areas they
serve. Centers should be flexible in design and actfvi-
ty, insofar as possible, to allow for changing needs
and desires and interests of the community.
How the community accesses community centers,
and how they can be adequately staffed with
financial prudence, are topics around which a
dialogue should start, with a common understanding
of the needs and roles such places can provide.
Strong interest has also been expressed in having a
nature center at a county park facility. This concept
was included in the Blackwood Farm Park master
plan, and many nature programs are also provided at
Little River Park and Natural Area. The County should
examine its master plans, identffy what type of
facility a nature center should be, and incorporate
the constructfon of a nature center into the capital
improvements plan for parks accordingly. This may
be a venture where partnering with other local
governments or agencies with a similar mission may
be fruitiul.
These should be pursued aggressively. Finally, efforts
are underway within the community to create a
“Friends of Parks, Recreatfon and Open Space”
group, which could play an important role in helping
to fill in gaps and address smaller level funding needs
– and help promote local fundraising for parks and
recreatfon programs. The opportunity to raise funds
from the community through the Orange County
Community Giving Fund is another vehicle that may
help shoulder some of the financial needs for parks
and recreatfon services.
In the Community Needs Assessment, residents did
not look favorably on charging user fees for parks
and recreatfon services, and it is recommended that
the current practfce of the County (and the towns
within Orange County) of not charging user fees for
usage be retained.
Another important funding source is payment-in-lieu
from new subdivisions. Shown below are the pay-
ment-in-lieu balances for the four park districts as of
July 1, 2013:
Northern District Park: $62,617
Cheeks/Hillsborough District Park: $107,104
Bingham District Park: $181,108
Chapel Hill Township District Park: $125,820
Total = $539,266
G. The Importance of Operating and Maintenance
Funding
Traditfonally, Parks and Recreatfon Master Plans do
not attempt to address operatfonal costs. Creatfon of
an operatfon and maintenance schedule and
program requires regular review and adjustment and
is not part of the scope of this plan.
However, these “O&M costs” are very real and
important consideratfons to be aware of. Operatfng
existfng parks, and bringing online new parks, costs
money. Emptying trash receptacles, replacing lights,
resurfacing tennis courts, paying electrical bills and
mowing soccer fields all are tasks that if not funded
appropriately will greatly diminish the park experi-
ence or even make the parks unable to functfon.
122
10-15
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
8. The Vision – The 2030 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Map
123
10-16
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 10 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations 10
This Page left blank intentfonally.
124
11-1
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 11 - Issues for Further Study / Conclusion 11
Issues for Further Study
As is often the case, developing a master plan is like
attempting to hit a moving target. Some issues are
emerging at the time of the plan development,
others require further assessment or elaboration.
This chapter addresses, in brief, seven issues that
will require additional thought and consideration in
coming months and years.
A. System Level of Service
This Master Plan is built around the premise of a
modified community needs-based identification of
future facilities and program needs, with a
benchmark or back-check using population-based
standards. It uses as its basis the continuation of the
1988 Plan’s district park service areas – since that is
the reality of how the park system (both existing
parks and planned land-banked future parks) has
been created. This district park basis continues to be
valid both from a methodological and actual ap-
proach to defining geographical park needs.
The plan also assumes that the parks created since
1998, and those acquired and/or planned for the
future, should be focus of future attention for park
needs. As time goes by, however, additional needs
or opportunities may present themselves. One of
the municipalities within the county may have a
facility need that could be addressed through a new
facility outside of the municipal boundaries, and
create an opportunity for a new joint project. The
construction of new schools will also present oppor-
tunities for co-locating parks and facility needs –
likely at the community park level. Unlike the district
parks, where there is one larger park for a defined
geographic area, community parks may be con-
structed “as needed,” and this level of park may be
the type of opportunity that could arise from the
scenarios identified above.
Finally, population and socioeconomic factors will
change over time, which may make the case for new
park facility or other recreational needs that are not
present at the current time. For this reason, it is
recommended that the County conduct a new
Community Needs Assessment of some type and
scale every five years, and that this master plan be
updated every 10 years, until changed conditions
warrant a completely new approach and plan. This
approach will enable new emerging needs to be
identified and planned for, and provide a way to ac-
commodate new opportunities that will likely arise.
B. Subdivision Land Dedication / Payment-in-Lieu
System
Orange County, similar to many local governments,
has a longstanding program to require new residen-
tial subdivisions to contribute land or funds (based
on a number of lots/number of acres formula) to-
ward future parks and open space land and/or facili-
ty construction. Since at least 1985, Orange County
has received land or funding toward the future park
needs via this method. In addition to being a part of
the County’s development ordinances, local legisla-
tion also enables this tool for Orange County to help
insure that new residents and development help pay
1988 Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan
125
11-2
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 11 - Issues for Further Study / Conclusion 11
As can be seen in the example above, land
dedication rates for a typical subdivision would
generate small fractions of an acre in land for a park,
amounts far too small to be useful for park needs by
a county that focuses on district and community-
scale parks. Even a 100-lot subdivision would
generate by this formula only 1.8 acres of parks and
open space land (or up to 5 acres if all were flood-
plain or steep slope land). Largely for this reason
(and the fact that few developments have occurred
at planned park sites), the County has chosen to
accept the payment-in-lieu amount rather than try
to administer hundreds of tiny park sites. By local
legislation and ordinance, payment-in-lieu funds
must be expended in the district in which the sub-
division is located.
While the payment in lieu funds have been an im-
portant, albeit small contributor to parkland acquisi-
tion and park construction, the need for a more up-
to-date approach to land dedication and payment in
lieu has long been needed. Attempts to examine
changes to this model were explored by 1999 or
before, and an analysis was undertaken by a con-
sultant firm in 2001.
At that time, the consultant’s finding determined
that the County’s program for land dedication / pay-
ment-in-lieu provided insufficient support, but not-
ed that the County’s lack of existing parks created a
level of service that may not warrant an increase.
Knowing that the County was preparing to embark
on its first attempt to build parks and create a parks
system, it was recommended that this system be re-
evaluated in several years when new parks were
opened and the level of service increased.
for new facilities that are related directly to the in-
crease in persons and park needs generated by the
development.
The full language of the parks and open space land
dedication / payment-in-lieu system is provided as
Appendix 11-1. While this system has provided
important auxiliary funding to the acquisition of
several park sites and the construction of a parks,
one of the drawbacks of the system is that the land
dedication and funding provisions remain the same
as they were in the 1980s. Developers of a subdivi-
sion must provide 1/57 of an acre for each dwelling
unit in the subdivision plan (1/20 of an acre in areas
of floodplains and steep slopes). However, a subdivi-
sion developer may, with approval, make a payment
in lieu of land dedication if there are no identified
park needs on this location. In this case, the
developer may make a payment equal for $422 per
lot if within an identified community park service
area (smaller portions of the county around com-
munity park sites), or $455 per lot if within a district
park service area (all of the county).
Map 11-1: Current (2014) Payment-in-Lieu Districts
Example:
Land Dedication
10 lots: 10 x 1/57 of an acre (0.018 acre) = 0.18 acre of
land dedicated for parks/open space.
Payment in Lieu of Land Dedication
10 lots: 10 x $455 = $4,550 payment in lieu
126
11-3
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 11 - Issues for Further Study / Conclusion 11
Now, in 2014, Orange County has acquired and
constructed several new parks, recreation and open
space facilities, as shown in this document. Other
development ordinance and parks projects have
commanded most of the available staff time to date,
but the time may now be prescient to re-evaluate
the land dedication and payment-in-lieu program. It
is recommended that the County make plans to en-
gage consultant services to conduct a thorough anal-
ysis and recommend possible changes to the system
in the next year.
C. SportsPlex and County Programs – Coordination
The Orange County SportsPlex (previously known as
the Triangle SportsPlex), as shown in Chapter 3 of
this document, is an indoor athletic complex in
Hillsborough owned by Orange County. The facility is
co-located with the Central Orange Senior Center
and features an ice rink, swimming pool, fitness
centers and exercise and activity rooms, among
other amenities. It is operated on the County’s be-
half, by Recreation Partners, Incorporated, through
a contractual agreement.
Currently, the County and SportsPlex do not offer
overlapping programming, and discussions have
been held to work toward ensuring that as future
expansion occurs and additional programs are
offered, that SportsPlex and County programs
complement each other, rather than compete with
each other. This may be done through a variety of
methods, such as coordinating programs by age
groups, time of year, or other means.
For example, the SportsPlex might offer a program
for very young children ages 2-4 to introduce soccer,
and these children could then “graduate” to the
County or other area soccer programs.
Regardless of the method, close coordination
between the County and SportsPlex going forward
would seem to be prudent, and the additional
facilities (such as the new basketball court) may help
alleviate space crunches at the few existing facilities.
The County and SportsPlex should continue to have
regular dialogue, and explore joint program
opportunities and complementary programs as
opportunities arise.
In recent years, the SportsPlex has seen tremendous
growth in membership, and this has occasioned the
County and the management firm to plan for
possible expansions to the facility. At present, a
three-phase expansion is envisioned that would add:
1) A pool mezzanine with new lockers and fitness areas;
2) A building addition to house a small (95 x 165 feet)
artificial turf field for indoor soccer, lacrosse and
other turf sports training; and
3) A new regulation-sized basketball court for basketball
and related sports.
127
11-4
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 11 - Issues for Further Study / Conclusion 11
D. Need for a Public Pool?
In the Community Needs Assessment, one of the
desired new facilities was a “swimming pool.”
Currently, there are public pools operated by the
Town of Chapel Hill – including the Homestead
Aquatics Center funded in large measure by an
Orange County bond. The Sportsplex in Hillsborough
has a swimming pool, and there are a number of
other private pools that allow for individual or single
-usage passes. But there is no publicly-operated free
to the public swimming pool outside of Chapel Hill.
It is unclear whether the survey respondents intend-
ed to show a desire for an outdoor public pool, or an
indoor pool. Since indoor pools exist, it may be likely
that the intention is for a public outdoor pool, but
this is not known.
Public swimming pools are somewhat-expensive to
operate and can require significant capital and oper-
ating costs. The County should explore further the
intention and desire expressed in the survey to see
what exactly is desired, and conduct a cost-benefit
analysis looking at likely costs and potential users/
revenues, and then make a decision on whether to
include a swimming pool as a new recreational
facility for Orange County. A swimming pool could
be located into the designs for one of several ex-
isting or planned future parks if desired. But more
information is recommended before committing to a
course of action in this area.
E. Five Year CNA’s / 10 Year Update
Orange County’s 1988 Recreation and Parks Master
Plan has served the county well. The themes and
philosophy of that plan are now ingrained in the
county’s method and means of providing parks and
recreation, and have charted the course for future
needs identification and development.
While there was never an intention to go 25 years
between system master plans, that occurrence and
the happy circumstance of the way the 1988 plan
served the county is not one that should be
expected to occur again. We live in a dynamic
society, where technology and community and per-
sonal recreation interests are subject to change and
need flexibility for future options and alternatives.
Especially with a community needs based system of
standards and facilities, an evaluation of the
preference of residents is needed on a more-
frequent basis.
It is recommended that this master plan have an
amendment process that allows for goals, planned
facilities and programs, and other strategies and
recommendations to be altered from time to time.
Additionally, resident input on community needs
should be solicited on a regular basis. A community
needs assessment survey is recommended for every
10 years, with a statistical random-sample survey at
least once in the 10-year period.
Accordingly, the system master plan should be up-
dated to reflect changed conditions, facilities issues
and new community needs identification every 10
years, in addition to any special amendments that
may be needed to address immediate issues, trends
or changed conditions in the interim.
128
11-5
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 11 - Issues for Further Study / Conclusion 11
F. Artificial Turf Playing Fields
Considerable time and investigation has been put
into the potential for conversion of existing or crea-
tion of new playing fields with artificial turf surfaces.
As of the writing of this plan, Orange County has
partnered financially with the Town of Chapel Hill to
open a new artificial turf field at the Town of Chapel
Hill’s Cedar Falls Park. There are many issues within
this topic and a plethora of pros and cons to the
question of artificial surface versus natural surface,
too many to address in this more comprehensive
document.
In general, it is recommended that Orange County
look at usage, demand/activity, opportunity,
locational needs and possible existing conversions,
and implement one to two artificial surfaces on
fields that warrant such an undertaking - and investi-
gate over the next several years the costs and bene-
fits of artificial surfaces with natural surfaces, before
making any type of commitment to long-term
changes in field management, operation, and
maintenance.
Conclusion
To be developed upon the conclusion of public and
Board comment.
Finally, additional topics that will need internal
examination and planning include:
ADA Accessibility and New Federal Standards
Sustainable Landscaping at Parks
129
11-6
Orange County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan
CHAPTER 11 - Issues for Further Study / Conclusion 11
This page left blank intentionally
130