HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting 061595ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
o
s
1-0V1 DWO ► 1 OUT_I
Received
JUN 12 1995
Managers Office
TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates
FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III 6:�6
SUBJ: Fifth Meeting of Planning Group on June 15, 1995
DATE: June 99 1995
Enclosed are the agenda materials for the fifth meeting of the Stoney
Creek Basin Planning Group. Please note that we have been successful in
moving our meeting site back to the planning area. We will meet in the
Orange County Emergency Management Facility (911
Center) Meeting Room at 1914 New Hope Church Road. It
is located on the north side of New Hope Church Road immediately east of New
Hope School. If this facility meets our needs well, we will explore the
possibility of using it on a long -term basis.
As requested on May 18, the focus of this meeting will be formulation of
a community vision to guide development of the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan.
In the interest of time, we will not be giving a lengthy presentation on impacts
of the Rural Character alternative. Documentation will be provided and
summary comments will be made, but we plan to limit the time on this to no
more than 15 minutes, unless there are extensive questions.
AGENDA
Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 5
day, June 15, 1995
7:30 PM
TIME AGENDA ITEM
7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS - Verla Insko,
Facilitator
7:34 2. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from May 18
7:35 3. UPDATE ON QUESTIONS /ISSUES RAISED AT MAY 18 MEETING
7:45 4. RURAL CHARACTER IMPACT ASSESSMENT - David Stancil
8:00 S. DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY VISION - Verla Insko
10:00 6. ADJOURNMENT
MM& V
STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING GROUP
MAY 18, 1995
MINUTES
The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, May 18,
1995 at 7:30 p.m. at the Richard E. Whitted Center, Aging Conference Room, 300 West
Tryon Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lee Rafalow, Bob Strayhorn, Clint Burklin, Dan Teichman,
Michael Warner, Dean Zehnder, David Yelton, Meg McKean, Judson Edeburn, Kim Price
(for Steve Price) and Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis.
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Trish Rafalow and Irene Van Dyke
MEMBERS ABSENT: Curtis Bane, Gary Hanker, Bobby Nicholson, Steve Price, Bill
Bracy, Keith Cook, Bob Hall, Cherie Rosemond, Don Willhoit, and Elio Sold.
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Planners David Stancil, and Emily
Cameron, and Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Kathy Baker.
FACILITATOR PRESENT: Verla Inkso
Verla Insko convened the meeting and mentioned that she had recently visited
Pebble Beach, California, which is an area that planned for growth in a way that is similar
to this effort. Samuel Morris laid out a plan for the Pebble Beach area in 1932 which
included wildlife corridors intended to preserve open space in perpetuity. This effort to
preserve the natural habitat has been extremely successful in a highly developed and
populated area. Much of the land is developed as 1/4 acre lots which have a feeling of
openness because of the wildlife corridor running behind theirs. The residents of the
Stoney Creek Basin area have a unique opportunity to make the democratic process work
for them through participating on this Work Group.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Attendance: Elio Soldi and Don Willhoit called to say that there were unable to attend.
Members were reminded to contact staff about absences.
Meeting Dates: A new meeting schedule is being considered for the remainder of the
meetings. The new date would be the fourth Thursday. Please contact Gene Bell if you
will be unable to attend at that time. Also, future meetings may be held at the
Government Services Center, Cameron Street, Hillsborough.
Land Use Workshop Report: That report will be received at the June meeting.
Bob Strayhorn indicated that he was unavailable on the second and fourth Thursday
of each month.
Lee Rafalow mentioned that he was concerned about the amount of time being spent
on abstract alternatives. He felt that a sufficient number of alternatives had been presented
for this group to begin its discussions about what it would like this community to look like
in 20 years. He requested that the group consider setting aside the agenda for this meeting
in order to begin clarifying its goals. He suggested discussing the alternatives that have
already been presented. Additional information could be received later in the process.
Verla Insko clarified this request and asked the group to decide how it would like to
proceed. After discussion, it was decided to proceed with the agenda. Members of the
group expressed significant interest in talking about goals and timetables as well as having
increased input into setting future agendas. These requests will be addressed by staff.
Dave Yelton asked that staff provide all pertinent information regarding any
planning issues which are pending either with the Planning Board or the Board of
Commissioners.
MINUTES:
Lee Rafalow asked that the discussion of the fiscal impact report which was
presented by the students at the April 27th meeting be more accurately reported in the
minutes. He reminded the group that capital costs, such as new schools, were not
included in fiscal impact report. This led to an extremely inaccurate projection.
Commissioner Halkiotis agreed that this omission of capital costs was a major flaw
in the fiscal analysis. The students were looking at teachers salaries and other smaller
expenses rather than including the cost of building new schools and purchasing school
buses. That fiscal report needs to be revised.
STONEY CREEK RURAL CHARACTER DESIGN PRESENTATION:
David Stancil presented the history of the Rural Character Study (RCS). He
mentioned that Clint Burklin, Judson Edeburn, and Bob Strayhorn were all members of
the RCS. Many tradeoffs and compromises went into the first years of this study which
created in November, 1987. For the next five years meetings were held, occasionally two
3
or three times a month. In 1989 preliminary recommendations were developed by the
consultant and forwarded to the Board of Commissioners. In January of 1990 the Board
of Commissioners held a public hearing at the American Heart Association at which time it
became extremely clear that there were a significant number of misunderstandings
surrounding this effort. That Public Hearing resulted in a redirection for the Committee.
They developed subcommittees and worked on improved communication with citizens.
During the next several months community meetings were held in various rural areas.
These meetings culminated in a public hearing in August of 1990 to hear comment on a
development plan which consisted of a number of goals and strategies and a series of
development options for the rural buffer. The citizen comments, from both rural and
urban residents, was very positive. In late 1990, Phase II (Rural Orange) of the study
began. In the Fall of 1991 an economic and carrying capacity analysis was completed
which looked at the feasibility of cluster development. A Public Hearing on this Phase was
held in November of 1992. The major topic of comment focused on the rural village
options. In January of 1993 the final report was completed. The Planning Board reviewed
the report and indicated agreement but recommended inclusion of the 1 -Acre conventional
lot as a development option. This recommendation led to an additional worksession and
another series of community meetings. A Public Hearing was held in June, 1994 at which
time the matter was referred to the Planning Board. From that time to the present, the
Planning Board has been considering the Rural Character recommendations with all of the
comments received throughout the process.
Lee Rafalow mentioned that in June of last year a Public Hearing was held to
consider rezoning the entire county to 2 acres. He asked what the motivation was for that
action.
David Stancil indicated that was a first step toward implementing some of the Rural
Character Study recommendations. It was an attempt to put all of the rural areas on a
"level playing field ". At that public hearing, approximately two- thirds of the speakers
were opposed to rezoning. However, there were a substantial minority of speakers who
favored the proposals. Stancil mentioned that the RCS had five major goals and objectives.
The goals are to preserve agriculture, protect natural and cultural resources, protect visual
resources, manage growth in an orderly fashion and give added flexibility to rural
residents.
David Yelton asked for clarification of forest classifications. He asked if they were
considered agricultural for harvesting, vistas to be preserved or wildlife habitat.
A
1
` David Stancil responded that managed forest land was considered agricultural in the
RCS. State Statutes keep Counties from defining regulating forested land because it is
considered a use that is exempt from zoning controls.
' The Rural Character Study Committee realized that more landowners could be
encouraged to keep land in forest if they could do so economically. Owners would have to
be allowed to use it as an agricultural source in order to get more participation. Flexibility
was a trade -off that would be a fair benefit to all. This is an area of concern that will be
discussed further in this process. Staff will present pertinent information. The definition
of Managed Forest Resource will be included in this information.
Bob Strayhorn mentioned that it is important for people to understand that the
property adjoining theirs may very well change. For example, if it is a forest, it is likely
that it will be harvested. Anticipating those type of changes will make each of us a better
neighbor. The Rural Character Study Committee's intention was to encourage people to
go beyond the Ordinance through the use of incentives.
A list of action strategies was created by the Rural Character Study. Those
strategies were reviewed in some detail. That list follows:
• Create new development standards and options
• Pursue legislation for voluntary transfer of development rights.
• Prepare annual report evaluation impact of development options on agricultural
operations, natural resources, visual resources and growth management goals.
• Create a Master Resource Are Map to identify and link critical environmental,
natural, wildlife, cultural, historic, biological and geological resources.
• Create a Rural Orange Design Guidebook to provide written and illustrative guidelines
on developing in an environmentally - sensitive manner. Voluntary for traditional
development styles. Mandatory for open -space developments.
• Study sections of Haw and Eno Rivers for possible designation as N.C. Scenic rivers.
• Complete scenic roads study and use in tandem with Rural Orange Design Guidebook
for visual resource protection.
• Prepare Small Area Plans for all five rural community centers and eight rural
crossroads. Prepare other rural area plans as needed or requested.
A list of suggestions intended to encourage or support this effort was also
developed. Those suggestions were:
• Encourage participation in N.C. Forest Stewardship program.
• Encourage participation in voluntary agricultural zoning districts program
5
• Encourage Economic Development Commission to promote agriculture as an industry.
• Support purchase of Development Rights Program.
• Support construction of Rural Education Center.
• Continue to initiate dialogue between developers with natural area sites and land
conservancies.
• Pursue cooperative Planning efforts with Hillsborough, Durham and Mebane.
• Promote Grassroots Planning "Community vision" efforts in rural areas.
• Pursue a region -wide vision of growth management plan.
The RCS Development Options used a sliding scale of incentives (density) and open
space, making both conventional and open -space development options available and
offering incentives at both ends of development spectrum. Finally, it was made extremely
clear that all of.the options were the choice of the property owner.
The RCS Development Options were developed to increase incentives. The one -acre
option was included at the end of the process by the Planning Board. Landowners were
told that nothing would be taken away as a result of this process. Although it could still
be done in a different way, there was a perception that the one -acre option was being
removed, so the Planning Board reinstated it.
In response to a question, David Stancil stated that the open space requirements
have not been adopted by the Board of Commissioners. The Planning Board is currently
working on them.
David Yelton asked exactly how much and what type of development has occurred
in this area. Stancil responded that staff had prepared data on activity county -side in the
last 8 years. This information will be presented at a future meeting.
Meg McKean asked staff to report on the rate and type of growth in Orange County
in the last 10 years. She also requested that this information be presented so that the
growth in Chapel Hill and Carrboro is clearly marked.
The remainder of the presentation consisted of the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan
Rural Character Design Scenario. The goals and objectives were reviewed along with the
existing land use patterns in the area. A survey of the area was conducted using a
suitability analysis to determine opportunities and constraints. This scenario in its entirety
was a part of the agenda packet. A copy is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk to the
Board of Commissioner's office.
1'1
In response to a question about what was meant by "any commercial activity should
be internally- oriented ", David Stancil said that it meant that commercial development
should be developed and targeted to the use of the residents of the development.
Clint Burklin mentioned that a neighborhood could be designed so that it housed a
health clinic for its aging population, a stable for those interested in horses, and /or a golf
course to attract those interested in that activity. .
Lee Rafalow discussed the Parkwood community. That community was designed to
include the type of shops which would be supported by the local community, however, it'
has not been successful. He commented that he believes it is difficult to find retailers who
are willing to locate in "internally- oriented" shops.
Bob Strayhorn pointed out the local community convenience store /gas station
located in the rural communities are extremely successful because they cater to the local
residents.
Verla Insko mentioned that one need of this Work Group was to reach a consensus
and then to be able to present the consensus package to a larger public. In order to come
to consensus the facts must be discussed. In order to defend and communicate that
consensus it is important to be able to articulate the facts behind how the consensus was
reached. It would be helpful to have supporting facts about the success /failure of the
Parkwood retail stores. Staff was asked to research the history of the Parkwood
community stores.
Commissioner Halkiotis agreed that there are examples of developments that have
successfully supported retail development and those that have tried and failed. He
suggested that staff research this and bring their findings to a future meeting.
Lee Rafalow also asked about an item listed under Flexibility for Landowners,
specifically "open -space developments (OSD's) allow site design flexibility, potential for
lower infrastructure costs, and use of otherwise unbuildable land.
David Stancil said that some of the opportunities in open space development offer
site design flexibility. For instance, a portion of the land could be in steep slopes, which in
conventional development could not be used. In Open Space Development, that land could
be put into open space and its lots would be placed on the main tract. Also,
environmentally sensitive site design which go around streams rather than crossing them,
could be used..
David Yelton asked about incentives for assisting farmers or encouraging farming.
He mentioned that one way to encourage farming would be to encourage small plot
farming and also to support local Farmer's Markets.
David Stancil referred to the "Encourage or Support List" which was distributed as
a part of the agenda packet, which lists recommendations for agricultural preservation. In
response to a question from Meg McKean he indicated that in preparing this alternative, all
undeveloped land was considered open space. They did not take into account existing
development proposals. In response to another question, he indicated that there is no way
to predict how development will actually happen in the fixture except that it will be within
the standards eventually approved by the Board of Commissioners.
Lee Rafalow asked if there was evidence that encouraging open space development
actually resulted in more of that type of development. Is there any evidence that a
particular "guiding mechanism" would make that vision happen?
Stancil referred to a note on page 18 of the packet that stated "it is likely that the
area will develop with a different "mix" of development options, which could substantially
alter the total number of lots and open space created." _The options indicate a willingness
to accept a certain amount of open space for a certain amount of density. That amount
could vary.
Clint Burklin stated that it is possible that one of the outcomes of this process would
be new zoning categories which could increase the number of options. Public Hearings
could be held, and if new categories were a suggested outcome, the Board of
Commissioners could implement them if they so chose. The community could use them to
further guide growth. Another, less flexible option, would involve incorporating new
guidelines in the Land Use Plan. The Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board
use the Land Use Plan when considering requests for new development and would be
strongly influenced by community standards.
Staff was asked to research whether or not the value of land is as great even without
density bonuses in open space development.
John Link asked if the group has discussed what Randall Arendt is currently doing
in our County as well as in Currituck and Craven Counties. He is developing a guidebook
which will be helpful in going through the development process. It will be realistic for any
developer, for a fee, to come into the Planning Department and using the GIS system and
I
Arendt guidebook to "plug in" conventional vs. open space development options. At that
point, actual development will be driven by the Health Dept. and what is allowed there.
Stancil mentioned that this relates to the Design Guidebook mentioned previously
and that more information on the specifics could be provided at a fiiture meeting.
RURAL CHARACTER DESIGN FOR THE STRAYHORN FARM: Emily Cameron
explained the legend on the map and explained the design using the 5 acre incentive
option. The open space was preserved as a conservation easement. In order to protect the
view space the conservation easements are on the open space and the houses are in the
wooded areas. She mentioned that the site is split by the rural buffer. This land is not in
protected watershed and the septic systems could be in the open areas.
In response to a questions about whether it is actually financially feasible to develop
the land in this way, Emily said that they had not researched that for this particular
scenario. David Stancil indicated that much land developed in Orange County has been
developed along these lines which would indicate that it is possible to repeat that type of
development.
Verla Insko said that the problem is that the market drives builders to put larger
homes Ton each lot so that they receive a larger profit. She - questioned what the incentive
was for the builder to receive a lower profit.
Bob Strayhorn commented that an incentive needs to be established which would
encourage builders to place the lots back off of the main roads. He also requested that
consideration be given to options that would allow for easier sale and development of a
smaller number of lots by rural landowners. That would be an incentive to sell only what a
landowner needed to sell rather than larger parcels being sold out of necessity because of
development options.
Emily Cameron presented the Cluster Development Design Scenario for comment
and discussion.
Lee Rafalow said that he liked the design but would like to see 40 lots rather than
120. He felt that they could use the septic system option with the systems located on the
open space.
Emily Cameron indicated she felt that would probably not be financially possible
because of site constraints for smaller lots.
Mike Warner suggested that staff present a third alternative with the same open
space configuration but with the number of lots (37) in the first design.
Bob Strayhorn mentioned that land owners think of cost and what will bring the
most money. Rural people are universally against open space that they are not being
compensated for.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular
meeting of this work Group will be held on Thursday, June 15, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk to the Board
Received,
JUN 12 1995
Managers Office
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates
FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III G
SUBJ: Background Materials for Discussion(s) on Community Vision
DATE: June 9, 1995
At the first meeting of the Planning Group on March 16, each
person listed a concern and desired outcome for the process as well
as a key ground rule for effective communication. Group members
also shared ideas on a working definition of "consensus." As a
prelude to beginning our discussion(s) on working toward a
"community vision," I have included selected readings on
"consensus" from Involving Citizens In Community Decision Making.
Also attached are copies of the concerns, outcomes, ground rules,
and consensus comments listed by group members at our first
meeting.
Tl.
PL 223 (01) . STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLAN.'
GODSCHALK AND BERKE. SPRING 1995
RESERVE READING LIST -4.
OPEN SPACE AND NEOTRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Arendt, Randall. 1994. Rural By Design.
Audirac, Ivonne et al. Ideal Urban Form and Visions of the Good Life. APA Journal 56 (4):
470 -482.
• Bookout, Lloyd. 1992x. Neotraditional Town Planning: Cars, Pedestrians, and Transit. Urban
Land 51 (2): 10 -15.
• 1992 b. Neotraditional Town Planning: A New Vision for the Suburbs?
Urban Land 51 (1): 20 -26.
. 1992 c. Neotraditional Town Planning: The Test of the Marketplace. Urban
Land 51 (6) : 12 -17.
1992 d. Neotraditional Town Planning: Toward a Blending of Design
Approaches. Urban Land 51 (8): 14 -19.
Calthorpe, Peter. 1993. The Next American Metropolis.
Duany, Andres, and Elizabeth Plater - Zyberk. 1991. Towns and Town - Making Principles.
Ewing, Reid. 1991. Developing Successful New Communities. Urban Land Institute.
. Hamblen, Matt. 1988. The Kentlands Charrette. Urban Land. Sept, 10 -15.
Handy, Susan. 1991. Neo- Traditional Development: The Debate. Berkeley Planning, Journal 6:
135 -144.
• Hopkins, Lewis. Moderator. 1988. Designing New Towns. Landscape Architecture. 78 (Dec):
66 -75.
Kaplan, Sam. 1990. The Holy Grid: A Skeptic's View. Planning. 56(110: 10 -11.
Kelbaugh, Doug. en,d. 1989. The Pedestrian Pocket Book.
Knack, Ruth. 1989. Repent, Ye Sinners, Repent. Planning. 55 (8): 4 -13.
Langdon, Philip. 1988. A Good Place to Live. The Atlantic Monthly. 261(3):39 -60.
Leccese, Michael. 1988. Brave Old World. Landscape Architecture. 78 (Dec): 57 -65.
• Millman, Toby. 1994. Applying Neo- Traditional Principles to Large Area Planning. Masters
Project, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
(Methodology for expanding neo- traditional planning from project to community scale)
P Nelessen, Anton. 1994. Visions for a New American Dream. (Visual preference survey and
model workshop techniques)
Pisarski, Alan. 1992. Travel Behavior Issues in the 90's. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT.
Rabinowitz, Harvey, and Edward Beimborn. 1991. The New Suburb. Washington, D.C.; U.S.
DOT.
• Richardson, Harry, and Peter Gordon. 1989. Counting Nonwork Trips: Tile Missing Link in
Transportation, Land Use, and Urban Policy. Urban Land. 48(9):6 -12.
Slater, David, and Marya Morris. 1990. A Critical Look at Neotradtional Town Planning. PAS
Memo. November. 1 -3.
Southworth, Michael, and Peter Owens. 1993. The Evolving Metropolis: Studies of Community,
Neighborhood, and Street Form at the Urban Edge. APA Journal 59 (3): 271 -287.
Sutro, Suzanne. Reinventing the Village. PAS Report # 430.
Unterman, Richard, and Robert Small. 1977. Site Planninp- for Cluster Housing'. NA 9051.4
.U57.
Winburn, William. 1992. The Development Realities of Traditional Town Design. Urban Land.
51(8) :20 -21 +.
Yaro, Robert et al. 1993. Deaiing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley.
2
ORANGE COUN'T'Y
BOARD OF COMNEISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 26, 1995
Action Agenda
Item # X - A
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT - CONCEPT PLANS APPROVED IN STONEY CREEK AREA
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
ATTACHMENT(S):
Composite Subdivision/Site Features Map
Site Feature Descriptions/Maps
Recreation Master Plan
Community Park Schematic Plan
Recreation Service Area Map
Stoney Creek Planning Group Chronology
Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area Map
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X -No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Willis - Extension 2583
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill -967-9251
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 327 -2031
1
PURPOSE: To receive information concerning the status of Concept Plans which have been approved
in the Stoney Creek area.
BACKGROUND: Between September 1994 and February 1995, Concept Plans for four subdivisions in the
vicinity of NC 10, New Hope Church Road and University Station Road were approved by
the Planning Board. Combined, the Concept Plans propose a total of 493 residential lots
as outlined below:
Concept Plan
Number
of Lots
Acres
Density*
(Lots /Acre)
Average
Lot Size*
Guernsdale
• Phase I
10
25
0.40
2.50
• Phase 11
72
137
0.53
1.90
Stoney Creek Farms
• Phase I
60
99
0.61
1.65
• Phase H
35
75
0.47
2.14
• Phase III
79
147
0.54
1.86
Craig Manor
79
120
0.66
1.52
University Trace
158
245
0.64
1.55
Total - All Plans
493
848
0.58
1.72
*Calculation includes street rights -of -way.
Development of this area presents an opportunity to preserve and protect natural
resources, and obtain area for a community park proposed in the Recreation and Parks
Master Plan.
• Stoney Creek flows in a northeasterly direction through the area bounded by the
Concept Plans. Approximately 130 acres along the creek and its tributaries consist
of floodplain, wetlands, natural areas, and steep slopes. These features are located
generally in a wildlife corridor designated in the Inventory of Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitats. In addition, five sites have been identified as part of the Orange
County historic inventory.
These features were considered extensively as part of the University Station
Planning Group initiative (see attached descriptions and maps). They are currently
under consideration by the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group (see attached
vicinity map and Planning Group chronology). For the purpose of this report, the
features have been combined into a composite overlay to show their relationship
to the approved Concept Plans (see attached composite map).
• The Master Recreation and Parks Plan proposes a community park in the vicinity
of New Hope Church Road and NC 10. The minimum size needed for such a park
is 25 acres, and the average service radius is 1 -2 miles. Such parks generally serve
several neighborhoods, providing active recreation opportunities such baseball and
softball, tennis, volleyball, basketball, and jogging. A water body is a component
typically located in a community park as well as natural areas for passive activities
such as picnicking and hiking (see attached Master Plan and schematic diagram
of Community Park) .
The Concept Plan approval for each of the subdivisions containing area along Stoney
Creek includes a condition that floodplain, wetlands, and other natural areas be preserved.
The approvals did not address the issue of parkland dedication or payment -in -lieu of
dedication. Normally, the size of a subdivision is not sufficient to require dedication of
land. However, in the case of a single, unified development, or, in the case of several
contiguous subdivisions, parkland dedication rather than payment -in -lieu would be
considered.
Options to Address Resource Protection
Although the Concept Plans are contiguous and interconnecting, the land included in the
Concept Plans is in separate ownership, and each tract may be developed independently
of the others. As noted previously, each Preliminary Plan must provide protection for the
natural resources along Stoney Creek. There are several options which may be used to
accomplish this goal, including the following:
• Inclusion of the natural features within the boundaries of individual lots, with
protection provided through recordation of a conservation easement held by
Orange County, a non - profit land conservancy or a homeowners association. The
boundaries of the conservation easement would be set to include those features
warranting protection. The easement agreement would contain provisions to
insure protection of the resources and would be enforced by the holder of the
easement.
• Creation of a separate parcel which includes those features warranting protection,
with dedication of the land to Orange County, a non - profit land conservancy or a
homeowners association.
• Some combination of the above such as a situation where a separate parcel is
3
created and owned by a homeowners association, but a conservation easement is
held by Orange County or a non - profit land conservancy. Associated with such an
approach is the potential for the land owners or developers qualifying for tax
credits if the land is voluntarily protected through a conservation easement.
Information regarding such an approach was recently presented to the
Agricultural Districts Advisory Board.
Options to Address Parkland Dedication/Payment -In -Lieu Provisions
Section IV -B -7 -b of the Subdivision Regulations requires at least 1 /35th of an acre to be
dedicated for each dwelling unit planned or provided for in the subdivision plan. An
exception to this standard is where land characterized by floodplains and/or steep slopes
is dedicated, the requirement is 1 /20th of an acre.
Upon finding that no recreation/open space sites have been designated on the
Comprehensive Plan for the property in question, the Board of Commissioners may
approve a payment -in -lieu of dedication. Such a payment must equal the number of acres
required to be dedicated multiplied by the fair market value of the land to be dedicated.
Fair market value is determined by dividing the tax appraisal of the property at last
revaluation by the current year assessment ratio.
Since the adoption of the dedication/payment -in -lieu provisions in 1987, Orange County
has collected $5,040 in payments from subdivisions in the Eno Community Park Service
Area (see attached Recreation Service Area Boundaries Map). The amount of land
dedicated or payments -in -lieu which could be expected from the four subdivisions is shown
below.
* Based on average assessed value of $2,470 per acre.
To put the payments -in -lieu in context, land purchased for the New Hope Elementary
School cost $15,000 per acre. Nevertheless, options to address dedication/payment -in -lieu
requirements include the following:
Dedication
Requirement
Payment -in -Lieu
Number
(Acres)
Requirement*
Concept Plan
of Lots
@ 1 /35th
@ 1 /20th
@ 1 /35th
@ 1 /20th
Guernsdale
• Phase I
10
0.286
0.500
$706
$1,235
• Phase II
72
2.057
3.600
$5,081
$8,892
Stoney Creek Farms
• Phase I
60
1.714
3.000
$4,234
$7,410
• Phase H
35
1.000
1.750
$2,470
$4,323
• Phase III
79
2.257
3.950
$5,575
$9,757
Craig Manor
79
2.257
3.950
$5,575
$9,757
University Trace
158
4.514
7.900
$11,150
$19,513
Total - All Plans
493
14.085
24.650
$34,791
$60,887
* Based on average assessed value of $2,470 per acre.
To put the payments -in -lieu in context, land purchased for the New Hope Elementary
School cost $15,000 per acre. Nevertheless, options to address dedication/payment -in -lieu
requirements include the following:
4
• Dedication of a single park site (25 + acres) to collectively satisfy
dedication/payment -in -lieu requirements for all of the developments. This would
require collaboration on the part of the individual developers and property owners.
During consideration of the University Station project, dedication of a park site
was proposed on the north side of NC 10 near its intersection with New Hope
Church Road (between NC 10 and the Southern Railroad) . Another possibility is
dedication of a combination of resource protection area along Stoney Creek and
dry, upland area adjacent thereto. In the case of the upland area, approximately
12 -13 acres would be needed for active recreational facilities. The adjoining
resource protection area might be planned for nature walks and used for
educational purposes.
• Acceptance of the required payments -in -lieu if property owners and developers are
unable to collaborate on the dedication of a park site. Should this prove to be the
only option available, the Board of Commissioners may wish to direct the
Recreation and Parks Advisory Council and the Planning Board to review the
current ordinance provisions to assure that the dedication/payment -in -lieu
requirements are adequate to meet the long -term recreational needs of county
residents.
Anticipated Preliminary Plan Review Schedule
The Planning Staff anticipates submittal of a Preliminary Plan for the area covered in the
Stoney Creek I Concept Plan in July, with a tentative Planning Board meeting date of
September 18. The area covered by the Preliminary Plan is approximately 100 acres
bounded by NC 10, New Hope Church Road, and Stoney Creek. Approximately 30 acres
is included in floodplain, wetlands, natural areas, and steep slopes.
This will be the first Preliminary Plan to be submitted for the area covered by the
Concept Plans. Preliminary Plans for the remainder of the area may be submitted during
the next year. The Planning Staff is tentatively scheduled to present information
concerning the Concept Plans to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC) at
its meeting on July 11. The recommendations of RPAC would be considered by the
Planning Board in making its recommendation. If the Planning Board makes a
recommendation at its meeting on September 18, then the proposal could be submitted
to the Board of Commissioners for a decision on October 2.
RECOMMENDATION: Although this item is presented to inform the Board of the status of the above
mentioned subdivisions, comments and/or direction from the Board would be
appreciated.
no
VEGETATION
Some of the vegetation or plant communities are described separately in the discussion of
"Natural Areas ". These include beaver ponds, bottomland hardwood forest, and beech bluffs.
General descriptions of the remaining plant communities were included in the Preliminary
Evaluation of Ecological and Archaeological Resources at the University Station Site and are
provided below. These include upland hardwood forest, upland pine forest, early pine succession
fields, old farm fields, and old farm pastures.
Upland Hardwood Upland hardwood forest were found on upland areas, hillsides, and south -
facing slopes. In most of these forests, the canopy and sub - canopy are
well developed. The canopy consists primarily of white oak, red maple,
loblolly pine, southern red oak, and sweet gum, along with some shortleaf
pine and Virginia pine. The subcanopy is dominated by dogwood,
sourwood, tulip poplar, and sweet gum, while the herbaceous layer
consists of ground cover such as muscadine grape, japanese honeysuckle,
poison ivy, running cedar, and Virginia creeper. The presence of loblolly
pine in a forest predominantly made up of hardwoods indicates that the
area has been disturbed in the past, probably from logging. In some areas,
old stumps are also evidence of logging.
There are 455.7 acres of upland hardwood within the project boundaries.
Upland Pine This community consists of variously -aged stands of pine. Within most
stands, the trees are typically of a uniform age, indicating that many of
these areas were harvested and managed for timber production. Some
recently cut -over stands consist of a dense scrub -shrub layer of pines 10-
15 years old, possibly a clear -cut area. Other areas have a sparse canopy
of pines with a dense understory of pines and hardwoods. The latter areas
were probably selectively harvested for timber, leaving some pines to re-
seed the area.
The dominant trees in this community are loblolly pine, sweet gum,
Virginia pine, shortleaf pine, tulip poplar, and red oak. The subcanopy
contains sweet gum loblolly, dogwood, red maple, and red cedar. Herbs
and ground -cover contains mainly trumpet creeper, japanese honeysuckle,
and hickories. Some of the rarer herbs are rattlesnake plantain and
orchids. In many areas, the overstory shaded out much of the light,
resulting in a sparse herbaceous layer.
There are 101.7 acres of upland pine within the project boundaries.
Early Pine The community is primarily limited to the area within the power line right -
Succession of -way. This area was most recently cleared of trees about five years ago,
judging by the size of the current growth. It is dominated by a dense,
uniform stand of loblolly pine, interspersed with sweet gum, sumac,
goldenrod, blackberry, and various grasses.
There are 10.4 acres of land in this community within the project
boundaries.
7
Old Feld This community is dominated by johnson grass and white aster, and also
contains goldenrod and milkweed. Judging by the growth of vegetation,
the fields on the old dairy farm property have been abandoned for a
couple of years. Close to the farmhouse, blackberry, multiflora rose, and
Jerusalem artichoke are more common. Some of the steeper draws in the
fields remain forested, and contain vegetation similar to that of the
bottomland hardwood community.
There are 150.6 acres in this community within the project boundaries
Old Pasture This community was judged to be an old pasture by the type of vegetation
found there. It consisted of a dense, shrub -shrub layer containing red
cedar, sweet gum, black cherry, and hawthorn,with old grapes reaching
into the tree tops, and sparse growth beneath. Red cedar is often favored
in pastures, as it is unpalatable to grazers, and survives cutting. Hawthorn
is also considered to be a pasture pest. This area was probably too steep
to be used for cultivation. The size of the trees found in this community
suggests it has not been used for at least a decade.
There are 4.8 acres in this community within the project boundaries.
UNIVERSITY STATION
l\ \
sd'
Yep Not To laic
ORANGE COUNTY
PUNNING DEPT
abc 2144
47
f
_ O
OIL_
Y
I - as
Duo Dwo pvww
MN
Ord Nc 10
OWN PVWW
Am
VEGETATION
(wi&n )
chwdm
LM
Uplmd
IIIIIIII
�
(I0I.7 ,cm)
Batch ama cna .cr.,
e000mdm
Fbedwoodr (633 saes)
.
Fady Pine (10.4 saes)
Old Feld (130.6 �aa)
Old PM= (4.8 saes)
LM
A
NATURAL AREAS
Naturals areas usually include wildlife and botanical habitats identified in the Inventory of the
Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, N. C. Although no natural areas were
identified in that study for the University Station site, three types of natural areas were identified
in the Inventory which occur on the project site. These include beaver ponds, bottomland
hardwood forest, and beech bluffs. General descriptions of these areas as identified in the
Preliminary Evaluation of Ecological and Archaeological Resources at the University Station Site
are provided below.
Beaver Ponds Beaver dams along Stoney Creek have created
impoundments throughout the center of the University
Station tract. Most of these areas appear to have been
ponded for many years, long enough for wetland vegetation
to become dominant and hydric soils to develop. Little
canopy is left in these areas - a few sycamores survive in
sparse areas, but most trees have died or are long decayed.
Along the shores on the impoundments, a sparse shrubby
layer of black willow and buttonbush grows. Both species
are adapted to wet environments.
The most northern impoundment on the tract, on the
property of the old dairy farm, appears to be rather old,
with several successive dams built across the creek. One
dam, now breached, has almost completely grown over
with vegetation. The breached impoundment is slowly
reverting back to bottomland forest. The remaining
impoundments in this area, however, are lush wetlands
with diverse emergent vegetation, supporting a variety of
fauna.
One beaver dam appears to have been made more recently
than the others. It is located approximately in the center of
the tract, just west of a large, man-made pond.
Immediately north of the dam, Stoney Creek flows
unobstructed toward Old N.C. Highway 10. Only sparse
emergent vegetation has developed in this impoundment,
and soils have not yet become hydric.
The area occupied by beaver ponds within the project
boundaries is 25.5 acres.
Bottomland Hardwood This community type is found in low -lying or damp areas
Forest along creeks, drains, draws, and impounded areas. The
dominant trees are tulip poplar, red maple, sweet gum, but
also include beech, willow oak, hickory, and black walnut.
The subcanopy contains many of the species found in the
canopy, as well as dogwood, alder, red cedar, winged elm,
10
ironwood, and red mulberry. Ground cover and herbaceous
growth consisted of a variety of plants, including
microstegium [a grass], running cedar, downy arrowwood,
japanese honeysuckle, several species of ferns, and a few
plants commonly found in wetlands, such as soft rush and
sedges. Soils in this community type were typically non -
hydric, however.
In some low -lying areas of the tract, there are former
bottomland hardwoods that appear to have undergone
alteration due to beaver activity. In thee areas, large, dead
snags are still present, indicating that the forests were
flooded by beavers several years ago, long enough for the
trees to die and begin to decay. Most of these areas have
been converted to healthy, functioning wetlands. In areas
of contiguous forest, this community type grades into
upland hardwood or upland pine.
There are 63.3 acres of bottomland hardwood forest within
the project boundaries.
Beech Bluff Beech is the dominant, or co- dominant, tree species in this
community type. This community was probably encouraged
by logging activities on the tract, as beeches have little
value as timber, and so are usually left unharvested. As
beeches prefer damp areas, this community is found mostly
on nor - facing slopes and low -lying areas.
The most northern beech bluff on the tract, along the
southeast side of Stoney Creek, contains several very old
trees, including beeches, red and white oaks, tulip poplars,
and hickories. An increment boring of a white oak
indicated that the tree was at least 150 years old. Since
very old oaks, poplars, and hickories can still be found in
the area, it indicates that this stand of trees has not been
harvested for at least 150 years.
The maturity of this stand of trees is rare in the Piedmont.
If this stand of timber is preserved, it could then be used
as a unique natural area or park, along with a section of
Stoney Creek, which runs along the base of the bluff.
Another noticeable area occurs along the east bank of
Stoney Creek. This area contains several large, old cedars
and a dense overstory which grades into more typical
vegetation further uphill.
There are 32.8 acres of beech bluff within the project
boundaries.
aft
ORA.. %AJ%Ji.. s
P'i11IVN M DEPT
UNIVERSITY STATION
l-', I",
abe vm
Boom&mad Ha dwroods (63.3 acres)
Beaver P mW M.5 ages)
11
i - as
�trw
12
WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
In a separate description of natural areas, it was noted that the Inventory of Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, N. C. did not identify specific natural areas on the
University Station site. The study did, however, identify a proposed wildlife corridor along
Stoney Creek, linking a portion of Duke Forest to the west of New Hope Church Road with the
Eno River and Eno River State Park to the north of I -85. The rationale behind such corridors
is to preserve linkages, generally along stream corridors, between major "preserves" such as
Duke Forest and Eno River State Park that wildlife can move along for feeding and reproductive
purposes. The recommended width of such a corridor is 200 meters, 100 meters [325 feet] on
either side of the stream.
There are 130.5 acres in the wildlife corridor within the project boundaries.
m
ni�t�+��s+. wvi� a s
DM
UNIVERSITY STATION
l A � Flag" Dom )
sbc ZON (130.5 acres)
13
i - as
h" Pow"
PJW
14
FLOODPLAIN
The floodplain shown on the accompanying map was defined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency [FEMA] for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program.
The boundaries shown are those of the 100 -year floodplain; e.g., the area which is projected to
flood at least once in a 100 year period.
There are 91.4 acres of floodplain within the project boundaries.
no
0 'T%XQ W V r It
PLANNM nor
15
UNIVERSITY STATION
nbc 2094
11111111 FimAgam (91.4 mu)
i - as
Rrw
16
ALLUVIAL SOILS
Alluvial soils are comprised of soil material, such as sand, silt or clay, deposited on land by
streams. Such soils are normally located in flood prone areas and have been identified using the
Soil Survey of Orange County, N. C. Three soil types, Altavista [Aa], Congaree [Cp], and
Chewacla [Ch], have been identified, and, combined, they comprise 48.6 acres ofthe total area
within the project boundaries [see attached map].
a
nip A r-v&r wVLv a i
PLANNING DEPT
UrTIVERSITY STATION
mbc ift
AftavmM Cbewada, and Congaree
(48.6 acres)
17
i - as
NAW %ww
Nw
WETLANDS
Wetlands and "Waters of the United States" on the University Station site were identified in the
Preliminary Evaluation of Ecological and Archaeological Resources at the University Station Site
using the Japuary, 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Wetlands. Such areas
occur over many portions of the site. The majority of the wetland areas, however, occur along
the floodplain of Stoney Creek, running from southwest to northwest through the site [see
accompanying map]. Smaller areas of wetlands as well as Waters of the U.S. [occurring along
stream channels and ponds] are found across the remainder of the site.
Much of the wetland area along Stoney Creek is a result of ponding by beavers. There is
frequent evidence of contemporary and historic beaver activity along much of the floodplain.
Evidence of an older beaver dam [no longer functional] occurs along the northeast reaches of
Stoney Creek. That particular area is no longer impounded but much of the area would qualify
as jurisdictional wetland.
Moving upstream [southwest], there are a series of beaver ponds of varying age. All of these
areas would qualify as wetlands whether the impoundment was in place or not. Some of the
newer ponds have flooded a few areas of formerly non - ponded, non -hydric soils.
There are 46.9 acres of wetlands within the project boundaries.
ORr.a.va ..AJ.JIN A
M&MCM DM
UNIVERSITY STATION
mw 3194
® Wadan& (46.9 acres)
19
i - a
NAN ftww
Nw
zo
L1IVIVERSITY STATION
a �
t
e
t
t iwlabrw
t I�irMd
t
t
e am AC 10
— • tiw
chow w
v
1
�'
t �
,
M■P Nve To !off
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPT
abbe 2494
wAZEat BODIES
Beaver pool (25.7 ores)
r
Streams
- as
DUW Pw—as
NW
21
WATER BODIES
Water bodies within the boundaries of the University Station site are one of three types - Stoney
Creek and its tributaries, beaver ponds or old farm ponds. Almost all of the site eventually
drains through Stoney Creek. Only the northwest corner of the site empties into a separate sub -
basin.
All of the beaver ponds are located along Stoney Creek and have been discussed separately
under the description of "Natural Areas". The remaining water bodies or farm ponds were
probably constructed during the operational phase of the dairy farm in the northern portion of
the tract. A third constructed pond exists along the power line right -of -way. These ponds contain
few aquatic plants other than algae, with even fewer emergent plants.
The pond closest to the farm house was bordered primarily by pokeberry, goldenrod, Jerusalem
artichoke, winged sumac, and various grasses. Only a few trees were adjacent to the pond. The
pond itself has a silt bottom with no emergent vegetation and a partial surface layer of algae,
which could be evidence of an excessively high nutrient content, in which case the pond would
support little in the way of aquatic fauna. However, there was evidence of recent raccoon
activity and old beaver activity.
The second pond, northeast of the farm house, is very shallow and has been drained somewhat,
causing it to shrink in area. This pond also has a silt substrate with no emergent vegetation and
some benthic algae. The pond is sparsely bordered by spike rush and a low ground cover.
Further back from the pond's edge is Jerusalem artichoke, barnyard grass, and cocklebur,
partially ringed by black willow and sycamore. This pond contains minnows and numerous
northern cricket frogs. A well-used deer trail leads to the pond, and raccoon tracks were also
seen.
A third pond has been constructed in a low area along the power line right -of -way. It is adjacent
to beaver impoundments along its western side and contains spike rush, arrow -head, umbrella
sedge, and bladderwort, as well as some algae, and minnows. It is bordered primarily by fescue.
There are 5.7 acres in farm ponds and 25.7 acres in beaver ponds within the project boundaries.
22
STEEP SLOPES
Steep slopes represent topographic constraints to development and are generally defined as areas
with slopes equal to or greater than 15 percent. Stated another way, such slopes include those
areas where the land falls a vertical distance of 15 feet in a horizontal distance of 100 feet.
The threshold of 15 percent is the standard generally used by the Planning Department.
However, Randall Arendt, in Defining Open Space Developments in Sussex County, Delaware,
defines steep slopes so as to include land which is "unbuildable" due to slopes of 25 percent or
greater.
Within the project boundaries, there are 56.2 acres of land which meet the Arendt standard,
while another 78.7 acres has slopes between 15 and 25 percent. Most of this land is located
north of the Southern Railroad and south of I -85.
23
UNIVERSITY STATION
�a
i -"
M" Pow"
�ury
mw Not To !a■i�
OWME COU?M
PiAWNG m"
0
STEEP SLOPES
(wifte R'clect b mm&ri s)
Greater dm 25% (56.2 acres)
lobe Z99 IIIIIIII u - 25% (78.7 •:re•)
24
HISTORIC /ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Existing historic and archaeological sites within the project boundaries have been identified in
the Preliminary Evaluation of Ecological and Archaeological Resources at the University Station
Site as well as by Trawick Ward, a research anthropologist and member of the Preservation
Commission, and by the architectural historians, Todd Peck and Jody Carter, employed by
Orange County to conduct an inventory of historic sites and structures in the unincorporated
portions of the county. Provided below are descriptions of the sites identified by these sources.
1. Dairy Farm An extensive dairy complex featuring a bungalow with
brackets under the eaves, battered columns on piers, and
sidelights around the door. This main house is in disrepair,
missing most of the glass in the windows which has
resulted in damage from the elements. The balustrade from
the staircase is missing, the fireplace has caved in, and
there is fire damage in one of the front rooms.
A second house is also on the property. This gable -ell
cottage probably predates the main house, and, like the
main house, is in a serious state of deterioration. The
interior has been substantially damaged by a fire. The
floors have given way in two of the rooms, the windows
are missing glass, and the fireplace in the back room has
collapsed.
Outbuildings on the site include a quonset but that was
evidently used as a milking barn. There is also a clapboard
milking barn with two adjacent silos, an attached trough of
unidentified use, and a brick storage building. There are
also two barns which are dilapidated beyond identification.
Three deteriorated buildings are also on the property. It
appears that they were most recently used for housing, but
it is unclear as to what their original use was. [Todd Peck
& Jody Caner]
In the northern and northwestern section of the project are
the buildings of the Guemsdale Dairy Farm, founded in the
1940's on land once owned by Benjamin Duke. Most of the
Structures were built after the formation of Guernsdale,
except for one barn and one silo, built before 1940.
[Preliminary Evaluation]
2. James Strayhorn Research turned up the locations of two historic sites: the
Cemetery James Strayhorn cemetery and the ruins of Craig Manor.
The Strayhorn cemetery, dating from the early nineteenth
25
century to the early twentieth century, is a small,
abandoned cemetery north of Old N.C. Highway 10.
[Preliminary Evaluation]
The cemetery site located east of the "mound" contains
several marked graves of the Strayhorn family. The earliest
date of death we observed on the headstones was 1836. The
cemetery is presently located in the middle of a field that
has been cultivated for several years. Although the graves
that are currently marked with head and foot stones have
never been disturbed, there is the possibility that unmarked
graves are also present that have been plowed over.
[Trawick Ward - The 'mound' referred to is chimney
rubble associated with an intact stone foundation of a
house structure probably dating to the last half of the
nineteenth century.]
3. Boyd House The Boyd house is an impressive 2 -story I -house with
Greek Revival detailing. The windows are 4 over 4 double
hung with arched surrounds, and the door has sidelights.
The porch originally had triple square posts supporting the
porch roof but now many are missing. The second story
gable ends contain decorative attic vents. The two brick
exterior chimneys were originally located at the rear of the
house but are now incorporated into the rear ell addition.
The interior of the original house contains wainscot, Greek
Revival corner blocks, a very significant Chinese
Chippendale staircase and second story balustrade,
elaborate mantels, and heartpine flooring.
There is a large early 20th century addition on the rear of
the structure. The windows are 2/2 and 4/4 double hung;
there is a rock patio which leads to the entry, above the
door is a decorative hood. Brackets are located under the
gable eave.
Outbuildings located on the property include a small board
and batten shed, a large frame garage, a very large frame
barn that is used for storage, and a silo and other frame
outbuildings that are in ruins. [Todd Peck and Jody Carter]
The current occupants are renters and know little about the
history of the house or when it was built. They did relate
a story about how Sherman stayed at the house on his way
through Piedmont North Carolina. They also heard of a
slave cemetery being present on the site. We did find a
26
collection of fieldstones, but we could not substantiate the
claim. [Todd Peck and Jody Carter]
4. Craig Manor Ruins This house was once an elaborate 1920's mansion that has
burned in recent years. The ruins feature the original
chimney, the porch balustrade constructed of cast concrete,
and the remains of a smaller site, also burned. There is
also an unidentified ruin which contains a large stone
column and a concrete bench. They might have been
pushed down the hill from the original house. [Todd Peck
and Jody Caner]
Craig Manor is the site of a complex of houses and farm
buildings owned and occupied by members of the Strayhorn
family and then by their descendants in the Craig family,
beginning in the mid - eighteenth century and lasting until
the late 1980's, when the buildings were destroyed by fire.
Extensive re- building of the central section of the main
house in the 1920's might have altered or destroyed
archaeological remains from the mid - eighteenth century,
but the vicinity of the Craig house could have
archaeological remains of other buildings, such as slave or
servant quarters, barns and stables, smokehouses,dairies,
and other farm structures. [Preliminary Evaluation]
5. Mac House This house is a well - maintained, typical bungalow featuring
exposed rafter ends, brackets under the eaves, and 3/1 sash
windows. The roofline is characterized by a clipped front
gable. There is a frame wooden shed used for storage west
of the house, and a privy just north of that. The house
occupies an interesting site, located on the rail line and in
a heavily forested area.
Josette Mac, the owner of the house, did not know the
exact date of construction but did say she was born in the
house forty -nine years ago. She said her parents had lived
there several years prior to her birth and had bought the
house from another family who had lived there previously.
[Todd Peck and Jody Carter]
The location of the above described sites is shown on the accompanying map. A five -acre
"buffer" has been delineated in association with each site for the purpose of providing a tract
of land of sufficient size to either keep development away from the site until more in -depth
studies; e.g., archaeological excavations, can be completed or preserve the immediate
surroundings.
27
UNIVERSITY STATION
�a
mw Mot To
ORANGE COUNTY
DE"
aba WN
i - a
M" ftwo
ww
HISTORIC/
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SITES
cWmkin
Coasomm on Area (s scru)
Dairy Pains
2 Js Strsyb m coom ry
3 Boyd Home
4 Craig Manor Rnms
5 Mac Hmm
!•J' \, e 1'�O / �' r 1 /� �1 r�� "' `1 \)� ^� , \I R6POSEd
1 aR VE NORTFI' , r..+ Q MUNrr
PARK
I f„
r 1 `. I ;� / •ayP•.
\J.
DI, I .Q��.
, NT1iR, r.• .� h. .a _._ ( f'!/ r I \5�'T Iris' \'7~I
LIT1L�`
i f� , \ ✓ '` \ -�. , DISTRICT
PAPiC
I \
D ft YGOOVE, uv.r� �i1
r t S, L / ! 1/ -.. 1
_ - -- - -- ' . -.
�' / � f � -,-�/ ` 1 ,` /�• �, ��\ s i,. J /•• ,. \\ \111 /
�iIL SBOR G,
ENO A- -T W
CHEE
IMPRO FAI IEV;._
,3' COMMU I V. ApIC�'\
pr ♦ 'SgO r Z 7 % $PR b ED
/_EFL N F{6EK9 OE3ED� , .1 / :sW MI►(GCH0 L` / , 1A,'•• \ �-
I` CaM Ux PAP C tlRATION ,iAK ' /1.
55\ y F
D AflK1�' ,\ t'� s v i'1' / '�.l Ir
I y •� ` ,T \, \ t� .1�'�s� � I�r /•i' � �•.'.' /•, �•,},L• /, ' ..� ' •r ='=•I
1 �' � .. • 1 .: ,. ` . _ \/_,. - . � r ' . ill /
I < I1 � / %, •�Yr�i .•`' /'' ��lO 1r il` � I ' •\\ ` J(((. � /.. ��•,�..(1 \.�lq!'�r� I '� i •/� 1, -_ '
V1• /S I LTERNAT
r/ �' / `// s ; ✓ ISTRIICT' PAR
I. ... •. . ----•-. -• .f.. \_t_�. r• - 4 - �' / STA710 I
I /' \ ♦ 1^ ` �y� _ �: �)r'~ 1 3d�( d�A�AUNI� ,PARK �,` •.r ar• 11 I :I `I
EXHIBIT �� .It .'j 1 ;�':'/• ��l•',i�. ���
E
I .I _ _ � ,\ I �.i ,/ •, I t 1 .. ` �; -1
17.. ,� 1' 1 \ ( �•� F (',�., �/ �{ 1�: r / r I �� _I REFER TO TABLE 6 -2
r I `/ i r I 1 �' _ ~ 1 I �' / > 1 ) ! u,�rl , ''� )" ■ EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES KEY
\ \ •`l ' ,� v i y�. ` \ ,1 /' i tl Im /1 .� i ^ ^i CEDAR GROVE TWP.
RtlPOSED I '' / /h1] �•.j I. e...t• r..•1 r.r.e.
twC-4. .
_ j t. n..t.„. 1...,• .... f.nl„.
I HAPEL' .HILL / I \'+'� ,. t... 1..1,•
t' ! PROPOSE ISTRICT PARR
BINGHAM
-CAN S � 28 //( - /��j,, \i LITTLE RIVER TWP.
1 CREEK
R7/® ED-SEill El R%I` \ • . i c +o. �' �ti /•' '• tolvn- / �1 I '\•`^ , , \ • ' • / r �` `} ' �i. �,1 r .� 4 r } 1 1 - �w , . J• I i ,'/ , `` \ r �\I J
Iit. . . WtI.IlI&. „ .�11u.1
I i _
IS TPRARCKT CHEEKS [ l. r.•T.a .r1
W.. e . (P
tw. CO•m
rwt l•11<Iwl 1 UI„wl rr....
I. �\ 1 ' � ). f„.�.1,• tr «I I•„..•Ir Irrw.„.1
-4 \7 •`J HILLSBOROUGH TWP,
I `pdn •\ • ) // '\l �� it 1 �• 1 ) - -_. ): w »It«.irt «.i�..�.'�r�•.„.V
\ r f ) I 1
CH �L Fill. R OSED ' % r
1 {' I ', 26 �'/ -AT HIGH 1 • F' 1. e..•t. I.1..1,1.. 1
% MMING QOL J/ �; t. e..,e. „N t••••1 t 11„11,/ J.. IM 51). 1
-• I 1. IIIM 1t. 111111..,
BIN( TWP•l } scHbOL 6 1 r, t1 M• .. ,.ra„• tw11.
�. 1 �. , , ' _I� 1 `. r' do r . J � Nis •�� ! 1. t.wr.• r... Il.- ..1•,r
t 1/ , , ) 1 L\ 1 �..6 ' 1�{f.l ENO TWP.
PfioPoSGb 1 �, , . / '1 '•1' `. tWP. ; , �� 29 12 1�9
�►. I I� WHITE ,CF(OSS / ii '' I , �' I _ •j� f BINGHAM TWP.
\ `J COMMUNIT `1. '
,Zt.re \ \ r.' \ /' IRL 13i ) I CHAPEL HILL TWP. PAAK
11 • \'', \ i 'J �( ; , :. X•;•' e- .1 J'_' .._• 3 ' � is e::::i i :i
1 - / r• I I / \ ` i 5'. �.. 1 �- ^ j 1�/ \ •�••�` f 11 e /�' •l � :�. � ` � l ` I is Ir::::••i.:Ir...
„ 0r 1 1 i• Ie. 11.11. rl. In.
42 � \ I 11. I.,Il.tl r. il.r Ir.•
i ,I I I , , - , 1 1 t , l w+ °• 14 '.
I' ` I I” l _ '� J � r•' '- . ) / �\ . 11. 11.11 I„I x1.1.1.1..11.. 1111.•
Q /(j //�)r W [.1111•• x•1..1.•1 t.r «.•
�f_ , .� .., / ' / - 1 ! \ •. �' 2 ` - I 11. t.„11 .111 .11. 1. M•1
V • I, / , - 1 ` , , 1 _ :•� `'fr � I . �"'. ` 11. 1.1.w 11 flwela, 11 M•I
A7
7 `• _
!, , \.� � \ i � ,' ; \I i • I ., •\ �, .. , ' �"y! /.• � • It. IIM.•. Ilrw,x�n tt•wl
1 � � I' , 'r ,��1I ' ` ,.1 '. �I tt. 11.11 1111.1 ,r.•w lir- .11.•, I.IwI
•\ , ' I I�' - '/ ��.1.• 1 1 1 . \ �,, /�. _ ��, .• � / !1. C•I,r•.I• J•+1.111M ftrwl
•`•�' •mil`. \ i __\1111 •\ 'i;-�• '`i • •� M .., /( - 1 J) : I , n: M1�:; i:: �•i:..,..r
' •`._j,_ .�..i1•� 'I / . , J' ' ` �' •'✓ , ~' Y t {. 11.11•.1 C�1.Iir 1.111111
WK
Chalhttrn • �• /••, / ..\ �.y.�• -• n. a.„1 .111 I•«.. rwl
Ca.11, _•�•.�. �,- : >• sw1.•.. e..•,. 1111 „......
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND
EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES
EXHIBIT 5 -3�
Q/
dl �e�vrC
J
0 `
29
Joggjj dq TY-.1L
PIGk1lC 4rr--A
_ SNMLTt1!: .
,-- V0LLrf` ALL
� � NPNITNZ.4T"C
i
r
1
r
t
I
I
I
I
.y
l o �
I
'Mm� M "ME .
,on Ist ME 0.
TYPICAL
Co..
PARK
25+ ACHES
a f--yjki G .
rLl� (q eo uu-:�)
�-- PA erg ki G
CoA10E55to�1 6UfLDIA1C1
ORANGE COUNTY
MASTER RECREATION
.AND PARKS PLAN
J
.E::•: <� > J < 2 v <b �'"; _moo A�,�• r,.:ik��'',p�'g� &:cc• ° � : >
!!- `_:::e . �::.,:;: jt=: 5:='.>_'",: v6N: �' L�.:•:;. �: t:::'< 2`::> �<" r {= dsid:::'..th''w' <..- ...,c,�3 wy"'.;-�, .fi�:.
q.•;�j,6i•iw4aLa..3 <vc y w
�
'°sac• _ •' - � <....y »•mtr. °, «..oi:
J t
� n ,Y . -. �O h. ."hV"tC � .'.:.A'aw• /'a�'1A• x >dWly A ^'4
.a• `��>.'0,yq �Qt?MQ, •xp :., y r <� vYwet4•+.' -.?.�^ ty, �` y, <f
< x(. ap�'v.c •'» o�.. yq �T.. �0�-i�` ':'Ntc.:d ... i.
« � :w: ^'BAH! .. . � t >,Y�aaS- - >, - �c •, • :.�'^• e�.•.Ax'�a d
31
STONEY CREEK PLANNING GROUP CHRONOLOGY
Meeting 1 - March 16, 1995
The meeting involved an overview of the planning process,
introductions, and development by the group of a listing of
concerns, desired outcomes, and operational guidelines.
Meeting 2 - April 6, 1995
The UNC planning students met with the group and presented
their preliminary plans for the area utilizing the
conventional, density neutral (open space), and neo-
traditional planning concepts.
Meeting 3 - April 27, 1995
The UNC planning students met with the group to present their
impact analyses on the conventional, density- neutral, and neo-
traditional plans presented on April 6.
Meeting 4 - May 18, 1995
Orange County Planning staff presented a plan alternative
for the area utilizing various recommendations from the Rural
Character Study.
Meeting 5 - June 15, 1995
Planning Group members shared their ideas on a "vision" for
the area. The ideas will be more fully developed at the next
meeting.
Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area =2
Legend.
OiNNGE COUNTY t,
%IBNNG A, MS'FCT10N11 - Planning Area
DAMT FM
Economic Development Districts
ro' 0 Duke Forest
'i9i� scale 1 ; 1000 N Neighborhood Boundaries
QUESTIONS FROM MAY 18 MEETING OF PLANNING GROUP
1. Are there any issues pending before the Planning Board and /or
Board of Commissioners where time is of the essence or other
schedules that the planning group needs to be aware of?
Nothing of which planning staff is aware.
2. Clarification of forest classifications, i.e., are they
treated as agricultural or what? How is managed forest land
defined?
See attachment from N.C. General Statutes.
3. What are the numbers on development patterns since 1987?
Also, what is the nature of population growth in Orange County
in the last 10 years?
See double -sided attachment on average lot sizes and
population growth in Orange County.
4. History of Parkwood community stores?
See attachment.
5. Update on the Rural Design Guidebook?
Planner Don Belk to address at meeting.
X105 -277.2 CH. 105. TAXATION §105 -277.2
Editor's Note. — Section 56 of Ses-
sion Laws 1985, c. 656 provides that the
ict does not affect the rights or liabili-
ties of the State or a taxpayer arising
ender a section amended or repealed by
:he act before its amendment or repeal,
for affect the right to any refund or
xedit of a tax, such as the franchise tax
credit under § 105- 120.2(d) or
§ 105- 122(d) that would otherwise have
been available under a section amended
or repealed by the act before its amend-
ment or repeal.
Effect of Amendments. — The 1989
amendment, effective July 1, 1989, re-
wrote subdivision (f).
105 - 277.2. Agricultural, horticultural and forest -
land — Definitions.
For the purposes of G.S. 105 -277.3 through 105 -277.7 the follow -
.ng definitions shall apply:
(1) "Agricultural land" means land that is a part of a farm unit
that is actively engaged in the commercial production or
growing of crops, plants, or animals under a sound man-
agement program. Agricultural land includes woodland
and wasteland that ..is a part of the farm unit, but the
woodland and wasteland included in the unit shall be ap-
praised under the use -value schedules as woodland or
wasteland. A farm unit may consist of more than one tract
of agricultural land, but at least one of the tracts must
meet the requirements in G.S. 105- 277.3(a)(1), and each
tract must be under a sound management program.
(2) "Forestland" means land that is a part of a forest unit that
is actively engaged in the commercial growing of trees un-
der a sound management program. Forestland includes
wasteland that is a part of the forest unit, but the waste-
land included in the unit shall be appraised under the use -
value schedules as wasteland. A forest unit may consist of
more than one tract of forestland, but at least one of the
tracts must meet the requirements in G.S. 105- 277.3(a)(3),
and each tract must .be under a sound management pro-
gram.
(3) "Horticultural land" means land that is a part of a horticul-
tural unit that is actively engaged in the commercial pro-
duction or growing of fruits or vegetables or nursery or
floral products under a sound management program. Hor-
ticultural land includes woodland and wasteland that is a
part of the horticultural unit, but the woodland and waste-
land included in the unit shall be appraised under the use -
value schedules as woodland or wasteland. A horticultural
unit may consist of more than one tract of horticultural
land, but at least one of the tracts must meet the require-
ments in G.S. 105- 277.3(a)(2), and each tract must be un-
der a sound management program.
(4) "Individually owned" means owned by:
a. A natural person; or
b. A corporation having as its principal business one of the
activities described in subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) and
whose shareholders are all natural persons actively
engaged in the business of the corporation or a relative
of a shareholder who is actively engaged in the busi-
ness of the corporation.
560
-- . -- . -- - -.- -.1.
P.
§105-277.2 CH. 105. TAXATION § 105 -277.2
(5) "Present -use value" means the value of land in its current
use as agricultural land, horticultural land, or forestland,
based solely on its ability to produce income, using a rate
of nine percent (9 %) to capitalize the expected net income'..
of the property and assuming an average level of manage-
ment.
(5a) "Relative" means:
a. Spouse;
b. A lineal ancestor;
c. A lineal descendant;
d. A brother or sister, including a stepbrother or stepsis-
ter;
e. An adopted or adoptive child, parent, grandchild, or
grandparent; or
�f. A spouse of a person listed in paragraphs b. through e.
(6) Sound management program " means a program of produc-
tion designed to obtain the greatest net return from the '
land consistent with its conservation and long -term im- .
provement. (1973, c. 709, s. 1; 1975, c. 746, s. 1; 1985, c. 4
628, s. 1; c. 667, ss. 1, 4; 1987, c. 698, s. 1.)
Editor's Note. — Session Laws 1985, ever occurs earlier, rewrote subdivision
c. 628, s. 1, effective January 1, 1987, (5); defining "Present use value."
and applicable to each county when that Legal Periodicals. — For survey of ,
county conducts a general reappraisal of 1980 tax law, see 59 N.C.L. Rev. 1233
property or on January 1, 1994, which- (1981).
CASE NOTES
Statutory Scheme is Tax Defer- Property Tax Comm'n, 48 N.C. App. �±
ment. — The statutory scheme for taxa- 245, 269 S.E.2d 636 (1980), cert. denied,
tion of property qualifying for present 301 N.C. 727, 276 S.E.2d 287 (1981).
use value treatment as defined in this Property to Be Valued on Ability
section and § 105 -277.3 is a tax defer- to Produce Income in Present Use. —
ment. - In re Parker, 76 N.C. App. 447,
Clear legislative intent under this sec -
333 S.E.2d 749 (1985). tion is that property be valued on the
Principal Business of a Corpora-
basis of its ability to produce income in
tion. — Factors which should be looked the manner of its present use; all other
at in determining the principal business
of a corporation for present use value- uses for which the property might be
tion other than gross income are net in- employed, and the many factors enunci-
come or profit and its source, annual re- ated in § 105- 317(a), are irrelevant and
ceipts and disbursement, the purpose of immaterial. In re McElwee, 304 N.C. 68, ;
the corporation as stated in its corporate 283 S.E.2d 115 (1981).
charter and the actual corporate func- Applied in Development Assocs. v.
tion in relation to its stated corporate Wake County Bd. of Adjustment, 48
purpose. W.R. Co. v. North Carolina N.C. App. 541, 269 S.E.2d 700 (1980).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Interest Is Due on Deferred Taxes. Honorable B.D. Schwartz, N.C. House of
— See opinion of Attorney General of Representatives, 43 N.C.A.G. 64 (1973).
j
_r
561
§105-277.3 CH. 105. TAXATION §105-277.3
105 - 277.3. Agricultural, horticultural and forest-
land - Classifications.
(a) The following classes of property are hereby designated spe-
cial classes of property under authority of Article V, Sec. 2(2) of the
North Carolina Constitution and shall be appraised, assessed and
taxed as hereinafter provided:
(1) Individually owned agricultural land consisting of one or
more tracts, one of which consists of at least 10 acres that
are in actual production and that, for the three years pre-
ceding January 1 of the year for which the benefit of this
section is claimed, have produced an average gross income
of at least one thousand dollars ($1,000). Gross income in-
cludes income from the sale of the agricultural products
produced from the land and any payments received under a
governmental soil conservation or land retirement pro-
gram. Land in actual production includes land under im-
provements used in the commercial production or growing
of crops, plants, or animals.
(2) Individually owned horticultural land consisting of one or
more tracts, one of which consists of at least five acres that
are in actual production and that, for the three years pre-
ceding January 1 of the year for which the benefit of this
section is claimed, which have either:
a. Been used to produce evergreens intended for use as
Christmas trees and met the qualifying or gross in-
come requirements established by the Department of
Revenue for the land; or
b. Produced an average gross income of at least one thou-
sand dollars ($1,000).
Gross income includes income from the sale of the horti-
cultural products produced from the land and any pay-
ments received under a governmental soil conservation or
land retirement program. Land in actual production in-
cludes land under improvements used in the commercial
production or growing of fruits or vegetables or nursery or
floral products.
(3) Individually owned forestland consisting of one or more
tracts, one of which consists of at least 20 acres that are in
actual production and are not included in a farm unit.
(b) In order to come within a classification described in subdivi-
sion (a)(1), (2) or (3), above, the property must, if owned by natural
persons, also:
(1) Be the owner's place of residence; or
(2) Have been owned by the current owner or a relative of the
current owner for the four years preceding January 1 of
the year for which the benefit of this section is claimed.
If owned by a corporation, the property must have been owned by
the corporation or by one or more of its principal shareholders as
defined in G.S. 105- 277.2(4)b for the four years immediately preced-
ing January 1 of the year for which the benefit of this section is
claimed. Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 105- 277.2(4)b,
above, a corporation qualifying for a classification described in G.S.
105 -277.3 shall not lose the benefit of the classification by reason of
the death of one of the principal shareholders provided the dece-
§105 -277.3 CH. 105. TAXATION §105 -277.3 =.,
dent's ownership passes to and remains in a relative of the dece-
dent.
(c) In addition, property may come within one of the classifica-
tions described in subsection (a) above, if (i) it was appraised at its
present use value or was eligible for appraisal at its present use
value pursuant to that subsection at the time title to the property
passed to the present owner, and (ii) at the time title to the property
passed to the present owner he owned other property classified un-
der subsection (a). Classification pursuant to this subsection shall
not affect any liability for deferred taxes under G.S. 105- 277.4(c) if
such taxes were otherwise due at the time title passed to the
present owner.
(d) Enrollment in the federal Conservation Reserve Program au-
thorized by Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Pub. L.
99 -198), as amended, shall not preclude eligibility of land for
present use value treatment solely on the grounds that the land is
no longer in actual production, and income derived from participa-
tion in the federal Conservation Reserve Program may be used in
meeting the minimum income requirements of this section either
separately or in combination with income from actual production.
Land enrolled in the federal Conservation Reserve Program shall
be assessed as agricultural land if it is planted in vegetation other
than trees, or as forest land if it is planted in trees. (1973, c. 709, s.
1; 1975, c. 746, s. 2; 1983, c. 821; c. 826; 1985, c. 667, ss. 2, 3, 6.1;
1987, c. 698, ss. 2 -5; 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1044, s. 13.1; 1989,
cc. 99) 736.)
Cross References. - As to taxation
of lessees and users of tax- exempt
cropland or forestland, see § 105 - 282.7.
Editor's Note. - Session Laws 1987,
c. 698, s. 7 adds a new section to Session
Laws 1985, c. 667, to read: "Sec. 6.2. If
property loses its eligibility for use -
value classification because of the
amendments made by Section 2 of this
act [which rewrote subdivisions (a)(1) to
(a)(3)], no deferred taxes are due on the
property and the lien for the deferred
taxes that would otherwise be payable is
extinguished."
Session Laws 1989, c. 99, s. 2 provides
in part: "The first tax year for which the
benefit of this act may be claimed is
1989. Notwithstanding the provisions of
G.S. 105- 277.4(a), an application for the
benefit provided in this act for the 1989
tax year shall be considered timely if it
is filed on or before September 1, 1989."
Effect of Amendments. - The 1987
(Reg. Sess., 1988) amendment, effective
for taxable years beginning on or after
January 1, 1986, added subsection (d).
Session Laws 1989, c. 99, s. 1, effective
for taxable years beginning on or after
January 1, 1989, and applicable to prop-
erty transferred on, before, or after that
date, in subsection (c) substituted "one
of the classifications described in subsec-
tion (a) above, if (i)" for "the classifica-
tion described in subdivision (1) or (2)
above, if (1)," substituted "subsection"
for "section," substituted "(ii)" for "(2),"
and substituted "subsection (a)" for
"subdivision (a)(1) or (2) above" in the
first sentence.
Session Laws 1989, c. 736, s. 1, effec-
tive for taxable years beginning on or
after January 1, 1990, substituted
"which have either" for "have produced
an average gross income of at least one
thousand dollars ($1,000)" at the end of
the introductory sentence in subdivision
(a)(2), and added paragraphs (a)(2)a and
(a)(2)b.
Legal Periodicals. - For survey of
1980 tax law, see 59 N.C.L. Rev. 1233
(1981).
562 ; 563
§105-277A CH. 105. TAXATION §105-277.4 §105-277.5 CH. 105. TAXATION §105-277.5
CASE NOTES
This section expressly indicates ment. - The statutory scheme for taxa-
the constitutional base found in N.C. tion of property qualifying for present
Const., Art. V, § 2(2) upon which special use value treatment as defined in
classification is made and permitted. § 105 -277.2 and this section is a tax de-
W.R. Co. v. North Carolina Property ferment. In re Parker, 76 N.C. App. 447,
Tax Comm'n, 48 N.C. App. 245, 269 333 S.E.2d 749 (1985).
S.E.2d 636 (1980), cert. denied, 301 N.C. Stated in In re McElwee, 304 N.C. 68,
727, 276 S.E.2d 287 (1981). 283 S.E.2d 115 (1981).
Statutory Scheme is Tax Defer-
105 - 277.4. Agricultural, horticultural and forest -
land - Application for taxation at
present -use value.
I (a) Property coming within one of the classes defined in G.S.
105 -277.3 shall be eligible for taxation on the basis of the value of
1 the property in its present use if a timely and proper application is
filed with the assessor of the county in which the property is lo-
cated. The application shall clearly show that the property comes
within one of the classes and shall also contain any other relevant
information required by the assessor to properly appraise the prop-
erty at its present -use value. An initial application shall be filed
during the regular listing period of the year for which the benefit of
this classification is first claimed, or within 30 days of the date
shown on a notice of a change in valuation made pursuant to G.S.
105 -286 or G.S. 105 -287. A new application is not required to be
submitted unless the property 'is transferred or becomes ineligible
for use -value appraisal because of a change in use or acreage.
(b) Upon receipt of a properly executed application, the assessor
shall appraise the property at its present -use value as established
in the schedule prepared pursuant to G.S. 105 -317. In appraising
the property at its present -use value, the assessor shall appraise
the improvements located on qualifying land according to the
schedules and standards used in appraising other similar improve-
ments in the county. If all or any part of a qualifying tract of land is
located within the limits of an incorporated city or town, the asses-
sor shall furnish a copy of the property record showing both the
present -use appraisal and the valuation upon which the property
would have been taxed in the absence of this classification to the
collector of the city or town. He shall also notify the tax collector of
any changes in the appraisals or in the eligibility of the property for
the benefit of this classification.
(bl) Decisions of the assessor regarding the qualification or ap
praisal of property under this section maybe appealed to the county
board of equalization and review or, if that board is not in session,
to the board of county commissioners. Decisions of the county board
may be appealed to the Property Tax Commission.
(c) Property meeting the conditions herein set forth shall be
taxed on the basis of the value of the property for its present use.
The difference between the taxes due on the present -use basis and
the taxes which would have been payable in the absence of this
classification, together with any interest, penalties or costs that
may accrue thereon, shall be a lien on the real property of the
taxpayer as provided in G.S. 105- 355(a). The difference in taxes
564
shall be carried forward in the records of the taxing unit or units as
deferred taxes, but shall not be payable, unless and until (i) the
owner conveys the property to anyone other than a relative of the
owner, or (ii) ownership of the property passes to anyone other than
a relative by will or intestacy, or (iii) ownership of the property
passes to a corporation as defined in G.S. 105- 277.2(4)b from any-
one other than its principal shareholders or from such a corporation
to anyone other than its principal shareholders, or (iv) the property
loses its eligibility for the benefit of this classification for some
other reason. The tax for the fiscal year that opens in the calendar
year in which a disqualification occurs shall be computed as if the
property had not been classified for that year, and taxes for the
Kthree fiscal years which have been deferred as provided
herein, shall immediately be payable, together with interest
thereon as provided in G.S. 105 -360 for unpaid taxes which shall
accrue on the deferred taxes due herein as if they had been payable
on the dates on which they originally became due. If only a part of
the qualifying tract of land loses its eligibility, a determination
shall be made of the amount of deferred taxes applicable to that
part and that amount shall become payable with interest as pro-
vided above. Upon the payment of any taxes deferred in accordance
with this section for the three years immediately preceding a dis-
qualification, all liens arising under this subsection shall be extin-
guished.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (c), if a farm
unit loses eligibility for present use value treatment solely due to a
change in income caused by enrollment of land in the federal Con-
servation Reserve Program authorized by Title XII of the Food Se-
curity Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99 -198), as amended, no deferred taxes
shall be owed and all present use value tax liens shall be extin-
guished. (1973, c. 709, s. 1; c. 905; c. 906, ss. 1, 2; 1975, c. 62; c. 746,
ss. 3 -7; 1981, c. 835; 1985, c. 518, s. 1; c. 667, ss. 5, 6; 1987, c. 45, s. 1;
c. 295, s. 5; c. 698, s. 6; 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1044, s. 13.2.)
Editor's Note. - Session Laws 1987 Effect of Amendments. - Session
(Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1044, s. 13.2, effec- Laws 1987, c. 295, s. 5, effective January
tive for taxable years beginning on or 1, 1988, deleted "as provided in G.S.
after January 1, 1986, added subsection 105 -324" at the end of the second sen-
(d). tence of subsection (bl).
CASE NOTES
Quoted in W.R. Co. v. North Carolina Stated in In re McElwee, 304 N.C. 68,
Property Tax Comm'n, 48 N.C., App. 283 S.E.2d 115 (1981).
245, 269 S.E.2d 636 (1980).
§ 105 - 277.5. Agricultural, horticultural and forest-
, land - Notice of change in use.
Not later than the close of the listing period following a change
which could disqualify all or a part of a tract of land receiving the
benefit of this classification, the property owner shall furnish the
assessor with complete information regarding such change. Any
property owner who fails to notify the assessor of changes as afore-
said regarding land receiving the benefit of this classification shall
be subject to a penalty of ten percent (10 %) of the total amount of
565
i
i
r.
{{ i
§105-277.6 CH. 105. TAXATION
§105 -277.7 1 §105 -277.8
the deferred taxes and interest thereon for each listing period for
which the failure to report continues. (1973, c. 709, s. 1; 1975, c.
746, s. 8; 1987, c. 45, s. 1.)
CASE NOTES
Stated in W.R. Co. v. North Carolina
Property Tax Comm'n, 48 N.C. App.
245, 269 S.E.2d 636 (1980).
§ 105 - 277.6. Agricultural, horticultural and forest -
land - Appraisal; computation of de-
ferred tax.
(a) In determining the amount of the deferred taxes herein pro -
vided, the assessor shall use the appraised valuation established in
j the county's last general revaluation except for any changes made
under the provisions of G.S. 105 -287.
(b) In revaluation years, as provided in G.S. 105 -286, all property
entitled to classification under, G.S. 105 -277.3 shall be reappraised
at its true value in money and at its present use value as of the
effective date of the revaluation. The two valuations shall continue
in effect and shall provide the basis for deferred taxes until a
change in one or both of the appraisals is required by law. The
present use -value schedule, standards, and rules shall be used by
the tax assessor to appraise property receiving the benefit of this
classification until the next general revaluation of real property in
the county as required by G.S. 105 -286.
(c) Repealed by Session Laws 1987, c. 295, s. 2, effective January
1, 1988. (1973, c. 709, s. 1; 1975, c. 746, ss. 9, 10; 1987, c. 295, s. 2.)
Effect of Amendments. - Session section (b), and deleted subsection (c),
Laws 1987, c. 295, s. 2, effective January relating to preparation of a schedule of
1, 1988, added the last sentence of sub- land values, standards and rules.
CASE NOTES
This section mandates that true
tion, the board of county commissioners
value schedule and use value sched-
was required to adopt a separate market
ule be determined separately. In re
value schedule and use value schedule.
Parker, 76 N.C. App. 447, 333 S.E.2d
In re Parker, 76 N.C. App. 447, 333
749 (1985), decided prior to the 1987
S.E.2d 749 (1985).
amendments.
Cited in In re McElwee, 304 N.C. 68,
Under the plain language of this sec-
283 S.E.2d 115 (1981).
105 - 277.7. Use -Value Advisory Board,.
The Use -Value Advisory Board is established under the supervi-
sion of the Agricultural Extension Service of North Carolina State
University. The Board shall annually submit to the Department of
Revenue a recommended use -value manual developed in accor-
dance with the guidelines in G.S. 105- 289(a)(5). In developing the
manual, the Board may consult with federal and State agencies as
needed. The Board shall submit to the Department of Revenue rec-
ommendations concerning requirements for horticultural land used
566
CH. 105. TAXATION §105-277.8
to produce evergreens intended for use as Christmas trees when
requested to do so by the Department.
The Board shall be chaired by the Director of the Agricultural
,Extension Service of North Carolina State University and shall
consist of the following additional members: a representative of the
Department of Agriculture, designated by the Commissioner of Ag-
riculture; a representative of the Forest Resources Division of the
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, desig-
nated by the Director of that Division; and a representative of the
Agricultural Extension Service at North Carolina Agricultural and
Technical State University, designated by the Director of the Ex-
tension Service. All members shall serve ex officio. The Agricul-
tural Extension Service at North Carolina State University shall
provide clerical assistance to the Board. (1973, c. 709, s. 1; 1975, c.
746, s. 11; 1985, c. 628, s. 2; 1989, c. 727, s. 218(44); c. 736, s. 2.)
Editor's Note. - Session Laws 1987, Laws 1989, c. 727, s. 18, effective July 1,
c. 45, s. 1, effective April 3, 1987, directs 1989, substituted "Environment,
that reference to assessors be substi- Health, and Natural Resources" for
tuted for reference to tax supervisors in "Natural Resources and Community De-
a number of statutes, including this sec- velopment" in the first sentence of the
tion. However, this section does not cur- second paragraph.
rently contain any reference to tax su- Session Laws 1989, c. 736, s. 2, effec-
pervisors. Therefore, no change has been tive for taxable years beginning on or
made in this section pursuant to c. 45. after January 1, 1990, added the last
Effect of Amendments. - Session sentence of the first paragraph.
§ 105 - 277.8. ' Taxation of property of nonprofit
homeowners' association.
(a) The value of real and personal property owned by a nonprofit
homeowners' association shall be included in the appraisals of prop-
erty owned by members of the association and shall not be assessed
against the association if:
(1) All property owned by the association is held for the* use,
benefit, and enjoyment of all members of the association
equally;
i (2) Each member of the association has an irrevocable right to
use and enjoy, on an equal basis, all property owned by the
association, subject to any restrictions imposed by the in-
struments conveying the right or the rules, regulations, or
bylaws of the association; and
(3) Each irrevocable right to use and enjoy all property owned
by the association is appurtenant to taxable real property
owned by a member of the association.
The assessor may allocate the value of the association's property
among the property of the association's members on any fair and
reasonable basis.
s (b) As used in this section, "nonprofit homeowners' association"
means a homeowners' association as defined in § 528(c) of the In-
ternal Revenue Code. (1979, c. 686, s. 1; 1987, c. 130.)
Effect of Amendments. - The 1987 Legal Periodicals. - For survey of
amendment, effective January 1, 1988, 1979 tax law, see 58 N.C.L. Rev. 1548
rewrote this section. (1980).
567
AVERAGE NEW LOT SIZE 1987 -1994*
STONEY CREEK BASIN TOWNSHIPS
HillsboroughTownship
No. of Lots
Acres in Lots
Average Lot Size
Major Subdivisions 14
148
No. of Subdiv
No. of Lots
Acres in Lots
Average Lot Size
Major Subdivisions
9
77
183.41
2.382
Minor Subdivisions
37
84
216.79
2.581
Exem is
19
45
795.12
17.669
.::...:......:.:.:.......:::.....::::....::;.:..:. .:.....:..::........::..:..:.;.
Total .....:::<:.<.: . ..::::::::::< >: >«:
..
> < >:: >><<:... 65
.. 206 ......:
............
> >...119532:...
:......: .
<> > .:. 5:803
Eno Township
No. of Subdiv
No. of Lots
Acres in Lots
Average Lot Size
Major Subdivisions 14
148
256.70
1.734
Minor Subdivisions 65
148
427.72
2.890
Exempts 25
76
1150.63
15.140
Chapel Hill Township (OutsideJPA)
No. of Subdiv
No. of Lots
Acres in Lots
No. of Subdiv
No. of Lots
Acres in Lots
Average Lot Size
Major Subdivisions 0
0
0
0.000
Minor Subdivisions 22
54
232.70
4.309
Exempts 6
14
128.05
9.146
Orange County
* Includes Major Subdivisions, Minor Subdivisions, and Exempt Plats from January 1, 1987 to July 31, 1994.
PDS61495
DS- 18,/AVGLOT.WK3
No. of Subdiv
No. of Lots
Acres in Lots
Average Lot Size
Major Subdivisions
89
934
1951.67
2.090
Minor Subdivisions
461
1065
3705.49
3.479
332
746
10,915.47
14.632
'Exempts
«:> >:::<:: >:: >::::::::::<:::<::: »> :::;::::
7. :. :.:.:..........................
>:::; :::::;:.;:> <:: >::::::;< 2
........ .............:.................
:::.:. > :::274 ::........<
5:.....::..:...
..... .
>:: <:1 72:
:. ,5 __.G ..............
:::::::: >:;:; > <::: >:: » <:< >:> ... 6 Q3 ..
. 7
.............::.:::....:..,....
* Includes Major Subdivisions, Minor Subdivisions, and Exempt Plats from January 1, 1987 to July 31, 1994.
PDS61495
DS- 18,/AVGLOT.WK3
POPULATION GROWTH IN ORANGE COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITIES
1985 -1995
..> . :: : >:::::::::>::><:>::: ::
i n > >
I98::
5 : : >:: >:
:
0«.
995
. _
.: .
e e
.. ... ..
........... ..
.....
::
>19e :
ORANGE CO. (all)
82,459
93,851
101,599
103,478
+21,022
Chapel Hill town'
34,137
37,596
41,563
42,334
+ 8,195
Carrboro town
91179
12,134
13,052
13,297
+ 41114
Durham city'
28
17
19
19
- 9
Hillsborough town
3, 306
4,263
4, 875
4,965
+ 1, 659
Mebane city '
491
485
568
579
+ 88
1 - Official July 1 municipal and County estimate, North Carolina Office of State Planning
(prior to 1990, the Office of Budget and Management) .
2 - 1990 U.S. Decennial Census, April 1, 1990.
3 - Orange County Planning Department composite "Mid- Census" estimate, April 1, 1995.
Municipal estimates generated by assuming same proportion of County population as in
1993 estimate, i.e., Chapel Hill had 40.91 % of the total County population in 1993,
assumed to be same for 1995 (103,481 x .4091).
' - Orange County portion only.
pds /61495
8595pop. scs /ds -18
INFORMATION ON PARKWOOD COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER
At the May 18 meeting, questions were raised about the status of a
internally- oriented commercial center in the Parkwood community in
southern Durham County. From conversations with Durham planners and
a Parkwood resident, the following information was received about
the Parkwood shopping center.
• Parkwood was part of the Triangle Township Small Area Plan,
developed in 1993. In this plan, the existing commercial
center in Parkwood is recognized, and is projected to continue
as a commercial center in the future land use plan for the
area. No specifics about this center are mentioned.
• The Parkwood center was a vibrant commercial center for the
700 residents of Parkwood in the early 1970's, primarily
because there were no other services in the area. At that
time, the closest drug store was three miles away and there
were no shopping centers within five miles.
o Land uses in the center during the 1970's included a grocery
store, drug store, service station (later a convenience
store), small shops, a branch library, an attorney and
dentist's office, and other office uses.
o By the early 19801s, service and commercial uses were moving
out to the NC 54 and NC 55 area where growth in population
and the construction of larger shopping centers was occurring.
The grocery store left during this time frame, the service
station became a convenience store, and some offices moved out
to new office buildings on the main roads.
o Current occupancy in the center is around 50 %, with some of
the service uses being of a temporary nature. The branch
library has continued to thrive, and is heavily -used. However,
significant commercial activities of the type present in the
1970's are no longer present in the Parkwood center.
pds/61595
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: STONEY CREEK BASIN PLANNING GROUP
FROM: DAVE STANCIL ,)
Planner II, Land Use and Environment
DATE: June 15, 1995
SUBJECT: RURAL CHARACTER FISCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Please find attached the fiscal impact assessment of the Rural
Character alternative. These pages should be added to the end of
the "Rural Character Design Scenario, Preliminary Impact
Assessment ", which was mailed out with the June 15 agenda
materials.
FISCAL IMPACT: The area of fiscal impact is one where the differences in approach among the four
alternative scenarios is most apparent. As a result, the Rural Character design has significantly - different
long -term impacts.
Residential Impacts
The 10 -year buildout assumption for this scenario shows a dramatic fiscal change from early in the
development to the latter years of buildout. The Rural Character alternative begins with a positive net
fiscal impact for the first four years, before turning sharply negative in the final six years of the analysis.
To illustrate (Section 3), in 1999 the net fiscal impact of the design is + $6,227. However, by the time all
of the lots are built (2005), the costs outweigh the revenues to the tune of $181,246.
The ten -year fiscal impact of this alternative sharply differs from the results of the three previous
alternatives, which had varying degrees of positive impact. This dramatic difference can be explained by
a number of reasons and variables:
o The previous impact analyses were not as specific about different land uses and
housing types as the Rural Character alternative. Those analyses instead assumed
universal "high- dollar" development, which produces a much larger revenue base. For
example, the average sales price for all units in the Neo- Traditional alternative is $190,000,
based on current market prices for single - family homes in Chapel Hill's Southern Village.
However, a substantial number of the Neo - Traditional units would be multi- family units
likely to have a significantly -lower average cost. The Rural Character average value
includes 160 apartments at $26,375 and 80 townhomes at $83,000.
o The most significant reason for the differential in net fiscal impact is the lower average
value of units in the Rural Character design. The Rural Character design includes 379
smaller urban lots, an additional 99 urban affordable housing lots, the afore- mentioned
townhomes and apartments, and many open -space development lots. Adding all of these
together, the overall average value in the Rural Character design is $153,352. This is
$30,000 less than the Conventional -H and Density - Neutral alternatives, and $37,000 less
than the Neo - Traditional. The fiscal difference of $37,000 per lot multiplied by 1,770
lots over a 10 year period is substantial, and explains much of the difference.
o Market adjustments were made in some cases to account for lower prices in the
Hillsborough market. This was not done in previous alternatives.
o The value of comparison units in the Rural Character alternative was based on tax value.
The previous alternatives were adjusted in some cases with higher "market value."
o The value of open space in the open -space developments is not factored in, as it was in the
Density - Neutral alternative.
o The final templates from the class report use a lower number of educational employees
than the Rural Character design, affecting the amount of funding needed. The Rural
Character alternative uses 744.5 employees based on recent information from the schools,
while the previous analyses assume 619 employees to be funded.
In summary, the specific nature of the Rural Character alternative about .affordable housing units, the
lower value of smaller lots without open -space value, and the other factors outlined above explain the vast
majority of the differences in the net fiscal impact of this alternative, as compared with previous designs.
In subsequent months, further fiscal analyses will be undertaken which will make comparisons of the
alternatives more consistent with each other, by adjusting for the different assumptions and factors
inherent in each.
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD
Bureau of Economic & Business Research — University of Florida
Modified 3/15/95 — Orange County, NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 — PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT:
;;... ::.:...::... ....
.............
.. .....::: >::
SECTION 2 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
. :..:.:
:;:: >: :: <:; > :: »::: ;.: ::: •: : >< ::> : ::::: > :<: > ::::::::::.....::: >:•: •:•::.: •:•:: ::: < •: >::;•:: >:::<:: »:::::: >:::::> :::< >::: >: >::::::: <::::::: >:: »::::::> :::;:> ; .:. <::::
.....
:BIIDfzET<YEAR. >; .........::>::.:::::.>:.:.:<::.;::.:.;; :.:.::..........:::.:.:.::::>.:.........:>::;::<:;;:::>;:::::.:.:.:. ; >:.;: :.:::;<:. >::::.::. >::.: >; .;;:.:.:.:;:.:::.»:..;:.:;.:.::::;::.:.;>: :.:.; >::.;::.::..:..;:.:.;:.:<: :: >:::::. :.:<: :>::.....
:.:::::.:.:::::.....::::....:.::..::::::::.::.:..::::.:::::::::::...... ............................... .............:..:1994 ::..:95::
........... .....:::::::::::.::::::::::::::
COUNTY POPULATION: 102894
D
SC ' ('� I TR «_.<,.. >;:.. >:. >:'' :ANT Pip TIQhT= >< } >_ » > >< > » >< >» »;;<.: _:'<:>
-i.. 4L:.: SG`Z' S'I`U1 :CJL�A. ;.::....... 582;
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER CAPITA
•:: ::Geri ral.Ga..ernment:• >:: >:• >• •><::: <. »•> •> ;: <; <> :: >: >:::<••• ::<::> : >:••: ><••» • ::; >•
::. ::.; ...:.:::.::::: : : :: :::.:::::
:............. � : :............................. ::::::::.:.:.:::::.::::::::.:..:::::::.:::::::::::...:.::..::.:::.:::...::.::.::.>::.:.:.::...::..:....................................................................... .....................:::.::.:: 0.0.011::
............................................................................ ...............................
Public Safety 138.75 0.0013
P b " V o'I > > : <: :: <` ` ' <.• >•... ... ` : ::: ::: :. .::' `< • """"'',:::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::..o • • • .:
............li... :............... : :::..:::..:.::.:.: 50 f} 0.. :::::::A005.:
............................................................................................................................ ......................:....:.:.
Human Services 25338 0.0025
SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT: I POSITIONS,,---.,, PER STUDENT
T • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• • ........
14 >= > ' > .•` « •> • >> > < > > <. < • `• • • •> • • • • • > < Q<. : :. .::3 . ...I.:..
.....74 : �. .• < t :.::. >;:,>. . . ...: . .: . :.. :. . ... : \ :
COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES ($): REVENUES PER CAPITA
.......................................... c::. .:::::<:::' :'; >: < » >:•c <•c > >c > <ccsc'c[ >cic> G <c`sst >2`Gc >c ?cctcc >cc > >''`'.:.';" %cc >c52ccc >c a : `'''`
Tas thr Tlia: : x ....::. .::::.::::..::::::.:.:::::..::. :.: ::.:::::::::.:::::.. : :. :....... 4387997 ::.:...::::.42.65:..
...................:.:........... ............................... �y................................................... ............................... * "* *':::::..::::::::::.:..::..:................................................ ...............................
:.......... ............................... .......................................................................................................:......:.................:::..:::.:.::.:. ::::. :.: ::.:.::::: :::: :: :::.::. :.::::.:.::.
Intergovernmental 9053572 1 87.99
:: ::: ::> : :: : : :: < >. <; :: > :: > :< < :> '• > > <• >•< « >.< >• . •••'.• ;_.•.•.•> . •` • < < • < < <' < : >. < <> > '<> •<•• > >•> • >• .`•••<••• ... = ••••••< <. -... • > >`.•.. ::: > >:`' >;`<.> ' : • >: > •<.•• ••• ••. :`.::' :`:`:
S xv�ce Chax s ..::::.:::..::::. :::::.:. ::::....... ...... .................. 2775491:: 26.97:.
........................................................................................................................:..:.....:..::.:...:.::::.:::.:.:.::::::::::::::..:::...:::.::::........:...... ...............................
Miscellaneous - 1089416 10.59
COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ($):
EXPENDITURES
PER CAPITA
»:::::::::: >:;: >:: >:: »::;::::::::»:::»:::::
: : > :: >:<: :::: >:: »:::::: >;;::::: »::..532" 710 .:.:.....................:
...............................................
>349
...............................
Public Safety
6350477
61.72
........... ....................:... :..:.:. : :::.::.:.::::.:.::::::::::::::. :.:..:..,.
:: 2739666
.............................................................
26.63.
...............................
Human Services
16618148
16151
<:: ::;::, <::; ::: o::: :: >:_: <.;: :::::::::;::::: ::::; ::::::> : :: ::::: • ......• .• .• •.•.>•... :. :. :•. :•.> •..•.•. :•.•:.•..'•.•. •.•.•.• > >..• >.•.•.• •>
4: -.� .. xi Stec n a ,tai ........... .........:.:.:.::::::.::.:::::::: ::::::... :.....................
.............................(.................... g.......,.........)...........................................................:.:.::::.::::..::.::::::.::::::..::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::._.:::::::::._:::::::::::..::.::
•.•.•. •.•'.• :.•.•.•.•.•.•.•....•.•.•.•.• •..•.•.• •.•.... •.• : :::::::: :::::.<:< ::::
................. 750000
• • > • • • >.... :::
:.::.:::.. 7 29.
.::: ::::.::::::::::::::.::: :... .
Non —Departmental
2787882
27.09
COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE ($): EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE
n ral.Goner ftii=:> > . • : > - - >< > < < s » >
::..::...:..:...:...:.:.. .::...............:...::.::.... ......... ............................... ............................... .................65327:10 :::::: ` :: ::: <::< :: :: :59 4 ?.8 :
.............................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... .
Public Safety .. ................................................... ............................... 6350477 .....................45769.20 �
`•<�Ptib 'c: <':':<::`: : ::::: :::: :::::: < > > • ::::::>:.::::::::::::::::<::::: ::::;:: >:: :::`:::�:j::<; <:..:.: * : : : :::: ::<•: :::•<••<• •'••• • •`• :;::::: :::: >: :: ::::: < .......:....:.:'. • <`: • ?• >•• < ;:::::::::«;:::;:;:;,:::;:::
It..:rks ::.2739666 ..:::::::::::: 5.4793.32..:
............................................ ................... :... : :. : :...
Human Services 16618148 65587.17
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT
•o•
:: : : : : : : n : ::: » >: >< :> : :::: :: : : :: : ::: :: ::::
: . . 4
.» : : :
:.....�.............................. :........................... ::: . . . . . . >. : : 5.0: > : :C ae e .> X92...... ..' x w .. :.n ;::::. . .........................:.......... ....... ................................. 0. 94 ... x.10:....................................................... ..... ........... ....
.
School District 0 0.00
at:::::.::::.::......:.::. ::.:::::::::.:::::.:::::::::...::.::.. :::.::::.:.. >::;.:;:.;..::::::: - .::::.::.- 18977908 ........ - - -3 .9,84::
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE
.. C'.a...nty 4yexnm�nt .......:::...:::. <::.:....;:.. :: :.:::::.:::::: ::::::.::.::....:.......:..;: ..............:... :.:.......... ......... .........:: -Q. 9..9482. :::.:::::::::........I� 8.7.9; 9'.
...................:.:..::.:::.....::.::::.::.::::::: :::..:.::::::.:.:::::. : :::.:... _ ::::::.::::::.::::.:::::::.::::::::.:::::...::.:.>.:.:: :....... :.:::.::. :::::.::. >::.:
School District 0 0.00
S. a .................. ......... ::.::::.:::::.:::::.:.........:::: :::...:::.::.......:...... :.... 897790 .:
:::....::...:::..:.::.., .... , .... :.......:... ,..:;....., :..:..:. .. :.::.... :..: ::::.. : :�.. :..... , .:::::..:.;:.:..::.:::::: s49asa..
SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA
YEAR
.;;;:.;:.:: ;:.;::.;:.:.
>: 9f >
1997 < <> <
> > >:
..::: �.9.. :8 ::
....... ...............................
1999 > < > »
.
_....
< <> >:: 2000:
HOUSING N UNITS
::;;<:<.;::::::;. >::::;: > ;.. ;:77
i
35 4 ..>
<> .53 .:
708 <.-.-
: > >; > >855:
POPULATION
`" ' `
::.::.:.::...; :......:.........
9
8 6 ..;»
..:::::::::.1:344:::
<:: ::::«
1792 :::.. : ........:.::.::.......
:;: :< :::::::::: <:> 44::
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary
ry
::: ....:::.:;:....::.....
:..............:.:::::
3g
77 > ....
....1.15..
:.; : :::::::..::.;;:::....
154 :»:: :: >: >:::
:.:.;._..
»:::<:;:: >::: >::::::::: ..::::192::
Midd le
:;:.> : >::> ::: >: >:::> ::: ::: :: <1:8:
3
......... 143..
161 > >
. :9D.
High School
g
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::n.:::::: :
1
3..
188 ::::.; :.;:::::.:
::::;.:::<.::: �(1 *::
TOTAL
: < > ::::::::::::: :::::::'T1 >:
1 5 .,..........'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'........I
5 :><
>232<>
309
:..38'x..
COUNTY GOVERNMENT T
AD D ITI O NAL EMPLOYEES
Gener al Government
:>:::;:
SECTION 4 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT
YEAR
:..........:.:....
:1995 :.
9 ............................
1998.:::
.......
9...........:...:.....
199 ���i
> >20.00:::
TAX BASE 1000
$
( )..4..::
. : :.:- -43::
55074 >«
>:. : :.:: :...< '� . -r.
838
113388.....
».:.:::� :;;:;::: >:: > :: :: :::;
.:::.: X43820.
REVENUES ()
Property a
Tx
::::::::::::::>;:.: .<. :.2Q248.
410850 :« ......::........
:.:, >':_..: >'
:;;::.:;62525€:.
845875
........
..Q72895
Other h r Taxes
>; ::> :; .:- ::' }.::.:}
:: :: >: >::<:::; >:: ;:::
:::::.;:.;:::::;:.:
39318 :::::::
>.. ` :`:< 0O. ';.:
::::::::::.......68..7.. ::
:......::::>
83262 > >«
: :.:;<:::> :: :: >:< .: >:::
>] 0709.6::
Intergovernmental
. X94.18::::
:;:;::<:::
8112 2
.::::::125 *>
1�..
......................
...:.:..::..::
171791::;;::;;;:
::...:....:...............:....
>; >> < > <220967.
Service Charges
g
> ` .... .:;
.....................� Q84..
2486 9 ....................::38385:::
> >:`; : `'' ``
..... ........... Q:.:
52665
>: > :: '1: 4 .:
.::::: 6....7....4:
Mince llaneous
:...::.. :.....:
4 3.>
:: >:::::: > :....................
976 ��'
Q67.
20672 >26589
...
TOTAL
::. " "; ";:
>27 783 9
5 6592 :
OS ..
1174266
<1495287
EXPENDITURES IT RES ()
e
Gen ral Government rnm nt
::::.:.:...:::::
................
:.:::.28 443.
5853
348..
;:;:.::.:::.:.;:.;::.:
123958 >
:...:.:...:....:..:.::..:.:..:.
<` :.15:944T
Public Safety
Y
;:;:;:::;.:;.:;:::: ...- : `
9..
902 ...< <
. ... :::;:.`
..::::::87...28::
205
1 00 . ....>
: ..... ..... 3>
u
P bhc Works
>.11 28
9
25
4 48 :
> :.:.::.:> ::' ''9
378 .Q..
51985: '»
> >< 6: $.6:.. .
Human Services
:.::;::`::::2353 >.
148903
>< : ?::: <«:<:.:<::; >:
.::... .......:2.:.
3 53
1 29 .:
> < > :;4.4 592::
Education
.::.;::.:;:.< :.::. >:: :115'.: 9
49
23 69
7 7 ...5688
5.
503366 «.<>
754
Non-De tme
P ar ntal
`< >238
24980 =
» > > <.`.: `:.......
...::.:::.: $5.:; ::
9
:: ::::680.....
TOTAL $
:.;:.;:"' * "*:.
>;268Q0<
551565<>>
: ::::::.:::::. >::: >:_
8 3
68
11 038 :<'::
<:.::_::::: :::::::::::.:<
E
N T FISCAL C
AL IMPACT $
2...
143
>:
- 130754
6227 .. :.:
> * :.: :.
YEAR
>.' :� 1.
Q ..
2002 ......................
. ` .< `:::<::..,.: 1.
20
..........................
T BASE ASE 000
$ 1
( )
< <1714s>
2073
...� 0 .13..
274631>
::309`738::
REVENUES S (
Property Tax
P Y
:.:;:.:.::;.:
::;:«: >:::::
:. :... 304,8.:.:
1546875 . **..:.�
__
>: '..:> `; . < , :_ :::;:
>::: .
2048 45
7
< :::::::::::::::;:«:: X.
:<.::< 31Q ", ...:.:
Other Taxes
::::: :::: :::: ; ::>
........:._ >.<I32242<
15 875 7 ....
......186598
6
21 126.
.:.....:...:
::.<.:: :> <-`'`:.':'`:'
:::::::. :2.4.7...104:
Intergovernmental ernmental
g
::::::> <:::......2.. 28 .0..
5
32 7556
; > :::: :
...::::: ::��52_a6.;:
445924 ......
>:: >::::::<:;< ::::::::..:... :.
::.: <.;: 0984Q.
Service rvice Cha es
Charges
r
:....:::::::.
..8 3 6
100 417 <
> >:`; : `'' ``
..... ........... Q:.:
:;.:.>:
13 704
.::::.:.:::.::.:.;; >;.....:.::.
> >. .15:G298
Mince llaneous
>.::<?:83.:
3 9415
< <':<:<«:<`?
: : :.:.. ....
5365 8
:: 6: 349:.
TOTAL �)
>: >:: ; :;:
28067
21730 9
1
::: <.: <.,:;;.:: >::: >;:::::.
2530.5.69..
.::.:
29 01157
::: ;; >:::::: >:......: :;::::: > ::;: >; : > :> :
: :. * >;... ::32$5239:::
EXPENDITURES TURES ()
General Government
::::;: ;::::::: >> 196: >
878 .
236 352 > >
= <::79
:. :.::�7 :...:54_:
:: >:
32176 2 :::..::
:> ::: -: - :::::::;::: ;; .. ...: 8.1.::
: :: ::: > : :: :..... 7$S?
Public Safety
Y
=
2 29759 ....-
. ;::::::::_> :.:::;::_
....27019.........
.........................
312786
> . :; :::,::::;::::. :. :35.7..61 ::
Public bhc W orks
:.::.::.::::. >;;:<
:::::::::;::::::::: > . X2.66..
120 > <
` .> "`<
.. ::.;::.;�,165f 6;_
13 9
;;::::1,.4`81:..
Hum Services Human rvices
>50.08 25..
6 0124
::::::707...05x.,
818509
> < < ;9358 9
Education
< � �' 99476 : ::
76.
9 9 771 .:.:.
5
: >::::;:: > < >; >:::::::
» >::112$691;..
130660 1 :.::
< > > 49 88( .
Non- Departmental
<.0 ``:<
19.
10 086 ���>
.118617..
137314 : : ::<= :::: <: :: :: : : > :: ::Y56996::
AL ($ )
::: :l: >:: ::::_:::; :
: ;>Q<g
: . . 5. ::
..:.:.
: : :.
2227108 ....
.:;
.. :.:.: ::: :
....:
..:: 9:
6 ::
.:21 907
3031911 ::
6:TOT
815
: .
= : < 34:6
NET FISCAL
C IMPACT AL T
:::::.:;:::.:;:.;
::::::: >::;; >::<: �- 2748:::
3..
- 5 40
.:........85 ....
>:
- 130754
:::::::::: »; >:> ; >::.;:.::.:.;:.;:.::.::...;;:.
.. ....... .
` : 1: f 2AG
SECTION 5 — PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR
:::::::::....I. 9 ..:...:....-.I:. . , . . . - .
1997 :<::
>::::::::19 98.
:. ; :......::::....:
1999 :::: >:::::::
>;...
>::<::20.00:
REVENUES ()
Count
County .:::.::
- :5::.99
14
. .:..::::::::::.....
23769 7 .::
.. 3.66.::: <`:
885..
503366 >;:::::
...:..:::......
....................... .
>::::>
::64745.4..
....
.:.::::..:::::::::::::::.
.:.::::.:::....:::..::.
.:..
School District trr t .................::.
:....... :....:.::
>;:::.:: :::: V::
:.::.::::::::::
:.::..::..:
:.:::; ::.:.::::...:..;..:..:::::..
....::..:::::. ::: : :....:.
.;:...:...::::.:::::..:..::::..
:.. :...:. > ::.:.:.:::.::.:..::.;
::.
::
Stat e
>::::<: » >:
..:: :26297
5 41201: >::...:<
> >;<,; »>
8353 44
::.:.:.: >::>
1146092 :
::.:;::::::;;..:;: > >:::.::: »:: ;::.::.:;
: :1 74.6 "
.......:
:.....;:..;::
..........
TOTAL $ ...:..;:.::.::.:
-:- >:::::37 8473
778898 <:::::::::<......
:; ::; >:
1202228:::
: >:: »:<::;:;
1649 5 :::
4 7 ..:: >>
>:::<.:<:::::::::::: >; ::::::......: >; >:::::
:;::':::2:12 `614:
EXPENDITURES I URES ()
<;:<:::;
County
y
>:::: 5:499...
::::::<
'>
.::.,:.,.366885,:
5033
:.:64 ?44.
School District h D tract :........:..;:.::..:::::::
:. :::::< 0::
........::..::...::........
::: :. > ::.:.........:.;:.;.:.;
..........
::::::.::::
.::.::::.:.;:.;.
:....:::.::....:.:.:...:.. :...:
; .:.::.::.:.:..:....:...:::.0::
»;
State ::::.....
>;:.:::;::;: :: :262 .4<
7 ..
541201 <
::::,::...:,::...:.::;
>:::::< : >'; I >:::::;<;_:
:835344.:.
114 092 :<::
6
>:'> >: ;;.: <: <; ;.:
::;.;:::.144. 6Q
..........
TOTAL �)
< <:: <375#7:<
778898 :::::::..........
_ :.:;::.;:.;:::::::
:.::: ::1202228::;
>: *....<.........
1649457::;:;::::::x: ::::::;::;;:::::::::21216:19:::
; >.: >....:<........:: >;...
.........................>
NE FISCAL I MPACT
> > 0
.........
................... ............
YEAR
:::::::::;::; »::::;::: :
::....:.:..:. :: ::::::2001: >
-
2002 :::::
;:;<.,..
...2003::
2004 = >
»< :::20.0
RE VENUES ()
County
Y
947 ' :
6..
959771
:<> ` ::.; »:<::::::: >:: > <> ::
.:.: ;:.;:�:1 691.:<:
1306601 :::
::.......: :::::;:::::;:::<::.::::::.
......: 49 8 :
c
S hool District 1
:.:.;:.:......:::;:::.;<.:;::
.::::..::. ....:::::.:
..:..... . .:::.:: >.:.
..:::..:..: :; .:..::....:.: p>
::.: ::.:.....
..:.:::.:..::
.:.:... ...:
:..;.. :.:.......:....::....:.
0 ::
..........:....:. ::.::.;::.:...
;:.;:;:.:;,.:..;:.::.:.:::..::. .
:::..:: :...:::: :..::::.:... .
::::.:..
:::;0
State
:: >::;::;::;:
:: >::::: 02 ' `:>
<::::::'1 #32.. 93..
8
21 5262 < >:::
>' ::: - ::; > >; < >::;:: <
. ;:.::.;? .::.:.:...::::.:.:::..:
29 9
..:.. >:;:.�4�Rx3 ......
AL t
:::::::. ...
> .......... . .... .:
>: :: $:3:::314503
: :
4TOT 85::
EXPENDITURES TU
I RES ()
<;:<:::;
County
y
;976<
9 .
959771 <
»:<:: >:: >: "': ;::; >:::::::<:::
....:l.12 6 ...
1306601 ::::::::
>: <::::<:` .::; ::: ;..
.... _ :...493889 :..
School h of Dix ict
:.:::.:..:::::.:.::.::.
.:::.::::::::. : : ::.::.;.:.
::...::.......::::::::::.:
..:.:.: ..:::.::....::::::::.:::::::::.
:::.::.:.
::::. ::.::.......
:::....::.:..::::.:.:::.:...::.
: :. :. :...:.....:..: .
State
:..::;:.::
:: >::::::::: >:::: >::<: 820293' >
2185 262 : >:::::
< :: <::> `::::::<:::::: ;>
;.;:;:;8 :....::_:.
2 4943 <:::
97
:::> _:`::: _ :`` >'` .
::.....34413:: >:
TOTAL $
i)
......
>:'t:<2:gT63'>
3145033 > >
>: »> `:.::..., :` ':. »: <
:::3698559::
42815 44 .::::::::::::::......:
.. x5232:::
NET FISCAL SC IMPACT AL MP $
................
::.:...:..:.:::...:...:::..
:;::..; . ::.::::.:.::.:.;.
;: .::.......:
0 <: .:::.::.:.::.:..:;
:.;.;:.;::::.::.:.::
.:::::. ::.;:..::.::
SECTION 6 — SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCALIMPACTS
YEAR
........I......
.::::::::....::..::: >99
>'..1
9
..... :199$. :.
1999 ::::;:::< :::<:::: >:: >:::>
H ou SING UN ITS
:::::::::::: : ::: :::; : 7*
<7:< : :� ::::: :
35 4
:: ::: :::: =:::3 Z:
: : 5
: : .
. . .::: :
85::>
:
O PULATI ON
: ». "
: :: 44 8 .P
. ` ..
8
: 4 .
2
: 240;:
SCHOOL H OL CH D
IL REN
:.;::* * ...:.: >::.::.:::;.: ;: :;;.;;:.;:::. >:.::..
:::: < :: :; : ; 448Q :
SCHOOL CHILDREN
El e menta ry
::.: >::
.: ::.:;: :
;.;. . 8
..
7 7
. :::: :1.
::1
: :: : : ::: ::: ' 5
. ... . :
::.
: ::
:: :: ::; ::
4
:: ::: ::::::::: :..
< 19 : :
dle
::<:: .
: ..... :
. ..... ..Mid
.> 5 � .
<
9..
Q .
Hi g h Sc hool
126
:" °<" >"':' ':> :':: >':> :' ` 1.
3.
:.... ...
.
..6 :
I.
.. . .... .»`:21<:
Q.. :
TO TAL
: :: :: :::::: : ::> " 77:
: ::: : : : `>
:: : :>
155
: .
:: :> : :: `
:::: > 232
..... ..
<
::; :: : :: :: :: :::::::;:::::::
::
309
: > ::::: >:i<: � ::�> ;.
< :
« . 38.:7.;:
.
:.......;.:.
Y EMPLOYEE S
: : >».> : :::.:;:;.;
::< :'2 4'
:
:: :couNT
5
619 ..
>::.:.: .:.:.
::;
:.:.:.:.:. .
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
:: :;;::: >:;::;:::.:::: <.::.:
;::.::;. >:;:::; >::. :;:> >:<
....
7
9......
13.0 :: <; :: >: >:
>:< :::: ......: :
a..b...2..
TAX BASE 1000
:.:::.:.:;;.:::::
: 271...... :
550
:.. >:.83$1.4..::
113388 >......
>> >143820;<
COUNTY Y B
NT UD GET ()
....
: >::::: >:32 4
TAX BASE 1000
( )
<<<:1`75;..
3 ..:
1 .4...
20735 6
Revenues
: : :2 » `..
77.834.
565 92 1
':: ::: ::::::8 46 , � -
0.
.....::': " ............. .....
1174266 : >:::� :::I495287:
Expenditures
>::268.Q ' ':
10..
5515 5
6
.: .. ::::::::...... ::;::;.::;: >::::
..... 851340:..
::; ::; :::::; :;.:::::.:;.::.::;.
1168038 :: >; :
;:.: ::::; :;.::::::
1Sfi1�389:
BALANCE ALAN E
................ :> :9829::;
:> :;:: ::: :<: : :; ::.. : .................
14356
.................................................. :.<:'`. .
......................1.326 ...
6227:::: > <' :: ».
:. :..1 U3
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET ( )
::..`=
222 1
708
>> >> ` `:.'`..: `:.`:<
7
:.::.::« 2 >:: ::::;. >;9:::
303 1911 > >*
:: > .... ;; ; <:.:<.; »
:.:;:..;346485:;
Revenues us
................................... ....
:`>.3:>
:;: >:::::::: 7.:..:
778898
< >:< <:: > >: >::. >:::. >:: >:>
:::.:::.::.:.::2Q22;..
: ;:.::;.>:.::.>::::::::.::.::
1649457 < > ><:<::<:::<
.:<:;:::.;:<::::. :- ::::::: : ::::
x2:1.64
Expenditures ures
XP
.. .7M73..
778898
;::::;::::: >::::::: <:::::;
.:;. >:.:12Q222 ..:
1649457 :: >:::::: >::
121(114 .
BALANCE
................ ` < '`A <
0
: : : : > : : : ::::: <: ::: ::::< :.,:, ::
3145 033
:::;;:;:;:;'.: ": `'<
COMBINED BUDGETS ET S ()
::::::::4895232:::
Exp
Expenditures
:::.;:.:::<
:::.....
>:::>2:61 ?69:
315
4 033
Revenues n s
.:.::::.::.
13 8
:.:::06834..
......... ...............................
2823723
:6190J>
Expenditures
::;:::: :... 46483..
133 0462
= ><: »:<:: : :. >;>
..2.053 .
::56.:.
2817496 ><: >;::
::3624Q:
B ALANCE
...............
; :::::::::::> ::< : :'<:«9829<
:..; ::.. :...:...
5
143 6
............
':: ..............
......:.:: <: >:> ::1
.....:...... :....... .. ,.....
6227: :
<: ::.1 `'
7.....3..
YEAR
::> >_:::::::: >::: �: �`` a.. -
<. gyp. ..
2002
: ::: � - ;- 0 ;.
...:Q3.:.
.:::: :::::.::.. : :.::.._:..::::::.:.:
20 04.:::::::::::':::'::'i :'- 5:
HOUSING UNITS
::::...1..62 .
: > :0 .
1239
: >,;:: >::::::.
14 6..
1593
» <> 17:70>
POPULATION N
: : :
: <::::;:::;::::::::;:;
: ::
> $$
3136
} > >: :::: :':...... >:<:,::::: -:; .
:.::.::3..:84..
403 2 : ::
:.;::* * ...:.: >::.::.:::;.: ;: :;;.;;:.;:::. >:.::..
:::: < :: :; : ; 448Q :
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary
*::::21'
269
< > >: > >;: >::::
;:...... .
346
> >: > >> :; :::::::
- .::.::.;;385::
Middle dle
..................
>::::::;:::;:: >:::;
::::::::: : `<108
126
:" °<" >"':' ':> :':: >':> :' ` 1.
. >::.: :; :::.::: .. ..:.............:.......:......
.... .............
161 .::::::::::::.::::..... ::::: :1..7..9:.
High h Schoo 1
g
>:::<:::::::::
>;;::: : < :1Z6 :
147
:::: <:: >: <:> :` :: = ..... > -:
... ......................:.16.7...
188'::::
>:: <:::::':::::: 2
Q9:..
TOTAL AL
:: :::::::::> :: >:;:.:;.;
;:: :::.:�;:;::.:
:.;
>:;:::::> ::::46::
4..
5
619 ..
.....
:.:::.:
696 ;
.................:::.:.::::.::.
...............................
<;�:�: <<::: >:: <: > <:::.>
:773 :.
COUNTY Y
NT EMPLOYEES
:::;:::::: >; >::;:::<::
....
1
:..::::.:::.:: ::: ::::::19,2.:.
1.
24.Q..
SCHOOL LE EMPLOYEES LOYEES
4..
22.7
::; :< >«:: >`': >:::<
..:.:25.9.:.
29.2 ::::::::>
....
: >::::: >:32 4
TAX BASE 1000
( )
<<<:1`75;..
3 ..:
1 .4...
20735 6
: < :::< :_�4.QS 13 :
27463 :::
1 ...::::
>: >:::3t1�73::
COUNTY BUDGET ()
Revenues
>:::: >::: >:;: :::<�:�'
18250 6 ?..
21 3
7 019
:`:::::: >: >::::::;:> : >;: >;:;: >:
:; >::.::.: 3. ::56....
290 1157 >
> > >> <'.` :`` < ` } .
;:;;;�:.....5 9:.
Expenditures itures
xp
:.::: >:::::::
::: >::::: <`
": '':1855 > .
ao..
222 1
708
>> >> ` `:.'`..: `:.`:<
7
:.::.::« 2 >:: ::::;. >;9:::
303 1911 > >*
:: > .... ;; ; <:.:<.; »
:.:;:..;346485:;
BALANCE E
<::2: ;083::
7...........
— 540
::::::885.10..
— 130754<:::«::
-1 &124::
SCHOOL L DIS TRICT BUDGET( ()
::
Revenues e
::::::. >2619:.6
7 9..
3145 033
:::;;:;:;:;'.: ": `'<
2 144 :<:
::::::::4895232:::
Exp
Expenditures
:::.;:.:::<
:::.....
>:::>2:61 ?69:
315
4 033
::.:: .. :. >:«:::::: >: >::::
.:.:::..3.G559:..
42815 ::
44 .: >::«>
::....:.::.....................
:895232::.
B ALANCE
.::....: : ...:......::.:
:::::.:::.::.:.:
>.:: : ::
0..
.::.:.::.;:.
::::
0 : >:
::.:.:::::.:.::.::.::..::::....
::::..:.:..:.:.:::::::.::..:.::
::.0:
COMBINED D
NE BUDGETS GETS ()
Revenues
;:::; >::::::::::
::47837
53 1805 3
... .-: « ::::: < 6229:128:::::
71827 02 ::::::
>:: »': »:::: ::8�:8Q47I:?
Expenditures res
:::::::::::
' `?.Q::
'::>44749
53721
:::::::...:.::::531.7638.;.
7313456 < >
>>:<:<::: >83617�:7
BALANCE
:::: >::<:::....::
:: >:27083<:
— 5 4088
':: »:'' >:;< <: >:;;:
... :.:: :8.8510. :.
1.
— 130754 :;::::<::::;
>-� 1:SI2
SECTION 7 — SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
YEAR
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
S CHOOL CHILDREN
...... ...............................
....... ...............................
...... ...............................
....... ...............................
.... .......I.......................
....... ...............................
..... ...............................
....... ...............................
1232
........ ...............................
........ ...............................
.......... ...........................I...
......... ...............................
1290
Element
<38 >
77 :: >::::::<.::.::<
:.:::: : >115:
154:::: :::::::
»:::: »::::'1:92:::
Middle
:.:.:: ::::. >::.:::.: , : **" :: *" *' *......:. >:
<::::: >::::::::::,. : : :. < :.... ;::::::10:8
:.: ;:;:<.::::.::.::: >; >: >:.::
126 > : > > :
<: ::> ' :::<
143.
::.:.::.:....:......:......:.:.
7 ::
: 4
i
High School
g
<::::21
4 2 *: < >: >:;:::::
<*> ::::: :` `.63::
84 ::....:::
::::::::::;::;:::.::::::.105:::
0
TOTAL
.............................. .
155 <:<: > --
3
309 < <` < >::::::>
> >>:` ` '
YEAR
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
SCHOOL CHILDREN
.... 7 >
Middle
1232
Middle
1290
Elementary
m nta ry
:::;:::::::23`1:":
2 69 :::« <.:..::...<
: :......::: 3:08:>
346 ::> ::::::::> :::::
>:::: > >::::::::385 :
Middle
id
:.:.:: ::::. >::.:::.: , : **" :: *" *' *......:. >:
<::::: >::::::::::,. : : :. < :.... ;::::::10:8
:.: ;:;:<.::::.::.::: >; >: >:.::
126 > : > > :
<: ::> ' :::<
143.
161 ::s ......
= ::: }: :
9
. 7.. .
i
High School
g
> 12 :
14 7 :: > ::>
> < < > :... '
188 :: ::::::::
...X09:
To
»:.... > :.:.....:::::::.....5�9
5
; ::
57 4.,
696 :« >::::>
<<`: » > }> ` >'
SCHOOL CAPACITIES - ALL SCHOOLS
1996
CURRENT ENROLLMENT -ALL SCHOOLS
1998
::::: E e erit .:«: :: <:::......» ............
< >>::... > :...... 38:::...
lemen a > > :: :::: <> :::: >:< ::::::::.
.... 7 >
Middle
1232
Middle
1290
. . . : : . : :
: . : : c "o
..
. < : : : >
5 1. :
< I
::
h
> : ::: :
S:
F
::: : -: : : ::: : : :
'
:
.:::
...:
:3
1>
TOTAL
5588
TOTAL
5562
YEAR
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
PROJECTED E O E
NR LLM NT
..................
...... ......................
....... ...............................
I ....... I
.......... ...............................
......... ...............................
Elementa ry
:<: ::::. 8os::::
2844 ::::::
< > < = :::::2882.::
2921 :* ... ::> :::
::: :: :2959:::
Middle :> ::<: >::
.......
......
>:: >::: ......11 :
...............................
...............................
1 26 ..
3 ..................1344.:
....... ...............................
: ............
.........................
1362 »< >
.......... ...............................
... ...............................
>:'< 1380..
.......
......
.......
High School
g
...............................
...............................
...........I...................
: .. :26
...... ...............................
....... ...............................
......
1547 <>
.........................
: ..................... .
> 1568>
.. ...............................
.......... ...............................
.......... ...............................
1 589 :::<> >
>: `::
: ::1.....1....
TOT AL ::::::: ::
»:.... > :.:.....:::::::.....5�9
5717 : >� >'::'.
; ::
57 4.,
5871 ;
...... ..:.............:......59......
: >` » 1. »:;.`' .
YEAR
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
...... ..................I............
....... ...............................
PROJE CTED ENROLLMENT
..................
...... ......................
....... ...............................
I ....... I
.......... ...............................
......... ...............................
Elementary
meat >.....
-
3036 ::::+::<
. ::::::
...::.::375::
3113 :
::'< «:<: «:
:.:::: ;.
Middle
>:> 9 :>
13 S .
1416 ::: >:: >
> >:: {` >133<
1 51 :<:`:>:;`:>
4
'`
.......1.4.69.
High School
g ho 1 ::.....1...1..
1652 +::::: >`:::>
" *" " ". *':.i6 + ::
1.6..2..
3 _''
169
:= : >::.:714>
TOTAL '(Q2
6103 ' :: <' :::::<::::
::..: : :::::::.:::::..::,61:3.::.
<::::::::; >:.
6258 : } >:> > :::`
:..:::: > .' ., >.. .
6335..,
SECTION 8 - PROJECTED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES NEEDED
YEAR
>199 ><
1997 > >'
>_:;< `: >`:<` "' >.
...199.:
1999 >:;::
.. :,.......... : :... :
.................. .
>: >::<: >: >:::: :>
GENERAL GOV ..::::::C?..48::
096 < :: >
...1 -: ":>
:•.•: : ::h44..
1.92 >�::>
��> : :::::::2:44::
Commissioners ners
: :::::0`01::::
..0.0.4...
0.06;:::
»<;<'
0.0.7.
Elections
<:::002>
0.03 > :::::-:
::: '' >
...0.0.5..
0.06 >< »<
}> << < :Q.08 .
Manager
g
..................
: :<::<;:::: >:;:; >::::
::: : :......:.....::........ .03..
>:....::::<:....::::......:>
0.07
::::::::::::::::
« :> 010
:::::<::::::::
..................................
0.14.:.;.::...:>.:.>
............:...:.:::.::.:::...
:::: >:::::::< >:: >:::t:::::::; <: :>
>= >:: >:<::::::
::.::.: > :.:...........::0.,17.:
Personnel
:.....:::::: > a:a3
0.06 :::
::: < ``:, <
0.o .'
..:.:.:::.::;:
0.12 : ::
<:: >:::::; ::::::::::::::::::::::.
' >> : 015:
d
Budget
Bu et
<:00 1.
0.03 .....
... :0.04
0.05 > >
>< >< ` "«<
0.07..
Finance
:......::::::::::
::::> ::::::: >:: >: >::;:: >:0
::::::.........::...........
0.0 .................................
4 ::;::::::;
>:::: >::0:0 :
.:.::::.<�::.
0.09 >: <
.....................
> : > > > : : 1.
::<.::. I - -
Purchasing asm
g
>' :OOI
0.03 : :: :::::::::
'::` `:::;``
. 0.04..
... ...............................
I.
.. ::.:;:.0•,07.
Data Processing
g
:: ::; :::::::::....::::::::::::: >:
:::::::: :::: :::::: >::> :..0: .
<>
0.07.
0.10
= ...:::
.::::::0.,x2.:
Central Services
: .....:::.::..........:
> : <:::0`0
: <:::::::<: <::::::::..:.
::..:::..::.::::::.::.:
::..0..,04..
.:::.:.
0.05 >
..::.::::::...:..:•..:.......:.
; > .. > : :::::::0:07::
Register ester of Deeds
g
`00
0.13 <<< :
< >:... ` :-
:.:..:: 0.�.�. :.
....., :0.32..
Tax Assessor
::;:::;:; ::::::;:: >;:::: >:
O 1
:::.,0.24.. :.
.....................
:<::: <:::::::::;
0.31 ::::> >:::
:;:::<:: >«::::<::..:::;.:....
: =:> <: < :::: 0 39
Land Records
0 0.<::
:: :: - -- : ::......... 3..
<:: >:: >:::; :>:::::<:
0.06 < �> <
;:::<: >::;;:::::: >:::<::::<::::
:: > 0 09>
< ::>
: ;:: >:<: >
0.12 .:.:::::::::..::.::::::
:: � : :::: ::::..................................
::: ::: *...:: > ::::::: <:::: -15%
::: O,IS.:
Tax Collector
:....,- ::::0:.03::::
. 5 <>
0 0
....................... :
8.:
0.10
«> < > >
Planning &Inspections
g
::0:10:..:
:::::: ::::::::::::: :.
2 ................0
30..
0.40 :::>
: : > O SQ :
PUBLIC SAFETY
:Q_6Q:
1.21
1$1>
2.4 : ::
2 ...
<> < <; .... .::
Sheriff
:<: >:::;: ;:: >:: >::::: :::: <0 39 >:
0
J 8
1 :. :::
1 7 ..........
.5
.
Domestic Violence
:.:: ::::: ::;:: : :: :::
:::: :: :: ::::::: >:0:00
1 ...
> :....0. 1..
::.::::::::
0.02 > :::
: >::: ;:: : :::::::::::.:::::::.:.::::
:: ::> ::: > OAO2
Emergency Services ervices
g cY
:: . : : : ::: : :. : :: . : ..:. : :: ..: .....21..
0.
0.62..
: . :: ::: : : ; . : :: ::: . :: . : :: . > :: . :.. . ...... . ... . :: . . . :: . :
83 ............ > >1Q3:
PUBLIC woRxs
:::::. ::::: :::::
::: >:::::::::::::: >::::: ...: z...
0.44 >` ::
:: :::
0.87. <
....: >:' ::.::::::
Buildings & Grounds
? :<01:
:..::.
0 2 ::
. 4 ...> > >
*....::.:;•::::•: :::.:.: ;;•:•::.:
>> ; >> > 0 37>
0.49 {<
:: Q 61.
Motor Pool
>:.::.:::.::.;::.::.::;.:
002>
0.04 > ::
::: _.`' <`<:
:.:.::O.Q7..:
0.09 :::....
`: `..
:::::p,1 �..:
Sanitation
..................
::::::::::; :::: : > :: ::. : ::::
.1
fl.22..
.::.: > :::::::.:::::::.::.:
0.
- .::. ::.::.:::: •:::::; ..;
HUMAN SERVICES I S
::::::::
:::::::::::.,.:.,..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.,4::: :: ::::::
,1U..
2
3 ,. 31.
4 :::
4. 1
::::::: >:::::: :: ::
Soil & Water.
>> 00 '>
0
Economic Development
.....:..........
:...:::.: :::. .
:..:::.::;...::: ::0 <`:
:::::ox ...
0.03 :::::::::::::
.. ::
::.::o.oa:..
0.05< <
><' > > >` ::>
.. :•.:.x.07..
Social Services
..................
: < 0<4g <:
0.95 > * * :: ::::
* > :4
:: :;.: Z.:::.::.
190
: .......................................
:::: :.2.3$:
Health al h
:::<:::.::::::: :
....................................
.::..:::...:. . :03
::•: :: :•::.::: < ..:...................
.:::: ::.:.::.::::::::::.::...�..:...
1.26 :;::::......?...•`:
<: <: >:'> >`. `':..
Agricultural ultural Extens'
g ion
............
<< :::70
<:: =: : > :.......... 4...
.. .............
0.08 ; ; ::
..................
>:< ; > ::< 01 .:.
::.: ..::..:...:::::::::
0.1 ::: =
7 :.:::::.::
> ::::. ::::::
» =;; :::::: >::::: ::::::::
:•:::::..:... :::::: ::::.,Q.21::
Recreation & Parks ks
::.:::;.::.:::.:: <:.::.: <.::;. ::..
:.O *. .'
::.:O Q.:.:.
0.10
< >
.:::.:0.?.5.:.
0.20 =
» ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.^.,.:: : >:;.; ::
...::::.. .2G:
A in
Aging
g
.:::....:•::::.:::
:::::::::.0:05:.:
0.09 >::
: :::: :.: »..
......0..14...
0.18 > <
: :. :: ` :``>
.: ::: 0.2 :.
CAT
:... 0S <::
0.10 >>
>< %> <. ` >...`>
.. »:•::::�. �,.�.::
0.20 > :>
> ..............` .. « >:.:; :;: .
..:;;:.::Q,24:.
Commission for Women
::...............
: :; ::::.: : ::..... >:flQ1>
...............0 Q4..
5 ..
: < : ' O O:F
Library
�Y
::::::::::::::<::
>::::::: >::::: >:::> :
.::.::::: . >:::.:::. : ::.:.:.:::.....:.::.
::.:::::::: : .::::::.:.::.:...�
..:::.:._::::.
" ".'.:..:::.:0. 0:
Child Support ort
pp
>::::•::•:::•::;:
::»> :: > :: >;::::::; .... :.. :. fl 04.:
0.09 ::: <
> > <::< ::
.:..::�.1 ,..
0.1 :<
7
..:..::.::.:. :::.:::.::.::. > : ::.::..:..: >:.:
::: >::::::: > :::::.:::::
:: ::::;Q 22:
EDUCATION ATION
:::;:::: >:::::
::: :::::
: >:::::::::;::::
6.
12.
.fir•,
Teachers ea hers
:::: :::::: : :: : >:::: >:: <17>
::::: > :......:....................
.33 ;:: ><
.0
12. :. :........................15.83.
Element School
>t :
3.21 . >. >..'
<<<:: "` >
:..:::�..s -:..
6.41 > ><::>
.........
> < >.;:< >:::;
::.::.0 o2:
Middle dle Sc hoo 1
................. ....::::.O... b9
13
. 8 . :
> < » <> '2A?
2.76 ....
' »: < :: : :::`:
High School
g
>::::: »:: <:::: >:<: ::: :0$ . ..
:• :::.....:::::.::.:.... •..
....:.......:..
1.7 4
> ............... > 6 ....
3.49
> > :: < : >` ... <:
Other hr
?:: >::::::: >:: >:::; >: ::::: >:
;: >: :::;::::;:; >:: >:. < :0 � 8-:
0 ..
.1
0.23..
:::.;:.::.:;
0.30 < =I=
:. :... : ..:::.:::::... <.::...:::.;:;..
::0:38:
SECTION 8 - PROJECTED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES NEEDED (CONTINUED)
YEAR
>: >:200
_Z...
2002 :::..:..:<:<
>2003
.........
2004 ;:: > ><::
.
>.:::, .:.. 2005
GE E
N RAL GO VERNMENT
>:.....
2.8$
3.35
;<
.......�.$ ,:
4.31 > :
>: >4 79
::.:::..:..:.:::.:;:
............. : ::
Commissioners :::.....:::::::::.::; <:;:;:
> :0.08..
0
0.11..
:::::::::;;::;.::;<:.:
0.13 : <
;:.;:::::.:.;:.::::
<:: <: ::::01:4`
Elections c ns
..: < >0
:: :.......::.
0.11 < > > %':
< :> << ., .< }
::..::0.12.:.
:::::::...::.::.::.:
0.14 : >:<: >:: >::::::::::::::
;:.::;.;.;:.;:.; .:.:.:::.:.
: :: ::::0:1.. -
Manager er >::::> <:::; <::> :>
g ....I ..............I...
0< ``
.21.
............ ..
0
. 8..
........................
0.31 > <> >
.
............ .
0:35::
Personnel 1
18
0
:.,::: :0..4tk ::
0.27 � � >]�
<: : 0�0.
g ::.::;:;::;;;:::.:;:::
Budget
: :::0:08
0.09 >> _:
: : ::: :j:..
.10..
.;:.:.:.::;..::..:.::
0.12 .........
;;:;:::..::;.:..
..
: >::<: <::: ::
.. >:.::.:a.1.3...
::::: .
Finance a
:... fl 13
....... ...
0.15 > ><
::::<::: <::
:...::..:�..
;:.; ::... ..::............:....
....:. ...............................
0.20 » > s:>
>:. >::..;; .;:.:: :
» >0�22
Purchasing ..................
ur
P chasm
.08.:
0
.10..
......
0 .12 � >��
x;::«:0:13::
Data Processing essin
$
JS..
...:.:.:::.
7
.... `Q20:`
0.22 >`<< > >
>' '<;:. _ <: :<.
..:.::: x}:24.
.::..::...:..:::::::..:
Central Services >< <>
< ......08..
0.09 ..................
:: : >:: >::> : >: :: ` : ::
:.:::0.10..:
:...:::...... :.....:..:..•.::::....::.:
:: >::: :: :: :; :: :; :; ::
0.12 :::::. ;:. »; ::.::.::.::.:.::.::•:::O:.
- "...
: : :: :::;:: :<: >::: :; : :
.
.:. >:;.: ; >::.:.;;:;:.::
e'
Register
R ester o f Deeds
0
.......:...: a::.
....::::;:> :::> ::::::::::<:;::
. ...............................
0.58 :: > :
>:::::::: >:::: >:
: >'{ Q:64
Tax Assessor :: ::::: > :: :: ::....*.. ": >:: >:
>fJ47
0.55 ::
:: :'': � �':
O.b3..
0.71 >-
:: ::::;0 ?g
::::::....:....: <:: <: ::::::.
Land Records : ::
. . . "`
.18..
0 .21 >
.24...:.:..:.:;.......:.:
>« <0
: .....::........ :
Tax Collector ::: < :.....:...............:.
::: 6
018 . :>
. ...................Q.2
<*: : :> > > ..
.. ...............................
0.24 < . <
.
: ; <0. . 26
.:...:.:.:..::..:.::
Planning Inspections
g
b`6 `:<
. 0..
...:::::0.$Q::
:.....:::......:.:::.
0.90 ....:.:: >: <, : >:::. : :.............1;00.:
::.:::....::.::.::.:.;:: :;;:.;:
::
PUBLIC SAFETY
> >362
4.23
>`> :::: »:: >;:
:..4_$ :.:.
5.44 :> :::::
< :.6 0
.................
............... : : : :.:::;
Sheriff f ..............:.:
» :;;> :::: : :a : :::
:: :::: 36>
2.75 .. < »<
%.'.. `< :' >`'
..1� ..
:::::....... ...............:::::;:........
.........................
3.54 > >` :
s .:.:::3,93::
Domestic Violence
< 0 0..
0
.0.03..
q.
...::::.0..0:.
Services ...........................................................
Emergency :: .. :: >: > ::> :: ::::
S ::::::: ::..::...:.........::
: >I 4
:.,:. :....
1.45 < <
> > >:.. ...:� `:; ..
, 5..:
1.86 ::::::::: - <:
..... ':
2.Q7
PUBLIC WORKS ;.; >:.;:;.: ;:;.: ;::: :
>< 31
1.52 :>:
< >> >:
1.96 <' :> > <
> . ` `` .'
..........::.
:: : :: :;:::::::: : :: :: :; : :>
Buildings ui s & Grounds r ands :.;:.:::.::::.:.::..::
g :;.::•:: :. :...:..:.::;...................
<`p`:>
.73...
0.85 ..
:.::..:::::::::::
. > « :'''
::.:0.98.:
:.:.:::.::. ..:;.::.,::.:::::.
::.. : :....:...............:
1.10 >
:: :;::::. ..:.: .
< < 122
....;:.::.: ;::.;::<:.:
Motor Pool 1
::;;:::.::
» ::::::
0.1
::....::::;::........::.:.::.::
0.20 :
:<<' >'`:: >':<:
<::; <.::;: ;:::; ::: >::
Sanitation anrtation ::...... .......::.::...................
::0 ''
44
:..::.::.::::.:::.:::::0.59.:
0.67
`Q 4
................
:: ; :: < :: : ::: :: > : :: > :: : < ::
HUMAN SERVICES ::
"" " "::.fi.62 <
7.72 :;:.: ?•:: ::.: } ::,
. :- ..:::..: ; .: '::.5...:<::
:::..::::: :.:
9.93 ' <? >`<
>.'.'::>::::_:.:.:<:.
...: •::? . ...
:.:.:...:.... : : :.
»::::::: ::;:: .- :::: ::
Soil & Water ::::: >::::: > ::: >.:::::::
::::0:10:::
0.12 :> :
:... :..::.::::::...................
;. >:
......0.1.4..
>::.::.: >::::.::;:;.::•:;:.;:<•:;.::.:
0 .16
>::.::.:;
................... .
'Q17
Economic i Development ment
p
: :.0 .
0.09 : >< >> <
.<A.
0
..:.::.:....�Q:..
0.12:..::::
3
....::.: o z�.:
..................
:::: : »;: :: > :: »> :: ::> ::
Social Services rvices ......... :.....: .:.:<28
....:>:: ::::: » : :: : ::...................
3
:..: ::::......3.80.:.
::::::> ::: :::::::;: >::;>
4.28
:::;::: : ::.:; ::;.:.:: >:.:::
> 4 75
Health ...................... : :: : : >:: >::
}3 88:
2.20 <» > >
>> >« >:> :<
::.....:.::..:
2.82 > >:» <`
>.:``.` '`` .:
:._:::.. 4.
: ::: :: ::::: :: :: ::: :: ::;;
:. : ..:.....::::::.:
g ::....:::::.:...::::
Agricultural tural E xtension
>':Q'
.4
0.0
.13..
0.17 < >
>< ?``::<
..21..
ec
R read on & Parks
<: < >> >fl 31
0.36 .: <. >
< . ``
:.:0.41.:.
0
:.::: UPS 1.:
..:.:...::....:.:.::.
Aging . : ..::.:.:.:::.::...
:fl8
0.32 ....
.: `'?`:«>
0.37..
0.42 << > ><::::::
..
>:::: ` "
.46:
CAT
: 29..
0.34 > < <
:: :: :`
04
. 4 :<
Commission for Women
0.08 ::::::..
>.:.::...: .'
.0..10..
..... .:.::.:. . : ....::::::.:.:...............
0.11 ; > ::=
..........
>:::<:: >:'::>
Q:12..
Library :............:::. :
>:<:: > ::: >::::::: >:
<` 0'
.24..
0 .28 >< >
> < < ><<<' ` ::
........... 4 .:.
......... ...............................
0.36 < >; ><>
> > >`: '
:;.; >: Q 40:
Child Support of
PP r
0<: `'`
.26.
0.31 > < <<
.-. ....
::.:0.3.5.:.
0.39 > >< >::
:: :: ,::> <:
:.::::: U,44:.
EDUCATION ATIO I ..... I .......
N
:_:.:.:::.:5
9..4 ..
22.6 9 >::::
;::.; ;::::;::::..
:::::: >:: ::::25;9:::
9
:::::: X2,41:.
Teachers ...................................... :::::::::
::
.99 ..
22
.......2....32,:
2 .49 :: : >
. . ..........
:::::::3:1:65:::
>: »:::::;:.:.::::; :::
1
E eme nta School 1
::.:' 2<
1 1.22 < > »
:: :. >::-
:.:.::1..:....::...
4 4
.::.:: x:6.03.:
Middle d le S shoo 1 :
: - :. ::::4:14
8
6.21 -> < :
: <; .f.. 90
High School :: »::: < :::.::> ::.: >: <::::
g :: »:: >;::; :: >::: >: >::>
>:5r2;3 <
6.10
> : } >`
..........6,98 ..
7.85 > > ><
el
$r
::::::;:.;:<;:.:::;:...
Other ........:.... : :.:::::
:: : >:::::: »:: >:<::::: »::
< 0 46 :
0.53 ` ".':
::'
......0.61..
::::.:..:: :..::::........:...
.:::::::::::: ::::..::::.
0.68 .........,............+.............,..................,
:.. : „ ::.....
:::.:...:::...:...::
07b
Non - Residential Impacts
The Rural Character design proposes a village core area of internally- oriented shops, services and offices.
The size of the proposed non - residential area is 52,000 square feet - the same size as the village center
at Fearrington Village.
The fiscal impact on the County for non - residential is calculated using the Proportional Value system used
by the students (Appendix H of the students' report). This approach determines the average costs of
providing County services to non - residential development, and then applies them to the proposed
development. It then figures the average annual revenue from non - residential development. This method
is limited, because it figures annual capital costs as an average and does not project larger short -term costs
such as new government buildings.
This project uses property values of similar projects in Chapel Hill, as done with the neo- traditional
alternative's village core. To project revenues from sales, national averages of sales per square foot are
used. The project is anticipated to have 35,000 square feet of "retail' type uses, and 17,000 square feet of
office use. The table below lists the results of this assessment:
........................................::.::..::.. ::::::::::::.
.........
::::::.:::.....:
:.
eta:�� ::................................................
.:::.:.....::: <::::::;
::::::: > >:::..
Offices .. .:::::::..::::.:.:::::::::::::.
.......;:. .:.;;Sq:.:.:.;:.:: ;.;:;.:. %;.:::::: :;:::;.;:.:;: <:.::::<:::::; >:::<:::::.:;:...... :: >:.; <::::
>:<:::: ;<= ::::: >:<:<:
35,000
17,000
,ev nue...er .................................... :F::>'< >` > > > > > »;<
Sq?' �:>:° t::; :;<: >: >::;::;
?><> < >>
:: » »:::::: >; > <::
$ 3.06
$ 1.53
l
ae >: : .........................
_
$107,100
$26,010
As can be seen in the above table, the non - residential village core generates positive revenue for the
County, with a total of $133,110.