Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting 111695ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 d 4f rY f�a MEMORANDUM NOV 13 TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III SUBJ: November 16 Meeting of Planning Group DATE: November 9, 1995 Enclosed are the agenda materials for the November meeting of the Planning Group. In keeping with discussion at our last meeting, we are proposing to take up the main order -of- business first to be sure of ample time for discussion; and then deal with minutes, announcements, and other matters that often take longer than anticipated. Our priority item for this meeting is receiving the report of the Preliminary Design Subcommittee and reviewing the concept ( "straw ") plan prepared by them. The subcommittee met three times following our last meeting to fulfill their charge. Revised reports from the Vision and Value subcommittees are also enclosed. The Value Subcommittee was able to make required____ minor changes following adjournment on October 19, but the Vision Subcommittee found it necessary to meet again to discuss revisions. I have also received County Attorney comments on the Value Report which are attached along with some pertinent articles on property rights. As a basis for comparison, I have enclosed copies of both subcommittee reports from October 19. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call me at extension 2589 at the appropriate number: 967 -9251 (Chapel Hill) , 732 -8181 (Hillsborough) , and 688 -7331 (Durham); or I can be reached by FAX at 644 -3002. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 it t: a AGENDA Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 10 Thursday, November 16, 1995 at 7:30 PM TIME AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER - Verla Insko, Facilitator 7:31 2. REPORT OF THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN SUBCOMMITTEE AND PRESENTATION OF CONCEPT PLAN - Gene Bell and Preliminary Design Subcommittee Members 9:00 3. REVISED VISION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND GROUP DISCUSSION - Gene Bell and Vision Subcommittee Members 9:15 4. REVISED VALUE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND GROUP DISCUSSION - Gene Bell and Value Subcommittee Members 9:30 S. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from October 19, 1995 Meeting 9:35 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS, GROUP COMMENTS, UPCOMING MEETINGS* 9:50 7. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING (DECEMBER 14, 1995) 10:00 8. ADJOURNMENT * The FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL is scheduled for public hearing on November 27, 1995. Prior to the hearing, public information meetings will be held on November 16, 20, and 21 at locations in southern, northern, and central Orange County. Informational handouts will be available at our planning group meeting. STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLAN PRELIMINARY DESIGN SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Prepared for the November 16, 1995 Meeting of the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group Subcommittee Members Bill Bracey Clint Burklin Renee Price Steve Price Michael Warner Planning Staff Gene Bell, Planner III Meeting Dates October 25, 1995 November 1, 1995 November 9, 1995 STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN PRELIMINARY DESIGN SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT On September 14, 1995, the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group appointed three Value /Property Rights, and Preliminary to the Planning Group on October Value /Property Rights Subcommittees Subcommittee was assigned the task of use plan for the group to consider on Background subcommittees, Vision, Design. Following reports 19 by the Vision and the Preliminary Design preparing a conceptual land November 16. The Preliminary Design Subcommittee met three times following October 19. The first meeting on October 25 was to define objectives /guidelines and determine map and data needs. At the second meeting on November 1, the subcommittee began the task of defining areas on a map. On November 9, a third meeting was held to refine the map and review a first draft of this report. Our objective was to create a vision of orderly land use compatible with the statement of the Vision Subcommittee. We realize the ultimate achievability of this land use vision is based on finding an acceptable means to implement this within the Value /Property Rights Subcommittee guidelines. Guidelines The goals in the draft Vision Statement served as the stating point for defining guidelines and additional areas for focus were drawn from previous work, primarily the Rural Character design prepared in May. The subcommittee based its assumptions on the realization that the vision statement was still evolving. The draft vision statement was the source for the following numbered statements and the bulleted (•) items in italics came primarily from the Rural Character design alternative. 1. Encourage preservation of rural landscapes including as much forested and agricultural land - and active farming - as economically feasible for the landowner. • Provide density transition around active farms (Strayhorn) 2. Encourage preservation of significant cultural and historical features. • As identified in inventories 1 3. Protection of natural terrain features and sensitive ecological areas. • Duke Forest • Wildlife corridors along Stoney Creek • Identified natural areas in inventories 4. Protection of area's visual resources. • Vistas along New Hope Church Road and Strayhorn Farm • Vistas along Old NC 10 and former Guernsdale Dairy 5. Protection of character of existing neighborhoods from incompatible land uses /densities and direction of growth not rural in character toward municipal /transition areas. Provide density transition between existing neighborhoods and areas where future development may occur Density should be generally higher in areas to north and west near Hillsborough, lower to south and east near Rural Buffer No new commercial development in the planning area In applying the guidelines to the planning area, we identified resource areas and then in order to protect those resources, we developed three land use intensity categories. Resource Areas Duke Forest: Primary area on which to focus preservation efforts. Serves as major area for outdoor recreation, filters water flowing into Stoney Creek, and provides habitat for wildlife. Dense development adjacent to forest degrades it and increases predation on wildlife by house pets. Our strategy is to locate the lowest intensity uses practicable adjacent to Duke Forest. Wildlife Corridor: Defined in the 1988 Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina prepared by Dawson Sather and Stephen Hall for the Triangle Land Conservancy. The corridor lies 100 meters (328 feet) on each side of Stoney Creek and connects Duke Forest and the Eno River. The subcommittee assigned a secondary level of preservation to the corridor. Wherever practicable, we recommend low intensity uses adjacent to the corridor, although there are some areas proposed for intermediate and higher intensity adjacent to the corridor. New Hope Presbyterian Church: A portion of the land on which New Hope Presbyterian Church and cemetery is located extends into the planning area immediately south of the NC 86 /New Hope Church Road intersection. This is part of a much larger series of contiguous tracts comprising almost 200 acres and containing Camp New Hope. 2 The subcommittee recognizes the historical and cultural significance of these properties and to the maximum extent practicable, recommends low intensity uses adjacent thereto. Proposed Scenic Road Corridors: Two sections of road in the planning area are proposed for scenic corridors. These include all of New Hope Church Road in the study area and Old NC 10 from its intersection with University Station Road west to the railroad overpass in the vicinity of Strayhorn Hills. The winding nature of the roads, vistas of existing and former farmland, and repeated transitions of forest -to -open (especially along New Hope Church Road) contribute to scenic qualities along the two roads. Existing Farmland: The Strayhorn farm is currently the only active farm in the study area. The subcommittee has chosen not to establish a separate category to set it apart from surrounding properties. They felt one of the best ways to keep the land in farming was by reducing impacts when land adjacent to it developed. The strategy has been to propose the lowest intensity uses practicable adjacent to the farm. For the most part, this is a continuation of existing development patterns on adjacent lands. Existing Neighborhoods: The subcommittee placed a high priority on the character of existing development and proposed that future development be compatible in scale. New adjacent development should, wherever practicable, be of the same density. Where this is not possible, a density transition from lower - intensity to higher- intensity areas should be provided. Land Use Intensitv Cateaories In undeveloped portions of the planning area where residential development might ultimately take place, the subcommittee defined three land use intensity levels: higher, intermediate, and lower. Higher Intensity Areas: Generally synonymous with the 10 and 20 year transition areas in the existing plan or adjacent to areas proposed for future development on an urban scale. Most of these areas lie in the west and northwest parts of the planning area. There is however, one smaller portion situated on the eastern tip of the area adjacent to the I -85 /US 70 EDD. A possible density range for areas classified as higher intensity might be development on lots one -half to one -and one -half acres in size. Intermediate Intensity Areas: Generally lie between higher and lower intensity areas. The largest area of intermediate intensity includes Strayhorn Hills and the area to the east bounded by Old NC 10, University Station Road, and I -85. A second area of intermediate intensity lies on both sides of University Station Road south of Old NC 10. Finally, a third and somewhat smaller area west of NC 86 separates the southwestern corner of Duke Forest C from higher intensity to the west and provides a transition between higher intensity to the north and the Rural Buffer to the south. A possible density range for areas classified as intermediate intensity might be development on lots two -to -three acres in size. Low Intensity Areas: Lie in the central and southern part of the study area adjacent to Duke Forest, the Strayhorn farm, New Hope Church Road, and the Rural Buffer area to the southwest, south, and southeast. A possible density in the low intensity area could be development on lots of four acres and larger. A conceptual map depicting the above - referenced resource and land use intensity categories is being prepared for the November 16 meeting. The suggested densities for the three land use intensity categories are based solely on general discussion at the November 1 and 9 meetings of the Preliminary Design Subcommittee and do not necessarily reflect consensus on the part of that group. 4 DRAFT 2 - PREPARED BY VISION SUBCOMMITTEE ON 11 -7 -95 REPORT OF THE STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN VISION SUB C O EE The process of defining a "vision" is in many ways like trying to define beauty; it is largely in the eye of the beholder. The beginning stages reveal a variety of individual visions, each equally valid, but often in conflict with one another. However, any vision if zealously pursued to the extreme will preclude the possibility for other equally valid visions to be incorporated in the final plan. Therefore, we have defined our collective vision as a result of significant compromise, creativity, flexibility, and fairness with all who will have a hand in shaping the future of the Stoney Creek Basin. Development of a "vision" for the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan has considered the natural, cultural, visual, and economic resources of the area in the context of diverse viewpoints expressed during the planning process. Two key themes have been prominent and seem central to development of the plan. These are, first, that it is important to retain elements of the present rural character for the area and second, that property owners should receive fair value for their land should they choose to sell or develop it in some way. Existing land use patterns in the Stoney Creek area reflect the nature of its rural heritage. Expanses of agricultural (active and inactive) and forest land are interspersed with residential development of varying scales, most of which occurs on lots exceeding one acre in size and served by single wells and septic systems. An expanding municipality on the area's periphery and its location between two interstate highways enhance its attractiveness for development and contribute to pressures for change. The Stoney Creek Small Area Plan should serve to guide future changes in the Stoney Creek Basin area while recognizing its rural heritage, cultural, historical, and natural resources, and the rights of individual property owners. In this regard, the goals of the Orange County Rural Character Study seem particularly relevant in defining the vision for the area. Specifically, they focus on balancing development with agricultural preservation, protection of natural, cultural, and visual resources, and managed growth, while maintaining flexibility for landowners. Elements of the plan should address the following: • Development of mechanisms which will encourage preservation of rural landscapes such as active farms, forests, and visual openness. • Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of significant cultural and historical features and the development of criteria and incentives for encouraging their preservation. • Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of natural terrain features, visual resources, and sensitive ecological areas and the development of criteria and incentives for encouraging their protection. • Recognition of the generations of land stewardship by rural landowners and the protection of their property rights and land values by providing a variety of development options which will allow for flexibility and creativity in design. • Protection of the character of existing neighborhoods from abrupt changes in density or land use by providing density transitions. Also, provision should be made to direct growth that is not rural in character toward more urbanized areas where it can take advantage of existing infrastructure. We recognize and acknowledge that we have a responsibility to balance all aspects of the character of this area including its rural heritage, rights of landowners, and likelihood of future change. The Stoney Creek Basin Land Use Plan should, therefore, seek to preserve important elements of rural character and special natural features, while still allowing for quality expansion and growth of rural and country suburban neighborhoods along with the possibility of some very limited, internally oriented, commercial and service locations that fit in with a preserved rural character. This must all be done without unfair or unreasonable financial restrictions or burdens either for the landowners who may desire to develop their property, or for the taxpaying citizens of the area who may have to pay for any negative effects or excess costs for public infrastructure of ill- planned development. DRAFT 1 OF THE STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN VISION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PRESENTED ON OCTOBER A 1995 ALTERNATIVE VISION STATEMENT Existing land use patterns in the Stoney Creek area reflect the nature of its rural heritage. Expanses of agricultural (active and inactive) and forest land are interspersed with residential development of varying scales, most of which occurs on lots exceeding one acre in size and served by single wells and septic systems. An expanding municipality on the area's periphery and its location between two interstate highways enhance its attractiveness for development and contribute to pressures for change. Development of a "vision" for the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan has considered the natural, cultural, and visual resources of the area in the context of diverse viewpoints expressed during the planning process. Two key themes have been prominent and seem central to development of the plan. These are, first, that it is important to retain elements of the present rural character for the area so far as it is economically feasible for property owners, and second, that property owners should receive fair value for their land should they choose to sell or develop it in some way. Defining a "vision" has in many ways, been like trying to define beauty; it is largely in the eye of the beholder. One person may envision preserving all that is natural and unspoiled in the area leaving little opportunity for future development. Another may view those same natural settings and visualize quiet neighborhoods nestled into the landscape with meandering lanes, parks, trails, small farming patches, and maybe even a country store. Still others may see the beauty of the area in its prime location and accessibility. Contiguous undeveloped tracts could be developed into a village with a wide variety of housing, some commercial and employment opportunities, convenient local services, recreational, and educational facilities. And if designed properly, this village could produce a much healthier tax base for the County as a whole. Each of these visions for the Stoney Creek area is based on reality, plus a sincere desire to "do right" by the residents already here and those yet to come. However, any of the visions, if zealously pursued to the extreme, will preclude the possibility for other equally valid visions to take place. Therefore, we must attempt to define our "vision" as one of compromise, creativity, flexibility, and fairness. The Stoney Creek Small Area Plan should serve to guide future changes in the Stoney Creek Basin area while recognizing its rural heritage, cultural, historical, and natural resources, and the rights of individual property owners. In this regard, the goals of the Orange County Rural Character Study seem particularly relevant in defining the vision for the area. Specifically, they focus on balancing development with agricultural preservation, protection of natural, cultural, and visual resources, and managed growth, while maintaining flexibility for landowners. Elements of the plan should address the following: • Development of mechanisms which will encourage preservation of rural landscapes including as much of forested and agricultural land - and active farming - as economically feasible for the landowner. • Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of significant cultural and historical features and the development of criteria and incentives for encouraging their preservation. • Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of natural terrain features and sensitive ecological areas and the development of criteria and incentives for assuring their protection. • Recognition of the generations of land stewardship by rural landowners and the protection of their property rights and land values by providing a variety of development options which will allow for flexibility and creativity in design. • Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of the area's visual resources and the development of criteria and incentives for assuring their protection. • Protection of the character of existing neighborhoods from incompatible land uses /densities and the direction of growth that is not rural in character toward municipal /urban transition areas where it can take advantage of existing infrastructure. By recognizing and acknowledging that we have a responsibility to balance all aspects of the character of this area (rural heritage, rights of landowners, and likelihood of future change) , the Stoney Creek Basin Land Use Plan should, therefore, seek to preserve as many important elements of rural character and special natural features as financially feasible, while still allowing for quality expansion and growth of rural and country suburban neighborhoods (including some very limited, internally oriented, commercial and service locations that fit in with a preserved rural character) . This must all be done without unfair or unreasonable financial restrictions or burdens either for the landowners who may desire to develop their property, or for the taxpaying citizens of the area who may have to pay for any negative effects or excess costs for public infrastructure of ill - planned development. DRAFT 2 - SUBCOMMITTEE REVISIONS FOLLOWING OCTOBER 19 MEETING AND NOVEMBER 2, 1995 COMMENTS FROM COUNTY ATTORNEY REPORT OF THE STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLAN PROPERTY VALUE /RIGHTS SUBCOMMITTEE Several areas of concern related to property rights, property values, and flexibility of development were identified and referred to a subcommittee by the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Group. We've discussed these topics and make the following observations. Property Rights and Property Values Private landowners have the right to develop their property as understood under the U.S. Constitution and within the limits of community or public standards described by current zoning and other ordinances. In addition to rights, a landowner has responsibilities. There must be a balance between what a landowner can do and what the larger community can expect. Zoning, public health, and other rules regulating development help express this balance and encourage responsible stewardship of the land. The property's financial value is determined on the open market, when a buyer and a seller voluntarily agree on a sale price. Value is influenced by many factors, including supply and demand, zoning, development possibilities, natural features, neighborhood character and community quality -of -life. Perceived versus Actual Rights Zoning and public health rules define the maximum number of housing units that can be built per acre. The R -1 zoning in most of the Stoney Creek Basin region limits density to one housing unit per 40,000 square feet (about one acre) if the land supports a septic tank, drainage system, and well. Because so much of the region has soil that can't support septic drainage systems, the actual density achievable under current law is usually less than one unit per one acre. Landowners may perceive that they have a "right" to build one unit per one acre, but, because of soil conditions, the reality is that current ordinances and health regulations generally give them a right to build fewer units. If much land is in the flood plain or steep slopes or other restricted areas, the density by right could be even lower. A "yield plan" shows how many units a particular piece of land actually will support under current regulations. Property rights include protection from an arbitrary decrease of density (downzoning); but they do not include the automatic right to any particular density and the right to a greater density than permitted by current regulations through the use of government enhancements, such as rezoning or new water and sewer service. Generally speaking, changes of density, up or down, absent arbitrariness, are policy decisions, not rights. Flexibility of Development Landowners traditionally cherish the ability to develop their land as they see fit. Today, most landowners recognize the need for community standards -- or regulation -- of development, because the actions of one neighbor can have a large impact on others. The list of permitted land uses in an area may provide more flexibility than a community wants, or may restrict other uses that seem desirable. For example, in the Stoney Creek Basin, the areas zoned R -1 permit construction of a large, country club or government office building, and, with a special - use permit, an airport, sewage treatment plant, or land fill. But the ability to build an open- space, cluster -style development is limited. Current law also does not allow landowners to use the incentives and design guidelines in some of the large -lot options recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee. Stoney Creek Basin landowners should be able to choose from a variety of development options that are consistent with good land stewardship, community health standards, and Rural Character design guidelines. Offering landowners constructive alternatives to meet these objectives is better than forcing them into a very narrow range of options. Proposal The subcommittee recommends: (1) preserving the density permitted under current zoning and public health standards, i.e., the density based on a yield plan for the land; (2) providing an array of flexible development options that will encourage landowners to preserve open space and rural character such as those in the Rural Character Study and Randall Arendt's open space development plans; (3) considering some of the creative tools available to direct dense development into urban growth areas rather than beyond and to create incentives for landowners and developers to preserve some undeveloped open land in the majority of the Stoney Creek Basin which is beyond current urban growth boundaries. Tools that can be considered within Orange county's jurisdiction include density bonuses and penalties, speedy approval processes, adjustments to requirements for private roads, adjustments to rules about sharing and placement of septic fields, tax breaks, and purchase of development rights. Tools that may require changes in state law include transferrable development rights; and (4) educating the entire community about land uses and densities that are currently permitted; about how new tools of land use policy work; and about the advantages and disadvantages of different development options. GLOSSARY Zoning - The division of a county or city into districts for the purpose of regulating the use of land. These districts, or zones, are shown on a set of maps called the zoning atlas. The text of the zoning ordinance lists the uses permitted in each of the districts along with the required distances of buildings from property lines, the number of off - street parking spaces, sign size and location, and other prerequisites to obtain permission to develop. The primary objective of zoning is to promote compatible development sensitive to other land uses and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) - A system under which a landowner sells his/her development rights and receives compensation for development restrictions placed on the land. The landowner retains title to the land and can sell it or pass it along although the use is restricted to farming and open space. A PDR program gives landowners a timely, financially competitive alternative to selling their land for development; PDR is voluntary, addresses concerns about uncompensated restrictions, and permits landowners decide whether or not to participate. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) - Transferrable Development Rights Programs published by the American Planning Association in 1987 defines TDR as "...shifting the future development potential from one piece of property (the sending site) to another piece of property (the receiving site). The transferred development potential may be measured in any one of a number of ways, such as floor area, dwelling units, or parking spaces. Once the transfer has occurred, most TDR systems require a legal restriction on the sending site, prohibiting any future use of the transferred development potential, and permit the receiving site to develop with the additional floor area, dwelling units, or parking spaces to which it is now legally entitled. Some TDR programs are mandatory, in which case all potential sending sites are restricted; others are voluntary and allow the marketplace to first match a buyer and seller of the TDRs before the sending site becomes burdened by a land -use restriction. " Randall Arendt Open Space Development - A type of residential development where 50% or more - - - -- of the buildable land is reserved as undivided, permanent open space and houses are clustered together on smaller lots. A key feature of this type of development is that it is density- neutral, meaning that "...the overall number of dwellings allowed is not less than it would be in a conventional layout. " Yield Plan - A graphic representation of the maximum build -out, i.e., number of lots, that could be achieved on a site based on ordinances and health regulations governing land development. DRAFT 1 - PRESENTED ON OCTOBER 19, 1995 REPORT OF THE STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLAN PROPERTY VALUE/RIGHTS SUBCOMMI'T'TEE Several areas of concern related to property rights, property values, and flexibility of development were identified and referred to a subcommittee by the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Group. We've discussed these topics and make the following observations. Property Rights and Property Values Private landowners have the right to develop their property as understood under the U.S. Constitution and within the limits of community or public standards described by current zoning and other ordinances. In addition to rights, a landowner has responsibilities. There must be a balance between what a landowner can do and what the larger community can expect. Zoning, public health, and other rules regulating development help express this balance and encourage responsible stewardship of the land. The property's financial value is determined on the open market, when a buyer and a seller voluntarily agree on a sale price. Value is influenced by many factors, including supply and demand, zoning, development possibilities, natural features, neighborhood character and community quality -of -life. Perceived versus Actual Rights Zoning and public health rules define the maximum number of housing units that can be built per acre. The R -1 zoning in most of the Stoney Creek Basin region limits density to one housing unit per 40,000 square feet (about one acre) if the land supports a septic tank, drainage system, and well. Because so much of the region has soil that can't support septic drainage systems, the actual density achievable under current law is usually less than one unit per one acre. Landowners may perceive that they have a "right" to build one unit per one acre, but, because of soil conditions, the reality is that current ordinances and health regulations generally give them a right to build fewer units. If much land is in the flood plain or steep slopes or other restricted areas, the density by right could be even lower. A "yield plan" shows how many units a particular piece of land actually will support under current regulations. Property rights include protection from an arbitrary decrease of density (downzoning); but they do not include the automatic right to achieve a greater density than permitted by current regulations through the use of government enhancements, such as rezoning or new water and sewer service. Changes of density, up or down, are policy decisions, not rights. Flexibility of Development Landowners traditionally cherish the ability to develop their land as they see fit. Today, most landowners recognize the need for community standards -- or regulation -- of development, because the actions of one neighbor can have a large impact on others. The list of permitted land uses in an area may provide more flexibility than a community wants, or may restrict other uses that seem desirable. For example, in the Stoney Creek Basin, the areas zoned R -1 permit construction of a large country club or government office building, and, with a special -use permit, an airport, sewage treatment plant, or land fill. But the ability to build an open - space, cluster -style development is limited. So is the ability to utilize the incentives and design guidelines in some of the large - lot options recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee. Stoney Creek Basin landowners should be able to choose from a variety of development options that are consistent with good land stewardship, community health standards, and Rural Character design guidelines. offering landowners constructive alternatives to meet these objectives is better than forcing them into a very narrow range of options. Proposal The subcommittee recommends: (1) preserving the density cap permitted under current zoning and public health standards ( "density neutral based on a yield plan for the land "); (2) providing an array of flexible development options that will encourage landowners to preserve open space and rural character such as those in the Rural Character Study and Randall Arendt's open space development plans; (3) considering some of the creative tools available to direct dense development into urban growth areas rather than beyond and to create incentives for landowners and developers to preserve some undeveloped open land in the majority of the Stoney Creek Basin which is beyond current urban growth boundaries. Tools that can be considered within orange county's jurisdiction include density bonuses and penalties, speedy approval processes, adjustments to requirements for private roads, adjustments to rules about sharing and placement of septic fields, tax breaks, and purchase of development rights. Tools that would require changes in state law include transferrable development rights; (4) educating the entire community about land uses and densities that are currently permitted; about how new tools of land use policy work; and about the advantages and disadvantages of different development options. LAW OFFICES COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 129 E. TRYON STREET P. O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 (919) 732 - 2196 FAX (919) 732.7997 November 2, 1995 Mr. Gene Bell Orange County Planning Department Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 ALONZO BROWN COLEMAN, JR. GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE KIM K. STEFFAN JANET B. DUTTON DOUGLAS P. THOREN SAMUEL ELY COLEMAN RE: Report of the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Property Value /Rights Subcommittee Dear Gene: I have reviewed the draft report of the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Property Value /Rights Subcommittee that was with your October 131 1995 facsimile transmission and with your October 16th memorandum to the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group members and alternates. The only area of "concern" that I have is in the third paragraph of the Perceived versus Actual Rights section. I would rewrite that section as follows: Property rights include protection from an arbitrary decrease of density (downzoning); but they do not include the automatic right to any particular density and the right to a greater density than permitted by current regulations through the use of government enhancements, such as rezoning or new water and sewer service. Generally speaking, changes of density, up or down, absent arbitrariness, are policy decisions, not rights. I would also make the editing changes indicated on the Proposal section of the document which is enclosed. I hope my inability to meet your requested timeline was not a problem. The long weekend you gave me was not enough time and things are as busy as you can imagine them to be. Very truly yours, COLEMAN,/ GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C. fr'ev 13. 'Gledhill GEG /lsg Enclosure 1sg \home3 \be11.1tr • + ► . r q • 4 Landowners traditiozially cherish the ability to develop their land as they see fit. Today, most landowners recogniz6 the need for eo=un.i.ty standards -- or regulation --- of development, because the actiahs of one neighbor can have a large impact on others. The list of permitted land uses in an area may provide more flexibility than a community wants, or may restrict other uses that seen desirable. For example, in the Stoney creek Basin, the areas zoned R-1 permit cdnst of a large country club or government off ice building, a , With a s eciai -use permit, an airport, sewage treatment plan , or land f i1 But the ability to build an open - space, cluster -�ty1a d pment is limited. So is the ability to utilize the incentives and design guidelines in some of the large- lot options recommended by the Rural Character Study Committoo. Stoney Creek Basin landowners. should be able to choose from a variety of development options that are consistent with good land stewardahip, community health standards, and Rural character design guidelines. Offering landowners constructive alternatives to 2taet those objectives is better than forcing them into a very narrow range of options. Fro os The ®uboovmittee recommends: (1) preserving the density. perinitt$d under currerYt zoning and public health stan ards ( "density neutral based on a yield plan for the land"); (2) providing an array of flexible development options that will encourage landowners to preserve open spaoe and rural character such as those in the Rural Character Study and Randall Arendt's open space development plans; (3) considering some of the oreative tools available to direct dense development into urban growth areas rather than beyond and to create incentives for landowners and - developers to preserve some undeveloped open land in the majority of the Stoney Creek Basin which is beyond current urban growth boundaries. Tools that pain be considered within Orange county's jurisdiction include density bonuses and penalties, speedy approval pracesses,- adjustments to requirements for private roads, adjustments to rules about sharing and placement of septic fields, tax b taksi and purchase of development rights. Tools that require changes in state law include transferrable Bevel pment rights; (4 ) educating the entire community about land uses and densities that are currently permitted; about how new tools of land use policy work, and about the advantages and disadvantages of different development options. LAND USE PROPERTY RIGHTS A Revolt Under. Construction arrell Olson was outraged Flat- head County, Montana, planned to zone the region around his 12 -room motel in the town of Hungry Horse, and, as Olson understood it, septic -tank and other requirements 'on 6,000- square -foot lots would leave a property owner unable to put up a building larger than 10 by 12 feet—about the size of a nice outhouse. So Olson was one of hundreds of resi- dents of the fast - growing area near Glac- ier National Park who wrote angry protest letters that forced the county to hold off on new zoning regulations. And he became a supporter of strong state property rights legislation that would compensate property owners when gov- ernment regulations devalued their land. "If I'm going to ask Mr. Brown down the road not to build because I want to look at the view, fine. But compensate him," Olson says. Darrell Olson has .a lot of allies these days. And much of the property rights debate is fueled by stories like the one that got Olson mad. Some are true, some are myth, and many fall somewhere in between. The latter seems to be the case with the Flathead County zoning proposal. Steve Herbaly, planning director for the Flat- head Regional Development Office, says that in the residential areas where such small lots are allowed, owners would hook up to community water and sewers, so requirements for large septic fields wouldn't apply. That would mean prop- erty owners could build houses as large as 40 by 60 feet, or 2,400 square feet. That point was lost in the din of horror stories and incendiary rhetoric that char- acterized the property rights debate in Flathead County. The same sort of drama has been playing out across the country in recent years, with activists pushing at every level of government for laws to pro- tect property owners from what the activists portray as power- crazed govern- ment bureaucrats willing to sacrifice 28 G O V E R N I N G October 1995 Legislatures across America are taking up the issue of protecting property owners from government actions that devalue their land. in most states, lawmakers are balking at the cost. landowners' property values to preserve wetlands and red cockaded woodpeckers. That a property rights revolution of some kind is going on is indisputable. Montana and six other states passed prop- erty rights legislation this year, bringing to 18 the number of states with some form of protection for landowners on the books, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures' count. And legislative activity is moving more rapidly than even some property rights advocates had hoped: The first of the state laws was passed just four years ago. In all this year, more than 140 property rights bills were introduced in 48 state legislatures. That blizzard of legislative proposals BY ELLEN PERLMAN has been driven by anger over the issues of property rights, compensation and reg- ulatory "takings" that has been building for years; the Republican takeover of so many state capitols after last year's elec- tions moved the issue to the forefront. Several recent U.S. Supreme Court deci- sions also have energized the movement. In three cases decided since 1987, the court has tipped the scales somewhat fur- ther toward landowners, saying -that if governments want to put conditions on development, those requirements must meet tests of "nexus" or "proportionality." That means the conditions they set must have something to do with remedying the specific impact the proposed develop- ment would have. So a city can't require a developer who wants to build a taller building to put in a bike path. Congress also has been debating prop- erty rights legislation. House and Senate versions of the legislation would allow for compensation when federal government actions diminish property value by a cer- tain percentage -20 percent under the House bill for certain federal programs, 33 percent under the Senate's for all fed- eral regulations. Congress could end up being the bell- wether on the issue, prompting state leg- islatures to rewrite their laws to provide similar compensation for state regulatory actions. "If Congress enacts a compensa- tion law, I expect many state legislatures will follow suit," says Jerold S. Kayden, associate professor of urban planning at Harvard University. mong the laws that have been enacted at the state level since 1991, however, few would go far toward compensating Mr. Brown. Most of the new laws merely force govern- ments to assess the impact proposed reg- ulations would have on property owners; Montana's new law is just such a "look before you leap" measure, one that affects only state regulations, not local zoning. Some state laws require agencies to look for less onerous alternatives to achieving regulatory goals or to calculate the cost of compensating a landowner if it becomes necessary under federal law. A few states do have compensation laws on the books. In Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and Texas, the laws allow landowners to sue governments for com- pensation when the value of a parcel of land is reduced by a certain percentage, ranging from 20 percent in Louisiana to 50 percent in North Dakota. But the laws are not comprehensive in scope: Louisiana's and Mississippi's apply only to agricultural or forest land. In May, Florida passed a narrowly tailored compensation bill with no percentage specified. It includes a mediation element to settle disputes. What has happened in most states is that the property rights revolution has encountered fiscal reality. Many of those who sympathize with property owners' cries for compensation have balked at price tags that could total millions of dol- lars even for small local governments. "It's a hot political issue," says David Broadwell, staff attorney with the Colorado Municipal League, "but when people start crunching the numbers �� Ralph Butler illustration on how much it will cost, either through administrative requirements or direct compensation, it causes people to gag a little." The gag reflex was at work in Col- orado, where takings bills died in the House Appropriations Committee in 1994 and 1995. Analysts told the lawmak- ers that this year's bill would cost nearly a million dollars for administrative work alone in the first year. Costs for compen- sating landowners were pegged at $19 million a year —and those were consid- ered conservative estimates. In New Hampshire, a consultant working for environmental groups esti- mated that takings laws under considera- tion in 1993 and 1994 would have forced the town of Dunbarton to shell out about $2 million -118 percent of the annual budget for the town of 1,800. Laconia, with 16,000 people, would have faced a price tag of $8 million. The numbers were based on the assumption that tak- ings claims would be made for only 2 percent of the vacant developable land in the communities. The bills were defeated, as was a milder impact - assessment measure introduced this year. nents of a property rights initiative on next month's ballot are predicting huge financial consequences if it passes. The ambiguously written measure seems to make state and local governments liable to landowners for any decrease in the value of their property resulting from government actions; some are interpret- ing that to mean that the owner of a $100,000 piece of land whose value was diminished by 10 percent would be enti- tled to $10,000 in compensation. The state's Office of Financial Man- agement did a study of 14 small jurisdic- tions and concluded that the biennial cost of preparing the necessary economic analyses of regulations would be $207 million —even before the first compensa- tion check was cut. Another 250 counties, cities and special purpose districts also would be affected. The potential costs and administrative burdens have drawn the opposition of the Environmental and Land Use Law Sec- tion of the Washington Bar Association. "It seems to take a nuclear bomb approach to solving the problem," says T. Ryan Durkan, who heads the section. Stories are even circulating about land speculation — supposedly, speculators are snapping up parcels of land in hopes of a bonanza in compensation payments if the initiative passes. For the most part, though, it is advo- cates of property rights laws who are telling the horror stories. In Washougal, Washington, Lois Jemtegaard told the local newspaper about being unable to sell a 20 -acre par- cel of pasture on property she and her husband had been amassing in pieces since 1938. When prospective buyers wanted assurance they could build on the property, Jemtegaard inquired about a building permit. She was told she would be unable to get one because Con- 1_ gress had designated the property as a national scenic area in 1986. �. Her property's value plum- meted. A farmer in Camden .•r County, North Carolina, told a congressional panel -he was prevented from farm- �=ing more than 300 acres because they were classi- «c- fled as wetlands. A devel- oper from Wayne County, North Carolina, testified he was unable to turn his cattle farm into a $5 million golf course for the same reason. Everywhere, it seems, the theme is the same: govern- ment trampling on and impoverishing mom -and -pop landowners. Indeed, property rights proponents fuel the notion that the movement is a fight to get big government off the backs of the little guys: And that's one element of it. But that's hardly the whole story. Real estate, ranching, agricultural and timber interests, among others, have a big stake in the outcome of land use deci- sions and have funded property rights lobbying efforts and court cases on the state and national level. Several of the directors of the Florida Legal Foundation, for instance, are exec- utives of agribusinesses that own hun- dreds of thousands of acres of Florida land. The foundation's only mission is to protect private property rights. Just two years old, the foundation spent nearly $270,000 last year to run a two- person office and help small landowners take .governments to court over takings issues. "It is recognized that if an adverse prece- dent can be established in a case against a small landowner, it can be used against large landowners," says Michael Rosen, executive director of the foundation. In Washington State, businesses underwrote the signature - gathering effort that sent the compensation measure to the legislature. "The feeling was they wouldn't have gotten anywhere without industry money," says state Senator Mary Margaret Haugen, an opponent of the measure. A second petition drive by opponents prevented the legislature from enacting the measure on its own and put it instead on the November ballot. The Committee for Initiative 164 — formed by the property rights propo- nents —had spent $280,881 as of mid - July. The top contributor was the building industry's association, which kicked in $52,000. Next was a real estate brokers' group, which provided $25,000. The top seven contributions from timber companies came to $54,500. But while expensive industry lobby- ing campaigns and mom - and -pop hor- ror stories keep the issue bubbling across the country, the question of just how deep property rights sentiment runs is an open one. "It's a real issue, and real political forces have coalesced and achieved a surprising amount of success," says Kayden, "but I'm not convinced it's a broadly based public concern that government is routinely 30 G O V E R N I N G October 1995 Property rights proponents say their goal is not to enrich landowners, but to get governments to stop over - regulating. trampling on property rights. It's less a groundswell than a more narrowly sup- ported vested interest group's agenda." A citizen's initiative on takings in Ari- zona was rejected handily when it was put to the voters last year. It was not even a compensation measure; it called for the attorney general to set guidelines for what constituted a taking and for state agencies to use the guidelines to do a cost - benefit analysis of regulations. In Washington State, opponents of the property rights compensation measure on this November's ballot needed 90,000 sig- natures to delay enactment of the measure by the legislature and put it to the voters. They got more than 230,000 signatures. New Hampshire state Senator Richard Russman tried to convince Congress that the takings legislation being considered on Capitol Hill could create an expen- sive, unnecessary new entitlement pro- gram. "Beyond a few isolated anecdotal accounts," he argued before a House sub- committee, "there are no studies or evi- dence to support the notion that the judi- cial branch of government has abdicated its role in protecting private property owners from overreaching government regulation." bile compensation legislation has been slow in coming, property rights proponents say that isn't the point anyway. Their real goal, they insist, is not to force governments to enrich individual landowners, but to get govern- ments to stop over - regulating. "The objec- tive is to get government to clean up its act and to stop taking private property unless it's absolutely necessary," says Richard Sanders, a lawyer retained by the propo- nents of the Washington State initiative. Indeed, property rights bills are start- ing to have the effect that proponents want and environmentalists feared. Gov- ernments are hesitating, uncertain which regulations will trigger payment or court action. Even if they are regulating prop- erly under the laws, they worry they still may have to justify their actions in court. This creates a dilemma for local gov- ernments in states such as Florida and - Washington. The localities are required by state growth management laws to limit development densities, yet state property rights compensation laws may end up punishing them for doing so. Almost immediately after Florida's compensation law took effect in May, West Palm Beach Assistant County Attorney Bob Banks recommended to the county commissioners that they scrap a plan to reduce development in an agri- cultural reserve area east of the Ever- glades. They took his advice. "We couldn't downzone the property without some possibility of being subjected to the new law," says Banks. Florida's law is ambiguous:. It says if a government "inor- dinately burdens" a landowner through its action, it must pay compensation. Defining that phrase will be a matter for the courts to hash out the next few years. Fort Lauderdale was considering mod- ernizing its zoning codes. It has halted the process, even though it had already paid consultants several hundred thou- sand dollars. Until the city can figure out how the new state law will be inter- preted, city leaders are reluctant to get tripped up by it. The chilling effect in Florida is more pronounced in some counties than in oth- ers. But everyone is concerned about changing existing regulations or putting new ones in place. The advice circulating is for planners to bronze their zoning codes and sit tight. "We're in the position_._ of not wanting to do anything that will adversely affect property owners, even if it will benefit others," says Mark Bamebey, senior assistant county attorney in Manatee County. "Significant changes in codes could result in a large liability without even blinking an eye. There are just too many questions about the law." If the property rights revolution has achieved little else so far, it has startled governments into reviewing their routine regulatory actions. States and localities that may not have thought they were stepping over the line when regulating landowners are looking again. "'There has been insensitivity in the regulatory com- munity to the deep feeling that govern- ment regulators are going too far in some cases," says Harvard's Kayden. "If the wake -up call was not delivered earlier, it certainly has been delivered now." PAGE Al SUNDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1995 THE HERALD -SUN, DURHAM, N.C. NAW "OW :Land rights may am :ground Washington ;State referendum Foes of the law say it is so poorly written that virtually any new regu lation —from plumbing codes to a would compensate zoning overhaul — could trigger a ;:property ownerS demand for money. They protest that it could bank By HAL SPENCER rapt public coffers trying to satisfy 'Associated Press claims and pay for the economic OLYMPIA, Wash. — Prospective impact statements. And they pre- vanished when they learned dict Paralysis for government fear 'Kathleen Hedlund's empty 40 -acre ful of imposing even basic planning ,tract was labeled "wetland" and and zoning laws. could not be developed. Her land A study by the state Department sits unsold. of Community, Trade and Eco . Then the city refused to let her nomic Development estimated the .cut down trees, citing environmen- impact statements alone could cos ,tal regulation. This year they re- more than $1 billion over the next lented so the 73- year -old Hedlund six years. could sell enough timber to pay her Corporations and property. own property taxes. ers like Hedlund scoff at predic -, It's no surprise Hedlund will vote lions of bank- breaking compensa `des" next month on statewide Ref- lion_ awards — while aclmowledg- erendum 48. ing they have no idea what the == The measure asks if voters want .costs may be. to keep or repeal new but never- And they insist the law will apply 'used'- legislation that would force solely to wetlands, fish and wildlife state or local governments to com- habitat, buffer zones and other ,pensate property owners if regula- public health designations. tons reduce their property's value. "I'm desperate," said Hedlund, :It also would require economic im- who_ testified__at hearings_ _ -on the pact statements before a land -use legislation. "I'm not very well off, fregulation is imposed. and I'm old. My husband and I live If it survives, the law would mark on retirement, and that's it. I'm the most sweeping victory for the land -poor. If it is good for the peo- -- — �ropert rights movement since its ple to call my land a wetland and birth in the 1980s as a mostly rural preserve, then fine," she said. "But and disorganized gripe. I should be compensated." Land developers and timber com - The issue began when developers parries spent almost $1 million to and timber concerns collected support the law's passage, com- 181,000 signatures to put an initia- pared with $450,000 collected by five before the Legislature, asking it opponents, chiefly environmental- to require government to compen- ists who are backed by state and sate anyone whose property loses local governments. market value because of regulation. The message from irate property That law, adopted .in April, is so- owners is simple, said Peter Stem- called "takings" legislation. It con- berg, a spokesman for the Wash- cerns any property "taken for gen- ington State • Farm Bureau, a eral public use" and applies wher- farmers' trade association and ever regulation limits development major supporter of the law. for any reason other than prevent - "If you don't want to pay the ing a public nuisance. cost, then don't be so quick to reg- Environmentalists and others ulate," Sternberg said. "Maybe alarmed by the law gathered 91,000 when government knows it has to signatures to put the matter to a pay, it will take more care in put- public referendum on Nov. 7. The ling in regulations that affect land- law remains on hold until the vot- owners." ers decide its fate. uncaman stands t O.J. .1:ver(uCt^lettex Associated Press g, .., LAGUNA .NIGUEL, : Cahf; ' k " Critics are calling it_; a 'racist . diatribe, but a'.councilman is . standing ,by a ;letter: he wrote s on.;aty. stationery saying. the ; "racially ;stacked" O.I Sim+ son:-jury' 'let a `brother' ' Councilman Eddie Rose's t letter, written -an stationery thaf carries the names of;all council in'embers, wars,sent'ta ? several newspapers the �.ay: of t S�pson'sOct::r3 acqurtal:an murder, charges Wa ma30 zatp the overw he ming: evi ence'itz the case �n order , 'to let a `br `other' ,o free, the letter ,r read: °,Ate one paint. Rose ~� e�-�o'��Simpsort jahnzue `'Cochran 'Jr 1ivtalkgrletora Sunpson :`and - Cochran ire. �y1n�L[yY' F. "I: 16n't`know of'any refer e:nc��to r race in, that; letter',', ose s d ' m of pv ahy correct, that's for sure In the.,letter, Roseblained "elitist .media and tla'eir sheep -lie ;.followers , rho •; glo- = ' rxfy and.Xdolize these;; semiht • ` erate `athletes : who; were ' xt ` ri4t for tfievr,prowess uz ,run ;� niug a football - `ordiYnlcing a basketball, bW k6bably rbe outyp drugs ,�mpuig or'dealing `�` on'some ' .street .corner:" ;• The City. Council has called il., ecw. -. meeting Monday Ito t detidewhether to `fo32maly, f census se But the'57year Y old glut �" �a� de- fended the letter, f 1 �: Moir Corer, deader , of ],ti0 f`sa Macken`af �irange--count y, ''rsa�d he was "shacked; and dis `xa pOm ed that :a pnbhc of ;`;ficiax would uselusbh -$it io'n 1+�aY that has :the r t pl_cadons , :expressed ti.by, - that'statemeat"' l S r .:. ; 1 We're in this � Accot in ne By RAF CASERT Associated Press BRUSSELS, Belgi new watchword is tics: accountability Former NATO Willy Claes, who Friday to face corn his native Belgium of some of Eurol have fallen in dis lions of power. Accountability old- business-'as-us pressed best by fo mier Bettino Craxi ecutors two years guilty. Everyone talked." But as prosecutc to talk, others feel far. After a long c� him one of the me ternational postin; had been stabbed i "Are there other litical murder' ?" Claes, who mai nocence. "You se Italy, Spain and el: politician; put in a, demned.09 If that is murd( dripping from Sca way down to the Y The inspiration f stems from the "C sade by magistratE anti- corruption el past few years haN an entire political c Among the victi premiers Craxi dreotti. Craxi has t several cases and trial on charges of the Mafia. Last w( mier Silvio Berlusc D 1 M M V STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLANNING WORK GROUP OCTOBER 19, 1995 The Stoney Creek Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, October 19, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in the EMS facility training room, New Hope Church Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Members Present: Irene VanDyke (alt), James Bumphus, Bob Strayhorn, Lee Rafalow, Trish Rafalow (alt.), Elio Soldi, David Yelton, Bob Hall, Clint Burklin, Dan Teichman, Dean Zehnder, Keith Cook, Trudy Cuffe, and Meg McKean. Arrived at 9:05: Steve Price and Renee Price. Members Absent: Bobby Nicholson, Michael Warner, Gary Hanker, Curtis Bane, Judson Edeburn, Bill Bracey, Stephen Halkiotis, Don Willhoit Facilitator Present: Verla Insko Staff Present: Gene Bell and Emily Cameron, Orange County Planners, and Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners. Announcements: Lee Rafalow mentioned a recent newspaper article discussing a possible trade of development density for a school site in the Stoney Creek area. He asked if there was such a proposal before the county at the present time. He also inquired about what would happen if a new school was provided water and sewer. Would water and sewer then be available to surrounding developers? Gene Bell replied that there is not such a plan on record. If a school was supplied with water and sewer, developers would not automatically have that available to them. An evaluation of their proposal would go to public hearing, the Planning Board and then to the Board of Commissioners. Keith Cook indicated that the school board would consider accepting such a gift if it were offered. Gene Bell stated that sewer lines are first extended into transition areas, normally as a part of a development proposal and the developer pays the cost. The town would also be involved because the lines originate with the town. There is a preliminary rural subdivision plan for approximately 100 acres at the corner of NC 10 and New Hope Church Road being presented to the Planning Board in November. This development would utilize wells and septic tanks. Verla Insko mentioned that the water system is owned by Hillsborough, so developers would need to negotiate with the Town. They would also need to get approval of the development plan from the County. Lee Rafalow requested an update on the Flexible Development Proposal. z Gene Bell reported that this will be presented to the Board of Commissioners in the near future. This proposal is based on the Rural Character Strategies and the open - space development concepts presented by Randall Arendt. This is a part of the Albemarle /Pamlico Estuary Study in which Orange County is a participant. A Rural Design Guidebook applying Randall Arendt's principles will be a product of the study Bob Hall suggested that this work group could be briefed on this proposal. Dan Teichman requested that copies of the Flexible Development Proposal be distributed. Clint Burklin volunteered to make copies of the proposal and bring them to the next meeting. MINUTES: The minutes were approved by consensus as corrected. NEW MEMBER: Verla Insko announced that James Bumphus was appointed to this committee by the Board of Commissioners VISION COMMITTEE REPORT: The members of this committee are Trudy Cuffe, Dean Zehnder, Curtis Bane, Judson Edeburn and David Yelton. Trudy Cuffe felt that the process had worked and helped them stay focused on the overall vision. They submitted two draft vision statements because they did not have time to meet again to consolidate and agree on a final form. Elio Soldi felt that the Vision Committee could be asked to meet again and come up with a final vision statement. Clint Burklin suggested discussing the draft and then requesting that the subcommittee revise. He felt that protection of existing neighborhoods from incompatible land uses was an important point. There needs to be definitions of the words compatible and incompatible. Trish Rafalow felt that the words "internally oriented, commercial and services locations" were confusing. Commercial development was not a part of her vision. She requested clarification. David Yelton explained that the subcommittee was thinking of community stores which served only the local area. They agreed that commercial activity which drew customers from outside the area would not be acceptable. Bob Strayhorn stated that local stores are a part of his community vision. It was agreed that this is an area in which there is not group consensus and that further discussion was necessary. Lee Rafalow stated that he disagreed with the inclusion of all of the italicized comments in the last paragraph. He concurred with all of the bulleted comments. He suggested that the vision should not articulate that there will be dissent. 3 Bob Hall asked for clarification of the words "economically feasible." David Yelton felt it could not be defined in the vision statement. They were acknowledging that landowners need to be compensated for the value of their land and wanted to encourage the protection of commonly agreed upon areas. Bob Strayhorn agreed that the issues of economic and financial feasibility are critical ones for the landowner. He mentioned that the word "assuring" in the third bullet needs to be reconsidered. Dan Teichman asked if the subcommittee was suggesting that the existing guidelines be used or would new criteria be developed. Did the subcommittee feel that there was insufficient criteria for identification of natural features and sensitive ecological areas? A member of the subcommittee stated that they wanted to facilitate the preservation of visual elements of the area without requiring landowners to suffer economically. During the course of this conversation, Emily Cameron created a list of comments for the Vision Subcommittee to review. Those comments are: • Elaborate on compatible vs. Incompatible (uses /densities). • What is "Limited, internally oriented commercial ?" How is it compatible? • Edit "economically feasible" to make rural character preservation and maintain property values equal. • Edit "Assuring... protection" of natural resources. • Alternate vision with italics? REPORT OF THE VALUE SUBCOMMITTEE: This committee consisted of James Bumphus, Bob Hall, Meg McKean, Lee Rafalow, Elio Soldi and Bob Strayhorn. The following comments were made concerning this report. Dean Zehnder commented that paragraph #3 of the proposal did not apply to the Stoney Creek area because the periphery is not urban in character. The word urban conflicts with his vision of the area. Lee Rafalow mentioned that the Land Use Plan already identifies areas as "Urban Growth Areas ". Paragraph 3 of the proposal means that we are looking for ways to direct all dense development into those already identified as urban areas rather than create suburban sprawl. Gene Bell explained that the word transition implies that the area in question will ultimately be urban in nature. It will be annexed into the town to which it is adjacent. Trish Rafalow commented that she liked that comments about landowners responsibilities were included in the statement. Dan Teichman asked for clarification on the Flexibility of Development sections. He asked if it was a statement of fact or conjecture. 4 Lee Rafalow indicated that they were examples of types of development which would be allowed in R1 zoning. The ability to create other desirable types of development is not codified. Bob Strayhorn mentioned that the Rural Character Study was intended to give incentives for going beyond the guidelines. Dan Teichman asked for a definition of "density neutral based on a yield plan for the land ". He felt that this is not clearly articulated in this paragraph. He asked that an example be included. Gene Bell indicated that the generic definition of "density Neutral" means that the overall number of dwellings allowed is not less that it would be in a conventional layout. Dwellings not constructed on buildable conservation land are erected in other, more appropriate, locations on the site. You would get the same number of units as would be allowed under a conventional development plan. David Yelton asked that the term density neutral not be confused with developing 50% of the land being held as undevelopable. He did like emphasis on offering constructive alternatives to meet the objectives. Verla Insko indicated that the issue of "internally oriented commercial" needs to be discussed further. David Yelton mentioned that the goal of consensus is the middle ground. It does not mean that you agree with everything that is said. It means that you can live with it. There could be times when a majority vote would be taken to establish where the group stands on an issue. Verla mentioned that the outcome, based on the groundrules, incorporates the following three values statements: 1) everyone makes a free and informed choice, 2) there is access to valid information, and 3) lastly, commitment to the outcome is essential. Trudy Cuffe expressed concern the County Commissioners are not attending the meetings. She also mentioned that she was hearing undertones of discontent out of the meeting. Gene Bell reported that this meeting is in conflict with several others that the Commissioners were required to attend. Renee Price suggested looking at how open space is defined for the purposes of this group. The subcommittees were charged with revising the Vision and Value statements. The final proposals will be mailed out with the minutes of this meeting. The first agenda item at the next meeting will be a consideration of those statements to determine if the group has reached consensus. 5 PRELIMINARY DESIGN SUBCOMMITEE: This committee consists of Renee Price, Bill Bracey, Steve Price, Clint Burklin and Michael Warner. Elio Soldi requested that a "straw plan" be created by this subcommittee which would give the larger committee a focus for next months discussion. He felt that an example would be concrete enough to facilitate a discussion. Clint Burklin felt this was not realistic. He suggested creating a general statement which could be used to create more detail after input from the group. Lee Rafalow requested that a draft design be created. He felt that group members need help in crystallizing their thoughts regarding how particular areas of the region might look. Clint Burklin felt that the initial plan could be a fuzzy mosaic dealing with the larger issues. The plan could be brought into sharper focus through discussion. Irene VanDyke felt that there is a sense of what the group wants. The Preliminary Design Sub - committee could use their judgment. Dan Teichman asked if the county had taken a synthesis of all of the material gathered, presented a set of guidelines, and captured the essence of how development should take place and where? Lee Rafalow commented that he understood how Clint felt about not having enough information. However, he felt that they probably could come up with a "straw plan" if they trusted the process. Bob Strayhorn felt that the discussion was focusing on doing a "straw plan" of land desires of the community. Is this plan going to limit options? Lee Rafalow mentioned that this group has articulated a desire to create a plan that has multiple options. There are general impressions of what we want. He felt that a general plan could be created which incorporated those general ideas. Options could be crafted around that plan. For example, if the Preliminary Design Sub - committee suggested a particular piece of land be developed as conventional 1 acre lots, and that suggestion was endorsed by the entire group, those recommendations would determine what type of development would fit consistently with the recommendation. Elio Soldi felt that constructive options for the landowner need to be available. Once a plan has been created, the neighbors need to be asked to review and comment on it. Renee Price suggested coming up with a skeletal plan. Overlays could be done if time was available. Gene Bell pointed out that there are only four weeks until the next meeting. He felt that the best this group could be expected to do would be a conceptual plan, such as,Map 14 (Neotraditional Design Concept) in the UNC Students' report. David Yelton mentioned that the "straw plan" will not be conceived as initially established. There will be many variations. Lee Rafalow indicated that he hoped that a greater level of detail could be created by the Preliminary Design Subcommittee; however, if that is not possible he would be satisfied with a broader "straw plan" Verla Insko mentioned that there appeared to be consensus on creating a general "straw plan" for the next meeting. Also, a final Vision Statement and Value Statement will be presented at that meeting. Elio Soldi indicated that his main concern is that unless there is something concrete concerning options, there is not going to be interest from those outside this group. We need to have a concrete product so that we can solicit a response from the landowners and developers. He mentioned that all of the students plans had one thing in common. They acted as though they owned the land, when in fact, no one person controls the land. For example, every one of the plans had his 40 acres subdivided or incorporated with a neighbor. Dan Teichman suggested that this group needs to know what incentives /tools are available to encourage landowners /developers. He mentioned tax incentives, economic, transfer of property, etc. He suggested that questions be compiled and answered. Lee Rafalow mentioned a need for another subcommittee to look at tools and incentives and how they might be applied. He indicated that the Values Subcommittee discussed working on this task. Another task which must be addressed is to take the final or interim results to landowners and get their feedback. Lastly, defining what are consistent option sets for landowners to achieve the objectives. David Yelton mentioned that there might be an ongoing committee or structure that would advise landowners in future years to make sure that options continue to be known. Educating landowners would be helpful. Verla Insko summarized that there appeared to be consensus on having the Preliminary Design Subcommittee create a general "straw plan ". There will be final Vision and Value statements presented for approval. A new subcommittee needs to be created or the Values subcommittee could take on the task of defining incentives and disincentives that would drive the plan toward becoming a reality.. Lastly, another committee that would define possible options for various pieces of land. The main goal for the next meeting is to get through the "straw plan." Elio Soldi suggested that the Vision and Value Statements be accepted quickly at the next meeting unless there are major objections. Bob Strayhorn suggested that the committee that creates the "straw plan" be charged with deciding how to present it to the larger group. Irene VanDyke asked if the Transfer of Development Rights was a viable option. ri Gene Bell indicated that the State Legislature has not approved it as an option. Lee Rafalow stated that he would look at tools and incentives and how they might be applied. He asked that anyone else that would like to discuss this prior to the next meeting contact him. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting of this Work Group is scheduled for Thursday, November 16, 1995, at the EMS Facility meeting room. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk