HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-15-2001-9cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 15, 2001
Action Agenda
Item No.-_ Q -0
SUBJECT:_ McGowan Creek Subdivision — Preliminary Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Hillsborough
1)
Resolution of Denial
p. 4
2)
Exhibits A & B
p. 6 -7
3)
Application Form
P. 8
4)
Agency Comments
P. 10
5)
Planning Board Minutes
p. 14
6)
Fiscal Impact Analysis
p. 22
7)
20 -year Transition Area Boundary
.p. 37
8)
Vicinity Map & Reduced Plans
p. 39
9)
Preliminary Subdivision Map
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carla Bateman, Planner I (Ext. 2603)
Robert P. Davis, Planner III . (Ext. 2580)
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough
732 -8181
Chapel Hill
968.4501
Durham
688 -7331
Mebane
336- 227 -2031
PURPOSE: Consideration of Conservation - Cluster Preliminary Plan.
BACKGROUND:
Re nest
Applicant: Scott O. Radway, agent for Efland LLC
e 244.7 acre tract including road rights -of -way
• Proposed two hundred twenty two (222) single - family residential lots (includes 66 lot
open space density bonus)
Location
• Cheeks Township
• Western side of Efland -Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) approximately Y2 mile north of US
70W
• 148 +/- acres'of the tract are located in the transition area on north side of US 70
• 96 +/- acres of the tract are located in the rural residential area on the north side of US 70
Existing Site Conditions
Zoning
• Rural Residential (R -1) and Upper Eno - Protected Watershed (12% impervious surface)
• Minimum zoning lot size for R -1 is 40,000 square feet
• Adjacent Land Uses: Single family residential, agricultural and vacant land
Physical Description
• Slight slopes on majority of site
• McGowan Creek flows through the southwest corner of the property
2
• Two small streams drain the property to McGowan Creek, which is flooded due to the
Efland Mill Pond dam located just downstream.
• An intermittent stream bisects the property and flows in a southwest direction.
• Large 'areas of the interior part of the property have been timbered in recent years with
perimeter and riparian areas remaining fairly intact.
Proposed Site Conditions
Roads:
• Access to subdivision is from Efland -Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004)
• Two proposed public roads, designed to NCDOT (and County) standards.
• Right turn taper lane built to NCDOT standards required on Efland -Cedar Grove Road at
south entrance of subdivision.
• Left -hand turn from Efland -Cedar Grove Road onto McGowan Creek Parkway built to
NCDOT standards.
• Street names approved /reserved and shown on Preliminary Plat.
Open Space
• 147.08 (60 %) in common area open space.
• 66.23 acres of open space over 33% (80.75 acres) that is required
• 100' minimum buffer around site
• Large open space area at south -west and north side of property
• A large portion of this tract has been identified as a potential Community Park
Density Bonus Provision
• 66 bonus lots proposed
[1 bonus lot permitted for every acre of open space over 80.75 acres (33 %) required]
• 222 total lots proposed
[Minimum lot size in Conservation /Cluster option = 14,000 sq. ft. (65% reduction)]
Water -- Sewer —
• Water supply by private utility
• Public Sewer proposed to be provided by Orange County
Recreation
• Within area designated for Cheeks Community Park
• Recreation space required--3.9 acres
• Three areas of active recreation space provided with intermittent pedestrian access trails
totaling 17.5 acres
Agency Comments
• Requests for agency comments were sent to: NCDOT, Board of Education, County
Engineer, Environmental Health, ERCD, County Attorney, Soil and Water Conservation
Development Process. Schedule, and Action
Planning Board
• First Action: Concept . Plan approved by the Planning Board (by 7 -1 vote) Sept. 6,
2000 with concern raised about the size of the development
• Preliminary Plan addresses all conditions of approval of the concept plan
• Second Action: Planning Board voted to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat
on March 7, 2001 as follows:
Deny the preliminary plan for McGowan Creek subdivision on the grounds that
the subdivision needs sewer and it does not have it and that a portion of the
property is not in the transition area.
Third Action:
1. The application shall be placed on the Board of County Commissioners agenda within
90 days of the Planning Board recommendation.
2. The Board shall consider the application within a reasonable amount of time.
3. During deliberations and consideration of the application the Board may defer
consideration at any point to pursue additional analysis and review.
4. If the Preliminary Plat is approved by the County Commissioners the applicant shall
have one (1) year to prepare and file a Final Plat or to request a one -year extension
from the Planning Director.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: A Fiscal Impact Analysis is included as an attachment.
RECOMMENDATION: Administration
Denial, in accordance with the attached Resolution of Denial.
_Planning Board
Denial, in accordance with the attached Resolution of Denial.
Planning Staff
Denial, in accordance with the attached Resolution of Denial.
4.
RESOLUTION
OF
THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TO DENY
THE McGOWAN CREEK SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN
Date: May 15, 2001
Name of Subdivision: McGowan Creek
Owner /Applicant: Efland, LLC.
The Board of County Commissioners hereby denies approval of the Preliminary Plan for
McGowan Creek Subdivision as shown on the preliminary plan dated November 8, 2000,
based on and including, but not limited to, the following:
1. The proposed development is designed as submitted to be serviced by public sewer to
include a 14,000 square foot lot minimum, which can only be permitted in Orange County
if they are to be served by public sewer.
+ There is currently no public sewer available to the site.
Efland sewer system adopted "Overall System Plan" which is the only public sewer
system in the area does not include any portion of the subject subdivision, as
illustrated on Exhibits A and B.
2. Section IX of the Resolution establishing rules and regulations for the O eration of a .
Sewer Collection Treatment System to serve the Efland area of Orange County, as
adopted on November 19, 1985 and amended on March 1, 1988, November 15, 1988
and October 19, 1999 states:
"All such extensions must be consistent with the Overall System Plan as adopted from
time to time by Orange ,County. All such extensions must be approved by the County
Engineer."
An extension for this site would be inconsistent with the Plan, so the County Engineer
cannot approve the extension.
3. Extension of the System to new developments can only be approved by the County
Engineer if all zoning, subdivision, land use plan and comprehensive plan regulations of
Orange County or the Town of Hillsborough, if applicable are met.
• Proposed subdivision is not consistent with all zoning, subdivision, and land use plan
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan of Orange County, as illustrated on Exhibits
A & B. A portion of the property is located outside of the twenty -year Transition Area.
+ The Orange County Water and Sewer Policy provides generally that public sewer
may not be extended into areas outside of the Transition Areas unless it is part of an
adopted system plan or there is an overriding public health emergency or benefit.
5
• The provision of public services and facilities follow and /or should occur
simultaneously with planning efforts to channel development over time in a manner
consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the Land Use Plan, which promotes
development within transition areas that are part of approved sewer system plans.
4. Approximately 96 acres of the subdivision (39.3 %) are located in an area designated as
Rural Residential in the adopted Land Use Element of the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Element states as follows with respect to the Rural
Residential designation: "Land in the rural areas of the County which is appropriate for
low intensity and low- density residential development and which would not -be dependent
on urban services during.the plan period." The Land Use Element further states: "Public
Services /Utilities located in areas that will not require urban -type services."
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County
Commissioners that the Preliminary Plan for McGowan Creek Subdivision is denied for the
foregoing reasons.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner
, the foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of
2001.
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange,
North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the
proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2001 as relates in any way
to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No.
of the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS, my hand, this day of , 2001.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
m
�4
f4h 44 AMA....44 4
YOM
MUM j Ila
%
AT
..... .... ...
.. ..... .
�-"4.�` '.77, �,.
-9 A
A "I
(D M
J.j\
A.A w
o-
"IN
it
t;j
Iq
ZZ,
X
ab
jr
INL
M A
En
uIltv;
CD
iLV
ago q
2i
Film-
-rj
a %
CD
CD
z
MT BY:RALEIGH ;11 -_8- 0 ; 10:14 KIM M- HORN 1 919 982 0414;# 2/ 9
APPLICATION FOR PRELMUNARY PLAN APPROVAL
MAJOR SUBDIVISION 4/98
ORANGE COUNTY '
DATk_ /8/00
PLEMS T yn OR PR = MX ONLY)
SUBDIVISION NAME: McGowan Creek.
LOCATION: SR 1004 . Efland Ce Nor
OWNIMMEMOPER: Efland LLC
ADDRESS: F.0• Box 816 TE.EPHONENO.: 91.9 -383 -7196
AGENTICONTACT: _ $iml=- Tiorn And Allme,,r jot*$ TELEPHONE NO.: -Z0
91:9- 677 , 4
Sett !Addax._.
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: 2 Properties 3.13..16 and 3.31A.21E.
Orange County Tax Map Blocks Lots) Township abs ks-
Zoning Dlstrlct(s): R -1 Residential
Total Number of Acres:
Torah Number of Lets: ,� Avenge Lot Si m:l.4150041nimum Lot Siza:.0 A,p,R -.
NumbernWo of Struc r�s:h(e.�isting) _ - (Proposed) ' Z2Z AiBgle
Linear Feet in Streets: ' �► Acres in Open Space: 147
Water Sugply:. %tuater Public (specify) Couuaunity individual
Wastewater 1)isPosal:Oran a Public (specify) Community Individual
School Di�surict:Efla h eks •FireDistrict F.fland
Central Land Uses InAmr /A xiculture
Critical Areas: 7,350 L. T . �. ... - streaWdrainageways- 11.9 Acres flood prone areas
1p r-; no watershed (specify) N/A historic sites
other(exphW - Arras Neuse River Buffer.outs of
flood plain
Is the property to be subdivided cucrendty tinder "Perm use value taxation"? Yes No . If "yes;' please
contact the Osage Ceunty Tit Office. Subdivision of the property tnaY requite payment aidefe�red taxes larder
"harm use value taxation."
B. All plats miter be submiaed on sheet no smaAerthtan one inch equals two-huzsdred feet and no larger than
one inch equals twenty fact (1" -YD'} and muse contain the following information:
subdivision name
name dt address of owners)
name 8t address o(subdivider
(if other dm owner)
✓ matnc of surveyor, engineer, landscape
architect or architect, address.
registration 9 A seas
(ti tic) re mart' a
scale, north arrow
date of plan preparadon sad revisions
- township, talc map- black -lot references
Parent parcel Identification 5
deed book and pa Se 9 of property to be
subdivided
boundary described with bearings and
distamc%
" total acreage of the tract and acreage of
lots.. including and excluft, area within
rights -of -way
_;- control comer
✓ zontag of um and a4acant properties
building setback tines by notation
or typical lot layout
location and width of eristfng and
proposed easements (drstnage, utilides,
roads, etc.)
✓ atisting, proposed and adjoining rights-
of way including dimensions and street
names and State Road atunbets. Linear
feet -ofmad centerliaea and approximate
acreage ofnaw.ytre trite -or -way
W existing and proposed utilities, including
type, Sizes, hydranm, valves manholes
�' existing and proposed curbs, miters and
culverts, including sixes and grades
location and width of alleys, sidewalks,
bike lanes, transit cyst ms, and bus stops
.%
typical street cross - sections and
intersection details including design und
width of ttsrvelway and shoulders
(please complete revme side)
ar�rc ts1:K LzjUjJ $- 0 ; 10:14 KIML.EY- HORN -+ 1 919 382 0414;# -3! 3
-f - proposed lot lines with dimensions .
lot d~ black numbers
V7 phasing 11*s)
topography at ten (10) foot intervals
%vater bodies, streams, tloodways and
iloodplains
Strum buffers
location and size of parcels dedicated for
public use, recreational use or reserved in
common,'with purpose noted
impervious surface dart (if located in
water supply wammhed)
vioudty reap showing general location of
subdivision with streets and roads
identified by Star: Road number and name
s[ .11landscapin; mad buffer requirements
"Wwnship, torpor= and a rtraren itorial
planning judsdicdon lines which cross the
propem
C• . OTHER SUB&MMAL REQURs mENTS
I- Twenty -five (35) copies of the Preliminary Plan, .
horizontal aliMent, centerline race*
and general trove data an all proposed
✓ m`'A permanent feannt s such as buildings,
cemeteries, Historic landmarks
-� MR-djolnrng lot layout names of adjoining
property owners. If subdivided,
subdivision plat name, Plae book & page
number, and perimeter lot numbers,
✓� location and size of lots of ivstrimci
development potential and natation on
plat regarding same
!! starutweter detention and/or retention
sites and undisturbed areas for Wittadon
purposes (if located in water supply
�! idmtified natural areas and wrildlde-
corridors
" ti -7- One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (With= parcels mvalved cleanly mack4;
► ]A- 3- +here municipal or OWASA sewer is rat available, a copy of the preliminary plat indicating Health
Department approvaVdenial for each lot shown thereon.
&q4 4• Where a private road is proposed, a wtia= statement by the applicant or his/her atuhari W represanrddve
which sets %rth the jusitification for a private road (see Section Iv- B -3-d -1 of the Orave County Subdivuion
Qttlations).
3. Anx11'nar7 documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Secdaa VI afthis Ordinance which assure
completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include,
e�&j l-pr, but aot be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement and m'dcles of incorporation and restrictive
covenants pertaipiuS to a homeowners associadom These documenU may be required as necessary as evidence
that the ordinance requirements are being, met.
O'W-" 6. Fee - .5470 plus S5.00 per lot (one fee for Preliminary and Fatal Plat),
[31d� 7. If the subdivision contains 10 lots or more, the following information sbap be submitted with the application:
a. Number of years to bulldouL
b. Number of houses to be built during each year until buildout
e. Average price of houux including lop for each year to buildour -
L the applicant, hereby certify chat the foregoing applicatio campfete an
APPLICA,7SSIGNL ATUU OWNER'SSIGNATUR.E
DATE
DATE
FEES: amount Dace raid Receipt -`
IC
SOIL&WATERI
CONSERVAT!`ON
orange Sall and Water Conservation District
306 Revere Road - P jQ. Box 8181
.1-1111sborough, NC, 27278 - Phone: 919- 732 -8181 • Ext. 2750
Nov. 27, 2000
To: Orange County Planning Dept.
Carla Bateman
From: Gail Hughes, Soil Conservationist.
Orange Soil and Water Conservati istrict
RE: Site Plan
McGowen Creek Subdivision
The Orange Soil and Water Conservation District staff have reviewed the proposed plan. All of file
erosion control features seem to be in place. An on site investigation by the Orange County Planning
Department, - Sediment and Erosion Control officers is recommended. The on -site investigation should be
made to determine adequate size and location of sediment retention ponds, silt fences, and establishment of
vegetation..
Sediment and Erosion Control officers should make all final approvals.
Please feel free to contact us at the Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District office or Ext.
2750, if you have any questions.
ORANGE COUNTY
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Carla Bateman, Planner I
Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor
From: Rich Shaw, ERCD Land Conservation Manager
Margaret Jones, Land Resource Technician
Date: November 30, 2000
Re: Proposed McGowan Creek Subdivision
(TMBL 3.11.16 and TMBL 3.31.A.21E)
This is an addendum to our memo of August 24, 2000, updating ERCD
comments on the proposed McGowan Creek Subdivision. Once again, these
comments are intended a) to address any concerns that we might have with
respect to impacts on natural and cultural resources, and b) to identify any areas
that might be desirable for possible dedication to the County for public
recreation /open space pursuant to current subdivision regulations.
The current site plan (Page 1 of the November 8 Preliminary Plan) shows a
"Future Orange County Trail" along the north side of McGowan Creek, which
forms part of the southern boundary, of the property. While there are no formal
plans for a county walking trail along McGowan Creek, we concur with the
developer's intent to allow the possibility of such an amenity in the future. If a
trail were created, ERCD would suggest that it be an unpaved, natural surface
trail for pedestrian use only. In the meantime, this undeveloped linear corridor
will continue to serve as a riparian buffer and wildlife habitat. This flooded
segment of McGowan Creek is 20 to 40 yards wide and provides scenic views
across the-water to the neighboring undeveloped lands.
It appears that the proposed dedication of land could accommodate a potential
trail, which we would recommend be a minimum of 50 to 60 feet wide and be
aligned outside of the floodplain to the maximum extent possible.
The proposed site plan appears consistent with the County's desire to minimize
adverse environmental impacts with respect to the protection of floodplains,
wetlands, natural areas and wildlife habitat, historic and cultural resources and
prime farmland. 'See, attached map depicting County data for these resources.
Let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss these findings.
Attachment
I1
MEMORANDUM
(�U .Orange County Erosion Control Division
306F, Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Telephone: (919) 732 -8181 Ext. 2588 FAX: (919) 644 -3002
To: Carla Bateman, Planner
From: Ren.lvins, Erosion Control Officer
Date: November 21, 2000
Subject: Preliminary Review of McGowen Creek Subdivision
Dear Carla:
As I have.not yet visited the site I may.have additional comments later.
Erosion Control Plan approval is required for each Phase, or phases to be built
simultaneously, if more than 20,000 square feet of land is to be disturbed.
Phasing should be planned so construction of one phase does not damage existing
development or prevent installation of sediment control for -a subsequent phase. Ex:
Increased runoff from an earlier Phase flows through a latter Phase: the increased runoff
could prevent proper installation of measures or require a very large device (trap).
The Division of Water Quality must preapprove stream crossing for utilities (Sanitary
Sewer). This letter-.of approval must be included with your. "Application for Erosion
Control... and Financial Responsibility° . The Application is not considered complete with
out this approval.
Are your Phase lines only for house building purposes? Are you planning to permit the
entire site, install the Infrastructure and fall back per the Phasing to build out?
All traps will require a Skimmer (floating Weir) type outlet control. Traps will be at
stormwater outfall and remain in place through the majority of house construction. Even
traps . in a 'completed" phase may still be required if later phases are tracking mud unto
the roads, and hence to the traps located at the storm outfall.
Reynolds J. (Ren) Ivins
Erosion Control Officer II
Acting Supervisor .
g:\ ivins\ newwork \mcgowensubdivision \comment1
10/27/1999 15:44 9193837196 M
ORANGE COUNTY
XMIABOROUGH
NORTH C.&ROUNA
r , '/
February 18, 1999
Mr. David Morris
412 Constitution Drive
Durham, NC 27705
Dear Mr. Morris:
As per your request, this letter is intended to serve as verification of availability of sewer
service to your proposed development on property parcels lying along the north and south
banks of McGowan Creek between Richmond and Efland -Cedar Grove Roads in Efland,
NC. Insofar as your development lies adjacett to the existing sewer collection system or
can be provided some manna of voluntary pnission (which inclu a recorded
permanent access/maintenance and tempo instruction easem gain the
necessary access ov�thropgh property _ . der your co far as your
property and de
subdivision req
can be made av
classified as' tr
Orange County
designated as tr
currently has th
question.
lnd
tem
rea
the
1 area
,in
You will, of course, recall that you have been advised that you will be responsible for
bearing all.the, costs associated with the sewer engineering, permitting, construction, full
time construction supervision, tap- on/availability fees, easement acquisition and
recording, legal fees, etc., necessary to provide sewer service to your proposed
development and every dwelling therein.
If you have any questions or I may provide additiomal information, please advise.
S'
Paul K. Thames, PE
County Engineer
14'
Force was going to recommend that 5% of every bond should be dedicated to affordable housing, and that one
cent on the tax rate should be dedicated to affordable housing each year.
4 Schofield asked if there had been any discussions about how there could be an incentive or a direct order to
5 provide some affordable housing component in private development plans. Woods said that the task force has
6 made a recommendation that 10 -15% of units in every apartment complex that is approved by any jurisdiction in
7 the County must be affordable for families making less than 80% of the area median. The authority to require
8 affordable housing in the absence of a rezoning does not exist, so the task force is asking the County
9 Commissioners to petition for the permission.
10
11 Woods said that it was clear that the economic development nodes would be appropriate locations for affordable
12 housing units to be densely placed. He said that the ordinances in Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro
13 have a density bonus component to allow a greater number of units for affordable housing. These bonuses have
14 never been used.
15
16 AGENDA ITEM 98: COURTESY REVIEW
17'
18 a. Public School Impact Fees
19 Benedict made this presentation.
20
21 The maximum supportable fee that was discussed at the quarterly public hearing on February 2& was $5,300
22 for Orange County single - family homes and $2,500 maximum for all other residential units. The fee that the
23 Orange County School Board has voted on is $3,000 for single - family homes and $1,400 for all other residential
24 units. For the Chapel Hill- Carrboro school district, the school board has not noted any fees that they are
25 interested in. Presently, they are at the $3,000 level for all types of housing. There is an equity issue between
26' the two school systems that is being worked out by the Commissioners. This will proceed within the next two
27 months after a recommendation comes forward from the Chapel Hill- Carrboro school district.
28
29 b. School APFO .
30 --
31 Benedict that this is being reviewed by all of the local jurisdictions. It will be brought back at a later time. Both
32 school districts have approved the ordinance.
33
34 AGENDA ITEM #9:. SUBDIVISIONS
35 a. Preliminary Plans
36 (1) McGowan Creek
37. (Cheeks Township - 222 lots)
38
39 Benedict made this presentation. He said that the primary discussion would be the 14,000 square foot lots '
40 serviced by public sewer, which was insisted upon by the applicant.
41
42 PURPOSE: Consideration of Conservation - Cluster Preliminary Plan
43. BACKGROUND:
44 Request
45 Applicant: Scott O. Radway, agent for Efland LLC
46 • 244.7 acre tract including road rights -of -way
47 • Proposed two hundred twenty-two (222) single- family residential lots (includes 66 lot open space density
48 bonus)
49 Location
50 a Cheeks Township
51 • Western side of Efland -Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) approximately 1/2 mile north of US 70W
52 • Portion of tract in 20 -year transition area on north side of US 70
1!
1 Existing Site Conditions
2 Zoning
3 • Rural Residential (R -1) and Upper Eno - Protected Watershed (12% impervious surface)
4 • Minimum zoning lot size for R -1 is 40,000 square feet
5 • Adjacent Land Uses: Single family residential, agricultural and vacant land
6 Physical Description
7 • Slight slopes on majority of site
8 a McGowan Creek flows through the southwest comer of the property
9 • Two small streams drain the property to McGowan Creek, which is flooded due to the Efland Mill Pond
.10 dam located just downstream.
11 • An intermittent stream bisects the property and flows in a southwest direction.
12 • Large areas of the interior part of the property have been timbered in recent years with perimeter and
13 riparian areas.remaining fairly intact.
14 Propose_ d Site Conditions .
15 Roads:
16 • Access to subdivision is from Efland -Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004)
17 • Two proposed public roads, designed to NCDOT (and County) standards.
18 • Right turn taper lane built to NCDOT standards required on Efland -Cedar Grove Road at south entrance -of
19 subdivision.
20 • Left -hand turn from Efland -Cedar Grove Road onto McGowan Creek Parkway built to NCDOT standards.
21 • Street names approved/reserved and shown on Preliminary Plat.
22 Open Space
23 • 147.08 (60 %) in common area open space.
24 • 66.23 acres of open space over 33% .(80.75 acres) that is required
25. • 100' minimum buffer around site
26 • Large open space area at south -west and north side of property
27 • A large portion of this tract has been identified as a potential Community Park
28 Density Bonus Provision
29 • 66 bonus lots proposed
30 - [1 bonus lot permitted for every acre of open space over 80.75 acres (33 %) required]
31 • 222 total lots proposed
32 [Minimum lot size in Conservation/Cluster option = 14,000 sq. ft. (65% reduction)]
33 Water — Sewer
34 • Water supply by private utility
35 • . Public Sewer (Orange County) (Letter provided from County Engineer)
36. • Sewer acreage fees will be accessed in accordance with Orange County policy
37 • Sewer fee to Hillsborough to be paid as permits are obtained
38 Recreation
39 • Within area designated for Cheeks Community Park
40 • Recreation space required =3.9 acres -
41 • Three areas of active recreation space provided with intermittent pedestrian access trails totaling 17.5 acres
42 Agency Comments
43 • Requests for agency comments were sent to: NCDOT, Board. of Education, County Engineer,
44 Environmental Health, ERCD, County Attorney, Soil and Water Conservation
45 Development Process, Schedule, and Action
46 Planning Board
47 • First Action: Concept Plan approved by the Planning Board (by 7 -1 vote) Sept. 6, 2000, with the
48 following conditions:
49 1. All roads shall be public and designed to meet NCDOT (and County) standards.
50 2. If a sign is anticipated, reserve sign easement location at entrance to subdivision. Sign to meet setback
51 requirements.
16,
1 3. Ultimate right -of -way along Efland -Cedar Grove Road shall be 70 feet. Dedication along Efland -Cedar
2 Grove Road of five additional feet of right -of way • or 35 feet from center of existing right -of -way,
3 whichever is greater, will be required to be shown on preliminary plan. Property lines to stop at new right -
4, of -way lines.
5 4. Submit draft documentation for Homeowner's Association restrictive covenants or conservation easements
6 that contain use and maintenance provisions for the open space, and buffers. The restrictive covenants or
7 conservation shall designate.a back -up grantee in the event the homeowners association is eliminated.
8 5. No main utility lines shall be located under pavement.
9 6. No private utilities allowed within public right -of- way.,
10 7. Recommended taps (water and sewer) to be installed for each lot prior to road construction completion.
11 Encroachment agreement for these services will be required before the State will accept maintenance of the
12 roadway. .
13 8. Provide additional 5' easements on both sides of all streets. Improved intersections to NCDOT standards
14 with 60 feet of right-of-way at all intersections.. -
15 9. No driveways shall be approved within 50 feet of an intersection.
16 10. Provide NCDOT encroachment agreement required for sewer lines prior to acceptance of roads for
17 maintenance.
1S 11. Drainage easements to be. identified at preliminary submittal stage.
19 12. Delineation of FEMA 100 -year floodplain required at preliminary stage.
20 13. In addition to the required 30 -50 foot connecting trail along McGowan Creek, the remaining flood plain.
21 areas shall be set aside to provide a linear riparian corridor which would serve as a riparian buffer, wildlife
22 habitat and possibly a rustic woodland trail to connect to riparian areas on adjacent properties in the future.
23 14. Pursuant to Section IV -B -7 -b of the Subdivision Regulations, dedicate five (5) acres at the extreme
24 northeast corner of site for the purpose of public recreation/open space and reserve an additional eleven -(11)
25 acres of surrounding property for purchase by the County. Should the County be unsuccessful in
26 negotiating a purchase of additional acreage to the north of the site at such time as Preliminary Plat is
27 submitted for review, the County shall accept payment in lieu as an alternative to dedication.
28 15. Required turn lane from Efland -Cedar Grove Road onto Street A (main project entrance) shall be evaluated
29 during Preliminary subdivision review.
30 16. Traffic impact at Efland -Cedar Grove and US 70 intersection to be evaluated during Preliminary subdivision
31 review.
32 • Preliminary Plan addresses all conditions of approval of the concept plan
33 Second Action: Planning Board to consider Preliminary Plan
34 Options:
35 1- Action within two regularly scheduled meetings, or extension thereof;
36 2: If the Planning Board fails to act within the specified time period, application forwarded to BOCC with
37 Planning Board minutes and Planning Staff recommendation and conditions.
38 FISCAL EWPACT: A Fiscal Impact Analysis'is. included as an attachment
39
40 RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends Denial of the Preliminary Plan pursuant to
41 Section III -D ,3-b and IV-B-6-b.
42
43 Benedict said that the staff is recommending denial of this-subdivision on the basis that the applicant has
44 designed the project anticipating a sewer system from Orange County. In the absence of a sewer system from
45 Orange County, the lots would have to be a minimum of 40,000 square feet. The staff thinks that designing a
46 subdivision with the anticipation of water and sewer is premature for two reasons: 1) There is no water and
47 sewer in the area now; and 2) There is no approved and adopted master plan of Efland outside of where the
48 existing sewer system is now. There is a meeting on March 20`h about the Efland sewer plan.
49
50 Allison asked about Richmond Hills in relation to McGowan Creek in terms of tapping on with the Efland sewer
51 system. Benedict said that the Efland system was constructed from 1985 -1988. There were no full residential
52 subdivisions that tied on to that system until Richmond Hills came forward last year. Only individual residential
53 customers have tapped on to the system. He said that Richmond Hills was in the 20 -year transition area adjacent
I to existing sewer systems. The County Commissioners will be setting up the specific rules for the extension of
2 the sewer system in Efland..
3
4 Allison asked if anything had changed from when the concept plan was approved. Benedict said that in the
5 preliminary plat submission, it asked for a certification from the utility provider that sewer would be given.
6 Through the preliminary plan process, it was uncovered that verification of the availability of sewer is not the
7 same as a certification that a sewer system will be assigned for that speck property.
8
9 Allison asked how the Planning Board was going to address other situations like this in Efland. Benedict said
10 that the meeting on March 20th would. address a lot of these issues. He said that it makes sense to have sewer
11 systems where there are public water systems already in place.
12
13 Allison asked if Benedict was suggesting a moratorium of development in Efland and Benedict said no. He said
14 that, if a project of this type were going to proceed, the developer would have to ask the Board of County
15 Commissioners if they are willing to service with a public sewer system.
16
17 Chair Gooding -Ray made reference to the Water and Sewer Policy for Orange County and asked for
18 clarification on extending sewer services outside of the transition area. Benedict said that sewer services could
19 not be extended outside of the transition area unless the Comprehensive Plan was changed.
20
21 Woods made reference to the Upper Eno planning document and asked if this plan conformed to the provisions
22 as part of the Upper Eno sustainable planning area. Benedict showed the Upper Eno area on a map. He said
23 that the Commissioners want to make sure that there are edges of an urban growth boundary so that urban and
24 rural development is clearly separated. He said that the Efland Small Area plan, which includes the Buckhorn
25 EDD, was developed in 1995 and was anticipated for a water and sewer system. At this time, Orange- Alamance
26 does not have the capacity or the pressure to service the area, so there would be no reason for the County to
27 service that economic development area with sewer if there is no public water.
28
29 Holtkamp made reference to the letter of February 27, 2001 from Efland LLC and asked if the County Attorney
30 had responded. Benedict said that the County Attorney had not responded. She asked and Benedict clarified
31 that the letter from County Engineer Paul Thames said that sewer was only available and that it was not a
32 certification of sewer'services. Benedict said that the letter from Paul Thames was incorrect in that this entire
33 property is not within the transition area. (It is not known if Paul Thames was referring to the entire tract now in
34 question or a portion of the subject tract.
35
36 Holtkamp verified that the burden was on the developer to apply to the Commissioners to get a sewer
37 agreement.
38
39 Benedict reiterated that the letter from the County Engineer was not a certification from the utility provider of
40 Orange County or a certification that an agreement has been adopted by both parties.
41
42 Schofield asked if Paul Thames would be the appropriate authorizing agent for sewer accessibility if this area
43 had a master plan in place. Benedict said that a certain part of the process, if there was a master plan, was that
44 the County Engineer might be able to move the certification process farther along. The final certification is
45 when Orange County signs a document that sets forth the, obligations of them as the utility provider, and the
46 applicant signs a sewer agreement.
47
48 Allison said that it was disturbing to him that the developer was surprised at this process at this late stage. He
49 said that it seemed that the rules were changed and it is not fair to the developer. He said that there was never
50 any discussion with the Planning Board about the need for certification of sewer services.
51
52 Holtkamp said that certification of sewer services was not necessary for the concept plan. She does not think
53 that the developer has been misled. She said that she was going to make a resolution that the transitional areas
18
1 should be delineated so that the residents understand that they are buying houses in a transitional area right next
2 to an economic development area.
3
4 Schofield pointed out that the County Engineer's letter said that he was advised by the Orange County Planning
5 Department that the property is in the transition area. Benedict said that this was incorrect and that the
6 information was, given before he arrived as Planning Director.
7
8 Schofield said that he thinks that'the responsibility was on the developer to identify whether or not their area is
9 in a transitional area.
10
11 Holtkamp said that staff has done the right thing to determine the inconsistencies in the right stage. She said
12 that we should be fair to the citizens that live out there to do all things reasonably necessary in the interests of
13 promoting the overall comprehensive plan and not the specific interests of Efland LLC.
14
15 McAdams asked to hear from the developer.
16
17 Strayhorn asked if this was the first master plan for the Efland area. Benedict said that studies were done, but
18 there was never an adapted plan.
19
20 Schofield said that the bottom line was that this project was in conflict with numerous policies and the only way
21 for the developer to proceed was to go directly to the Commissioners to ask for sewer extension.
22
23 Discussion ensued about the transition area.
24
25 Benedict said that the line for the transition area was not on the project map at the concept plan stage.
26
27 Applicant Comments
28
29 Gordon Brown, attorney for Efland LLC, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He spoke about the process of the
30 project. He said that in September, on four days notice, the Planning-Board made a radical recommendation
31 that 50 acres of this subdivision be plucked out and used as a park site. This created great confusion., As a
32 result of this; the item was postponed to October where, on the night of the Planning Board meeting, the 50
33 acres turned into a relocation of the recreational area up in the northeast corner. He said that the Planning Board
34 approved the concept plan and tried to leave it up to the developer and the staff to work out the specifications.
35 He said that the subtext of those meetings was that the County was interested in using this property for a school
36 site or a portion of the property for a school site. This did not materialize and the County did not show any
37 interest in the property as a school site. In early November, the preliminary plat application took place and the
38 project was on the January P and the February 7t' agenda. It was postponed both times. He said that this
39 process seems to thrive on last minute surprises. He said that he does not know what has gone awry and why
40 there have been so many false starts. He said that the rights of the developers are not being observed.
41
42 Brown said that in 1999 and again in 2000, he checked in with the County and received the letter from Paul
43 Thames stating that the property was in the transition area. He said that David Morris made a personal visit to
44 the Orange County Planning Department and reviewed the map with Marvin Collins and determined that this
45 property was within the transition area. He said that it was highly irregular for a process to go on for almost
46 three years without knowing that all of the property was not in the transition area.
47
48 Brown made reference to the certification process and the part of the development ordinance entitled,
49 "Reservation of Space for Utilities" on page 139 of the agenda abstract. He said that this document did not
50 require certification of anything. He said that the only requirement, according to the ordinance, was that the
51 County Engineer was to approve the extension. He said that there was no existing ordinance or regulation that
52 requires a certification. Benedict pointed Mr. Brown to paragraph A of the Water /Sewer Policy. He said that in
paragraph A it says that the County Engineer could only sign off on something if there is an adopted overall
system plan. There is not an adopted plan for this area.
4 Brown disagreed. He thinks that the language indicates that this ordinance applies to all extensions in the
5 Efland sewer area.
6
7 Brown then continued by talking about the policy. He said that no one at the staff level appears to want to
8 address the technical merits of the subdivision. He said that this was a plan that utilizes contraction of living
9 areas into a smaller portion of the subdivision and an expansion of the undisturbed area. He said that the
10 developer thought that this project was consistent with the County goals in that it preserved a lot of open space.
11 He said that this project was not going to tie on to the Orange- Alamance line, but would have private water
12 utility. He said that he would like the subdivision considered on its technical merit. He urged the Planning
13 Board to recommend the subdivision to the County Commissioners.
14
15 Woods said that he could not responsibly vote for this subdivision that requires sewer service to proceed but
16 does not have it. Brown made reference to the letter from the County Engineer and said that there was capacity
17 for sewer service. He said that if there was a critical utility that was not going to be provided to the subdivision,
18 the project would stop at the building permit stage.
19
20 Brown said that the policy issues were not the responsibility of the Planning Board.
21
22 Woods asked if this subdivision had been planned for two years without referencing an Orange County water
23 and sewer policy that has been in place since 1991. Brown said that they had been proceeding for almost three
24 years with the understanding that this property was in the transition area. He made reference to a letter of July
25 17, 2000 from the staff to the developer and said that something has changed in the last six months. He quoted
26 from the letter as follows: "....in addition to the standard letter from the Orange County Engineer, agreeing to
27 connect the subdivision to existing services."
28
29 Woods made reference to page six of the water and sewer policy and the circumstances under which water and
30 sewer facilities would be extended. He quoted from the letter from the County Engineer, as follows: "Insofar as
31 your property and development proposals meet the applicable County land use zoning and subdivision
32 requirements and regulations. ". He said that it seems that this letter has no effect if this subdivision does not
33 meet the land use requirements.
34
35 Schofield said that he was troubled by the letter of February 18, 1999 and the recent developments that there
36 was no master plan in place for this area, which was not disclosed at the concept stage. He said that someone
37 owes the developer a big apology. However, he has a problem with the fact that half of the development is in.
38 the transition area.
39
40 Brown said that they were not given adequate notice to research the maps and present an affidavit. He said that
41 he was not asking for an extension. He is concerned about spending more time with the'sewer issue in Efland.
42 He said that they would thoroughly research this before it goes to the Commissioners.
43
44 Holtkamp said that she would like to see what was presented to the County Engineer in 1999. She asked what
45 would happen next if the staff has in fact made a mistake. Brown suggested that the Planning Board approve the
46 subdivision based on the technical merits and let the Commissioners deal with the sewer issue and the transition
47 area issue.
48
49 Holtkamp said that she was concerned about the language, "insofar as" in the letter from the County Engineer.
50
51 Several other clarifying questions were answered satisfactorily by Craig Benedict.
52
2(
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Selkirk asked Brown if he had received a response from the County Attorney to the letter of February 27, 2001.
Brown said that he was informed that the County Attorney would get involved at the next level.
Schofield verified with Benedict that, at the last meeting, the justification for denial was partly based on the fact
that part of the land was not in the transition area and that it was not a last minute surprise.
Benedict said that the applicant has looked at the maps and has seen where the transition areas are. He said that
a portion of the-area to the north is clearly not within the transition area, and the applicant was in the office this
week to verify that. He said that this area has no utilities on site and the only way for this site to get utilities is
to go through other properties. He made reference to the standard letter and said that this letter was from the
concept stage that there was a potential of availability for sewer services. He said that the letter from the
County Engineer would probably have to be debated at the Commission level. He reiterated that there was no
adopted plan to extend sewer to this area.
Several clarifying questions were asked by Holtkamp and answered satisfactorily by Benedict.
Katz asked Benedict if the agreement between the sewer provider and the developer should be in place before
the developer can bring in a proposal such as this. Benedict said that in his opinion, a sewer agreement should
be a prerequisite to a final plan.
MOTION:
22
23
24 MOTION:
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Allison moved to deny the staff recommendation and approve the preliminary
plan for McGowan Creek subdivision. There was no second.
Woods moved to accept the staff recommendation and deny the preliminary
plan for McGowan Creek subdivision based upon the fact that there is no
designation from the appropriate utility provider for. sewer that sewer services
will be provided. Seconded by Preston.
Holtkamp made a friendly amendment that there should be further investigation as to the issue of the transition
area line. The friendly amendment was not accepted.
32 Schofield made a friendly amendment to the motion that the preliminary plan be denied because the plan as
33 proposed is, in part, not within the defined transitional area. Benedict said that this was consistent with the staff
34 recommendation.
35
36 Strayhorn said that he would vote against the motion because he thinks the developer has had to act in the dark
37 and it has cost the developer a lot of time and money. He would feel more comfortable sending the plan to the
38 Commissioners with no recommendation at all.
39
40 Triebel said that it seems that this is a catch 22.
41
42 Selkirk agreed with Strayhorn. He said that the authority on this is the Board of County Commissioners.
43
44. Woods accepted Schofield's friendly amendment.
45
46 Chair Gooding -Ray said that she was confused as to why this has gone through really fast because the concept
47 plan was just approved in October. She is concerned about the transition area issue.
48
49 Schofield said that he added the friendly amendment because he thinks the certification issue is murky at best.
50 He does not believe that the staff has made any compelling argument that certification is required. He is
51 tempted to vote against this plan because part of this property is clearly not in the transition area and has been on
52 record since the last meeting.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
.20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Woods restated the motion as follows: Deny the preliminary plan. for McGowan Creek subdivision on the
grounds that the subdivision needs sewer and it does not have it and that a portion of the property is not in the
transition area.
VOTE: Ayes, 8; Noes, 4 (Selkirk, Allison, Strayhorn, McAdams)
Strayhorn said that he prefers to send this to the Commissioners without a recommendation.
Allison said that the County Engineer has put together several water plans for the Efland area. The developer
was sent to the County Engineer and he believes that the developer was misled. He feels that if the County
Engineer's letter is truly in error in reference to the County, it should be retracted or corrected.
A copy of the information sent to Planning Board members by Efland, LLC, is in the permanent agenda file in
the Planning Department.
AGENDA ITEM #10: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar - March
b. Next Planning Board Meeting - April 4, 2001
c. Attendance Record 2000- 2001
Chair Gooding -Ray verified that Triebel would be attending the transportation meeting.
Chair Gooding -Ray will attend the County Commissioners' meeting on March 20th.
AGENDA ITEM #11: ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m.
Becky Butler, Minutes Preparer
Nicole Gooding -Ray, Chair
Date
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD
Bureau of Economic & Business Research - University of Florida
Modified 4/+15/97 - Orange County, NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT:
4.
TOWNSHIP: Cheeks.
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:
Ending Year: 2009
22
Average
Distribution
Number of
Sales Price
of Units
Year
Homes
($)
by Year
2002.
30
170,000
13.51%
2004
30
181,000
13.51%
2006
30
196,000
13.61%
2008
17
212,000
7.66%
h
24 '
SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA
YEAR
2002
2004
HOUSING UNITS
55
115
POPULATION
136
284
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary
12
24
Middle
3
6
High School
3
7
TOTAL
18
38
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government
0.14
0.29'
Public Safety
0.18
0.38
Public Works
0.06
0.13
Human Services
0.34
0.71
TOTAL
0.73
1.52
SCHOOL DISTRICT
1.05
2.19"
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
26 '
SECTION 5 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
M
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
School District: School Attendance:
M Middle School 17%
YEAR
2001 2002
2003 2004 2005
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary
2834
2846
Middle
1243
1246
High School
1460
1464
TOTAL
5537
5557 .
29
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR HIGH ROCK VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH
Prepared by,
The Orange County Planning Department
' January,- 2001
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
McGowan Creek subdivision contains 222 buildable lots and is located in Cheeks
Township. The lots, are accessed by new public roads which will intersect with Efland -Cedar
Grove Road. The current zoning is 111 -Rural Residential District. The average lot size is
approximately- 14,500 square feet. -Lots will be served by private water system and public
sewer systems.
Project build -out is estimated at eight years. Housing units will be constructed,
beginning in 2001, with completion of the project scheduled for 2009. Units will consist of
detached single - family homes, and the applicant estimates the average sales price to be
$186,375, including the lot.
METHODOLOGY
Fiscal impact analysis is a projection of the direct, current, public costs and revenues
associated with residential and non residential growth in the jurisdiction in which the growth is
taking place. Fiscal impact analysis considers only direct impact in that it projects only the
primary costs that will be incurred and the immediate revenues that will be generated. It
calculates the financial effect of a planned development or new subdivision by considering the
current costs and revenues. such a development would generate if it were completed and
occupied today. Fiscal impact analysis does not consider the private costs of public action. It is
concerned only with public (governmental) costs and revenues.
The method used in .preparing the fiscal impact analysis is the Service Standard
Approach. While only gross expenditures -by service category are derived from the Per Capita
Method, the Service Standard method determines the total number of additional employees by
service function that will be required as a result. of growth. This method employs average
county- government costs per person; average school costs per pupil, an employee to
population ratio, and average operating expenses per employee for each service category and
school district. The number of new employees are projected and multiplied times the average
operating expenses (includes personnel, operating and capital costs) per employee. These
average costs are then weighed against per capita and per pupil revenues to project the total
net fiscal impact of the development.
CI
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH
PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Section .1 - Project Data
Project Name, Township, School District
Beginning Year, Ending Year, Inflation
Characteristics of Households
Construction Schedule/Cost Data
Section 2 - Local Government and School District Data
Budget Year
Per Capita Revenues
Per Capita Expenditures
Per Student Expenditures
School District Per Employee Expenditures
Employees Per 1000 Population
County.Per Employee Expenditure
Other Data
Other Model Constants
School District Data
Section 3 - Demographic Projections Based On Project Data
Total Housing
Total Population
School Children
Additional County Employees
Total
School District Additional Employees
Section 4 - Projected Net Fiscal Impact on County
Tax Base
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Fiscal Impact
Section 5 - Projected Net Fiscal Impact on School District
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Fiscal Impact
Section 6 - Summary of Projected Impacts
Additional Housing
Additional Population
Additional School Children
Tax Base
County Government Balance
School District Balance
Total Net Fiscal Impact
Section 7 - Summary of Projected Public School Capacity Impacts
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND DATA SOURCES
SECTION.1 - PROJECT DATA
Project data includes information about the specific development project. Much, if not
all, of the information is supplied by the applicant. Data inputs include:
Project Name: Name of the project.
Township: Township in which the project is located.
School District: School district in which the project is located.
Beginning Year: The first year of the project in which dwelling units are completed -and
occupied.
Ending Year: The last year in which dwelling units are completed and occupied. The template
is set to calculate fiscal impacts for a ten -year period.
Inflation Rate: Unless an inflation rate is entered, the template will calculate fiscal impacts
based on constant dollars. Since the. inflation rate changes frequently, the Finance Department
must be 'contacted for the most recent figure.
Persons/Household:. The estimated average number of persons/household (dwelling unit)
based on 1990 Census data and studies of the number of students per household for the
school district in which the project is located. The most recent studies include A' Study of
Housing Characteristics and Student Generation Rates for Orange County, N.C. (1995) and
Technical Report : Calculation of Proportionate Share impact Fees for Financing Public School
Capital Needs, Orange County, N.C. (1996).
Children/Household: The estimated average number of school age children/household
(dwelling unit) based on studies of the number of students per household for the school district
in which the project is located. The most recent study is A Study of Housing Characteristics and
Student Generation Rates for Orange County, N. C. (1995).
% Non - Elderly: N.C. General Statutes permit an $11,000 exemption to the elderly and
disabled who meet certain income criteria. In the event that elderly units are part of the project,
the percentage of eligible non -elderly units is entered. The tax base will automatically be
adjusted to reflect the exemption.
Number of Homes: The number of dwelling units to be constructed in the project in each year.
Average Sales Price: The average sales price of all dwelling units based on the number and
sales price of dwelling unit types to be constructed in each year.
32
SECTION 2 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
Local government data includes information regarding expenditures required to provide
County services and revenues received based on the approved Orange County budget for the
fiscal year in which the project is considered. for approval. All information derived from the
approved budget remains constant - throughout a fiscal year (July -June) and is changed only
with the approval of a new budget.
Local government revenue and expenditure information.is compiled on a per capita (per
person) basis. Per capita figures are derived by dividing the total expenditures for a particular
service function or revenue source by the estimated population of Orange County for the year
in which the project is considered for approval. Populations estimates are prepared by the
Planning Department.
Data inputs include the following:
Budget Year: The current fiscal year, i.e., 1996 -97.
Per Capita Revenues: The sources of revenue by major category are as follows:
Taxes - Other Than Property: Revenues from taxes other than property taxes include those
from sales and use taxes, franchise taxes, and animal taxes.
Intergovernmental Aid: Revenues from this source, in the form of categorical aid or
shared -tax revenues, are provided through. State and federal assistance programs.
Service Charges: Service (or user) charges support numerous functions and are charged to
those who voluntarily receive governmental services or use governmental facilities.
Miscellaneous: Miscellaneous revenues include interest earnings on investments, proceeds
from license and permit fees, and all other revenues.
Per Capita Expenditures: Expenditures by major category are as follows:
General Goveenment: Services related to the legislative, administrative, financial, and legal
functions of government.
Public Safety: Law enforcement services and emergency medical services.
Public Works: Efforts related to the maintenance of County -owned property and the provision
of sanitation (solid waste disposal) services.
Human Services: Departments responsible for the provision of - health, social, and
recreation- related services.
33
Education: Orange County supports two school units, the Orange County school system and
the Chapel Hill- Carrboro school system. This category includes appropriations made to the
designated. school system for Recurring Capital items. Recurring Capital funds are used for
general maintenance, purchase of new equipment/furnishings and vehicle maintenance.
Non - Departmental: Contributions to agencies providing cultural and social services outside
the formal structure of county government. Other expenditures include equipment replacement
and contingency, funds. Although there are no employees generated by this category, it has
been included as an operating expenditure. It will be included in Section 4, 'Total Annual
County Expenditure." These expenditures will be calculated on a per capita basis as opposed
to a per employee basis. .
Per Student Expenditures: Information regarding expenditures required to provide
educational services and revenues received are .based on the approved school system
budgets for the fiscal year in which the -project is considered for approval: All informa_ tion
derived from the approved budgets remains constant throughout a fiscal year (July -June) and
is changed only with the approval of new budgets.
Expenditure information is compiled on a per student basis for .County Government Current..
Expense, School District and State appropriations. County Government Current Expense
funds are used for general operation purposes including Instruction and Support Services.
Federal revenues and expenditures and other local revenues such as Fund Balance have not
been included since they are not directly growth related. Per student figures are derived by
dividing the total appropriation for educational purposes from a particular source by the
estimated number of students to be enrolled in the applicable school system for the year in
which the project is considered for approval. Student enrollments are obtained from the
approved school system budgets.
County Government: Expenditures. in this category are based on appropriations to the school
systems by Orange County for. Current Expense. The minimum level of per student
appropriation is determined by the State Board of Education.
School District: Expenditures in this category are unique to the Chapel Hill- Carrboro school
system and are based on the level of expenditures possible through assessment of a
supplementary School tax.
State: Expenditures in this category are based on appropriations from the State Board of
Education.
School District Per Employee Expenditure: Expenditures per employee based on County,
School District and State appropriations, and the total number of school district employees.
Employees Per 1000 Population: The number of employees in a particular service category
per 1000 population.
County Per Employee Expenditure: The average operating and capital expenses per
employee in a particular service category. Total expenses in each category includes
personnel, operating and capital costs.
CM 1111111111111
Other Data:
County Government Tax Rate: The County tax rate per $100 of assessed valuation. Since
the per capita method focuses only on operating expenditures, the tax rate is reduced by an
amount equal to the debt service payments from property taxes for capital projects.
School District Tax Rate: The supplementary tax assessed on behalf of the Chapel
Hill - Carrboro school system.
Assessment Ratio: The ratio of market (sales) value to assessed value based on information
supplied by the Tax Office. The assessment ratio is used to convert market value to -assessed
value for the purpose of computing the tax base.
Other Model Constants
Elderly Exemption: For projects developed partially or exclusively for elderly (65 and older) or
disabled individuals whose annual income does not exceed .$12;000, an $11,000 tax
exemption is used.in projecting the tax base.
School District Employees Per Student: The number of employees per student in a specific
school district.
SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA
Demographic projections provide information about the number of new residents and school
children anticipated in Orange County resulting from project development. Projections also
provide the number of additional employees required per service function and school district as
a result of the new development.
Total Housing Units: The cumulative total of new housing units added each year by project
development.
Total Population: The total population added each year. by a project derived by multiplying the
number of homes to be constructed by the number of persons per household (see Section 1).
School Population: The total number of school children added each year by a project derived
by multiplying the number of homes constructed by the number of children per household (see
Section 1).
Additional County Employees: The number of additional employees required per service
category based on project development.
Total: Total of all additional county employees required based on project development.
School District Additional Employees: The number of additional employees required per
school district based on the project development.
cm
SECTION 4 - PROJECTED NET FISCAL IMPACT ON COUNTY
Tax Base: The tax base represents the increase in assessed property value expected each
year resulting from project development. The values shown are in $1,000's and are derived
from a formula which includes the number and sales price of homes, and the assessment ratio.
Where applicable, the perbentage of non - elderly units and elderly exemption are also used.
Revenues: All revenues are derived from a formula which multiplies the per capita revenues
(Section 2) times the projected population (Section 3). The exception to this is the property tax
which multiplies the tax base times the county government tax rate.
Expenditures: All expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies the per employee
expenditure (Section 2) times the number of additional employees (Section 3).
Net Fiscal Impact: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures and
projected revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs 'Orange County more to
provide services to 'a project than it receives in revenues. A positive net balance indicates that
more revenues are received than it costs to serve a project. Positive net balances in one
project may thus be used to offset negative balances in another.
SECTION 5 - PROJECTED NET FISCAL IMPACT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
Revenues: The County contribution is derived by transferring education expenditures by
County government (Section 4). Revenues derived from the school district tax are derived by
multiplying the school district tax times the tax base. State revenues are derived by multiplying
the per student expenditure figure times the total projected number of school children (Section
3).
Expenditures: Expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies each per student
expenditure (Section 2) times the total projected number of school children (Section 3) and
adding the results.
Net Fiscal Impact: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures and
projected revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs the school system more to
provide educational services for children in a project than it receives in revenues. A positive net
balance indicates that more revenues are received than it costs to serve a project. Positive net
balances in. one project may thus be used to offset negative balances in another.
SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED IMPACTS
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
ilv- :Til :14: :i FFqo li� t W: i7!�i�.
:4-iml olILZ'Ihi[e
?:IaIe.IalvII[a
........... ....... ..... ...
X.
3 '31
.... ........ ...
... .............
...........
..... ....... ..... .... . ... ......... ...
... . ...... .
.... ....... ..... ...... .. ..
�,
1 X.
— — — --- — ---------- — ----- -- — 0
IkINNEWIrl
Buffer B a of Parcals TNi n" contains parcels prepared for the Inventory of real prepay vAINA
19F71
N
Molar Roads orange County, and is mnpUed from recorded dead, plats, and other public
CM* records and data. users of Oft map are hereby notlged that the aforementloned
ITownshIpText public pdmey Infomfatlon sources should be consulted for vedAcatlon of the
Informadon contained on tltls map. The courdy and its mapping eompenles assume
.,
Townships ,_..., .......um . E— a,. Intnm,aunn remained tln this man.
I
r-xl Q
Z
J
0
r� U
O
Z
co -
C),.o
Qw�W
u �
o
3
101
�aarnar -e p~ ❑Q cc I
dZ
jcoCM
a
m
a
O p
m
V
3
z
°zoo
.m
�
a.
L
LI
V
a
m
a
O p
m
V
3
Cd
Y
O
C)
IN,
MEM
1
40
saaaaia t
3
P
6
•
1
.t
a�
f 1 ;V2
P;l
UVU
s
g
fig it
1
I
❑Ell Ii
11111 ill
``�•�4 era �..\ �. ,V ,\yi��_
iSg3S
p
1
40
I
❑Ell Ii
11111 ill
``�•�4 era �..\ �. ,V ,\yi��_
1
40
13
ft gflmal%
.............
t `jki-W` I MIR
a NO
zi
ft gflmal%
.............
t `jki-W` I MIR
a NO
NF�
Ol
MR,
ft gflmal%
.............
t `jki-W` I MIR
a NO
N
UV•,
I I 11
fig fir` siY 4i a
Is r lilts 1# .y; 3}�f
lilt il;l 1! i1$ iii �@ di t3 s h
` a �1i1 i 42
i+
' `; gyp' :� r� Y; = •fir ' j = - .. -' C�;�'t.
j :'cs
. •pawl -� ... , ,. ; . ,, .
w �� ,j ', � ", IV •� ' ,y � Ib�.'�. -, u ��• ,rr-+� 1 `II'1 3nw
�+ ! •4 ^.. ' Ate, , , ' 1 .: •``•, •y1 � ,` �, � i i
,�, d � . � � � � a � ". ' � � ; ' • � ..
� . t i -, � •t�y�. --.. •' ,) JJ.. may-. .. '_ 1
l y �: • • _ ., -� •i ', ;fir «_ ��;, y ..r -_ -
_' ">;, awx •.:.�.� -� f ��` �,,'•,• ,b�-� -' -mss =•ti �„'rJ.Q,,,,_ •,... .
•'� ". � .: -- _ r's._ - r . = = �.Ys����m ?yak €_m °a'°mm m:
Y wl "aa�aa3�d nail,
Y C -[ ..
NOR �-51+ R
"��ttrekyry'i "oS S
Rkyaa�'.�k�gFqt�'eydy b'�yyC�'�!3•ppii
- la.9lUaV! �w F xi!i �GSIm Aa
7 C iq7 0y.:b7.979yL��3:c3::?595
1 1 7
AIL, !4oi
o �
11 °
� c-r f � _. 8 , x . •1: \ cP.:
Ells ', ,,' _ 1 � ' '1' {•L. v• i.,, 1 /'' S I b"¢W'��.J
1 a •t' - '
:2aYC .49k�i 9��x= 1,sy_9qk t n '� wrow .
.S =asi6 iasa ='_ 'N IN
- nssas ppa�€i3A�`s�a�x5:���S�aa6.:
cc
O vz
a
0Uw
1 1 7
AIL, !4oi
o �
11 °
� c-r f � _. 8 , x . •1: \ cP.:
Ells ', ,,' _ 1 � ' '1' {•L. v• i.,, 1 /'' S I b"¢W'��.J
1 a •t' - '
:2aYC .49k�i 9��x= 1,sy_9qk t n '� wrow .
.S =asi6 iasa ='_ 'N IN
- nssas ppa�€i3A�`s�a�x5:���S�aa6.:
44
n
5
n
'J
3
d
n
z
co
O N
EQ
0
0.
c0 a
0
-I
i
a H it l
111
I I I M
se
i !�4
a 9Zu
`� jay %a j1
tit j
7;
�1
E
n m
all'
E
4p
Ian
se
i !�4
a 9Zu
`� jay %a j1
tit j
i -
09 CID T
• ! c
I` ®®
c;v
h
1•'L \\ �\ f li , n �; , •. .M� \' \, ��'• w �• 1 \ 0. 7 c f
\ � X1,1 (� � `\��� `��•\ ' r- �°'� - - - -• � ^ ' /
- -2
Be
am ti.
\ __ � , •� � �'� -� L',`• \\ `�' I \ . \ \ \\ \tip \\�� \\�,�y \ \,..�\ `. 1 � 1 � •�
,4\ ' \ ♦'� 'may ♦ "`,.." \� =__.. � ti� ��� �•` !�. \.. 1 1 E 2w 9d ZEE
Ll
� ', 7� ii• `i ='rTE , \ `I I I •;. 'L .+ra- - - -'� ni ,... w ! \\
n m
all'
E
4p
Ian
Di
\ \
a.
i -
09 CID T
• ! c
I` ®®
c;v
h
1•'L \\ �\ f li , n �; , •. .M� \' \, ��'• w �• 1 \ 0. 7 c f
\ � X1,1 (� � `\��� `��•\ ' r- �°'� - - - -• � ^ ' /
- -2
Be
am ti.
\ __ � , •� � �'� -� L',`• \\ `�' I \ . \ \ \\ \tip \\�� \\�,�y \ \,..�\ `. 1 � 1 � •�
,4\ ' \ ♦'� 'may ♦ "`,.." \� =__.. � ti� ��� �•` !�. \.. 1 1 E 2w 9d ZEE
Ll
� ', 7� ii• `i ='rTE , \ `I I I •;. 'L .+ra- - - -'� ni ,... w ! \\
Di
\ \
a.
i -
09 CID T
• ! c
I` ®®
c;v
h
1•'L \\ �\ f li , n �; , •. .M� \' \, ��'• w �• 1 \ 0. 7 c f
\ � X1,1 (� � `\��� `��•\ ' r- �°'� - - - -• � ^ ' /
- -2
Be
am ti.
\ __ � , •� � �'� -� L',`• \\ `�' I \ . \ \ \\ \tip \\�� \\�,�y \ \,..�\ `. 1 � 1 � •�
,4\ ' \ ♦'� 'may ♦ "`,.." \� =__.. � ti� ��� �•` !�. \.. 1 1 E 2w 9d ZEE
Ll
� ', 7� ii• `i ='rTE , \ `I I I •;. 'L .+ra- - - -'� ni ,... w ! \\
�f
- S oil ��� qq Y eyi �i S'# y' . �� ��Y�f/ 1 • • 5Ai�npkt EA�a.3g1R�CIGFAAYE4i
s Y i�Yp 5 -R..& iJde4¢ 410h, Y �S a 1� iiy 11
�
. � � � o "f 5.. saaea• es. aAssasresaeesaear :ea..saa.baa,•Q�te7rs4xat a �. lily)
. �•• =:$ r :�����aY�������zY��i���•S�nan�i naa�B:7�vzvz� r ]1■ + i1;;:�71 �
1 — — •• YY x� S'Y W'A'Y � . '! � 0 0 !J \j �
I I i a9uaaaa 6 All
Y. aa: uxa: an .nnasass6aeeeaaaaxaaxse•gaa•4.
�sAaAaCc 66ni.aII�� aI� ar "ans'F3gtraoG�4oaAe ti
¢ g3P Yy�YYe'AYY3��YTSY3�YY�YY�����Y Y Y Y i{An SAxeY � � •
{ $
15t. I• 5i Ra3fSpygGSrylg9aaL9iga. b( Sp., i.loopmAiFAFa. onto 1s,agso.@V.i. ipFSa ® ;i
• "a'Y d3333�d�i33 ®33�}: aYg�s�YYY��SEYT''rt���i131 -nio ¢ .$
.4 � ]. rn...... �9. btlanfPq. RipN. bl1R�AFA .Y.R71 /AAau /RD.Y�i..C.i9
C ®j!
j ,lll
■ I
■ I
I
I
I'
I
`° 1
. JJ
I a
o
i
I•
t J�
1
a
co
a7
1
Uj
a
�f
- S oil ��� qq Y eyi �i S'# y' . �� ��Y�f/ 1 • • 5Ai�npkt EA�a.3g1R�CIGFAAYE4i
s Y i�Yp 5 -R..& iJde4¢ 410h, Y �S a 1� iiy 11
�
. � � � o "f 5.. saaea• es. aAssasresaeesaear :ea..saa.baa,•Q�te7rs4xat a �. lily)
. �•• =:$ r :�����aY�������zY��i���•S�nan�i naa�B:7�vzvz� r ]1■ + i1;;:�71 �
1 — — •• YY x� S'Y W'A'Y � . '! � 0 0 !J \j �
I I i a9uaaaa 6 All
Y. aa: uxa: an .nnasass6aeeeaaaaxaaxse•gaa•4.
�sAaAaCc 66ni.aII�� aI� ar "ans'F3gtraoG�4oaAe ti
¢ g3P Yy�YYe'AYY3��YTSY3�YY�YY�����Y Y Y Y i{An SAxeY � � •
{ $
15t. I• 5i Ra3fSpygGSrylg9aaL9iga. b( Sp., i.loopmAiFAFa. onto 1s,agso.@V.i. ipFSa ® ;i
• "a'Y d3333�d�i33 ®33�}: aYg�s�YYY��SEYT''rt���i131 -nio ¢ .$
.4 � ]. rn...... �9. btlanfPq. RipN. bl1R�AFA .Y.R71 /AAau /RD.Y�i..C.i9
C ®j!
j ,lll
■ I
■ I
I
I
I'
I
`° 1
. JJ
I a
o
i
I•
t J�
1
•
•
•
W I I 1 w./
r V4
AJL
a. co a= o o:
o
�•� � a
mrm —W —WM —09
3�
ae
R L
4 W
W =
[ 8
\�a
a` I
I la
■
I
I �
1 �qg
I � �
I
I •
I �
, I
I /f
I
I
46
1
,
IN
L
m �
•
•
•
W I I 1 w./
r V4
AJL
a. co a= o o:
o
�•� � a
mrm —W —WM —09
3�
ae
R L
4 W
W =
[ 8
\�a
a` I
I la
■
I
I �
1 �qg
I � �
I
I •
I �
, I
I /f
I
I
46
y- �••-••• +• s. rnar, 4. rgnnfi4AgtnFRmnp� .T4.A..•!i ;lvafT7
all!
li
m 1�.•
a ; MY
AMA
!
AR
\��\ �•� _.- -- _. r` •��•.
ON
i O - O \•\ i� •�
■
•
_ a
`'N__
- - - - -- - --- - - -__- Tom` ti ♦• �` ® O.
.`
i O
Nll no
- -- - -�`— — - - - - - -- ----- ----- --•- - -- -__ II
���t
.���� \�\ \\ `�� � \y.� \� •••• f._
4
IN
an ed
_�' a 1 I 1 1
����31f Y�3Y[i6�Y���S]SSY
p
�
aaAnaRAaARanaxpxanxRAFnpA
`V
,[E3S i8cAi 3�a
Y2NY IYYiY Y9 8YYBYAY. HIM xG9aE4 3 1 �2gigs YiaisY ���
5p"
-
a. a9i1H• iiiauoi. aRisB ■9aacdrib9peaiiiaeie■ee :[ie[Fn
0 �
�
�YYiiYdY1155 1119 Y ]i311. S U,i1 nNXI MM111911a
0
Ss60xetl8ig6e_ a: xitr9ap6ogNi�Oxg ;9nPNiSiA843p3n492ifgi53�3�9
•Q��.
��n_ p.
is�cYS�": 3s�r3s:,*, : �i��i�as�ici�i :7�iir�vRi3��i��•e�is�3s
y
l o-e�at ps .pr ;liST9- syfupaCFY /epeSsgeSCnb YSaepY9vR�sB
7.
•! ?i%^ �Ya 'T'S��S�Y�YYY��i'1"f'���Xg�'YSl �Ya6�A3Y %Tr3�lNti
y- �••-••• +• s. rnar, 4. rgnnfi4AgtnFRmnp� .T4.A..•!i ;lvafT7
all!
li
m 1�.•
a ; MY
AMA
!
AR
\��\ �•� _.- -- _. r` •��•.
ON
i O - O \•\ i� •�
■
•
_ a
`'N__
- - - - -- - --- - - -__- Tom` ti ♦• �` ® O.
.`
i O
Nll no
- -- - -�`— — - - - - - -- ----- ----- --•- - -- -__ II
���t
.���� \�\ \\ `�� � \y.� \� •••• f._
4
IN
an ed
_�' a 1 I 1 1