Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Agenda Packet - Feb 5 2025 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 f 17 52 s� Q AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD WHITTED MEETING FACILITY 300 WEST TRYON STREET, SECOND FLOOR I-IILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Wednesday, February 5, 2025 Regular Meeting — 7:00 pm No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2 4 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2025 a. Term Expiration Dates and Reappointment Eligibility, by Member 3. 5 -6 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Planning Calendar for February and March 4. 7 -34 APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 4, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes 5. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 6. PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB)to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. Public Charge The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 2 No. Page(s) Agenda Item The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone. 7. CHAIR COMMENTS H. ADJOURNMENT Sign up to receive a notification when Planning Board agendas are posted Interested persons can sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/list.aspx to receive a notification when agendas are posted. (Scroll down to the "Agenda Center" category and choose Planning Board). Monthly Planning & Inspections Newsletter Sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/list.aspx?ListlD=408 to receive the monthly communication on happenings in the Planning & Inspections Department. Written Comments Interested persons who cannot attend the meeting in-person are invited to submit written comments on agenda items to the Planning Board via email at planningboard a-)orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting. Please include in the Subject line of the email the title of the agenda item your comment pertains to. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups: https://groups.google.com/q/ocplanningboard Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department's offices at 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address indicated above. Review Process The Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County's Unified Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the review process for rezoning and text amendment applications. Planning Board Member Potential Conflict of Interest It is the duty of every Board member to avoid both conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict. Board members having any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with respect to matters before the Board should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue participation in the matter involved. 3 As a reminder, NC General Statute § 160D-109 establishes the following standard: Members of appointed boards shall not vote on any advisory or legislative decision regarding a development regulation where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably likely to have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member. An appointed board member shall not vote on any zoning amendment if the landowner of the property subject to a rezoning petition or the applicant for a text amendment is a person with whom the member has a close familial, business, or other associational relationship. If any Planning Board member has any concern about a possible conflict related to an agenda item, please notify Planning staff and get in touch directly with a member of the County Attorney's staff before the meeting time to determine whether a conflict exists— and if so, how best to handle the potential conflict. 4 Orange County Planning Board Membership and Term Information Name Term End Date Eligible for Date First March 31 Reappointment? Appointed Adam Beeman 2025 N 12/12/17 WhitneyWatson 2025 Y 2/16/21 Statler Gilfillen 2025 Y 5/18/21 Beth Bronson 2025 Y 4/5/22 Delores Bailey 2026 Y 2/17/22 Liz Kalies 2026 Y 3/21/23 Chris Johnston 2026 Y 3/21/23 vacant position 2026 Steven Kaufmann 2027 Y 5/24/22 Lamar Proctor 2027 N 4/1/21 Charity Kirk 2027 N 2/16/21 Meg Millard 2027 Y 10/15/24 5 February Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BOCC Planning Board Business Meeting Meeting 7:00 7:00 pm* pm Whitted Bldg. Whitted Bldg. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BOCC Work Board of Session Adjustment 7:00 pm 7:00 pm Southern Human Sery Whitted Bldg. Ctr. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BOCC Joint Meeting Business w Hillsborough Meeting 7:00 pm 7:00 PM Southern Whitted Bldg. Human Sery Ctr. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Legislative Breakfast 8:30 am Whitted Bldg. Notes: * Planning Board member attendance required Planning Board meetings are held at Whitted Human Services Building - Donna S. Baker Meeting Room 2nd floor 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Planning Board BOCC Meeting Business 7:00 pm* Meeting 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. Whitted Bldg. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BOCC Work Board of Session Adjustment 7:00 pm 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. Whitted Bldg. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BOCC Business Meeting 7:00 pm Southern Human Sery Ctr. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Joint Meeting w Carrboro 7:00 pm Southern Human Sery Ctr. 30 31 Notes: *Planning Board Member Attendance Required Planning Board meetings are held in room 230 on the second floor of the Whitted Building located at 300 W.Tryon St., Hillsborough, NC 27278 7 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 DECEMBER 4,2024 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), 7 Cheeks Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Charity Kirk,At- 8 Large Representative;Whitney Watson,At-Large Representative; Marilyn Carter,At-Large 9 Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative; Beth Bronson,At-Large Representative; 10 Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative. 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Kalles, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township 13 Representative. 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director—Long Range Planning 16 &Administration;Tom Altieri, Senior Planner—Long Range Planning &Administration; Jack 17 Moran, Planning Technician. 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: Leigh Anne King, Clarion Associates 20 Emily Gvino, Clarion Associates 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 23 24 The meeting began at 7:02 PM 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 27 28 Adam Beeman: I call this meeting into session. Before we get too far into it,we have a new member. Meg Millard 29 is our newest member. We're just going to quickly go around the Board and we can introduce 30 ourselves. 31 32 [Each member in attendance introduced themselves] 33 34 Adam Beeman: With that being said,we're going to call this meeting to order and let's see the information notes. 35 What do we have on the calendar this month? It's a busy month. They swore in our newest 36 County commissioner on Monday, and they've got a meeting. The Board of Adjustment's got a 37 meeting. We've got holidays all throughout and we don't come back until the 8th of January. So, 38 we'll have a good long break. I need an approval of a motion to approve any minutes or any 39 amendments to the minutes, if anybody has any. 40 41 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 42 43 Lamar Proctor: I move to approve the minutes. 44 45 Adam Beeman: Do I have a second? 46 47 Charity Kirk: Second. 48 49 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the meeting minutes. Seconded by Charity Kirk. 50 51 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 52 53 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 54 8 DRAFT 55 Adam Beeman: I don't have any additions to the agenda. I don't believe there's anybody from the public,so I'm 56 going to skip right past that and see if we can't get this thing moving. 57 58 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 59 60 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 61 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 62 appoints the Orange County Planning Board(OCPB)to uphold the written land development law of 63 the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious 64 development. OCPB shall do so in a manner,which considers the present and future needs of its 65 citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes 66 the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a 67 vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations,decisions,and 68 recommendations. 69 70 PUBLIC CHARGE 71 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 72 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 73 fellow citizens. At any time,should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public 74 charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains 75 personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such 76 time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 77 78 AGENDA ITEM 7: UPDATE ON LAND USE PLAN 2050—To receive an update from Clarion Associates on aspects of 79 the ongoing Land Use Plan 2050 project. 80 81 Adam Beeman: We've got Clarion here tonight, and Tom is going to give us a brief update,and then we'll go from 82 there. Good evening. 83 84 Tom Altieri: Good evening. Tom Altieri, Orange County senior planner. Just a very brief introduction and then 85 I'll turn the floor over to Leigh Anne King. The planning board received its last update from staff 86 on the land use plan project back in September. Since that time,the County and the consultant 87 have completed our second engagement window which occurred late September through the 88 month of October. Leigh Anne King with Clarion and Emily Gvino will give you a presentation this 89 evening. It provides some information about some of the results of what we learned through the 90 outreach process. The presentation you'll receive is nearly identical to one that the 91 commissioners received just a few weeks ago, and I believe the last slide of the presentation 92 provides a brief update on some of the questions that were asked of the commissioners and what 93 they had to say about it. So,with that, I'll turn it over to Emily first. 94 95 Emily Gvino: Thanks, Tom. Good evening,everyone. My name is Emily Gvino. These slides we'll put on the 96 project website for the land use plan,which is OrangeCountylanduseplan.com so you'll have these 97 after the meeting, as well. This evening,we're going to give you a quick project update about 98 where we are. I believe the last time that Leigh Anne and I spoke to you was probably sometime 99 around the first community engagement window, so we have a couple of updates since then and 100 then we'll be going into Community Engagement Window No. 2 which we held this fall. So,we'll 101 be talking through the activities that were conducted, the objectives that we had for this window 102 and then Leigh Anne will take you through the outcomes of that engagement and what we heard. 103 A brief moment for discussion of the policy direction and kind of an update, as Tom mentioned, of 104 what we heard from the commissioners at the last meeting, and then we'll go through the next 105 steps. So, this is our project timeline. The project kicked off in the summer of 2023 when we 106 were doing some initial groundwork and research, and we spoke with some of you during those 107 initial stakeholder interviews. During Phase 2 is when we launched that first community 108 engagement window, so that kicked off last fall through the winter of last year. We were working 109 on identifying what are the new issues and opportunities that have been presented, or what is the 9 DRAFT 110 community thinking about and talking about since the previous plan was adopted. Phase 3 was 111 somewhat concurrent to that.We were looking at existing conditions, so it was called evaluate 112 planning influences and the culmination of that was the fact book,which is on the project website 113 as well. That's more of a technical existing conditions analysis that helps us in our work of 114 developing the plan. We're solidly in Phase 4 now,which is probably the longest phase of 115 developing the plan. So,we're taking all of the technical information that we've learned so far, all 116 the people that we talked to,what we heard in the first round of engagement that helped us launch 117 for the second round that we held this fall. So, that was called testing the conservation and 118 growth framework. Some of you were at those meetings where we presented land-use 119 alternatives to the public and got their feedback and got their thoughts on the different ways that 120 we can go with this policy directions from what we were testing with those land-use alternatives. 121 We also presented the draft vision themes and goals to see what the public thought about that. 122 Those are kind of the first two steps in the plan policy framework. The next phase of the project, 123 we're still in Phase 4, developing the plan. Once we get to the point where we have a draft to 124 present to you all and the commissioners next spring,then we'll have a third community 125 engagement window that's listed there at the bottom in green. That's when we're unveiling the 126 draft plan to the public. So,we're taking the draft plan out and saying did we hear you right? 127 What else do you want to see differently? What are your priorities that are coming out of this 128 plan? Then we'll going into Phase 5 which is the adoption process for the plan. Our status report 129 is that the work that's been completed is the development of the land-use recommendations report 130 in Phase 4. That's essentially the technical report that explains the methodology and the 131 outcomes of the land-use alternatives. That's on the project website if you all would like to take a 132 look at that, and then as I mentioned,going through launching and reporting from Community 133 Engagement Window No. 2. So,we're almost done with the summary document that will be on 134 the project website about Community Engagement Window No. 2. That's why it's underway and 135 then our teams are currently working through developing the draft plan which involves the overall 136 policy framework, the vision themes and goals as I mentioned and then we'll start getting into the 137 actual policy guidance or the meat of the plan,which is in the policies and actions. So, taking you 138 through what we did during Community Engagement Window No. 2, the activities. That was held 139 this fall, and as I mentioned we were asking the community members to review the modeled land- 140 use alternatives, keeping in mind that this is not the future land-use map. We were asking key 141 policy questions about potential policy guidance for the future and using these land-use 142 alternatives as a tool for talking about those options and tradeoffs. Staff tabled at three different 143 events in August and September to prime the public for when we were launching these events 144 and spreading the word. During September and October,there were five in-person meetings held 145 and then,at the same time, online activities were available from late September through early 146 November. Those that could not attend a meeting in person were able to take the surveys online 147 at their convenience. So, in order to spread the word, there was online outreach,social media, 148 newsletters and bilingual fliers from your staff at Orange County. There were also direct mailings 149 to over 1,000 properties to let people know about the Gravelly Hill meeting that was nearby to 150 them and then,as I mentioned,the online surveys were also available. 305 people completed 151 those. When we set out to do community engagement,we set three different objectives or 152 measures so when that engagement is complete,we can look back and say did we get close to 153 meeting our goal and how can we improve for the next time around? We're measuring that based 154 on engagement satisfaction, shooting for representative engagement of the community and 155 looking to increase engagement from a previous planning effort in Orange County. When we're 156 talking about representation of engagement,we're trying to compare who we heard from in the 157 community versus how that compares with census data for what we know about the community. 158 I'll start with the caveat that when people completed the surveys online or participated at in-person 159 meetings,they had a voluntary self-reported exit questionnaire that they were able to complete. 160 So,we don't have data from every single person because they were voluntary to complete but we 161 got it from quite a few people so the great thing about this time around is that our demographics 162 from who participated in this round was much more closely aligned with census data compared to 163 our first time around. Our first time around,we were looking to increase representation for black 164 and African American and Hispanic-Latino. And that was race and here's a Hispanic-Latino chart. 10 DRAFT 165 This is much closer than it was the first time around,so this is giving a gauge so by the third 166 community event window,we'll be able to continue closing those gaps and get closer to 167 representation of the community. The other benchmark that I mentioned is increased 168 engagement. The project team selected the climate action plan as a benchmark for comparison 169 because it was completed recently in the community so that had both surveys and some in-person 170 meetings that they completed. So,we're kind of using that as a gauge to see can we surpass 171 that,which we have so far which is great because we've had two community engagement 172 windows and we'll have a third. So,we'll keep increasing that number. We've had 584 complete 173 surveys in total;420 of those were from the second round of engagement,so setting up our 174 processes from that first round to the second round has resulted in increased engagement which 175 is great. And then we've had 409 in-person attendees,which is an increasing number which is 176 great,too. And so, the third community event window will occur in late spring 2025, so we'll hope 177 to match our numbers from the first and second rounds. We also wanted to note that we received 178 some additional public input, both from organizational representation and some personal letters so 179 these are listed here, and they're included in the summary document that will be posted to the 180 website. Our overall takeaways about meeting our objectives for engagement is that we want to 181 continue to offer multiple ways to participate. We mentioned we had an online survey. There was 182 a short survey and there was a long survey.We found that was important to provide different 183 flexible options for those who have a little bit of time and want to be able to participate and those 184 who have a lot more time and really want to dive into those longer details. Some of what we 185 learned in the first round was applied in the second round, and we had targeted meetings in order 186 to increase and improve the representative engagement, and that was showing some of those 187 charts as well. The goal for the third round is to continue creating partnerships and connections 188 and tailoring outreach so that we make sure that we're hearing from all different members of the 189 community. And No. 3, as I mentioned,we've already hit our benchmark for increasing 190 engagement but will continue to strive to increase that number in that third round. There are other 191 charts and data about who participated but we wanted to spend more time talking with you about 192 outcomes, so that information will be in the summary report on the website. I'm going to pass it 193 over to Lee Ann King to talk about a little refresher and some of the outcomes. 194 195 Leigh Anne King: Good evening. I think we presented to you a little bit about the land-use alternatives that were 196 prepared as part of this effort so I'm not going to get into a whole lot of detail here. This is more of 197 just a refresher so that when we talk about the outcomes from the engagement,you've got a little 198 bit of a reminder about what it is we were actually asking the public to give us feedback on. So, 199 the key question that we were trying to test with the land-use alternatives is in front of you here: 200 Which aspects of the land-use alternatives best achieve the balance of sustainable development 201 in Orange County? And through the first round of public engagement,we came up with these four 202 themes that are really helping to set the stage for what we're trying to accomplish in developing 203 the 2050 land-use plan.You can see cultivates sustainable development is kind of a sweet spot in 204 the middle with the other three themes focusing on protecting critical watershed areas, open 205 spaces and preserving agricultural lands, advancing attainable and equitable housing and upward 206 mobility and supporting climate-responsive transportation systems and economic development 207 initiatives. And so,what we were trying to get people to think about and give us feedback on with 208 the land-use alternatives was that sweet spot of cultivating sustainable development where all 209 those three, the other themes overlap. What is the best balance for achieving that when looking 210 at the details of the land-use alternatives? So,there were four alternatives that were modeled. 211 The first one is the currently adopted future land-use map with some modifications to update 212 based on Hillsborough's most recent comprehensive plan update. We wanted to reflect their 213 current policy and growth area, and then also the growth area for Mebane,which is not a 214 completed plan at this point, but we knew what their study area was based on some of their 215 preliminary information that was shared as part of that process. So, that's really kind of the 216 foundation,the benchmark that we were working off of and looking at the other three land-use 217 alternatives. And again, as Emily was saying, the point here was not to suggest that one of these 218 would be the preferred future land-use map for Orange County but there were ways to test 219 different ideas, particularly those three themes that I was just mentioning and different shapes in 11 DRAFT 220 terms of how they might play out across the landscape of the County. The first alternative was 221 enhancing agriculture and environmental protection,so really focusing on if we really double down 222 on that and focus on doing that with what we can do legally within the State of North Carolina, 223 what would that look like and what would the outcomes of that be? The third alternative was 224 looking at providing some additional housing opportunities within the County and some new 225 employment locations, but in, kind of, a low-impact format which we call world conservative 226 neighborhoods. And then the fourth alternative looked at providing two higher-intensity mixed-use 227 centers in specific locations in between Chapel Hill. Hillsborough is one and then closer to 228 Mebane as well as additional employment locations, kind of, near the Mebane/West Ten Road 229 area. So,that's kind of the refresher. Let's talk a little bit about what we learned. So, again, 230 there's the short survey and a long survey. There's a lot of technical information related to the 231 alternatives. For those that wanted to get in a little deeper,they could do the long survey. If they 232 wanted to just provide quick information, the short survey was a good option. All of the questions 233 were made available at the in-person meetings, both surveys and online so there was a lot of 234 different flexibility and accessibility in terms of people being able to participate in what ways 235 worked best for them. A total of 420 surveys were received. Approximately 115 of those were at 236 the in-person meetings and 305 were completed online; 286 of those were the short surveys, so 237 that was the preference for most people was to do the short survey, and 134 long surveys were 238 completed. And you can see the breakdown on that blue table about the number of persons for 239 attending each of the different locations and then in the orange to the left, the surveys and the exit 240 questionnaires. That's the separate survey that tells us more about who the respondents are and 241 some information about them that Emily was just sharing with you and what that breakdown is, in 242 terms of in person and online and all of this, again,will be available to you if you want to look at 243 details in the future. There's a lot of information in the summary report, but we wanted to try to 244 give you the so what of what we learned here. So, in terms of survey responses,the other thing 245 that we were testing as part of this was the vision themes and goals for the plan which were 246 drafted and shared with the public. For the short survey, there was strong support for all the 247 vision themes. That's the Venn diagram I was just showing you with the cultivate sustainable 248 development in the middle. There was the highest support for protecting critical watershed areas 249 and open spaces and preserving agricultural lands. About 85 percent really strongly supported 250 that. Lowest support which was still the majority but on the lower end of all of the different vision 251 themes was cultivating sustainable development and advancing equitable housing. So,just a 252 little, again, I think that's pretty good support. It's just on the lower end when compared to the 253 other vision themes. For the long survey,there was strong support for most of the goals. So, 254 highest support for environment, parks and recreation and working lands and open space goals. 255 Lower support for regional and local growth and economy and employment. So, there's some 256 kind of themes you can see there. There's a lot of support for protecting environmental areas, 257 agricultural lands, open spaces, etc.and a little bit more mixed responses with respect to growth 258 and development. So, some of the key takeaways. Like I was just mentioning, there's strong 259 support for changing the way we approach managing land use within the community, both to 260 protect natural lands and there is support for development of needed housing. I think that's 261 something that did come through the public inputs as well. There's very strong support for 262 protecting priority agricultural,environmental and rural lands and desire to see more housing 263 choices available in Orange County. This is a chart here that shows you each of those four vision 264 themes. Cultivate sustainable development's the first one, and then you see the other three in 265 that Venn diagram listed across. The gray is the most supportive on the far right of each of the 266 themes. The blue is, kind of, supportive, maybe not as supportive but as you can see, there's, 267 kind of, strong support for each of these vision themes. We're going to be making some tweaks to 268 the language based on the feedback that we received, but we think we're generally in the right 269 ballpark with respect to what we want to be using as our over-arching guidance for the land-use 270 plan. Some other takeaways: There was more mixed support for higher-density residential and 271 mixed-use development and providing more employment opportunities. There was pretty good 272 support for rural conservation neighborhoods and expanding the economic development area 273 near Mebane and 185,support for the goals and vision themes like I was just mentioning with 274 some adjustments and then some mixed support extension of public water and sewer and 12 DRAFT 275 development of private water and wastewater systems. If you look at the summary of the long 276 survey responses and look at them by each of the alternatives, about 58 percent are satisfied with 277 the current approach to land use. So,that's that first alternative, the baseline. That's your 278 currently adopted policy. About 58 percent said that's a good approach, and again,we weren't 279 asking them to pick one of these or to necessarily compare them. We were asking folks to look at 280 each in isolation and say whether or not they supported it. So,that's important to understand. For 281 Land-Use Alternative No. 2, that's the one where we were really focusing on strong environmental, 282 agricultural watershed protection. Majority respondents, 54 percent said that they really supported 283 that focus within this alternative. Looking at No. 3 and No.4 and we list them here together 284 because there are some overlaps, particularly on how water and wastewater are provided and the 285 employment areas. So,the majority, 52 percent,support encouraging new rural conservation 286 neighborhoods, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in just a moment. Support is a little bit more 287 mixed or more evenly divided between some of the other aspects. When you look at those that 288 support development of private water and wastewater systems to support rural conservation 289 neighborhoods, so that would not be OWASA or Town of Hillsborough municipal services. That 290 would be a private system that would be developer built to serve a particular development. 291 There's not a lot of that in Orange County. Other communities do allow for that type of thing, and 292 it is currently allowed within Orange County but it's not something that, again, is often used. And 293 so,there was a little bit of mixed support. 44 percent did support, 39 percent did not support the 294 idea of those private systems occurring to support rural conservation neighborhoods. In terms of 295 the economic development area south of West Ten Road, about 49 percent support. 35 percent 296 did not support. In terms of higher-intensity mixed-use developments and that fourth alternative, 297 about 41 percent supported and about 46 percent didn't support. And then finally looking at 298 extension of public water and sewer, so that would be, OWASA, Hillsborough, Mebane provided 299 services outside of their current service areas within the County. 48 percent supported and 300 41 percent did not support that with respect to providing higher-intensity mixed-use development 301 service. You have a question? 302 303 Charity Kirk: So,this was a five-point question, right, one,two,three,four,five? 304 305 Leigh Anne King: Right. 306 307 Charity Kirk: So, I gather four and five is in support and one and two is do not support. 308 309 Leigh Anne King: Yeah.We keep the middle as the neutral point and then on either side there's some level of 310 support for that option. Yep, good question. 311 312 Lamar Proctor: Kind of follow up.The long survey was from the in-person participants? 313 314 Leigh Anne King: The long survey and the short survey were provided to anyone that wanted to take them, both at 315 the in-person meetings and online.The short survey at the tabling events, as well. We were really 316 trying to provide as many options for people that wanted to participate. The short survey is easier. 317 It's, kind of, a front and back survey that people can do really quickly, so the majority of people 318 picked that. It's easy, takes a little bit less time, but they can still provide meaningful feedback, but 319 we did get a number of people who wanted to take the time because it does take the time to do 320 the long survey and read through each of the alternatives and think through what the implications 321 of those are. 322 323 Dolores Bailey: Leigh Anne, this is great. Just a quick question. We're talking about 510 people, right? 324 325 Leigh Anne King: Correct. 326 327 Dolores Bailey: That's all we're talking about. 328 13 DRAFT 329 Leigh Anne King: Correct. So, one thing to keep in mind, and this is a question that we often get about how much of 330 your population should you be hearing from, and that's part of the reason we look at 331 representation to hear who are we hearing from, and are they generally representative of the 332 community? So,we did a back of the envelope survey probably 3 years ago or so looking at 333 comprehensive planning initiatives throughout the United States, Boston, Charlotte, Nashville, 334 Denver, communities that are spending sometimes half a million dollars on public engagement 335 activities. They're really taking out all the stops. Charlotte had a drive-in movie night to unveil 336 their plan. They're spending a lot of money on public relations, advertising, going to people, going 337 to neighborhoods. When you look across the board at all of those big hitters in terms of what you 338 can get out of public engagement,they all hovered around 1 to 2 percent of the population that 339 they engaged. So, I think that's just a good way to temper expectations. I mean, elections are 340 another way to think about it. We never get 100 percent of the people that actually are allowed to 341 vote to actually come out and turn out to vote. This is even harder in some respects to get people 342 to engage and pay attention. So, I think that 1 to 2 percent is generally a good ballpark for what to 343 expect. The other thing to think about is, and I don't want to misconstrue that this is statistically 344 significant data because it's not. This was not a random sample. These were self-selected 345 people that provided this information but generally speaking,the sample size that you need for a 346 statistically significant survey is much smaller than the population size itself. So,for example, 347 when we did this in Wake County,they are a population of 1 million people,and I believe our 348 sample size was more in the range of like 4,000 people or something to that effect. I'd have to go 349 back and look closely at those numbers. I'm remembering from several years ago, but that's 350 another thing to think about and we also have the survey from the strategic plan effort that is a 351 statistically-significant survey that we can refer back to,to make sure, is what we're hearing here 352 lining up with what we heard in that report because we can't hang our hat that that's good data 353 that's representative and is what the interests of the community are. 354 355 Dolores Bailey: And did you find your data lined up with that? 356 357 Leigh Anne King: I think generally speaking. So,we've been trying to benchmark this as we go and a lot of these 358 issues with respect to environmental watershed agricultural protection and the need for more 359 housing, depending on how you ask the question, they're always at the top with each other. And 1 360 think that's the balancing act is like how do we accomplish both of those things? I think we're able 361 to narrow down in this process to really get to that, and economic development, I think is also 362 important, but it maybe is a little bit lower down on tier in terms of public feedback and input. 363 364 Cy Stober: If I may Leigh Anne? 365 366 Leigh Anne King: Yes. 367 368 Cy Stober: I think Leigh Anne has a slight on us but the exit surveys,which are not comprehensive, again, 369 they were self-selected. 80 percent, I think it is, of those who participated in this engagement 370 window were new to the engagement process. So,we did have redundancy in some of the 371 surveys but only 20 percent of those who participated in this window participated in the first one as 372 far as we can tell. So,we have a number of new responses. 373 374 Leigh Anne King: Yep. So,what we're going to be doing is really taking all of this feedback and we've already 375 begun starting to actually draft the plan, so the vision and goals will be making adjustments to the 376 conservation and growth framework which is really effectively the future land-use map for the new 377 plan and the policies and actions. Those will be coming to you next year. You'll be getting a 378 chance to take a look at those and our target for unveiling the plan is tentatively scheduled for 379 May and June of next year, 2025. Also wanted to just give you a little bit of guidance from the 380 Board. Tom mentioned that we gave the same presentation to the Board just a number of weeks 381 ago, and we had some specific questions that we wanted to pose to them. Our guidance in this 382 process in terms of driving the policy direction and getting their feedback throughout. And so,we 383 asked them a couple of questions. One was do you want us to move forward with providing some 14 DRAFT 384 new approaches to encouraging conservation subdivisions in the unincorporated portions of the 385 County because those options provide both the opportunity to permanently protect important land 386 as well as provide more housing and potentially more housing choices as part of those 387 developments. And you might recall from seeing it at a previous presentation that conservation 388 subdivisions are a different way to do subdivision development, neighborhood development, 389 where instead of cutting all of the lots of equal size and having the roads that connect them all, 390 you actually go in and you protect a portion of the site first for environmental,watershed, 391 agricultural, or other wildlife purposes, and then the remaining land is then developed at a denser, 392 smaller lot size. You can get the same yield. In some situations,we actually tested getting a little 393 more yield out of that developable land, but you're still protecting in the alternative that we 394 modeled, protecting 60 percent of the site. So, you were able to accomplish the objective to 395 protect those important lands as well as provide more housing options within the County,and we 396 did get an affirmative from the Board members to move forward with looking at those options. The 397 second was there was not a lot of strong support, No.4 in terms of the housing potential in those 398 two centers, the more dense mixed-use centers. There wasn't strong support on that and so we 399 asked,does that mean that we really want to be encouraging that denser development to be 400 happening within the municipalities within the County and not within the unincorporated areas. 401 There are a lot of strong reasons to do that because you have better access to transit and 402 services,jobs, shopping, etc. and they also supported that. Each of the Board members went 403 around and talked a little bit about each of the questions and provided their feedback, and all of 404 them expressed support for that. And then finally we asked them for their interest or willingness to 405 explore expansion of the economic development area, the Buckhorn EDD near 1-85 Mebane and 406 expanding that south of West Ten Road and they also responded affirmatively on that, as well. 407 So,those were some of the big policy direction questions that we had coming out of the 408 engagement. That was the guidance that they provided for us to move forward with in helping to 409 draft the plan. And I believe that's my last slide. So, happy to take any other questions or 410 comments that you want to provide to us tonight as we get started on drafting the plan. 411 412 Adam Beeman: So,they want us to encourage higher density in the municipalities, but the County has no say with 413 municipalities, correct? 414 415 Leigh Anne King: That's correct. So,this is what I like to think of as the influential power as opposed to direct 416 authority. There are opportunities to be encouraging that to happen, but you're correct. The 417 County doesn't have direct authority over planning and zoning in any of the municipalities. 418 419 Adam Beeman: Go ahead, Dolores. 420 421 Dolores Bailey: Leigh Anne,what I saw with the five places where you met with people,they were all in the 422 northern part of the County? 423 424 Leigh Anne King: Let me go back to the table. Gravelly Hill,which is, I'm trying to remember, I apologize. So, 425 American Legion is on 54, on the south end on 54. El Centro was held in Chapel Hill. Make sure 426 I'm right on this,Tom. This is a good trivia question for me. 427 428 Dolores Bailey: El Centro Carrboro? 429 430 Tom Altieri: Yes. 431 432 Leigh Anne King: But they met at Chapel Hill. 433 434 Tom Altieri: They met at the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. 435 436 Leigh Anne King: Yep. 437 15 DRAFT 438 Tom Altieri: And then we met at the Jones Grove Missionary Baptist Church which is just a little bit north of 439 town here, the American Legion, Gravelly Hill and then Voices of Efland Cheeks helped us with 440 the meeting at the Efland Cheeks Community Center. So,we mixed it around and if you recall 441 during our first engagement window,we did have a meeting down in Chapel Hill at Southern 442 Human Services Center. So,we are trying to move it around a little bit. 443 444 Leigh Anne King: Have different locations for each of the rounds of engagement. 445 446 Tom Altieri: And there has been a request during the next window that we have another meeting in Chapel 447 Hill, and that was made by the County commissioners. 448 449 Dolores Bailey: Thank you. 450 451 Beth Bronson: I wasn't sure if we were going to go around. I guess to that point, to Adam's original, initial 452 question encouraging density where they don't have jurisdiction. But then also that would lead you 453 to think that the policy that they developed is what they do have control over which is the 454 unincorporated areas that are bordering municipalities. 455 456 Leigh Anne King: Right. 457 458 Beth Bronson: And did the commissioners have any kind of comments on those? 459 460 Leigh Anne King: Yes. I think there's still support for the fundamentals of the current policies that are in place, but 461 this idea of providing some approaches to encourage conservation subdivisions to happen in 462 unincorporated Orange County that could provide both the protection of important lands as well as 463 development of different housing and potentially and hopefully different housing choices to, kind 464 of, increase the housing stock across the County. That was really the new idea brought to the 465 table and encouraged, supported by the Board with respect to what they can do within the 466 unincorporated areas and are willing to provide some support for. 467 468 Beth Bronson: Okay. And to that question, did the applicant for the housing conservation subdivision on 54, did 469 they go to the commissioners already? I don't know if you know this question. 470 471 Leigh Anne King: I don't know that question. 472 473 Cy Stober: Right now, the tentative hearing date is February 4. 474 475 Beth Bronson: Okay. 476 477 Cy Stober: And that's what we're planning on. 478 479 Beth Bronson: I wasn't sure if that had happened or not. 480 481 Cy Stober: And that was the applicant's request. 482 483 Beth Bronson: Makes sense. And you're saying about the conservative subdivisions over the idea of providing 484 municipalities with denser housing options by ceding unincorporated land into the County,or into 485 the municipalities, right? Like annexation? 486 487 Leigh Anne King: I think that the idea was that the more dense housing choices being provided within the 488 municipalities based on what the current planning areas are of those communities. So, as 489 modeled we made some adjustments to Hillsborough's to reflect their current comprehensive plan. 490 They actually shrunk their growth area in a few places so that's reflective there. Mebane has a 491 larger study area, so there could potentially be annexation as part of that.And then Chapel 16 DRAFT 492 Hill/Carrboro are both, and the County, have the joint planning agreement area and so the idea 493 was that dense housing would happen within those jointly planned areas where urban, or 494 suburban scale development is already the policy in the place. So, not really additional areas 495 added to those beyond probably the Mebane growth area, but we're still waiting to see what 496 happens with that comprehensive planning effort. 497 Beth Bronson: At least acknowledging, I guess, in the comprehensive plan that the municipalities have their own 498 land use plan. Because as somebody who lives near the 1-85 Mebane area,the confusion that 499 was created around the municipality having their growth strategy and the County having their 500 growth strategy, on top of Mebane itself being, straddling two different counties. Besides that,just 501 the idea of the public trying to engage but then not understanding where all of these,they're not 502 contradictory necessarily, but they're not congruent, so. 503 504 Leigh Anne King: Yeah. No, that's really important. I know I talked to at least one person when we were in Gravelly 505 Hill that we were encouraging them to go and participate in the Mebane comprehensive planning 506 effort for that very reason because a lot of the things that they wanted to provide feedback on and 507 guidance on was more specific to what Mebane is actually doing in their effort. So, I think it's 508 good to be aware of both, but you're right. Whoever has direct authority is the one you want to be 509 making sure you're getting your comments to. 510 511 Statler Gilfillen: You just described sending an individual over to Mebane to talk to them about their planning and 512 what they're doing, separate from what you're doing. Now, I'm looking at the Orange County. I'm 513 looking at each of the municipalities and I'm hearing constantly separate. How much time or effort 514 is where you're meeting with the Mebane, the Chapel Hill,the Hillsborough, all the planning 515 departments together to coming up with a real vision for Orange County as a whole. I'm not 516 hearing that. What am I missing? 517 518 Leigh Anne King: So, I think that there is definitely an effort in this process to engage the municipalities' leadership. 519 There was a survey that was sent to the mayors of all the municipalities. There have been public 520 engagement efforts, at least within close proximity to each of the municipalities and there has 521 been advertising to community members there. So, I think in this effort,while it is not, regional at 522 the County-level sense,this is not a plan that Hillsborough, Mebane, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and 523 Orange County are collectively developing. There is an effort to try to encourage that coordination 524 and collaboration as part of this effort. Some states have top-down planning that require regional 525 planning coordination. North Carolina is not one of those, and we're not really set up to do that if 526 it's not forced at the local level, but I think,actually, if you look at the history of this County and 527 compare it to most counties in the state, and I would even go so far as to say a lot of the 528 southeast, there's been a lot more collaboration and regional planning. The joint planning 529 agreement is a great case study example of that than most places. 530 531 Cy Stober: Yeah, and I want to echo that but with a little more detail and I think Tom, I would invite Tom or 532 Perdita to speak in greater detail because they've lived with these local agreements longer than 1 533 have. The joint planning agreement established the rural buffer. It established the transition 534 areas in Carrboro, and it regulates the use of land around Carrboro and Chapel Hill. The central 535 Orange coordinated area and the land-use agreement with the Town of Hillsborough coordinates 536 land use so that Hillsborough and the County are acting in coordination and consistent with each 537 other in the perimeter areas around the Town of Hillsborough, and then the Water and Sewer 538 Management. Planning, and Boundary Agreement, WASMPBA regulates the use of OWASA 539 utilities and Hillsborough utilities to support new development in the County. The exception of 540 that,which you are intimately familiar with, is how the legislature did an end run on us with schools 541 and that does trump any local agreements with regard to utility extension and use. But otherwise, 542 there's been decades of, including key staff at Clarion Associates,with regard to coordinated 543 planning in the County. Currently, the only municipalities that we do not have inter local 544 agreements with are the City of Durham which has a small part of County land within its 545 incorporated limits on the east side, over near the 751 corridor, and the City of Mebane, and the 17 DRAFT 546 County has had utility agreements with both of those cities, neither or which are current and they 547 both expired. There was some, I guess, dictation of land use in those utility agreements, but 548 again, they are both expired. I think to move forward and pretend that we're not going to have a 549 recommendation on coordinating land use with the City of Mebane is foolhardy and I'm happy to 550 say that out loud, and that it's a recommendation that I think the staff would propose to the Board 551 and to this Board that we move forward with exactly that. How broad or how specific that 552 recommendation will be has to be determined, but we will be moving forward with a 553 recommendation to better coordinate land use with the City of Mebane, and as the former 554 development director there, and to Beth's point, having Mebane just have a bland future growth 555 area recommendation;that it should be secondary growth in that entire area, is unacceptable to 556 the County and me as the planning director of the County. We need more specificity from the city 557 on where and of what type of development they want to see and the parts of Orange County that 558 they may annex or may grow into in the future while also respecting their ability to annex and 559 make decisions on their own, but we'd like to at least have a realistic vision of what that future 560 looks like. 561 562 Lamar Proctor: Was there any discussion about the 751 /US 70 Durham part up there? 563 564 Cy Stober: We actually got an email to the City of Durham that we were included on. Our commissioners,the 565 Durham City Council, and Sarah Young, their joint City County Planning Department, so Sarah 566 responded to that individual, because they wanted to expand their light industrial,or heavy 567 commercial use out there, and they can't do it without utilities, and they reiterated their position 568 that they don't have an agreement with the County, and none is forthcoming. Then that 569 applicant's within their rights to apply for annexation and utility extension, but that the extension 570 would be totally at the applicant's cost,which is pretty much a nonstarter given the constraints and 571 the cost in that area. 572 573 Lamar Proctor: And then a second question about, can you kind of explain to me the push for development south 574 of West Ten, and is it also part of the discussions in the Seven Mile Creek protected watershed 575 that these things all come together right there. I think being in Cheeks and living in that area I do 576 know that the local residents absolutely do not want to lose critically protected watershed of Seven 577 Mile Creek, especially,what is east of Bushy Cook, that area over there,that's designated 578 critically protected.Why the push for south of West Ten and how far does that go? 579 580 Leigh Anne King: Good question. I think,we haven't had a lot of discussion in this process about fiscal 581 sustainability of the County, and thinking about its tax base, but that is an important consideration 582 when you're doing land use planning because you want to think about the types of uses, you're 583 creating capacity for. That's what we were evaluating with the land use alternatives. And there is, 584 in terms of thinking about economic development opportunities within Orange County,the kind of 585 highest and best use areas are all going to be along the interstates, particularly close to 586 interchanges. Those are going to be the best properties to be able to support and encourage 587 those types of business activities. Looking at infrastructure, looking at road and interstate 588 accessibility,thinking about avoiding,to your point, important lands.There are very few places 589 within this County where you can put economic development, so we were just hearing about the 590 EDD that has utility constraints. It's still available for economic development, but it, at this time, it 591 has to be done a scale that doesn't require public utilities,which is limiting in terms of what can 592 actually go there. So, yeah, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that it's needed for fiscal 593 balance. We want to be able to provide all of the things that people want in this community. It 594 costs money, and the more you put that burden on the residential taxpayers,the higher the taxes 595 will get over time, and so it's important to be looking at opportunities for economic development to 596 kind of share that tax burden. 597 598 Charity Kirk: Following up on that, but there's critically,there's protected watersheds. How are you dealing with 599 the environmental aspect of that? 600 18 DRAFT 601 Leigh Anne King: Yeah. So, that's definitely something,we're working on the maps right now. We don't have a 602 recommendation to put in front of you, so that's definitely something that we're working to avoid in 603 looking at all of our development areas that might be added to the rural conservation 604 neighborhoods, as well as the economic development areas,we would be evaluating.What are 605 the tradeoffs to allowing for more intensive development in these areas. 606 607 Cy Stober: So, I think to that point, there's no proposal at this time unless we hear from this Board or the 608 commissions to touch the critical areas in the Upper Eno Watershed. They were placed there at 609 the pleasure of the County. They weren't placed there by the state, alongside Seven Mile Creek, 610 at least, and they're there, the town of Hillsborough has not requested their removal. The County 611 has not proposed that they be removed, and the City of Mebane has not asked that they be 612 removed either for that matter. So, there's no intention at this time of doing so, nor did we receive 613 that feedback from the public. There are available utilities in that area. They terminate, basically, 614 at Bushy Cook, and we would prefer that that development happen outside of a water supply 615 watershed,which is everything west of Buckhorn Road and south of West Ten. That makes a lot 616 more sense. You don't have impervious cover limitations,and you don't have a very aggravating, 617 if you're in the erosion control world, there's a very challenging limitation to how much earth you 618 can actually move at a time. That exists in high quality water zones which is a water supply 619 watershed,such as the upper Eno, so we'd prefer that it all happen outside of that watershed, and 620 1 think we'll, I'll be very comfortable having a plan that says that much. Unfortunately, nearly all of 621 our economic development districts,for whatever reason, are placed inside of water supply 622 watersheds with the exception of the Buckhorn EDD,west of Buckhorn Road,which is essentially 623 the watershed boundary between the upper Eno and the Haw River. It's not necessarily always 624 true, but it's mostly true,that that Buckhorn Road is the watershed boundary. 625 626 Lamar Proctor: Right, I agree with that. 627 628 Cy Stober: Well, based on what we've heard, there's the,to date,there's been no desire to expand into the 629 critical area on Seven Mile Creek. 630 631 Leigh Anne King: And that was how we modeled it in the alternative as well. We avoided the critical water supply 632 watershed area. 633 634 Cy Stober: Even if there is an impervious cover limitation of 6 percent, and there's no 10-70 allocation, so if 635 you're in the protected water shed, you can develop up to 70 percent in certain cases,which 636 happened with Medline and the Thermo Fisher site for that matter. If you're in the critical area, 637 that is not available. Your cap is 6 percent. You can go as high as 9 percent with stormwater 638 control so realistically 9 percent on an industrial project or commercial project, it's not going to 639 happen. 640 641 Lamar Proctor: Okay,thank you. 642 643 Cy Stober: We may get another Missy's Grill, but they would probably need at least 10 acres to do that. 644 645 Beth Bronson: That's crazy, and again,thank you very much. I just want to say, that part that you said, it is a 646 critical watershed at the pleasure of the existing commissioners, or County. Not state,so it can 647 change,and that is the thing that I think we're all talking about, but not talking about is that when 648 we're talking about critical watershed areas versus just watersheds with high quality water,that's 649 more important than define it as a critical watershed because that is a flippant term that can be 650 adjusted, right. So, it's critical to us because we drink it. It is not critical per state guidelines, or 651 state qualifications, and that is the quiet part out loud. That's why I think it's more important to 652 think about how we want to focus on those conservation subdivisions there and not economic 653 development while balancing that fiscal responsibility that the County has to bring in revenue.And 654 1 do want to point out that the commissioners have also reduced or have approved to reduce the 655 size of all other economic development districts, except the Buckhorn EDD. So, the Eno 19 DRAFT 656 Economic Development District was shrunk within the last 2 years and the Chapel Hill Economic 657 Development District on 86 was shrunk in the last 2 years, and that is just indicative of what 658 they're asking for. So, and I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with it, but I think it is important 659 to highlight that the County is moving in that direction, so not making it a focal point but making it 660 something that we do consider as we move forward, but then there's so much other land in the 661 County that we should also be looking at for the varieties of use. And that would be my comment 662 on that. 663 664 Adam Beeman: Dolores? 665 666 Dolores Bailey: Leigh Anne, there were two things you mentioned earlier. I wrote down mixed use business 667 center. Do you remember where that was in there? 668 669 Leigh Anne King: I don't know about a mixed-use business center, there was a mixed use in alternative, No.4. The 670 two higher intensity mixed use developments. We were kind of modeling a Southern Village-esque 671 type development, one on 86 between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, kind of in the, now I'm 672 forgetting the name of it. 673 674 Dolores Bailey: Blackwood Station. 675 676 Leigh Anne King: Thank you, Blackwood Station area, thank you. And then there was another one that was closer 677 to Mebane,with the understanding,the reason they were located there is one,we were looking at 678 places where there was enough acreage to support and also access, potential access to public 679 utilities, so it needs to be kind of on the edge of a municipality to be able to feasibly extend 680 utilities, because that level of development would not be able to be supported by a private system. 681 So,that's what that reference to mixed-use development was. 682 Dolores Bailey: Okay. And then the other thing you mentioned that you said you'd talk about,was the rural 683 conservation neighborhoods. What are those? 684 685 Leigh Anne King: So, rural conservation neighborhoods—and I apologize; I thought there was a photo in here, but 686 we don't have reference slides in here, do we? 687 688 Emily Gvino: We do at the very end, but I don't know if it has the rural conservation. 689 690 Leigh Anne King: Let me just look real quick and see if it's in here. We have a graphic. So, this is kind of an old 691 concept unfortunately,we don't have a copy of it in here. So, rural conservation neighborhoods 692 are effectively, if you can envision—and I'll explain what we modeled because I think that's most 693 helpful. So, if you took a hundred-acre property in Orange County,what we modeled is that 694 60 percent, so 60 acres out of the hundred,would be permanently protected through the deed as 695 part of this development. And there is a flexible subdivision option currently in the LIDO that 696 allows for this type of development. The requirements, I think, 33 percent open space protection. 697 What we modeled was something more than that. We modeled 60 percent. And so,the idea is 698 that you're picking the highest-quality environmental, agricultural,wildlife habitats such as the New 699 Hope corridors and patches,watershed protection areas, as part of that 60 percent. You're 700 protecting the prime lands that need protection. And on the other 40 acres,you are allowed to 701 develop at a denser lot size. And we actually modeled a higher yield. So, if you took a traditional 702 subdivision that would be developed effectively at one unit per acre in a portion of the County, so 703 if you had a hundred-acre property, let's just assume you could get 100 units out of it, if of 704 subdivided them all into an acre. It'd probably be a little less than that with infrastructure and 705 whatnot, but for ease of numbers,we'll say 100 units. What we modeled for the rural conservation 706 neighborhood, the 40 acres of that hundred-acre property, you could actually get more like 707 160 units out of that development. So, it's an incentive to protect a lot of important,critical area in 708 perpetuity, but get a higher yield on the part of the site that you are developing,to add to the 20 DRAFT 709 housing stock. Hopefully help with affordability issues, or at least provide some housing choices 710 within the County. And I want to be careful because the Board was very astute in saying that we 711 need to be very careful about talking about this being the direct link to creating affordable housing, 712 because there are a lot of steps that have to happen at a particular project level to make that 713 happen. We don't have inclusionary housing in this state, and so we can't mandate that as part of 714 the land use plan and our regulations, but it provides opportunity for creating more housing 715 choice, potentially, because you can do denser development. So maybe you could have some 716 townhomes, or some smaller-lot, single-family, or duplexes, etc.,to create more housing choice, 717 which hopefully leads to affordability. 718 719 Dolores Bailey: Okay. Cy, is that something like what might happen on the Greene Tract?So, the protected areas 720 are identified first? 721 722 Cy Stober: Yes, but the Greene Tract's better. 723 724 Dolores Bailey: It's been in planning for a long time. 725 726 Cy Stober: I mean, it is what it is. It's certainly been a talking point. But it's better,the reason that it's better is 727 that the County is an owner along with the towns, and so we get to dictate the terms of 728 affordability, and we have a lot more power as a landowner. And, the City of Durham, particularly, 729 going back to Mayor Bell, but also, especially, Steve Schewel,when he was mayor there,the man 730 is a walking dictionary, encyclopedia, of affordable housing in North Carolina. And they realized 731 the general assembly has limited the options so that essentially if you want to dictate affordability, 732 you need to own the land, or you need to own an easement on the land. And there are a couple 733 of notable zoning cases in the city where land ownership was negotiated and then terms were 734 established once the County was able to establish ownership rights to the land. And the Greene 735 Tract affords this. The Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro, and I really hope that we 736 agree on what the affordability should be. And we already have agreed, minimally,what the 737 environmental protections should be,with the headwaters preserve. But the master plan also 738 provides for additional green space and connectivity on the Greene Tract. So, the Greene Tract is 739 better in that regard. It's also aspirational,which is the frustration, as it's not real yet. But it could 740 be a really great model for what we'd like to see, and we're going to be, lord knows Perdita spent 741 the whole summer making sure that it got across the finish line, so,yes, indeed, and we got more 742 work to do,and we're hoping that it'll come to reality very soon. But we'd love to be able to hold 743 that up as the model that we would like others to emulate. 744 745 Dolores Bailey: And my last question is, in your set of questions to the commissioners, did you all talk anything 746 about transportation and some type of transportation to the northern part of the County, 747 connecting us better that way? 748 749 Leigh Anne King: We didn't have a specific question about transportation. There is actually, I'm not sure kind of 750 what the status is at this point,there is an ongoing transportation plan that's being developed for 751 the County right now. So, our questions were much more land use focused because of this effort. 752 But, again,we have been coordinating with the staff working group and the various interests that 753 work on transportation in the County to think about—I think because we got the message through 754 the engagement that the more dense housing options needed to be focused within the existing 755 municipalities, it changes the conversation a little bit about transportation outside in the 756 unincorporated area, but to your point, it's still a very important consideration to be thinking about. 757 758 Dolores Bailey: Especially if we want to ever move the density of housing further out in Orange County. 759 760 Adam Beeman: Steve? Whitney? 761 762 Whitney Watson: I'm struck by how close most of the numbers are that you reported. And I'm wondering if there are 763 clear, more than a few percentage points, mandates for one direction or another. Or,when you 21 DRAFT 764 get to discussing,well,what does this really mean? And it's one survey versus two surveys, how 765 you'd be guided in making recommendations. 766 767 Leigh Anne King: So that was part of the reason we asked those specific questions to the Board, because I think, 768 the way I read the outcomes of the public engagement is that I think we're hitting the right 769 questions, and we're kind of getting to this"where's the sweet spot?"kind of question. We know 770 we want to achieve a lot of things, and they all have tradeoffs, so where do we want to kind of line 771 up? I think that we're kind of getting to that midpoint where we're hitting that right balance in the 772 middle of the Venn diagram. I think,when we take this back out to the public this coming spring, 773 that'll be the true test of whether we interpreted their feedback correctly given the guidance that 774 we had from the Board. I think there was stronger support for the rural conservation 775 neighborhoods,the fact that you can actually protect more land through that type of development 776 is, and experientially, it might be a little different, because if you've ever seen a clustered 777 subdivision out in a rural area before, it is a denser housing type on part of the site. But you're 778 effectively permanently protecting a larger area, and when you subdivide lots into large lots, it's 779 not the same thing. You're not permanently protecting those in the same kind of consolidated 780 manner. So, I think that that's why we want to do a third round of engagement. Did we get this 781 right? And we have to kind of make some judgment calls based on the feedback that we get, and 782 that's why we wanted to ask the commissioners for their kind of guidance on how to move forward 783 with this work so that we were heading in the direction that they supported. 784 785 Adam Beeman: On the expansion of economic development, did they give any inclinations or feedback as to what 786 type of economic development? Like, industrial or we looking for some retail stuff where we can 787 actually go shopping and buy something other than a cement plant or another manufacturing 788 facility? 789 790 Leigh Anne King: Yeah, I think the intention in modeling that was more what we call employment focused uses. So, 791 at this level of scenario modeling,we don't really get into the hard details of, like, is this going to 792 be an Amazon warehouse space or is this going to be at a manufacturing facility for X,Y, Z 793 Company? But I think the intention was there's probably going to be some mix of retail and 794 commercial that would go in these areas, but it was predominantly going to be more,what we call 795 employment focused. So, you know,you're warehousing,your manufacturing, maybe light 796 industrial type uses. 797 798 Cy Stober: We did receive a critique. It's in the ordinance that we do, and we don't. We don't encourage, 1 799 suppose, consumer uses as much as we could in the EDDs,and that needs to be in the table.To 800 reduce vehicle miles traveled at lunch hours and so forth, that we need to integrate better. 801 Integrate retail and especially restaurants. And, my predecessor, Craig, kind of inched towards 802 that, especially introducing restaurants in the ORM District. I think we need to do that more 803 broadly. But we also need to consider how we balance that with the primary purpose,which is 804 employment and perhaps we have different future land use classes to get,again, at where our 805 activity notes are versus our EDDs. We may need to emphasize employment centers, but also 806 sustainable in terms of worker needs, like as holistic of a perspective as we can, is that somebody 807 who comes there could theoretically walk to get lunch rather than have to get in their car. You got 808 1,000 people on the road between 12 and 1, all going to the same places. 809 810 Adam Beeman: I mean, downtown has a lack of parking because everything has exploded, it's so busy down here. 811 Good luck finding parking. But that's beside the point. So,the conservation subdivision, I feel like 812 that was the right corner and I just, I personally don't think that we should be pushing towards 813 private septic systems, especially since we've had that, I don't know the name of the company, but 814 they were just in the news. They own the property and the whole community is on the well and 815 they're having issues. I don't think that that's the way we should head. If you want cheaper 816 housing,the community is going to have to pay for it through the County, and not private 817 investment because,as Fiddlehead showed, it was going to be some stupid cost per unit. So,that 818 doesn't do anything to solve the problem for affordability. I just went to a woman in Durham who 22 DRAFT 819 had to buy a place down off South Miami because she couldn't afford even the dumpiest place in 820 Hillsborough because it was out of reach. So, if we're going to go that route,we're just going to 821 keep pushing people out and it's only going to be the rich that can be in this County,so I really 822 don't know how we can have those types of things without having some real thought. I live north of 823 70. There's nothing for me. I go to Mebane to shop. I would prefer to put my money here in town 824 but there's nothing for me in this town to shop. I have to go somewhere else to do that. I would 825 love to have more options north of town where a lot of us out there on the rural area have to drive, 826 1 drive at least 20 minutes to get to town to do something. So which way am I going? The one 827 that has more choices. And that's just the way it is. So, if Orange County wants the rural,they're 828 going to have to think about that. Peel off those warehouses and start thinking about something 829 that the rest of us can actually shop at and buy. Because I don't go to Family Dollar or Dollar 830 Trees for my groceries, so Food Lion is it in this town. Food Lion is it up this way and it's just not 831 enough. There are not enough choices for us up this way. And everybody down south in Chapel 832 Hill and Carrboro are happy because you can't beat enough choices off between everything that's 833 around them. So as far as they're concerned, County's waiting. The rest of us up in north,there's 834 plenty of people that up north that don't want growth. I'm with them, but I need some choices 835 closer to me because the mileage that I'm tacking on my vehicle just to go get groceries,we need 836 to think about that. And that's something that, if you're not going to expand water and sewer, it's 837 never going to be affordable. That's just the bottom line. The taxpayer's going to pay for it one 838 way or the other. You're either going to pay for the water and sewers to be built out or all of us 839 lower income folks are going to get pushed out and it's only going to be the folks that can afford 840 the million dollar plus properties. I mean I'd love to know where the commissioner's mind was at, 1 841 don't understand. At one point, if I'm not mistaken, I thought I heard that potentially eliminating or 842 reducing the rural buffer was supposed to on the table as far as a choice for people to talk about. 843 Did that get any attraction? 844 845 Leigh Anne King: So,that was some of what we tested. Well,we tested some, like I was saying,the Blackwood 846 Station area in particular was an area that was a focus both for rural conservation neighborhood 847 and also for the mixed-use center development. And I think, because there has been such strong 848 support for, and if you look at that kind of percentages of people in terms of the alternatives they 849 were supporting, if I remember correctly, I'll just go back. I'm double checking myself and not 850 saying something incorrectly here. So Alternative No. 1 had 58 percent. So that's current policy. 851 54 for Alternative No. 2, environmental agricultural watershed protection and then 52 percent for 852 rural conversation neighborhoods,which is No. 3. And then kind of, there's a split a little bit in 853 terms of some of the development mix for No.4. So,the high end, if you were going to compare 854 them across,there's actually more support for what we do today. But there's also this expression 855 that we need to be doing more than what we're doing today with respect to how we're offering 856 housing options within our community and making things more attainable for folks. I think the real 857 challenge, the real rub, is there is such strong support for environmental protection, agricultural 858 preservation, and watershed protection. And when you start putting lot of pipes in the ground to 859 serve different areas, are you going to be able to afford that infrastructure. There will be 860 development that will go along with it. And I think that there doesn't seem to be a lot of strong 861 support for changing in a major way the land planning in the unincorporated areas. 862 863 Adam Beeman: But cost was never brought up and this is just merely what do you think versus do you understand 864 that based on the approach that you're taking,you are going to significantly drive the cost up. 1 865 think a lot of people don't realize that the County's budget isn't going to stay static. The folks that 866 work for the County expect pay raises whether they're 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent or whatever 867 they may be. So that means that costs are going to go up every single year. And if the only 868 people that are footing the bills are taxpayers, that means we're going to continue to climb and 869 climb and climb. So that's the rub that people don't take into consideration.The ramifications of 870 maintaining what we have. Because once we close off, now we have prime land. Everything else 871 around us had been developed. There's no more developable land down the road. And we have 872 all this available land. What do you think is going to happen with those conservations. They're 873 going to figure out how to peel that conservation back and develop the heck out of that land 23 DRAFT 874 because it's the only one. But when they get there, that land is going to be through the roof as far 875 as cost is concerned, and it's only going to drive the cost up for us here. As an electrician, I see it 876 every single day. We keep adding more and more and more and more. Let's require sidewalks 877 when you build a house. You know, put a sidewalk on. I drive by houses. There's a sidewalk on 878 the front of the house to nowhere because that person was required to under the ordinance. They 879 got to plant two trees out in Durham. You keep adding costs. How do you think the house is 880 going to stay cheap. It's never going to. And so, as we continue to go down the path of adding 881 more and more requirements to this,the only obvious thing is that the cost is going to climb. It's 882 getting out of control. There's a double wide by me for$470,000.00 on 10 acres. A double wide. 883 Are you all right? How? 884 885 Leigh Anne King: The land values in the County are very,very high. 886 887 Adam Beeman: Right. But that's what I'm saying. Come on and develop until we have no more land left. And like 888 1 said,when that happens, it's going to be ridiculous. I come from Massachusetts. Most of the 889 land was gone. There was a gentleman that was buying a half-acre empty lot for$350,000.00. 890 Just so he had a yard. $350,000.00. That's where we're heading. The median price in North 891 Carolina is what,$420,000.00,$450,000.00,somewhere in that range? Let's keep adding more 892 and more to it and don't provide anybody with any of the services. The septic systems are 893 ridiculous,wells are ridiculous, all that cost continues to add up, so we're never going to have 894 affordable housing unless the County steps in and provides something, infrastructure or the land, 895 and they don't seem to want to do that. And too many people are blind to the fact that the costs 896 are going to continue to climb. I just don't understand, it baffles the mind that nobody can see the 897 obvious. It's like,the more you keep the land precious and conserved,the more value it's going to 898 be and we're going to be pushed out. And I'm not against conserving land,trust me, I'm not, 1 899 know there are many people out where I live that want their farmland. I understand that. There 900 has to be a balance. And like you said, encourage the growth in municipalities. We're going to 901 have to probably expand the municipalities boundaries in order to solve some of the housing 902 crisis. Doesn't seem like anybody's interested in that. 903 904 Statler Gilfillen: I think you're missing something here. What does it cost to put a smoke detector system in a 905 house these days. It adds to the cost. These items are necessary also though. Those are adding 906 to the cost. There's a balance in here. 907 908 Adam Beeman: I understand the smoke detector. I'm talking about a sidewalk to nowhere. How much do you 909 think it cost him to pour 50-foot sidewalk 4 feet wide, or 2 feet wide? It's not free. 910 911 Statler Gilfillen: But we have to be practical. Many of these costs are things that made us safer. 912 913 Adam Beeman: How is requiring two trees be planted in your front yard make you safer? I'm just trying to make 914 the point, like, if we're trying to make it more affordable,we can't continue to pile on more 915 regulations. 916 917 Leigh Anne King: But what would be the question to ask, yeah. 918 919 Cy Stober: To respond to your question or concern, Chairman, the commissioners did discuss that matter. 920 And the public did too. I'm actually going through the free responses and pulling out common 921 themes. So rural buffer, no. No one really actually talked about it,which is pretty surprising 922 because we were pretty blunt about it on all the maps. We're showing development there and 923 scenario for,or alternative for, and some development in there and Alternative 3, so there wasn't 924 much discussion about it. There was a lot of discussion about sprawl and appreciation for 925 containment of Chapel Hill and Carrboro growth, and to a lesser degree, Hillsborough. And a little 926 dislike for the growth pattern in Mebane. So,we did hear that. We also have heard from the 927 commissioners concerns about the under-utilization of the existing OWASA utility lines, and 928 especially given that OWASA has 70 years of capacity based on forecasted growth. That is going 24 DRAFT 929 to be considered when we're drafting policy recommendations for this plan. Those are existing 930 utilities, again,to get to that earlier point about economic development. Most of those areas are 931 zoned for residential, but there are some non-residential areas in Chapel Hill and Carrboro that 932 are adjacent to or have proximity to those utilities. All that could be discussed. We are also 933 currently in the two of the alternatives,well, all the alternatives now have two activity nodes within 934 the rural buffer. One right outside and one within, and I think we're moving forward with that in 935 mind. They will depend upon a decentralized, engineered system, so state permitted wastewater, 936 state permitted water. And to your point about the for-profit management of water. I share your 937 concern, so I think that, and the commissioners have reached out to the manager who told me we 938 need more research on, particularly,you know, decentralized wastewater whether it's community 939 septic or, community wastewater so it's a package plant. The commissioners are intrigued but 940 concerned. They don't feel that they have enough information today and you feel that way too, so 941 we need to get more information on all of those matters. But where we're at right now is a real 942 distaste for sprawl. Real concern about affordability. For those who are informed,concerns about 943 tax base, and concerns about under-utilization of existing infrastructure. I think all of that's true 944 and going to inform what we come back to you with in the future. 945 946 Adam Beeman: I'm rotating off of March, so I'm trying to get all of it off and aired out because I probably won't be 947 here the next time around. So, I apologize. Charity, go ahead. 948 949 Charity Kirk: Adding on to environmental stuff, is there any consideration of wildlife corridors, because we're 950 talking about alternatives to land use and these conservation neighborhoods, but there's nothing 951 about connectivity that I've heard. And besides there's watershed protected areas. But what is the 952 consideration for wildlife connectivity? 953 954 Leigh Anne King: Excellent question. So when we develop the alternatives and we're looking to change the land 955 uses, particularly for the rural conservation neighborhoods, and the mixed-use centers in 956 Alternative No.4,we did evaluate the New Hope Conservation Corridor's analysis that was part of 957 the data that we looked at when locating those areas on the map, and there are gradations of 958 quality of corridors and patches and so we were prioritizing the most high quality corridors and 959 patches when locating these areas. If you see the maps of New Hope there's some level,almost 960 everywhere, that doesn't have development on it today. But there was a concerted effort to look 961 at that, and it's actually something that as we're drafting the policies for the plan and thinking 962 about if we're going to be supporting rural conservation neighborhoods and unincorporated 963 portions of the County,we want to make sure that protected lands,the 60 percent or whatever 964 number that's landed at, in terms of the open space protection,would be promoting conservation 965 of high quality conservation corridors for wildlife. 966 967 Charity Kirk: So, in the plan,you would actually specify what would be rural conservation neighborhoods 968 zoning wise and then they would need to do a rural conservation neighborhood there. They would 969 have to apply to the County to change it to a standard subdivision. 970 971 Leigh Anne King: The plan is policy. No zoning change will happen as a part of a land use plan. 972 973 Charity Kirk: So,the LIDO would have to be changed separately. 974 975 Leigh Anne King: Correct. And this is the way it always happens in communities throughout the United States. 976 There's the plan that happens first. And that's the policy guidance that will typically include 977 recommendations for zoning,subdivision, UDO,whatever the ordinance is called,for changes to 978 that to bring the code into compliance with the vision of the plan. So, at this stage,there wouldn't 979 be any zoning changes. I think in our land use categories,we would talk about the types of 980 zoning categories that make sense to be applied within different areas, but it wouldn't actually be 981 zoning. 982 25 DRAFT 983 Charity Kirk: Would there be specific suggestions, or would that be a whole new phase once the 984 comprehensive plan is updated? 985 986 Leigh Anne King: What we typically do as part of comprehensive land use planning efforts is to provide 987 recommendations for, generally speaking, the types of changes that we would recommend 988 incorporating into a cod update process. That being said, one half of our business is doing plans. 989 The other practice area of ours is doing actual ordinance work. And what we know from doing 990 that is it's very important for the plan to not hamstring and get too specific about the ordinance 991 changes that need to be made, until you actually have the time to go in and work within the 992 framework of assessment for the code itself. So,we are looking at the code and we are making 993 some suggestions based on what's in the code. But we're not going to be making provision 994 change recommendations in the plan. We want that to happen as part of a code update process. 995 996 Beth Bronson: Charity, to your point about that designation of zoning,what it reminds me of is those 997 neighborhood activity nodes that we looked at in White Cross where they were trying to present, 998 because there is set out designations for zoning that are in the LIDO as a result of the original 999 comprehensive plan, if I am understanding that correctly.And so, on the map, in the community 1000 engagement what I did notice with those,there was no focus on those areas. So,you're talking 1001 about those interchanges, those points of connection. Where people are commuting by,where 1002 you're getting the most drive by of the residents,you have the most opportunity for something like 1003 retail versus manufacturing. If, per se,there was something in the LIDO eventually based on the 1004 policy recommendations and the comprehensive plan that said,this area is good as an overlay 1005 district for conservation neighborhoods or, rural agricultural or certain things like that or certain 1006 types of businesses such as, low impact, like dog kennel kind of things. Right?That idea being 1007 that, if you identify those areas in the County where we would encourage commercial versus 1008 residential development, but also holistically together in Northern Orange County or in, Southern 1009 Orange County, I guess. Is that kind of what you're talking about? 1010 1011 Charity Kirk: I mean, she answered my question. I felt satisfied with her answer. 1012 1013 Beth Bronson: I guess, I will just add that having more specifics like that,where you're not hamstringing the policy 1014 that could be made, but you are also saying that these areas that previously been identified,these 1015 will be expanded or better defined?And not just based on a radius of an intersection. 1016 1017 Adam Beeman: Any other questions? 1018 1019 Leigh Anne King: Thank you. 1020 1021 Charity Kirk: It was super helpful. Appreciate it. 1022 1023 AGENDA ITEM 8: PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN:To review and approve the annual input from 1024 which informs the BOCC of the past year's activities of advisory boards/commissions and assists 1025 in overall County work planning. 1026 1027 Perdita Holtz: So,tonight we have the planning board's annual report and work plan for your consideration. For 1028 those of you who've been on the board for quite some time,you know that every December we 1029 bring you this work item, and it eventually makes it way on to a BOCC work session agenda in the 1030 spring of the following year along with all of the other advisory boards that the County has. So, 1031 this year's report contains a fairly extensive list of all of the things that the planning board reviewed 1032 and made a recommendation on in 2024. So,on page 38 in your agenda packet,which I have up 1033 here on the screen,there were several rezoning applications, there were LIDO text amendments, 1034 there were major subdivision concept plans and preliminary plats. You know the briefings on the 1035 Orange County Land Use Plan,which you just received again tonight. There was a briefing on the 1036 climate action plan,and we discussed public notification requirements in a little work session 1037 earlier this year as well. So even though we have missed the past two months of meetings,we 26 DRAFT 1038 had a lot of stuff and other meetings. And then on page 39 of your agenda packet,we list the 1039 activities that we expect to be working on in 2025, and so that includes the Land Use Plan update, 1040 which is a major work product that staff is working on as well as the consultant. And then also, 1041 UDO amendments,just so you know,with the talk of the conservation subdivisions,there is 1042 actually an effort by staff right now to draft some UDO amendments pertaining to the conservation 1043 subdivisions in response to a petition that was made by a Board of County Commissioners 1044 member earlier this year. And then, there are the three others that are a little bit less staff time 1045 intensive. I will note that Meg has already done her first training session, and we are going to 1046 knock that out quick. We are going to be done by early January. She's the only new board 1047 member, and then here,we're now at the end of the page,where the concerns or emerging issues 1048 that the planning board may wish to bring the commissioner's attention. We have still wireless 1049 and broadband access,which is a continuing project in the county.And concerns with Mebane in 1050 western Orange County. And continuing onto the last page,the watershed review and then a 1051 couple things for inclusion into the land use plan pertaining to rural enterprises and to 1052 transportation even though the planning department no longer includes the transportation 1053 component within our department. It was moved out of planning a couple of years ago, and is 1054 now its own separate department, but there is still a land use and transportation connection that 1055 everybody acknowledges. So,the recommendation for tonight is for you all to, hopefully, review 1056 the document prior to the meeting, and to talk about any ideas that any of you may have for 1057 additional activities to be worked on in 2025. You know,time permitting of course, or any 1058 additional issues to be brought to the attention of the BOCC,and then to either approve the work 1059 plan and annual report or ask staff to incorporate the results of any discussion,and submit the 1060 form to the clerk's office, or for us to incorporate the results and then bring it back for your further 1061 review at the January 8, 2025, meeting.And with that, I will turn it over for you all. 1062 1063 Adam Beeman: Go ahead, Charity. 1064 1065 Charity Kirk: So,the private water and sewer system is coming up.What can we have a say on? What can 1066 land use do to specify systems.That keeps coming up as a concern, but besides just hearing 1067 about it and expressing opinion,what power,what information, is there anything that we can be 1068 involved in there? 1069 1070 Perdita Holtz: Right. You know, actually,that is something that we need to look at more because by default 1071 they're allowed. And as you know in North Carolina, if it's allowed,we're not quite sure if we can 1072 not allow it. And this is one of things that Cy talked about doing a bit more research for staff to 1073 figure out. Number 1,what are the options? And then, Number 2, do we want to do anything with 1074 the options? 1075 1076 Charity Kirk: Yeah. I talked with an inspector at Environmental Health, and he was talking about mobile home 1077 parks, and how there is a turnover, and they just sort of let the systems degrade, how could we 1078 prevent that stuff that's already happening? How can we prevent that in the future too? But that 1079 would be our suggestion to staff to look into it. 1080 1081 Perdita Holtz: Yeah, and it would really be as passing it on to Environmental Health because once it's in the 1082 ground, it's on Environmental Health. 1083 1084 Charity Kirk: So, is there land use? Can land use dictate what systems would be allowed? 1085 1086 Perdita Holtz: Maybe. Maybe not. There was a time where we had regulations that if you were over a certain 1087 size,that you had to get an SUP but that was taken out of the UDO several years ago. 1088 1089 Cy Stober: Another missing component that is present is storm water and the requirement of a performance 1090 guarantee and that is complicated because,would that be environment health,would that be 1091 planning, I don't know. But it's kind of ambiguous whether we could require this at that time. So, 1092 again, Perdita's point, having some kind of regulations regarding an engineered system would be 27 DRAFT 1093 helpful. But the permitting would all be done either by the county or by the state regarding the 1094 installation and its performance.And the inspections are done not by planning. They're done by 1095 Environment Health through the state. 1096 1097 Charity Kirk: Can we, as a board, do anything to help with that or do anything there or it's just every once in a 1098 while,we'll ask a question. Ya'll would know more. 1099 1100 Cy Stober: We've already been directed by the commissioners to come back with more information,we'll be 1101 happy to share that information with you all when I have it, but I don't have it today and I'm going 1102 to be talking to some of our neighboring counties on what they've done. I've got a conversation 1103 with Chatham on Friday, and they've done a lot of these and learned lessons, good and bad,from 1104 their installation. 1105 1106 Charity Kirk: So,we don't have anything. Nothing would be helpful for us to do besides just express interest 1107 and ask for questions out of public curiosity. 1108 1109 Cy Stober: Not tonight. 1110 1111 Charity Kirk: Well, no, no, not tonight. 1112 1113 Cy Stober: Yeah, no, I don't think there's anything you can do tonight. 1114 1115 Charity Kirk: No, like,over the next year? 1116 1117 Cy Stober: Yeah,there might be, but I think if you're not getting the information,you want or you're finding 1118 yourself with these questions,then we need to know that and we can work with Environmental 1119 Health or we can get more information for you, but tonight, I can just promise you we're going to 1120 get more information. 1121 1122 Charity Kirk: Okay.All right. Because we're talking about like the annual,future work plan, and so, can we do 1123 anything to help with that and it sounds like no,we can, not yet, but maybe. 1124 Adam Beeman: So, on those large, you know,community well places, is there any kind of restrictions on the well 1125 that are put in place as far as providing water to the community or there's nothing there. They just 1126 own the lot, or the well system and they can provide it and that's that. 1127 1128 Cy Stober: I don't know. But I'll find out. 1129 1130 Adam Beeman: I'm just curious cause I mean it seems broken. Like if we allow that and one person is in charge of 1131 the water and the whole entire development all of a sudden goes dry,what's the development to 1132 do? That's where I'm at and the same thing with the septic. If the guy stops taking care of it, 1133 what's the neighborhood to do? That's where I, that's where all my questions go, but nobody has 1134 an answer. 1135 1136 Cy Stober: The very cold answer is that's a civil matter between that HOA and that operator. 1137 1138 Adam Beeman: Right, but at the same time,we're not trying to get a whole neighborhood to be stuck without 1139 housing.Well, it's one thing to bring water in and pull the water in and be able to solve that 1140 problem. It's a whole other story to pump a septic that you don't have. We'd need to go through 1141 waste and that was the whole system with Fiddlehead. They had a tank, comes out of the house, 1142 hits the tank,the tank flows down to the main system. So,yes,you could potentially pump that 1143 tank daily or however fast, but that's my concern. Is there's no one to guarantee that long-term 1144 someone capable is going to be operating that sewage treatment plant cause that's essentially 1145 what it is, a sewage treatment plant. You can call it a package system or whatever else, but these 28 DRAFT 1146 technicians, they have technicians to do this and,you're relying on a homeowner's association to 1147 hire and maintain a sewage technician,at least one. 1148 1149 Cy Stober: Were,were you bugging the conference room yesterday? It sounds like you were with me and 1150 Perdita. 1151 1152 Adam Beeman: No,this has been one of the things. It came up in Massachusetts when I first did the work. There 1153 was a community that had absolutely zero access to water and sewer, and they installed this 1154 system, and I was baffled because they were going to have two technicians that that was their job. 1155 To babysit it and there was no guarantee once, once you say, here's your certificate of 1156 compliance, have at it. 1157 1158 Charity Kirk: Yeah, I, I know a community in California too. Every once in a while,the sewage overflowed into 1159 the Iaguna.You'd have some poop, and you were part of it. 1160 1161 Cy Stober: Well, Patrick, Perdida,and I were all talking about very similar things yesterday. So, I don't know. 1162 The commissioners want more information. You all want more information. We'll have more 1163 information, but I don't have it tonight. 1164 1165 Adam Beeman: Like I said, I may or may not be here for that discussion,so I got to get my two cents in. 1166 1167 Beth Bronson: When,when is your term up? 1168 1169 Adam Beeman: March. 1170 1171 Lamar Proctor So,that's already included in the work plan under 7, looking at that. 1172 1173 Perdita Holtz: Yeah, and that is under the emerging issues or other information that you want to bring to 1174 commissioner's attention. It's not necessarily like we're actively going to have something this 1175 year. 1176 1177 Lamar Proctor: Right. I had a question. I was very intrigued by the under-utilization of OWASA. Is that part of 1178 what we're looking at and can that be included? Is that already part of our work plan in terms of 1179 looking forward or is that something that we can do. 1180 1181 Cy Stober: No, it'll be part of the comprehensive plan policy recommendations. 1182 1183 Lamar Proctor: Okay, so, it's covered in the work plan already. 1184 1185 Cy Stober: I intend to, and the commissioners are interested in that conversation. 1186 1187 Perdita Holtz: I'm not sure if I'd call it the under-utilization of OWASA. They have plenty of capacity. 1188 1189 Beth Bronson: Well, I mean I think the under-utilization of the infrastructure that exists within the economic 1190 development districts is absolutely something that I would like to see more discussion about 1191 among the commissioners because that's going to directly impact how the economic development 1192 department and, in turn,the planning boards and, in turn, applicants too. Just that there is a large 1193 amount of space that has been built up and is not being utilized for industrial or commercial use 1194 and whether or not we're missing out on tax revenue dollars that are already there to be realized 1195 versus expanding an economic development district. It would be very interesting to know what that 1196 is and what that looks like and how it might be impacting the commissioner's desire to expand it 1197 versus to actually utilize it. 1198 29 DRAFT 1199 Perdita Holtz: Well, one of the considerations about expanding south of West 10 Road is that that sewer line 1200 does run on West 10 Road. And, so, to allow connections on one side of the road and not the 1201 other is arguably under-utilizing the sewer line. 1202 1203 Beth Bronson: 100 percent. But whether or not that sewer line has the capacity to support. Right? Because it's 1204 not actually the right size to be supporting large-scale development. It can only support large 1205 parcels that use a little bit of water every day. Right? So that's under-utilization of the land, in my 1206 opinion. I mean, again,why it was put on south of West 10 when the economic development 1207 district is on the north side of West 10,that's a different question for a different person. I mean the 1208 existing warehouses that have been built that are not being occupied. Right? So, our mayor 1209 came in great, great, revitalization to the Buckhorn development area. Fine. How many of his 1210 warehouses are full? How many are operating? That's a great question considering this is 3 1211 years now in the making and I don't know what kind of tax incentives they received, but they've 1212 got to be coming up on some form of time limit to fulfill that. They said they were going to have 1213 200 jobs to Thermo Fisher, and they're not open. So, I am all for fiscal responsibility in that sense. 1214 1215 Lamar Proctor: So, I just had my feelings hurt, but that's all. 1216 1217 Perdita Holtz: By who? 1218 1219 Lamar Proctor: With the under-utilization of the existing sewer south of West 10. 1220 1221 Perdita Holtz: I see. Well, because you said OWASA's under-utilization and OWASA has nothing to do with 1222 West 10 sewer. 1223 1224 Lamar Proctor: Oh, I know. 1225 1226 Perdita Holtz: But OWASA has water capacity. They have enough water in Cane Creek Reservoir. 1227 1228 Lamar Proctor: Right,that was my point, I took what Cy said to mean that there could be more economic 1229 development tied to the OWASA system that is not being developed. 1230 1231 Perdita Holtz: I see. 1232 1233 Beth Bronson: I think her point was she was making a call back to what you said for me, it wasn't for you. 1234 1235 Lamar Proctor: I know. That's why I said my feelings were hurt. 1236 1237 Perdita Holtz: I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I'm sorry. 1238 1239 Whitney Watson: I remember, I guess it was 3 plus years ago. There was a big bruhaha about the development 1240 south of West 10, particularly in and around Gravelly School and there was a lot of finger pointing 1241 from the public. I didn't know this was happening. Why is Orange County doing this when it was 1242 really Mebane and, I mean Mebane was getting off scott free for having taken responsibility for 1243 pushing that kind of development. And that, to me, it seemed like the planning, both the board 1244 and the planning department had missed some opportunity to engage the public in communicating 1245 what was being discussed,what the future plans were. And so, I think 2, 3 years ago, enhancing 1246 communication with the public was part of the work plan. And I'm wondering if that should be part 1247 of this work plan.To set some goals for increasing subscriptions to the newsletter for the planning 1248 office. I know that there's been an increase in the pop-up discussion tables and volunteer 1249 recruitment tables and certainly the manager's planning has been terrific in terms of reaching out 1250 to the community. But that was not an overall part of the work plan and I'm just wondering if it 1251 should be. 1252 30 DRAFT 1253 Perdita Holtz: I mean we can add that. You know, the board agrees to add enhancing communication with the 1254 public by potentially increasing subscriptions to the newsletter. Because the newsletters do have 1255 what's going on. 1256 1257 Beth Bronson: Very much in the same vein, I have been saving this for the last bit. Because I didn't want to put 1258 anybody out, but I was, again, a work plan and in that vein of holding ourselves accountable, the 1259 planning board accountable for missed opportunities for public engagement, if there was a 1260 subcommittee on this planning board for public engagement and we resolved to, over the next 12 1261 months, look inward how we, as the advisory board members, can help facilitate a better line of 1262 engagement for the community. Like who do you know in the community that would actually 1263 benefit from hearing this work plan summary or being here in December to actually hear what it is 1264 that we did over the year,what we plan to do next year, and how much would that inform them. 1265 Who's going to read this, and we want people to read this. So,that idea, that I was going to 1266 propose a subcommittee and I'm not going to do it tonight as far as no motions. 1267 1268 Adam Beeman: Can we wait until March? 1269 1270 Beth Bronson: I could absolutely wait until March. May want to wait until just before March. I may want Adam's 1271 vote, but again,just something to think about and,and I very much agree with what you've been 1272 saying. 1273 1274 Adam Beeman: Do you know what kind of a broadband coverage we have now that they've done the majority of 1275 their work? 1276 1277 Perdita Holtz: I know that there's information on the county's website with a map that shows everything that's 1278 covered and everything's that not and what the projected dates are, but I can't tell you what it is off 1279 the top of my head. 1280 1281 Adam Beeman: I just was wondering. I mean now that they've solved, I don't want to say solved the broadband 1282 access problem but put a huge dent in the broadband access issue to the rural residences. I'm 1283 just wondering if that still should stay up there or not cause the cellphone coverage is still an 1284 issue, but I feel like they've definitely I don't want to say solved it, but made a huge, huge step 1285 forward in the broadband access out to the county. I'm not entirely sure that that should stay at 1286 the top of the priority list, but that's just me. And I know that the county owes them a$6 million 1287 check at the end of the month,so if you don't have your broadband,you better speak up. 1288 1289 Charity Kirk: I'm not happy with them, but I'm a one-off thing. I mean we haven't done anything this last year 1290 with it. Have we? 1291 1292 Adam Beeman: Well, the commissioners did. They signed the contracts to expand it out for us. 1293 1294 Charity Kirk: But we haven't done anything, so I agree that it might not be worthwhile to put on our list. 1295 1296 Perdita Holtz: So,the list is not for the planning board to work on. That's part of the list of emerging issues or 1297 concerns that the board wants to bring up. In past years, those are not always just planning 1298 issues. I'm not saying that we should have a list of 30 items that aren't planning issues, but there 1299 has been a lot of headway made on broadband access. I do know there are still some 1300 outstanding areas. 1301 1302 Adam Beeman: I'm waiting for them to connect mine. The fiber was in the ground in March, and they haven't been 1303 back since. 1304 1305 Charity Kirk: Oh yeah. They've piped and labeled all the flags and now it's all destroyed in my neighborhood. 1306 1307 Beth Bronson: As soon as it's available, Spectrum will call you and say you have access in your area too now. 31 DRAFT 1308 1309 Charity Kirk: No, my driveway is too long. 1310 1311 Adam Beeman: Spectrum rates that first. Once the county signed the contract, they raced out to the county and 1312 fed it. They stopped an eighth of a mile short of my house and told me if I wanted to get a third 1313 phone line,they'll come to me. So, I've been on the telephone since. 1314 1315 Perdita Holtz: We can move it down the list so that it's not No. 1. 1316 1317 Charity Kirk: I'm fine with the way it is. Do we want to add anything? Is there more discussion? 1318 1319 Lamar Proctor: The only question I had is whether Whitney wanted to make a motion to add No. 8 for just like 1320 general emerging issue work towards better community engagement. I don't know if this would be 1321 something to add to our list of specific things, I would support a motion to add it. 1322 1323 Adam Beeman: The only comment I have to say about that is that you said 3 plus years ago and they have made 1324 a huge,just like the broadband, a huge dent in reaching out to the community. The main page is 1325 light years ahead of what it used to be. So, it's more from the folks that want to be engaged. 1 1326 mean that's up for challenge. I understand trying to reach out to them, but just like Charity said, 1327 that was the best they could get for numbers and those are the people that wanted to participate. 1328 1329 Whitney Watson: So,this is a question really for the planning staff is if they feel like they've made sufficient 1330 progress, then it doesn't need to be added. But if we don't ask the question, have we made 1331 enough progress,we can't decide to add it or not. So, if you feel like we've made enough 1332 progress, all right, in terms of public outreach or public engagement,then I'm fine with omitting it. 1333 1334 Perdita Holtz: I think much progress has been made. We now have a monthly newsletter. There are a few 1335 hundred subscribers. I don't recall the exact number off the top of my head. Your concern was 1336 specific to a project going on in Orange County. 1337 1338 Whitney Watson: Well, that was what created the bruhaha 3 plus years ago. Is the project tied Orange County and 1 1339 heard word from a lot of residents, they were like,wait a minute,where is this. What is the county 1340 doing to us? And it wasn't the county that was doing it. So,that's just an example of how leading 1341 the conversation could be useful. And I'm sure Adam probably hears this, that Orange County 1342 inspectors can be really hard to work with. Well, my experience has been they're really great. But 1343 that's not the reputation out there. 1344 1345 Cy Stober: So, a couple of things, one specific to Thermo Fisher and the Buckhorn area study and Buc-ee's 1346 and everything that happened in 2021,that was squarely in the middle of COVID. So, messaging, 1347 unfortunately,was very difficult and I think that the county went through three different meeting 1348 platforms,you know, Zoom, and we went to Teams later after I got here, but it was a very difficult 1349 time for messaging and communication period. I'm not making excuses, but I just want to 1350 acknowledge the moment that the county was at that time. And Lord knows I think, especially with 1351 the Buc-ee's,the county did a remarkable job at managing the input with the tools available and 1352 everyone learning on the fly. The additional thing,we are already underway and working with 1353 community relations on some sort of instructional videos about our processes, how to apply for a 1354 permit,so forth. We can add this to the work plan. And that would obligate us to report on it, but 1 1355 have the intention of working with Kristen Prelipp in community relations on developing some 1356 videos about what we do and how to apply for a permit. What is zoning? You know what is it that 1357 we do. And that'll be helpful also when the comp plan gets to the draft,and I can work with her on 1358 that too. So,we can do that without adding it to the work plan and report back to you all and then 1359 to Beth's point, if you all want to have a subcommittee where we develop a more informal 1360 relationship and reporting back to you,we can do that. It would structure the activities a bit and 1361 give us deadlines that, it's pluses and minuses, but for us as staff it's something we can do. We 1362 just need to figure out what that looks like. I always think we can do a better, I mean my 32 DRAFT 1363 perspective is that we can always do better at everything that we do, including communication. 1364 That doesn't mean that we're doing a poor job. I think we've made substantial progress as Perdita 1365 has already acknowledged and we will continue to make more progress and we can put it in the 1366 work plan or not. It just would change how we do the work and how we report it to you and 1367 whether it's kind of on ad hoc or whether it's formal. 1368 1369 Whitney Watson: All right. So,the other thing to do would be to flip that and put in there in terms of 1370 accomplishments for the past year is planning, both the board and the planning department, reach 1371 this many people through the land use planning workshops, the pop-up events, the subscriptions 1372 to the newsletter. Because that does show that both parties are working towards reaching the 1373 public that we serve. 1374 1375 Beth Bronson: I like that. 1376 1377 Cy Stober: The only thing I'll add is we really need ambassadors, so if you all can help us with getting the 1378 word out,we really want people to know what we're doing, and I don't think we have that 1379 perception from the public. In the strategic plan, our department was rated the worst in the whole 1380 county,which stung. Because we do try to do good work and we do try to work on behalf of 1381 permitees and on behalf of the public. We try to be honest with everyone and even if we're going 1382 to tell them information they don't like,that's our job is to be as frank as we can be. So, anything 1383 we can do to improve communication and improve our perception,we want to do it within reason. 1384 1385 Adam Beeman: Okay. Anything else? 1386 1387 Beth Bronson: What I'm hearing is that we're not going to make a motion to make any changes. These are 1388 suggestions. Are you going to bring them back in January or are we supposed to make a motion? 1389 1390 Charity Kirk: We're supposed to approve this or not. 1391 1392 Perdita Holtz: Or we can add something,and you can approve it. That's how we've done it in the past. You trust 1393 me to put it in. 1394 1395 Beth Bronson: We trust you. 1396 1397 Charity Kirk: We'd like to approve it tonight and we can add stuff if we want. 1398 1399 Statler Gilfillen: Should we make a motion that we approve it? 1400 1401 Beth Bronson: Yes,you can,and I would second it.What he just said about adding in the good that we, that the 1402 planning department and the board has done in reaching people and public engagement to show 1403 that both parties are working towards that. We need to be added and presented in January. So, 1 1404 would make a motion to add the results of any discussion tonight and bring it back on January 8th. 1405 1406 Dolores Bailey: Second. 1407 1408 Charity Kirk: You can, but trust Perdita to add that. 1409 1410 Lamar Proctor: We could move to approve it with the addendum. 1411 1412 Beth Bronson: That's fine with me too. 1413 1414 Perdita Holtz: I'll tell you that this will be the only item on January's agenda. 1415 1416 Charity Kirk: I think we should approve that. I think we should approve it now.We don't need to rehash this. 1417 33 DRAFT 1418 Adam Beeman: I agree. 1419 1420 Beth Bronson: That's fine. So, make a motion to approve the work plan. 1421 1422 Dolores Bailey: It's already on the floor. 1423 1424 Charity Kirk: No, she wants to make an addendum. 1425 1426 Dolores Bailey: Yeah, but then you got to do it the right way. So,she made a motion, and it was seconded, so if, 1427 if you want to change it,we can change it. 1428 1429 Beth Bronson: Oh, it was made. My apologies. 1430 1431 Dolores Bailey: That's okay. It was made and seconded,so can we state your motion. I'm sorry. Take it over. 1432 Restate your motion. Restate your motion. I seconded it and now you need to call for the vote or 1433 re-ask for an addendum to the vote cause it's on the table. That's the problem. 1434 1435 Adam Beeman: That's an appropriate enough motion to approve the agenda? 1436 1437 Lamar Proctor: Do I need to move to approve the work plan with the addendum of Whitney's suggestion? 1438 1439 Charity Kirk: Can we vote now? 1440 1441 Dolores Bailey: You got a vote on the table. You've got to do something with that. Either vote on it or do an 1442 addendum. 1443 1444 Perdita Holtz: Somebody can jump up and say I would like to make a friendly amendment if you feel strongly 1445 about adding something. 1446 1447 Adam Beeman: So, as it stands right now, Statler wants to approve as is. 1448 1449 Lamar Proctor: And I want to jump in and make a friendly motion. 1450 1451 Adam Beeman: So, Dolores wants me to do it because she seconded today's stuff. Vote straight up and down on 1452 the motion as is. 1453 1454 Dolores Bailey: But he can say Statler,will you let me make a friendly amendment to your motion. 1455 1456 Lamar Proctor: Can I make a friendly amendment to your motion? 1457 1458 Statler Gilfillen: Yes. 1459 1460 Dolores Bailey: Now say what you want to say. 1461 1462 Lamar Proctor: I would like to make a friendly amendment to approve the work plan with the addendum of the 1463 accolades for the county's better improvement in community engagement as we discussed. 1464 1465 Dolores Bailey: That handles it. You said yes. 1466 1467 Adam Beeman: Do we have a second? 1468 1469 Dolores Bailey: I second. 1470 1471 Adam Beeman: All in favor. 1472 34 DRAFT 1473 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the work plan with an amendment. Seconded by Dolores Bailey. 1474 1475 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1476 1477 Adam Beeman: Approved. Against. That's it. Nobody. 1478 1479 Beth Bronson: I make a motion to adjourn. 1480 1481 Adam Beeman: Can I have a second? 1482 1483 Charity Kirk: Second. 1484 1485 Adam Beeman: All in favor? 1486 1487 MOTION BY Beth Bronson to adjourn. Seconded by Charity Kirk. 1488 1489 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1490 1491 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 1492 1493 The meeting adjourned at 9:01 PM