Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-06-2025-Business Meeting 1 APPROVED 4115/25 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BUSINESS MEETING March 6, 2025 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Thursday, March 6, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair Jean Hamilton and Commissioners Marilyn Carter, Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, and Earl McKee COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Phyllis Portie-Ascott COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT. John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT. County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Caitlin Fenhagen, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present except Commissioner Portie-Ascott. Chair Bedford read the public charge. She explained the process for making public comments for items not on the agenda vs. items that are on the agenda. She indicated that only the five people that signed up to speak for item 5-a on February 4, 2025 and were unable to speak will be allowed to speak during the public hearing. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda None. 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda None. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members Commissioner McKee said he is the Board's representative on the Orange County Fire Chief's Association and attended their meeting last night. He said Orange County had a 19-acre wood fire the previous Sunday and commended the many fire departments that responded and got the fire under control. He said part of the discussion at the meeting centered around communications towers and additional equipment that are going to be implemented over the next few years. He said these are costly, but worth it for community safety. Commissioner Carter said that she and Vice-Chair Hamilton had the privilege to attend the NACo conference in Washington, D.C. this past week. She said they were able to spotlight the work of the Stepping Up Initiative here in Orange County, which started in 2015. She said she is looking forward to getting feedback from county commissioners across the country on that initiative. She explained that the courts, the Sheriff, larger law enforcement community, Emergency Services, and numerous other partners have participated over the years with the Criminal Justice Resources Department on the Stepping Up Initiative. She shared that the 2 average pre-trial population is down significantly over the 10 years of the initiative, and they are seeing a significantly higher number of referrals for behavioral health services. She said during the NACo legislative conference, common problems for counties across the country were discussed, including potential Medicaid cuts and work requirements, potential cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP), potential cuts to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and child protective services, potential cuts and/or reform to FEMA, removal of federal tax exemptions on interest received on municipal bonds. She said the removal of federal tax exemptions would have a significant impact on the county's purchase ability for bonds and all county bonds across the country. She said NACo and NCACC are bringing these issues forward to legislators at the national level. She said Vice-Chair Hamilton can add some additional perspective during her comments. Commissioner Fowler said she attended the Family Success Alliance Care Coalition meeting and discussed mini grants, access to care, social determinants of health, and behavioral health. She said there will be three CHIP meetings in March at Solid Waste in Chapel Hill. Said she attended the Board of Health meeting last week and received a presentation from Town of Chapel Hill staff presentation about projects to improve safety and slowing traffic and received a presentation of the Board of Health's draft budget for next year. Chair Bedford said the Drakeford Library Complex grand opening was postponed due to snow and will now be held on March 215t 11:00 am. She said in addition to the library, Carrboro has office space and public services there and the Skills Development Center is also located there. Chair Bedford brought attention to the proclamations on the consent agenda tonight including Creek Week and World Water Day. Vice-Chair Hamilton said she attended the Central Pines Regional Council Executive Board meeting along with Commissioner Greene. She said that Central Pines has been working for a couple of years to lay the groundwork for a regional visioning process called Connected Region 2050. She said they are looking at a funding plan including funding from member local governments with populations over 20,000. She said the Board may be interested in receiving a presentation before committing any funds. She shared that Commissioner Carter was videotaped sharing information on the Stepping Up Initiative and encouraged everyone to watch it when that video is shared. She thanked Commissioner Carter for her comments about the NACo conference and said she would like to share something she learned. She explained that there are two budget processes happening at the federal level; one is a continuing resolution expiring March 14th that maintains funding for the federal government until the end of this fiscal year, September 30th. She said because this was not a normal budget passage, it required continuing resolutions to keep the government operating. She said the federal government may shutdown on March 14th if Congress doesn't pass a continuing resolution. Additionally, she said there is another process called budget reconciliation, a special legislative process that can quickly advance high-priority fiscal legislation. She said in the Senate, those bills are not subject to filibuster, so a simple majority can pass it. She said it is her understanding that cuts to some of the issues Commissioner Carter highlighted are in the budget reconciliation because there is a desire to extend tax cuts that would expire December of 2025 and spending cuts are needed in order to offset the $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years. She explained this provides context for why potential cuts to Medicaid, etc. are on the table. Commissioner Greene said the search for a new GoTriangle CEO is narrowing down. In the spirit of what was just shared, she said one of the candidates was a late entry to the pool because she was just laid off from the Federal Transit Administration in February. 3 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Women's History Month Proclamation The Board adopted a proclamation designating March 2025 as Women's History Month in Orange County. BACKGROUND: The celebration of Women's History Month traces its roots to the socialist and labor movements in New York City. The first Women's Day took place on February 28, 1909, marking the one-year anniversary of the garment workers' strikes in which thousands of women marched for economic rights. This strike followed another in 1857, when garment workers took to the streets demanding equal rights and a 10-hour workday. Within two years, the movement grew into an international event. In 1975, the United Nations officially recognized International Women's Day, which will be celebrated on March 8, 2025. When Women's History Month was first established, feminists in the United States saw it as an opportunity to highlight the contributions of women — contributions that had been largely overlooked in American history. The celebration began as a national observance in 1981, when Congress authorized and requested that President Jimmy Carter proclaim the week of March 7, 1982, as "Women's History Week." In 1987, the Women's History Month Project successfully petitioned Congress to expand the celebration to the entire month of March. President Ronald Reagan was the first to issue a proclamation declaring March as Women's History Month. Today, local, state, and federal government agencies continue this tradition, recognizing March as Women's History Month with events, programs, and celebrations. Attached is a flyer to the County-sponsored Color Me Bad Event, a Women's Retreat examining rest as resilience and resistance. Tricia Hersey, an American poet, performance artist, and activist, popularized this concept, arguing that rest is a direct challenge to systems of oppression that demand constant productivity, especially from women. The Color Me Bad event will occur on March 22, 2025. County staff are also in the process of completing planning for a film and panel discussion centered around the life and work of Pauli Murray. This event is being planned in collaboration with the Pauli Murray Center. Courtney McLaughlin, Community Engagement & Outreach Coordinator, reviewed the background information for this item. Commissioners read the following proclamation in turn: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, American women of every race, class, and background have shaped our nation through their innovation, creativity, and leadership—successfully rewriting the narrative for a nation that has not always recognized their contributions; and WHEREAS, American women have played and continue to play vital economic, cultural, and social roles in every sphere of the life of the nation —excelling in academics, the arts, politics, medicine, sports, and beyond —while navigating challenges both seen and unseen; and 4 WHEREAS, women have been at the forefront of every major progressive social change movement, often advocating for justice when their own struggles were overlooked, including the suffrage movement, the abolitionist movement, the industrial labor movement, the Civil Rights Movement, and many more; and WHEREAS, the courage of countless trailblazing American women has shattered barriers and glass ceilings, inspired countless people regardless of their gender, sparked groundbreaking discoveries, and generally propelled America to a more just and equitable society; and WHEREAS, despite critical contributions, women's stories have been too often marginalized in the teaching and retelling of history, making it our collective responsibility to uplift and honor the women who have shaped our past and continue to shape our future; and WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to fostering True Community, which Reverend Dr. Pauli Murray defined as "being based upon equality, mutuality, and reciprocity," and will continue to elevate the dialogue on women's history and their collective power in shaping a more just and equitable society; NOW, THEREFORE, do we, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina hereby proclaim March 2025 as "Women's History Month" and commend this observance to Orange County residents and call upon them to recognize the women in their lives with appropriate programs, activities and celebrations. THIS THE 61" DAY OF MARCH, 2025. Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Vice-Chair Hamilton, to approve the proclamation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Continuation of Public Hearing — Applications for Zoning Atlas Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, & UDO Text Amendments to Realize "Fiddlehead Corner", a Master Plan Development — Conditional District on an Unaddressed Parcel on Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop, Bingham Township The Board continued the public hearing opened at the Board of Commissioners' February 4, 2025, Business meeting, received public comment from individuals previously signed up to speak who have not yet spoken, received the Planning Board and staff recommendations, closed the public hearing, deliberated, and considered action on applicant-initiated amendments to the A) Zoning Atlas, B) Comprehensive Plan, and C) Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text to realize a Master Plan Development — Conditional District (MPD-CD) on a +/-90.133-acre unaddressed property(PIN: 9739-72-0339) located off Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop, within the Bingham Township. 5 BACKGROUND: On February 4, 2025, the Orange County BOCC opened a public hearing to consider applicant, staff, and public comments upon the three (3) applications addressed in this abstract. All supporting materials, including, but not limited to, the applications, staff reports and analysis, and supporting documentation, can be found within Item 5-a at this link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/ 02042025-2185. The unabridged versions of the Traffic Impact Assessment, Water Supply Report, and Wastewater Treatment System Report with all technical appendices, can be found here: https://centralpermits.orangecountVnc.gov/EnerGov Prod/SelfService#/plan/e63acbd9-28f5- 4398-a638-6a579665c9cc?tab=attachments.) As detailed in Section A below, the applicant's proposed rezoning is: From: AR (Agricultural Residential) To: MPD-CD (Master Plan Development— Conditional District) The Zoning Atlas amendment, as presented, is presently inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and does not conform with the regulations of the adopted UDO. North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 160D-605 requires the BOCC to make a statement as to whether a zoning action is or is not consistent with the adopted comprehensive land use plan. The applicant has applied for a Comprehensive Plan amendment (Section B below) to: 1) expand the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node; and 2) reflect that the proposed zoning to MPD-CD of the subject property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Appendix F. Should these amendments be made by BOCC action, the Zoning Atlas amendment could be considered "consistent"with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as referenced in Attachment A7. Other considerations could determine that the Zoning Atlas amendment remains inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, regardless of the amendment (Attachment A8). Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a UDO amendment to Section 3.8(Section C below) is needed to address the MPD-CD zoning district and where it is recommended for use throughout the County. The UDO is also proposed for amendment in Section 5.2 and Article 10 to allow for Family Care Facilities in MPD-CD zoning districts, as proposed in the applicant's narrative. The latter amendments will also bring the UDO into conformance with State statutory language requiring Family Care Facilities to be allowed in all residential zoning districts and, as discussed below, is recommended for approval by the Planning Director regardless of the actions on the other proposed amendments. All UDO amendments are required actions to allow for the Zoning Atlas amendment to be in conformance with Orange County's land use regulations. The BOCC is presented with four (4) actions within this public hearing: one associated with the Zoning Atlas amendment; one associated with the amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and two different actions, one staff-recommended and the other integral to the comprehensive plan amendments, related to the applicant-initiated text amendments. As discussed in more detail below, the Planning Board recommended denial of all three presented applications for amendment (Attachment A5). 6 SECTION A: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT BACKGROUND: On December 29, 2023, Orange County received a Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application (Attachment Al) proposing to rezone 90.133 acres of property (PIN: 9739-72-0339) off Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop, within Bingham Township. The application is accompanied by a master plan for "Fiddlehead Corner", a 150-dwelling unit community featuring multifamily, townhome, and single-family housing options intermixed with a community center, fitness center, and accessible gardens and walking trails. Two "Family Care" centers are also featured in the master plan. This land use must be enabled as a permitted use within MPD-CD districts through a text amendment to UDO Section 5.2 and Article 10 (Section C). The community will feature a network of private roads that rely upon a public collector street that will intersect with both Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop. As discussed in Section B, the property lies partly within a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node as well as an Agricultural Residential area, as shown on the adopted Future Land Use Map of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Staff Report in Attachment A2 contains additional information, maps, and analysis that accounts for this relationship with the County's adopted comprehensive plan and UDO, as well as the context of the property's zoning and proposed land use relative to the local area. Approval of a site-specific plan is part of the conditional district rezoning process, and the master plan and any agreed-upon conditions (Attachment Al) are binding to the property and any development permitted upon it. Conditional zoning allows for conditions to be voluntarily imposed upon a property that regulate it in unique ways related to the uses proposed for that property. Approval of a master plan — rather than a more detailed site plan — is part of the MPD-CD rezoning process. Master Plan districts are intended "...to provide for unified large scale subdivisions, nonresidential, and mixed-use developments that promote economical and efficient land use, improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety, creative design, and a better environment through the approval of a general concept Master Plan the permits defined flexibility to accommodate land use adjustments in response to evolving market trends"(staff emphasis; Orange County UDO, p.3-63). Development of the property must be in accordance with an approved master plan and any conditions imposed as part of the MPD-CD rezoning process. Staff has recommended the imposition of conditions, as presented by the applicant (Attachment Al) and included in the drafted Ordinance of approval (Attachment A9). The applicant has not requested conditions to deviate from the UDO's development standards. Should the application be approved, development of the property will be permitted only through the review and approval of a submitted site plan application(s) in accordance with Section 2.5 of the UDO. This allows for staff to verify all imposed conditions are adhered to, and allow for final review by members of the County's Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as detailed within Section 1.9 of the UDO. PROPOSED CONDITIONS: The applicant provided updated conditions to the Planning Director on December 19, 2024, (Attachment Al) reflecting the discussion and stated commitments made at the July 10, 2024 Planning Board meeting. Pursuant to UDO Section 2.9.1(F)(3), mutually agreed-upon conditions can be imposed on the MPD-CD as part of this process if they address: a. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, b. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways, and access points, screening and buffer areas, the timing of development, etc.), and/or c. All other matters the County may find reasonable and appropriate or the petitioner may propose. Attachments Al &A9 provide more detail on the mutually agreed-upon conditions, which are summarized here: 1. Project shall be completed as presented in approved master plan/application packet, which details amenities and landscaping commitments, and includes the narrative phasing plan (Attachment Al). 2. A NC State Licensed Provider will operate the featured Family Care Facility homes; 3. The Fiddlehead Neighborhood Commons Building will be constructed as part of Phase 1 and will provide a full kitchen, meeting rooms, gathering rooms for collective meals for residents and guests, fitness/exercise rooms/equipment, office space for remote and in person medical therapy including vaccination clinics, etc.; 4. The Health & Fitness Center shall be constructed as part of Phase 2 or 3 and will include an exercise pool and fitness equipment; 5. The maximum number of bedrooms permitted shall be 300; and 6. Provision of Type E (75') and F (100') perimeter buffers for the entire property. Other conditions are detailed by the applicant, but are redundant with UDO development standards and/or commitments already detailed previously in the narrative and/or site plan. ZONING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS: A MPD-CD rezoning application requires submission of a master plan consistent with the provisions of Section 6.7 of the UDO. The typical cadence for review is as follows: • First Action —Applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff Comment: The Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on April 15, 2024, at 6 pm at the Orange County Public Library. Notes from this meeting are in Attachment A4. • Second Action — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. Staff Comment: The Planning Board reviewed this application at its regular meetings on June 5 and July 10, 2024. Minutes from these meetings are in Attachment A5. • Third Action — The BOCC receives the Planning Board and staff recommendations at an advertised public hearing and makes a decision on the application. Staff Comment: The public hearing was opened by the BOCC on February 4, 2025, and continued to March 6 by a unanimous vote. In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices of the public hearing were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel. These notices were mailed on January 17, 2025, 18 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with a sign [or signs] on January 21, 2025, 14 days before the meeting. See Attachment A3 for the notification materials. 8 SECTION B: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Concurrent with the Zoning Atlas application, Hands Four Development Cooperative submitted an application (Attachment 131) to amend the Comprehensive Plan to 1) expand the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) at Morrow Mill Road and NC 54 on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM); and 2) add the MPD-CD zoning district as an allowable zoning district in the RNAN on the Appendix F Land Use and Zoning Matrix. State law and the UDO require the Board to make a finding of consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan when making land use changes. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are necessary for the Board to make this consistency finding in regard to the submitted Fiddlehead Corner zoning application detailed in Section A above. "The [Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan] Future Land Use Map (FLUM) defines the location of coordinated and appropriate land use classes and is designed to accommodate a particular combination of land uses that would achieve a desired pattern of development... [t]he Map also provides the development community and staff with clear guidance to the locations in the County where re-zonings may be appropriate and where they are not" (2030 Comprehensive Plan, p. 5-15). The subject property is currently split between two Future Land Use Classes, Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN). These land use classes provide guidance on how the property may be used and regulated through zoning. "Agricultural Residential" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as, "Land in the rural areas where the prevailing land use activities are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appropriate location for the continuation of these uses." "Rural Neighborhood Activity Node" (RNAN) is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as, "Land focused on designated road intersections within the rural area that is appropriate for small-scale commercial uses characteristic of"Mom and Pop"convenience stores and gas stations." The proposed FLUM amendment expands the RNAN at Morrow Mill Road and NC-54 from its current +/-18.493 acres to the full 90.133 acres of the property. The expanded area realized through the proposed amendment is +/-71.64 acres (Attachments B2 and 134). The applicant also proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use and Zoning Matrix in Appendix F to allow the MPD-CD zoning district within the RNAN future land use classification (Attachment 133). The Comprehensive Plan Appendix F. Land Use and Zoning Matrix links the County UDO's zoning districts to the future land use classifications and overlays. If a zoning district is not listed as compatible with a land use classification in the Matrix, it is determined to be inconsistent with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Analysis Section 2.3.2(B) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) states, "For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, stable, and desirable development within Orange County, the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof shall not be amended except as follows: (1) Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; (2) To correct an error or omission; or 9 (3) In response to a change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County." The Applicant's request for Comprehensive Plan amendments (FLUM and Appendix F) discussed herein are based upon "(1)" above and the premise that changes have occurred and are occurring in the County. The burden of demonstrating that an application complies with approval criteria belongs with the Applicant and is reflected in their Letter of Request (Attachment 131). The letter cites demographic information included in the Orange County Master Aging Plan and the need to accommodate significant growth in the percentage of County adults ages 65+ with increased housing and neighborhoods designed to meet the needs of seniors. Staff analysis focuses on the development status of the RNANs countywide, not just at the local area (Morrow Mill Road and NC 54 intersection) of the zoning case. Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) at Morrow Mill Road The 2030 Comprehensive Plan does not define an explicit purpose for activity nodes, but the Plan's principles, goals, and objectives all detail the need to minimize inefficient patterns of "rural sprawl" and realize efficient and compact use of the land using two basic strategies: activity nodes and infill development. The activity node strategy serves to cluster non- residential development at major intersections throughout the County in locations appropriate for serving the needs of the local residents. All ten (10) RNANs have been included on the FLUM since 1981, and the majority of the developed non-residential uses existed at that time. Attachment B4 is a summary of the areas (in acreage) of present development status and land uses within the RNAN at Morrow Milll Road and NC 54. Approximately 46 acres (37%) within the existing node of 125 total acres have been developed. Existing non-residential land uses include the PSM Food Mart, Piedmont Feed and Garden Center, and the UNC-Chapel Hill Facility Support Building. Although 76-acres remain "undeveloped," this designation does not take into account site- specific characteristics such as stream and landscaping buffers, road rights-of-way, and stormwater control measures that are required of new development. While there is remaining development capacity within the existing RNAN at NC 54 and Morrow Mill Road, it is insufficient to practically accommodate a development the size of Fiddlehead Corner. Impacts to Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes (RNANs) Countywide Hands Four Development is requesting MPD-CD (Master Plan Development — Conditional District)zoning, which is not currently listed as a compatible district for the RNAN Future Land Use classification within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Matrix (Attachment 133). The zoning districts currently compatible within RNANs include: - LC-1 (Local Commercial-1); - NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial-2); - ASE-CD (Agricultural Support Enterprises - Conditional District); - R-CD (Residential - Conditional District); and - NR-CD (Non-Residential - Conditional District). Attachment B5, "RNAN Countywide and Existing Development Status" and Attachment B6, "RNAN Countywide and Existing Zoning," offer some analysis of how much potential this amendment may create for MPD-CD rezoning requests countywide. There are a total of ten (10) RNANs in Orange County. All ten (10) RNANs were included on the FLUM since it was originally adopted in 1981 and have largely not been developed since that time.Approximately 580 acres (49.7%) within the RNANs are already developed, leaving 512 parcel acres 10 "undeveloped". As previously noted, this does not account for site specific characteristics and development constraints (e.g. required buffers). The MPD-CD zoning district was originally established to provide a mechanism through which innovative development proposals could move forward for consideration by Orange County through a legislative land use planning process that was transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. The intent of the MPD-CD zoning district is, in part, "...to provide opportunity for unified large-scale subdivisions, non-residential, and mixed-use developments to be considered." Allowance of the MPD-CD zoning district use more broadly throughout the County may help accomplish the Comprehensive Plan's vision for activity nodes, inviting innovative mixtures of uses, including differing forms of residential uses and creative designs, at key intersections throughout the County. Any proposal of MPD-CD zoning in the RNANs would require administration of a zoning application and be accompanied by the requisite public notification and public hearing for input from property owners in the surrounding area. Fiddlehead Corner, the applicant's zoning proposal, is following this process and offers a procedural template that future applicants might use for reference and guidance. SECTION C: UDO TEXT AMENDMENTS Hands Four Development Cooperative submitted an application in December 2023, and modified in March 2024, to amend the text of the UDO's Table of Permitted Uses to add "Family Care Facility" as a permitted use in the MPD-CD zoning district (Attachment Cl) and to complement the proposed amendments to Appendix F of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. While this applicant- initiated text amendment is necessary for the MPD-CD rezoning application, as presented, staff must evaluate if"Family Care Home" is an appropriate use for consideration within the MPD-CD zoning district countywide. Applications for a conditional zoning district must include all uses contemplated within a development project as part of the conditions accompanying the rezoning approval. The proposed allowable uses are specified in the UDO's Section 5.2, the Table of Permitted Uses, including whether use-specific standards are required. Furthermore, a MPD-CD approval must "... be located in such a manner as to be compatible with the character of existing development of surrounding properties, thus ensuring the continued conservation of building values and encouraging the most appropriate use of land in the county. Therefore, when evaluating an application for this district, emphasis shall be _-ggiven to the location of the proposed development, the relationship of the site and site development plan to adjoining property, and the development itself' (emphasis by staff). Additionally, the applicant is proposing a UDO text amendment to allow MPD-CD districts in RNANs, as defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is complementary to the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan's Appendix F. The following sentence in Section 3.8, MPD-CD Chart, District Specific Development Standards, #1 would be rewritten as follows (red text is the proposed amendment language): 1. MPD-CD districts shall be limited to Transition Land Use Categories within the Orange County Planning Jurisdiction and Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes and Rural Community Nodes, as defined in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. 11 ANALYSIS The UDO (in Article 10) defers definition of a Family Care Facility to State statutes where it is defined as (NCGS 160D-907): A home with support and supervisory personnel that provides room and board, personal care, and habilitation services in a family environment for not more than six resident persons with disabilities. The statute further defines a "person with disabilities" as: A person with a temporary or permanent physical, emotional, or mental disability, including, but not limited to, an intellectual or other developmental disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, hearing and sight impairments, emotional disturbances, and orthopedic impairments but not including persons with a mental illness who are dangerous to others as defined in G.S. 122C-3(11)b. Additionally, the statute stipulates: A family care home is deemed a residential use of property for zoning purposes and is a permissible use in all residential districts. No local government shall require that a family care home, its owner, or operator obtain, because of the use, a special use permit or variance from any such zoning regulation; however, a local government may prohibit a family care home from being located within a one-half mile radius of an existing family care home. In accordance with the State law, the County's Table of Permitted Uses allows Family Care Homes (use #44 in Section 5.2 of the UDO) in all residential zoning districts. The use is also allowable in the zoning districts. This use is currently permitted by-right (consistent with State statutes that address the use) in the County's 16 conventional zoning districts and Residential - Conditional District and Non-Residential - Conditional District. As stated in Article 3 of the LIDO, the purpose of the MPD-CD district includes the potential for residential uses (emphasis by staff): ...to provide for unified large scale subdivisions, non-residential, and mixed-use developments that promote economical and efficient land use, improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety, creative design, and a better environment through the approval of a general concept Master Plan the permits defined flexibility to accommodate land use adjustments in response to evolving market trends. As such, MPD-CD districts currently allow for residential uses but not "family care homes", inconsistent with the statutory requirements. Furthermore, as included in the Application narrative, Orange County has adopted plans supporting diversified housing options for a variety of populations. Link to Countywide Strategic Plan: https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26972/Orange-County-Strategic- Plan?bidld= 12 Link to currently adopted Comprehensive Plan: https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/1238/Comprehensive-Land-Use Link to Master Aging Plan: https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/203/Master-Aping-Plan Link to Consolidated (Housing) Plan: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/l 0806/Orange-County-NC- Consolidated-Plan-FINAL?bid Id=) Staff has reviewed the options presented in the Application and recommends that Family Care Facility be added as a permitted use in the MPD-CD zoning district by adding an asterisk (*) to the appropriate column on the line for use #44 (Family Care Facility). In reviewing the application, staff discovered the definition of "Family Care Facility" in Article 10 (Definitions) of the LIDO contains an outdated reference to a State statute. Therefore, staff is recommending an update to the definition as shown (red text is the proposed amendment language): Family Care Facility A facility which meets the definition of a family care home in NCGS 1 F� 160D-907. Staff does not recommend the applicant's proposal to require additional use standards (by adding a delta [A] symbol), as the State deems Family Care Facilities a permissible use in all residential districts and discourages additional requirements beyond those in place for similar residential uses. Family Care Facility is a permitted use (*) in all other Orange County zoning districts that allow the use, and to introduce additional standards exclusively for the MPD-CD is not recommended. Staff review of the amendment to UDO Section 3.8 regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan only determined that the Board of Commissioners must act in coordination with its action regarding the presented Comprehensive Plan amendments. The UDO text amendment is unwarranted without the corresponding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Planning Board reviewed this application at its regular meetings on June 5 and July 10, 2024 (Attachment A5). The Planning Board made three motions, all recommending the Board of County Commissioners vote to deny the applications. The text amendment application was voted upon 8 — 1 to recommend denial, with the dissent being related to the need to bring the UDO into alignment with NC General Statutes. The Planning Board voted unanimously (9 — 0) to recommend that the BOCC vote to deny the 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment because the extension of the MPD-CD zoning district to rural activity nodes is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The Planning Board also voted unanimously (9 — 0) to recommend denial of the Zoning Atlas amendment application due to its present inconsistencies with the County's adopted comprehensive plan and nonconformity with its adopted LIDO, as reflected in the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment A8). PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS The consistency of the Zoning Atlas Amendment with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan relies, in part, on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, [Attachments B1 — B7 (MA23-0004)]. As discussed herein, the amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's FLUM and Appendix F are necessary for a consistency finding on the zoning action, as required by NCGS 160D-605. 13 Similarly, the amendment of the text of the County's UDO [Attachments C1 —C5 (TXTA23-0001)] is required to ensure the conformance of the Zoning Atlas amendment with the UDO text. As discussed herein, the amendment to Section 3.8 is complementary with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Atlas amendments, and the action should be consistent with those actions. The amendment to allow Family Care Facilities in the MPD-CD zoning district and update this land use definition in Article 10 is recommended by the Planning Director regardless of actions directly related to the other proposed amendments. Accordingly, the Planning Director recommends the following actions to the Board of County Commissioners, which features four (4) motions to be voted upon: 1) Continue the public hearing, receive public comments, and consider the Planning Board recommendations of denial on all three (3) applications; 2) Close the public hearing; 3) Consider and deliberate on the three (3) applications for action, with reference to the Staff Report on the zoning atlas amendment (Attachment A2), featuring analyses of UDO compliance, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, impact of the use to the surrounding area, and safety and efficiency of land use; 4) Vote to Approve the Staff-Recommended UDO Text Amendments to Section 5.2 and Article 10 (as reflected in the Statement of Consistency(Attachment C4)and UDO Text Amendment Ordinance (Attachment C5); 5) Vote on the Applicant-Initiated UDO Text Amendments to amend Section 3.8 (consistent with the Comprehensive Plan action, as reflected in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment C2) and UDO Text Amendments Ordinance (Attachment C3); 6) Vote to Approve or Deny the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, as reflected in the attached Resolution of Approval (Attachment B7); and 7) Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment A7) and Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment A9) OR Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendment, including a statement as to why the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest, as detailed in the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment A8). A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Vice-Chair Hamilton to continue the public hearing from February 4, 2025. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Bedford invited individuals that signed up to speak at the February 4, 2025 meeting but did not get a chance to speak to come forward to make comment. She indicated that only those individuals would be allowed to speak during this public hearing. No one who previously signed up to speak was present. Chair Bedford invited the applicant to come forward. LeAnn Brown provided clarification on some common questions about the project. She said they sent a letter to clarify, and she hopes that resolved a lot of them. She said they also addressed wastewater and said they have an expert in attendance if any further questions need to be addressed. She said clarified that this is not a commercial use but rather a residential use 14 with amenities. She said the only car wash would be one that is allowed for use by the residents and not a commercial application. She said that this is cluster but not high-density. She said it comes to 1.1 units per acre and is similar to all single-family residents in the area. She said this is a policy concept that allows units to be build closer to one another and the reason this is so important is to maintain greenspace. She said that the 2050 plan that is being considered now proposes the cluster concept at 60% and they have requested almost 70% and they believe this type of development will create more open space and is perfect for seniors. She said it is a vision for how to conserve land and provide housing for people in a meaningful way. She said the policy and vision for creating this type of open space development is met and it provides housing that is priced well for seniors. She said that the zoning they have sought, if approved, also has a follow up process for the details of the site-plan. One of the people who signed up to speak on February 4t" arrived and was recognized by the Chair to speak. Dante Bowman, Jr. said he opposes this development because it is being proposed along the Haw River. He said his Occoneechee ancestors settled there, and he thinks it is disrespectful to wildlife, water, and his people. He said they will kill wildlife and destroy habitats. He asked the Board to consider these comments. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Carter,to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner McKee asked about the rationale for consistency in changing the activity node. Scott Radway said that the applicant supports the rural economic development nodes. He said they believe that what is proposed in the zoning proposal and the changes to the Comprehensive Plan are respectful to the node. He said the node has been there for around 40 years or longer and the reasons for putting it there were appropriate at the time. He said that this allows them to respect the node and to think about where they might want to go and if it still serves the purpose as intended when it was created. He said there is no clear policy on the nodes. He said they can be residential or commercial. He said all ten of the nodes have variations of what is in them. He said the concept of a rural conservation neighborhood is a strong concept in the plans and the UDO. He said it is appropriate to marry the concept with the nodes rather than going deeper into the rural area. He said every node has different characteristics and he suggests that the Board can decide whether it is appropriate in any specific location. He said they are doing this in a fashion that has a limited overall impact on transportation and schools. Commissioner McKee said he agrees with what they are saying that the language of the node does not lock in on everything that could be developed on them. He asked if the expansion of the node for residential radically changes and if that sets a precedent for all the others. He said the intent of the nodes to be located at intersections was to develop some type of commercial developments in the nodes. Scott Radway said what they are proposing is already allowed in the nodes based on zoning. He said that if they want the areas to function as nodes and avoid applications for strip commercial, there is a good argument to make that there needs to be a residential population that can support the node in economic concerns. He said there are non-residential uses, and the addition of residential spending power does not damage the node. He said it is a tough choice, and they believe that the application would not damage the node. 15 Commissioner Carter said Commissioners are using 2030 Plan to make their decision, but she understands there is another plan being developed currently for future planning decisions. She said as she looks at the current 2050 Comprehensive Plan, there are goals speaking to future developments that would support businesses and are built in an environmentally conscientious way. She said as they consider what is on its face, a very worthy project, they must use very specific goals that will guide the Board in decision making. She highlighted the need for water and sewer infrastructure in the 2050 plan. Scott Radway agreed there is a great challenge to provide housing opportunities in a good fashion that lives up to environmental, social, and other goals. He said the other layer is how to do that in the current infrastructure or the infrastructure you can reasonably expect to have in the future. He said the county has had real problems with water and sewer. He said there are things that really fit together but infrastructure for safe wells and wastewater includes what you are allowed to do with engineered wastewater systems and how they can reach a higher level of treatment of that. He said he thinks they have provided that information. He said the question is whether the Board is willing to let what is allowed happen and with a large amount of safety. He said the applicant has greatly reviewed the water and soils for wastewater and they feel they have addressed the need. He said that they will abide by the higher impervious surface standards of neighboring nodes. He suggested those standards be put into this district and to other nodes as well. Vice-Chair Hamilton said there seemed to be back and forth on whether this would be a 55+ community in earlier stages of the process. Chair Bedford said the Board received an email on that this afternoon. LeAnn Brown said the intention is for this to be a 55+ community and meet all the necessary federal requirements. She said there is question from a county perspective, and it is up to the Board if they would like to make that a condition. She said that if it becomes enforceable, it would be enforced by the county zoning administrator. She said whether it is a condition or not, that is the plan. She said they are in agreement if the Board wants to include the condition. Commissioner Fowler asked if there is a limit to percentage of land that can be development. Cy Stober said the activity nodes have a threshold for non-residential uses, but the zoning ordinance does not address conditional zoning districts. He said non-residential uses could be allowed with conditional zoning districts. He said that for conventional zoning districts, there are different thresholds. He said there is available balance for commercial development in this node and this would not take away from the ability to put commercial uses in the node. Commissioner Fowler asked if the applicant would be willing to have a condition about addressing any remediation for neighboring wells that may be impacted. LeAnn Brown said the applicant has tried to address this issue, but Orange County has not dealt with de-watering and there are no standards. She said that their research discovered that there was a concern about neighboring well issues in Wake County and Wake County investigated a program in place that has not been used for 15 years. She said they do not know what a condition like that would look like because a well can run dry for other reasons. She said they would have to determine if the wells are drawing from the same aquafer. She said the rules in bringing the well up would include determination of the aquafer it is tapped into and if the use is affecting other wells. She said if they were to affect someone's well, that would be one thing but if people had problems with wells otherwise, it is a different situation. She said that Wake County has 600 community wells, and they have not dealt with a dewatering program. She said she is unsure how to write the condition. She said the applicant would consider such a condition if it did not require the applicant to pay to research the cause of the neighboring well issues. Commissioner McKee said he is more concerned about wastewater treatment systems. He said that he knows they are relatively safe and reliable. He asked if the applicant be willing to 16 assume all responsibility for all expenses incurred if it failed any time in the next 50 years, to pull in public sewer. Kevin Davidson said if the system had a malfunction or issue, it could be corrected. He said if the concern is drain field, rules require a back-up drain field that is already permitted. He said he is not aware of a system that uses this technology that says if it can fail how do we fix it, he said they can fix the physical piece. He said that they have a backup drain field. He said that bringing in city sewer is not a fix for the septic but if the line has been run, then he would guess they would connect to it, but he can't foresee a situation where it would be reasonable to extend city sewer. Commissioner McKee said his concern is to look after the finances of the county and if no one else would or could put in municipal sewer, it would fall to the county. He said he is trying to protect Orange County taxpayers from a potential cost in the future. Kevin Davidson said if a single-family residence system fails, they first try to find an onsite system. He said a lot of older systems do not have backup repair fields. He said they then permit discharge permits for those individual homeowners. He said there are times that DEQ will not permit a new system. He said in that situation, the homeowner has the option of going on a permanent pump and haul system. He said the homeowner, every time the septic fills up, has a pumper come in and haul it away. He said the same thing could be done on the system they are proposing. Commissioner McKee said he is hearing that the applicant would not be open to that condition. LeAnn Brown said if the conditional zoning is approved, it is approved with this system. She said if they get to a place where they could not provide a waste system, she said they would already be out of compliance with the state laws of North Carolina. She said those laws govern what they have to do for sewer. She said they would be out of compliance with the permit if they did not repair the problem. She said this would not fall to the county because they would not be the permit holder. She said that she does not want to agree to a condition that is 50 years out when they do not know what it might look like so far out. Kevin Davidson said that if they do not have a functioning system, they cannot occupy the property. Commissioner Greene said one thing she has learned is that water comes up through the limestone. She asked how they know where the aquafers are. Edwin Cox said there is an overlying layer of subsoil that is loose material that has weathered out of the rock, below is bedrock with fractures filled with water. He said they drill down into the fracture to draw up water. He said that if you do not hit a fracture, there will be a dry well. He said in many locations you hit a fracture and start to pump water out. He said as it pumps out, the level of the water in the fracture starts to drop, and the depth of draw down is at a lesser and lesser depth that radiates out in the shape of a cone. He said that is called the cone of depression. He said there are engineering methods for determining the cone of depression called the zone of influence. He said the zone of influence that is practical to consider is 1000 ft radius. He said that the location of this well is more than 1000 ft of any possible wells except one to the south. He said it is very unlikely that they would interfere with the function of that well. He said the water is recharged into the fractures from the overlying subsoil. He said they do not draw water out of the subsoil because it would be too slow. He said that the fracture water is a bit slower to fill and depends on many factors, including precipitation. Commissioner Greene asked again if the 1,000 ft. is a rule of thumb. Edwin Cox said yes. He said Guilford County has a rule when putting in new community wells, that they must do a draw down test. He said a community well is anything over 10,000 gallons a day in Guilford County. He said it is only required if there is a private well within 1000 feet of the well that is being drilled. Commissioner Fowler asked how difficult a draw down test is. 17 Edwin Cox said they put a pump down and run it for 24 hours and measure the water for the full 24 hours. He said it is measured by gallons per minute over the time to make sure it meets the requirements. He said it is monitored after the drawdown to see how quickly it recharges. Vice-Chair Hamilton said she wanted to start the deliberations. She said she appreciates this novel approach to providing housing for seniors. She said what concerns her is the purpose of the rural neighborhood activity node. She said she does not see this development as that. She said it is a residential community for a group of people and a family care home. She said it is not consistent with that node and allowing it would change the character of the area. She said it is hard to imagine it would be affordable given the cost of development. She said it would be appropriate for an area with water and sewer. She said it is important to support farmers in a rural environment and the current zoning does that. She said she does not see this development as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Bedford said she thought it was great to have the month in between meetings to get additional information. She said the idea and concept of clustering houses is wise and will support that in the upcoming 2050 Plan. She said that failures are to be expected in any sewer system and those who use it have to pay for it so that isn't a concern for her. She said she appreciated learning more about the water supply, but it is not a concern for her either. She said the request to change the rural neighborhood activity node is not a good idea. She said she went out to the area and saw the variety of housing in the area. She said the Comprehensive Plan has worked to preserve the rural environment and cluster development has been in urban areas. She said she is going to vote to allow family care facilities but does not think that putting this project in that location is not a good fit and will not be supporting it. Commissioner McKee said the entire project hinges on changing the rural activity node. He said he has concern about expanding uses for these nodes outside of what was originally implied. Commissioner Carter said this Board has given a lot of thought to the work of the applicant and concerns of residents. She said it is important to set a direction and be consistent. She said she feels it would take away from consistency. She said that looking at the concerns brought up in the discussion, along with the use in the place where it is being proposed, she is not comfortable with voting yes to this project in this location. She said that she is in favor of clustered development in areas where it is allowed. Commissioner Fowler said there were a lot of desirable parts about this project and appreciates the applicant's willingness to propose conditions. Commissioner Greene said she responded to a request from neighbors to talk and hear their concerns. She said she met with Scott Radway on the site and contacted former commissioner Barry Jacobs and Roger Walden, a retired planner from Chapel Hill. She said both were around during the planning of the rural buffer and the water sewer planning framework. She said the notion of clustered subdivisions was in their minds at the beginning, but there was not the market demand or wherewithal to create the momentum for them. She said the notion that it disrupts farmland by placing cluster housing is not consistent with the plan that goes back to the 1980s. She said she appreciates the information about the wastewater. She said there have been concerns about lighting, but she does not think that it will be particularly disruptive because they will follow dark sky rules. She said it is hard to imagine it would be too noisy. She said she appreciated the letter from Sherry Roseman about the alignment with the Master Aging Plan. She said unless it was to be subsidized, it would not be affordable to most but would be less than "McMansions". She said she is not particularly troubled about the zoning issue and thinks there is support for the argument that additional residents would support commercial development in the node. She said with all that being said, she can't get past the amount of water that will be used. She said the impact this may have on residents in 30-50 years cannot be predicted. She said she does not want to run water and sewer lines all over southwestern Orange County. 18 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to approve the Staff-Recommended UDO Text Amendments to the Family Care Facilities language in Section 5.2 and Article 10 (as reflected in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment C4) and UDO Text Amendment Ordinance (Attachment C5). VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Carter, seconded by Commissioner Greene to deny the Applicant-Initiated UDO Text Amendments to amend Section 3.8 (consistent with the Comprehensive Plan action, as reflected in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment C2) and UDO Text Amendments Ordinance (Attachment C3). VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Vice-Chair Hamilton, to deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, as reflected in the attached Resolution of Approval (Attachment 137). VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Chair Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to deny the application, and approved the following Statement of Inconsistency (AttachmentA8): Attachment A8 STATEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER APPLICABLE ADOPTED PLANS An applicant-initiated amendment (MA23-0003) to the Zoning Atlas has been reviewed to rezone a parcel as follows: Parcel Owner of Identification Township Record Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Number (PIN) ■ Agricultural Master Plan Hands Four Residential (AR) Development— 9739-72-0339 Bingham Development Haw River Conditional District (HD4) Unprotected Haw River Watershed Unprotected Watershed 19 The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments and 2.9.1 Conditional Districts of the UDO have been reviewed and determined to be unacceptable due to the potential impacts upon surrounding properties, as required by Sections 2.5 of the Orange County UDO; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 Statement of Intent - Amendments, and 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans of the UDO and to 160D-605(a) Governing Board Statement— Plan Consistency of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the amendment is inconsistent with the "Rural Neighborhood Activity Node" classification, as defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Land focused on designated road intersections within the rural area that is appropriate for small-scale commercial uses characteristic of"Mom and Pop"convenience stores and gas stations. As presented, Fiddlehead Corner's zoning application is inconsistent with both Orange County's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and 2030 Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Map. The Master Plan Development — Conditional District zoning application is not supported in the Comprehensive Plan's Appendix F Land Use Matrix, nor in the identified Future Land Use classifications specified in the zoning district's description in Article 3 of the UDO. Approval of the zoning application would require amendment of these texts to bring the application into consistency and conformance with the county's adopted plans and regulations.As such, it is non-conforming and inconsistent with the county's adopted ordinance and plans, respectively, and cannot be approved. Furthermore, the majority of the proposed development lies outside the "Rural Neighborhood Activity Node" in an "Agricultural Residential" Future Land Use Classification. This land use is described in the Comprehensive Plan as where "[a]gricultural activities and associated residential and commercial uses predominate".The proposed development is a 150-unit master plan development subdivision at a density of approximately 5 dwelling units per acre, and features multifamily structures and a layout that is more suitable for, as acknowledged in the applicant's narrative, an urban environment; it does not fit in an Agricultural Residential area. As such, the following principles, goals, and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan are inconsistent with the Fiddlehead Corner Master Plan Development — Conditional District proposal: Planninq Principle 2, Sustainable Growth and Development Growth and development within the county should occur in a pattern, location, and density that is sustainable over the long-term. Planning Principle 5, Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern The County's rural areas are a cherished component of the County's character. Future development should preserve and enhance the county's rural landscape. Planning Principle 8, Preservation of Community Character Future growth and development should occur in a manner that preserves and enhances the existing character of the County, its townships, and rural crossroads communities. 20 Housing Objective H-1.5 Ensure that a variety of housing types can be developed throughout the County in a sustainable manner that locates housing near employment centers and commercial centers and that efficiently uses existing and planned public services. Land Use Element Overarching Goal Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. Land Use Goal 2 Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. Land Use Goal 3 A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. Land Use Objective LU-3.1 Discourage urban sprawl, encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses, and direct new development into areas where necessary community facilities and services exist through periodic updates to the Land Use Plan. Land Use Objective LU-3.2 Coordinate land use patterns to facilitate the expanded use of non-auto modes of travel, the increased occupancy of automobiles, and the development and use of an energy- efficient transportation system. Land Use Objective LU-3.4 Recognize the right to farm and discourage the location of new non-farm development, particularly more intensive residential development, within farming areas to minimize the incidence of complaints and nuisance suits against farm operations. Natural and Cultural Resources Overarching Goal A sustainable balance and appreciation of natural, cultural and agricultural resources. Natural and Cultural Resources Objective NA-13 Promote clustering of residential development and dedication of large areas of undisturbed land for low-impact recreational use by residents and for wildlife habitat. Where feasible, these areas should be contiguous to neighboring tracts of undisturbed land. Natural and Cultural Resources Objective NA-17 Maintain and protect land that contains valuable productive resources, such as prime farmland and prime forestland, by directing incompatible development away from these areas. 21 Transportation Goal 3 Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that serves existing development, supports future development, and is consistent with the County's land use plans which include provisions for preserving the natural environment and community character. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Regular Agenda None. 7. Reports None. 8. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes — NONE b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution to release motor vehicle property tax values for six (6) taxpayers with a total of six (6) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue. c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution to release property tax values for five (5) taxpayers with a total of five (5) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue. d. Late Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved two (2) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for two (2) bills for the 2024 tax year. e. World Water Day Proclamation The Board approved a proclamation designating March 22, 2025, as World Water Day in Orange County. f. Orange County Creek Week 2025 Proclamation The Board will consider approving a proclamation declaring March 15-22, 2025, as "Orange County Creek Week." g. Contract Amendment with Farragut Systems, Inc. for Land Records Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (LR CAMA) System Conversion Protect The Board: 1) approved a contract amendment with Farragut Systems, Inc. for an addendum to the Orange County Land Records Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (LR CAMA) system conversion project that provides additional support from Farragut to assist with data extraction and validation; and 22 2) authorized the County Manager to execute the contract amendment, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and any subsequent amendments on behalf of the Board. h. Sportsplex Indoor Swimminq Pool HVAC Unit Replacement Contract Award and Approval of Budget Amendment#6-A The Board: 1) approved the County entering into a construction contract with Comfort Systems, USA, for the replacement of a Sportsplex Indoor Pool Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) unit; 2) authorized the County Manager to execute the Agreement, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and any subsequent amendments for contingent and unforeseen requirements up to the approved budget amount on behalf of the Board; and 3) approved Budget Amendment#6-A to provide for the total cost of the project. i. Administrative Correction to USDA Lease at Bonnie B. Davis Environmental and Agricultural Center The Board: 1) approved a lease amendment to the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) lease for a portion of the Bonnie B. Davis Environmental and Agricultural Center to correct a USDA administrative error; and 2) authorized the County Manager to sign the amendment, upon final review by the County Attorney. j. Award of Professional Services Agreement for County Grounds Maintenance The Board approved and authorized the Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Murray's Landscape Maintenance and Horticultural Services for the maintenance of Orange County facility grounds. 9. County Manager's Report Travis Myren reminded the Board of the next meeting on March 11' and shared a couple of topics that will be on the agenda. He informed the Board that a federal grant awarded to Durham, Orange, and Granville Counties by the Department of Energy has been put on hold. He said it was a $1.5 million grant for energy efficiency. He also informed the Board that the USDA lease at the Bonnie B. Davis Environment and Agricultural Center that was on the consent agenda may be terminated. Vice-Chair Hamilton asked what portion of the $1.5 million grant Orange County's share was. Travis Myren said he will follow up with that information. 10. County Attorney's Report John Roberts said that in the past, the Board was provided a better guide for navigating complicated votes like the one they took tonight, and he will make sure that is available for future votes. 11. Appointments None. 12. Information Items • February 25, 2025 BOCC Special Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections • Tax Collector's Report— Foreclosure Chart • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under$100 23 13. Closed Session None. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Vice-Chair Hamilton, to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board