Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12_4_24 Planning Board MinutesApproved 2.5.25 MEETING MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 DECEMBER 4, 2024 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor (Vice-Chair), 6 Cheeks Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Charity Kirk, At-7 Large Representative; Whitney Watson, At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey, At-Large 8 Representative; Beth Bronson, At-Large Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township 9 Representative; Meg Millard, Little River Township Representative. 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township 12 Representative. 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director – Long Range Planning 15 & Administration; Tom Altieri, Senior Planner – Long Range Planning & Administration; Jack 16 Moran, Planning Technician. 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Leigh Anne King, Clarion Associates 19 Emily Gvino, Clarion Associates 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22 23 The meeting began at 7:02 PM 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 26 27 Adam Beeman: I call this meeting into session. Before we get too far into it, we have a new member. Meg Millard 28 is our newest member. We're just going to quickly go around the Board and we can introduce 29 ourselves. 30 31 [Each member in attendance introduced themselves] 32 33 Adam Beeman: With that being said, we're going to call this meeting to order and let's see the information notes. 34 What do we have on the calendar this month? It's a busy month. They swore in our newest 35 County commissioner on Monday, and they've got a meeting. The Board of Adjustment's got a 36 meeting. We've got holidays all throughout and we don't come back until the 8th of January. So, 37 we'll have a good long break. I need an approval of a motion to approve any minutes or any 38 amendments to the minutes, if anybody has any. 39 40 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 41 42 Lamar Proctor: I move to approve the minutes. 43 44 Adam Beeman: Do I have a second? 45 46 Charity Kirk: Second. 47 48 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the meeting minutes. Seconded by Charity Kirk. 49 50 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 51 52 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 53 54 Approved 2.5.25 Adam Beeman: I don't have any additions to the agenda. I don't believe there's anybody from the public, so I'm 55 going to skip right past that and see if we can't get this thing moving. 56 57 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 58 59 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 60 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 61 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of 62 the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious 63 development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its 64 citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes 65 the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a 66 vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and 67 recommendations. 68 69 PUBLIC CHARGE 70 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 71 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 72 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public 73 charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains 74 personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such 75 time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 76 77 AGENDA ITEM 7: UPDATE ON LAND USE PLAN 2050 – To receive an update from Clarion Associates on aspects of 78 the ongoing Land Use Plan 2050 project. 79 80 Adam Beeman: We've got Clarion here tonight, and Tom is going to give us a brief update, and then we'll go from 81 there. Good evening. 82 83 Tom Altieri: Good evening. Tom Altieri, Orange County senior planner. Just a very brief introduction and then 84 I'll turn the floor over to Leigh Anne King. The planning board received its last update from staff 85 on the land use plan project back in September. Since that time, the County and the consultant 86 have completed our second engagement window which occurred late September through the 87 month of October. Leigh Anne King with Clarion and Emily Gvino will give you a presentation this 88 evening. It provides some information about some of the results of what we learned through the 89 outreach process. The presentation you'll receive is nearly identical to one that the 90 commissioners received just a few weeks ago, and I believe the last slide of the presentation 91 provides a brief update on some of the questions that were asked of the commissioners and what 92 they had to say about it. So, with that, I'll turn it over to Emily first. 93 94 Emily Gvino: Thanks, Tom. Good evening, everyone. My name is Emily Gvino. These slides we'll put on the 95 project website for the land use plan, which is OrangeCountylanduseplan.com so you'll have these 96 after the meeting, as well. This evening, we're going to give you a quick project update about 97 where we are. I believe the last time that Leigh Anne and I spoke to you was probably sometime 98 around the first community engagement window, so we have a couple of updates since then and 99 then we'll be going into Community Engagement Window No. 2 which we held this fall. So, we'll 100 be talking through the activities that were conducted, the objectives that we had for this window 101 and then Leigh Anne will take you through the outcomes of that engagement and what we heard. 102 A brief moment for discussion of the policy direction and kind of an update, as Tom mentioned, of 103 what we heard from the commissioners at the last meeting, and then we'll go through the next 104 steps. So, this is our project timeline. The project kicked off in the summer of 2023 when we 105 were doing some initial groundwork and research, and we spoke with some of you during those 106 initial stakeholder interviews. During Phase 2 is when we launched that first community 107 engagement window, so that kicked off last fall through the winter of last year. We were working 108 on identifying what are the new issues and opportunities that have been presented, or what is the 109 Approved 2.5.25 community thinking about and talking about since the previous plan was adopted. Phase 3 was 110 somewhat concurrent to that. We were looking at existing conditions, so it was called evaluate 111 planning influences and the culmination of that was the fact book, which is on the project website 112 as well. That's more of a technical existing conditions analysis that helps us in our work of 113 developing the plan. We're solidly in Phase 4 now, which is probably the longest phase of 114 developing the plan. So, we're taking all of the technical information that we've learned so far, all 115 the people that we talked to, what we heard in the first round of engagement that helped us launch 116 for the second round that we held this fall. So, that was called testing the conservation and 117 growth framework. Some of you were at those meetings where we presented land-use 118 alternatives to the public and got their feedback and got their thoughts on the different ways that 119 we can go with this policy directions from what we were testing with those land-use alternatives. 120 We also presented the draft vision themes and goals to see what the public thought about that. 121 Those are kind of the first two steps in the plan policy framework. The next phase of the project, 122 we're still in Phase 4, developing the plan. Once we get to the point where we have a draft to 123 present to you all and the commissioners next spring, then we'll have a third community 124 engagement window that's listed there at the bottom in green. That's when we're unveiling the 125 draft plan to the public. So, we're taking the draft plan out and saying did we hear you right? 126 What else do you want to see differently? What are your priorities that are coming out of this 127 plan? Then we'll going into Phase 5 which is the adoption process for the plan. Our status report 128 is that the work that's been completed is the development of the land-use recommendations report 129 in Phase 4. That's essentially the technical report that explains the methodology and the 130 outcomes of the land-use alternatives. That's on the project website if you all would like to take a 131 look at that, and then as I mentioned, going through launching and reporting from Community 132 Engagement Window No. 2. So, we're almost done with the summary document that will be on 133 the project website about Community Engagement Window No. 2. That's why it's underway and 134 then our teams are currently working through developing the draft plan which involves the overall 135 policy framework, the vision themes and goals as I mentioned and then we'll start getting into the 136 actual policy guidance or the meat of the plan, which is in the policies and actions. So, taking you 137 through what we did during Community Engagement Window No. 2, the activities. That was held 138 this fall, and as I mentioned we were asking the community members to review the modeled land-139 use alternatives, keeping in mind that this is not the future land-use map. We were asking key 140 policy questions about potential policy guidance for the future and using these land-use 141 alternatives as a tool for talking about those options and tradeoffs. Staff tabled at three different 142 events in August and September to prime the public for when we were launching these events 143 and spreading the word. During September and October, there were five in-person meetings held 144 and then, at the same time, online activities were available from late September through early 145 November. Those that could not attend a meeting in person were able to take the surveys online 146 at their convenience. So, in order to spread the word, there was online outreach, social media, 147 newsletters and bilingual fliers from your staff at Orange County. There were also direct mailings 148 to over 1,000 properties to let people know about the Gravelly Hill meeting that was nearby to 149 them and then, as I mentioned, the online surveys were also available. 305 people completed 150 those. When we set out to do community engagement, we set three different objectives or 151 measures so when that engagement is complete, we can look back and say did we get close to 152 meeting our goal and how can we improve for the next time around? We're measuring that based 153 on engagement satisfaction, shooting for representative engagement of the community and 154 looking to increase engagement from a previous planning effort in Orange County. When we're 155 talking about representation of engagement, we're trying to compare who we heard from in the 156 community versus how that compares with census data for what we know about the community. 157 I'll start with the caveat that when people completed the surveys online or participated at in-person 158 meetings, they had a voluntary self-reported exit questionnaire that they were able to complete. 159 So, we don't have data from every single person because they were voluntary to complete but we 160 got it from quite a few people so the great thing about this time around is that our demographics 161 from who participated in this round was much more closely aligned with census data compared to 162 our first time around. Our first time around, we were looking to increase representation for black 163 and African American and Hispanic-Latino. And that was race and here's a Hispanic-Latino chart. 164 Approved 2.5.25 This is much closer than it was the first time around, so this is giving a gauge so by the third 165 community event window, we'll be able to continue closing those gaps and get closer to 166 representation of the community. The other benchmark that I mentioned is increased 167 engagement. The project team selected the climate action plan as a benchmark for comparison 168 because it was completed recently in the community so that had both surveys and some in-person 169 meetings that they completed. So, we're kind of using that as a gauge to see can we surpass 170 that, which we have so far which is great because we've had two community engagement 171 windows and we'll have a third. So, we'll keep increasing that number. We've had 584 complete 172 surveys in total; 420 of those were from the second round of engagement, so setting up our 173 processes from that first round to the second round has resulted in increased engagement which 174 is great. And then we've had 409 in-person attendees, which is an increasing number which is 175 great, too. And so, the third community event window will occur in late spring 2025, so we'll hope 176 to match our numbers from the first and second rounds. We also wanted to note that we received 177 some additional public input, both from organizational representation and some personal letters so 178 these are listed here, and they're included in the summary document that will be posted to the 179 website. Our overall takeaways about meeting our objectives for engagement is that we want to 180 continue to offer multiple ways to participate. We mentioned we had an online survey. There was 181 a short survey and there was a long survey. We found that was important to provide different 182 flexible options for those who have a little bit of time and want to be able to participate and those 183 who have a lot more time and really want to dive into those longer details. Some of what we 184 learned in the first round was applied in the second round, and we had targeted meetings in order 185 to increase and improve the representative engagement, and that was showing some of those 186 charts as well. The goal for the third round is to continue creating partnerships and connections 187 and tailoring outreach so that we make sure that we're hearing from all different members of the 188 community. And No. 3, as I mentioned, we've already hit our benchmark for increasing 189 engagement but will continue to strive to increase that number in that third round. There are other 190 charts and data about who participated but we wanted to spend more time talking with you about 191 outcomes, so that information will be in the summary report on the website. I'm going to pass it 192 over to Lee Ann King to talk about a little refresher and some of the outcomes. 193 194 Leigh Anne King: Good evening. I think we presented to you a little bit about the land-use alternatives that were 195 prepared as part of this effort so I'm not going to get into a whole lot of detail here. This is more of 196 just a refresher so that when we talk about the outcomes from the engagement, you've got a little 197 bit of a reminder about what it is we were actually asking the public to give us feedback on. So, 198 the key question that we were trying to test with the land-use alternatives is in front of you here: 199 Which aspects of the land-use alternatives best achieve the balance of sustainable development 200 in Orange County? And through the first round of public engagement, we came up with these four 201 themes that are really helping to set the stage for what we're trying to accomplish in developing 202 the 2050 land-use plan. You can see cultivates sustainable development is kind of a sweet spot in 203 the middle with the other three themes focusing on protecting critical watershed areas, open 204 spaces and preserving agricultural lands, advancing attainable and equitable housing and upward 205 mobility and supporting climate-responsive transportation systems and economic development 206 initiatives. And so, what we were trying to get people to think about and give us feedback on with 207 the land-use alternatives was that sweet spot of cultivating sustainable development where all 208 those three, the other themes overlap. What is the best balance for achieving that when looking 209 at the details of the land-use alternatives? So, there were four alternatives that were modeled. 210 The first one is the currently adopted future land-use map with some modifications to update 211 based on Hillsborough's most recent comprehensive plan update. We wanted to reflect their 212 current policy and growth area, and then also the growth area for Mebane, which is not a 213 completed plan at this point, but we knew what their study area was based on some of their 214 preliminary information that was shared as part of that process. So, that's really kind of the 215 foundation, the benchmark that we were working off of and looking at the other three land-use 216 alternatives. And again, as Emily was saying, the point here was not to suggest that one of these 217 would be the preferred future land-use map for Orange County but there were ways to test 218 different ideas, particularly those three themes that I was just mentioning and different shapes in 219 Approved 2.5.25 terms of how they might play out across the landscape of the County. The first alternative was 220 enhancing agriculture and environmental protection, so really focusing on if we really double down 221 on that and focus on doing that with what we can do legally within the State of North Carolina, 222 what would that look like and what would the outcomes of that be? The third alternative was 223 looking at providing some additional housing opportunities within the County and some new 224 employment locations, but in, kind of, a low-impact format which we call world conservative 225 neighborhoods. And then the fourth alternative looked at providing two higher-intensity mixed-use 226 centers in specific locations in between Chapel Hill. Hillsborough is one and then closer to 227 Mebane as well as additional employment locations, kind of, near the Mebane/West Ten Road 228 area. So, that's kind of the refresher. Let's talk a little bit about what we learned. So, again, 229 there's the short survey and a long survey. There's a lot of technical information related to the 230 alternatives. For those that wanted to get in a little deeper, they could do the long survey. If they 231 wanted to just provide quick information, the short survey was a good option. All of the questions 232 were made available at the in-person meetings, both surveys and online so there was a lot of 233 different flexibility and accessibility in terms of people being able to participate in what ways 234 worked best for them. A total of 420 surveys were received. Approximately 115 of those were at 235 the in-person meetings and 305 were completed online; 286 of those were the short surveys, so 236 that was the preference for most people was to do the short survey, and 134 long surveys were 237 completed. And you can see the breakdown on that blue table about the number of persons for 238 attending each of the different locations and then in the orange to the left, the surveys and the exit 239 questionnaires. That's the separate survey that tells us more about who the respondents are and 240 some information about them that Emily was just sharing with you and what that breakdown is, in 241 terms of in person and online and all of this, again, will be available to you if you want to look at 242 details in the future. There's a lot of information in the summary report, but we wanted to try to 243 give you the so what of what we learned here. So, in terms of survey responses, the other thing 244 that we were testing as part of this was the vision themes and goals for the plan which were 245 drafted and shared with the public. For the short survey, there was strong support for all the 246 vision themes. That's the Venn diagram I was just showing you with the cultivate sustainable 247 development in the middle. There was the highest support for protecting critical watershed areas 248 and open spaces and preserving agricultural lands. About 85 percent really strongly supported 249 that. Lowest support which was still the majority but on the lower end of all of the different vision 250 themes was cultivating sustainable development and advancing equitable housing. So, just a 251 little, again, I think that's pretty good support. It's just on the lower end when compared to the 252 other vision themes. For the long survey, there was strong support for most of the goals. So, 253 highest support for environment, parks and recreation and working lands and open space goals. 254 Lower support for regional and local growth and economy and employment. So, there's some 255 kind of themes you can see there. There's a lot of support for protecting environmental areas, 256 agricultural lands, open spaces, etc. and a little bit more mixed responses with respect to growth 257 and development. So, some of the key takeaways. Like I was just mentioning, there's strong 258 support for changing the way we approach managing land use within the community, both to 259 protect natural lands and there is support for development of needed housing. I think that's 260 something that did come through the public inputs as well. There's very strong support for 261 protecting priority agricultural, environmental and rural lands and desire to see more housing 262 choices available in Orange County. This is a chart here that shows you each of those four vision 263 themes. Cultivate sustainable development's the first one, and then you see the other three in 264 that Venn diagram listed across. The gray is the most supportive on the far right of each of the 265 themes. The blue is, kind of, supportive, maybe not as supportive but as you can see, there's, 266 kind of, strong support for each of these vision themes. We're going to be making some tweaks to 267 the language based on the feedback that we received, but we think we're generally in the right 268 ballpark with respect to what we want to be using as our over-arching guidance for the land-use 269 plan. Some other takeaways: There was more mixed support for higher-density residential and 270 mixed-use development and providing more employment opportunities. There was pretty good 271 support for rural conservation neighborhoods and expanding the economic development area 272 near Mebane and I85, support for the goals and vision themes like I was just mentioning with 273 some adjustments and then some mixed support extension of public water and sewer and 274 Approved 2.5.25 development of private water and wastewater systems. If you look at the summary of the long 275 survey responses and look at them by each of the alternatives, about 58 percent are satisfied with 276 the current approach to land use. So, that's that first alternative, the baseline. That's your 277 currently adopted policy. About 58 percent said that's a good approach, and again, we weren't 278 asking them to pick one of these or to necessarily compare them. We were asking folks to look at 279 each in isolation and say whether or not they supported it. So, that's important to understand. For 280 Land-Use Alternative No. 2, that's the one where we were really focusing on strong environmental, 281 agricultural watershed protection. Majority respondents, 54 percent said that they really supported 282 that focus within this alternative. Looking at No. 3 and No. 4 and we list them here together 283 because there are some overlaps, particularly on how water and wastewater are provided and the 284 employment areas. So, the majority, 52 percent, support encouraging new rural conservation 285 neighborhoods, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in just a moment. Support is a little bit more 286 mixed or more evenly divided between some of the other aspects. When you look at those that 287 support development of private water and wastewater systems to support rural conservation 288 neighborhoods, so that would not be OWASA or Town of Hillsborough municipal services. That 289 would be a private system that would be developer built to serve a particular development. 290 There's not a lot of that in Orange County. Other communities do allow for that type of thing, and 291 it is currently allowed within Orange County but it's not something that, again, is often used. And 292 so, there was a little bit of mixed support. 44 percent did support, 39 percent did not support the 293 idea of those private systems occurring to support rural conservation neighborhoods. In terms of 294 the economic development area south of West Ten Road, about 49 percent support. 35 percent 295 did not support. In terms of higher-intensity mixed-use developments and that fourth alternative, 296 about 41 percent supported and about 46 percent didn't support. And then finally looking at 297 extension of public water and sewer, so that would be, OWASA, Hillsborough, Mebane provided 298 services outside of their current service areas within the County. 48 percent supported and 299 41 percent did not support that with respect to providing higher-intensity mixed-use development 300 service. You have a question? 301 302 Charity Kirk: So, this was a five-point question, right, one, two, three, four, five? 303 304 Leigh Anne King: Right. 305 306 Charity Kirk: So, I gather four and five is in support and one and two is do not support. 307 308 Leigh Anne King: Yeah. We keep the middle as the neutral point and then on either side there's some level of 309 support for that option. Yep, good question. 310 311 Lamar Proctor: Kind of follow up. The long survey was from the in-person participants? 312 313 Leigh Anne King: The long survey and the short survey were provided to anyone that wanted to take them, both at 314 the in-person meetings and online. The short survey at the tabling events, as well. We were really 315 trying to provide as many options for people that wanted to participate. The short survey is easier. 316 It's, kind of, a front and back survey that people can do really quickly, so the majority of people 317 picked that. It's easy, takes a little bit less time, but they can still provide meaningful feedback, but 318 we did get a number of people who wanted to take the time because it does take the time to do 319 the long survey and read through each of the alternatives and think through what the implications 320 of those are. 321 322 Dolores Bailey: Leigh Anne, this is great. Just a quick question. We're talking about 510 people, right? 323 324 Leigh Anne King: Correct. 325 326 Dolores Bailey: That's all we're talking about. 327 328 Approved 2.5.25 Leigh Anne King: Correct. So, one thing to keep in mind, and this is a question that we often get about how much of 329 your population should you be hearing from, and that's part of the reason we look at 330 representation to hear who are we hearing from, and are they generally representative of the 331 community? So, we did a back of the envelope survey probably 3 years ago or so looking at 332 comprehensive planning initiatives throughout the United States, Boston, Charlotte, Nashville, 333 Denver, communities that are spending sometimes half a million dollars on public engagement 334 activities. They're really taking out all the stops. Charlotte had a drive-in movie night to unveil 335 their plan. They're spending a lot of money on public relations, advertising, going to people, going 336 to neighborhoods. When you look across the board at all of those big hitters in terms of what you 337 can get out of public engagement, they all hovered around 1 to 2 percent of the population that 338 they engaged. So, I think that's just a good way to temper expectations. I mean, elections are 339 another way to think about it. We never get 100 percent of the people that actually are allowed to 340 vote to actually come out and turn out to vote. This is even harder in some respects to get people 341 to engage and pay attention. So, I think that 1 to 2 percent is generally a good ballpark for what to 342 expect. The other thing to think about is, and I don't want to misconstrue that this is statistically 343 significant data because it's not. This was not a random sample. These were self-selected 344 people that provided this information but generally speaking, the sample size that you need for a 345 statistically significant survey is much smaller than the population size itself. So, for example, 346 when we did this in Wake County, they are a population of 1 million people, and I believe our 347 sample size was more in the range of like 4,000 people or something to that effect. I'd have to go 348 back and look closely at those numbers. I'm remembering from several years ago, but that's 349 another thing to think about and we also have the survey from the strategic plan effort that is a 350 statistically-significant survey that we can refer back to, to make sure, is what we're hearing here 351 lining up with what we heard in that report because we can't hang our hat that that's good data 352 that's representative and is what the interests of the community are. 353 354 Dolores Bailey: And did you find your data lined up with that? 355 356 Leigh Anne King: I think generally speaking. So, we've been trying to benchmark this as we go and a lot of these 357 issues with respect to environmental watershed agricultural protection and the need for more 358 housing, depending on how you ask the question, they're always at the top with each other. And I 359 think that's the balancing act is like how do we accomplish both of those things? I think we're able 360 to narrow down in this process to really get to that, and economic development, I think is also 361 important, but it maybe is a little bit lower down on tier in terms of public feedback and input. 362 363 Cy Stober: If I may Leigh Anne? 364 365 Leigh Anne King: Yes. 366 367 Cy Stober: I think Leigh Anne has a slight on us but the exit surveys, which are not comprehensive, again, 368 they were self-selected. 80 percent, I think it is, of those who participated in this engagement 369 window were new to the engagement process. So, we did have redundancy in some of the 370 surveys but only 20 percent of those who participated in this window participated in the first one as 371 far as we can tell. So, we have a number of new responses. 372 373 Leigh Anne King: Yep. So, what we're going to be doing is really taking all of this feedback and we've already 374 begun starting to actually draft the plan, so the vision and goals will be making adjustments to the 375 conservation and growth framework which is really effectively the future land-use map for the new 376 plan and the policies and actions. Those will be coming to you next year. You'll be getting a 377 chance to take a look at those and our target for unveiling the plan is tentatively scheduled for 378 May and June of next year, 2025. Also wanted to just give you a little bit of guidance from the 379 Board. Tom mentioned that we gave the same presentation to the Board just a number of weeks 380 ago, and we had some specific questions that we wanted to pose to them. Our guidance in this 381 process in terms of driving the policy direction and getting their feedback throughout. And so, we 382 asked them a couple of questions. One was do you want us to move forward with providing some 383 Approved 2.5.25 new approaches to encouraging conservation subdivisions in the unincorporated portions of the 384 County because those options provide both the opportunity to permanently protect important land 385 as well as provide more housing and potentially more housing choices as part of those 386 developments. And you might recall from seeing it at a previous presentation that conservation 387 subdivisions are a different way to do subdivision development, neighborhood development, 388 where instead of cutting all of the lots of equal size and having the roads that connect them all, 389 you actually go in and you protect a portion of the site first for environmental, watershed, 390 agricultural, or other wildlife purposes, and then the remaining land is then developed at a denser, 391 smaller lot size. You can get the same yield. In some situations, we actually tested getting a little 392 more yield out of that developable land, but you're still protecting in the alternative that we 393 modeled, protecting 60 percent of the site. So, you were able to accomplish the objective to 394 protect those important lands as well as provide more housing options within the County, and we 395 did get an affirmative from the Board members to move forward with looking at those options. The 396 second was there was not a lot of strong support, No. 4 in terms of the housing potential in those 397 two centers, the more dense mixed-use centers. There wasn’t strong support on that and so we 398 asked, does that mean that we really want to be encouraging that denser development to be 399 happening within the municipalities within the County and not within the unincorporated areas. 400 There are a lot of strong reasons to do that because you have better access to transit and 401 services, jobs, shopping, etc. and they also supported that. Each of the Board members went 402 around and talked a little bit about each of the questions and provided their feedback, and all of 403 them expressed support for that. And then finally we asked them for their interest or willingness to 404 explore expansion of the economic development area, the Buckhorn EDD near I-85 Mebane and 405 expanding that south of West Ten Road and they also responded affirmatively on that, as well. 406 So, those were some of the big policy direction questions that we had coming out of the 407 engagement. That was the guidance that they provided for us to move forward with in helping to 408 draft the plan. And I believe that's my last slide. So, happy to take any other questions or 409 comments that you want to provide to us tonight as we get started on drafting the plan. 410 411 Adam Beeman: So, they want us to encourage higher density in the municipalities, but the County has no say with 412 municipalities, correct? 413 414 Leigh Anne King: That's correct. So, this is what I like to think of as the influential power as opposed to direct 415 authority. There are opportunities to be encouraging that to happen, but you're correct. The 416 County doesn't have direct authority over planning and zoning in any of the municipalities. 417 418 Adam Beeman: Go ahead, Dolores. 419 420 Dolores Bailey: Leigh Anne, what I saw with the five places where you met with people, they were all in the 421 northern part of the County? 422 423 Leigh Anne King: Let me go back to the table. Gravelly Hill, which is, I'm trying to remember, I apologize. So, 424 American Legion is on 54, on the south end on 54. El Centro was held in Chapel Hill. Make sure 425 I'm right on this, Tom. This is a good trivia question for me. 426 427 Dolores Bailey: El Centro Carrboro? 428 429 Tom Altieri: Yes. 430 431 Leigh Anne King: But they met at Chapel Hill. 432 433 Tom Altieri: They met at the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. 434 435 Leigh Anne King: Yep. 436 437 Approved 2.5.25 Tom Altieri: And then we met at the Jones Grove Missionary Baptist Church which is just a little bit north of 438 town here, the American Legion, Gravelly Hill and then Voices of Efland Cheeks helped us with 439 the meeting at the Efland Cheeks Community Center. So, we mixed it around and if you recall 440 during our first engagement window, we did have a meeting down in Chapel Hill at Southern 441 Human Services Center. So, we are trying to move it around a little bit. 442 443 Leigh Anne King: Have different locations for each of the rounds of engagement. 444 445 Tom Altieri: And there has been a request during the next window that we have another meeting in Chapel 446 Hill, and that was made by the County commissioners. 447 448 Dolores Bailey: Thank you. 449 450 Beth Bronson: I wasn't sure if we were going to go around. I guess to that point, to Adam's original, initial 451 question encouraging density where they don't have jurisdiction. But then also that would lead you 452 to think that the policy that they developed is what they do have control over which is the 453 unincorporated areas that are bordering municipalities. 454 455 Leigh Anne King: Right. 456 457 Beth Bronson: And did the commissioners have any kind of comments on those? 458 459 Leigh Anne King: Yes. I think there's still support for the fundamentals of the current policies that are in place, but 460 this idea of providing some approaches to encourage conservation subdivisions to happen in 461 unincorporated Orange County that could provide both the protection of important lands as well as 462 development of different housing and potentially and hopefully different housing choices to, kind 463 of, increase the housing stock across the County. That was really the new idea brought to the 464 table and encouraged, supported by the Board with respect to what they can do within the 465 unincorporated areas and are willing to provide some support for. 466 467 Beth Bronson: Okay. And to that question, did the applicant for the housing conservation subdivision on 54, did 468 they go to the commissioners already? I don't know if you know this question. 469 470 Leigh Anne King: I don't know that question. 471 472 Cy Stober: Right now, the tentative hearing date is February 4. 473 474 Beth Bronson: Okay. 475 476 Cy Stober: And that's what we're planning on. 477 478 Beth Bronson: I wasn't sure if that had happened or not. 479 480 Cy Stober: And that was the applicant's request. 481 482 Beth Bronson: Makes sense. And you're saying about the conservative subdivisions over the idea of providing 483 municipalities with denser housing options by ceding unincorporated land into the County, or into 484 the municipalities, right? Like annexation? 485 486 Leigh Anne King: I think that the idea was that the more dense housing choices being provided within the 487 municipalities based on what the current planning areas are of those communities. So, as 488 modeled we made some adjustments to Hillsborough's to reflect their current comprehensive plan. 489 They actually shrunk their growth area in a few places so that's reflective there. Mebane has a 490 larger study area, so there could potentially be annexation as part of that. And then Chapel 491 Approved 2.5.25 Hill/Carrboro are both, and the County, have the joint planning agreement area and so the idea 492 was that dense housing would happen within those jointly planned areas where urban, or 493 suburban scale development is already the policy in the place. So, not really additional areas 494 added to those beyond probably the Mebane growth area, but we're still waiting to see what 495 happens with that comprehensive planning effort. 496 Beth Bronson: At least acknowledging, I guess, in the comprehensive plan that the municipalities have their own 497 land use plan. Because as somebody who lives near the I-85 Mebane area, the confusion that 498 was created around the municipality having their growth strategy and the County having their 499 growth strategy, on top of Mebane itself being, straddling two different counties. Besides that, just 500 the idea of the public trying to engage but then not understanding where all of these, they're not 501 contradictory necessarily, but they're not congruent, so. 502 503 Leigh Anne King: Yeah. No, that's really important. I know I talked to at least one person when we were in Gravelly 504 Hill that we were encouraging them to go and participate in the Mebane comprehensive planning 505 effort for that very reason because a lot of the things that they wanted to provide feedback on and 506 guidance on was more specific to what Mebane is actually doing in their effort. So, I think it's 507 good to be aware of both, but you're right. Whoever has direct authority is the one you want to be 508 making sure you're getting your comments to. 509 510 Statler Gilfillen: You just described sending an individual over to Mebane to talk to them about their planning and 511 what they're doing, separate from what you're doing. Now, I'm looking at the Orange County. I'm 512 looking at each of the municipalities and I'm hearing constantly separate. How much time or effort 513 is where you're meeting with the Mebane, the Chapel Hill, the Hillsborough, all the planning 514 departments together to coming up with a real vision for Orange County as a whole. I'm not 515 hearing that. What am I missing? 516 517 Leigh Anne King: So, I think that there is definitely an effort in this process to engage the municipalities' leadership. 518 There was a survey that was sent to the mayors of all the municipalities. There have been public 519 engagement efforts, at least within close proximity to each of the municipalities and there has 520 been advertising to community members there. So, I think in this effort, while it is not, regional at 521 the County-level sense, this is not a plan that Hillsborough, Mebane, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and 522 Orange County are collectively developing. There is an effort to try to encourage that coordination 523 and collaboration as part of this effort. Some states have top-down planning that require regional 524 planning coordination. North Carolina is not one of those, and we're not really set up to do that if 525 it's not forced at the local level, but I think, actually, if you look at the history of this County and 526 compare it to most counties in the state, and I would even go so far as to say a lot of the 527 southeast, there's been a lot more collaboration and regional planning. The joint planning 528 agreement is a great case study example of that than most places. 529 530 Cy Stober: Yeah, and I want to echo that but with a little more detail and I think Tom, I would invite Tom or 531 Perdita to speak in greater detail because they've lived with these local agreements longer than I 532 have. The joint planning agreement established the rural buffer. It established the transition 533 areas in Carrboro, and it regulates the use of land around Carrboro and Chapel Hill. The central 534 Orange coordinated area and the land-use agreement with the Town of Hillsborough coordinates 535 land use so that Hillsborough and the County are acting in coordination and consistent with each 536 other in the perimeter areas around the Town of Hillsborough, and then the Water and Sewer 537 Management. Planning, and Boundary Agreement, WASMPBA regulates the use of OWASA 538 utilities and Hillsborough utilities to support new development in the County. The exception of 539 that, which you are intimately familiar with, is how the legislature did an end run on us with schools 540 and that does trump any local agreements with regard to utility extension and use. But otherwise, 541 there's been decades of, including key staff at Clarion Associates, with regard to coordinated 542 planning in the County. Currently, the only municipalities that we do not have inter local 543 agreements with are the City of Durham which has a small part of County land within its 544 incorporated limits on the east side, over near the 751 corridor, and the City of Mebane, and the 545 Approved 2.5.25 County has had utility agreements with both of those cities, neither or which are current and they 546 both expired. There was some, I guess, dictation of land use in those utility agreements, but 547 again, they are both expired. I think to move forward and pretend that we're not going to have a 548 recommendation on coordinating land use with the City of Mebane is foolhardy and I'm happy to 549 say that out loud, and that it's a recommendation that I think the staff would propose to the Board 550 and to this Board that we move forward with exactly that. How broad or how specific that 551 recommendation will be has to be determined, but we will be moving forward with a 552 recommendation to better coordinate land use with the City of Mebane, and as the former 553 development director there, and to Beth's point, having Mebane just have a bland future growth 554 area recommendation; that it should be secondary growth in that entire area, is unacceptable to 555 the County and me as the planning director of the County. We need more specificity from the city 556 on where and of what type of development they want to see and the parts of Orange County that 557 they may annex or may grow into in the future while also respecting their ability to annex and 558 make decisions on their own, but we'd like to at least have a realistic vision of what that future 559 looks like. 560 561 Lamar Proctor: Was there any discussion about the 751 / US 70 Durham part up there? 562 563 Cy Stober: We actually got an email to the City of Durham that we were included on. Our commissioners, the 564 Durham City Council, and Sarah Young, their joint City County Planning Department, so Sarah 565 responded to that individual, because they wanted to expand their light industrial, or heavy 566 commercial use out there, and they can't do it without utilities, and they reiterated their position 567 that they don't have an agreement with the County, and none is forthcoming. Then that 568 applicant’s within their rights to apply for annexation and utility extension, but that the extension 569 would be totally at the applicant's cost, which is pretty much a nonstarter given the constraints and 570 the cost in that area. 571 572 Lamar Proctor: And then a second question about, can you kind of explain to me the push for development south 573 of West Ten, and is it also part of the discussions in the Seven Mile Creek protected watershed 574 that these things all come together right there. I think being in Cheeks and living in that area I do 575 know that the local residents absolutely do not want to lose critically protected watershed of Seven 576 Mile Creek, especially, what is east of Bushy Cook, that area over there, that's designated 577 critically protected. Why the push for south of West Ten and how far does that go? 578 579 Leigh Anne King: Good question. I think, we haven't had a lot of discussion in this process about fiscal 580 sustainability of the County, and thinking about its tax base, but that is an important consideration 581 when you're doing land use planning because you want to think about the types of uses, you're 582 creating capacity for. That's what we were evaluating with the land use alternatives. And there is, 583 in terms of thinking about economic development opportunities within Orange County, the kind of 584 highest and best use areas are all going to be along the interstates, particularly close to 585 interchanges. Those are going to be the best properties to be able to support and encourage 586 those types of business activities. Looking at infrastructure, looking at road and interstate 587 accessibility, thinking about avoiding, to your point, important lands. There are very few places 588 within this County where you can put economic development, so we were just hearing about the 589 EDD that has utility constraints. It's still available for economic development, but it, at this time, it 590 has to be done a scale that doesn't require public utilities, which is limiting in terms of what can 591 actually go there. So, yeah, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that it's needed for fiscal 592 balance. We want to be able to provide all of the things that people want in this community. It 593 costs money, and the more you put that burden on the residential taxpayers, the higher the taxes 594 will get over time, and so it's important to be looking at opportunities for economic development to 595 kind of share that tax burden. 596 597 Charity Kirk: Following up on that, but there's critically, there's protected watersheds. How are you dealing with 598 the environmental aspect of that? 599 600 Approved 2.5.25 Leigh Anne King: Yeah. So, that's definitely something, we're working on the maps right now. We don't have a 601 recommendation to put in front of you, so that's definitely something that we're working to avoid in 602 looking at all of our development areas that might be added to the rural conservation 603 neighborhoods, as well as the economic development areas, we would be evaluating. What are 604 the tradeoffs to allowing for more intensive development in these areas. 605 606 Cy Stober: So, I think to that point, there's no proposal at this time unless we hear from this Board or the 607 commissions to touch the critical areas in the Upper Eno Watershed. They were placed there at 608 the pleasure of the County. They weren’t placed there by the state, alongside Seven Mile Creek, 609 at least, and they're there, the town of Hillsborough has not requested their removal. The County 610 has not proposed that they be removed, and the City of Mebane has not asked that they be 611 removed either for that matter. So, there's no intention at this time of doing so, nor did we receive 612 that feedback from the public. There are available utilities in that area. They terminate, basically, 613 at Bushy Cook, and we would prefer that that development happen outside of a water supply 614 watershed, which is everything west of Buckhorn Road and south of West Ten. That makes a lot 615 more sense. You don't have impervious cover limitations, and you don't have a very aggravating, 616 if you're in the erosion control world, there's a very challenging limitation to how much earth you 617 can actually move at a time. That exists in high quality water zones which is a water supply 618 watershed, such as the upper Eno, so we'd prefer that it all happen outside of that watershed, and 619 I think we'll, I'll be very comfortable having a plan that says that much. Unfortunately, nearly all of 620 our economic development districts, for whatever reason, are placed inside of water supply 621 watersheds with the exception of the Buckhorn EDD, west of Buckhorn Road, which is essentially 622 the watershed boundary between the upper Eno and the Haw River. It's not necessarily always 623 true, but it's mostly true, that that Buckhorn Road is the watershed boundary. 624 625 Lamar Proctor: Right, I agree with that. 626 627 Cy Stober: Well, based on what we've heard, there's the, to date, there's been no desire to expand into the 628 critical area on Seven Mile Creek. 629 630 Leigh Anne King: And that was how we modeled it in the alternative as well. We avoided the critical water supply 631 watershed area. 632 633 Cy Stober: Even if there is an impervious cover limitation of 6 percent, and there's no 10-70 allocation, so if 634 you're in the protected water shed, you can develop up to 70 percent in certain cases, which 635 happened with Medline and the Thermo Fisher site for that matter. If you're in the critical area, 636 that is not available. Your cap is 6 percent. You can go as high as 9 percent with stormwater 637 control so realistically 9 percent on an industrial project or commercial project, it's not going to 638 happen. 639 640 Lamar Proctor: Okay, thank you. 641 642 Cy Stober: We may get another Missy's Grill, but they would probably need at least 10 acres to do that. 643 644 Beth Bronson: That's crazy, and again, thank you very much. I just want to say, that part that you said, it is a 645 critical watershed at the pleasure of the existing commissioners, or County. Not state, so it can 646 change, and that is the thing that I think we're all talking about, but not talking about is that when 647 we're talking about critical watershed areas versus just watersheds with high quality water, that's 648 more important than define it as a critical watershed because that is a flippant term that can be 649 adjusted, right. So, it's critical to us because we drink it. It is not critical per state guidelines, or 650 state qualifications, and that is the quiet part out loud. That's why I think it's more important to 651 think about how we want to focus on those conservation subdivisions there and not economic 652 development while balancing that fiscal responsibility that the County has to bring in revenue. And 653 I do want to point out that the commissioners have also reduced or have approved to reduce the 654 size of all other economic development districts, except the Buckhorn EDD. So, the Eno 655 Approved 2.5.25 Economic Development District was shrunk within the last 2 years and the Chapel Hill Economic 656 Development District on 86 was shrunk in the last 2 years, and that is just indicative of what 657 they're asking for. So, and I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with it, but I think it is important 658 to highlight that the County is moving in that direction, so not making it a focal point but making it 659 something that we do consider as we move forward, but then there's so much other land in the 660 County that we should also be looking at for the varieties of use. And that would be my comment 661 on that. 662 663 Adam Beeman: Dolores? 664 665 Dolores Bailey: Leigh Anne, there were two things you mentioned earlier. I wrote down mixed use business 666 center. Do you remember where that was in there? 667 668 Leigh Anne King: I don't know about a mixed-use business center, there was a mixed use in alternative, No. 4. The 669 two higher intensity mixed use developments. We were kind of modeling a Southern Village-esque 670 type development, one on 86 between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, kind of in the, now I'm 671 forgetting the name of it. 672 673 Dolores Bailey: Blackwood Station. 674 675 Leigh Anne King: Thank you, Blackwood Station area, thank you. And then there was another one that was closer 676 to Mebane, with the understanding, the reason they were located there is one, we were looking at 677 places where there was enough acreage to support and also access, potential access to public 678 utilities, so it needs to be kind of on the edge of a municipality to be able to feasibly extend 679 utilities, because that level of development would not be able to be supported by a private system. 680 So, that's what that reference to mixed-use development was. 681 Dolores Bailey: Okay. And then the other thing you mentioned that you said you'd talk about, was the rural 682 conservation neighborhoods. What are those? 683 684 Leigh Anne King: So, rural conservation neighborhoods – and I apologize; I thought there was a photo in here, but 685 we don't have reference slides in here, do we? 686 687 Emily Gvino: We do at the very end, but I don't know if it has the rural conservation. 688 689 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 690 concept unfortunately, we don't have a copy of it in here. So, rural conservation neighborhoods 691 are effectively, if you can envision – and I'll explain what we modeled because I think that's most 692 helpful. So, if you took a hundred-acre property in Orange County, what we modeled is that 693 60 percent, so 60 acres out of the hundred, would be permanently protected through the deed as 694 part of this development. And there is a flexible subdivision option currently in the UDO that 695 allows for this type of development. The requirements, I think, 33 percent open space protection. 696 What we modeled was something more than that. We modeled 60 percent. And so, the idea is 697 that you're picking the highest-quality environmental, agricultural, wildlife habitats such as the New 698 Hope corridors and patches, watershed protection areas, as part of that 60 percent. You're 699 protecting the prime lands that need protection. And on the other 40 acres, you are allowed to 700 develop at a denser lot size. And we actually modeled a higher yield. So, if you took a traditional 701 subdivision that would be developed effectively at one unit per acre in a portion of the County, so 702 if you had a hundred-acre property, let's just assume you could get 100 units out of it, if of 703 subdivided them all into an acre. It'd probably be a little less than that with infrastructure and 704 whatnot, but for ease of numbers, we'll say 100 units. What we modeled for the rural conservation 705 neighborhood, the 40 acres of that hundred-acre property, you could actually get more like 706 160 units out of that development. So, it's an incentive to protect a lot of important, critical area in 707 perpetuity, but get a higher yield on the part of the site that you are developing, to add to the 708 Approved 2.5.25 housing stock. Hopefully help with affordability issues, or at least provide some housing choices 709 within the County. And I want to be careful because the Board was very astute in saying that we 710 need to be very careful about talking about this being the direct link to creating affordable housing, 711 because there are a lot of steps that have to happen at a particular project level to make that 712 happen. We don't have inclusionary housing in this state, and so we can't mandate that as part of 713 the land use plan and our regulations, but it provides opportunity for creating more housing 714 choice, potentially, because you can do denser development. So maybe you could have some 715 townhomes, or some smaller-lot, single-family, or duplexes, etc., to create more housing choice, 716 which hopefully leads to affordability. 717 718 Dolores Bailey: Okay. Cy, is that something like what might happen on the Greene Tract? So, the protected areas 719 are identified first? 720 721 Cy Stober: Yes, but the Greene Tract's better. 722 723 Dolores Bailey: It's been in planning for a long time. 724 725 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 726 that the County is an owner along with the towns, and so we get to dictate the terms of 727 affordability, and we have a lot more power as a landowner. And, the City of Durham, particularly, 728 going back to Mayor Bell, but also, especially, Steve Schewel, when he was mayor there, the man 729 is a walking dictionary, encyclopedia, of affordable housing in North Carolina. And they realized 730 the general assembly has limited the options so that essentially if you want to dictate affordability, 731 you need to own the land, or you need to own an easement on the land. And there are a couple 732 of notable zoning cases in the city where land ownership was negotiated and then terms were 733 established once the County was able to establish ownership rights to the land. And the Greene 734 Tract affords this. The Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro, and I really hope that we 735 agree on what the affordability should be. And we already have agreed, minimally, what the 736 environmental protections should be, with the headwaters preserve. But the master plan also 737 provides for additional green space and connectivity on the Greene Tract. So, the Greene Tract is 738 better in that regard. It's also aspirational, which is the frustration, as it's not real yet. But it could 739 be a really great model for what we'd like to see, and we're going to be, lord knows Perdita spent 740 the whole summer making sure that it got across the finish line, so, yes, indeed, and we got more 741 work to do, and we're hoping that it'll come to reality very soon. But we'd love to be able to hold 742 that up as the model that we would like others to emulate. 743 744 Dolores Bailey: And my last question is, in your set of questions to the commissioners, did you all talk anything 745 about transportation and some type of transportation to the northern part of the County, 746 connecting us better that way? 747 748 Leigh Anne King: We didn't have a specific question about transportation. There is actually, I'm not sure kind of 749 what the status is at this point, there is an ongoing transportation plan that's being developed for 750 the County right now. So, our questions were much more land use focused because of this effort. 751 But, again, we have been coordinating with the staff working group and the various interests that 752 work on transportation in the County to think about – I think because we got the message through 753 the engagement that the more dense housing options needed to be focused within the existing 754 municipalities, it changes the conversation a little bit about transportation outside in the 755 unincorporated area, but to your point, it's still a very important consideration to be thinking about. 756 757 Dolores Bailey: Especially if we want to ever move the density of housing further out in Orange County. 758 759 Adam Beeman: Steve? Whitney? 760 761 Whitney Watson: I'm struck by how close most of the numbers are that you reported. And I'm wondering if there are 762 clear, more than a few percentage points, mandates for one direction or another. Or, when you 763 Approved 2.5.25 get to discussing, well, what does this really mean? And it's one survey versus two surveys, how 764 you'd be guided in making recommendations. 765 766 Leigh Anne King: So that was part of the reason we asked those specific questions to the Board, because I think, 767 the way I read the outcomes of the public engagement is that I think we're hitting the right 768 questions, and we're kind of getting to this “where's the sweet spot?” kind of question. We know 769 we want to achieve a lot of things, and they all have tradeoffs, so where do we want to kind of line 770 up? I think that we're kind of getting to that midpoint where we're hitting that right balance in the 771 middle of the Venn diagram. I think, when we take this back out to the public this coming spring, 772 that'll be the true test of whether we interpreted their feedback correctly given the guidance that 773 we had from the Board. I think there was stronger support for the rural conservation 774 neighborhoods, the fact that you can actually protect more land through that type of development 775 is, and experientially, it might be a little different, because if you've ever seen a clustered 776 subdivision out in a rural area before, it is a denser housing type on part of the site. But you're 777 effectively permanently protecting a larger area, and when you subdivide lots into large lots, it's 778 not the same thing. You're not permanently protecting those in the same kind of consolidated 779 manner. So, I think that that's why we want to do a third round of engagement. Did we get this 780 right? And we have to kind of make some judgment calls based on the feedback that we get, and 781 that's why we wanted to ask the commissioners for their kind of guidance on how to move forward 782 with this work so that we were heading in the direction that they supported. 783 784 Adam Beeman: On the expansion of economic development, did they give any inclinations or feedback as to what 785 type of economic development? Like, industrial or we looking for some retail stuff where we can 786 actually go shopping and buy something other than a cement plant or another manufacturing 787 facility? 788 789 Leigh Anne King: Yeah, I think the intention in modeling that was more what we call employment focused uses. So, 790 at this level of scenario modeling, we don't really get into the hard details of, like, is this going to 791 be an Amazon warehouse space or is this going to be at a manufacturing facility for X, Y, Z 792 Company? But I think the intention was there's probably going to be some mix of retail and 793 commercial that would go in these areas, but it was predominantly going to be more, what we call 794 employment focused. So, you know, you're warehousing, your manufacturing, maybe light 795 industrial type uses. 796 797 Cy Stober: We did receive a critique. It's in the ordinance that we do, and we don't. We don't encourage, I 798 suppose, consumer uses as much as we could in the EDDs, and that needs to be in the table. To 799 reduce vehicle miles traveled at lunch hours and so forth, that we need to integrate better. 800 Integrate retail and especially restaurants. And, my predecessor, Craig, kind of inched towards 801 that, especially introducing restaurants in the ORM District. I think we need to do that more 802 broadly. But we also need to consider how we balance that with the primary purpose, which is 803 employment and perhaps we have different future land use classes to get, again, at where our 804 activity notes are versus our EDDs. We may need to emphasize employment centers, but also 805 sustainable in terms of worker needs, like as holistic of a perspective as we can, is that somebody 806 who comes there could theoretically walk to get lunch rather than have to get in their car. You got 807 1,000 people on the road between 12 and 1, all going to the same places. 808 809 Adam Beeman: I mean, downtown has a lack of parking because everything has exploded, it's so busy down here. 810 Good luck finding parking. But that's beside the point. So, the conservation subdivision, I feel like 811 that was the right corner and I just, I personally don't think that we should be pushing towards 812 private septic systems, especially since we've had that, I don't know the name of the company, but 813 they were just in the news. They own the property and the whole community is on the well and 814 they're having issues. I don't think that that's the way we should head. If you want cheaper 815 housing, the community is going to have to pay for it through the County, and not private 816 investment because, as Fiddlehead showed, it was going to be some stupid cost per unit. So, that 817 doesn't do anything to solve the problem for affordability. I just went to a woman in Durham who 818 Approved 2.5.25 had to buy a place down off South Miami because she couldn't afford even the dumpiest place in 819 Hillsborough because it was out of reach. So, if we're going to go that route, we're just going to 820 keep pushing people out and it's only going to be the rich that can be in this County, so I really 821 don't know how we can have those types of things without having some real thought. I live north of 822 70. There's nothing for me. I go to Mebane to shop. I would prefer to put my money here in town 823 but there's nothing for me in this town to shop. I have to go somewhere else to do that. I would 824 love to have more options north of town where a lot of us out there on the rural area have to drive, 825 I drive at least 20 minutes to get to town to do something. So which way am I going? The one 826 that has more choices. And that's just the way it is. So, if Orange County wants the rural, they're 827 going to have to think about that. Peel off those warehouses and start thinking about something 828 that the rest of us can actually shop at and buy. Because I don't go to Family Dollar or Dollar 829 Trees for my groceries, so Food Lion is it in this town. Food Lion is it up this way and it's just not 830 enough. There are not enough choices for us up this way. And everybody down south in Chapel 831 Hill and Carrboro are happy because you can't beat enough choices off between everything that's 832 around them. So as far as they're concerned, County's waiting. The rest of us up in north, there's 833 plenty of people that up north that don't want growth. I'm with them, but I need some choices 834 closer to me because the mileage that I'm tacking on my vehicle just to go get groceries, we need 835 to think about that. And that's something that, if you're not going to expand water and sewer, it's 836 never going to be affordable. That's just the bottom line. The taxpayer's going to pay for it one 837 way or the other. You're either going to pay for the water and sewers to be built out or all of us 838 lower income folks are going to get pushed out and it's only going to be the folks that can afford 839 the million dollar plus properties. I mean I'd love to know where the commissioner's mind was at, I 840 don't understand. At one point, if I'm not mistaken, I thought I heard that potentially eliminating or 841 reducing the rural buffer was supposed to on the table as far as a choice for people to talk about. 842 Did that get any attraction? 843 844 Leigh Anne King: So, that was some of what we tested. Well, we tested some, like I was saying, the Blackwood 845 Station area in particular was an area that was a focus both for rural conservation neighborhood 846 and also for the mixed-use center development. And I think, because there has been such strong 847 support for, and if you look at that kind of percentages of people in terms of the alternatives they 848 were supporting, if I remember correctly, I'll just go back. I'm double checking myself and not 849 saying something incorrectly here. So Alternative No. 1 had 58 percent. So that's current policy. 850 54 for Alternative No. 2, environmental agricultural watershed protection and then 52 percent for 851 rural conversation neighborhoods, which is No. 3. And then kind of, there's a split a little bit in 852 terms of some of the development mix for No. 4. So, the high end, if you were going to compare 853 them across, there's actually more support for what we do today. But there's also this expression 854 that we need to be doing more than what we're doing today with respect to how we're offering 855 housing options within our community and making things more attainable for folks. I think the real 856 challenge, the real rub, is there is such strong support for environmental protection, agricultural 857 preservation, and watershed protection. And when you start putting lot of pipes in the ground to 858 serve different areas, are you going to be able to afford that infrastructure. There will be 859 development that will go along with it. And I think that there doesn't seem to be a lot of strong 860 support for changing in a major way the land planning in the unincorporated areas. 861 862 Adam Beeman: But cost was never brought up and this is just merely what do you think versus do you understand 863 that based on the approach that you're taking, you are going to significantly drive the cost up. I 864 think a lot of people don't realize that the County's budget isn't going to stay static. The folks that 865 work for the County expect pay raises whether they're 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent or whatever 866 they may be. So that means that costs are going to go up every single year. And if the only 867 people that are footing the bills are taxpayers, that means we're going to continue to climb and 868 climb and climb. So that's the rub that people don't take into consideration. The ramifications of 869 maintaining what we have. Because once we close off, now we have prime land. Everything else 870 around us had been developed. There's no more developable land down the road. And we have 871 all this available land. What do you think is going to happen with those conservations. They're 872 going to figure out how to peel that conservation back and develop the heck out of that land 873 Approved 2.5.25 because it's the only one. But when they get there, that land is going to be through the roof as far 874 as cost is concerned, and it's only going to drive the cost up for us here. As an electrician, I see it 875 every single day. We keep adding more and more and more and more. Let's require sidewalks 876 when you build a house. You know, put a sidewalk on. I drive by houses. There's a sidewalk on 877 the front of the house to nowhere because that person was required to under the ordinance. They 878 got to plant two trees out in Durham. You keep adding costs. How do you think the house is 879 going to stay cheap. It's never going to. And so, as we continue to go down the path of adding 880 more and more requirements to this, the only obvious thing is that the cost is going to climb. It's 881 getting out of control. There's a double wide by me for $470,000.00 on 10 acres. A double wide. 882 Are you all right? How? 883 884 Leigh Anne King: The land values in the County are very, very high. 885 886 Adam Beeman: Right. But that's what I'm saying. Come on and develop until we have no more land left. And like 887 I said, when that happens, it's going to be ridiculous. I come from Massachusetts. Most of the 888 land was gone. There was a gentleman that was buying a half-acre empty lot for $350,000.00. 889 Just so he had a yard. $350,000.00. That's where we're heading. The median price in North 890 Carolina is what, $420,000.00, $450,000.00, somewhere in that range? Let's keep adding more 891 and more to it and don't provide anybody with any of the services. The septic systems are 892 ridiculous, wells are ridiculous, all that cost continues to add up, so we're never going to have 893 affordable housing unless the County steps in and provides something, infrastructure or the land, 894 and they don't seem to want to do that. And too many people are blind to the fact that the costs 895 are going to continue to climb. I just don't understand, it baffles the mind that nobody can see the 896 obvious. It's like, the more you keep the land precious and conserved, the more value it's going to 897 be and we're going to be pushed out. And I'm not against conserving land, trust me, I'm not, I 898 know there are many people out where I live that want their farmland. I understand that. There 899 has to be a balance. And like you said, encourage the growth in municipalities. We're going to 900 have to probably expand the municipalities boundaries in order to solve some of the housing 901 crisis. Doesn't seem like anybody's interested in that. 902 903 Statler Gilfillen: I think you're missing something here. What does it cost to put a smoke detector system in a 904 house these days. It adds to the cost. These items are necessary also though. Those are adding 905 to the cost. There's a balance in here. 906 907 Adam Beeman: I understand the smoke detector. I'm talking about a sidewalk to nowhere. How much do you 908 think it cost him to pour 50-foot sidewalk 4 feet wide, or 2 feet wide? It's not free. 909 910 Statler Gilfillen: But we have to be practical. Many of these costs are things that made us safer. 911 912 Adam Beeman: How is requiring two trees be planted in your front yard make you safer? I'm just trying to make 913 the point, like, if we're trying to make it more affordable, we can't continue to pile on more 914 regulations. 915 916 Leigh Anne King: But what would be the question to ask, yeah. 917 918 Cy Stober: To respond to your question or concern, Chairman, the commissioners did discuss that matter. 919 And the public did too. I'm actually going through the free responses and pulling out common 920 themes. So rural buffer, no. No one really actually talked about it, which is pretty surprising 921 because we were pretty blunt about it on all the maps. We're showing development there and 922 scenario for, or alternative for, and some development in there and Alternative 3, so there wasn't 923 much discussion about it. There was a lot of discussion about sprawl and appreciation for 924 containment of Chapel Hill and Carrboro growth, and to a lesser degree, Hillsborough. And a little 925 dislike for the growth pattern in Mebane. So, we did hear that. We also have heard from the 926 commissioners concerns about the under-utilization of the existing OWASA utility lines, and 927 especially given that OWASA has 70 years of capacity based on forecasted growth. That is going 928 Approved 2.5.25 to be considered when we're drafting policy recommendations for this plan. Those are existing 929 utilities, again, to get to that earlier point about economic development. Most of those areas are 930 zoned for residential, but there are some non-residential areas in Chapel Hill and Carrboro that 931 are adjacent to or have proximity to those utilities. All that could be discussed. We are also 932 currently in the two of the alternatives, well, all the alternatives now have two activity nodes within 933 the rural buffer. One right outside and one within, and I think we're moving forward with that in 934 mind. They will depend upon a decentralized, engineered system, so state permitted wastewater, 935 state permitted water. And to your point about the for-profit management of water. I share your 936 concern, so I think that, and the commissioners have reached out to the manager who told me we 937 need more research on, particularly, you know, decentralized wastewater whether it's community 938 septic or, community wastewater so it's a package plant. The commissioners are intrigued but 939 concerned. They don't feel that they have enough information today and you feel that way too, so 940 we need to get more information on all of those matters. But where we're at right now is a real 941 distaste for sprawl. Real concern about affordability. For those who are informed, concerns about 942 tax base, and concerns about under-utilization of existing infrastructure. I think all of that's true 943 and going to inform what we come back to you with in the future. 944 945 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 946 here the next time around. So, I apologize. Charity, go ahead. 947 948 Charity Kirk: Adding on to environmental stuff, is there any consideration of wildlife corridors, because we're 949 talking about alternatives to land use and these conservation neighborhoods, but there's nothing 950 about connectivity that I've heard. And besides there's watershed protected areas. But what is the 951 consideration for wildlife connectivity? 952 953 Leigh Anne King: Excellent question. So when we develop the alternatives and we're looking to change the land 954 uses, particularly for the rural conservation neighborhoods, and the mixed-use centers in 955 Alternative No. 4, we did evaluate the New Hope Conservation Corridor's analysis that was part of 956 the data that we looked at when locating those areas on the map, and there are gradations of 957 quality of corridors and patches and so we were prioritizing the most high quality corridors and 958 patches when locating these areas. If you see the maps of New Hope there's some level, almost 959 everywhere, that doesn't have development on it today. But there was a concerted effort to look 960 at that, and it's actually something that as we're drafting the policies for the plan and thinking 961 about if we're going to be supporting rural conservation neighborhoods and unincorporated 962 portions of the County, we want to make sure that protected lands, the 60 percent or whatever 963 number that's landed at, in terms of the open space protection, would be promoting conservation 964 of high quality conservation corridors for wildlife. 965 966 Charity Kirk: So, in the plan, you would actually specify what would be rural conservation neighborhoods 967 zoning wise and then they would need to do a rural conservation neighborhood there. They would 968 have to apply to the County to change it to a standard subdivision. 969 970 Leigh Anne King: The plan is policy. No zoning change will happen as a part of a land use plan. 971 972 Charity Kirk: So, the UDO would have to be changed separately. 973 974 Leigh Anne King: Correct. And this is the way it always happens in communities throughout the United States. 975 There's the plan that happens first. And that's the policy guidance that will typically include 976 recommendations for zoning, subdivision, UDO, whatever the ordinance is called, for changes to 977 that to bring the code into compliance with the vision of the plan. So, at this stage, there wouldn't 978 be any zoning changes. I think in our land use categories, we would talk about the types of 979 zoning categories that make sense to be applied within different areas, but it wouldn't actually be 980 zoning. 981 982 Approved 2.5.25 Charity Kirk: Would there be specific suggestions, or would that be a whole new phase once the 983 comprehensive plan is updated? 984 985 Leigh Anne King: What we typically do as part of comprehensive land use planning efforts is to provide 986 recommendations for, generally speaking, the types of changes that we would recommend 987 incorporating into a cod update process. That being said, one half of our business is doing plans. 988 The other practice area of ours is doing actual ordinance work. And what we know from doing 989 that is it's very important for the plan to not hamstring and get too specific about the ordinance 990 changes that need to be made, until you actually have the time to go in and work within the 991 framework of assessment for the code itself. So, we are looking at the code and we are making 992 some suggestions based on what's in the code. But we're not going to be making provision 993 change recommendations in the plan. We want that to happen as part of a code update process. 994 995 Beth Bronson: Charity, to your point about that designation of zoning, what it reminds me of is those 996 neighborhood activity nodes that we looked at in White Cross where they were trying to present, 997 because there is set out designations for zoning that are in the UDO as a result of the original 998 comprehensive plan, if I am understanding that correctly. And so, on the map, in the community 999 engagement what I did notice with those, there was no focus on those areas. So, you're talking 1000 about those interchanges, those points of connection. Where people are commuting by, where 1001 you're getting the most drive by of the residents, you have the most opportunity for something like 1002 retail versus manufacturing. If, per se, there was something in the UDO eventually based on the 1003 policy recommendations and the comprehensive plan that said, this area is good as an overlay 1004 district for conservation neighborhoods or, rural agricultural or certain things like that or certain 1005 types of businesses such as, low impact, like dog kennel kind of things. Right? That idea being 1006 that, if you identify those areas in the County where we would encourage commercial versus 1007 residential development, but also holistically together in Northern Orange County or in, Southern 1008 Orange County, I guess. Is that kind of what you're talking about? 1009 1010 Charity Kirk: I mean, she answered my question. I felt satisfied with her answer. 1011 1012 Beth Bronson: I guess, I will just add that having more specifics like that, where you're not hamstringing the policy 1013 that could be made, but you are also saying that these areas that previously been identified, these 1014 will be expanded or better defined? And not just based on a radius of an intersection. 1015 1016 Adam Beeman: Any other questions? 1017 1018 Leigh Anne King: Thank you. 1019 1020 Charity Kirk: It was super helpful. Appreciate it. 1021 1022 AGENDA ITEM 8: PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN: To review and approve the annual input from 1023 which informs the BOCC of the past year’s activities of advisory boards/commissions and assists 1024 in overall County work planning. 1025 1026 Perdita Holtz: So, tonight we have the planning board's annual report and work plan for your consideration. For 1027 those of you who've been on the board for quite some time, you know that every December we 1028 bring you this work item, and it eventually makes it way on to a BOCC work session agenda in the 1029 spring of the following year along with all of the other advisory boards that the County has. So, 1030 this year's report contains a fairly extensive list of all of the things that the planning board reviewed 1031 and made a recommendation on in 2024. So, on page 38 in your agenda packet, which I have up 1032 here on the screen, there were several rezoning applications, there were UDO text amendments, 1033 there were major subdivision concept plans and preliminary plats. You know the briefings on the 1034 Orange County Land Use Plan, which you just received again tonight. There was a briefing on the 1035 climate action plan, and we discussed public notification requirements in a little work session 1036 earlier this year as well. So even though we have missed the past two months of meetings, we 1037 Approved 2.5.25 had a lot of stuff and other meetings. And then on page 39 of your agenda packet, we list the 1038 activities that we expect to be working on in 2025, and so that includes the Land Use Plan update, 1039 which is a major work product that staff is working on as well as the consultant. And then also, 1040 UDO amendments, just so you know, with the talk of the conservation subdivisions, there is 1041 actually an effort by staff right now to draft some UDO amendments pertaining to the conservation 1042 subdivisions in response to a petition that was made by a Board of County Commissioners 1043 member earlier this year. And then, there are the three others that are a little bit less staff time 1044 intensive. I will note that Meg has already done her first training session, and we are going to 1045 knock that out quick. We are going to be done by early January. She's the only new board 1046 member, and then here, we’re now at the end of the page, where the concerns or emerging issues 1047 that the planning board may wish to bring the commissioner's attention. We have still wireless 1048 and broadband access, which is a continuing project in the county. And concerns with Mebane in 1049 western Orange County. And continuing onto the last page, the watershed review and then a 1050 couple things for inclusion into the land use plan pertaining to rural enterprises and to 1051 transportation even though the planning department no longer includes the transportation 1052 component within our department. It was moved out of planning a couple of years ago, and is 1053 now its own separate department, but there is still a land use and transportation connection that 1054 everybody acknowledges. So, the recommendation for tonight is for you all to, hopefully, review 1055 the document prior to the meeting, and to talk about any ideas that any of you may have for 1056 additional activities to be worked on in 2025. You know, time permitting of course, or any 1057 additional issues to be brought to the attention of the BOCC, and then to either approve the work 1058 plan and annual report or ask staff to incorporate the results of any discussion, and submit the 1059 form to the clerk's office, or for us to incorporate the results and then bring it back for your further 1060 review at the January 8, 2025, meeting. And with that, I will turn it over for you all. 1061 1062 Adam Beeman: Go ahead, Charity. 1063 1064 Charity Kirk: So, the private water and sewer system is coming up. What can we have a say on? What can 1065 land use do to specify systems. That keeps coming up as a concern, but besides just hearing 1066 about it and expressing opinion, what power, what information, is there anything that we can be 1067 involved in there? 1068 1069 Perdita Holtz: Right. You know, actually, that is something that we need to look at more because by default 1070 they're allowed. And as you know in North Carolina, if it's allowed, we're not quite sure if we can 1071 not allow it. And this is one of things that Cy talked about doing a bit more research for staff to 1072 figure out. Number 1, what are the options? And then, Number 2, do we want to do anything with 1073 the options? 1074 1075 Charity Kirk: Yeah. I talked with an inspector at Environmental Health, and he was talking about mobile home 1076 parks, and how there is a turnover, and they just sort of let the systems degrade, how could we 1077 prevent that stuff that's already happening? How can we prevent that in the future too? But that 1078 would be our suggestion to staff to look into it. 1079 1080 Perdita Holtz: Yeah, and it would really be as passing it on to Environmental Health because once it's in the 1081 ground, it's on Environmental Health. 1082 1083 Charity Kirk: So, is there land use? Can land use dictate what systems would be allowed? 1084 1085 Perdita Holtz: Maybe. Maybe not. There was a time where we had regulations that if you were over a certain 1086 size, that you had to get an SUP but that was taken out of the UDO several years ago. 1087 1088 Cy Stober: Another missing component that is present is storm water and the requirement of a performance 1089 guarantee and that is complicated because, would that be environment health, would that be 1090 planning, I don't know. But it's kind of ambiguous whether we could require this at that time. So, 1091 again, Perdita’s point, having some kind of regulations regarding an engineered system would be 1092 Approved 2.5.25 helpful. But the permitting would all be done either by the county or by the state regarding the 1093 installation and its performance. And the inspections are done not by planning. They're done by 1094 Environment Health through the state. 1095 1096 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 1097 while, we'll ask a question. Ya'll would know more. 1098 1099 Cy Stober: We've already been directed by the commissioners to come back with more information, we'll be 1100 happy to share that information with you all when I have it, but I don't have it today and I'm going 1101 to be talking to some of our neighboring counties on what they've done. I've got a conversation 1102 with Chatham on Friday, and they've done a lot of these and learned lessons, good and bad, from 1103 their installation. 1104 1105 Charity Kirk: So, we don't have anything. Nothing would be helpful for us to do besides just express interest 1106 and ask for questions out of public curiosity. 1107 1108 Cy Stober: Not tonight. 1109 1110 Charity Kirk: Well, no, no, not tonight. 1111 1112 Cy Stober: Yeah, no, I don't think there's anything you can do tonight. 1113 1114 Charity Kirk: No, like, over the next year? 1115 1116 Cy Stober: Yeah, there might be, but I think if you're not getting the information, you want or you're finding 1117 yourself with these questions, then we need to know that and we can work with Environmental 1118 Health or we can get more information for you, but tonight, I can just promise you we're going to 1119 get more information. 1120 1121 Charity Kirk: Okay. All right. Because we're talking about like the annual, future work plan, and so, can we do 1122 anything to help with that and it sounds like no, we can, not yet, but maybe. 1123 Adam Beeman: So, on those large, you know, community well places, is there any kind of restrictions on the well 1124 that are put in place as far as providing water to the community or there's nothing there. They just 1125 own the lot, or the well system and they can provide it and that's that. 1126 1127 Cy Stober: I don't know. But I'll find out. 1128 1129 Adam Beeman: I'm just curious cause I mean it seems broken. Like if we allow that and one person is in charge of 1130 the water and the whole entire development all of a sudden goes dry, what's the development to 1131 do? That's where I'm at and the same thing with the septic. If the guy stops taking care of it, 1132 what's the neighborhood to do? That's where I, that's where all my questions go, but nobody has 1133 an answer. 1134 1135 Cy Stober: The very cold answer is that's a civil matter between that HOA and that operator. 1136 1137 Adam Beeman: Right, but at the same time, we're not trying to get a whole neighborhood to be stuck without 1138 housing. Well, it's one thing to bring water in and pull the water in and be able to solve that 1139 problem. It's a whole other story to pump a septic that you don't have. We'd need to go through 1140 waste and that was the whole system with Fiddlehead. They had a tank, comes out of the house, 1141 hits the tank, the tank flows down to the main system. So, yes, you could potentially pump that 1142 tank daily or however fast, but that's my concern. Is there's no one to guarantee that long-term 1143 someone capable is going to be operating that sewage treatment plant cause that's essentially 1144 what it is, a sewage treatment plant. You can call it a package system or whatever else, but these 1145 Approved 2.5.25 technicians, they have technicians to do this and, you're relying on a homeowner’s association to 1146 hire and maintain a sewage technician, at least one. 1147 1148 Cy Stober: Were, were you bugging the conference room yesterday? It sounds like you were with me and 1149 Perdita. 1150 1151 Adam Beeman: No, this has been one of the things. It came up in Massachusetts when I first did the work. There 1152 was a community that had absolutely zero access to water and sewer, and they installed this 1153 system, and I was baffled because they were going to have two technicians that that was their job. 1154 To babysit it and there was no guarantee once, once you say, here's your certificate of 1155 compliance, have at it. 1156 1157 Charity Kirk: Yeah, I, I know a community in California too. Every once in a while, the sewage overflowed into 1158 the laguna. You'd have some poop, and you were part of it. 1159 1160 Cy Stober: Well, Patrick, Perdida, and I were all talking about very similar things yesterday. So, I don't know. 1161 The commissioners want more information. You all want more information. We'll have more 1162 information, but I don't have it tonight. 1163 1164 Adam Beeman: Like I said, I may or may not be here for that discussion, so I got to get my two cents in. 1165 1166 Beth Bronson: When, when is your term up? 1167 1168 Adam Beeman: March. 1169 1170 Lamar Proctor So, that's already included in the work plan under 7, looking at that. 1171 1172 Perdita Holtz: Yeah, and that is under the emerging issues or other information that you want to bring to 1173 commissioner's attention. It's not necessarily like we're actively going to have something this 1174 year. 1175 1176 Lamar Proctor: Right. I had a question. I was very intrigued by the under-utilization of OWASA. Is that part of 1177 what we're looking at and can that be included? Is that already part of our work plan in terms of 1178 looking forward or is that something that we can do. 1179 1180 Cy Stober: No, it'll be part of the comprehensive plan policy recommendations. 1181 1182 Lamar Proctor: Okay, so, it's covered in the work plan already. 1183 1184 Cy Stober: I intend to, and the commissioners are interested in that conversation. 1185 1186 Perdita Holtz: I'm not sure if I'd call it the under-utilization of OWASA. They have plenty of capacity. 1187 1188 Beth Bronson: Well, I mean I think the under-utilization of the infrastructure that exists within the economic 1189 development districts is absolutely something that I would like to see more discussion about 1190 among the commissioners because that's going to directly impact how the economic development 1191 department and, in turn, the planning boards and, in turn, applicants too. Just that there is a large 1192 amount of space that has been built up and is not being utilized for industrial or commercial use 1193 and whether or not we're missing out on tax revenue dollars that are already there to be realized 1194 versus expanding an economic development district. It would be very interesting to know what that 1195 is and what that looks like and how it might be impacting the commissioner's desire to expand it 1196 versus to actually utilize it. 1197 1198 Approved 2.5.25 Perdita Holtz: Well, one of the considerations about expanding south of West 10 Road is that that sewer line 1199 does run on West 10 Road. And, so, to allow connections on one side of the road and not the 1200 other is arguably under-utilizing the sewer line. 1201 1202 Beth Bronson: 100 percent. But whether or not that sewer line has the capacity to support. Right? Because it's 1203 not actually the right size to be supporting large-scale development. It can only support large 1204 parcels that use a little bit of water every day. Right? So that's under-utilization of the land, in my 1205 opinion. I mean, again, why it was put on south of West 10 when the economic development 1206 district is on the north side of West 10, that's a different question for a different person. I mean the 1207 existing warehouses that have been built that are not being occupied. Right? So, our mayor 1208 came in great, great, revitalization to the Buckhorn development area. Fine. How many of his 1209 warehouses are full? How many are operating? That's a great question considering this is 3 1210 years now in the making and I don't know what kind of tax incentives they received, but they've 1211 got to be coming up on some form of time limit to fulfill that. They said they were going to have 1212 200 jobs to Thermo Fisher, and they're not open. So, I am all for fiscal responsibility in that sense. 1213 1214 Lamar Proctor: So, I just had my feelings hurt, but that's all. 1215 1216 Perdita Holtz: By who? 1217 1218 Lamar Proctor: With the under-utilization of the existing sewer south of West 10. 1219 1220 Perdita Holtz: I see. Well, because you said OWASA's under-utilization and OWASA has nothing to do with 1221 West 10 sewer. 1222 1223 Lamar Proctor: Oh, I know. 1224 1225 Perdita Holtz: But OWASA has water capacity. They have enough water in Cane Creek Reservoir. 1226 1227 Lamar Proctor: Right, that was my point, I took what Cy said to mean that there could be more economic 1228 development tied to the OWASA system that is not being developed. 1229 1230 Perdita Holtz: I see. 1231 1232 Beth Bronson: I think her point was she was making a call back to what you said for me, it wasn't for you. 1233 1234 Lamar Proctor: I know. That's why I said my feelings were hurt. 1235 1236 Perdita Holtz: I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I'm sorry. 1237 1238 Whitney Watson: I remember, I guess it was 3 plus years ago. There was a big bruhaha about the development 1239 south of West 10, particularly in and around Gravelly School and there was a lot of finger pointing 1240 from the public. I didn't know this was happening. Why is Orange County doing this when it was 1241 really Mebane and, I mean Mebane was getting off scott free for having taken responsibility for 1242 pushing that kind of development. And that, to me, it seemed like the planning, both the board 1243 and the planning department had missed some opportunity to engage the public in communicating 1244 what was being discussed, what the future plans were. And so, I think 2, 3 years ago, enhancing 1245 communication with the public was part of the work plan. And I'm wondering if that should be part 1246 of this work plan. To set some goals for increasing subscriptions to the newsletter for the planning 1247 office. I know that there's been an increase in the pop-up discussion tables and volunteer 1248 recruitment tables and certainly the manager's planning has been terrific in terms of reaching out 1249 to the community. But that was not an overall part of the work plan and I'm just wondering if it 1250 should be. 1251 1252 Approved 2.5.25 Perdita Holtz: I mean we can add that. You know, the board agrees to add enhancing communication with the 1253 public by potentially increasing subscriptions to the newsletter. Because the newsletters do have 1254 what's going on. 1255 1256 Beth Bronson: Very much in the same vein, I have been saving this for the last bit. Because I didn't want to put 1257 anybody out, but I was, again, a work plan and in that vein of holding ourselves accountable, the 1258 planning board accountable for missed opportunities for public engagement, if there was a 1259 subcommittee on this planning board for public engagement and we resolved to, over the next 12 1260 months, look inward how we, as the advisory board members, can help facilitate a better line of 1261 engagement for the community. Like who do you know in the community that would actually 1262 benefit from hearing this work plan summary or being here in December to actually hear what it is 1263 that we did over the year, what we plan to do next year, and how much would that inform them. 1264 Who's going to read this, and we want people to read this. So, that idea, that I was going to 1265 propose a subcommittee and I'm not going to do it tonight as far as no motions. 1266 1267 Adam Beeman: Can we wait until March? 1268 1269 Beth Bronson: I could absolutely wait until March. May want to wait until just before March. I may want Adam's 1270 vote, but again, just something to think about and, and I very much agree with what you've been 1271 saying. 1272 1273 Adam Beeman: Do you know what kind of a broadband coverage we have now that they've done the majority of 1274 their work? 1275 1276 Perdita Holtz: I know that there's information on the county's website with a map that shows everything that's 1277 covered and everything's that not and what the projected dates are, but I can't tell you what it is off 1278 the top of my head. 1279 1280 Adam Beeman: I just was wondering. I mean now that they've solved, I don't want to say solved the broadband 1281 access problem but put a huge dent in the broadband access issue to the rural residences. I'm 1282 just wondering if that still should stay up there or not cause the cellphone coverage is still an 1283 issue, but I feel like they've definitely I don't want to say solved it, but made a huge, huge step 1284 forward in the broadband access out to the county. I'm not entirely sure that that should stay at 1285 the top of the priority list, but that's just me. And I know that the county owes them a $6 million 1286 check at the end of the month, so if you don't have your broadband, you better speak up. 1287 1288 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 1289 with it. Have we? 1290 1291 Adam Beeman: Well, the commissioners did. They signed the contracts to expand it out for us. 1292 1293 Charity Kirk: But we haven't done anything, so I agree that it might not be worthwhile to put on our list. 1294 1295 Perdita Holtz: So, the list is not for the planning board to work on. That's part of the list of emerging issues or 1296 concerns that the board wants to bring up. In past years, those are not always just planning 1297 issues. I'm not saying that we should have a list of 30 items that aren't planning issues, but there 1298 has been a lot of headway made on broadband access. I do know there are still some 1299 outstanding areas. 1300 1301 Adam Beeman: I'm waiting for them to connect mine. The fiber was in the ground in March, and they haven't been 1302 back since. 1303 1304 Charity Kirk: Oh yeah. They've piped and labeled all the flags and now it's all destroyed in my neighborhood. 1305 1306 Beth Bronson: As soon as it's available, Spectrum will call you and say you have access in your area too now. 1307 Approved 2.5.25 1308 Charity Kirk: No, my driveway is too long. 1309 1310 Adam Beeman: Spectrum rates that first. Once the county signed the contract, they raced out to the county and 1311 fed it. They stopped an eighth of a mile short of my house and told me if I wanted to get a third 1312 phone line, they'll come to me. So, I've been on the telephone since. 1313 1314 Perdita Holtz: We can move it down the list so that it's not No. 1. 1315 1316 Charity Kirk: I'm fine with the way it is. Do we want to add anything? Is there more discussion? 1317 1318 Lamar Proctor: The only question I had is whether Whitney wanted to make a motion to add No. 8 for just like 1319 general emerging issue work towards better community engagement. I don't know if this would be 1320 something to add to our list of specific things, I would support a motion to add it. 1321 1322 Adam Beeman: The only comment I have to say about that is that you said 3 plus years ago and they have made 1323 a huge, just like the broadband, a huge dent in reaching out to the community. The main page is 1324 light years ahead of what it used to be. So, it's more from the folks that want to be engaged. I 1325 mean that's up for challenge. I understand trying to reach out to them, but just like Charity said, 1326 that was the best they could get for numbers and those are the people that wanted to participate. 1327 1328 Whitney Watson: So, this is a question really for the planning staff is if they feel like they've made sufficient 1329 progress, then it doesn't need to be added. But if we don't ask the question, have we made 1330 enough progress, we can't decide to add it or not. So, if you feel like we've made enough 1331 progress, all right, in terms of public outreach or public engagement, then I'm fine with omitting it. 1332 1333 Perdita Holtz: I think much progress has been made. We now have a monthly newsletter. There are a few 1334 hundred subscribers. I don't recall the exact number off the top of my head. Your concern was 1335 specific to a project going on in Orange County. 1336 1337 Whitney Watson: Well, that was what created the bruhaha 3 plus years ago. Is the project tied Orange County and I 1338 heard word from a lot of residents, they were like, wait a minute, where is this. What is the county 1339 doing to us? And it wasn't the county that was doing it. So, that's just an example of how leading 1340 the conversation could be useful. And I'm sure Adam probably hears this, that Orange County 1341 inspectors can be really hard to work with. Well, my experience has been they're really great. But 1342 that's not the reputation out there. 1343 1344 Cy Stober: So, a couple of things, one specific to Thermo Fisher and the Buckhorn area study and Buc-ee's 1345 and everything that happened in 2021, that was squarely in the middle of COVID. So, messaging, 1346 unfortunately, was very difficult and I think that the county went through three different meeting 1347 platforms, you know, Zoom, and we went to Teams later after I got here, but it was a very difficult 1348 time for messaging and communication period. I'm not making excuses, but I just want to 1349 acknowledge the moment that the county was at that time. And Lord knows I think, especially with 1350 the Buc-ee's, the county did a remarkable job at managing the input with the tools available and 1351 everyone learning on the fly. The additional thing, we are already underway and working with 1352 community relations on some sort of instructional videos about our processes, how to apply for a 1353 permit, so forth. We can add this to the work plan. And that would obligate us to report on it, but I 1354 have the intention of working with Kristen Prelipp in community relations on developing some 1355 videos about what we do and how to apply for a permit. What is zoning? You know what is it that 1356 we do. And that'll be helpful also when the comp plan gets to the draft, and I can work with her on 1357 that too. So, we can do that without adding it to the work plan and report back to you all and then 1358 to Beth's point, if you all want to have a subcommittee where we develop a more informal 1359 relationship and reporting back to you, we can do that. It would structure the activities a bit and 1360 give us deadlines that, it's pluses and minuses, but for us as staff it's something we can do. We 1361 just need to figure out what that looks like. I always think we can do a better, I mean my 1362 Approved 2.5.25 perspective is that we can always do better at everything that we do, including communication. 1363 That doesn't mean that we're doing a poor job. I think we've made substantial progress as Perdita 1364 has already acknowledged and we will continue to make more progress and we can put it in the 1365 work plan or not. It just would change how we do the work and how we report it to you and 1366 whether it's kind of on ad hoc or whether it's formal. 1367 1368 Whitney Watson: All right. So, the other thing to do would be to flip that and put in there in terms of 1369 accomplishments for the past year is planning, both the board and the planning department, reach 1370 this many people through the land use planning workshops, the pop-up events, the subscriptions 1371 to the newsletter. Because that does show that both parties are working towards reaching the 1372 public that we serve. 1373 1374 Beth Bronson: I like that. 1375 1376 Cy Stober: The only thing I'll add is we really need ambassadors, so if you all can help us with getting the 1377 word out, we really want people to know what we're doing, and I don't think we have that 1378 perception from the public. In the strategic plan, our department was rated the worst in the whole 1379 county, which stung. Because we do try to do good work and we do try to work on behalf of 1380 permitees and on behalf of the public. We try to be honest with everyone and even if we're going 1381 to tell them information they don't like, that's our job is to be as frank as we can be. So, anything 1382 we can do to improve communication and improve our perception, we want to do it within reason. 1383 1384 Adam Beeman: Okay. Anything else? 1385 1386 Beth Bronson: What I'm hearing is that we're not going to make a motion to make any changes. These are 1387 suggestions. Are you going to bring them back in January or are we supposed to make a motion? 1388 1389 Charity Kirk: We're supposed to approve this or not. 1390 1391 Perdita Holtz: Or we can add something, and you can approve it. That's how we've done it in the past. You trust 1392 me to put it in. 1393 1394 Beth Bronson: We trust you. 1395 1396 Charity Kirk: We'd like to approve it tonight and we can add stuff if we want. 1397 1398 Statler Gilfillen: Should we make a motion that we approve it? 1399 1400 Beth Bronson: Yes, you can, and I would second it. What he just said about adding in the good that we, that the 1401 planning department and the board has done in reaching people and public engagement to show 1402 that both parties are working towards that. We need to be added and presented in January. So, I 1403 would make a motion to add the results of any discussion tonight and bring it back on January 8th. 1404 1405 Dolores Bailey: Second. 1406 1407 Charity Kirk: You can, but trust Perdita to add that. 1408 1409 Lamar Proctor: We could move to approve it with the addendum. 1410 1411 Beth Bronson: That's fine with me too. 1412 1413 Perdita Holtz: I'll tell you that this will be the only item on January's agenda. 1414 1415 Charity Kirk: I think we should approve that. I think we should approve it now. We don't need to rehash this. 1416 1417 Approved 2.5.25 Adam Beeman: I agree. 1418 1419 Beth Bronson: That's fine. So, make a motion to approve the work plan. 1420 1421 Dolores Bailey: It's already on the floor. 1422 1423 Charity Kirk: No, she wants to make an addendum. 1424 1425 Dolores Bailey: Yeah, but then you got to do it the right way. So, she made a motion, and it was seconded, so if, 1426 if you want to change it, we can change it. 1427 1428 Beth Bronson: Oh, it was made. My apologies. 1429 1430 Dolores Bailey: That's okay. It was made and seconded, so can we state your motion. I'm sorry. Take it over. 1431 Restate your motion. Restate your motion. I seconded it and now you need to call for the vote or 1432 re-ask for an addendum to the vote cause it's on the table. That's the problem. 1433 1434 Adam Beeman: That's an appropriate enough motion to approve the agenda? 1435 1436 Lamar Proctor: Do I need to move to approve the work plan with the addendum of Whitney's suggestion? 1437 1438 Charity Kirk: Can we vote now? 1439 1440 Dolores Bailey: You got a vote on the table. You’ve got to do something with that. Either vote on it or do an 1441 addendum. 1442 1443 Perdita Holtz: Somebody can jump up and say I would like to make a friendly amendment if you feel strongly 1444 about adding something. 1445 1446 Adam Beeman: So, as it stands right now, Statler wants to approve as is. 1447 1448 Lamar Proctor: And I want to jump in and make a friendly motion. 1449 1450 Adam Beeman: So, Dolores wants me to do it because she seconded today's stuff. Vote straight up and down on 1451 the motion as is. 1452 1453 Dolores Bailey: But he can say Statler, will you let me make a friendly amendment to your motion. 1454 1455 Lamar Proctor: Can I make a friendly amendment to your motion? 1456 1457 Statler Gilfillen: Yes. 1458 1459 Dolores Bailey: Now say what you want to say. 1460 1461 Lamar Proctor: I would like to make a friendly amendment to approve the work plan with the addendum of the 1462 accolades for the county's better improvement in community engagement as we discussed. 1463 1464 Dolores Bailey: That handles it. You said yes. 1465 1466 Adam Beeman: Do we have a second? 1467 1468 Dolores Bailey: I second. 1469 1470 Adam Beeman: All in favor. 1471 1472 Approved 2.5.25 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the work plan with an amendment. Seconded by Dolores Bailey. 1473 1474 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1475 1476 Adam Beeman: Approved. Against. That's it. Nobody. 1477 1478 Beth Bronson: I make a motion to adjourn. 1479 1480 Adam Beeman: Can I have a second? 1481 1482 Charity Kirk: Second. 1483 1484 Adam Beeman: All in favor? 1485 1486 MOTION BY Beth Bronson to adjourn. Seconded by Charity Kirk. 1487 1488 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1489 1490 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 1491 1492 The meeting adjourned at 9:01 PM 1493