HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-09-2025-Business Meeting 1
APPROVED 1017/25
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
September 9, 2025
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, September
9, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair Jean Hamilton,
and Commissioners Marilyn Carter, Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Phyllis Portie-
Ascott
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Caitlin
Fenhagen, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present.
By a show of hands, the Board agreed to limit the discussion on the first item to two hours.
The Board also agreed to reorganize the agenda to discuss appointments after the Land Use
Plan 2050 discussion, then discuss the timing of Closed Sessions, and discuss next steps for the
Strategic Communications Work Group last, if time permitted.
Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 — Board Request for Additional Information
The Board received the first presentation in a series in response to the Board's request for
additional background information for the Land Use Plan 2050 process.
BACKGROUND: At its April 8, 2025 work session, the Board reviewed a tentative schedule for
receiving presentations from County staff and in some cases, guest presenters, to provide
additional background information for better informing its direction on the Land Use Plan 2050
process. The Board's calendar preference was for staff to schedule agenda items through mid-
November to receive the information.
Attachment A is Part A of the BOCC request for additional information grouped into six (6) topic
areas by subject. To cover all topic areas, presentations to the Board are scheduled for work
sessions on September 9, October 14, and November 11, 2025; and at half-day retreats,
scheduled for November 14 and November 21, 2025. The half-day retreats are needed to cover
Part B (Attachment B) of the Board's request for information and will include several guest
presenters.
The PowerPoint presentation (Attachment C) addresses the first three topic areas and related
Board questions, as follows:
1. Fact Book, Planning Process, and Implementation
a) The statistics supporting the "Need for a New Plan" can be misleading if taken out of
context. A brief analysis with appropriate statistics would be more informative and provide
a rationale for the updated Plan. e.g. Yes growing 8th or whatever in aging, but need to
know how fast all of NC is growing.
2
b) Please explain how a land use plan is drafted to reflect changes that may be far in the
future and how it can be amended to be a living document. Please include examples from
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the proposed 2050 Land Use Plan.
c) Should we change the policy document (Land Use Plan 2050) (Comprehensive Plan) to
include proposed changes that could take years to work out? Or do not do that; make sure
the Plan is current policy?
d) Do not tie our hands in the Plan.
e) Could we amend the Plan? After working through a change with the towns?
2. Watersheds and Their Impact on Development
a) Show us map view of watersheds and boundaries.
b) Include any known/potential changes due to regulations.
c) Review the differences between watersheds and how that impacts what can be built or
operated within them.
3. Joint Planning Agreements (Including WASMPBA) and Rural Buffer
a) Remind us about the rural buffer/Joint planning and distinguish that from the WASMPBA
(Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement).
b) What is the rationale for each?
c) Where does the WASMPBA interact?
d) Who are the Agreement partners?
e) Which includes policies and practices that would be implemented if there were failing wells
and septic systems and/or a water/sewer emergency?
f) If appropriate, please reference other joint agreements with the towns and utility providers.
g) What can be built and/or operated in the rural buffer?
h) What are the processes to make changes to the agreements?
i) If the Board does wish to have an action item say to explore expanding water/sewer at
some location on the map where it is not currently allowed, then is that in the Land Use
Plan 2050? Or is that a separate work as petitioned by the Board? What is the order of
doing things? Seems like it matters? What would that process look like?
j) On that map of Carrboro Transition and/or ETJ area, is that blue dot in the rural buffer?
Community Engagement Window#3, to unveil a draft Land Use Plan 2050, is anticipated to occur
early next year. Additional information, including robust public notification, will be forthcoming
closer to the opening of engagement.
Additional information about the project, including e-mail sign-up for project updates, are available
on the project website: https://www.orangecountVIandusepIan.com.
Completed project deliverables, including Fact Book; outreach summaries; and more, are also
available on the project website:
https://www.orangecountylanduseplan.com/resources
Tom Altieri, Orange County Senior Planner, made the following presentation:
3
Slide #1
�
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Item 1
Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 - Board
Request for Additional Information
Tom Altieri explained this presentation would be divided into three parts: data and
statistics, watershed information by County Engineer Christopher Sandt, and joint planning
agreements by Perdita Holtz.
Slide #2
1. Fact Book,Planning Process,and Implementation
a)The statistics supporting the"Need for a New Plan"can be misleading if taken out of context.A brief
analysis with appropriate statistics would be more informative and provide a rationale for the updated
Plan.E.g.Yes growing 8th or whatever in aging,but need to know how fast all of NC is growing.
Total Population(2010) Total Population Percent Growth
120201 (2010 to 2020)
North Carolina 9.535.483 10.439.388 9%
Orange County 133,801 148,696 11%
Alamance County 151131 171415 13%
Chatham County 63505 76,285 20%
Durham County 267,587 324,833 21%
Wake County 900,993 1129,410 25%
'Unincorporated Orange County means the areas in Orange County but outside of municipalities.including Carrboro,Chapel Hill,
Durham,Hillsborough,and Mebane.This includes the extraterritorialjurisdictions tETJI of the towns
"Portion within Orange County geographic limits
ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN 2050 119
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
4
Slide #3
Orange County's Population Distribution
• This table shows Orange —�
County's population by
jurisdiction and the chap,l Hill" 59270 399%
percentage of Orange 13ni--poreced Cnnnty 54,579 36.7%
County's total population. c—lr— n.13g_ X416-
Hllsbo.ough 9,9112 6.7%
• About 40%of Orange Nebo..•' 3.675 2.5%
County's population lives Durham•• 145 0.1%
in Chapel Hill,followed coral 148,,707 1000%
by approximately 37% *Unincorporated Orange County means the areas in Orange
who live in County but outside of municipalities,Including Carrboro,
unincorporated Orange Chapel Hill,Durham,Hillsborough,and Mebane.This includes
County. the extraterritorial jurisdictions(ETJ)of the towns.
"Portion within Orange County geographic limits
om seer«,ossrd sm.r—g,-mu—i-PaP 11—rv�m.re:
Growth of Municipalities
The greatest increase in Mebane experienced the greatest
percent change in population
population numbers occurred in growth from 2010 to 2020
unincorporated Orange County. compared to the other
municipalities.
==M
Orange County(Total) 133,801 140 595 11 h
Hlllshomugh 6,C87 9,660 59%
Carrborn 19.582 21295 91/
Chanel Hill 57.231 61.960 8%
Mol,—JOrange County part) 1,793 3,171 771/.
Jum-riporated Orange 50,899 55,781 10% ORANGE COUNTY
County
—,w.-c���g�,v�o���w11Qr NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #4
---------------
Annexations 2004 -2023 Eli
• 3,071 acres have been
annexed since 2004,
• 24 acres have been annexed
by Durham. a
• 209 acres have been annexed "^'r^•E
byCarrboro.
• 421 acres have been annexed
by Chapel Hill,
• 927 acres have been annexed B.A-.
by Hillsborough. \
• 1,490 acres have been °`" ,11
11
annexed by Mebane.
- • e Imo: YR`n
2 pei.'ba"A„
K Annexations
1,
1 fll/PEL HILL -rNrrd Te~,,l luri5r ,,
[ARR90R0 Muniopah—
P&I-d
Park L-d and Open Space
Anrrore�ans
0 2W-nErs
2010-]A19
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked for clarification on what the Fact Book is.
5
Tom Altieri said one of the early deliverables from Clarion Associates was the Fact Book,
which includes the information that has been presented so far. The Fact Book is available on the
following website: https://www.orangecountVIanduseplan.com
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked about the data source, specifically mentioning updated
information from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners.
Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director, said he's happy to look at the data from
NCACC to compare. He said the Fact Book is a living document and is intended to be updated
as needed.
Chair Bedford requested clarification on the requirements for annexation.
Tom Altieri said that the practice of forced annexation, which allowed municipalities to
annex areas meeting specific development criteria, ended 10-11 years ago.This previous process
permitted municipalities to forcibly annex areas if they demonstrated certain developmental
thresholds, like certain densities of commercial or residential development. The change in the law
means that now annexation predominantly operates on a petition-based system. He explained
that under this system, developers must request connections to municipal utilities to initiate the
process of annexation. If such a utility request is absent, moving forward with annexation
becomes challenging, requiring the consent of 60% of the area's property owners.
Cy Stober said annexation necessitates agreement from 80% of every voting-age member
residing in the area in question, not just 60% of property owners.
Commissioner Carter asked if the Fact Book incorporated household data.
Tom Altieri confirmed limited household data in the Fact Book but noted staff
supplemented tonight's presentation with additional sources.
Slide #5
CThe Chamber
aas.,..Ai s.�of a.comm �ty a.vo.
2025 Dntobook
Population Increase and Decrease Across NC Counties
_-)pulation growth rate(4a1 for NC counties.2010 to 2020
M M111
-26 28
r�
Source.115 Census Bureau
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CIAROLINA
6
Slide #6
The Chamber
2°25 Dratobook
Orange County Population by Race/Ethnicity
10096 3% 2% 3% ®5%
90% _1/e 4% 9%
80% 11%
70%
60%
50%
40% 80% 76% 71%
30% 65%
20%
10%
0% ,
7mp
1990 2000 2010 2020
White ■Black Hispanic Asian ■All Other
Note:'AII Ocher'Indndes American Indian,other rdC and mullir pi The
Census changed their way of measuring race/eYhnklry in the 2020 Cenws. Source IIS Census Bueau Dec ri—I Census
1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Vice-Chair Hamilton asked for the actual numbers for this demographic. She said the
percentage is going to change if there is more diversity in the community, but it does not indicate
that the absolute number has changed.
Slide #7
CThe Chamber y.
WN Amml amr ww c.na..lq aras�
2025 Dnt ia—k
State & County Minority Makeup
25%
20%
2D%
15% 14%
11% 11% 10%
10% 9% 8%
5% 4%
s% 3% 3% 2%
North Carolina Orange County Chatham County
Black Hispanic(Any Race) Asian or Pacific Islander All Other*
Note:'AII Ocher'intrudes Ameripn Indian,other races.and multiracial.The
Census changed their way of measuring race/echnkiry in the 2020 Cenws. Source:US Gi n us Bureau 2020 Decennial Census
�1
ORANGE COUNTY
NOR I I I C- Rol IA\
Tom Altieri said he will get the actual numbers to the commissioners for this statistic, in
addition to Race/Ethnicity.
7
Slide #8
Population Projections by County
t l 1 1 i t
(Adopted 2021)
Population
Proiections
Granville County 37,543 12.991 13.203 67241 24,455 22,301
Harnett County 40,146 14,823 9,832 65,893 23,925 17,847
Chatham County 52,213 21.995 12,272 104.395 43.568 24,4S4
Franklin Cour4y 60260 22,797 15,082 94,853 36,294 21,927
Orange County 148,880 57,150 74,721 193,637 75,602 116,341
Johnston County 186,0% 67,509 54,923 370.215 132M 90,725
Durham County 324.794 134,634 235,002 463,414 193,51V 401,926
Wake County 1,129,865 437.240 614,734 1,780,155 690.009 1.176,311
Data Source:Durham-Chapel Hll-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organisation IDCHC-
MP01,Connect 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan IMTP1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #9
County Comparisons of Population Projections
• The chart on the right shows the Population Projections(2020 versus 2050) by County
population projections for
Orange County and nearby 2,000,000
counties,as published by the 1,800,000
Connect 2050 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan(MTP). 1,600,000
• In comparison to other counties, 1,400,000
Orange County is projected for
a much smaller population 1,200.000
increase(about 30%)compared 1,000.000
to.,her counties.
800,000
Chatham and Johnston
County's populations are 600,000
expected to double
400,000
• Durham County's population
is expected to increase by 200,000
40% _■ . ■. '
• Wake Ccuntys population is Chatham Johnston Orange County Durham County Wake County
expected to increase by County County
almost 60% ■2020 Population 52,213 186,096 148,860 224,784 1,129,865
■2050 Population 104,395 370,215 193,637 463,414 1,78Q155
■Percentage Change 99.9% 98.9% 30.1% 42.7% 57.6%
02C20Population ■2050Population
Data Source:Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Me[ropol'" Planning Organization[DCHC-
- MPO]Connect 2050 Mercopolitan Transportation Plan IMTPI
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
8
Slide #10
.^)BBOWE NAL Percent Change Totol Households(2024.2029) Percent Change
NATIRESEARCH Statewide,NC 15%
Sam
-316
4M
EM
Knoxvise [DiW -� - am
�vl �� d
M=Am am
m�r _�
QM
QM Le
d 4� �
Greenville .�� *�,y^ _I
Oz
All Counties in the Region are Projected to Grow: 416Z as
2!--= =
Chatham=2,571 Households(7.6%)
Durham=9,897 Households(6.8%)
Johnston=10,989 Households(12.2%)
Orange=2,353 Households(4.0%)
Wake=41,241 Households(8.6%)
NORTH EAROUNA
STATEWIDE HOUSING NEEDSASSFSSMENT
The Housing and Development Summit Speaker Series FOCUSING ON:CHATHAM,OUNHAN4 XHNMI(
ORANGE&WAKE COONTIES
For Real Estate Professionals,
Sprang 2025
i
�1
/� ORANGE COUNTY
n NORTH CARS)[ IN 1
Tom Altieri said Orange County-«iis expected to grow less than neighboring counties and is
expected to grow the least between 2024-2029.
Commissioner McKee asked for the rationale for this projection. He said he would expect
growth to be higher because of the proximity to Wake County.
Vice-Chair Hamilton stressed the importance of understanding the data's underlying
assumptions, as the projected figures directly impact strategic planning and resource allocation.
She said these projections are crucial for informing future decision-making processes and
developmental policies within the county.
Chair Bedford said staff can follow up with some information about the assumptions
behind the data.
Commissioner Carter said she read up on Mr. Bowen, whose company is the author of
this report. For context of where the data is coming from, she read a couple of sentences from
the beginning of the report: "The housing supply gap analysis includes housing supply gaps for a
five-year period, 2024 to 2029, for each of North Carolina's 100 counties. These estimates rely
heavily on a variety of published secondary sources, including the US Census, American
Community Survey, National Demographer, ESRI, and Realtor.com. This analysis also involves
an inventory of surveyed multifamily rental alternatives, a detailed accounting of homes available
to purchase, and an evaluation of residential building permit activity."
Chair Bedford said that information provides helpful context for the data.
Available For-Sale Housin - Median list Price
Slide #11
Median List Price of Available Homes(2024)
•w39
I1B9,SN 1350.90Gd= Xvwwr.M vyve tl]0.999 C•.
f [� ��_ G,..vn fIW,990 w•'w 1169,IVC LAN-1]15,9W
W ieybv].mo 'H''� /319,999 Mau 1111,594 w 149t,9fN N94,�, 1113,999
Nlaw I. w39. wow f49.,mV t] .3 ff Sf9,999 � � 41f9,9t9
Isi1;9s9 s]9sAtu �"•'" cwwe ,,,,su9,009 [M9.990 w]9,ca9
_ Ns5,9o9 113f,/31 0.. I1a4990 4x,rn..v f)J.5f
r t594, [•�+ •'••I�e•4/1G,9W /]a6'3]f if94909 Intl
f39]nm t313.990 y [,31.f90 3]I9,m9
f Nf,9W [891,a99 w.r f171:G0
461{,990•� [yf.,., x9)5,099 1A,OW !lel,110 1I01,9]0
IE;]59 flf9,{50 t31d.090 !3l �•,•
w9$.GW N19,93D 16A,950 �-- �� �••• '�
4]99,Oro nve u1a]3-0 •�/114930 ^l4tf,90/ w19.9W 1a9999 x-.t394939 14+- [1N
n f
I�' � t1i9.950 t16(991 Mti�O
•�Rvrw1.•d 3319,90/ 3399,990 f]I3,990 f319,930
xv,.. lx•fn f6 r 1]�699 3439.590 f]A, /1w1590
Mu1 , fp90
wlfn t]]{,300 f]39,999 3{a9,990
u�w 3;a Mop 1,� fi,]m i �,• _ Is99,m9 .� w.s3,lso9 f>s s90 sls{.9s9
Median List Prices bV County: ""'°° IN'.� Jl9f,999
Chatham=$802,450 t],3;999 :s"�°°° ""°°°
➢ Durham=$439,000 .:],,:e��
D Johnston =$379,900
➢ orange=$598,500 :e999
v Wake=$525,000
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH •
Slide #12
Available For-Sale Housing - Units by Price Range
In four of the five regional counties, the majority of available homes by price
point have list prices of$400,000+. Very minimal available supply is priced
under$200,000 in each of the five regional counties, limiting options for
many first-time home buyers.
Available For-Sale Housing Units by List Price by County(As of Early July 2024)
�5200,000 5200,000-5299,999 S3D0,000-5399,999 3400,000+ Totsl
County Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Units
®®�®�® 6.8% ® 85.8% ®
JI011-11stoil ®�00/4 1�®® ®®�
ORANGESource:Redfin.corn and Bowen National Research
COUNTY
NORTH ••
10
Slide #13
•From 2010 to 2020.the greatest Percentage of the population
Increases in population who Identify as African
numbers in Orange County American has decreased in
were in the unincorporated Orange County in the past two
areas. decades
•The portion of Mebane in •According to the 2022 USDA
Orange County experienced Agncuttural Census,Orange
the greatest percent change in County has experienced a
population growth from 2010 significant decrease in the acres
to 2020,comparedto the other of land devoted to farming in
municipalities the past two decades.
•North Carolina ranks Sth •The average size of farms
nationally in the portion of the In Orange County has also
population over the age of 65- decreased,while the total
•Orange Countys share of number of farms has increased,
population growth due to .Fewer for-sale housing units
ages 65 and older was higher are built in Orange County
than surrounding counties and compared to nearby counties
North Carolina as a whole.
•The mediate home sales price
•From 2000 to 2022.Orange in Orange County continues
County has seen an increase in to increase,while the median
the Hlspanic/Latir o.Asian.and values for household Income are
Pacific Islander populations, not keeping pace.
and the percentage of the
population identifying as some •Orange County continues to see
other race for two or more a higher percentage of cost-
racesl, burdened households compared
to Other areas in the regton,
�1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN 2CSD 1 i
Tom Altieri said this slide includes some of the key issues that point to the need to update
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Chair Bedford added that the county attorney also advised that"timely reviews" of the plan
are required.
Slide #14
b)Please explain how a land use plan is drafted to reflect changes that may be far in the future and how it
can be amended to be a living document.Please include examples from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
and the proposed 2050 Land Use Plan.
• The Land Use Plan does not and will not "tie hands"
• Plan vs Ordinance
• Expresses a community vision
• Aspirational and unfunded
• Implementation over years with many subsequent decision points
• Amended as needed, consistent with NC General Statutes and Orange
County Unified Development Ordinance
• Amendments can be initiated by the BOCC, Planning Board, by person
or agency through application, and the Planning Director.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
11
Slide #15
Currently Adopted
Future Land Use Map
,r
n' ciupernrx, +
'i
Pnxa
r,. a • a i Of r F�
NEBAHE� � � � I L✓� Preliminary Draft
• }f��/ Future Land Use Map
E HIL•LS`. 19
V4N� y
4 e+
OEwSaYeBon i G-ft
EraMA
Cua_svalbi ad
K•�.�...d /�r �91Nd!➢lln
ORANGE COUNTY
" • m.da I�How NORTH CAROLINA
Tom Altieri said this is a screenshot of the midsection of Orange County and is the
currently adopted Future Land Use Map (FLUM). It expresses a community vision, which is largely
a continuation of land use classifications included in the 1981 land use plan, which was the
county's original land use plan. He said classifications like rural residential, 10 and 20-year
transition areas, and activity nodes were established in the original 1981 plan and were
reconfirmed through the development of the 2030 plan and have been achieved to various
degrees. He explained that the economic development districts were added to the future land use
map in the mid-1990s.
Chair Bedford asked how the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), FLUM, and
Comprehensive Land Use Plan interact.
Tom Altieri explained that the FLUM has land use categories and rather short and general
descriptions of each of those categories, and is part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He said
in the appendices of the Comprehensive Plan, there is what is commonly referred to as the matrix.
He explained that the matrix is a table and provides the direct linkage between the classifications
that are shown on the FLUM in all the county zoning districts. He further explained that staff
consults the matrix when there is a development proposal to see if an area is zoned appropriately
for a particular use. He said if it is consistent with the matrix and classifications, then it is consistent
with the FLUM. He explained that zoning is part of the UDO, where all the development standards
are detailed.
Commissioner McKee pointed out that the previous slide says the Land Use Plan will not
"tie hands". He questioned how the requirements in the rural buffer don't tie the hands of people
who own land there.
Chair Bedford explained that the question was asked in the context of how not to tie the
hands of the Board of County Commissioners.
Cy Stober said Perdita Holtz will speak more in detail during her portion of the
presentation, but if there is to be any modification to the Rural Buffer, it must happen in the Joint
Planning Agreement(JPA)and the Land Use Plan. He added more to Tom Altieri's earlier answer
about zoning and the FLUM. He explained that state law speaks to all actions by a community,
12
including zoning actions. He said if a community wants to have zoning, it must have an adopted
land use plan, and to make any land use decision, it must refer to the adopted plan. Cy Stober
explained that the Board can make a decision that does not follow the plan, but by consequence,
that would change the plan.
Commissioner McKee said, technically, the rural buffer doesn't prevent building, but it
prevents dense development. He stated the side effect of that is that to build there, you must have
a larger lot, which means larger homes, which means very few people can afford them. He said
this goes back to the question of housing affordability and the question of how Orange County
will grow compared to neighboring counties.
Commissioner Fowler said she did the math regarding Commissioner Hamilton's earlier
comment about absolute population numbers vs. the percentage. The number of African
Americans in Orange County remained stable from 2010-2022 at 16,000, while the white
population increased from 95,000 to about 105,000.
Cy Stober said staff will update the Fact Book to show the actual numbers in addition to
percentages.
Tom Altieri continued his presentation of the current slide. He said the map on the bottom
is a screenshot of the preliminary draft FLUM for the 2050 Land Use Plan. While there are
similarities to the existing FLUM, there are also some differences. He pointed out that economic
development areas were retained, and some were expanded around the Mebane area. He said
the rural buffer was also retained, as well as the concept of activity nodes. A key difference he
mentioned is the introduction of rural conservation neighborhoods, shown on the map in brown.
He said those types of neighborhoods can only be implemented through changes to the LIDO to
accommodate those types of subdivisions. He said staff is working with Randall Arndt to present
to the Board on this type of conservation subdivision.
Commissioner Fowler asked if rural conservation neighborhoods would be allowed in the
Rural Buffer as it currently stands.
Perdita Holtz said she will get to that during her presentation.
Slide#16
c)Should we change the policy document(Land Use Plan 2050)(Comprehensive Plan)to include
proposed changes that could take years to work out?Or do not do that;make sure the Plan is current
policy?
• In the Orange County—Chapel Hill—Carrboro Joint Planning Area, the
Agreement and policy changes should precede changes reflected in
the County's Land Use Plan. The preliminary draft LUP 2050 reflects
this cadence.
• For the remainder of Orange County's planning jurisdiction, there is not
a simple, one-size fits all, right or wrong answer.
• Historically(1981 and 2008 Plan adoptions), the County's 10 and 20-
Year Transition Areas, Economic Development Areas, and
Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Nodes were reflected in the
County's Land Use Plan prior to the implementing, multi-party policies
and agreements needed to achieve the vision. There have also been
cases when agreements and Plan changes have been completed
concurrently(e.g. OC-Hillsborough Joint Land Use Plan and County
Future Land Use Map changes for expanding the Hillsborough EDD).
• Ultimately, it is up to the BOCC to decide the cadence for relative
aspects of the LUP 2050. �1�
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
13
Tom Altieri said in short, the answer to the question on this slide is that by virtue of the
agreement with Chapel Hill and Carrboro, it requires all parties to work together on potential
changes to the joint land use map.
Commissioner Carter asked if the county had historically articulated the Land Use Plan
before negotiating the other agreements.
Tom Altieri said typically yes, but there have also been cases when agreements and the
Land Use Plan have been completed concurrently.
Chair Bedford asked if the county has any agreements with the City of Mebane.
Tom Altieri said there used to be a utility service agreement at one time, and there is no
joint land use plan with Mebane.
Commissioner Carter asked if the same is true for Durham.
Tom Altieri said yes.
Slide #17
d)Do not tie our hands in the Plan.
• The Land Use Plan does not and will not"tie hands"
• Plan vs Ordinance
• Expression of a community vision
• Implementation over many years with many subsequent decision points
e)Could amend the Plan?After working through a change with the towns?
• The 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted 2008) needs to be updated
• Per NC General Statutes, land use plans need to be "reasonably up to
date"to support Zoning
• Following adoption, the Land Use Plan 2050 can be amended as
needed
�1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Commissioner Carter said she wants to be clear on the nuance between how the Board
goes through the process of articulating the vision of the Land Use Plan. She asked how the
Board could do that and then work with partners in a way that doesn't get the county into any legal
or logistical challenges.
Tom Altieri said the Board has the statutory powers to guide the Land Use Plan and the
FLUM for the areas that are in Orange County's planning jurisdiction. He said these areas are
different from the JPA areas. For those areas, there are recommendations in the draft plan.
Commissioner Carter asked for a visual.
Tom Altieri displayed the following map:
14
i
r _ Jr ` r
F B1�coo-J
i
ti. IL R
r rwrdd
Y �ti ZLI
9,
rlrrn i Fzni CNr=rrEkn
H VL fil L r
i T J
h I idobr h R - Fad Od*Fd•
4
' J• d L r-
Orange C-DUnt hapel Hil I- Carrhoro 91-aint Planning Area Land Use
Plain Topics of Future Ooord ination
fie-evaluation of Rural Buffer
OanC*pt of Municipal TransWon Area expansion
UtEyr Spice}area boundaries and paliGie5
0 Oancept of a Mixed Uses Center around Blackmi d Slalbn
OancL-pt of Rural Conservation Neighbodroo&in RBI Buffer
Oancept of Rural Actjuity Nader.in Rural Buffer
Tom Altieri said the six items that have been identified in the recommendations section of
the preliminary draft 2050 Land Use Plan are listed here. He said limited feedback has been
obtained from the public on these items, and they would require discussions and potentially
amendments to the Joint Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Carter said she has questions about the coordinated review of
intergovernmental planning agreements on a 10-year cycle as included in the draft plan, but that
doesn't need to be answered now.
Cy Stober said when looking at other rural buffers throughout the country, like Lexington,
Kentucky, and Portland, Oregon, they have a readoption cycle of 5-10 years. He said those
jurisdictions revisit whether they've been successful at achieving infill development within the
boundaries of those buffers, and if not, why, and what could be done to strengthen density within
the buffer. If they have achieved it, then they revisit where the boundaries of the buffer are,
understanding what the balance is in the unincorporated areas around those municipalities.
15
Slide #18
2. Watersheds and Their Impact on Development
ay Show us map view of watersheds and boundaries,
Watersheds 18 individual watersheds in
Orange County
13 of the 18 watersheds are
dL'tl' P-141d, j direct contributors to public
i IJ
drinking Water Supplies (i.e.,
..C,.. WS-II, WS-III, or WS-IV)
` Those 13 special watersheds
are classified as Watershed
Protection Overlay Districts
(WPODs)
WPODs have lot density AND
p " •° "" impervious surface area limits
WPOD boundaries and
associated development
restrictions defined in Article 4
•-R y a A of the Orange Count UDO
Y
- °-k ORANGECOUNTY
OUNTY
11
NOWM CAROLINA
Christopher Sal County Engineer, continued the presentation. He indicated that
everything in the northeast corner of the county drains to Falls Lake. He pointed out the thick blue
line in the middle of the map as the break line between the Jordan Lake Basin and the Falls Lake
Basin. He said there is a small section in the northern part of the county that drains up to the
Roanoke Basin in Virginia. He said the light blue areas on the map are the protected watersheds,
and the darker blue areas are the critical watersheds. He explained that the darker blue
watersheds are adjacent to the water supply reservoirs.After reviewing the acronyms on the slide,
Christopher Sal explained the difference between density and impervious surface. He said the
number of dwellings per unit of land is density, while impervious surface limits are the actual
percentage of impervious area on a particular parcel as it relates to the overall size of the parcel.
He said the lightest areas of the map do not specifically have lot density and impervious surface
area requirements, but the county does manage stormwater and erosion control for those areas.
He said there are also stormwater and erosion control requirements for every watershed in the
county.
16
Watersheds
r ------------------ ----- ---- --- - --T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
;1 .. •7 Flat River -------- i
Hyco Southern Hyca Creek s1 ; {protected}
Greek (protected)
• �� 14 r ii
Little River ,
} +1 7 (protected) i
1 St 1 f 11
i Back Creek ontheEno -
4 i
� (protected) IieservrJir NPE �dke py��rrtge ^INelJse','�-
G s
Mier Bash'
Upper
Eno
(critical) Lower Eno
Upper Eno orpo-atron 1.ek,�
(protected) i M1t�538' i
l
-
3 _ �a �` Lower ErYo
�I ake lsen�lonn Si tin
(protected)
emn
+Haw Creek ^` N E551'
70 t
^ 0 Watersheds
Cane Creek ,. River Basin Boundary
(protected) �tl
Railroad
Jordan Lake l - Water Bodies
-A'
Cape Fear
' Streams
Creeek Municipal Jurisdiction
Cane Creek - 'K� [ii] -
P,C'. r (critical) R Water Supply Watersheds
NI'E 5oa.. -' �r Protected
r
f f
Critical
n
h .z tt k University Lake ' iJ ORANGE
}taw River,.- '; (protected) COUNTY
llrlversit}' \fir � •.�• � 7 4�,..
i.ake NIkes
tisrr aq9, r
'Haw River(protected) University is
Note: Thin watershed map replaces previous versions.
Lake s: " Omr i e wordy nlan.nrg s nPW-6—oepa t
rr - _ _ (critical) 5Glf Jordan Lakei GlS map prnparW by Brian Carson
(protected)! Walereh d&,Cnccal la�s+6askrs tiara:8eptamber,2024 Ff ry
arl+'nas
17
Slide #19
b)Include and known/potential changes due to regulations.
Basic Timeline/History:
• 1986- NC's Water Supply Protection Program first started (voluntarily)
• 1989-General Assembly ratified the Water Supply Watershed
Protection Act(the Act), GS 143-214.5
• 1990 to 1992—Workshops held across state to define Rules and
classify the water supply watershed footprints
• January 1, 1994—Counties required to adopt the defined Rules into
their ordinances
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Christopher Sandt said the county started integrating some limited water supply protection
programs in the late 1980s and was forward-thinking prior to these watersheds being refined. He
said University Lake was one of the first that was focused on from a water quality perspective and
a watershed protection perspective back in the 1970s and 1980s. He said the county also
implemented the Eno River Voluntary Water Management Plan, which limits raw water intakes
out of the Eno River in certain drought periods.
Slide#20
b)Include and known/potential changes due to regulations.
Amendments/Updates:
• House Bill 218 (2021)
• "Streamline Permits/Redevelopment of Property Bill'
• Allows a property owner to exceed density(impervious area)limits for
preexisting development
• Voluntary stormwater treatment
• House Bill 600 (2023)
• "Regulatory Reform Act of 2023"
• Clarifies the density(impervious area)exceedances,only new impervious
surface area is regulated
• Staff continually monitors any/all regulatory updates for water
supply watersheds
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
18
Christopher Sandt said staff work hard to stay apprised of what's going on in the General
Assembly. In addition to the bills mentioned on this slide, he explained that there is a current bill
that proposes that any residential development that disturbs less than 1 acre of land cannot be
regulated for stormwater management. He said the Jordan Lake Basin requires stormwater
management for anything that disturbs more than an acre, and the Falls Lake Basin requires
stormwater management for any new development over a half-acre, so this would be a big
change.
Chair Bedford asked if any of these rules apply to agrotourism.
Cy Stober said not at present. However, there is a requirement for nontraditional farm
practices to be regulated for stormwater in the Tar-Pamlico rules, and there may be an effort to
transfer that language into the Falls Lakes and Jordan Lake rules when they're revised.
Chair Bedford said she thought farms had to adhere to stormwater regulations.
Cy Stober said there are agricultural regulations for livestock exclusion, stream buffers,
crop tillage, etc., but they don't address stormwater.
Slide #21
c)Review the differences between watersheds and how that impacts what can be built or operate within
them.
When do I need an erosion control plan, Erosion Control &Stormwater Triggers
- land disturbing permit a ndlorasmrmwaler
-- - management plan?
When proposed land disturbance awaWs thresholds listed below. Amount of proposed Land-Disturbing
Activity is used to determine whether
WATERSHED WNTno'
an engineered Erosion Control Plan
flack C,nak 3.%0- pa 914T and/or Stormwater Management Plan
"ew°'a" _°°°° =,.,e° 43 M° 3,8 '^' is required for the development
Cane Creeh 21760 43,MU 3,a 143
& Cene Creeh Crilitel Ala ',p,g00 1I6 63.560
WHaw krerfWolectetlf
" "a R.11°" """' ° "80 ° as ''' ° Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Rules
€ 1oman tales mawwpaecl z cA zl.y 4ac z.z oez
U
1—make pmeded) 21,000 xt]60 43,560 22 0 2 . On-site well/septic, no off-site systems
un.,eisty Lalre loon 2+reo a3,%° 2.2 o6z
Ilnba,ally Laka Cd[I°d A,ea °.p°p =,.,tt° aa.wd 22 o62 • Septic repair areas required on-site
For all WPODs,new septic tanks and
Wl.Rber 2od00 12.000 21,M 2,2 0
N Uppe,En° 1000 12000 21 760 2,2 0,33 fields must be outside of stream
m npo�Edeml�u� d.ad° buffers and at least 100 feet from
streams or reservoirs
Lwrer Eno 1proecleat zp.gdd lzgdo z1.]80 xz osz
n ,ee1 "A „„ NA NA For UNIV-CA,CANE-CA,and U-ENO-
g SouMµwC.. 9 00 4$fi0 43,66d ". NA CA,septic fields must be 300 feet
from streams or University Lake
1.Tbree"olds are listed in square feel I Ales be aware yew Bile plan may be
-Ifpad°lmmmon plan of tlerelopmen[and red by rlpanan bufler requlremen[s 2 o ds,pease con utt cwld lmpempus llmilalwns.ln abdnlon[q
NGo po NC6010000 process. s ryplcal zoaing setback requirements- V1
3-"ulrien[s lisletl
e pqundslacrelyear 6.bkan Lake nulrenl exp°r[repulafi°ns not
=.�droa�efe,.,are armrye,eme,. waq.renl,.d ORANGE COUNTY
eel.«««w«.•>«,agrw. .waw„«,n<«r,w..,,a«n,w,Rw,9<« a«a««rrs„9 NORTH CAROLINA
Christopher Sandt explained that the image in slide #21 is called the stormwater erosion
control matrix. He said if someone is planning to disturb a certain amount of land during
development, an erosion control plan and stormwater management plan must be submitted to
Planning and Inspections before a land disturbing permit is granted. He said this form is provided
as information to developers and residents who are planning to build.
19
When do I need an erosion control plan,
land disturbing permit and/or a stormwater
management plan?
When proposed land disturbance exceeds thresholds listed below.
EROSIONSTORMWATER
WATERSHED CONTROL 15A NCAC 02B.0277
D. + .
OtherRecreational
Back Creek 20,000 21,780 43,560 3.8 1.43
E Haw Creek 20,000 21,780 43,560 3.8 1,43
Q
`m Cane Creek *10,000 21,780 43,560 3.8 1.43
Cane Creek Critical Area *10,000 21,780 43,560 3.8 1.43
W X Haw River(protected) 20,000 21,780 43,560 3.8 1.43
LL
W Haw River(unprotected) 20,000 21,780 43,560 3.8 1 43
IL
Q Jordan Lake(unprotected) 20,000 21,780 43,560 2.2 0,82
C7 `�
o Jordan Lake(protected) 20,000 21,780 43,560 2.2 0.82
z
it University Lake *10,000 21,780 43,560 2.2 0.82
m
z
University Lake Critical Area *10,000 21,780 43,560 2.2 0.82
Flat River 20,000 12,000 21.780 2.2 033
Little River 20,000 12,000 21,780 2.2 0.33
W m
LI] M Upper Eno *10,000 12,000 21,780 2.2 033
m
Z Upper Eno Critical Area '"10 12,000 21,780 2.2 0.33
Lower Eno (unprotected) 20,000 12,000 21,780 2.2 033
Lower Eno (protected) 20,000 12,000 21,780 2.2 0,33
Hyco Creek 20,000 NA NA NA NA
0
Z
South Hyco Creek 20,000 43,560 43,560 NA NA
cc
Notes:
1. Thresholds are listed in square feet 5. Also be aware your site plan may be
2. If part of common plan of development and constrained by riparian buffer requirements
below above thresholds, please consult and impervious limitations, in addition to
NCQEQ for NCG010000 process. typical zoning setback requirements.
3. Nutrients listed in pounds/acre/year 6. Jordan Lake nutrient export regulations not
4. 43,560 square feet= 1 acre currently enforced. *Waiver required
5A5-Erosion Control and Water Qualitylwebsite\OC-Watershed-EC-5W-NutrientMatrix2o19.docx Updated 04/29/19
20
Slide #22
c)Review the differences between watersheds and how that impacts what can be built or operate within
them.(continued)
H wa Residential Density Limits
a " Defined in UDO Section 4.2.4
per'd- UNIV and CANE watersheds
E have lowest allowable densities
• Towns have their own limits
P.—d- The five(5)watersheds that are
not WPODs have no density
limits, but are still subject to
erosion control and stormwater
P management requirements
JONen Lava
w,er 6eppN • No density limits for non-
city omit.wates" residential developments
� ts
®ETd
H...Ing-iry
Ha•a-, ®1 d.rz agree
Prore>:t ®1du/5 acres
1:1aw:HWer PLeNe tY ®1d-0,i—sgft(092
Pmtatlfltf h."fol Mtlan c!6( ��
Pure
'°" i,°h. a°$ ORANGE COUNTY
.Except dlsMp.
lon for Nodes and ED�s. aenyrng z°Wing NORTH CAROLINA
Christopher Sandt reviewed the information on the slide. This map defines residential
density limits for each of the water supply watersheds. He explained that the vertical striping
indicates watersheds with lower density limits. For instance, University Lake is one dwelling unit
per five acres of land, and Cane Creek is one dwelling unit per two acres of land. After reviewing
the other slides, he said there are a lot of reasons why there are no density limits for non-
residential developments. Generally, commercial projects are a single parcel, and there's typically
not a multi-building approach. He explained that floor area ratio is used for commercial
developments, which is essentially the footprint of the building divided by the footprint of the parcel
itself.
Commissioner Greene said she didn't realize there were floor area ratios in the UDO. She
asked if those are just for commercial developments and how they are calculated.
Cy Stober said they can be found in Article 3. He said there is a table and page for every
one of the zoning districts, and, except for the conditional districts, they nearly all have floor area
ratios. He said generally, the governing regulations for most residential development are
impervious surface or density, so that usually comes before floor area ratios are consulted for a
residential project.
21
- — —Ak ,_
--HuXhHycb XX
eek ; FlaURivertected Protected !
I
! I`
1
I�g f57
r r
as Little'River
Protected
r I
I
Back-Creek I
l P_rotected ' LJpperrEno
� Critica! 5
I
f
I- :I
rI j
1 �
j UpperEn, i
iProtected
70 Lower-Eno—
owe Eno Protected " I
i Haw Ton !
j Creek _ 70 lr
a
I 7,�
I Cane Creek f
f
j Protected
I
! Jordan Lake j
I
1 0 Water Supply
} Cane Creeki L Watersheds
Critical
City Lirnits
i7
ETJ
54 is Housing Density
j Haw River
University 5af 1 du/2 acres
Lake
Protected 1 du15 acres
University
1 Haw'Rive� Lake ^fr ® 1 du140,000 sgft (0.92
Protected Cf111CaI Jordan Lake=i acre)
Protected—I
— - _ — Maximum density is as
- -- "_-� permitted in the
ExceException for Transition Nodes and EDDs. underlying zoning
p district.
22
Slide #23
c)Review the differences between watersheds and how that impacts what can be built or operate within
them.
Table I-Impervious Surface Limits
W[ersfiM htilec%oX Impervious Limih lResedenlia9 Imperriwslimils laar-Reriaennall r1uSMy pgrel�meni Xate
DWlrirt
XaarsXY WreGifknIl rvllP-G) 6%Ilea UN TA,41 S 1 69 Apnl],T996
dniersilYlake .WIUNM MM X UMW42.T f9r#MgX m) 12%IAeXdd1AW43blm Wa"b Apdtim
Hal
ra,a 6rrvrrrmolAa3fUNE{AI 6%Gm upd1a6G41S.l laempXmel 6% Odrber19.F999
rasa4eel�PMMsd IrAXF PW) 6M Ga XWLae 41S.1(xeaaptlau) 12%[wUWT*h43,61aemm ) daae09,F999
lypQfinullirdru.,(uuotlf 6%Iee IXldldble425_i armepme) H6 laarhY 1,19H•
12%IwXtle dr ndlbnAxml
dpperFm PMMed11hFX4PW! 9HEMddnLarcAam Artml 12%(ser0010k 4.2,61a Mepllara IAXW I.I9H•
]W%fdtlar aEppMA1
N%MA21 wAmd9Wlrr1 Zak @rt6 Syrband Weal
rAmEmPmhaMlihMOPWI 7AfXdg M6adghyl 6 iwnM1wrNbml ART1.199
iVbl•NIWrTIgh aEdXAaal) ]016{wiutin t,i9h ".Fun
Fddlaeml
SXla Xi-haaM lLMU PWI 6%Gee Upalak4lS.l McMpXae) 12%lee Upo Table 4 Z 6 M esmpm,n) lAVY1,199p
12%auhYe aflmslunAum7
ladlmd PraeONWIX71'9 9P9slwddnLarmdm Arml 12%GmVpp7a6%4ibbe¢epdvn) lAUXYl,19H
7H6[WXIWI'619h deWlfa EIAArtn3
S&AHMr Pm—d1irr&R3 ]2% INlim UN Tmle 4.2,61a wepbae) 1n j1,199Y
Rpllh9r%a[Med 401 PW l 12% 1296GreVVV11Me4.2,61a exuPplrPnl J.M 1,1996
N.Ai.Pa dnlAW-PWI 1 N% N% A.M 1,194
krWn PMaWI1"MN-H9] I H% N% 1muaY 1,19H
'lAem YrMtbW AeeNiau m rbr lmay Rr�praP W k hAX,aS bo<ed upPaat b fAe Wee lslfwAearw(NfBll.
• Impervious Surface Area Restrictions(UDO Section 4.2.5)
• Land Use Restrictions(UDO 4.2.3)—no new landfills,golf courses,etc.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Christopher Sandt said this table is distributed to developers and residents to help explain
requirements for impervious surface limits.
Table Impervious
Watershed Protection Impervious Limits(Residential) Impervious Limits(Non-Residential) Existing Development Date
Overlay District
University Lake Critical Area(UNIV-CA) 6%(we UDOTable4.2.5.l for exceptions) 6% April2,1990
University Lake Protected(UNIV- 6%(see UDOTable4.25,1 for exceptions) 12%(see UDOTable 4.2.6for exceptions) April2,1990
PW)
Cane Creek Critical Area(CANE-CA) 6%(see UDOTable4.2.5.1forexceptions) 6% October19,1999
Cane Creek Protected(CANE-PW) 6%(see UDOTable4.2.5-1 for exceptions) 12%(see UDOTable 4.2.6for exceptions) October19,1999
Upper Eno Critical Area(U-ENO-CA) 6%(see UDOTable4.2.5.l for exceptions) 6% January 1,1994*
12%(outside of Transition Areas)
Upper Eno Protected(KNO-PW) 30%(within Transition Areas) 12%(see UDOTable 4,2.6for exceptions) January 1,1994*
70%(within"high density"or EDD Areas)
24%(with curb and gutter) 24%(with curb and gutter)
Lower Eno Protected(I-ENO-PW) 306(without curb and gutter) 36%(without curb and gutter) January1,1994
701A(within"high density"or EDD Areas) 70%(within"high density"or EDD Areas)
Little River Protected(LITTLE-PW) 6%(Re UDOTable4.25f for exceptions) 12%(see UDOTable 4.2.6for exceptiuns) Jaruary 1,1994
12%(outside offransition Areas)
Back Creek Protected(BACK-PW) 30%(within Transition Areas) 12%(see UDOTable4.2.6forexceptions)
70%(within"high density°ar EDD Areas) laru ary 1,1994
South Hyco(reek Protected(HYCO-PW) Mb 12%(see UDOTable 4.2.6for exceptions) lanuary1,1994
Flat River Protected(FLAT-PW) 12% 12%(see UDO fable 4.2.6 for exceptions) January 1,1994
Haw River Protected(HAW-PW) 24% 24% Jaauaty 1,1994
Jordan Lake Protected(1ORDAN-PW) 24% 24% January 1,T994
*ThereoreadditionalexceptOnsto thefxisting DevelopmentDate specific toparcehlocated adjacentfa the West fork Eno Reservoir(WFER).
23
Slide#24
c)Review the differences between watersheds and how that impacts what can be built or operate within
them.(continued)
Pam° Residential Impervious Surface
Area Limits
• Defined in UDO Section 4.2.5
• Towns have their own limits
• Dark green WPODs have lowest
allowable impervious(6%)
°w•i Em
• For UNIV and CANE protected
"ta;•
areas,we are stricter than the
state's required 12% limit
• The"10/70"rule is applied in our
two Economic Development
Districts (EDDs)
wa�a�;oy Hillsborough EDD(50%max)
P.W P.. �cln emus
Ci Er, Buckhorn-Mebane EDD
Ilan Prcer versiy Ilapervbue gYtlace lMYla
Protautetl tiel °a�`;11 (ResltlentlaQ 1
ORANGE COUNTY
E—Ptim Eo . 24. NORTH CAROLINA
Christopher Sandt said the darkest green color indicates the watersheds with the most
restrictive impervious area restrictions. He said only 6% of a parcel may be impervious there.
Next, the medium green areas are 12%. He noted that the state requires only a 12% limit.
Commissioner McKee said the 6% impervious surface restriction creates a hardship for
anyone who is stressed financially. On a one-acre lot, there are only 2,500 square feet that must
include the driveway, deck, and any other impervious area, including the rooftop. He said the limit
is 12000 feet on a two-acre lot, which may sound like a lot, but isn't.
Christopher Sandt said it restricts denser multi-family development. He clarified that
people could get approved for up to a 3% bump on the 6% requirement if they install a stormwater
control measure that treats the 3% balance. However, he agreed with Commissioner McKee that
it is very tough to build a house with a long driveway and try to keep the impervious surfaces
under 6%.
Commissioner McKee said the difference in impervious surface requirements creates an
equity issue across the county.
Cy Stober said all the base level impervious allowances allow for a 3% additional footprint
with the installation of stormwater control measures.
Commissioner McKee asked Cy Stober to explain stormwater control measures.
Cy Stober said stormwater control measures are engineered devices designed to intercept
all runoff from any paved area on a property and treat it for volume and sediment, and now
nitrogen and phosphorus under the Falls Lakes rules.
24
P H co South Hyco -- ----- ----- ------------- ------
Creek Creek Flat River
Protected Protected I
I "
57 I
r f
35 Little River f'
j Protected
1
f
1 Back Creek
I Protected' Upper Eno
Critical
57
(� rl /1
Upper Eno i
t Protected
u 70 Lower Eno
L�
Lower_Eii L Protected ?
t�Haw
7on� 1
j Creek 70
1
I ;51
I
Cane Creek r
Protected
I�
Jordan Lake Ir
1
fi
Cane Creek
I
Water Supply
1 r �7 Watersheds
j Haw River
City Limits
Lake
�'}• Protected ETJ
University Haw River ake wf� Impervious Surface Limits
1 L I �f
Protected Critical { Jordan Lake (Residential)
}- --- 1 Protected I
- - ---- - - - = 12%
Exception for Transition Nodes and EI = 24%
25
Slide #25
c)Review the differences between watersheds and how that impacts what can be built or operate within
them.(continued)
tt o Residential Overlay
Density Limits and Impervious
Surface Area Limits
Eo.wi Em
E o Prol•c!a'
Gees
oM.`14Wy
Wa1B':NB05
-GN um!
0 ETA
iwaan 5a Impenbua 9urldx LWNe
tlaealdenaeq
_12%
(-z4e6
Hou•Ing aenetty
dw'2 erne¢
rsiN I11�LJJ 1 du15 ewes
Xar_Rrrer _ SIdul40,EN10 s6f[(0.92
erDladed .�aayN � 7 �
race 'I lr
ORANGE COUNTY
pem0ted In the
•Ex@pklm(er Tran:Ilion l4oda am EfSr. ®iideAril9�onhiE NORTH CAROLINA
mwln.
Christopher Sandt said this is the overlay of specific residential development that shows
both the density limits and the impervious aerial limits. He reiterated that density is not the same
as impervious surface limits, but they go hand in hand.
Slide #26
c)Review the differences between watersheds and how that impacts what can be built or operate within
them.
Table 1—impervious Surface Limits
o-I" Impervious Limin lRe Wntlap Impervious limits lNo Re Identlal) Edming Derelapment Date
DIPVI[t
U615ea!NLAAe GNInIAae6IuNwuj 6%Ixe 0001a61e 4.7.6.1 lerniepnom! d% APn17.1990
INArenny LAlaPMened10W. 6%lue u00le61,17-5.1 Wr *-I 1^1I 000TM,43.61meaeP 4 APe1MW
%NV
(_cMdo.m Area6fKw 6%lux UDO W,415.1 hr PNPmI 6A6 01%kr19,i939
(em[Ied ProaeM61(ANEo'Wl 6%1ue0007abke4f.1 foi PMml 1Z%f0 UD0TMt4.2,61mn §m) Om6er161996
UpperFmOYNcd Asa(%F110U) 6%�uoal,ue4ulrein¢Peom 9% lanwy!,1991•
11%lau0de oflaaYlMAmW
UpperEro PMenedfU�FM%PWI 7p16Is.uAa hamdwAreas) I25Ure0007dde47.61m eaeplar0 lamuy 1,l9H•
T096f•IN��NM am�mFPDAa,e)
M%IMmlmmmd9ate0 ]t%I•Em rm6aM wnml
LonerEm ProrMed IL�ENPPWI lf%Ixelhautwbadgnlrr) J6%[wmmne,6.agamrl lanoay 1.1999
1D%[xilAAlTipNdNNAS'm E00ArcH1 70161xrie6TigA maYlE•m DIOAem]
Lmk%HvPW1WkMU-PW1 6%IHe0001A6k42.5.1 f—PllmN7 M t-ODOT"4.26Meow-d I..qT 19
!2%I WO P71mNN.A—),1
IYm(rtd PlateaNl/A(WPW) A ftq%Pda V FDD 77MLmWOTEhk1.2b%EwepMn)
1p%(•EUrn'65pdPpNrmElgAreaP1 1974
Smdh NAm UeeYPMnkd lllT(LLPW) 17% 12%_uD0LhkuA1._oN ) tauay 1,1w
iW lherPaHaOedfEIAT-PWl 17% 17%f1mUDOLtle4Slbremptlem) 1ae:E 1,1999
IWNkmPmMhd(MWPW) 74% 74% I-mP1,w
tertlrn lub PMmWIIm7DIkPW1 71% 74% homy 1,1w
'lkvar ddh'mdeaeplimrfirhrfm++^4A+�F^�mPAurym/fii'aR+A Yrekdu§ermlPoMe WMferEEnAmwirfNifA1
• Impervious Surface Area Restrictions(UDO Section 4.2.5)
• Land Use Restrictions(UDO 4.2.3)—no new landfills,golf courses,etc.
ORANGE COUNTY
NOR IIf('1R(11.INA
Christopher Sandt said this is the same table as shown on a previous slide, but it's now
highlighting that the existing development date also applies to non-residential developments.
26
Slide#27
c)Review the differences between watersheds and how that impacts what can be built or operate within
them.(continued)
�« E,a,• oLe1; Non-Residential Impervious Surface
Area Limits
• Defined in UDO Section 42.6
�Bviu�e_e� R
Towns have their own limits
• Critical Areas(CA)at 6%limit
Exceptions for fire stations and
Efio =ea solid waste collection centers(50%)
• The"10/70" rule is applied in our
two Economic Development
�ba.aye Districts(EDDs)
• Hillsborough Area EDD(50%max)
a way��slr
• Buckhorn-Mebane EDD
M n p.
ke F ET m
P�dec�•0
Fla•Rlun Imp•rw�c S�rlar�Lmll.
prderJetl ,rs, anL INomRnlDaMl•17
-6%
ORANGE COUNTY
.E Ve ro<raa a Noee EDD, zax NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #28
i
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Questions?
27
Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director of Long-Range Planning & Administration, continued the
presentation:
Slide #29
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Orange County — Chapel Hill — Carrboro Joint
Planning Land Use Plan & Agreement (JPA)
Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA)
Water & Sewer Management, Planning, and
Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA)
Slide#30
BOCC Request
a) Remind us about the rural buffer/joint planning and distinguish that from the WASMPBA
(Water and Sewer Management, Planning,and Boundary Agreement).
b) What is the rationale for each?
c) Where does the WASMPBA interact?
d) Who are the Agreement partners?
e) Which includes policies and practices that would be implemented if there were failing
wells and septic systems and/or a water/sewer emergency?
f) If appropriate,please reference other joint agreements with the towns and utility
providers.
g) What can be built and/or operated in the rural buffer?
h) What are the processes to make changes to the agreements?
i) If the Board does wish to have an action item to explore expanding water/sewer at
some location of the map where it is not currently allowed,then is that in the Land Use
Plan 2050?Or is it a separate work petitioned by the Board?What is the order of doing
things?Seems like it matters?What would that process look like?
j) On the map of Carrboro Transition and/or ETJ area,is that blue dot in the rural buffer?
�1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
28
Slide#31
Joint Planning Land Use Plan &
Agreement JOINT PLANNING
LAND USE PLAN
• Adopted in 1986 (OC/Chapel Hill)
— Carrboro added in 1987
• Purposes:
— Protect University Lake Watershed
— Guide growth into Towns
— Keep areas around Towns rural in
character
— Address expected growth pressures from
1-40 completion(Interstate not completed Essentially an Urban
at time of plan/agreement) Growth Boundary
— Ensure Chapel Hill,Carrboro,and
Hillsborough didn't grow into each other
• Established: https://www.orangecountync.gov/
— Rural Buffer 3031/Long-Range-
Comprehensive-Planning
— Town Transition Areas
Perdita Holtz said University Lake Watershed was Chapel Hill and Carrboro's only source
of water at the time, as Cane Creek Reservoir wasn't constructed until the late 1990s. She said,
at the Board's request, she spoke with Kevin Foy and Roger Waldon, and Barry Jacobs is present
and will speak later. She said that when speaking with Kevin Foy, she shared the five purposes
identified here, and he agreed that they spoke to the pressures being addressed at the time.
During their conversation, Kevin Foy also shared thatjoint planning was very visionary at the time,
and there was an amazing lack of egos on the part of leaders and having everybody work together
on a common goal. She said in addition to protecting University Lake, Kevin Foy stated that there
was an appreciation that Orange County is the headwater of three river basins and that people
didn't want sprawl, and there was an ethos of wanting to protect the water supplies, rivers, and
streams. Kevin Foy also emphasized that the urban growth boundary was a policy choice, not
intended to be anti-growth, but rather to be managed growth. She said Roger Waldon pointed out
that the joint planning effort became a model for other communities.
29
Slide #32
Joint Land Use Plan
Rural Buffer Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
JOINT PLANNING AREA-LAND USE PLAN
• Over 36,000 acres in size
• Rural Buffer is the Primary
land use designation. -
• There are 5 sub-categories of
land use that comprise the
"Rural Buffer"
— Resource Protection -
- PubliclPrivate Open Space
— Rural Residential
— Extractive Use Chapel Hill
— Retail Trade Carrb
• Orange County planning -
jurisdiction with courtesy
review by the Towns
Certain amendments require joint —. =w=
public hearing by the 3 local
governments
Perdita Holtz brought attention to the area north of Chapel Hill, the northern rural buffer.
She said this area is not within a water supply watershed and would not have impervious surface
limits if not for the Rural Buffer classification.
Slide #33
Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Rural Buffer
JOINT PLANNING AREA-LAND USE PLAN
Subcategories � .
• Resource Protection x
• Public/Private Open Space f t.
r
• Rural Residential -_
• Extractive Use
• Retail Trade -
Chapel '
Hill
Carrboro.,
_ l
i
Perdita Holtz pointed out the quarry, Blackwood Station, and Duke Forest on the map.
30
Slide #34
Joint Land Use
Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
JOINT PLANNING AREA-LAND USE PLAN
^ rPIan
Transition Areas ;• Areas the Towns are
expected to grow into.
• County ceded zoning
jurisdiction to the respective
Town but the Transition
Areas are not in ETJ or
Y
municipal limits.
— Town zoning regulations apply
— County staff receives certain
projects for courtesy review w .e
iVNi —
123—
MM
• No Annexation by Chapel Hill
or Carrboro into the Rural �°----
Buffer or the Other Town's �
Transition Area � -
Perdita Holtz said she believed that the threshold in Transition Area 1 (darkest orange) is
close to being met in order to have more intensive development in Transition Area 2 (lighter
orange).
Slide #35
County Zoning _
Zoning in the Rural Buffer
"Rural Buffer" is both a Land
Use Classification and a Zoning O b
District in the County's 0 O
Comprehensive Plan and LIDO,respectively. 0 0.:
• Most lands in the Rural O 0
Buffer land use classification Y -
are also zoned Rural Buffer.
• Some lands are zoned
differently
— Planned Developments
— NC-2,CC-3,and GC-4
— EC-5 and El
O
— ASE-CD p0
— Public Interest District
• UDO Table of Permitted
Uses depicts allowable uses 0
in the RB zoning district
Perdita Holtz said the circles on the map in slide #35 represent parcels or areas that are
zoned something other than Rural Buffer.
31
Slide #36
Uses Allowed in Rural Buffer Zoning District
By Right: By Right But With Use-Specific
• Government Facilities Standards:
and Office Buildings Community Agricultural Processing Facility
• Botanical Gardens & Community Farmer's Market
Arboretums Cooperative Farm Stand
• Parks Community Meat Processing Facility
• Dwellings: Non-Farm Use of Farm Equipment
Manufactured Homes, Care Center in a Residence
Single-Family, Two- Short-Term Rental, Host Occupied
Family, Family Care Various Telecommunications Facilities
Facility Water&Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations
• Bus and Rail SolarArray—Accessory, Residential, and
Passenger Shelter Farm Uses
• Club or Lodge
➢ Farms/Agriculture(which Place of Worship `
are exempt from zoning Rural Special Events ORANGE COUNTY
regulations) NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #37
Uses Allowed in Rural Buffer Zoning District
Special Use Permit: Conditional Districts that
• Commercial Stables can also be considered:
• Care Facility ASE-CD(Agricultural Support
• Microbrewery Enterprises)
• Winery HP-CD(Home Park)
• Camp
• Recreational Facilities R-CD(Residential)
• Group Care Facility NR-CD(Non-Residential)
• Group Home
• Cemetery The exact uses applied for in a
• Class II Kennel conditional district application
• Telecommunication Tower over 74 feet in would need to be consistent with
height County plans.
• Elevated Water Storage Tank
• Electric,Gas,and Liquid Fuel Transmission
Lines
• Solar Array—Large Facility
• Community Center
• Museum ORANGE COUNTY
• Retreat Center NORTH CAROLINA
Perdita Holtz clarified that Special Use Permits are considered by the Board of
Adjustment.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what the difference is between a family care facility
that's permitted by right and the "care center in a residence".
Perdita Holtz said a family care facility cares for five or fewer people, and the latter is like
a daycare or elder care day center.
32
Slide #38
Lot Sizes in Rural Buffer Zoning District
• Minimum lot size is generally 2 acres
—Can cluster to 40,000 minimum lot size but
overall density of 1 unit per 2 acres must be
maintained
• Clustering allows for preservation of
"formal" open space
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Perdita Holtz said in the rural buffer, there is a clause that the tracked size needs to be a
minimum of 10 acres to be considered for flexible subdivisions, and flexible subdivisions are how
clustering is done in Orange County. She said there is also a requirement for flexible subdivisions
that each lot must be served with its own water and sanitary sewage connection, and land within
the University Lake watershed has more stringent requirements, generally one unit per five acres.
Commissioner Fowler said, based on that, it doesn't sound like rural conservation
clustering could happen in the rural buffer unless changes are made to the water and sewer
requirements.
Perdita Holtz agreed that is probably true.
Commissioner Carter asked about water and sewer in a neighborhood on Highway 54,
west of Carrboro.
Perdita Holtz said she doesn't recall the extension of water and sewer in the rural buffer
during her tenure. She said that the neighborhood is listed as an exception area in the Water and
Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement(WASMPBA). She said she doesn't know
if the neighborhood predates the rural buffer or not.
Slide #39
Water and Sewer Service in the Rural Buffer
• Public water and sewer services are not
permitted in the Rural Buffer.
• Wastewater Treatment Facilities with a design
capacity of 3,000 gallons per day or more and
package treatment plants are allowed in the
Rural Buffer only if approved through a
Conditional District.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
33
Slide #40
Amending the Joint Plan / Agreement
• Prescribed Process(Section 2.6 of Agreement)for amending the
Plan and/or Agreement and also zoning within Transition Areas
o Joint Plan or Agreement:
■ Joint public hearing of the three governing bodies
■ Approval of proposed amendments by all three governing
bodies
o Zoning within Transition Areas
■ Joint public hearing of the affected Town Council & BOCC
■ Both Town Council & BOCC must approve
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Perdita Holtz said that most development applications now come with an annexation
request.
Slide #41
Withdrawal from Agreement
• Prescribed Process in Section 1.3.15 of Agreement
• Party wishing to withdraw must hold a public hearing
on the proposed withdrawal
• Written notices to the other parties after public hearing
• Withdrawal effective one year after receipt of written
notice by other parties
• Withdrawal of one party does not invalidate the
Agreement with respect to the remaining parties
-49-�--
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
34
Slide #42
Cons—atIOR4 and Growth FrarM:work Map
Carrboro
Transition Area
• On the map of
Carrboro Transition
and/or ETJ area, is ` }'' '
that blue dot in theme-~`rural buffer?
�m
Blue here is existing WW
Carrboro Transition Area
. .JeuCRMFW ON1FT(+•
Cy Stober said there will be a much deeper dive into septic systems, but generally, there
are six types regulated by the state and local health departments, and they're based on size.
Chair Bedford invited former Commissioner Barry Jacobs to speak.
Barry Jacobs said in 1980, Orange County's population was 75,000, half of today's. He
said water crises in the 1960s and 1970s, when residents were encouraged to "shower with a
friend," made water supply protection paramount. He also said Orange County had sued DOT
over 1-40's route and was the seventh fastest growing county in the state at the time joint planning
began. The joint planning effort aimed to prevent sprawl like North Raleigh and Cary, keeping
Orange County recognizable. The agreement focused on cost-effective water supply protection,
preventing sprawl's expensive infrastructure needs, and protecting open space and agriculture.
Barry Jacobs said immediate follow-up efforts included a low and moderate-income housing task
force, rural character study, and natural areas inventory. He emphasized how Orange County
remains recognizable today compared to dramatically changed neighboring counties like
Chatham. He explained that the Piney Mountain development's failing community septic system
led to the water and sewer boundary agreement. He also said cluster developments began
emerging as a viable option for balancing residential growth with environmental conservation.
These developments allowed for higher-density housing within attractive environments,
facilitating the preservation of open spaces and more efficient utility services.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how many affordable housing units they were able to
create back then.
Barry Jacobs said the study only looked at the possibilities. The best option at that time
was mobile homes, and he noted that Orange County remains one of the most permissive
counties for mobile home siting in North Carolina.
The Board thanked Barry Jacobs for coming and sharing his perspective with them.
35
Adult Care Home and Nursinq Home Community Advisory Committee — Appointments
Discussion
The Board discussed appointments to the Adult Care Home and Nursing Home Community
Advisory Committee.
BACKGROUND: Members of the Adult Care Home and Nursing Home Community Advisory
Committee function as representatives of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman
and work to maintain the intent of the Adult Care Home and the Nursing Home Residents' Bills of
Rights within the licensed adult care homes and nursing homes in Orange County. The
Committee also promotes community involvement, education, and cooperation with adult care
homes and nursing homes to ensure quality care for older adults and adults with disabilities.
The Board of County Commissioners appoints all fourteen (14) members.
REMINDER: Legislation was adopted by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2017 regarding
the training period for pending members of the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee
and Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee. Applicants will be selected from the
County's "Applicant Interest List" for a condensed training. If an applicant completes the training,
that individual will be recommended for appointment. Therefore, when an applicant is
recommended for appointment, it would initially be for a one-year preliminary term, and the
training will have already been completed.
The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration:
NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
Shade Little At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2028
(reappointment)
Kelly Kester At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2028
reappointment
Parkash Sista At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2028
(reappointment)
SPECIAL NOTATION: None of the other applicants have completed the mandatory pre-
appointment training and are therefore not eligible for appointment at this time.
If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancies remain:
POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION
DESCRIPTION DATE
Adult Care Home 09/30/2025 Vacant since 11/02/2023
Administrator
Nominee
Adult Care Home 09/30/2026 Vacant since 11/02/2023
Administrator
Nominee
Nursing Home 09/30/2027 Vacant since 11/02/2023
Administrator
Nominee
36
Nursing Home 09/30/2025 Vacant since 11/02/2023
Administrator
Nominee
Tara May introduced the item.
The Board agreed by consensus to reappoint the recommended individuals.
Agricultural Preservation Board —Appointments Discussion
The Board discussed appointments to the Agricultural Preservation Board.
BACKGROUND: The Agricultural Preservation Board is charged with promoting the economic
and cultural importance of agriculture in the County and encouraging the voluntary preservation
and protection of farmland for future production. It administers the County's Voluntary Farmland
Protection Program ordinance and advises the Board of County Commissioners on a wide range
of agricultural topics.
The Board of County Commissioners appoints all fifteen (15) members, including eight (8) At-
Large members, and one (1) member from each of the seven (7) Agricultural Districts in the
County.
NOTE: Section 48-5. (b)(2) of the Orange County Code of Ordinances states that "Agricultural
District representatives may be appointed and re-appointed as necessary to ensure that each
Agricultural District is represented," meaning there are no term limits for the positions.
The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration:
NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
Mary Beth Miller At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2028
(reappointment)
Michael Wagger At-Large Second Full Term 06/30/2028
Jeff Sykes Cane Creek/Buckhorn Third Full Term (See 06/30/2028
Voluntary Agricultural Note Above
District (VAD) Regarding VAD
Positions
Glenn Rose New First Full Term 06/30/2028
Hope/Hillsborough
Voluntary Agricultural
District
Vera Fabian At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2027
Salem Neff At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2028
Joseph At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2028
Thompson
If the individuals listed above are appointed, no vacancies remain.
Tara May introduced the item.
37
Tara May noted that Jeff Sykes is currently serving in an at-large position and is
recommended to move to a Voluntary Agricultural District position that he is eligible for.
The Board agreed by consensus to appoint the recommended applicants and approved
the recommended members for reappointment.
Animal Services Advisory Board —Appointment Discussion
The Board discussed an appointment to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
BACKGROUND: The Animal Services Advisory Board advises the Board of County
Commissioners on matters of concern regarding animal issues and animal services in Orange
County and works with the Animal Services Director on various policy concerns and issues
regarding County animal services.
The Board of County Commissioners appoints all thirteen (13) members with representation from
various related fields and municipalities.
The following individual is recommended for Board consideration:
NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
Rhonda At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2028
Patterson
If the individual listed above is appointed, the following vacancy remains:
POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION
DESIGNATION DATE
Veterinarian 06/30/2028 Vacant since 06/30/2025
Tara May introduced the item.
Tara May noted that there is one applicant eligible for the vacant position. However, the
Animal Services Advisory Board has not had an opportunity to review her application due to the
timing of submission and their last meeting.
The Board agreed by consensus to appoint the recommended applicant.
Commissioner Fowler nominated Dr. Ashley Robinson to fill the remaining vacancy.
The Board agreed by consensus.
Arts Commission —Appointments Discussion
The Board discussed appointments to the Arts Commission.
BACKGROUND: The Arts Commission recommends strategies to promote the artistic and
cultural growth of Orange County, advises the Board of County Commissioners on matters
involving the arts, and acts as the granting panel for funding programs available to individual
artists and non-profit groups sponsoring arts projects in Orange County.
The Board of County Commissioners appoints fourteen (14)At-Large members and one (1) UNC
Student who serves a one-year term.
The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration:
38
NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
Ashley Nissler At-Large Partial Term 03/31/2027
Joshua At-Large Second Full Term 09/30/2028
Rosenstein
If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancy remains:
POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION
DESIGNATION DATE
At-Large 03/31/2028 Vacant since 03/31/2025
Tara May introduced the item.
The Board agreed by consensus to appoint the recommended applicant and reappoint the
recommended board member.
Commission for the Environment—Appointments Discussion
The Board discussed appointments to the Commission for the Environment.
BACKGROUND: The Commission for the Environment advises the Board of Commissioners on
matters affecting the environment with particular emphasis on protection. It educates the public
and local officials on environmental issues, performs special studies and projects, recommends
environmental initiatives, and studies changes in environmental science and local and federal
regulations.
The Board of County Commissioners appoints all fifteen (15) members, with representatives from
various fields.
The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration:
NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
Margot Lester At-Large First Full Term 12/31/2027
Jeffrey Ryan At-Large First Full Term 12/31/2027
If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancy remains:
POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION
DESIGNATION DATE
At-Large 12/31/2025 Vacant since 05/12/2025.
Tara May introduced the item.
The Board agreed by consensus to appoint the recommended applicants.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott nominated Leto Copeley to fill the remaining At-Large
vacancy.
The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Leto Copeley.
39
Hillsborough Planning Board —Appointments Discussion
The Board discussed appointments to the Hillsborough Planning Board.
BACKGROUND: The Hillsborough Planning Board acquires and maintains information in order
to understand past trends, prepares and amends and amend the Comprehensive Plan for the
development of the area, and prepares and recommends ordinances promoting orderly
development.
Since this is not a County board, the Hillsborough Planning Board does not submit an Annual
Work Plan.
The Board of County Commissioners appoints two (2) members residing in the Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ).
The following individual is recommended for Board consideration:
NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
Jeanette Benjey Hillsborough ETJ First Full Term 10/31/2028
reappointment
If the individual listed above is appointed, the following vacancy remains:
POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION
DESIGNATION DATE
Hillsborough ETJ 10/31/2027 Vacant since 10/31/2024.
Tara May introduced the item.
The Board agreed by consensus to reappoint the recommended individual.
Human Relations Commission —Appointments Discussion
The Board discussed appointments to the Human Relations Commission.
BACKGROUND: The Human Relations Commission studies and makes recommendations to the
Board of County Commissioners concerning problems in the field of human relationships. The
Commission seeks solutions to community issues that may create animosity and unrest, makes
recommendations designed to promote goodwill and harmony among groups in the county, and
addresses and attempts to remedy the violence, tensions, polarization, and other harm created
through discrimination, bias, hatred, and inequity.
The Board of County Commissioners appoints all twelve (12) members.
The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration:
NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
April Thompson At-Large Partial Term 06/30/2027
Benjamin Kin At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2028
40
Shane Lukas At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2028
(reappointment)
Rhian Carreker- Town of Chapel Hill First Full Term 06/30/2028
Ford (move from At-Large
position)
Mary Lucas At-Large Partial Term 06/30/2026
If the individuals listed above are appointed, no vacancies remain.
Tara May introduced the item. She noted that Mary Lucas already serves on two advisory
boards, but since she was recommended, she brought forward her application for consideration.
The Board agreed by consensus to approve the recommendations as listed but did not
agree to appoint Mary Lucas. The Board directed Tara May to recruit additional applicants.
Orange Unified Transportation Board —Appointments Discussion
The Board discussed appointments to the Orange Unified Transportation Board.
BACKGROUND: The Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) advises the Board of
County Commissioners and provides information and comments on major transportation issues.
Specifically, the OUTBoard provides the Board of County Commissioners with recommendations
regarding the overall planning and programming of transportation improvements in the County,
including identification and prioritization of the County's roadway and transit needs along with
associated costs and specific sources of funding; provision of recommendations to the Board
regarding Federal and State legislation affecting transportation in Orange County; and exploration
and suggestion of recommendations on innovative techniques and methods to improve the
efficiency and capacity of existing and future transportation systems.
The Board of County Commissioners appoints all twelve (12) members, with representation from
each of the County's townships to the extent possible. There are also two (2) non-voting youth
members.
The OUTBoard does not make recommendations for appointments.
The following individuals are presented for Board consideration:
NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION
DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE
TERM
Erik Legg At-Large Second Full Term 09/30/2028
Jamie Crandell Eno Township Second Full Term 09/30/2028
Gregory At-Large Second Full Term 09/30/2028
Woloszczuk
Gene Owen At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2028
(reappointment)
If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancy remains:
POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION
DESIGNATION DATE
41
Youth Member 09/30/2028 Vacant since the creation of the position
on 05/20/2025
Tara May introduced the item.
The Board agreed by consensus to reappoint the individuals listed above.
Discussion of Closed Session Timing/Location on Board Meeting Agendas
The Board discussed the timing/location of Closed Sessions on Board meeting agendas.
BACKGROUND: Members of the Board of Commissioners have expressed interest in where
Closed Sessions are scheduled on Board meeting agendas. This item provides the opportunity
for discussion by the Board.
Based on Board discussion, a potential revision to the Board's Rules of Procedure could be
scheduled for consideration at a future Business meeting.
Chair Bedford invited Commissioner Portie-Ascott to introduce this item.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said right now, closed sessions are scheduled for the end of
Board meetings, making it difficult for the Board to focus on the seriousness of the information
before them after a long meeting. She said she thinks it would be more conducive to have the
closed session first on the agenda rather than last. She said she heard from other jurisdictions
that schedule their closed sessions first while attending an NCACC conference, and it seems to
work for them. She proposed starting closed sessions at 6:00 pm before the regular meeting at
7:00 p.m.
Laura Jensen said the Rules of Procedure indicate that item 13 on the agenda is for closed
sessions and can be amended. She mentioned Orange County Schools has a permanent
placeholder for 6:00 p.m. closed sessions.
John Roberts said there could be a permanent placeholder for a closed session at 6:00
pm, though he would need to look into what to do if there is no need to hold a closed session if it
were a standing start time.
Chair Bedford said there are a couple of boards, like the Burlington-Graham MPO and
Central Pines Regional Council, that commissioners serve on that could pose a time conflict, so
those schedules would need to be considered before scheduling a closed session.
Commissioner McKee said he doesn't have a preference on the timing of closed sessions
on agendas.
Commissioner Greene indicated she had no preference either.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said she remembers starting closed sessions at 6:00 p.m. and then
reconvening after the regular meeting if needed from her school board days. She said she doesn't
think boards can make good decisions late at night, so she supported this change.
Chair Bedford said she is flexible and recalled the same from when she was on the school
board.
Commissioner Fowler said she appreciated starting at 6:00 p.m. when she was on the
school board as well. She said the only issue she has is the ability to remember when a closed
session is scheduled, and having good reminders in place would be helpful.
Commissioner Carter said she supports the change.
Chair Bedford reiterated that John Roberts will look into options for having a standing
closed session, and then this change would come back to the Board as an Amendment to the
Rules of Procedure at a business meeting soon.
42
Chair Bedford made a motion to postpone the Discussion Regarding the Work of the
Strategic Communications Work Group to a future meeting. The motion was seconded by Vice-
Chair Hamilton.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Discussion Regarding the Work of the Strategic Communications Work Group
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
Closed Session
A motion was made by Vice-Chair Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to enter
into closed session at 9:24 p.m. for the purposes listed below:
"To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-
client privilege between the attorney and the Board" NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(3).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Vice-Chair Hamilton, to
reconvene into regular session at 10:14 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Adjournment
A motion was made by Vice-Chair Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to
adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Jamezetta Bedford, Chair
Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board
Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.