HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-21-2025-Retreat Meeting 1
APPROVED 1120/26
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RETREAT
November 21, 2025
1:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a retreat on Friday, November 21, 2025 at
1:00 p.m. at Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair Jean Hamilton,
and Commissioners Marilyn Carter, Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Phyllis Portie-
Ascott
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: James Bryan, Staff Attorney
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 1:00 p.m. All commissioners were present,
except for Commissioners McKee and Fowler.
Chair Bedford welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Commissioner Fowler arrived at 1:01 p.m.
Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director said the session was the final educational
meeting on the 2050 land use plan, following inquiries by the commissioners after presenting a
draft earlier this year. He said the main focus during the retreat will be conservation subdivisions,
integrating all prior educational topics. He said the key questions are
1. Where and when are these appropriate in the county?
2. Where would they be most useful?
3. How can they be best constructed based upon the information that you've received so
far?
He said the challenges involve issues like net density and yield lot plans, aligning with zoning,
strategic, and draft land use plan values. He said conservation subdivisions were proposed widely
in the future land use map but not universally. He said the land use plan serves as guidance,
unlike the county's development ordinance. Amendments to the LIDO could enable these across
the county or in identified priority areas. He introduced Randall Arendt, noted for his role in
conservation subdivision discourse and authoring "Rural by Design."
Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 — Board Request for Additional Information
1. Conservation Subdivisions
Randall Arendt made the following presentation:
Conservation Subdivision Design:
An excellent way to preserve rural resources
in the Rural Area and in the Rural Buffer
Copyright 2025 by Randall Arendt
s`
q SY
Secontl Edition
RURAL BY DESIGN
PLANNING FOR'TOWN AND COUNTRY
s
� t
t �rc�i•�E �� i
RANDALL ARENDT
3
Slide#3
Conservation Design for Subdivisions
Randall G. Arendt
Ntrrraf Lands Trust.Americo■P14mmisg Au.eial4m.ewd American Sarirry of Lad,r.pe Arrbirrru
Slide#4
I
I 1
M. • ,
J.
t .
4
Slide #5
® j
CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION
HANDBOOK
tra.wangr Caunry.
ImsPrca�. r K+r iali A-,
A GUIDE FOR NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITIES
IN THE USE OF CONSERVATION DESIGN
FOR LAND USE PLANNING 11
The North Cararina NC STATE I:NF I"•N[state UnN—ITV
Urban and Community I r Forestry ytand
P,Er.rlronmenW
lorrury Propam Outreach Propam
Slide #6
r r -
r 4t
EMMA
Fields,Stream Corridor,arnd
r Mature Woodlands Protkted
from Development
Farm
♦— _j n 0 0 OlA baYOe��M
Slide
With CSD, there is little correlation
IT I
between lot size and lot price.
The smaller lots can either be pricey or not.
Below are small lots with starter houses --
andthe next slide shows them with expensive homes.
Slide • :
Expensive homes like these are on very small lots
in the Westwood Commons CSD north of Detroit.
Y
s.. �
Slide • •
An opposing abutter was very concerned about proposed
lk
to
small-lot houses next-door devaluing his larger-lot home.
But after he saw them built, he decided to join the small-lot
neighborhood with a new driveway from his back yard
to the new cul-de-sac with the pricey homes
-- thereby improving his own pvoperty values.
d 1 MII Rd i3 Mile Nd
f
•l y
J t yy }
Slide #10
The attractive upland open space in a CSD
compensates for the smaller lot sizes, as they do
in a golf course development.
•
r
This is why CSDs are sometimes described
as "golf course developments
without the golf course" —
with neighborhood greens instead of
putting greens,
and greenways instead of fairways.
In fact, CSD can provide a variety of
housing types and price-points.
At Battle Road Farm in Lincoln, MA
120 homes (40% of which are affordable) are located
on 24 acres at 5 du/ac, and with 59% open space.
i
a nV qp;
.�f0
Slide#13
Subdivision Design
Typically Protects 50-65% of the land,
rn
Sli
Much more than either Clustering
or "Flexible Development"
r
a...
_ F
•-
The shortcomings of Flexible Developments
were my primary motivation in creating
the superior CSD approach 30 years ago.
-- ' 46
-
�-
46
46
. l
, r
Slide
protect at least 50% of the unconstrained land,
PLUS
all of the wetlands, floodplains, and steep slopes.
In contrast,
Flexible Developments are allowed to include ALL
of these unbuildable land types
plus "wet pond" stormwater basins
in meeting their II pill 1-81111-11111open space requirements.
Slide • .
These are "Yield Plans", a critically important step
showing how many; lots could realistically be located
on the parcel,
given its constraints —
and not based on total acreage.
10
To better protect more of the developable land
(such as farmland)
in the rural areas, and in the Rural Buffer,
the County might consider upgrading
Flexible Developments with the better CSD standards,
OR
Replacing the Flexible Development provisions with
those for Conservation Subdivision Design.
SlideA big drawback to Flexible Development is that —
in allowing developers to count unbuildable land as
part of their required minimum open space —
they can satisfy much of that requirement with
wetlands, steep slopes and floodplains —
thereby allowing them to locate houselots on
farmland and other resources needing protection.
Slide#19
IMPO, the Rural Buffer zoning is still too rigid
— even with "Flexible Development"
does not allow the greater flexibility of CSD,
Slide #20
which would enable new developments
at the desired overall two-acre density
to conserve much more land, with smaller lots.
CSDs can help achieve
a number of important goals, including
Environmental Resource Protection
Climate Resilience
Farmland Conservation
Housing Attainability
More and Better Wastewater Options
12
Slide #21
differentWastewater treatment can be provided
in a variety of
Conservation S • • / - •
On-lot1 1ual septic drainfields
Off-lot1septicdrainfields
Off-lot ' 1 drainfields
Randall Arendt said he preferred shared drain fields for 3-5 homes. He said that way if
something goes wrong, it will not affect the entire community, as it did for Piney Mountain.
Slide #22
s Better soils
pity ' '•'tip Marginal soils ' "°}1��Ey',3
iaz,��fi •�tiv' i t A F i �� �� ;�� �i�ljtid, \
3
Thirteen two-and-one-half acre lots Thirteen one-acre lots
Six on marginal soil All on better soil
13
Slide #23
The CSD approach ' • to
Individual ' 1
enableserving smaller lots that
substantial open1s / be preserved.
►—Ii
Aj
O ■. .' b ik } 5 f� JF 1l.p _tY J` i
■
Slide #24
If off-lot septic drainfields ' "d to be located
betteron the
the house lots could be located
on other " . •
therebyy soils,
•
Randall Arendt said that septic tanks are pumped triannually in a conservation subdivision.
Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if farms could still use land where drain fields are located.
Randall Arendt said no, but the drainfield only covers about 2,000 square feet. He said a
drainfield should be fenced off to prevent tractors and livestock entering.
Shared Off-Lot Septics and Wells
can serve CSDs.
14
Slide#25
rreadow pond
e
farrJy F
lots
tar
or
CffKbffwAjrnF
lots
r 200 400 Boo
Slide FEET
Acres Saved with CSD
Towns and Townships
Westborough, MA 448 acres
Westford, MA 650 acres
Hamburg Twp, MI 750 acres
Hopkinton, MA 875acres
Counties
Cherokee County, GA 1,374 acres
Waukesha County, WI 1,670 acres
Hanover County, VA 5,550 acres
Calvert County, MD 7,765 acres
San Luis Obispo County, CA 9,000 acres
Nationwide Estimate: 100,000 to 180,000 acres
CSDs have been created in many states in
different regions of the country, including
the Northeast, the MidAtlantic, the South, the
Midwest, the Rockies, the West Coast, and
across Canada.
Such as Maine, Massachusetts, CT, PA, MD,
VA, KY, NC, GA, FL, TX, OH, IL, WI, MN,
CO, CA, and Washington State.
Ownership of CSD Open Space
Homeowner Associations
Land Trusts
Counties or Municipalities
Permanent Protection
of the Open Space
Through Conservation Easements
held by
Land Trusts
Counties or Municipalities
State or Federal Agencies
Management
of the Protected Open Space
Performed by the Open Space Owner
According to a Management Plan
Approved by the County or Municipality
Detailing what needs to be done,
how frequently, and by whom
Conservation Lands in CSDs
have been used
in many different ways:
7k'
,;
�'t ! +p,
i _ '��L� �.•� of . � < «lii� �~ �.
VS:.
�r T
7
e,k �'. ���� ���,��' aia W�+�1•t .i .a : w. .;�; ���x 7 +t.'v r ri t
� +F' 'S�11Cr;6��� ,, 'rig � -t� G� �_♦ fi. P �`,
-�. � �fr.yl"�r�Gr����ti� ` ��',►7J 1 a\ �:l� ,Ci.��'"Y -
_
I ,
�+ 1� • . f •. �S`Y. 'StOs/. TTf J �.`'1l �{��a�r f ` H`\/ � AF `.
h i i i11 'lii�iri leil�
ylf I
- Wx'h S I V.; vV •i�I H 'li��`J'cf'^ "M .4ry-0��',.
r ,
���+.,�, �_ a ��'?4► �r���' Iv1 s �.11, "' :. ..
iiI 't
1
�f
t.
,f
r 0.�
� •` � :� to � ::r.
- Y
l
Slide21
CSA
1997,
1 11 '
Slide •41
4�
_-mow .
~'1SS� U.
khl
ro
X • ,
va
f�,.`' ed�
k
KID
LA
S
r�
Slide23
r;
t _
t� 1 ,'r Imo'-~�- '♦ ,- h � S�
Slide .4,
I
a �
i'
i
f Y
I � �
t
AA k,
24
Slide •I
Sli
ti.
•- •i •
,,.-- ......... .. fir.t'Y
S
r
1. � r
Slide26
•4•
Sli
•- #50
r
r � r
Oak
.
�,Ti�.� ����.a ;! �1 •: � ,-BLS xi':
Slide27
51
� • IL
.
.y� t
Slide #52
k
.i—
r sy� i
f
CSDs can also protect viewsheds
along rural roads
and Scenic Byways
29
Slide#55
..y
Y n
I.
Slide #56
` AM - t
i WFW k
yF ri �
"La
�,y1
'�iI
1
•
- ——-
jE
•' ' i y
t � s ;
e.All
do mamm�
r=. 1 .• h �, jam. ��,�,
Sa- r
.PM,; L, .r ,;may 'r , s'..fv-'(• ,1'�.l�T.�•yyr 1n� �R'i'� ��1`��1F
31
Slide #59
Mi
'_ I� .�. ;�!• "yip. � ;
Slide • •1
ter'}'•' .r` K..,� ���� '� ~�f P+'�' � .
Randall • said that the area in slide#60 was likely the septicdrainfield.
Site Visits:
An Essential First Step
with Applicants (and abutters}
To Discover and Evaluate
32
Slide#61
Special Site Features
Slide . ,
Site visits are essential because
reviewing a paper plan
without walking the property
is like hiring a person
on the basis of a resume only,
and
with no in-person interview.
1 re- • .
These site visits are
informal outdoor Work Sessions
conducted by PB members
(and sometimes by BOCC members too),
advertised in the usual manner,
at which no decisions are made.
MY
1f i i. IL
F q 1
♦ F yy 1 1
34
Slide#65
iy
Slide •6•
It's extremely difficult for officials
to really understand a property
simply by looking at atwo-dimensional
abstraction, like a paper map.
Everyone benefits when they see the land
three-dimensionally, in person.
35
Slide • .
� � L
Sli
•- • .:
Ag
r• l
4
Slide36
• .•
I prefer to create Sketch Plans
Slide #70
collaboratively,
immediately following a site visit —
when impressions and ideas are
fresh in everyone's minds.
L:t.
tr
R
1
L
37
Slide #71
N
w.
Slide #72
�� - �
38
Slide #73
00
cop.
Slide
I
I recommend that codes require that
Sketch Plans be created
by Landscape Architects or by
physical planners, and not by engineers,
whose training is mostly in streets and
stormwater.
Let designers do the designing, and
engineers do the engineering.
I've had excellent experiences
involving abutters upfront during
informal site visits —
where they can ask questions and
sometimes provide useful
information.
This kind of public input can be
very helpful
at the critical Sketch Plan stage —
before the expensive "Preliminary Plan"
is engineered.
1
Slide#77
The following resource examples
Slide #78
can be seen on site walks
and can be protected during the
Sketch Plan design process.
41
Sli
•_ • +r
Slide #80
F _
*41
x
s
r
* h
r
f
•
4
•
Slide42
•:
Slide • :
. t*
d• t ity� � � y� b rM
f + �h�""'l �r _ 'T�.^..' it`d',t .H7¢ L'k�•' c�n'� ��`� �
1 of-
4
1 � M.
Slide43
• :
Sli
E i 4 j
'�•. I -awl }�� ' j��°F�a° �: -Lam'
�• Sr
•- • :I
+�� _t,►,, `' t ` ,.,�� :tom w� � e
44
Slide • :
ram.+ ..� ��`.��.�`�� � S�fr.� f 4•�= �'r �. #.-� ,
Slide • :.
t
r
1
45
Slide • :
yttyy Y
Sli
•- • ::
1
•1 �'Y
M'
1
• w
Slide46
• •1
. i
5
�z• -�. yam, ���; ,
Yr'f't
1i
Slide .9'
I , A 1•'
�.1•i4„I � 1' ��
r �
it !r��y. `I •,�II
I
47
Slide • :
r
Sli
v
7
•'
The
Four-Step Design Process :
1 Identify Potential Conservation Areas
2 Locate House Sites
3 Connect Homes with Streets
4 Draw in the Lot -Lines
48
Slide #93
1
0
Slide #94
."S
• r r r r •
a
•hydric soils
A •Shallow soils
■ •moderate to steep
■ r slopes(n15%)
♦ ♦ ■ RTA
r
[tun
■ Flo_ Sprt -s
Aohrersville
flood
0 300 bU0
ILJ1�'ll���l Feet
49
Slide
hydric soils
shaPow soils
Fldllersv'tie Road 3w Soo
Sli
I.
•- #96
- L M!.,yy � S �f' �✓.`it 1. ,�iT' �� ^�'
77
i
�•• ,�� ice.
1
re NWRYA
=
ills
e�.
t
1.:. .ram
Eijhar n e'
r..
h 3
♦��.vM 1 �'lt �� 1'. ,� �Ya ti r� `'!;` ��Y.' z; _, r� ;?�.{,r`. i � �:� .y s,..
51
Slide #99
potential development areas--�
i
9 'y
C.
C-
conservatior
Ruin
pfowiRg Spr` n9
Slide #100
9
W
S
Nq
O
. house sites
/ • ■ conservation are+
Rua
tipwink S.prtn9
cabin
52
Slide #101
roads hnuse sites
v
-103
'♦ trails
• r
a ♦ r
■ I ■ conservation area
• • • � 19ii • • � ■
i � • Run
I Flowr n�, n8 s
spring- - s P r r
cabin
RohrersviNe Road
Io ono^sos
z Lei 1.1 I Feet
Slide #102
l meadow future road extension
< `I
m
d
� 1 u�
3 ,I ■ T in
stone
p wail v trails
• �Il meadow r
redbuds
stone waft ' i ■' r
J
orchard •
♦ It un
spring and- F I n wti r+,{• ,ti,tI r i n K
springhouse
� Cabin
meadows
historic Site
Rohrers
vfyfe Road
oI � roo soo
Z t� ✓_ice,FeP.i
53
Slide #103
w
■
R
1• dy ■ A •iloodplain
,k All, •h dric soils
i •shallow sous
N. ■ •moderate to steep
.+�� ♦ ■ Slopes(>15%)
■
• Run
■ f!°wr4B SFrings
■ ■•
w
Aohoersville Road
I0 lit goo^soo
u �1 IFnot
Slide #104
meadow future road extension—1
Iftft
J �
stone trails
.P wall I r
ameadow r
redbuds- -
stone wall N L r
J
orchard
Run
Flowing ings
spring and-- , S 1'r
springhouse ' *% _
cabin
��- meadows
historic site
RohrersviAe Road
s 0 �00 600
z° LJ LJ IFeel
54
Slide #105
1
1
Slide #106
4p
a
�Af. 3
•- 1
is .tl l
-Z Hint
wl
11LL
1-�
TF
� I I�r1
{ y
y9 >>j►�'G '1.� �F SF ct 4fi
� •+yEs
F Y,j� ar
ar °�
+t: ram� ml
r'ti 'Ryser
4' �, nr.� 1.4 q� � .-� .��`.�1 �"�4��� ���f• ;x � �*'j`rf��•y y����iM+gyp
�tei���.�-, �.�(� , ��� , rr?• yam + p # : lt'SAT :r 1�.• .
�'t��e-yam-''«1,�+�', .�T����J,• l�F��,�4
56
Slide #109
t
.. y M.
r
'r
Slide #110
W-4 �- . ... .....
x.�
A quick example drawn by
a municipal planner in
New England to show an
applicant the simplicity of the
CSD process:
t
58
Slide#113
tConventional Subdivision
6
w
• `e
7
Slide#114
Site Analysis
d�
COO
Vdf'o
Secondary Conservation
4
59
Slide#115
Water Access Point -
-1
i
� t �
1� 11
Conservation Subdivision
Water Access Point
� � a
r `
i
Y
4 3 2 1�
� z
i0 T c
Homestead
r ti-
Rotbsidc Burfcrs
Slide #116
� M
i
�•^fit � .
Wiz_„rw
60
Slide#117
Compare 1 Sketch Plans
(prepared by a LA or Planner)
BEFORE
"Preliminary" . is Submitted
Slide #118
"s
• r r r r •
a
r � # i i Af � •/loodplain
At •hyydric soils
•gh&IIOW soils
■ � •moderate to steep
■ r slopes(n15%)
r
[iun
■ F 1 0 4, Sprie65
Aohrersville
Aoed
0 300 bU0
ILJ1�-II���I Fea
61
Slide #119
f meadow future road extension
m
g
m
N
• stone ;.
11 watt I v lral5
d �1 meadow r
o-
redbuds O
stone wall ' .I L r a
r
orchard
� Run
spring and Flow±`r+,�. 5,I ri„Rs
sprtnghouse —cabin
meadows
historic site
Roinrers,Aie Road
� t� �J IFeel
Z
Slide#120
• ` a
10
a - 40
4 J'
ft
- �
62
Slide #121
r 7V
r
ftoPlan
Trail B •• ••..
Slide#122
illustratingRural CSD Examples
more and better options
Conservation Subdivisions with
Individual Wells and Septics
Fields at Cold Harbor
Hanover County, VA
Individual on-lot Wells
and
Individual on-lot Septic Systems
At a Five-acre Overall Density
(25 one-acre lots on 120 acres)
.
w.. =;
4 Tyr
Of
ns y
If
E` II � s.�'i' i .� �. 'Six-�' � ry�► _
IT lwi
- e �� •� F=
3
- ,� r.+j7�F��y1f 4 .�~� -s .. aii_..1• yet,.—f -7 -+�
•' i
i
Peach Orchard
r� —
Conservation Subdivisions
with
Shared Wells and Shared Septics
Indian Walk
Buckingham Twp., PA
Individual on-lot Wells
and
Shared Central Septic Drainfield
50 acres with ten lots (20,000 to 30,000 SF)
About 90% open space
ti
/ 7
1
68
Slide#133
Slide#134
� :j? 3 ar,,,a�S•'w�• 1��•,^..
n.\
Canterbury
Buckingham, Twp., PA
16 small Starter Homes
with '/4-acre lots on 17 acres
And about 75 % open space
Shared Well
69
Slide#135
and
Community Septic Drainfield
Slide #136
400
1
to
^ ! —Ail
xf
_e7• T�_ y. r 3..! t q
•' i
+arc
rmQZ
ti
'r0 1 y f
r '~°" y ,rr 'k�y4�} �,r �/l �>x�,�,4'a •��LA `
5 ,�� ty •. � Via: ���f r...
-�-
.
_- '—�� �it l t` S��y, '�•. -.
L
•- I / .a� 7
s;• 1 l��'v y t s � - r
,t s�•
y
_ Ih 1tE
= 4 11 4
\ � �f��7��y�..,���I' .l yr• +�a.,•V i �.*- �,�� �`�.�
-'t'•>r �r �,+, �1 .,,� �,.. � .4i �, ^'%fix $��e _ -♦ �j � �1 r t
73
-
Conservation Subdivisions
with
Slide
O -Lotlndividual Septic
. .
Strathmore Farm
Madison, CT
24 homes on 29 acres
(1.2-acre density)
Condominiums on "lots" of 10,000 to 12,000 SF
Off-lot Individual Septic Fields
in the common open space
(served by public water)
74
Slide #145
PAW m
r-
'tip
Cis S:jw
f�
Slide#146
.may
75
Slide
a
Sli
•- #148
f�
3 *�
r� •
t �
1
Slide76
#149
f
Sli
S
f�
4 �(
•-
y+.q���✓�� .1�.1Tr�',rl. 7�V�
F.
Y
77
Slide #151
rr /)
r!
r�
r �
r rr 71`i J ' ................rr-
JLI II I II
rr ri irr �i i l ii r'I I �=�r�i i I r=� I
r rr Ir rr r I II II II I I II II II I I II ir�l +
r U !r rr r I II II II I I II II II { + II II II I
r Lr r I II II II � I II II II I I Ir If I
t�1 r ! II II jl I I II II II ! I II II II I
! I II II I I I II II i I II II II I
I II �I r I II II II I I II 11 jl j
I U I II I
Slide #152
Conservation Subdivisions
protectedCommunity Septic
(in the open space)
Partidgeberry Place
Ipswich, MA
20 lots @ 8,500 SF on 37 acres
{a density of nearly two acres per dwelling)
78
Slide #153
Shared septic drainfield, and public water
Slide
� f
79
yi
Sli
•- #156 t '
T.`
andall Arendt said that the view in slide #156 is of the shared drainfield for the
�-
'� �+.�1V �rf• I I
development.
:1
1�,�•.� / 4 _ \. H ! .fit,liF• f"'1`
•- i
.p
71,
�4' ,4
�'ff-
Slide
Shared Septic Systems
and Shared Wells
Slide
On utility easements in the open space
.0
Kingfield
Chadds Ford Twp.,Delaware County,PA
Shared Wells and Shared Septic Drainfields
38 dwellings on 76 acres
{including 6 attached Townhouse units)
74% open space
{56 acres)
82
Slide#161
1
w 1
meadow single _ 11
family
lots
5
5 •
w meadow . A
s
tow uses
I �
N condominiums
of original
pond �nd� ., farmhouse
s
s
I
s
1
f
s=septic field
200 aoo eooh w=well house
Slide #162
n y.
A 1
,k:•�".r1�� �" ram.._n;� a d �_I r." s ��
r
A.
w
1. x ♦ � Fay; �,I��a
t:F f yb 1
.tM1 .;:'ld�.�4. .. �xli'l� v� �• .�„� .._ �i�if'rR,s
. .fir..
83
Slide#163
�I
Slide #164
�EU."
Jam_ 'IY, •ice � 'iK ...1y�'M � �1.
84
Slide#165
Slide ••
} u
fir¢ � 4 r,. •.-1 .>
i mil+ !` �R 'N •4� 1 ) `
Multiple Shared Septic Systems
On utility easements in the open space
85
Public Water Supply
Slide .:
Long Hill Farm
Guilford, CT
55 condominium "lots" of 5,000 each, plus
35 attached units in a large barn-like building
90 dwellings on 50 acres
Density: 1.8 acres per dwelling
About 65% open space
86
Slide#169
CD
air Woods o
ti y
6 M0860W +r 6, j
S +��■ ;
S& Woodand w
am 13=11:16
S Scale in feet
_r S= Community septic systems(and reserve areas) a lee'2. a
Slide #170
F
s
Ate+ .7
M
� 'i� •� �' �'�,X; fit ?• •
lh
' ►•y 4
Jw
�r r
t ♦ W1
•— •�.
� � 9.
�S�
�� �� r� 1. ��.,y�x,.�}�-�Ip f�_M
+�' � f���_ t !a� Al ++W`�� +++ �� � P. C rc:: 1 .+
�M ! ;�4F -
�yY { - 1,
�•\�*iI�Yl:�
' �'.
..L1 q- ` - -.
..�..,
•�
` �� � ) S•
.wry F'�..n� ��. � ♦ �,'�� Y nR{1���¢.•�M ��.��'
'ti`
F
',� A� 9� `��":
r.��— .?
�:. � -'.
' �l�- y.E:'.
.{ �.
k. �i i'Z}' R _ �.
WI�_ �.t k. � < � nK _ X� � Y� a i'� 1
J,��`,1;ry�� � T �Y�S j.!v � jl � ti ��k��sU�� ++ _.i�E1 't. ,.�
. �`,iv( ��`��.�{ a � �r.�!�V.i{� � �7 .�..iA ���s�4(:T � iv s 1,.
�, �' �1.;D�t��Tg T T r. .w�'�"��` �j+,y,�irL�� �� .�-,��C'r.�,�. r ��i.�"'Y�.y 3�•_
S 97 Q7 i
',I�� � '..+a �. y? � �k� � ,��w� � , � +' �+
�.
�� ..� 1 - �. � + z-r .
s �.
'� � .fit �.�. j��.�,:. � �r.0 fir �-y,J !• ^Y.j '1.i11��:, 1 �� �. 1 �;+
.��� .. r ti'_ � ,s^. ��'gr.dz:� "4.(�' y.`�`, ,. 1 ~'�+ fir` /• r
41
• 'I�
IAY
of ,1 Al
Fk
s�{hl.. • �R ,
Ai.
r1
11,,
Conservation Subdivisions with
Community Well
and
Community Septic
The Ponds at Woodward
Kennett Township
Chester County, PA
57 homes on 120 acres (two-acre density)
(24 Townhouse units plus 33 half-acre lots)
About 70% open space
•0
Slide
trr }y ♦. .
00
PO SO
meulow
Kenne"Pike(Rte.52)
Slide #178
tr♦ 't.'
�r rrr �s•
A ♦rr ts*
,V rrr 'i♦
4.
Randall Arendt noted that the view in #178 shows the view from the road into the
development.
Slide91
#179
{ J
F,
Slide #180 At
A r.
f
yy>.
92
Slide
wv",
Alt
Sli
r
'1
• �` !-. I
/T r/
•- •
s
r
Slide93
.
sc_
Slide #184
Y•`.
• `J
Slide94
Slide #186
Community Septic and Public Water
Weatherstone CSD
West Vincent Twp., Chester County PA
273 dwellings on 300 acres
Preserved 65% of developable land
(195 acres of farmland and woods)
Mixed uses, including county library branch
95
-
s
�� •I�f�1r
hLIVIAL
Slide
,yam, .yam/
::
Weatherstone-
LAM
Slide96
#189
h� q=' , Extori6e `. 8rr�4 � •�
Sli
t':� �v� r �',• �i� wesravar•Ln `�,...t
■ eu �''�'� � "'- A �`���p��$ tCel�bratio_ns Press . r ��1�yy
' rrycr.. ^ �x � i.•• � i.�t
AAag�Memories „�,
_ Pieschco€and,CBild-,-\I
c ^r
c West Uinc'ent
Ne (((
•�„ - � �" /. Blue Aviancs `
•- •
Randall Arendt said the view in slide #190 is where the treated wastewater is sprayed in
the
development.
Slide97
#191
as 0
,lo
Lam`- .. j-I!, _ A! - •,:a ��.
'L �..�-'.- .�• � ____ _' 1 /may � -'�
w�.Slide
IF
Randall Arendt said the multifamily homes in slide #192 back up to an alley, which meant
that a road did not need to be built in front.
- a
,E -
98
Slide#193
r 7
Sli
•- #194
lip _.
M
t
Slide99
Slide #196
1_
y
4 �
K
f
11
N
Sli
•- #198
.h.
r f I
r`
~ �€
1
Slide #199
� r
Y
Slide
• 00
The Fields of St. Croix
Lake Elmo, MN
Community Well, plus
Constructed Wetland sewage treatment system
113 homes on 247 acres
(2.5-acre density)
About 60% 1pen space
102
Slide #201
Av
-
rk
` I
'� � '�rlr sy canyries
.%`
craw
Fla wk.f%T ,
F,eMu4,b R
Slide #202
14 I On
Slide103
#203
CSA
1997 Produce
4
QL
Slide #204
,,V` `� N •f a�,� , � �+��•4
• se
Slide #205
*��jP�•'` . ,tip���>.':�•� . ��Y. ' ,
y�J�:J'r' ` pt✓ �l
1wE Y„ �N•�1 J �lAi�'� `� �• •�
•S. {'� ! t� •tom.. � r►�0
14
Slide #206
�Y
wr
r J`i
}
Slide #207
•-iF
IMEM
.tea t
y
Slide #208
l \jam I
1
Slide #209
'B •�xCv,�.i�W,-may �.,.�V 4 _ -" �
Commissioner McKee arrived 1/ •
Slide #210
1�, s 1 4 �,•.'� h
r y.\� a -
t yy s" a Cis
1. r�
i. .�� ,V .��1 •�lk.'1..31T►J.M�:�iJ `lini t>ri�,,
Sli
•— S
.1 8
R
1.
Slide#212
Slide#213
XT
�r
�s b
f }
i
1
Slide#214
In Areas with Public Water and
Slide #215
Public Sewer
CSD becomes OSD
("Open Space Development")
Usually with 25-40% preserved land
Farmview
Lower Makefield Twp. Bucks County, PA
310 homes on 310 buildable acres
with 108 acres of unbuildable land conserved
Density of one dwelling per buildable acre
Tota1208 acres land preserved(140 ac. farmland, 68 ac. woodland)
Designed by a Landscape Architect
1:
Slide #216
CD
ftnvkrq
ra
Designed 613MichaelI PRITIulis, RLA, for Realen Homes
Slide
711
Colavita Christmas :„ ����o�
two
ree Farm ';• � ,,�
�v�:''w'�I /,' QO: � •'fir, ��
c1 � O
1
Slide
Borough of Elverson, PA
318 homes on 13 7 acres
Density of 2.3 dwellings per acre
Variety of housing types
(single-family to 5 du/building)
Use mix with shops, offices, and a
commercial equestrian facility
Slide
Rou hl 33% o ens ace
•
`". ....
Irmn um
,f t
110
Slide#220
.. :. .
Slide #221
neighborhood
corner store Roufe 23
post office
O
I village
p �� r` townhouses
day care -��... pasture - -
commurx"t�*\tables
office and
employment O r
centers
main street t
twins J
estate houses village
p single houses
5s
Slide#222
°' . lotSlide #223
R_
Slide
F
.. 111 rr Ir• t'f
I
Slide#225
v � G
Slide 112
Battle Road Farm
Randall Arendt said that if Chapel Hill was to grow into the rural buffer, the example of
Battle Road Farm might be one to consider.
Lincoln, MA
120 dwellings on 24 acres (5 du/ac gross)
40% Affordable (48 units)
60% are a) Senior and b) Market Rate
59 % Permanent Open Space
Layout is designed like a golf course development,
But without the golf course!
113
Slide#227
� fi
.� rm
0
Slide #228
MINUTEMAN NATIONAL PARK
I" o WETLANI}5 '�� l'U11.AAILr1l1UK .IfP71NG
Q
p w `
° 4 'q
_r <,
Commissioner McKee asked, regarding the Battle Road Farm development, what the
definition of affordable is for these homes.
Randall Arendt said it was likely pegged to an average median income.
Commissioner McKee there are a lot of discussions in Orange County over what is and
isn't affordable.
Randall Arendt said that people need to be sensitive to what it means to peg a percentage
of what is affordable in relation to an average median income, unless there are state or federal
rules involved.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott, in reference to slide #218, asked if the Summerfield
development was on public water.
Randall Arendt said yes.
114
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said if it is only possible to get affordable homes if there is
public water and sewer, or can affordable homes use a community well. She asked these
questions in relation to Randall Arendt's comment about Chapel Hill expanding into the rural
buffer.
Randall Arendt said yes, and community well and septic is cheaper than extending utility
lines. He said you would not want to run lines into the rural buffer as it encourages more growth
and people living farther from work and shops.
Slide #229
x
Slide #230
7;
yt• r e
•4
is iu�"r('.�Y,? r � •`
115
Slide #231
Meadow House
y {{
3BR
�y z
2 BR w�
2BR
. „
i
Slide #232
�TIle
Slide116
Slide#233
t g {
117
Slide#235
Bungalow Courts
(aka Pocket Neighborhoods or Cottage Clusters)
with "Detached Townhouses"
Higher Density Infill
with Central Open Space
Either on shared septics and wells,
Ir with public water/sewer
Slide#236
Cottages on Greene, East Greenwich, RI
An excellent way to ensure that affordable units blend with
market-rate units is to require that they often share the same
two-, three-, or four-family builM,ing.
rT
1
L �
PAP
118
Slide#237
14.
Ij
Ik
dqll
Slide#238
wadi� ' '�'1",'•�
119
Slide#239
LIPW
Sli
i a —
rA'
�iMlkbkd
•-
Poplar Gardens
North Boulder, CO
100% Affordable Cottages
14 dwellings on 1.4 acres (10 du/ac}
120
Slide#241
r
d.
ti
( y
I
Slide #242
Randall Arendt said the view in slide#242 is from the street, and that everyone has access
at the back to a lane.
121
Sli
•- #243
f)
:06—
�
Slide
It is important to require a minimum width
of 30 feet for central greens,
and to plant them with many shade trees.
lam-- MtiF'�'q lj ANIL
o "
MCI
o�� r
jn C
*� Ins • � -�
0
o -
� �•. +;G• •tom'_ �� ',p. � "�
r
4
W -A
xjo. L
AV
011 fir
gOOF
s ,
.qq :* cif •�!° -S ,
+I ,•: � r � `•far � ,
so
123
Slide #247
AF
PS 794
Os
To
DUPRE
PC 333
JI
Randall Arendt said the drawing in slide #247 was on example ofo pocket neighborhood
design.
Slide #248
124
Slide#249
To sum up,
CSD protects more • than Flexible Subdivs,
utilizeCan be designed to minimize fan-nland loss,
Can various wastewateroptions,
Is compatible with "Attainable Housing", and
Is very applicable tothe Rural Buffer.
Slide #250
Thank you.
Randall
rgarendt&compast.net
www.g 2
CopyrightRandall Arendt
Commissioner Carter asked about the four steps described by Randall Arendt for design,
which is identifying the conservation areas, locating the house sites, connecting homes with
streets and trails, and drawing lot lines. She asked at what point would those four steps be
incorporated into a land use plan and where would those steps be in the places he'd worked with.
She asked if they are embedded in the guidance, the land use plan, the UDO, or both?
Randall Arendt said they could be alluded to in the comprehensive plan. He said he'd sent
a North Carolina model for conservation design to the staff as a starting point.
125
Commissioner Carter said her second question was regarding buildable upland and
setting objectives. She asked if it was correct that the county has a 30% goal in the UDO.
Cy Stober said the requirement begins at 33% and then one would get lot bonuses as you
increase the amount of open space.
Commissioner Carter said gave an example of a 50% buildable upland requirement, and
asked if it would it be guidance or in the UDO.
Randall Arendt said it could be put in a guidance document, but the only thing that really
counts is the ordinance language.
Commissioner Carter asked how local governments implemented requirements to
conserve farmland. She asked if it is specified in the UDO?
Randall Arendt noted the differences in planning regulations across the United States. He
said that in the Bucks County, Pennsylvania development, the township had the rules.
Commissioner Carter asked how other open spaces were managed.
Randall Arendt said that the other examples were managed by a home association. He
gave examples that highlighted the need to properly preserve open space through easements.
Cy Stober said the ordinance requires for all flexible developments a conventional layout.
He said that staff is putting together 94 amendments at the request of the Board to better enable
flexible developments. He said currently, the conventional layout is only used administratively by
staff and is not used beyond the pre-application or application meeting. He said it's an additional
cost burden to an applicant who is trying to pursue flexible developments. He said Randall Arendt
is discussing is how flexible development could be considered in a more public way with
surrounding neighbors and with boards.
Commissioner Fowler noted that Randall Arendt's point was that communities should
preserve 50% of the buildable land, not the amount of land that includes the riparian buffer. She
said that should be considered when they are updating the UDP and comprehensive plan. She
asked if Randall Arendt was suggesting putting conservation subdivisions in the rural buffer in
places where it would work with the county's water resource limits. She asked where the best
place is to put conservation subdivisions.
Randall Arendt it's up to the local officials. He cited an example of a county that wanted
them close to water and sewer lines. He suggested a gradual approach, by only putting
conservation subdivisions in one part of the county for five years. He advised getting rid of flexible
development because it counts unbuildable land towards density.
Randall Arendt asked how riparian buffers were defined in North Carolina.
Cy Stober said it includes upland beyond flood plains and wet lands. He said state
minimum riparian buffer is 50 feet from the edge of the bank. He said Orange County has either
a 65- or 80-foot riparian buffer, and additional reservoir setbacks as well as a floodplain buffer. He
said it is either a 65-or 80-foot buffer from the edge of the 100-year flood plain. He said whatever
is the most conservative is what is applied to the water feature.
Randall Arendt clarified that it includes land beyond the flood plain. He said primary
conservation areas should not count toward density. He said you can always apply the buffers in
addition, but a good conservation plan will not push development close to those sensitive areas.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked for clarification on a comment Randall Arendt made
about requiring developers to do a 10% soil sample.
Randall Arendt said it would be in areas with septic systems and no sewer. He said it's
time consuming and expensive to test every lot. He said the developer could work with staff to
analyze the countywide soil maps, walk the lots, look for hydrophilic vegetation, and determine
which lots seem the most questionable. He gave an example of a development with 35 lots. He
said if 3 lots are questionable and then tested, if all 3 perk, then 35 is the number of lots. He said
if 1 fails, then 34 lots is the number. He said then wait a month and test 3 more lots. He said
when the developer goes for approval of a conservation subdivision, he needs to show where his
septics are proposed. He said the county wouldn't give up the requirement to prove septic
126
suitability for every lot. He said it will help determine the yield plan number by doing a 10%
sample.
Commissioner Carter asked Cy Stober if that is how it works in the county now.
Cy Stober said only the yield plan part, but the county requires a total comprehensive soil
suitability analysis of the entire site and well and septic locations. He said that is for applying for
administrative approval by staff, or if it goes to hearing.
Chair Bedford asked for clarification.
Cy Stober said there are no initial screenings of soil suitability as part of the yield or
concept plan. He said there are no preliminary evaluations of the soils; it's all or none.
Chair Bedford said that some applicants have brought soil analyses.
Cy Stober said if they come to hearing, they require a soils analysis. He said Randall
Arendt is proposing a soils analysis earlier in the process, during a site visit with the boards. He
said developers should know what they are buying or putting an option on. He said he's worked
with builders that never bothered to know what they've purchased and regretted it.
Commissioner McKee said gave an example of subdivisions he's been involved in and
said that it doesn't make sense for developers to not do their due diligence.
Randall Arendt said he's worked with some inexperienced developers that don't do that.
He said smart developers will. He said the best person to ask is the landowner who has been on
it four seasons a year for decades and knows the property better than anyone else.
Commissioner Carter said that Orange County has a reputation for being very difficult to
work with. She asked if putting things up front in the process would reduce frustration.
Randall Arendt said a developer needs to know more information than what the yield plan
provides. He said a yield plan will have no information on whether lots will perc.
Commissioner McKee said that in his lived experience the process in Orange County is
long and onerous and probably in the long run provides for a better outcome. He said that the
cost would be a minute factor in the total cost of preparation for a subdivision. He said even in a
minor subdivision, a developer will spend $30,000-$50,000 before you ever buy the land. He said
it is an extra step and expense, but there are other things that are just as onerous in the process.
Randall Arendt gave an example of how soils are analyzed in Maine. He said a 10%
sample is not onerous and it gives a much deeper insight. He said that the soil types in Orange
County can be difficult to work with.
Chair Bedford asked James Bryan, Staff Attorney, what rights does the county have to ask
of HOAs. She asked if the county could demand that HOAs include language about pumping
septic systems and general ownership requirements. She said she would like that information in
the future.
Commissioner Fowler asked how the communities with affordable conservation
subdivisions made it happen. She asked if it is something that can be put in the UDO or if the
developers were incentivized.
Randall Arendt said the development of Battle Road Farm in Massachusetts was planned
by the community to be an affordable development from the beginning as a response to a
requirement from the state. He described how Battle Road Farm was planned.
Commissioner Fowler asked if the developer bought the land.
Randall Arendt said yes.
Commissioner Greene said they can't require developers to have housing for residents at
a certain percentage of average median income. She said that the county would need to own
land. She said if they don't own the land, they can possibly talk the developer into working with
Habitat for Humanity, for example. She said they can provide subsidies to housing non-profits.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said she appreciated having the differences between flexible and
conservation subdivisions clarified. She said when thinking of the land use plan to the Board
should consider the goals of a conservation subdivision and the other goals of the county. She
said there are areas of farmland the county may want to preserve, but they may consider
127
differently if they are thinking of housing attainability or environmental resource protection. She
said the the Board needs to think about which parts of the county fulfill different goals, so they
aren't putting conservation subdivisions anywhere.
Randall Arendt said that the Board might consider a sunset provision to evaluate how well
the changes are working.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said it would be important to her with conservation to have public
access through an easement, then an HOA would not have to worry about liability.
Randall Arendt gave an example of a development he did in Pennsylvania where the trails
were made publicly accessible in exchange for an optional density bonus.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if Randall Arendt felt that conservation subdivisions
could be put all over the county, including rural areas.
Randall Arendt said they could be if that is what the county wants. He said that what he
would not do is allow for any more flexible development in other parts of the county due to it being
an old solution.
Commissioner Carter asked if a vision for targeted areas for conservation subdivisions in
the rural buffer would be consistent with what Randall Arendt had presented to the Board.
Randall Arendt said yes. He said due to regard for the rural character of the buffer, scenic
viewshed protection from public roads might be high on the priority list.
Chair Bedford invited members of the Planning Board to ask questions.
Statler Gilfillen thanked Randall Arendt for his presentation. He noted that there are
similarities from his presentation to villages in Europe.
Delores Bailey asked how Orange County soils are in relation to community wells and
community septic.
Randall Arendt said he could not speak in depth to that.
Delores Bailey asked if the designs of the developments Randall Arendt shared are simple
to do.
Randall Arendt said yes. He described a septic system that was multiplied to become a
shared system. He said in most cases they were shared systems, not a community system
serving 20 or more homes. He said having multiple systems is less risky for residents than a
large community system that may fail.
Meg Millard asked how enforcement of conservation subdivisions is maintained.
Randall Arendt said the cardinal rule is to not make it too complicated. He described
requiring intermittently mowed areas or having volunteer work crews maintain trails in the spring,
but not to make elaborate requirements. He said private roads require a lot of money to maintain
and he advised avoiding them.
Chair Bedford thanked Randall Arendt for his presentation.
The Board took a 10-minute break at 3:10 p.m.
2. Facilitated Discussion for Identification of Next Steps
Kelly Guadalupe, Strategic Planning Manager, facilitated a discussion by the Board for
next steps.
Kelly Guadalupe said that two areas of Board interest have not been addressed. She said
those two were input from developers and Chapel Hill's housing capacity and planning. She said
developers and municipalities were seen as stakeholders in the comprehensive plan development
process and would be part of round three of engagement.
Commissioner Greene said she would like to hear about the Town of Chapel Hill's plans
for growth within its boundaries.
Cy Stober said that Town of Chapel Hill representatives declined an invitation to present.
Kelly Guadalupe said she thought that the town would be involved in stakeholder
conversations.
128
Cy Stober said yes, but as far as presenting, the town declined.
Chair Bedford said staff could review the report. She said the Board would like to know
what the report says, and if the town thinks they can meet that growth. She said the Board would
like to know how many units are in the pipeline for the various municipalities. She said they would
like to know the number of units in the pipeline for Mebane, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and
Hillsborough and the affordability of the units.
Cy Stober said he could get the number of approved and unbuilt units from the
municipalities. He said there are different resources that identify how much housing is needed,
and all those numbers differ a little. He said that he cannot represent the town's study because
it was never adopted by the town. He said he can get the number of units and if any have been
designated for affordability.
Commissioner Fowler asked why the town did not adopt the study.
Cy Stober said it was very controversial and the complete communities study was
ultimately not adopted by the town.
Kelly Guadalupe asked if that topic could be shared by email to the Board.
Chair Bedford said the Board would like to hear it together and ask questions.
Chair Bedford said the Board wanted to hear from the chambers of commerce and housing
non-profits.
Kelly Guadalupe said that the developers could be included in round three of engagement
as community stakeholders.
The Board agreed with that approach.
Cy Stober said that knowing the Board's interests after the retreats, they will be able to
have a much more productive conversation with developers.
Kelly Guadalupe said part of engagement window three includes roundtable stakeholder
conversations with developers.
Cy Stober said they will reach out to the chambers of commerce and Home Builders
Association.
Chair Bedford said to include the housing non-profits.
Vice-Chair Hamilton asked for staff to speak with the Chair and Vice-Chair on how the
roundtables are formatted so that they can get their questions answered, but also be time efficient.
Chair Bedford asked if commissioners are invited.
Cy Stober said yes. He agreed with Vice-Chair Hamilton that structuring the conversation
will be very important.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked that the discussion would allow stakeholders to speak
about how the county's practices slow things down and make things less affordable.
Kelly Guadalupe asked if that is typically part of the discussion in a comprehensive plan
update.
Cy Stober said yes, and that there are several actions in the draft plan that direct the
county to amend the ordinance to meet certain goals or needs, and the ordinance contains the
steps the county goes through when it comes to development review.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she would like an update on the recommended actions
for the county to have affordable housing.
Cy Stober said those recommendations came out in 2021, and were a response to a
petition from 2019. He said he can coordinate that information with the County Attorney's Office.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she would like an update before they speak with
developers. She said she has a copy of the recommendations, and wants to know how the county
has changed its processes and what is left outstanding.
Commissioner Carter asked for clarification on the roundtable discussions. She asked if
the structure would consist of the Board's questions to them, and their questions of the Board.
129
Cy Stober said that this is a public comment draft for feedback. He said that they should
probably survey the Board requesting conversation topics and construct the agenda based on
that feedback.
Commissioner Carter said they haven't approved the land use plan, and she is sensitive
to speaking with developers and setting expectations that what is on paper is the final thing.
Kelly Guadalupe said the county isn't that point yet.
Cy Stober said this is the comment draft and described the rest of the review and
finalization process.
Commissioner Greene asked if there is a possibility for a roundtable with the
environmental and agricultural communities.
Kelly Guadalupe asked if it would be necessary before moving forward with engagement
window three.
Commissioner Greene said yes, and said that the environmental community would have
different interests than the development community, or even the agricultural community. She
asked if there could be three roundtables.
Chair Bedford said she did not want three extra roundtables. She asked if that could be
part of the regular engagement process.
Commissioner McKee said it would have to be three separate roundtables for developers,
agricultural, and environmental groups for efficiency.
Commissioner Greene said she has concerns about tipping the scales towards
developers.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said she attended the voluntary agricultural breakfast, and their board
had a good presentation of what their priorities are. She suggested that they could get feedback
from the agricultural and environmental advisory boards.
Kelly Guadalupe said the consultant could guide the county on how to get that feedback
through engagement window three. She asked if the Board would like to hear from Clarion on
what engagement window three looks like.
Cy Stober said that the Clarion contract will have to be amended, and that all the different
meetings will cost money. He that staff could do something simple regarding the draft land use
plan at the upcoming agricultural summit. He said the agricultural community was included in
engagement window one and they could do something similar. He said that would require
reposting the comment draft.
Commissioner Carter asked if there is anything in the discussion that will affect the
comment draft.
Kelly Guadalupe said yes, there will be.
Kelly Guadalupe the third topic that was not covered was an economic analysis. She said
staff understood that the Board declined an offer for an information session.
Chair Bedford referred to page 8, number 7 of the agenda packet. She said that the Board
declined a market analysis proposed by Commissioner Greene. She said she thought the Board
was still looking for information from economists on the topics listed in the agenda packet: "Does
more housing lead to affordable housing in our county?" and "How to think about this issue of
supply/demand, elasticity and limits on resources."
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she was still looking for that information
Vice-Chair Hamilton said she was interested if there was any existing information that
answer these questions before hiring an expert.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said if they have questions, they can't get an answer from
just reviewing the studies.
Kelly Guadalupe asked if current Planning staff has the expertise to answer questions like
that.
Travis Myren said no.
Chair Bedford suggested the School of Government.
130
Cy Stober suggested someone from NC State. He said that at the Home Builders
Association event in April or May they may have some data available for evaluation, but it would
be for Chatham, Orange, and Durham counties.
Commissioner Greene said the analysis would need to include all of Orange County. She
said the municipal housing information would be a start.
Cy Stober asked for clarity on what the Board was looking for. He said staff presented a
market analysis on activity nodes at a work session, as well as a housing market analysis
throughout the county. He wanted to know if the Board was looking for different information than
what was previously presented.
Chair Bedford said they did not want to know about that. She said the Board was
interested in the theory of if you just build more housing, you will get affordable housing, and how
it works. She said they wanted to know the price points and how you think about it in a university
town. She said they wanted to think about the issue of supply and demand, and limits on
resources. She said they wanted the real economist point of view on housing.
Cy Stober said the market analysis he presented included all but the affordability piece.
Chair Bedford said they presentation included how many units there are and the price
points and that's not what they are looking for. She said they wanted some forecasting.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said an economist would explain supply and demand models and the
theory of how more housing possibly leads to affordable housing in the county or anywhere else.
She said she thought the question was more about that rather than a market analysis, which
looked at Orange County trends.
Cy Stober confirmed that the interest is in an economic analysis of housing demand,
present and future, and within that, how would affordability be addressed.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said it must include supply and demand and understanding the
equilibrium conditions of that.
Commissioner McKee said he is struggling with how to apply the theoretical projections to
conditions on the ground.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said it depends on what kind of economist you get. She said the
Board would want someone who can translate the theory into what is seen in Orange County.
Commissioner McKee asked how the county was going to set parameters for affordable
housing and workforce housing, and how will the county adapt to unforeseen consequences. He
said he has concerns about committing taxpayer funds for subsidizing housing.
Kelly Guadalupe asked for clarification on Commissioner McKee's comment.
Commissioner McKee said he wanted to make sure he got information he could use.
Kelly Guadalupe confirmed that Commissioner McKee was interested in practical
information that is understandable and applicable.
Commissioner Fowler said she and Commissioner Carter attended the Triangle West MTP
2055 plan and they included data on growth in jobs in Orange and Durham counties as well as
population growth. She said it is important that housing is near transit and to put housing in
municipalities rather than what the Board is focusing on out in the county with a LIDO. She said
they should still support it via Habitat for Humanity and EMPOWERment. She said in terms of
trying to build more in the county, she wasn't sure that was the goal. She said the problem with
just saying the more supply we make means it's going to be cheaper is that the county is not in a
closed system. She said there is constant need all around the Triangle.
Kelly Guadalupe said that a speaker could discuss the entire system and not the county
in a vacuum.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said an economist will explain how that will fit. She said an analysis
will give you the outlines, but not an answer once you try to implement it.
Commissioner Greene agreed with Commissioner Fowler that housing needs to be near
transit. She reviewed the concept of location efficiency for housing that is near transit and is in a
15-minute walkable zone where people can have access to things they need.
131
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if Commissioners Greene and Fowler were saying the
county would deny rezoning because the Board would not allow housing to be developed in the
county.
Commissioner Greene said no, the Board is talking about conservation subdivisions and
other ways to create housing. She said that the municipalities are creating plans to grow densely,
and to provide affordable housing within those boundaries. She said a house located in rural
Orange County, far from a transit line creates a less affordable living situation than an identical
house in Chapel Hill on a transit line near services. She said they have to remember they are in
a county with municipalities that are well equipped to absorb a lot of this growth.
Commissioner Carter said they don't have enough data to say that the municipal plans will
meet the housing needs in the county, and that the county should keep their options open. She
said the county should look at strategic, targeted areas that are proximal to the things the Board
talks about with smart growth and look at what we can do with conservation subdivisions. She
said they should think about how they position those in targeted, strategic ways enabling the
county to learn how they work or don't work. She said out in the county where the goals are for
farmland preservation, they should think about a different type of conservation subdivision
approach. She said this conversation might create changes to the comment draft land use plan.
Commissioner McKee said farmland preservation and development is diametrically
opposed. He said you can't have both. He said farming in Orange County is going to be small
scale in the future and won't be widespread. He said he wanted to understand what is affordable.
He said that he also wants to know how they will achieve it, how the county will pay for it, and
what the county will not do as a result. He said he wants the Board to focus and define what they
are trying to accomplish.
Commissioner Greene said each year she attends the farm tour, and she sees more small-
scale farms.
Commissioner McKee explained how farming will be very different than what he grew up
with.
Commissioner Greene said that it will be difficult to get affordable housing in Orange
County given the price of land.
Commissioner McKee said he wants the Board to remain focused on the endpoint.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said the Board will have to hash some of this out, but in the retreat
today they needed to focus on the topics at hand.
Kelly Guadalupe reviewed what the Board agreed that they still wanted information on: 1)
Affordable housing market analysis; 2) Municipal housing units as part of a Board discussion
Kelly Guadalupe reviewed the steps for engagement window three, which will last 8-10
weeks. She said that Clarion will take the feedback from engagement window 3, and incorporate
into another draft of the plan. She said it will go back to the Board and that will be the time to go
through the plan page by page. She said after the Board reviews it, the plan would go to the
Planning Board and back to the Board of County Commissioners for formal action to adopt the
plan.
Kelly Guadalupe asked what parts of the draft plan should be removed or revised before
it goes out for the next round of engagement. She showed two charts, pictured below:
132
Chart #1:
�o ti cS
'J Foc,+ �0" Y, Pie-44,1riL
Plmn;,aq �
rdv,
j
as �s
�-o e,+r
VIIA�5
133
Chart #2:
s) Ru r-6d k�-, V,�Y go-le's
7 �I46� e v�h,(' 60LRI�,Aiy
ptG �v► �6krry) IOvl� en �fd,6a,
P
Kelly Guadalupe said, for example, that the Board did not seem to be comfortable with the
broad language of"re-evaluation of rural buffer" in item two of chart#1, and that the phrasing will
be changed. She said another example is item four, "water and sewer service areas," which will
have the references to package treatment plants removed because those are off the table. She
asked the Board what topics should be removed from the draft plan because they are not up for
discussion.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said that she could not answer the question without re-reading the
draft plan.
Chair Bedford said she would like to go through each change to understand them. She
said when they first received the plan, she did not have the background or knowledge to
understand them. She said that the Board should have a near-unanimous decision to remove
topics from the draft plan.
Kelly Guadalupe asked if questions or feedback about the changes could be emailed to
the Planning Department.
Chair Bedford said she needed staff to walk through the changes with her to make sure
she understood them.
Commissioner Greene said it would be more efficient to do this as a group.
Kelly Guadalupe asked if there any topics that come to mind that should not be on the
table for discussion.
134
Commissioner Fowler said she didn't have a problem with the language regarding the
rural buffer.
Cy Stober said Chair Bedford said at work session that the language was too broad, and
they are fine tuning the language
Commissioner Carter said she thought that the concern was about postponing a
conversation until after the plan was approved and that the Board should have an opportunity to
weigh in on that before the drafted revisions are made. She said the current plan says it will be
re-evaluated down the road over the ten-year cycle, but that the Board doesn't want to wait to
have those conversations.
Commissioner McKee said if they are not going to have an honest conversation about the
rural buffer, then they might as well go home.
Kelly Guadalupe asked if the Board could clarify if changes to the rural buffer can be
included in engagement window three.
Commissioner Greene said for her it is not up for discussion. She said for a long time the
county's position has been that they will not make any changes to the rural buffer unless it is part
of a collaborative conversation with the other parties. She said that wanted to see a finalized land
use plan and then the county can have the conversation with the other parties.
Kelly Guadalupe said it appears there are different opinions on this topic, and it will affect
moving forward with engagement window three.
Commissioner Fowler said she thinks it is important to get public opinion on the rural
buffer, because the county has an idea of conservation subdivisions, but they are currently
excluded from the rural buffer. She said if you want people driving less, and people are going to
move out there, it seems like the county should allow them in the rural buffer. She said it likely
won't be many and it makes more sense to put them closer to town than, say, to Person County.
Kelly Guadalupe asked the Board if they want conversation on the rural buffer to be part
of engagement window three.
Commissioner Greene said she could support having in the draft the notion of
conservation subdivisions in the rural buffer. She said she would not want the rural buffer to be
eliminated in the draft.
Cy Stober asked the Board to re-read the draft plan because he felt that staff did a good
job of incorporating their feedback as well as the public's. He asked that the Board send questions
or comments to the Planning Department so they can be prepared to respond.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if Planning staff considered the memo from the County
Attorney's Office on housing when drafting the land use plan.
Cy Stober said yes. He said they the main piece that was not incorporated was the
economic analysis. He said they've had conversations with the development community, home
building community, affordable housing community, and they incorporated that along with all the
environmental materials as well as public feedback. He said this is not his plan, this is the county's
plan. He said they tried to strike a balance and want to serve the county's interest. He said they
would provide an update to the Board on what has been implemented.
Chair Bedford asked for the memo from the attorney's office to be forwarded to the Board.
Cy Stober said he would send it.
Commissioner Carter said she would like re-review the draft plan. She said reviewing it
together would be helpful because each person will pick something different up.
Kelly Guadalupe asked the Board when the Board would want to have another
conversation after reviewing the plan and making notes about topics that could be removed.
Commissioner McKee said that the holidays will affect their ability to meet.
Kelly Guadalupe encouraged the Board to review the plan for topics that could be
removed.
135
Commissioner Greene said she would like to spend the time intensively reviewing the plan
now rather than at the end of the process.
Commissioner McKee and Chair Bedford agreed with Commissioner Greene.
Chair Bedford said she would like to understand the approximately 64 changes suggested
by staff through review and discussion.
Vice-Chair Hamilton said the retreat committee would consider adding the land use plan
to the January retreat agenda.
Commissioner Fowler asked for staff to resend the draft plan to the Board.
Chair Bedford said she would like for a draft to be ready for public feedback by March
2026.
Before adjournment, Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board reviewed the list of board and
commission appointments that the Board will consider at their December 1 business meeting.
Chair Bedford said the Board should consider if there are any boards that should not have
commissioner representation anymore. She said she would like to have a work session topic on
the boards the commissioners serve on.
Commissioner Carter said that JCPC was being reviewed by the County Attorney's Office.
Adjournment
The Board adjourned the meeting at 4:42 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Jamezetta Bedford, Chair
Recorded by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board
Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.