Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 03-21-2026; 1, 2, & 3 - Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 – Board Request for Additional Information 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 21, 2026 Action Agenda Item No. 1, 2, & 3 SUBJECT: Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 — Board Request for Additional Information DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: A. BOCC Request for Additional Information, Cy Stober, 919-245-2592 Part A Tom Altieri, 919-245-2579 B. BOCC Request for Additional Information, Part B C. Housing Economics PowerPoint Presentation by Yonah Freemark D. OWASA Utility Service PowerPoint Presentation by Todd Taylor PURPOSE: To receive presentations and engage in a roundtable discussion on housing markets and pricing as 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 preference was for staff to schedule work session and retreat agenda items 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 were scheduled for work sessions on September 9, October 14, and November 11, 2025; half-day retreats were scheduled for November 14 and November 21, 2025, and March 21, 2026. The half-day retreats were needed to cover Part B (Attachment B) of the Board's request for information, which includes several guest presenters. Agenda Item 1 — Housing Availability and Affordability (Attachment C) Yonah Freemark, a principal research associate in the Housing and Communities Division at the Urban Institute, will provide a presentation to the Board. Sections of the presentation include: • Introduction • Setting the stage: Orange County in the broader housing market • How does land-use policy impact housing construction? • How does housing construction affect housing affordability? • What is the link between urban design, urban expansion, and transportation? • Implications for Orange County 2 • Potential opportunities for Orange County Agenda Item 2 — OWASA Utility Service Capacity and Limitations (Attachment D) Todd Taylor, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Executive Director, will provide a presentation to the Board on water and sewer capacities, constraints, ability to serve residential development in the future. Agenda Item 3 — Roundtable Discussion with Affordable Housing Partners, Chambers of Commerce, and Homebuilders Association The following organizations have been invited to attend the Retreat and participate in the discussion: CASA (Community Alternatives for Supportive Abodes); Community Home Trust; DHIC; EMPOWERment; Habitat for Humanity; Hillsborough-Orange County Chamber of Commerce; Homebuilders Association of Durham, Orange, and Chatham Counties; The Chamber for a Greater Chapel Hill-Carrboro; Orange County Affordable Housing Advisory Board; and Pee Wee Homes. Following are some questions that have been previously posed by the BOCC that may be helpful for generating discussion among the group: • What do developers suggest for building more housing? • Types of housing? • Chamber for a Greater Chapel Hill-Carrboro "big bold ideas" summary: http://www.bigboldideas.org/ • What may be different for non-profit developers? • How can Orange County work collaboratively to better serve the need for attainable housing? Additional information about the project, including e-mail sign-up for project updates, are available on the project website: .https://www.orangecountVIanduseplan.com. Completed project deliverables, including Fact Book; outreach summaries; and more, are also available on the project website: https://www.orangecountylanduseplan.com/resources Why does Orange County Need to Update its Land Use Plan? - In North Carolina, local governments that apply "...zoning regulations... shall adopt and reasonably maintain a comprehensive plan or land-use plan (G.S. 160D-501(a)). This statute requires that zoning regulations are "in accordance with a comprehensive plan" and requires that local governments make statements of consistency when making rezoning decisions on a development application. The existing Orange County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in November 2008. FINANCIAL IMPACT: At its August 26, 2025 Business meeting, the BOCC received cost estimates for information/presentations requested from independent experts (Attachment B) and directed staff on which to pursue. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #3, approved at the October 21 Business Meeting, included funding for the additional professional services. ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports: • GOAL 1: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND CLIMATE ACTION 3 OBJECTIVE 4. Incentivize and promote sustainable agriculture and local food systems development through supportive policy, funding, farmland protection and educational outreach. OBJECTIVE 5. Review land use policies to promote and connect Town, County, and private trails and open spaces. OBJECTIVE 6. Protect water supply/watersheds. OBJECTIVE 7. Conserve and protect high priority open space, including Natural Heritage sites, nature preserves, watershed riparian buffers, and prime/threatened farmland. OBJECTIVE 8. Include environmental stewardship objectives in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. • GOAL 2: HEALTHY COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE 7. Invest in services and programs that improve the health and quality of life of the community (e.g., recreation and public open spaces, arts, etc.) • GOAL 3: HOUSING FOR ALL OBJECTIVE 5. Review County ordinances, policies, agreements, and the regulatory processes to streamline practices, and increase opportunities and reduce barriers to construct housing. OBJECTIVE 7. Expand resources and invest in housing designed for our aging and disabled residents. OBJECTIVE 9. Increase representation of people with lived experience on housing related matters. • GOAL 4: MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIVE 1. Identify priorities and resources necessary to implement the Orange County Transit Plan. • GOAL 5: PUBLIC EDUCATION/LEARNING COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE 1. Foster collaborative relationships with formal and informal educational organizations and agencies to provide opportunities for community members to meet, connect, and learn together. • GOAL 6: DIVERSE AND VIBRANT ECONOMY OBJECTIVE 2. Review and revise County policies and regulations to support business investment in Orange County. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the presentations and provide any comments and questions, as well as providing feedback to staff on next steps towards release of the public engagement draft Land Use Plan 2050. 4 Attachment A Land Use Plan 2050 - BOCC Request for Additional Information, Part A (Items within Planning staff purview and can be completed in the near-term and with no financial impact) 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. 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 amend the Plan? After working through a change with the towns? 2. 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? 3. 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 operate within them. 4. Water and Sewer Service Areas and Providers a) Where is water and sewer now and who is the provider? (within existing EDDs) b) Show us map views of the county and the OWASA, Hillsborough water/sewer, Durham water/sewer, Orange Alamance water/sewer, Mebane water/sewer and any other public providers with their current boundaries and any proposed boundaries. 5 c) Within these providers' service areas, where is water now? Where is sewer now? Plans under development for extension? (Planning Staff Note: Release of specific locations of water and sewer utility lines and connections is prohibited by the utility providers) d) Give us a map view of the existing EDDs. e) What is proposed to change? (within existing EDDs) f) How many residential units are in existing EDDs? g) Was Blackwood Station dropped from water/sewer expansion? Please explain the project and the outcome. 5. Rural Activity Nodes a) Remind us why there are two, what uses are allowed in each of them, and for which sizes of population. b) What uses are currently in the existing rural activity nodes? c) Why combine them? d) If commercial is allowed, what specific commercial uses? e) Additional residential? What types? 6. Conservation Subdivisions a) Are they allowed in the rural buffer now? What parameters? b) Are they allowed in any area of the county now? What parameters? c) Are there large parcels remaining in the rural buffer? d) Distinguish the policy aspect and the zoning aspect where density or# units could be limited? e) Can we put the clustered housing on land in the area least favorable for"farmable" land? 6 Attachment B Land Use Plan 2050 - BOCC Request for Additional Information, Part B Blue: Within Planning staff purview and can be completed in the near-term and with no financial impact. Red: Beyond Planning Staff purview and may have financial impacts. 1) WHY does Hillsborough want to constrict their water/sewer boundary? a) Cost? Of what? Maintenance? Expansion? Other? b) Lack of water supply? c) Or combination of factors? E.g., Choosing to be denser in smaller footprint not related to water supply? d) Seem like density should be near the train station. 2) Input from Developers a) What do developers suggest to build more housing? b) Types of housing? c) CH Chamber big bold ideas summary for housing w their builders and developers info; Include Hillsborough Chamber d) What do nonprofit developers say? What's different for them? 3) Preserving Farmland and Open Space a) We want to receive the preserving farmland report before we make comments on the Land Use Plan 2050 b) Concept of"farmable" land c) Refresh or update from Jan on "smaller" farms in OC 4) Now pull it together and go with map view of county to go over area by area to consider all the competing trade-offs (Planning Staff Note: Requires some scoping) a. What are current rules for that area? b. What is there now? c. Pros and Cons of plan suggested changes? Segment or small area by segment and tie these changes to our strategic plan. d. Housing; Focus on Housing plus Transit/Transportation; Climate Change 5) a. How do the types of rocks matter for water supply to wells b. Can any portion of our county be predictable or not for water supply/aquifer? c. Can well be tested ahead of approval for zoning change or building? Guildford Co ordinance was referenced with Fiddlehead?? d. What is the science re community wells? Impacting other wells? Costs to drill? Costs to Maintain? Reliability? Failure rates? What is known and what is not known? In face of climate change?? e. What else do we not know about wells that we should for health and for ample water supply? 6) 7 a) Costs to build? Costs to maintain? Failure rates? What can be done if fail? b) What else do we not know about community septic that we should know to make decisions for our current residents and our grandchildren/future generations? 7) a. So does more housing lead to affordable housing in our county? b. How to think about this issue of supply/demand, elasticity and limits on resources. 8) a. Provide the report, and go over a summary b. The number of units needed and does the report say the town can meet that growth within town boundaries? HOW? c. Do Carrboro, Hillsborough and/or Mebane have any similar studies? How are they then planning? 8 Orange County Board of Commissioners / March 2026 GeneratingApproachesEffective to Land - Use Policyin Orange County . . : URBAN • E N S T 1 r Y T E - E E E V A T E - T !r Yonah Freemark 9 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY About the Urban Institute and Our Research The Urban Institute is a nonprofit research organization that believes decisions shaped by facts have the power to improve public policy and practice, strengthen communities, and transform people's lives for the better. ALL RESEARCH FINDINGS REFLECT THE EVIDENCE-INFORMED VIEWS OF URBAN RESEARCHERS ALONE AND SHOULD NOT BE ASCRIBED TO THE URBAN INSTITUTE. I N S T I T U T E 2 10 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY • The housing market today • Land-use policy's impacts on construction • Agenda Housing supply's impacts on affordability • Links between urban growth patterns and transportation • Implications for Orange County I N S T I T U T E 11 12 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Themes of the land use plan: • Cultivate sustainable development • A reminder: Key Protect natural resources • Advance opportunities for aspects of the draft attainable equitable housing and q g 2050 plan employment • Implement sustainable transportation and economic development initiatives I N S T I T U T E 13 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Orange Has Added Homes More Slowly Than Other Counties in the Region Change in housing units from 2000, by county (Alamance County O-Chatham County (Durham County Orange County has -0-Orange County *-Wake County gained about 25% 200% additional housing units � .� since 2000, a far lower 1so rate than the rest of the 160% Triangle. 140 120% 100% 2000 2010 2020-2024 • U R 0 A N • I N S T 1 T Y i 0 Source:US Census 2000 and 2010;ACS 2020-2024. 14 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Home Prices in Orange County Have Risen Rapidly, But Not As Quickly As In Other Counties Change in median housing value from 2000, by county -0-Alamance County 1-Chatham County -0-Durham County Median housing values -0-Orange County Wake County have risen dramatically 350% throughout the Triangle 300% since 2010, with 250% especially high rates of appreciation in 200% Chatham County. 150% 100% 2000 2010 2020-2024 U R 0 A N I N S T 1 T U T E Source:US Census 2000 and 2010;ACS 2020-2024.Data for Chatham County in 2010 is estimated.Not adjusted for inflation. 15 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY But, by Some Measures, Orange Remains Less Affordable Than Surrounding Counties Median home value as share of median household income Median annual rent as share of median household income 25% 20% 15% 10% 2 1 5% 0 0% Alamance Chatham Durham Orange Wake Alamance Chatham Durham Orange Wake County County County County County County County County County County U R 0 A N I N S T I T U T E Source:US Census ACS 2020-2024. 8 16 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Unlike in Other Counties in the Region, in Orange, Apartment Units Are a Declining Share of Total Share of housing units in buildings with 5 or more units, by county As they have grown, Alamance County -0-Chatham County Durham County other Triangle counties Orange County -0-Wake County have added apartment 30% units as a share of the 25% building stock. But since 20% 1980, Orange has become more 15% dominated by single- 10% family homes, 5% potentially limiting 0- housing options. 0% 1980 1990 2000 2008-12 2020-24 • U R B A N I N S T I T U T E Source:US Census 1980,1990,2000,2010,and ACS 2020-2024. 17 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Orange County Has Become More Occupied by Homeowners and One- Person Households Share of households that are owners Share of households that are one person -0-Alamance County Chatham County -0-Durham County Alamance County-i_%-Chatham County -o-Durham County Orange County Wake County Orange County -0-Wake County 85% 36% 80% 34% 75% 32% 70% 30% 2 65% 8% 26% 77-77_. -1-0— 60% 24% 55% 22% 50% 20% 1990 2000 2010 2020-24 1990 2000 2010 2020-24 U R 0 A N I N S T I T U T E Source: US Census 1990,2000,2010,and ACS 2020-2024. 10 18 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY The County's Greatest- Needs Residents Face Persistent Housing Challenges Affordable and available housing units for every 100 extremely low- Share of people living in poverty residing in high-poverty income residents neighborhoods 70 25% 60 20% 50 40 15 30 10% 20 5% 10 0 M 0 0% Alamance Chatham Durham Orange Wake Alamance Chatham Durham Orange Wake County County County County County County County County County County U R 0 A N • I N S T I T U T E Source:Urban Institute Upward Mobility Dashboard (using 2023 data). 11 19 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Conditions Imply that Orange County is Not Providing Homes for Those Who Need Them • A majority of Orange County workers are commuting in from elsewhere. They're likely doing so because they can't find the affordable homes they need. • The housing market is concentrating a specific demographic of residents—homeowners in single-family homes—rather than accommodating the broader market found throughout the Triangle. I N S T I T U T 1 20 21 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY • Local governments use regulations to constrain what can be built. • "Deregulation," "zoning reform," or "upzoning" typically mean making it Land -use possible to build more (more units, regulation and more stories, etc.) on the same lot. housing investment Common regulations are: • Minimum lot area per unit • Minimum parking requirements • Maximum height (stories or feet) • Maximum floor area ratio I N S T I T U T E 22 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Restrictive zoning, particularly in the form of large-lot, single-family-only zoning, is associated with: • Less construction What's wrong • Higher housing costs with current • Higher economic and racial zoning policy? segregation • Higher automobile dependence I N S T I T U T E 23 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Compared to Much of the Rest of the Triangle, Orange County is Zoned for Fewer Apartments Neighborhoods where 0 multifamily apartments can be built by right H . " Duu Fh''am lye. 1 - Outside of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, very little land is zoned to enable multifamily , ` ; Cary : , RA.EIG a r H housing, minimum lot sizes arey4xJ 71, _ 1 high, and all housing must be associated with off street A "'q-,v — w'ils Iafls parking. thfida N S T I T U T E Source: National Zoning Atlas. 16 24 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY The Theory Behind the Current "YIMBY" Movement to Reform Zoning Zoning as it currently Reform could exists restricts alter zoning to housing construction More building and therefore limits allow more construction housing affordability I N S T I T U T 1 25 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY • Over the short-terra, upzonings may or may not increase construction. What do we know • Over the long term, upzoning likely expands construction, but the scale about zoning of upzoning matters: The bigger the reform's impact on upzoning, the more likely it will have housing an impact. construction? Downzoning reduces construction. U R B A N - I N S T I T U T E - 26 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY How Might Zoning Reform Affect. .. Neighborhoods Versus a Region Overall? • Zoning reform's impacts are localized: They impact the neighborhoods where they are implemented. • But construction doesn't automatically follow! Construction is only feasible under the following circumstances: 1. Zoning change produces a large difference between a parcel's current built ("improvement") value and its potential built value. 2. A neighborhood has high enough rents or home values to cover the costs associated with new construction. 3. The real-estate market overall is profitable to investors at a return equivalent to, or higher, than other types of investment. I N S T I T U T 1 27 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY How Might Zoning Reform Affect. . . Investment in Different Types of Construction? • Experience in cities like Los Angeles and Portland shows how cities can accommodate high levels of new density through accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and small-scale apartment buildings. • In cities like Houston and Nashville, reduced minimum lot area requirements have enabled "tall-skinny" homes: tightly spaced townhomes. • In cities like New York and Washington, rezonings have encouraged the creation of high-density, mixed-use districts. I N S T I T U T 1 28 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY How Might Zoning Reform Affect. .. Direct Investment in Affordable Housing? • Affordable housing projects need an accommodating land-use environment to be feasible, because they typically need to be efficient in their land utilization. • Moreover, most feasible subsidized affordable housing projects—like those supported by the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects—can only be built affordably as multifamily complexes. I N S T I T U T 1 29 30 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY The Theory Behind the Current "YIMBY" Movement to Reform Zoning: Affordability There is less Zoning reforms More housing competition for enable additional units are built housing units, housing construction in a place meaning more affordability I N S T I T U T 1 31 HOUSIN(-. IN ORANGE COUNTY The Ideal Link Between Zoning Changes Housing Affordability Zoning reform designed to increase . - housing construction Increased housing construction occurs Increased supply-side competition for homes I Lower housing costs, both in neighborhood and in region Zoning reform designed to increase housing construction Increased speculation in local real estate Increased demand-side competition for homes, plus demolition of existing units I Steady or higher housing costs in the affected neighborhood 33 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY • New construction helps accommodate housing demand, thus reducing upward pressure in What do we know highly sought-after areas. about the effects of The most likely impact of more new new construction construction over the medium to long term is moderation of price On housing increases in both the affected area affordability? and the region overall. • Construction cannot make housing massively more affordable on average or investors would not build. U R B A N - I N 5 T I T U T E 34 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY New Housing is Unaffordable to Most Residents, But Can Allow " Filtering" of Older Units Estimated share of Orange County households that could afford a median home, by year housing unit constructed Less than a third of 50% Orange County 40% households can afford 30% the cost of a recently 20% constructed home 10% ($638,000). 0% &ip �ptippptipq �q rp --C11 '.,q 01 ,,o ,gyp p,'o o �o ,10 o qCbop � p " ti Year housing unit built • U R 0 A N I N S T I T U T E Source: US Census ACS 2020-24.Assumes mortgage rate of 5.8%;20%downpayment;0 other debts. 35 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Adding Homes Can Keep Costs Down for the Middle of the Market Median housing values as a multiple of median incomes, 2022 Metropolitan areas that added Metro areas with low housing values Metro areas with middle and high housing values more housing units between 10 2000 and 2022 had lower LosAngeles housing costs by 2022, meaning that the typical middle-class household was 6 New York much more likely to be able to Bo Miami afford buying a house. 4 Dallas Chicago Houston Clevelard 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80510 Change in housing units, 2000 to 2020 N S T I T U T E Source:US Census 2000 and 2022;ACS 2020-24. 36 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY But Can We Be Sure That Zoning Reforms—and New Housing Supply—Target All Needs? The influence of zoning reforms is likely to vary! • Location: Reforms may enable construction in some neighborhoods, but not those where people most want to live. As such, those areas may continue to become more expensive. • Housing type and tenure: Reforms may intentionally encourage investment in multifamily, rental projects. That may not reduce costs for people in the market to buy single-family homes. • Affordability: If reforms are not associated with more investment in subsidized affordable housing, they may not help households with low incomes. I N S T I T U T E 37 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Public Subsidies Are Essential to Meet the Low End of the Market Share of renters with extremely low incomes and severe cost burdens, 2022 For the lowest-income renters, Metro areas with low housing values Metro areas with middle and high housing values regions with limited housing construction but more public 9©% Dallas housing subsidies had less $0% Miami housing cost burden than those �►Lp�A�ngeles .� Chicago New York regions with high housing 70% Cieveiand construction and fewer housing Boston subsidies. 60 50% 20 30 40 50 60 70 HUD-supported housing units per 100 extremely low-income renters, 2022 U R s A N • 1 N S T 1 T U T E Source:US Census 2000 and 2022;ACS 2020-24;US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). 30 38 39 HOUSIN<; IN ORANGE COUNTY The Primary Way By Which US Cities and Counties Have Accommodated Housing is Sprawl Sprawling development has the advantage of being cheaper for investors and households. • "Drive `till you qualify" is a real phenomenon that results in people living further and further from one another, if land-use policies enable it. But sprawl has major impacts on natural ecologies, destroying habitats. It also has substantial effects on transportation use and costs. I N S T I T U T 1 40 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Different Development Patterns Have a Major Impact on Transportation Choices Densely developed Node-based development Sprawl community (e.g., conservation subdivisions) El ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ El El El F-1 El El El El El F1 F1 El F-1 F-] ❑❑ ❑ F-1 ❑ El F] F-1E] • Low transportation costs, • Low transportation costs • High transportation costs. due to limited travel needs. for neighborly needs, but • High transportation- Limited transportation- high costs for other needs. produced emissions. produced emissions. • Mid-level transportation- • Virtually all trips must be • Easy ability to travel produced emissions. done by car. without driving. • Walking, biking feasible— but only for local trips. I N S T I T U T 1 41 HOUSINC. IN ORANGE COUNTY People May be Willing to Shift to Non-Car Means of Transportation— But Only in the Right Contexts Only a very small share of noncollege Orange County residents get around by anything other than driving. Encouraging residents to shift travel patterns is infeasible if land-use policy isn't coordinated around effective transit. 42 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Urban Design Can Make or Break the Effectiveness of a Transit Corridor A potentially effective transit An ineffective transit line An ineffective transit line line F-1 F-1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ and ❑ Densities of The route is too ❑ ❑ are located ❑ ❑ homes are too ❑ El E] indirect and too directly along low near the slow to compete the route. The route to attract with driving line runs many riders. options. frequently and ❑ ❑ quickly. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ El ❑ 1:1 ❑ I N S T I T U T E 43 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY How About Urban Growth Boundaries? Orange Count maintains a rural ❑ g Y ❑ buffer zone surrounding Chapel ❑ Hill and Carrboro that acts as an urban growth boundary. Classically, we would expect: ❑ ❑ New development on the outside edge, increasing transportation times and costs. ❑ F-1 F-1 Higher housing prices in the FIF core, reducing affordability. I N S T I T U T E 44 45 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Challenges in the Market Make Addressing Orange County's Housing Costs Difficult • Construction costs have increased rapidly due to inflation in labor costs, higher materials costs, and tariffs. • Debt remains expensive for both investors in new buildings and homebuyers. • Incomes haven't increased as rapidly as other costs. • The federal government hasn't increased support for very affordable housing—though it did expand the LIHTC program in 2025. 1 N S T I T U T 1 46 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Orange County Has Conditions That Make it Somewhat Different than the Rest of the Triangle • Housing construction in the county is slower than elsewhere, and it's more focused on single-family homes for sale. • Housing costs—for rent or sale—are arguably the highest among Triangle counties, and low-income renters are cost burdened. • Outside parts of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsboro, zoning for large- lot single-family homes dominates. • Current land-use policies may be contributing to higher home prices and increased transportation costs. I N S T I T U T 1 47 HOUSING IN ORANGE COUNTY Options for Orange County to Help Address Needs and Ensure Effective Outcomes • State law limits the county's ability to use inclusionary zoning or enforce higher levels of environmental protection. • Even so, the county can: • Encourage additional construction by zoning for more homes, but in a way that limits impacts on ecologies and habitats, e.g., through density, use of public land, and conservation subdivisions. • Reduce transportation costs by designating concentrations of homes, especially near frequent, fast transit. • Increase funding for affordable housing through direct spending. • Collaborate to refine the rural buffer zone. I N S T I T U T 1 48 HOUSINC. IN ORANGE COUNTY Linking Approaches to the Land Use Plan's Stated Themes Land use plan themes Approaches Sustainable development Zone for concentrations of homes Protecting natural resources Build near good transit Attainable housing Fund affordable housing Sustainable transportation Refine the rural buffer 49 1 OWASA Board of Orange County Commissioners Housing Retreat March 21 , 2026 Orange Water and Sewer Authority 51 OWASA,, Then and Now e Began Operation in February 1977 • Prior to OWASA, water and sewer system 14 separately owned and operated by the University - and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro • OWASA executed agreements with the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill and the University of Yom'`` North Carolina at Chapel Hill which define OWASA's , -`W. obligations and responsibilities NOW `L t ` • Provide drinking water, wastewater and reclaimed water services for 86,300 people in the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the University • University is OWASA's largest customer (about 20% Ao "• of drinking water sales) •`! • About 148 employees (includes three apprentices) Taken in the 1980s 52 Z Hillsborough o \ S U w Z Operational Overview 86 0� O O 4a dWASA u U Water Supply Service Are z 54Interconnect o-40 Durham q o I • University Lake Cane Creek Reservoir sa, • Cane Creek Carrboro Quarry Chapel Hill Durham • Quarry Reservoir4 fRes�rvoir ®6 • Jordan Lake (via mutual aid agreements) Watershed ) Road WTP ff01 40 54 • Jones Ferry Road Water Treatment Plant Boundaries Mason Farm Road W W TP � University Lake r ORANGE COUNTY NC-54 Durham Wastewater Management CHATHAMcoo,ry _ Interconnect • Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant j • Reclaimed Water System Emergency Interconnections of Drinking Water "R.er 599 System 87 Jordan 5 • City of Durham (Town of Cary) Lake • Town of Hillsborough 64 i • Chatham County N 64 Cary/Apex Intake w� Pittsboro f` 0 1 2 Potential Intake and Plant z �Miles on Jordan Lake 53 Water Supplies i University Lake Cane Creek Reservoir Quarry Reservoir THE DRINKING WATER SYSTEM • n s • f • r a • Reservoir Mixing Clarification Filtration Disinfection Storage Customer A • • Days of Supply Supply Treatment Distribution 54 Our Expanded Quarry Reservoir and Jordan Lake Meet our Long-Term Water Supply Needs and Address Drought Vulnerability 20 Jordan Lake Allocation Included 18 16 Water bA E 14 Expanded Quarry Reservoir SupplyC 12 Yield Also has Uncertainty a 10 ♦♦ Yield ♦N♦ 8 ♦♦♦♦ Actual ~ Demands ♦♦�N♦♦�♦♦ Baseline,1st and 99th ?� 6 ♦♦~ Percentile Projections ca cc 4 2 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Fiscal Year OWASA's Water Supply Yield and Demands-The estimated yield that includes our allocation of water from Jordan Lake is oversimplified as our access through the Western Intake Partners has not yet been modeled with our three local supplies. The projections shown in the figure are from 2019. In addition, there is uncertainty in the yield which is more difficult to quantify than the demand projections. 55 kaJones Ferry Road - - . AN Water 4 Treatment Plant Peak Day THE DRINKING WATER SYSTEM Capacity is 20 Million ii - r Reservoir Mixing Clarification Filtration Disinfection Storage Customer Supply Treatment Distribution 56 Comparison of Peak Day to Plant Capacity 25 � N aQ E 20 Peak Day Water Treatment Capacity 15 O Peak 4�Y i0cr �� 15 + • + + ++ : Ba � �` iEatiet accufts +• ++ +•+++ + • + PeaW p3Y;Pntab se 10 • ++ + + + ++ • � 1i�+e m I Actual Peak + • • (D e 5 0 0 10 Fiscal Year r r r r • r•r I r I r r I r r r r r r r •r r r r r r r •r / 57 �. �,�. P L Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment A I� Plant THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Reclaimed Water to UNC • k M o nth • • ♦ -► Customer Manhole Pumping Headworks Primary Aeration Secondary Filtration Disinfection Morgan Creek Clarification Basins Clarification I Biofarm applied • � � � to farmland or dewatered for Anaerobic composting Digesters 58 Mason MonthFlows OWASA has Sufficient Hydraulic Capacity at its WWTP for the next 35 1s to 40 Years IM 16 nao 14 12 L 10 • • C7 6 0 4 2 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Fiscal Year Mason Farm WWTP Capacity and Demands. Projected flows are from 2019. 59 Accounts Demand 9.0 24,000 bA 8.5 22,000 Q 8.0 —6.3 MGD average projected for FY 0 7.5 20,000 0 2026 Q h a 7.0 0 U) 18,000 0 6.5 Water sales are the same as the = 6.0 16,000 0 early 1990s 0 5.5 14,000 N • Almost double the number of u) 5.0 customers 12,000 CO 4.5 � 4.0 10,000 P R0 00 0� ajR 0(O 0� �O p`L Q� 00 0b ,�O �`L �� ,�0 ^cb �O �`1 �� N0 Nc0 NC) ,�0 ,I0 0 'C rp "O rp "O LO P rp �O LO rp -P rp P Fiscal Year —6—Water Sales —$--Customer Accounts •1 � OWASA Long-Term *A` Watersheds F—� Town ETJ Boundary Rural Buffer Boundary 85_ OWASA Primary Service Area as iii+i i++.+♦♦i� iw��.� i+��. OWASA •i'+i+++++i+ilii+++r+•+,i++++++ii++i, r7i . Service ....,�� .::::::::::::::: :: ::::::::::::::: ►.. ►♦iiiiii 4ilililiii,�i ill+iiiliiil. ♦iii♦ ♦i/iii♦ ♦ilii♦ ♦ilii♦ ♦iii♦ ♦♦♦lilt ♦ilii• - -• ♦iiiii ♦iii♦ ♦ilii♦ iiiiii ♦iiiiii ♦ilii♦ ♦♦iiiiii♦ Area +i• ... ........ iiiiiiii .�... : Oi+i+i+i+•+�•!++i+ii<•i 'Oi+i+i+i+�' �i+ill+i++O�i+i�' ♦liiiie;iiiii iiiiii�� iiiiii♦ ►♦♦ iii iity.�i.!rr.+iiiiii•,A�� �i++ii+li++i '.'i+iii ►+i+•i00 �r ♦iiia♦ M, 10,♦iiiiii♦ 1�i+++i+ii++ii++l+ .+�i�+i+iiiii+�i�+�i ii+ i+++i�i+iiiii ►ii♦ �i+i!Oii iiiii♦ ��. •iiiiiiii♦ ►�i+i+i+i+i+i+iii+i ♦♦iiiiii♦ ►iiiiiiii♦ iiiiiiii♦ ♦iiiii♦ , _ ♦iiiii♦ ♦iiiiii♦ � ► Vii++i+i+j+i+iii+�� 61 Support for development • Worked collaboratively with the Town of Chapel Hill on a concept plan to provide sewer service to the recently expanded service area along the 15/501 corridor. • Have developed a draft reimbursement policy. • Held several feedback sessions with the development community over the last year and have an action plan to improve communications, improve the plan review process, and create opportunities to provide additional feedback going forward. • Plan to update our sewer system hydraulic model in coordination with the Towns, County and UNC. 4d an Discussion Questions OWASA Our community's trusted partner for clean water and environmental protection. 63 -- TERRACE VIEW DR w = ` co y rrn cr (els CdR r j LLJ Hwy 54 West m Water Sewer 64 aO^ tier Q �, y E TREE LN .� GFS ' � = ao:E i�ao-w I-40_=--- 140 w Enr7-270� SWEETEN CREEK RD aC3 �9 h nn,9, VV +J 6J G Erwin Road SAGS rJ Water Sewer WSMPBA primary service boundary 65 i WyrCj�DK1f24C L'N _ MATAO"R OR- ►Q BRUIN TRL CL ❑YE RQ -i DRIVEWAY RIVE AY Millhouse o v;, Road and Eubanks Road Future Water Main �' -- R` --_-rte EUBANKS RSD, ,cy !U(j} CENppp WEAVER QA_IRY Ria,E LU Qa Water Sewer WSMPBA primary service boundary