Minutes - 11-27-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Craig Benedict said that this adequate public facilities ordinance only addresses the schools. It has been put forth first as a memorandum of understanding, which gives generalities about what the ordinance can do. Attached to the MOU is a "boilerplate" ordinance that would be incorporated by all of the local jurisdictions within their regulations. The school boards would also adopt similar policies. The public hearing addresses the Orange County portion of this implementation process. He read the purpose statement of the SAPFO, which states that, "The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that, to the maximum extent practical, new residential development will be approved only when it can be reasonably expected that adequate public school facilities will be available to accommodate such new development." This ordinance is intended to be a synchronization mechanism to find out what the projected growth rates are in the residential community, what the capital improvement program has identified as needs, and to try to match the two systems within both the school district and County government. Service levels have been provided in this ordinance. An adequate level of service was determined by working with the school districts and the towns. The elementary school level of service is 105°~, the middle school level of service is 107%, and the high school level of service is 110°~. There are exemptions in place within the ordinance for dormitory housing for university students and senior citizen housing (elderly or adult care living facilities). Avery technical aspect of the ordinance has to do with the applicability to previously approved projects and ones that are pending approval. Subdivisions that have been approved in the past will not be subject to this ordinance, but they can be considered. There would be two agreements for this to be effective. The first agreement would need to be signed by Orange County School Board, Orange County and Hillsborough. The second Agreement would need to be signed by Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, Carrboro, Orange County and Chapel Hill. The ordinance would be incorporated into a section of our land development cads. Staff recommends that, after the public hearing tonight, this item be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation that would came back to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than the end of January. Questions from Board of County Commissioners and Planning Board Commissioner Jacobs asked how the level of services was determined. Craig Benedict said that it was put together by the Schools and Land Use Council and a subgroup. The idea was to not have more than two mobile classrooms at any one school. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the exclusion of university housing with an affordable housing element. Craig Benedict said that there would need to be more specificity in the section about exclusions. There are exemptions in the code for what was originally called "minimal impact." County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill said that the idea behind the exemptions is to exclude housing that is not going to impact schools. Commissioner Jacobs asked about exceptions for developers that donate land for schools. Craig Benedict reiterated the statement in the ordinance that says, "In deciding whether these findings can be made, the governing body shall consider the following among other relevant factors." The exemption for donated land is just one factor and not a definite. Geoffrey Gledhill said that the provision for donated land only applies to previously approved projects and projects pending approval. Public Comment Three letters have been received which are herein made a part of these minutes by reference. Janice Cenci of Chapel Hill faxed a letter dated November 27, 2000 stating that she is in favor of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance because it represents a move toward proactive planning. She would like to see a moratorium on approval of major subdivisions until the County has updated the Comprehensive Plan. She supports an ordinance for all public facilities, not just schools. Lucy Harber of Chapel Hill faxed a letter dated November 27, 2000 stating that she is in favor of the Schools APFO. She supports the efforts to institute measures that will control the