AGENDA #5d

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Report on Potential Resource Needs for Implementation and Enforcement of the Land Use Management Ordinance

DATE: November 25, 2002

The purpose of this memorandum is to estimate resources that we believe would be necessary for implementing and enforcing the Land Use Management Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) currently under consideration by the Town Council. The Council requested this assessment in time for consideration prior to taking action on the Ordinance.

SUMMARY

The proposed Land Use Management Ordinance regulations would significantly increase the tasks and responsibilities involved with the review of building permit applications for single-family and two-family dwellings.

Detailed review, evaluation, inspection and enforcement activities that currently accompany about 70 development applications each year would need to be expanded and applied to an additional 250 building permit applications annually. Confirmation of compliance with regulations involving many and in some cases all of the following issues would be necessary on most new applications:

· Date that lot was created or date of preliminary plat approval

· Area of land disturbance

· Locations, species and (in some cases) size of trees

· Location and extent of land area(s) with slopes of 25% or greater

· Percentage of new impervious surface area and identification of any impervious surface areas existing prior to enactment of the LUMO

· Means and methods for managing stormwater runoff quality, rate, and (in some cases) volume

· Existence of a Resource Conservation District and, if an RCD exists, confirmation of intermittent or perennial status and compliance with applicable requirements

· Percentage of front yard area designated for parking.

We think that it would be necessary to utilize certifications of compliance in conjunction with additional review and inspection personnel to comprehensively and uniformly implement and enforce the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance regulations.

We recommend that the Town hire three new employees to receive, screen, distribute, review and evaluate development applications; and to provide comments, consultation, inspection and enforcement of the regulations. We would establish a process utilizing the new personnel to efficiently track each building permit application through the necessary review and inspection requirements.

BACKGROUND

The Town Council has been working toward enactment of a new Land Use Management Ordinance for the past two years. At its November 5 work session, the Town Council reached preliminary consensus on a number of issues to be included in the proposed Ordinance. Although decisions are not final, we believe that they provide enough guidance for us to consider the kinds of changes in implementation and enforcement that the new Ordinance might require. In this report, we discuss resources that the Town would need and the associated costs; and estimates of the costs to builders of single-family and two-family dwellings, which would be newly-covered by key provisions of the proposed Ordinance.

We made the following assumptions about the new Ordinance requirements in developing our analysis of resource needs and costs:

1. Tree Protection Regulations would apply to all new development, including single-family and two-family development that disturbs 5,000 or more square feet of land area.

2. Resource Conservation District Regulations would include a protected corridor extending 150 feet from the banks of all perennial streams and 50 feet from the banks of all intermittent streams. These new corridor dimensions would apply only to new development proposals; not to lots with existing structures or to undeveloped lots platted prior to the date of enactment of the Ordinance nor to lots for which a preliminary plat was approved by the Town Council prior to the date of enactment of the Ordinance.

3. Steep Slope Regulations would apply to land areas with slopes of 25% or greater, upon which land disturbance would be limited to a maximum of 50% of that land area. The regulations would apply to all development, except single-family dwellings, creating land disturbance after the date of enactment of the Ordinance.

4. Impervious Surface Regulations would limit new impervious surface on properties to 24% (or 50% if stormwater management facilities are provided) of currently pervious area. Calculations would exempt existing impervious area as of the date of enactment of the Ordinance, unless otherwise regulated by Water Supply Watershed Protection regulations. Also exempted would be single-family and two-family development on lots platted (or lots for which a preliminary plat has been approved by the Town Council) prior to the date of enactment of the Ordinance. Impervious surface regulations would not apply to Town Center zoning districts.

5. Stormwater Management Regulations would apply to all new development that disturbs 5,000 or more square feet of land area, including single-family and two-family development. Single-family and two-family development on lots platted, or lots for which a preliminary plat was approved by the Town Council, prior to the date of enactment of the Ordinance would be exempted from stormwater volume control requirements.

6. Front Yard Parking Regulations would limit parking to a maximum of 40% of the front yard area of all single-family and two-family development Town-wide.

Based on our review of a variety of single family dwellings permitted in past years, we have made the following additional assumptions:

A. The minimum land area that typically is disturbed for construction on land with slopes of less than 25% is the sum of the footprint area of all improvements (structures, sidewalks, driveways, garages/out-buildings, patios/decks, etc.) plus a ten-foot wide construction zone around those improvements.

B. Additional land area typically is disturbed as part of general site grading to provide for transition to/from improvements, to convey surface drainage, and to accommodate landscaping. On quarter-acre lots with slopes of less than 25%, a minimum of 2000-3000 square feet of additional land disturbance typically will occur outside of the direct construction zone described above.

C. Approximately 90% of new house construction involves land disturbance in excess of 5000 square feet, but most house renovations/additions do not. We would not expect a significant difference in the number of houses affected by the proposed regulations if the land disturbance threshold were set at 4,000 square feet. However, if the land disturbance threshold were set at 2,000 square feet, we believe that all new house construction and most renovations/additions would be affected by the proposed regulations.

Attachment #1 is a sketch of a typical building lot showing impervious areas and areas of probable land disturbance.

DISCUSSION

We believe that the new land use regulations would affect the cost and time necessary for reviewing multi-family and commercial development proposals only to a limited extent. We think that current Town resources could be re-allocated to handle those additional responsibilities. However, we believe that the proposed regulations would significantly increase the tasks and responsibilities involved with review of building permit applications for single-family and two-family dwellings.

Detailed review, evaluation, site inspection and enforcement activities that now are required only for about 70 development applications per year (Special Use Permits, Site Plan Approvals, Subdivisions) will need to be extended to most single-family and two-family building permit applications. The following regulatory requirements would need to be checked, evaluated and confirmed to be in compliance on many building permits:

· Date that lot was created or date of preliminary plat approval

· Area of land disturbance

· Locations, species and (in some cases) size of trees

· Location and extent of land area(s) with slopes of 25% or greater

· Percentage of new impervious surface area and identification of any impervious surface areas existing prior to enactment of the Ordinance

· Means and methods for managing stormwater runoff quality, rate, and (in some cases) volume

· Existence of a Resource Conservation District and, if an RCD exists, confirmation of intermittent or perennial status and compliance with applicable requirements

· Percentage of front yard area designated for parking.

Based on review of our records and expected development patterns, and assuming adoption of a land disturbance threshold of 5,000 square feet, we think that each year about 250 single-family and two-family building permit applications would require an expanded level of review with regard to some or all of the requirements listed above. Please refer to Attachment #3 that summarizes the number of Building Permit Applications the Town has received each year since 1985.

The proposed new and revised regulations and requirements would expand the job of implementing and enforcing the new Land Use Management Ordinance because:

· More site and design elements would require review and evaluation

· More pre-application conversations would be needed with builders, designers and owners

· More field inspections would be needed to verify site conditions and to confirm appropriateness of proposed design and construction

· More post-construction review, inspection and enforcement activities would be needed to ensure continuing compliance with regulations after occupancy.

Alternative Approaches

We have evaluated three alternative approaches for implementing and enforcing the proposed regulations.

1. Require professionals hired by the builder to submit certifications of compliance with regulations regarding certain features of development

2. Hire contract employees to perform reviews and inspections

3. Hire regular staff to perform reviews and inspections.

Not all of the alternatives would be suitable for application to all of the proposed regulatory requirements. We offer a brief assessment below.

1. Certifications of compliance would involve the least amount of direct staff involvement. Under this alternative, the Town would require submittal of letters and/or statements from qualified professionals certifying compliance with certain regulations. Certifications can be effective with regulations having specific, measurable, quantitative standards. For example, the Council established quantitative light and noise standards for the University’s OI-4 development projects. In lieu of staff review of the lighting plans and noise abatement designs for each project, we accept certifications from lighting and acoustic professionals that the projects are designed to meet those standards.

We believe that certifications of compliance could in many cases be used in lieu of detailed staff review of regulatory requirements regarding area of land disturbance, location and extent of steep slopes, percentage of impervious surface area, some RCD requirements, and other quantitative standards.

· Advantages: Reduces additional staff time necessary for application review

· Effective for regulations with specific quantitative standards.

Disadvantages:

· Staff must depend on accuracy and integrity of certifications

· Staff may miss subtleties of site conditions and design

· Increases professional services costs for builders/homeowners

· Ineffective for regulations with general qualitative standards.

2. Hiring contract employees would require a moderate amount of direct staff involvement. Under this alternative, the Town would hire and train contract employees on an as-needed basis to perform specific development review and field inspection responsibilities regarding compliance with regulations.

We believe that, if properly trained by Town staff, contract employees could perform both plan reviews and field inspections for compliance with most of the proposed regulations. Depending on the contract employee’s background and experience, we think it would require a minimum of six months of training and experience in the office and field to become fully competent and independent in performing plan reviews and field inspections for compliance with the proposed regulatory requirements. This time period would weaken the primary reason for hiring contract staff, which we believe is the flexibility needed to accommodate fluctuating work loads.

Advantages:

· Reduces staff time necessary for application review and field inspections

· May be less expensive than hiring regular employee(s)

· Provides for more flexibility to respond to changing economic conditions.

Disadvantages:

· Staff time necessary to train, monitor and supervise contract employees

· Typically high turnover rate could result in intermittent periods when staffing would be inadequate to provide consistent, timely and uniform plan reviews and field inspections

· Lack of continuity and consistency of service(s) caused by lack of institutional knowledge.

3. Hiring permanent staff would involve recruiting, selecting, and training new Town employees to review development applications and to provide field inspections for compliance with the proposed regulations.

We think that new regular Town staff would require training and experience similar to contract employees in order to become fully competent and independent with job responsibilities. However, our experience is that regular staff usually remain in their positions for longer periods than do contract workers. Therefore, in the long run, less time would be spent on hiring and training new employees and, as the employees become more experienced in their positions, less supervisory time would be needed.

Advantages:

· Consistent and comprehensive reviews and inspections would be more likely

· High level of Town staff familiarity with new development

· Lower expected turn-over rate would result in less time spent on recruiting, selecting and training.

Disadvantages:

· Greater difficulty in reducing costs if service demand declines

· Less flexible than contract arrangements.

Combination of Options

We think that a combination of alternative #1 and #3 would be the most effective approach for comprehensively and uniformly implementing and enforcing the proposed regulations.

Although economic trends affect the local construction market, demand for single-family and two-family building permits has been relatively steady. We project a consistent need for staff review in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we believe that the disadvantages of using contracted staff outweigh its major advantage of flexibility

We think that certifications should be used for those items that clearly can be quantified, including area of land disturbance, location and extent of steep slopes, percentage of impervious surface area, some RCD requirements, and other quantitative standards.

For enforcement of those areas of regulation including requirements that cannot be easily quantified, such as the proposed tree protection and stormwater management regulations, we believe that additional regular staff would be necessary. We think that people skilled in the subject areas and experienced in dealing with Chapel Hill terrain, regulations, policy objectives and procedures are necessary to interpret and enforce the proposed regulations. Their most significant work might be consulting with designers, builders, and with other staff to ensure that each house lot contributes to the overall policy goals of the regulations. We also believe that resources would need to be devoted to coordinating and managing the operation of whatever regulatory systems are put in place. We speak more to this issue later in the report.

Tasks and Responsibilities

A variety of new tasks and responsibilities would be associated with thorough and orderly implementation and enforcement of the proposed regulations, including:

· Most individual building permit applications would require significantly more review and evaluation, including field work, than is currently necessary.

· Individual builders and homeowners, in addition to developers, would require advice and consultation regarding site specific regulations.

· Many applications would be handled several times because of insufficient submittal information and/or required revisions.

· Each development site would require field inspections before, during and after construction to confirm design propriety and compliance with regulations.

· Every building permit application would need to be screened and properly circulated by a person thoroughly familiar with all Town regulations.

Under the current regulations and at the current pace of development, existing Town staff is able to provide reasonable levels of service in processing development applications received by the Planning Department and building permit applications received by the Inspections Department. Review time is often longer than we and developers would like, but it usually meets the timetables of the Development Ordinance, and strikes a reasonable balance between the applicants’ needs for expedition and the community’s desire for careful and participatory evaluation of proposed development.

Under the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance regulations and at the expected pace of development, we believe that it would be necessary to add staff and revise procedures to respond appropriately to the new regulations.

Staffing Example: Tree Protection Regulations

The proposed tree protection regulations are an example of qualitative regulations for which certifications could not adequately ensure the protections desired by the Council. Based on our experience with the current Tree Protection Regulations, the following process, tasks, and staff hours would be the minimum we would typically expect to encounter for implementing and enforcing the proposed regulations on a per-site basis:

Pre-permit

· Receive and review application materials; inspect site and recommend plan revisions. (1.5 – 2.0 hours)

· Receive and review second submittal; meet with applicant and/or re-inspect site as necessary to ensure acceptable revisions have been incorporated into the plan. (1.5 – 2.0 hours)

Post-permit

· Pre-construction conference with builder and/or owner. (1.0 hour)

· Periodic site inspections; response to violations; final inspection prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. (2.0 – 3.0 hours)

Using this example, each permit application for which the Tree Protection Regulations are required would entail six to eight hours of staff time through the life of the project. Assuming 250 building permit applications per year will require the above-described processing, an additional 1500-2000 staff hours would be necessary each year to implement and enforce the proposed Tree Protection Regulations.

We believe that one new full-time position would be required to properly enforce the tree protection regulations.

Staffing for Stormwater Management and Associated Regulations

The proposed stormwater management and Resource Conservation District regulations, and associated regulatory requirements, include qualitative elements for which certifications alone would be unsatisfactory. We believe that trained and experienced personnel would be necessary to interpret and apply the new and revised regulations on a site-specific basis, and to inspect construction for compliance with applicable requirements. Enforcement of these regulations would require hours of staff review, office and field consultation and inspection similar to those outlined above for the tree protection regulations.

We believe that one new full-time position would be required to properly enforce the proposed stormwater management regulations and associated regulatory requirements.

We would use current staff, supplemented with contract workers if necessary, to differentiate and map ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams town-wide, using Global Positioning System and Geographic Information System equipment already available in the Town Engineering Department.

Staffing for Coordination of Permit Review Process

The current comprehensive review of special use permits, site plan approvals and subdivision approvals includes reviews by as many as seven departments, depending on the nature of the application. Because the changes proposed by one department may impact the proposals or concerns of another, careful coordination is required. Typically, copies of each application are distributed for concurrent review; meetings among representatives from each department are held, and; conferences with the applicant and further review and intra-staff discussion occur.

With the addition of new requirements for single-family and two-family houses, we anticipate a similar, though simpler, process for reviewing about 250 building permit applications. Even if we can limit review to only four departments (Planning, Inspections, Engineering and Public Works), it would be necessary for a single person who is thoroughly familiar with Town regulations to be responsible for accepting and screening application materials, determining their completeness, distributing them to the relevant staff reviewers and arranging for all review comments to come back on time. A key responsibility would be to recognize when comments from one reviewer impact the comments and/or objectives of another reviewer, to bring the staff reviewers together to discuss conflicting recommendations, and to facilitate resolution of issues consistent with the larger objectives of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

We believe that one new full-time position would be required to properly manage and coordinate the timely receipt, dissemination and review of development and building permit applications.

Use of Certifications

We believe that certifications of compliance could be used to reduce some of the staff review requirements otherwise necessary for the quantitative elements of regulations involving land disturbance, steep slopes, impervious surface, the Resource Conservation District and front yard parking. Based on our discussions with local consulting engineers, we estimate that the additional cost to the builder or property owner would range from $1,500 to $2,500 for preparing a building permit application that complied with the new regulations and included certifications for applicable elements of land disturbance, steep slope, impervious surface, Resource Conservation District and front yard parking requirements.

The new employees described above would be responsible for receiving and spot checking certifications for accuracy and compliance with applicable requirements.

Preliminary Staffing Recommendation

We suggest hiring three full-time regular staff members to comprehensively and uniformly implement and enforce the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance regulations.

· A Tree Ordinance Enforcement Technician who would focus on tree protection regulations and would help monitor land disturbance. We estimate that the annual cost of establishing this position including salary, benefits, vehicle, office/field equipment and computer would be approximately $60,000.

· A Stormwater Management Technician who would focus on stormwater management regulations and associated requirements. We estimate that the annual cost of establishing this position including salary, benefits, vehicle, office/field equipment and computer would be approximately $60,000.

· A Plan Review Leader who would be responsible for receiving, evaluating and distributing building permit and other development permit applications and coordinating review comments. We estimate that the annual cost of establishing this position including salary, benefits, office/field equipment and computer would be approximately $70,000.