×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Online Engagement Activities

Future Land Use Map

Review the Currently Adopted Future Land Use Map

The Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 will include an update to the Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map guides decisions made by the County about where and how new development happens.

The currently adopted Future Land Use Map used by Orange County today, which is shown below, shows land use categories within Orange County:

activity nodes
agricultural-residential uses
economic development districts
the rural buffer
transition areas

What do you think about these land use categories? Are there places you would like to see stay the same or change? Comment with your thoughts.

To read more about the land use categories, see the descriptions from the currently adopted plan here.

All comments received will be analyzed and themed for a summary report that will be shared on the project website. If you have any questions, please email them to landuseplan@orangecountync.gov.

To sign up for updates and to learn more, please see the project website.

Powered by Konveio

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Most recent

Most replied

Most supported

By page

Replies

Stephen Finley Feb 1 2024 at 8:41AM on page 1

This is our farm. What is this color denoting. Seems unclear which category that color corresponds with and what the use is for our 5 generation family farm

0 replies

K Ferguson Jan 26 2024 at 1:09PM on page 1

It appears that plans for additional commercial usage outside of E/ NE Hillsborough. What is the plan for water/sewer as Hillsborough is looking to tighten not broaden utilities services boundaries. Have we performed aquifer mapping to determine well/septic impact on the supporting aquifer?

0 replies

in reply to L F Brown's comment

Craig Nishimoto Jan 25 2024 at 9:36AM on page 1

I think you're both right, and the crux of the problem is the cost and difficulty of increasing development density within the town limits. If that can't be fixed, then preserving the RB status quo just increases the negative environmental impacts. Does the County have any leverage on the Towns? Perhaps it does, but likely only if the preservation of the County-controlled RB is a bargaining chip.

0 replies

in reply to Terri Buckner's comment

Craig Nishimoto Jan 25 2024 at 9:14AM on page 1

For some folks it may be important for land to remain as ETJ. ETJ land, like County zoning, qualifies for the state's protections for bona fide farms. The restrictive zoning rules of a town may have bad consequences for some of the ETJs on the outskirts of town.

0 replies

Craig Nishimoto Jan 24 2024 at 10:14PM on page 1

Does the County and have any levers to make development and infill within the city limits easier and less costly? Are there ways for the County to promote density within the city limits?

0 replies

in reply to John Dempsey's comment

Craig Nishimoto Jan 24 2024 at 9:59PM on page 1

Without thoughtful changes I expect the RB will increasingly become a zone of large and expensive houses on large and expensive parcels, crisscrossed by the masses who commute into town but must live at the County's outskirts and beyond. This short essay strikes me as insightful: link

0 replies

Judy Gaitens-Arneson Jan 24 2024 at 9:12PM on page 1

Maintain the rural buffer (and the policies that protect it) as is. Much of the high density development in Chapel Hill has been supported by residents in order to alleviate pressure to make additional housing in the rural buffer. The buffer is key to wildlife habitat, to clean water in Jordan Lake, to heat mitigation and water capture as our climate gets hotter and wetter, and it is a beautiful natural asset for Orange County.

0 replies

Judy Gaitens-Arneson Jan 24 2024 at 9:06PM on page 1

I'd like to see policies and incentives that help keep agricultural land from becoming a series of rural neighborhoods. Maybe something that incentivizes rural neighborhoods to develop around existing rural communities, strengthening those communities and reviving small businesses there? Maybe incentives for adding land to the rural buffer? Or purchasing Agricultural land for natural areas and parks.

0 replies

Elizabeth Hilborn Jan 22 2024 at 9:39PM on page 1

The Haw river watershed ( point dropped on Little Creek as an example here) is vulnerable to non-point source pollution. Yet the Haw River is a main contributor to drinking water for communities downstream. More should be done to develop a robust buffer to protect water quality in the Haw River and in Orange County creeks in the Haw River watershed.

0 replies

Elizabeth Hilborn Jan 22 2024 at 9:32PM on page 1

The Haw river watershed ( point dropped on lower Cane Creek as an example here) is vulnerable to non-point source pollution. Yet the Haw River is a main contributor to drinking water for communities downstream. More should be done to develop a robust buffer to protect water quality in the Haw River and in Orange County creeks in the Haw River watershed.

0 replies

Vera Fabian Jan 22 2024 at 10:01AM on page 1

As a young farmer, I'm concerned about what will happen to all the valuable farmland in Northern Orange County. This farmland is critical for building a resilient food system, a healthy ecosystem, and to maintain the rural beauty that draws so many of us to this county. Many of these landowners are growing older and will need to sell off much of their land when they retire. I'd like to see the county take a proactive role in keeping as much farmland in farming as possible. There are a lot of young people who'd like to start farms in our county but cannot afford to buy land. I've heard of counties elsewhere in the country that buy farmland, put large parts of it into conservation easements, and offer long term leases or affordable land purchases to beginning farmers.

0 replies

in reply to Mark Hainline's comment

L F Brown Jan 19 2024 at 1:39PM on page 1

Those of us in the Rural Buffer have worked to prevent a lot of development happening out here. It's become less about "history of farmland" and more about protecting watershed, (all those little blue lines on this page) rich soil, diverse types of trees, this biome out in the Buffer is how Earth cools and does carbon capture. What biology will cool the high-density spaces when the Buffer is gone? How does tearing up more forest and streams and wildspace help the Earth? Yes people need a place; perhaps refurbish and build-up in dense town places now where walkability is feasible. Perhaps build more offices and make transit/bike lanes a feasible option for all.

1 reply

L F Brown Jan 19 2024 at 1:14PM on page 1

Please consider indicating the presence on map of TNC, TLC, and Park lands - eg; here a big swathe of Duke U Forest is "ten year transition" mustard orange. Advise how the density plan will be affected with lands in conservation.

0 replies

Mark Hainline Jan 19 2024 at 11:03AM on page 1

I honor the intent behind the rural buffer, but it has been a failure. It has driven sprawl, which reinforces a car-dependent style of living, consumes land with low-density housing, and which we can no longer afford in light of the climate crisis. It should be abandoned.

1 reply

in reply to Carlton McKee's comment

Matt P. Jan 17 2024 at 11:22AM on page 1

I found the current Future Land Use map that is linked below to be a good resource, though agree a list of proposed changes for the 2050 plan would be helpful: link

0 replies

Matt P. Jan 17 2024 at 11:16AM on page 1

With development to the south and east in Chatham and Durham counties this triangle of Rural Buffer is surrounded on all sides by development which seems to be accelerating due to the proximity to Chapel Hill. Consequently, Mount Carmel is very busy road connecting Chapel Hill to points east. Unlike the rest of the rural buffer to the east and north that borders fairly rural areas, this one increasingly does not and it's worth examining that in the context of land use planning.

0 replies

in reply to Leif Rasmussen's comment

Matt P. Jan 17 2024 at 10:59AM on page 1

This is an already existing Rural Industrial area where the American Stone Quarry is. Not future residential.

0 replies

Burwell Ware Jan 16 2024 at 3:39PM on page 1

I strongly support the rural buffer.

0 replies

in reply to Hollis Chatelain's comment

Leif Rasmussen Jan 15 2024 at 1:00PM on page 1

Absolutely, unless we can get a good public transit connection for this area. In that case, densifying makes sense, since new housing can be transit oriented and won't have these downsides as the new residents won't need to drive much.

0 replies

in reply to Molly Boyle's comment

Leif Rasmussen Jan 15 2024 at 12:58PM on page 1

There is plenty of space for housing in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Mebane. We just need to stop building housing in such a space arrogant way. The way to do this is by using transit oriented development, which doesn't require much parking and lets us build in much higher densities without all the usual downsides of density. Transit oriented development is also much cheaper to build and maintain. Infringing on the rural buffer is a short term, easy way to add housing that will hold back our county with high road maintenance costs and gridlock traffic in the long term. If you build out new development like Miami, Atlanta, and DC have been doing for the last 70 years, expect to have crippling traffic just like those places.

0 replies

Leif Rasmussen Jan 15 2024 at 12:48PM on page 1

We shouldn't develop anything here since it's not conveniently accessible without a car.

0 replies

Leif Rasmussen Jan 15 2024 at 12:47PM on page 1

This area should be much higher density

0 replies

Leif Rasmussen Jan 15 2024 at 12:47PM on page 1

We should concentrate growth within transit corridors rather than letting it sprawl outwards. Housing and commercial need way less space, are significantly cheaper, and have a much smaller impact on drinking water resources when built in a transit centered way. We should stop all development that's not on a planned BRT route, and plan more BRT routes to open up new areas to development. The alternative is absolutely unacceptable in the long term.

0 replies

in reply to Terri Buckner's comment

Leif Rasmussen Jan 15 2024 at 12:43PM on page 1

Additionally, putting development here in a sprawling manner makes it near impossible for people who can't or don't want to drive to work here. We should be moving away from car dependency asap, not digging ourselves deeper into it.

0 replies

in reply to Terri Buckner's comment

Leif Rasmussen Jan 15 2024 at 12:36PM on page 1

This is a really harmful place to develop. Every single person who moves here will be completely dependent on a car for every single one of their needs, which is absolutely unacceptable. Additionally, the strain that this many new cars will put on existing roads and parking lots is insane. Many of these residences will likely commute to RTP, and will have no choice but to do so by car, leading to even worse traffic on Fordham Blvd and NC 54.

1 reply

Leif Rasmussen Jan 15 2024 at 12:32PM on page 1

This area should not be developed without a BRT level public transit connection coming to the area first. Adding housing here in a car dependent manner will put a huge amount of strain on our roads, will make a zero exercise lifestyle the default, and will lead to a lot more impervious surface than is actually necessary, and worst of all, is extremely expensive.

0 replies

Terri Buckner Dec 29 2023 at 9:02AM on page 1

Suggestion

Orange County should lead the state by eliminating ETJs. They have been in place for over 70 years and the towns aren't following a thoughtful annexation process. That leaves residents unrepresented in municipal land use planning. ETJ may be something planners and politicians like, but they disenfranchisement the residents in those areas.

1 reply

Terri Buckner Dec 29 2023 at 8:58AM on page 1

Suggestion

Commercial development abutting a drinking water source is an old way of thinking, ignoring the importance of clean drinking water and accepting that chemicals/pollution infiltrate the water source decreasing water quality and increasing the cost of treatment. Every water supply watershed should have some kind of transition area around the water source and between WS-II and WS-IV areas to protect the water and provide natural filtration.

1 reply

Terri Buckner Dec 29 2023 at 8:50AM on page 1

Question

This kind of disconnected growth area is harmful to the environment. Are you proposed a new town with municipal services?

1 reply

Terri Buckner Dec 29 2023 at 8:48AM on page 1

Suggestion

Please check the state's water supply watershed map for the 15-501 south region. The 10-year transition area should be included in the rural buffer, at least at the very southwestern tip. It's part of WS-II and for the part that goes back to WS-IV, there needs to be a transition area.

0 replies

Hollis Chatelain Dec 21 2023 at 8:53AM on page 1

Suggestion

This area is R1 Zoning now and should remain R1 Zoning. With the new developments off of St Mary's Road and only two roads going north/south through Hillsborough, changing the zoning for these areas will make the traffic extremely dangerous for the local residents.

1 reply

John Dempsey Dec 10 2023 at 2:17PM on page 1

Suggestion

Mebane should join the WASMDBA agreement in order to better help steward Orange County water resources moving forward. This agreement currently includes Orange County, Hillsborough, Carrboro and Chapel Hill and provides some coordination of growth decisions. It is not the end-all, but it could help curb the current chaotic growth trends, particularly along the I-40 corridor between Hillsborough and Mebane. Mebane, not being included, is a very real threat to the future health of Hillsborough's water resources.

0 replies

John Dempsey Dec 10 2023 at 2:11PM on page 1

Suggestion

The Rural Buffer should be maintained in its entirety. It is vital to maintaining the quality and character of life for residents as well as protecting and stewarding our environment for future generations.

1 reply

John Dempsey Dec 10 2023 at 2:07PM on page 1

Suggestion

Sevenmile Creek meets the Eno River 1,000 feet, or so, upstream from Hillsborough's municipal water supply's intakes. Maganese rich, that's true, but otherwise a source of clean water. It is designated a WS-II,NS HQW stream. This watershed should be protected from development and is extremely important to stewarding Orange County's water resources going forward.

0 replies

Tyler Sliger Dec 8 2023 at 9:59AM on page 1

Suggestion

Possibly expand the higher density zoning around Mebane's town limits to plan for future growth around the area.

0 replies

Molly Boyle Nov 20 2023 at 10:10AM on page 1

Suggestion

Development is exploding in Chatham County. VinFast and Wolfspeed will create thousands of jobs there. Chatham Park just announced that UNC is building a campus in Pittsboro, and large residential subdivisions are popping up across Chatham County, particularly near the Orange/Chatham County line. As the Chatham County population grows, I think we can expect increased interest in development at the southern end of the Orange County, as well as more traffic from Chatham into Orange via Jones Ferry, Smith Level Road, and the 15-501 corridor.

0 replies

Molly Boyle Nov 20 2023 at 9:55AM on page 1

Suggestion

Many people in the community really care about the Rural Buffer because of what it represents to them - preserving rural character (and by extension, the environment) and preventing suburban sprawl. It's been about 40 years since the buffer was created, and I think it would be good to evaluate it during this update. What's working? What isn't? Can we achieve the goals of the Rural Buffer through different regulations? If so, should we? Does the Rural Buffer play into affordable housing issues in Orange County? If so, could changes to the buffer regulations help mitigate those housing issues?

1 reply

Molly Boyle Nov 20 2023 at 9:46AM on page 1

Suggestion

See my comments on "Efland Forrest" (10-year transition area south of 70/between Richmond Road and Efland Cedar Grove). The same land use/zoning issues apply to these lots.

0 replies

Molly Boyle Nov 20 2023 at 9:36AM on page 1

Suggestion

The Forrest of Efland (or Efland Forrest) subdivision is here. It's an historically Black neighborhood that was platted around 1920, so it existed before the county adopted zoning. Lots are around 10,000 sq. ft. I think the 10-Year Transition category is fine here (although the density has been there for 100 years - it's not really transitioning in that sense). However, the zoning map has this area zoned as R1 (40,000 sq. ft. minimum with 40'/20' setbacks). This prevents the owners from making improvements on their lots. I know this is more of a zoning map comment - but in tandem with the Land Use Plan update, I'd like to see some County-initiated rezonings to address zoning map issues like this. Rezoning this to something like R-13 would help the residents.

0 replies

Tony Blake Nov 17 2023 at 10:53AM on page 1

Suggestion

IMO Land use should contain zoning guidence. If you are going to used "conditional zoning" please base it on some of these classifications rather than parcel.

0 replies

Tony Blake Nov 17 2023 at 10:33AM on page 1

Suggestion

Tittle says "Future" test in body says "current". Confusing.

0 replies

Tony Blake Nov 17 2023 at 10:31AM on page 1

Question

The addition of the Caesars palace casino in Danville may (will?) cause major traffic increases between I-40/I85 and Danville (likely 86North) There will likely be businesses springing up along that corridor. How will that affect the LUMO?

0 replies

Tony Blake Nov 17 2023 at 10:28AM on page 1

Question

What seems missing for me is retrospective perspective. What worked in last LUMO, what didn't? Also what has changed that will influence updated LUMO, regional water agreements? Work from home? Aging farm families? Online ordering and delivery? Lack of broadband?

0 replies

Tony Blake Nov 17 2023 at 10:23AM on page 1

Suggestion

Very hard to distinguish between categories (e.g. 10 year transition? Rural Industrial?) Try using shapes as well as colors.

0 replies

Carlton McKee Nov 17 2023 at 10:04AM on page 1

Suggestion

It would be helpful if when looking at this map we could compare it to the current map it will replace.

1 reply

Tom Altieri Oct 31 2023 at 4:08PM on page 1

Suggestion

Identify, recognize and plan for Mebane's growth along its fringes.

0 replies

Leave this field blank