HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2009-030 - Zoning Ord-Level of Non Residential Zoned Area Permitted Comm Activity Nodes)o I °
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, there has been heightened scrutiny over existing limitations imposed
on the cumulative level of non - residential development permitted within Rural
Community Activity Nodes, and
WHEREAS, the current language within the Zoning Ordinance is ambiguous and
had resulted in multiple interpretations as to the acceptable levels of non - residential
development within the Rural Community Activity Nodes, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment establishes a definable limit on the
amount of non - residential development within the various Rural Community Activity
Nodes that removes any potential ambiguity for local residents and staff.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, hereby amends the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
by adding (indicated by double underlined language) and deleting (indicated by stricken
through language) as follows:.., .
PART I: That Section 4.2.8 (b) (4) be amended as follows:
4. The maximum amount of land zoned LC -1 within Rural
Community Activity Nodes shall be limited to ten (10) acres with a
five (5) acre limitation imposed within other Nodes, specifically
Rural Neighborhood and Rural Industrial Nodes, as defined within
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Additional rezoning may
be possible through the submittal, processing, and approval of a
Planned Development in accordance with the provisions of Article
Seven (7) of the Ordinance in situations where a Node has reached
capacity. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned
Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) or planned developments.
PART II: That Section 4.2.9 (b) (4) be amended as follows:
4. The maximum amount of land zoned NC -2 within Rural
Community Activity Nodes shall be limited to ten (10) acres with a
five (5) acre limitation imposed within other Nodes, specifically
Rural Neighborhood and Rural Industrial Nodes, as defined within
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Additional rezoning may
be possible through the submittal, processing, and approval of a
Planned Development in accordance with the provisions of Article
Seven (7) of the Ordinance in situations where a Node has reached
capacity. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned
Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) or planned developments.
Upon motion of Commissioner
seconded by
Commissioner ��,lA/I,c C�� ---� the foregoing Zoning
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the day of
2009 and shall become effective upon adoption.
Donna Baker,
C
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 18, 2009
Action Agenda
Item No. ,5 - 6
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to Development Limits within
Nodes
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment
2. Minutes - June 3, 2009 Planning Board Craig Benedict, Director 245 -2592
3. Draft Minutes — May 18, 2009 Quarterly Michael D. Harvey, Planner 245 -2607
Public Hearing
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation and consider taking action on a
staff initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 seeking to
modify existing development limitations on non - residential development within Nodes.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. As
staff stated during the hearing, the Ordinance currently limits the total amount of non -
residentially zoned property permitted within a Node based on population density. The various
Nodes are limited to a total of ten (10) acres of non - residential zoning.
It was determined, after the review of a Zoning Atlas Petition at the November 24, 2008
Quarterly Public Hearing, that a more reasonable method for regulating non - residential zoning
within the Nodes was needed.
During the hearing, the following general comments were made relating to the proposed
amendment:
1. A Board member expressed concern that the Planned Development process would allow
more non - residential development within the Nodes than was acceptable,
2. A Board member suggested exempting septic and repair area from the acreage
calculation in an effort to address the problem in the short term,
3. A Board member indicated there ought to be an evaluation of the existing land uses to
determine if they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and
4. A Board member expressed concern that this amendment could allow for additional non-
residential development within certain protected and critical watershed overlay districts.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its June 3, 2009
regular meeting.
There was extensive discussion on the need to begin reviewing each individual Node and begin
the Small Area Plan process to identify acceptable non - residential land uses for each. Some
Board members expressed concern over the proposed amendment without first initiating the
Small Area Plan process. In the end, the Board determined that the proposed amendment was
essential to address a long standing problem within the Rural Community Activity Nodes, most
notably the White Cross Node, and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
proposed amendment.
STAFF COMMENT: In addressing the various comments made by the BOCC and Planning
Board, staff would like to offer the following:
1. Staff agrees with both Boards that a comprehensive study needs to be initiated to identify
the acceptable non - residential land uses permitted within the Nodes but believes that this
amendment is essential to address an existing conflict within the Ordinance.
2. Staff understands the concern over potentially allowing additional non - residential
development, through the Planned Development process, above and beyond any
established limit within the Nodes. It is out opinion, however, that the proposed provision
will not result in a dramatic increase in non - residential development within the Nodes and
that the existing review process will allow for sufficient public involvement and comment
to address any and all local concerns that might arise.
3. Staff is uncomfortable with exempting septic and repair area from any established
acreage limitation give the fact that this land area is a crucial component in determining a
given non - residential development projects sustainability. In staffs mind there is no
difference between the area of property encumbered by the septic system and the
parking lot that is necessary to support a proposed non - residential land use.
4. This amendment will only increase the existing non - residential acreage limitation within
Rural Community Activity Nodes from five (5) acres of Local Commercial One (LC -1) and
Neighborhood Commercial Two (2) to ten (10) acres for each district. This amendment
will not allow for non - residential development to occur within any protected or critical
watershed overlay district where such development is currently prohibited.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who
have determined the approval of the request will not create the need for additional funding for
the provision of County services.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the BOCC take
the following actions:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
2. If necessary, deliberate further on the proposed amendment,
3. Close the public hearing, and
4. Adopt the Ordinance amendment as detailed within Attachment One (1).
Attachment 1
ORD -a009 -030 Q
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, there has been heightened scrutiny over existing limitations imposed
on the cumulative level of non - residential development permitted within Rural
Community Activity Nodes, and
WHEREAS, the current language within the Zoning Ordinance is ambiguous and
had resulted in multiple interpretations as to the acceptable levels of non - residential
development within the Rural Community Activity Nodes, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment establishes a definable limit on the
amount of non - residential development within the various Rural Community Activity
Nodes that removes any potential ambiguity for local residents and staff.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, hereby amends the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
by adding (indicated by double underlined language) and deleting (indicated by stricken
through language) as follows:
PART I: That Section 4.2.8 (b) (4) be amended as follows:
4. The maximum amount of land zoned LC -1 within Rural
Community Activity Nodes shall be limited to ten (10) acres with a
five (5) acre limitation imposed within other Nodes, specifically
Rural Neighborhood and Rural Industrial Nodes, as defined within
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Additional rezoning may
be possible through the submittal, processing, and approval of a
Planned Development in accordance with the provisions of Article
Seven (7) of the Ordinance in situations where a Node has reached
capacity. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned
Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) or planned developments.
PART II: That Section 4.2.9 (b) (4) be amended as follows:
4. The maximum amount of land zoned NC -2 within Rural
Community Activity Nodes shall be limited to ten (10) acres with a
five (5) acre limitation imposed within other Nodes, specifically
Rural Neighborhood and Rural Industrial Nodes, as defined within
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Additional rezoning may
be possible through the submittal, processing, and approval of a
Planned Development in accordance with the provisions of Article
Seven (7) of the Ordinance in situations where a Node has reached
capacity. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned
Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) or planned developments.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the
2009 and shall become effective upon adoption.
seconded by
the foregoing Zoning
day of ,
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
V
v
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Attachment 2
Minutes
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 3, 2009
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At -Large (Chair); Mary Bobbitt- Cooke, Cheek Township Representative;
Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township At- Large; Mark Marcoplos, Bingham Township At- Large; Earl McKee, Little River Township
Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove
Township At- Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative
MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At- Large; Vacant, At -Large
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Robert Davis, Planner III;
Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Eddie Kirk, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II;
OTHERS PRESENT: Kimberly Lewis; Margaret Lewis; Alvon Lewis; Lucy Fearrington; Joseph Fearrington; Noah Harris; Ola Hams;
Kirstin Frescoln; Louis Kingsland; Vicky Hendel; Walter Whitlock; David Holdaway; Kent Wiles; Tom Holt; Andrew Nobel; Lee
Lambert; Steve Prakken; Sheyko & Nichole Sergey; Ann Waller; Greg Forest; Jay Harris; Derek Hams; Jon, Cheryl, Katlyn &
Kegan Edwards; Clementine Self; Johanne Gisledth
AGENDA ITEM 9: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Article four (4) Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule
Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 to modify existing standards governing the acceptable level of non - residential
zoned area permitted within Commercial activity, Rural Neighborhood, and Rural Community Activity
Nodes.
To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this item heard at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly
Public Hearing.
Presenter: Michael Harvey
Michael Harvey: The item relates to a proposed amendment is to Section 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance seeking to
revise existing development limitations within the various Nodes within Orange County. The Board will recall from a recent
zoning atlas amendment petition we have limitations within each of the existing Nodes on how much non - residential
development can occur. Right now the Ordinance says that non - residential development shall be limited to 5 acres.
Judith Wegner: Could you explain nodes?
Michael Harvey: A node is a geographic area of the County defined within the Comprehensive Plan and denoted on the Land
Use Element Map as having potential for allowing non- residential development activities. Nodes are normally located at road
intersections or strategic points of the County. One of the justifications for the nodes was to try to encourage non - residential
development in rural areas of the County that would satisfy some of the basic needs of the surrounding property owners without
requiring them to commute long distances to urbanizing areas of the County. There are five rural community activity nodes.
There are also subcategories of nodes with the same essential purpose and function although when you read the
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, their purpose is not as grandiose as the rural community nodes. Ultimately, nodes are located
in an effort to try to take advantage of major rural roadway intersections throughout the County to allow for reasonable
commercial or non - residential development. The Ordinance currently limits how much development can go within in these
Nodes. What staff purposed is to increase the amount of acreage allowed for non - residential development. We brought this to
the Planning Board as an information item and the Planning Board. The Planning Board recommended a course of action that
would have seen an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance specifically geared to addressing non - residential development limits
within the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node. The problem staff had with that recommendation was it singled out one
Node to allow for heightened level of development. The Comprehensive Plan does not treat the Nodes differently and as a result
we cannot, from a Zoning standpoint, adopt an amendment that treats one node differently from the others. Its all or nothing for
us. That would take a Comprehensive Plan amendment. That's an even longer process. So the compromise we have put
forward was to recommend that non - residential development within all rural community activity nodes would be raised to 10
acres for both Local Commercial One and Neighborhood Commercial Two development projects. We also put in a provision
stipulating that there was a possibility you could get more if you went through the planned development process. There were a
lot of comments at the Quarterly Public Hearing and they were across the board with no real consensus with what should
happen.
Q`
b �`
61 Judith Wegner. You said there were other subcategories in the Comprehensive Plan and it seems that having an across the
62 board approach when we know these are different in character, is questionable. I also am not sure what we should do with this
63 so none of those listing items seems very satisfactory at this point without getting into it more. How does the small area plan fit
64 into this?
65
66 Michael Harvey: From staffs prospective, we go to the Board of County Commissioners and they authorize the development of
67 the small area plan, the Board sanctions the process, we begin the process. Then they took a few months to review and
68 approve.
69
70 Judith Wegner. I really don't understand why we go through extensive planning and then we sit around before we have an
71 official stance. I am confused by that.
72
73 Michael Harvey: That is a question you will have to ask the elected officials.
74
75 Judith Wegner. How can we sit in our 6:30 sessions what we want to learn about, I wonder if we get an overview of the different
76 small area plan processes that have been worked on in recent memory and I would really like to know how we set priorities
77 about what is going to happen.. I know White Cross Development has not been dealt with yet. I can see a maturation process
78 that you are a rural node until you are certified for a small area plan and at that time, you finish that up and that's kind of the
79 cycle where you deal with some of this. I think those are all important plans that people did a lot of work on and I would think that
80 would be hard to have us understand it so we're all working together around it.
81
82 Craig Benedict: At the August 24 Quarterly Public Hearing, we will have information items will be what we do with existing small
83 area plans we have not implemented yet and we will add the context you asked for tonight, how does something get in queue to
84 start a small area plan and how can we get it implemented in a better timeframe. Some of the small area plans we've done have
85 languished because they have waited for the Comprehensive Plan update to be adopted.
86
87 Judith Wegner: I could see, hypothetically, the speedway areas I remember, we talked about what might go there and I could
88 see that could be a good framework when talking about conditional use zoning. You might make more headway if we took each
89 of those examples and saw what was in it could really give us some idea about what aspects you could build into a unified
90 development ordinance.
91
92 Craig Benedict: We may have something at the August Planning Board meeting as a precursor as to what would be discussed
93 at the August 24 Quarterly Public Hearing.
94
95 Judith Wegner: Is there a reason not to do it in July.
96
97 Craig Benedict: Staff will have a meeting on Friday about exactly what you are talking about. I will talk about it with them.
98
99 Judith Wegner: Are there other things in line?
100
101 Brian Crawford: Craig, when we get together to discuss the agenda, let's talk about these issues and I will talk to Judith.
102
103 Perdita Holtz: It sounds like what you are looking for is just to inform the new Planning Board members what is in the plans not
104 that you are expecting us to come in July with how we will implement those plan.
105
106 Brian Crawford: Mark Marcoplos suggested to me that before we make any motions that I give everyone on the Planning Board
107 a chance to speak so before we make a motion, let's make sure every speaks.
108
109 Mary Bobbitt- Cooke: Thank you for thinking about what we need to know as far as all the different types of nodes and all the
110 different planning those different groups have done at different times in the County. I am wondering if this Ordinance has to be
111 tied to that. I am looking back at our history with this and the one thing about the White Cross area with the store that has
112 trouble with the septic field has a long history. There was supposed to be an evaluation and it wasn't done. This person has a
113 long history of waiting. I understand there is a fabulous restaurant that would like the ability to expand to meet the customer
114 demand. This is recommending that each of the rural community activity nodes be limited to 10 acres with a five acre limitation
115 and if they need additional property or rezoning that they submit a rezoning plan.
116
117 MOTION made Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners amend the Orange County Zoning
118 Ordinance as presented to the Planning Board by the staff. Seconded by Larry Wright.
119 VOTE: Unanimous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
DRAFT
Excerpt of Draft Minutes
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
May 18, 2009
7:00 p.m.
Attachment 3
O
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, May 18, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Deputy Clerk to
the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Rachel Phelps
Hawkins, Mark Marcoplos, Jeffrey L. Schmitt, Tommy McNeill, Pete Hallenbeck, and Earl
McKee
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Bobbitt- Cooke, Judith Wegner, Dr.
Larry Wright, Samantha Cabe, and Nathan Chambers
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Foushee called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. She called attention to the public
charge. She turned the meeting over to Brian Crawford, Planning Board Chair.
****************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to
Article Four (4) Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule Section(s) 4.2.8 and
4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to modify existing standards governing the
acceptable level of non - residential zoned area permitted within Commercial activity, Rural
Neighborhood, and Rural Community Activity Nodes.
AGENDA ITEM: C2
PUBLIC HEARING
Review of a proposal to amend
Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9
of the Zoning Ordinance
to modify existing standards governing the acceptable level of non - residential zoning within
Nodes
ISSUE:
Excerpt of Draft Minutes (D
1 •The Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 4.2.8 and 4.2.9, establish limits on the total amount
2 of non - residential zoning permitted within a Node,
3 •The Ordinance would allow up to a total of nine (9) acres but only in instances where existing
4 density within a given Node is similar to existing Transition Areas,
5 *If density within the Nodes is not similar to existing Transition Areas, non - residential zoning is
6 limited to five (5) acres,
7 *The review of a recent rezoning petition during the November 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing
8 brought these limitations under greater scrutiny,
9 *Staff believes there is an opportunity to allow for the Nodes to be developed as originally
10 intended by the County and provide greater opportunity for the County Commissioners to be
11 more involved with the development process
12
13 Example Node Boundaries:
14 PROPOSAL:
15 *Amend Section(s) 4.2.8 (b) (4) and 4.2.9 (b) (4) to increase the maximum allowable non -
16 residential development within Rural Community Activity Nodes to ten (10) acres,
17 *Limit non - residential development within other Nodes to five (5) acres (i.e. Five (5) acres of LC-
18 1 and NC -2 zoning), and
19 *Include a provision allowing the possibility of additional non - residential development with the
20 submission, review, and approval of a Planned Development (PD) application
21
22 RATIONALE:
23 *The Rural Community Activity Nodes were intended to allow for higher intensity non - residential
24 development to eliminate the need for residents to commute to urbanizing areas. By increasing
25 the cumulative amount of allowable non - residential zoning we accomplish this goal,
26 *The remaining Nodes can still be developed at what staff has determined acceptable levels of
27 intensity given their purpose as defined within the Comprehensive Plan
28 •By adding new language relating to the possible allowance of additional non - residential zoning
29 through the review of a Planned Development project, the County has the opportunity to
30 address changing needs within the Nodes without having to continuously amend the Zoning
31 Ordinance
32
33 Staff Recommendations:
34 *Receive the staff initiated zoning text amendment proposal including staffs report and
35 presentation materials,
36 •Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties,
37 •Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County
38 Board of Commissioners in time for the August 18, 2009 BOCC meeting,
39 •Adjourn the Public Hearing until August 18, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's
40 recommendation.
41
42
43 Mark Marcoplos said that the Rural Neighborhood Node, which is close to where he
44 lives, has a convenience store, a nursery, a horse feed /general hardware store, and other
45 businesses, including a junk yard. He said that there is more activity in the rural neighborhood
46 than in the Rural Community Activity Node. He said that the transfer station is supposed to go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Excerpt of Draft Minutes
in the Rural Neighborhood Node. He said that there is a UNC Animal Testing Facility here and
there is a huge amount of expansion in this area. He said that the map does not really
communicate the activity that is going on and it is confusing.
Commissioner Gordon said that there is some uncertainty about boundaries and she is
concerned about this. She said that the boundary should be certain, and if the boundary has to
be modified, then it can be amended.
Michael Harvey said that one of the reasons for the planned development is so that
there can be some non - residential uses.
Commissioner Pelissier said that it seems that this is a response to a particular request
for rezoning. She said that, if the County is going to implement the Revised Comprehensive
Plan, then this seems piece meal and not looking at the big picture.
There was no public comment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon
refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board
of Commissioners in time for the August 18, 2009 BOCC meeting and adjourn the public
hearing until August 18, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Attachment 1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, there has been heightened scrutiny over existing limitations imposed
on the cumulative level of non - residential development permitted within Rural
Community Activity Nodes, and
WHEREAS, the current language within the Zoning Ordinance is ambiguous and
had resulted in multiple interpretations as to the acceptable levels of non - residential
development within the Rural Community Activity Nodes, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment establishes a definable limit on the
amount of non - residential development within the various Rural Community Activity
Nodes that removes any potential ambiguity for local residents and staff.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, hereby amends the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
by adding (indicated by double underlined language) and deleting (indicated by stricken
through language) as follows:
PART I: That Section 4.2.8 (b) (4) be amended as follows:
4. N 11 the nt of land zened T G 1 at any ede
The maximum amount of land zoned LC -1
within Rural Community Activity Nodes shall be limited to ten (10)
acres with a five (5) acre limitation imposed within other Nodes,
sipecifically Rural Neighborhood and Rural Industrial Nodes, as
defined within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Additional
rezoning may be possible through the submittal, processing, and
approval of a Planned Development in accordance with the
provisions of Article Seven (77) of the Ordinance in situations where a
Node has reached capacity. - Acreage limitations shall not apply to
property zoned Existing Commercial-V (EC -5) or planned
developments.
PART II: That Section 4.2.9 (b) (4) be amended as follows:
4. Nefffially-,
fiet e%eeed- ffine - aFms, but 5 -aff°s ", apply in au:al amas
Whem pepWafien density is lower- and disifibuted mer-e %4 - My
in the RomifiEm are . The maximum amount of land zoned NC -2
within Rural Cgmmum
�V Activity Nodes shall be limited to ten (IO)
acres with a five (5) acre limitation imposed within other Nodes
specifically Rural Neighborhood and Rural Industrial Nodes as
defined within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Additional
rezoning may be possible through the submittal processing and
approval of a Planned Development in accordance with the
provisions of Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance in situations where a
Node has reached cgpacity. Acreage limitations shall not apply to
property zoned Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) or planned
developments.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the
2009 and shall become effective upon adoption.
seconded by
the foregoing Zoning
day of ,
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
oev_Xooq -�
concerning the required timeline on the commencement of construction activities for planned
development projects.
Michael Harvey made reference to the salmon - colored sheet entitled, "An Ordinance
Amending the Orange County Zoning Ordinance." He said that the Board has seen this version
before. This item was presented at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. There are
revisions of the proposed amendments with strike and deletes highlighted in red. At the
Quarterly Public Hearing, the Board requested some clarifications and the changes have been
incorporated. The Planning Board has reviewed this item and has voted unanimously to
approve the recommendation. He read the Manager's recommendation.
Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that there was a request to see what Carrboro and
Chapel Hill did about extending these kinds of permits, and that is not anywhere within the
packet. This is the second time this has happened. It also happened with the drive -thrus where
the Board had asked to see information about other jurisdictions and it was not provided. He
urged the staff to review what the Board has asked for before bringing information back. He
also made reference to Attachment 2, page 1, of the Planning Board minutes and asked that
paragraphs not be an entire page long because it is hard to read.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Nelson
to close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and adopt the Ordinance amendment as
detailed within Attachment One.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to Development Limits within Nodes
The Board received the Planning Board recommendation and considered taking action on a
staff initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 seeking to
modify existing development limitations on non - residential development within Nodes.
AGENDA ITEM: 5B
PUBLIC HEARING
Review of a proposal to amend
Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9
of the Zoning Ordinance
to modify existing standards governing the acceptable acreage of non - residential zoning within
Nodes
Rural Community Activity Node Locations:
-Five (5) existing Rural Community Activity Nodes,
-Limited to a total of five hundred (500) acres in each Node per the Comprehensive Plan,
-Located around major road intersections and historic crossroads in the rural portions of the
County,
-Encourages limited non - residential development for local residents convenience needs (i.e.
gas station, small grocery store, post office, agricultural services, etc).
ISSUE:
•The Zoning Ordinance establishes limits on the total amount of non - residential zoned property
permitted within a Node,
*The Ordinance would allow up to a total of nine (9) acres each of LC -1 or NC -2 zoned property
but only in instances where existing density within a given Node is similar to existing `urban'
Transition Areas,
*If density within the Nodes is not similar to existing Transition Areas, non - residential zoning is
limited to a cumulative amount of five (5) acres for each zoning district,
•This amounts to only 2% of the land area within the Node.
*The review of a recent rezoning petition brought these limitations under greater scrutiny,
•Many Nodes already meet the 5 acre total for LC -1 and NC -2 zoned property
`How can Nodes be developed at higher levels of non - residential development, as originally
thought to be possible, and provide for BOCC involvement
PROPOSAL:
*Amend Section(s) 4.2.8 (b) (4) and 4.2.9 (b) (4) to increase the maximum allowable non-
residential development within Rural Community Activity Nodes to ten (10) acres,
*Continue to limit non - residential development within all other Nodes to five (5) acres (i.e. Five
(5) acres of LC -1 and NC -2 zoning), and
•Include a provision allowing the possibility of additional non - residential development with the
submission, review, and approval of a Planned Development (PD) application
RATIONALE:
Rural areas have seen an increase in population since the adoption of the 1981
Comprehensive Plan,
*The Rural Community Activity Nodes allow for more non - residential development (i.e.
convenience goods and services) to reduce the need to commute to urbanizing areas.
*The remaining Nodes can still be developed at what staff has determined acceptable levels of
intensity given their purpose as defined within the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Board Recommendation:
Planning Board reviewed item at their June 3, 2009 regular meeting,
•Board members indicated that there needed to be a comprehensive re- assessment of
permitted uses allowed within each Node at a later date,
"Voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal as presented by staff
Administration Recommendations:
*Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
*Deliberate further on the matter,
•Close the public hearing,
*Adopt the Ordinance amendment:
•Increasing the level of allowable non - residential zoning within the Rural Community Activity
Nodes from 5 to 10 acres,
*Keep other Nodes at 5 acres, and
*Allow for additional non - residential development through the Planned Development review
process.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked to be excused due to a conflict of interest.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Foushee to approve allowing Commissioner Yuhasz to be excused.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
There was no public comment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to close the public hearing.
VOTE: Ayes, 6, Nays, 0 (Commissioner Yuhasz excused from voting)
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to approve the Planning Board's recommendation to approve a Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment to Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 seeking to modify existing development limitations on,
non - residential development within Nodes.
VOTE: 6 -0 (Commissioner Yuhasz excused from voting)
Commissioner Yuhasz returned.
6. Regular Agenda
a. Jail Medical Services Contract
The Board considered approving a contract for Jail Medical Services with Southern
Health Partners, Chattanooga, Tennessee in the amount of $211,250; and authorizing the
Chair to sign.
Purchasing and Central Services Director Pam Jones said that this contract will save the
County money and will provide a higher level of care. It is a one -year contract.
Chair Foushee thanked Commissioner Jacobs for forwarding this information to the
Board.
Commissioner Hemminger asked if there was any review process and Pam Jones said
yes.
Commissioner Jacobs thanked the Sheriff for being here. He made reference to an
article that he found on the internet regarding Davidson County and the troubles that it has had
with medical services in the jail. He asked how the Sheriff would deal with oversight since the
company is out of Tennessee.
Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass said that the County will not be paying for any drugs — the
company pays all of that. On site, there will be RNs at the jail 12 hours a day, which can make
decisions about emergency room issues. There have never been RNs on site. This company
has its own pharmaceuticals and they will pay up to $60,000, and then the County will pay the
overage.
Commissioner Jacobs said that Davidson County had RNs on -hand 16 hours a day and
there was still a huge emergency room bill. He wants some assurance that there is a cap on
this.
Commissioner Pelissier asked if there was a provision for someone to be on -call when
there is not anyone there. She said that she finds some of the terms of the contract vague and
this makes her uncomfortable.
Sheriff Pendergrass said that there is a doctor on the company's staff when there is a
need for one and the RNs will do preventative care. The doctors are on call 24/7. RNs will be
providing physicals as needed.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND
PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 18, 2009
Action Agenda
Item No. C -2
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to Development Limits within
Nodes
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Ordinance Amendment Resolution
2. Maps of Nodes
3. Chapter 5.3 of Orange County
Comprehensive Plan — Information About
Nodes
4. February 4, 2009 Planning Board Abstract
on Node Options
5. February 4, 2009 Planning Board Minutes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Name
Craig Benedict, Director
Michael D. Harvey, Planner
P
Phone Number
245 -2592
245 -2607
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on a staff generated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
seeking to modify existing development limitations on non - residential development within
Nodes.
BACKGROUND: At the November 24, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing, the Board processed a
petition seeking to rezone 1.04 acres of a 4.7 acre parcel within the White Cross Rural Community
Activity Node.
As staff stated during the hearing, the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `the
Ordinance') limits the total amount of non - residentially zoned property permitted within a Node
based on population density. Unless population density within a Node is comparable to existing
Transition Areas, the Ordinance reduces the amount of permitted non - residentially zoned
property. In the case of the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node, the total cumulative
amount of non - residentially zoned property permitted within the area is limited to ten (10) acres.
Staff stated that the Node had nine point four (9.4) acres of commercially zoned property. As a
result, staff recommended denial of the rezoning petition.
During the hearing, several comments were made over the need to re- evaluate existing development
limitations within the Nodes and determine if existing limitations on non - residentially zoned property
were appropriate.
NODES: A Node, loosely defined, is a specific geographic area of the County intended to
support certain levels of development intensity and /or allow for the development of non-
residential land uses to serve the needs of the surrounding local community.
The Orange County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Element Map (LUEM) delineate the
location of various Nodes throughout the County. There are several classifications of Nodes,
detailed within Chapter Five (5), Section 5.3 The Land Use Plan of the Orange County 2030
Comprehensive Plan including:
• Commercial Transition Activity Node,
• Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node,
• Economic Development Activity Node,
• Rural Community Activity Node,
• Rural Neighborhood Activity Node, and
• Rural Industrial Activity Node
Please refer to Attachment Three (3) for more detail on development opportunities /constraints
within the various Nodes.
PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION: The Planning Board began its review of the aforementioned
rezoning petition at its January 14, 2009 regular meeting where staff was asked to prepare a
brief synopsis of the problem and identify possible solutions that would:
1. Allow for the approval of the submitted Zoning Atlas petition, and
2. Allow for greater flexibility in encouraging more non - residential developments within the
Nodes.
Staff compiled a list of recommendations and presented them at the February 4, 2009 regular
meeting. The Board voted unanimously to:
1. Recommend an increase in the allowable acreage that would only apply to the White
Cross Rural Community Activity Node, and
2. Recommend that the BOCC authorize staff to develop a Small Area Plan for the Node.
Please refer to Attachments Four (4) and Five (5) of the abstract for a copy of the abstract and
approved February 4, 2009 minutes.
PROPOSAL: Staff is proposing to amend Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 of the Ordinance as
follows:
1. Amend Section(s) 4.2.8 (b) (4) Local Commercial l (LC -1) District and 4.2.9 (b) (4)
Neighborhood Commercial ll (NC -2) District to increase the maximum allowable non-
residential development within Rural Community Activity Nodes to ten (10) acres,
2. Limit non - residential development within other Nodes to five (5) acres (i.e. Five (5) acres
of LCA and NC -2 zoning), and
3. Include a provision allowing the possibility of additional non - residential development with
the submission, review, and approval of a Planned Development (PD) application in
accordance with Article Seven (7) Planned Developments of the Ordinance.
Staff is not able to recommend a zoning text amendment that would impact development
opportunities within only the White Cross Node as recommended by the Planning Board. All
Rural Community Activity Nodes are treated the same within the Comprehensive Plan and, as a
result, must be treated equally with respect to development regulations within the Ordinance.
While this amendment will not address all development restrictions within every Node, it will
address an identified immediate problem within several of the rural nodes and allow staff the
opportunity to complete a comprehensive re- assessment of development constraints within all
Nodes throughout the County.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who
have determined the approval of the request will not create the need for additional funding for
the provision of County services.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: As detailed within Article Twenty (20)
Amendments Section 20.6 of the Ordinance staff is required to cause a:
Notice of the public hearing shall be given by publishing said notice at least twice
in a newspaper of general circulation in the County, stating the time and place of
such hearing and the substance of the proposed amendment. This notice shall
appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks within the first notice
appearing not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty -five (25) days before
the date set for the public hearing.
Staff has caused an advertisement to appear within the News of Orange and the Chapel Hill
Herald on May 6, 2009 and May 13, 2009 in accordance with this requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends the Board:
1. Receive the staff initiated zoning text amendment proposal including staffs report and
presentation materials,
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties,
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the
County Board of Commissioners in time for the August 18, 2009 BOCC meeting,
4. Adjourn the Public Hearing until August 18, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's
recommendation.
Attachment 1
A RESOLUTION AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, hereby amends the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
by adding (indicated by double underlined language) and deleting (indicated by stricken
through language) as follows:
PART I: That Section 4.2.8 (b) (4) be amended as follows:
4. AT,.,fnally, the maKinuim ameunt ef land zoned C 1 at - any ede
shaI4 net a ee.a nine aefes, but 5 acres shall apply in 1 e
where YvY t datie a nsitiy is lower and distributed mere widely than
in the RmsAiefi area The maximum amount of land zoned LC -1
within Rural Community Activity Nodes shall be limited to ten (10)
acres with a five (5) acre limitation imposed within other Nodes
specifically Rural Neighborhood and Rural Industrial Nodes as
defined within the Orange CpIM Comprehensive Plan Additional
rezoning may be possible through the submittal processing and
approval of a Planned Development in accordance with the
provisions of Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance in situations where a
Node has reached capacity. Acreage limitations shall not apply to
property zoned Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) or planned
developments.
PART II: That Section 4.2.9 (b) (4) be amended as follows:
4. xr,,,... lly, the i nt- Af land zoned -14C 2-at- ay Rode
s ,t not eaeeed nines aems, but 5 were shall apply
where
in the T ensitio aFe . The maximum amount of land zoned NC -2
within Rural Community Activity Nodes shall be limited to ten (10)
acres with a five (5) acre limitation imposed within - other Nodes
specifically Rural Neighborhood and Rural Industrial Nodes,as
defined within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Additional
rezoning may be possible through the submittal processing and
approval of a Planned Development in accordance with the
provisions of Article Seven (7) of the Ordinance in situations where a
Node has reached capacity. Acreage limitations shall not apply to
property zoned Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) or planned
developments.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the
2009 and shall become effective upon adoption.
n-
seconded by
the foregoing Zoning
day of
Donna Baker,. Clerk,. Orange County Commissioners
r /"
Attachment Two (2) - County Nodes - Little River Township 8
Laws Store Road
Little River
Church Roa
i k
i
20
n
Rural Community
Activity Node
Person COL
157
Flat River
:ted watprsh
� o�y
Rural Community
Activity Node
River
L� ttle•Ri er� --��
Protected watershed
— Kiger- -Road, l
0
Rural Neighborhood
Activity Node
Durham
County
Attachment Two (2) - County Nodes - Hillsborough Township
4n
Attachment Two (2) - County Nodes - Cheeks Township 11
Rural Neighborhood Node
i Township
R1
Cheeks� 1Township ookiR � �°'
I/ -f I I � �od4r Rural Neighborhood Node
` Rural Neighborhood Node
on Roads
xxvT
f
Rural Industrial
Node
Attachment Two (2) - Cou
l
South Hyco,Creek
Protected Waterslie
Ul per Eno
cted Watei
I Northern Human Services Center l
Rural Community
Activity Node
S.
Cheeks
Nodes - Cedar Grove Township
Flat
Protected
r
� �r
Rural Neighborhood
Activity Node
Township
Rural Neighborhood
Activity Node
A- a
f
Rural Neighborhood
Activity Node
Little River
Church'/Road-
!J
�n Road ,
Lake,Orange
('-a
o
V
Area
ilJpper
C
Eno
Critical Area
Cheeks
Nodes - Cedar Grove Township
Flat
Protected
r
� �r
Rural Neighborhood
Activity Node
Township
Rural Neighborhood
Activity Node
A- a
f
Rural Neighborhood
Activity Node
Little River
Church'/Road-
!J
�n Road ,
Attachment Two (2) - County Nodes - Cedar Grove Townshi
i Caswell County
Rural Community
Activity Node
Y �a
�o
y
v
v
Rural Industrial Node
Hyco Creek
Unprotected watersp
C
f A 1 South Hyco Creek
NC 49, Protected watershed
V NC-8
m o0C
V
c >
o
wC!)
Eno
Rural Community
Activity Node
Carr Store-Road
Sawmill`Roai
Upper`Eno Lake Orange
Critica`Area Area
am a
0 0�0
v�
Rio
_ Upper Eno _
Cheeks Township Protected watershed
4- Har_hmerrt 3 1 5 ..
" Chapter 5: Land Use Element
Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan was adopted in June 2006 and includes
plementation recommendations for water and sewer, land use, transportation,
hams parks, recreation and open space, communications, inter - governme al
agreN,pents with Mebane, and design overlays for the US 70 Corridor and land
town c e.
In 2007, Oran and Durham County completed a Small Area PI for the 930 -acre
North Carolina fthway 57 Speedway Area. ._This area Is loc ed in the northeast
comer of Orange ounty near the border with area unty. The area was
selected as an oppo unity for further long -range plaryIng because of multiple
factors 1) existing bu ' esses of non - conforming s us, 2) the area's location
within a protected Ovate hed, and 3) Orange unty's desire' to encourage
compatible non - residential velopment that pro cts the existing rural character
of the area. The planning rocess inciud an identification of Issues and
concerns for the area, public fe back thro h scheduled meetings, and drafting
of the plan for public review and nside tn. The plan includes nine goals for
guiding future planning efforts in t ea, as well as objectives and policies for
Implementing the goals.
The NC Hig/A2 7 Speedway A a Sma Area Plan was adopted by the County
CommissioAugust 20 7. The plementation of recommendations
included in is forthc ing.
PANTRY ST
The Pantry s o ensure that subsequent deve pments were in accordance
with municounty land use objectives and incl ed participation from the
Town of High. The plan established developmen tandards for transition
areas and ai protection for environmentally sensitiv areas. The plan was
approved b CC in July, 1986.
Dev opment of Small Area Plans has allowed the County to take a ore detailed
to at targeted areas In the County. The goals and objectives of ese Plans
rovide a foundation for improving the County's Comprehensive Plan o effect
needed change In these locations. in general, these Small Area Pia have
highlighted the need for the County to: 1) Pursue additional interlocal agree nts;
2) add additional partners to the Water and Sewer Management Planning d
Boundary Agreement; 3) amend the County's Land Use Map (contained within t
Land Use Element); and 4) amend the County's Zoning Ordinance text and map for
consistency and to implement the recommendations that have been included in
the adopted Small Area Plans.
5.3. THE LAND USE PLAN
.; exOne of the fundamental planning tools used to achieve the stated goals and
` objectives of the Comprehensive Plan In Orange County is the design and
application of a Land Use Plan and Map. Land Use Element implementation is
accomplished primarily through the application of zoning, although a variety of
land use ordinances are available for various aspects of implementation. A key
feature of land use planning in Orange County is the requirement for consistency
between the Land Use Plan Map and the application of zoning. A Zoning District
Matrix identifies each of the Land Use Plan categories with compatible,
'r
;> OraiCou*ity C&mpreht,vvbf4vPiPbavv Page 5 -14
Chapter 5: Land Use .Element
corresponding zoning districts. if a zoning district is not compatible with the land
use category contained in the Matrix, re- zoning cannot take place unless the Land
Use Plan Map is amended. (See Appendix F: Relationship Between Land Use
Categories and ,Zoning Districts Matrix.)
The Land Use Map defines the location of coordinated and appropriate land use
classes and Is designed to accommodate a particular combination of land uses
that would achieve a desired pattern of development. The linkage between the
1981 Plan and zoning has helped to guide new development to appropriate
locations in the County. As a result of the County's strong commitment to the
Land Use.Plan Map, it can be and is used as a primary toot by staff, the Planning
Board, and elected officials during review of re- zonings. The Map also provides
the development community and staff with clear guidance to the locations In the
County where re- zonings may be appropriate and where they are not.
The land use categories used on the Map are based on five basic categories, which
have been refined into a more detailed classification system to meet the specific
development needs of the County. These five land use categories include
developed, transition, community, rural, and conservation.
DEVELOPED LANp USE CATEGORIES
Urban
Land that is within the corporate limits of a town and, therefore, under
the planning and zoning jurisdiction of the town.
Existing Urban Actives Node
Land corresponding to "activity centers" designated by the Towns of
Chapel Hill and Carrboro and similarly identified for the Towns of
Hillsborough and Mebane.
Proposed Urban Activity Node
Land, corresponding to proposed "activity centers" designated by the
Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
TRANSITION LANK USE CATEGORIES
l I 0 -Year Transition
Land' located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to
urban densities and /or intensities, that are suitable for higher
densities and /or intensities and could be provided with public utilities
and services within the first i'0 -year phase of the Plan update or where
such utilities and services are already present or planned. Non-
residential uses implemented in accordance with small area plans
and /or overlay districts may be appropriate.
20 -Year Transition
Land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to
urban, that are suitable for urban -type densities and should be
provided with public utilities and services within the second 10 year
phase of the plan.
Commercial Transition Activity Node
Land focused on designated road intersections within either a 10 -year
or 20 -year transition area that is appropriate -for retail and. other
commercial uses.
Orcc 4&C&"tY C&M iriehes uve,PUG", Page 5 -15
16
17
Chapter S: Land Use EIement
Commercial - industrial Transition Activity Node.
Land focused on designated road intersections within either a 7 0 -year
or 20 year transition area that is appropriate for retail and other
commercial uses and /or manufacturing and other industrial uses.
Economic Development (Transition) Activity Node
Land in transition areas of the County which has been specifically
targeted for economic development activity consisting of light
industrial, distribution, office, service /retail uses, and flex space
(typically one -story buildings designed, constructed, and marketed as
suitable for use as offices but able to accommodate other uses such as
a warehouse, showroom, manufacturing assembly, or similar
operations.) Such areas are located adjacent to interstate and major
arterial highways, and subject to special design criteria and
performance standards.
COMMUNITY LAND USE CATEGORY
Rural Community Activity Node
Land focused on designated road intersections which serve as nodal
crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate
location for any of the following uset: church, fire station, small post
office, school, or other similar institutional uses and one or more
commercial uses.
RURAL LAND USE CATEGORIES
gural Buffer
Land adjacent to an urban or transition area which is rural in character
and which should remain rural, contain very low- density residential
uses, and not require urban services during the plan period.
Rural Residential
Land in the rural areas of the County which is appropriate for low
intensity and low - density residential development and which would not
be dependent on urban services during the plan period.
Agricultural - Residential
Land In the rural areas where the prevailing land use activities are
related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appropriate
location for the continuation of these uses.
Rural 1 Neighborhood Activity Node
Land focused on designated road intersections within a Rural
Residential or Agricultural - Residential area that Is appropriate for
small -scale commercial uses characteristic of "Mom and Pop"
convenience stores and gas stations.
Rural Industrial Activity Node
Land - focused on designated road intersections within a Rural
Residential or Agricultural - Residential Area that is appropriate for
small scale industrial uses which do not require urban type services.
(9rcrrW,c.evwtty cowq--)rPA.P,w &vP_,1>%uvv Page 5 -16
:4Jtp:�i•r:Y�`
Chapter 5. Land Use EIement
Extractive Use
Land designated to encompass operations designed primarily for the
mining and quarrying of those substances which are legally removable
from the ground and substrata.
Agricultural Areas
Land which is actively being used for farming an forestry purposes and
which qualify for or are listed for, use value taxation purposes.
Stoney Creek Basin
Land within the boundaries of the 4,696 acre Stoney Creek Drainage
Basin southeast of the Town of Hillsborough In portions of
Hillsborough, Eno, and Chapel Hill Townships. The area is triangular
in shape and is bound generally by 1 -85 to the north, the University
Spur of Southern Railroad to the east, and NC Highway 86 to the west.
CONSERVATION LAND USE CATEGORIES
Public Interest Area
Land which contains public or quasi - public uses such as publicly
owned land, research forests or known archaeological or historical
sites.
Water Supply Watershed
Land draining to existing reservoirs which serve as public water
supplies, or to potential reservoir sites or stream intakes for drinking
water withdrawal which have been designated for protection against
threats to the water quality of future water supplies, in accordance
with County watershed protection programs and the North Carolina
Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989.
Watershed Critical Area
The land area within one -half mile of the normal pool elevation of an
existing or proposed public water supply impoundment, or the ridge
line of the watershed, whichever is closest to the normal pool
elevation of the reservoir.
Reservoir
Land which contains a public water supply source, or the necessary
attributes for placement of a water supply impoundment to supply an
adequate quality of water for public purposes.
Resource Protection Area
Land designated as Primary Conservation Area which contains
sensitive environmental resources, historically significant sites, and
features considered unbuildable because of their limitations or
unsuitability for development. This includes wetlands and floodplains
along drainage tributaries, steep slope areas, (I S x; or greater), natural
areas, wildlife habitats and corridors, and significant historic and
archaeological sites. These areas form the basis for a conservation
network within which other land uses are situated.
New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space _
Some of the land In the Resource Protection Areas and a portion of the
Public Interest Area designated as significant and worthy of protection
according to the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan
orangelCountyCoinprehenaive:P'%w Page 5 -17
Chapter 5: Land Use Element
completed in April of 1991. This classification Is part of a system of
open space In Durham and Orange Counties along New Hope Creek
and its tributaries between Eno River State Park and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers land north of Jordan Lake. The New Hope Corridor Open
Space is made up of critical environmental areas such as stream beds,
floodplains, steep slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational, or
recreational value.
For each land use classification, sets of criteria have been developed that describe
the physical and environmental context, the projected population change, and
resulting land requirements. (See Appendix G. Land Use Plan Category Locational
Criteria.)
Map 5 -4: Land Use Map, designates the areas where these classifications are
applied.
oran�c~ty Page 5 -18
9b:
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 4, 2009
Attachment 4
21
Action Agenda
Item No. 11
SUBJECT: Review of options concerning development within Orange County Nodes
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ' PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Name, Phone Number
Michael D. Harvey, Planner 245 -2607
PURPOSE: To review various options and timelines relating to possible amendments to the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance clarifying development limitations within existing Nodes.
BACKGROUND: The Land Use Plan Map of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan
delineates the location of various Nodes throughout the County. One such category is the Rural
Community Activity Node, defined within Chapter Five (5), Section 5.3 The Future Land Use
Plan of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan as:
Land focused on designated road intersections which serve a nodal
crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an
appropriate location for any of the following uses: churches, fire
station, small post office, school, or other similar institutional uses
and one or more commercial uses.
Non - residential zoning classifications allowed within the Rural Community Activity Nodes are
limited to: Local Commercial One (LC -1) and Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC -2) as
detailed within Appendix E of the Comprehensive Plan.
During the review of a recently submitted Zoning Atlas Amendment petition proposing the
rezoning of additional property within the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node, staff
informed the County Commissioners and advisory board members that Section 4.2.8 and
Section 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes an overall limit on the amount of LCA or NC-
2 zoned property within the Rural Community Activity Nodes. Staff recommended against the
rezoning petition as the White Cross Node was already at the established limit.
During the public hearing, comments were made by BOCC members, Planning Board members,
and staff indicating that there ought to be a comprehensive re- assessment of the existing Rural
Community Activity Nodes.
22
On January 14, 2009 the Planning Board asked staff for an assessment on possible solutions to
this problem that would:
1. Allow for the approval of the submitted Zoning Atlas petition, and
2. Allow for greater flexibility in encouraging more non - residential developments within the
Nodes.
Staff has complied a list of recommendations, ranked based on the anticipated time for
completion, for review and discussion. They are as follows:
OPTION ONE: Do nothing and maintain the current constraints contained within the
Ordinance.
TIMELINE: None.
PRO's: This option will not require additional staff time to review and process
an Ordinance amendment.
CON'S: Members of the County Commission and the Planning Board have
indicated that the current methodology for regulating development
within the Nodes ought to be modified.
Applications in process that exceed present thresholds would be
recommended for denial.
OPTION TWO: Amend Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance to remove
existing language establishing the five (5) acre limit on non-
residential zoning within the Rural Community Activity Nodes.
The revised section(s) would approximately read as follows:
The maximum amount of land zoned LC -1 (or NC -2)
at any Node shall not exceed nine (9) acres.
TIMELINE: This option is, potentially, the easiest to pursue. The implementation
of this option involves the following timeline:
1. Development of a formal ordinance amendment package
(completed by staff) — approximately one (1) month,
2. Presentation at a Quarterly Public Hearing. All Ordinance
amendments are required to be presented at a Quarterly
Public Hearing (QPH). The next available QPH would be the
May 18, 2009 meeting:
3. Referral of the proposed amendment to the Planning Board
for review and recommendation — approximately one (1) to
three (3) months depending on board workload,
4. Review and action by the BOCC — approximately one (1)
month,
5. Anticipated decision by BOCC: September 15, 2009
23
The total timeline for the development and possible implementation
of this option is eight (8) months. Staff would have to devote existing
resources to develop and present this proposed amendment as well
as generate all necessary memorandum(s), maps, and other support
documents that may be required.
PRO's: This option allows for a .measurable increase in the allowable non-
residential development within the Nodes and could eliminate the
need for local residents to commute to urban areas or centers (i.e.
existing local municipalities) in order to purchase necessities or take
advantage of essential services, thereby reducing miles traveled and
pollution.
COLA's: The current land uses allowed within the LC -1 and /or NC -2 zoning
districts are broader than what was originally envisioned for
development within the Nodes. Simply raising the amount of non-
residential development within the Node does not address the issue
of encouraging the type of development the County would like to see
within the Nodes.
GENERAL
POSTNOTE: Staff also believes that if an increase is suggested that rural scale
and architectural standards should be adopted.
OPTION THREE: Amend Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance to include
language exempting the necessary active septic and /or repair fields
from the acreage computation.
The revised section(s) would read as follows:
Normally, the maximum amount of land at any node
shall not exceed nine acres, but a maximum of 5
acres shall apply where population density is lower
and distributed more widely than in the Transition
areas.
This acreage limitation shall not include those
areas necessary to support the location of active,
or repair, septic fields for identified permitted
non - residential uses.
TIMELINE: The implementation of this option involves the following timeline:
1. Development of a formal ordinance amendment package
(completed by staff) — approximately one (1) month,
2. Presentation at a Quarterly Public Hearing. All Ordinance
amendments are required to be presented at a Quarterly
Public Hearing (QPH). The next available QPH would be the
May 18, 2009 meeting.
24
3. Referral of the proposed amendment to the Planning Board
for review and recommendation - approximately one (1) to
three (3) months depending on board workload,
4. Review and action by the BOCC — approximately one (1)
month,
5. Anticipated decision by BOCC: September 15, 2009
The total timeline for the development and possible implementation
of this option is eight (8) months. Staff would have to devote existing
resources to develop and present this proposed amendment as well
as generate all necessary memorandum(s), maps, and other support
documents that may be required.
PRO's: This option would keep the existing limitations in place but would
allow for the required septic and /or repair areas for each parcel of
property not to be included within the acreage limit calculation.
CON's: This option represents a potential recordkeeping nightmare for staff.
The County would be required to keep constant track of development
on property to ensure compliance with the acreage limitations while
at the same time keeping track of the acreage of commercial zoned
property not subject to the limitation.
This option is not an effective means of regulating development
within the Node nor is it an effective means of encouraging additional
development.
OPTION FOUR: Complete a Small Area Plan for the White Cross Node developing
specific standards and guidelines governing development.
TIMELINE: The implementation of this option involves the following timeline:
1. Development of a formal proposal to initiate the Small Area
Planning process for review and approval by the BOCC —
approximately one (1) month,
2. Sanctioning of the Small Area Plan proposal by the BOCC —
unknown timeline.
3. Advertise the creation of a Small Area Plan Task Force to
invite community representatives to participate in the Plan
development - approximately one (1) month,
4. Creation of the Task Force by the BOCC — unknown timeline,
5. Community meetings and outreach developing the Plan —
approximately six (6) to nine (9) months from date Task Force
is formed,
6. Completion of Small Area Plan — approximately two (2)
months,
7. Approval of Plan by Task Force — approximately one (1)
month,
25
8. Presentation of Plan to BOCC and Planning Board —
Historically, small area plans have been presented to the
BOCC and Planning Board at a Quarterly Public Hearing with
the Planning Board offering a recommendation within
approximately two (2) months,
9. Approval of Plan by BOCC — approximately one (1) month,
10. Implementation of Ordinance revisions — unknown timeline.
The total timeline for the development and possible implementation
of this option is unknown given the level of participation that will be
required as part of the Small Area Plan process.
Staff would have to devote significant time to coordinating an
additional Task Force.
This option may be more difficult given the various goals and
objective staff has already been tasked to completing within the 2009
calendar year.
PRO's: This option represents the most comprehensive planning effort to
address development within the White Cross Node.
CON's: The Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan was completed
within one (1) year, from approval of the Task Force formation to
adoption of the Plan by the BOCC. Amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance to implement the various recommendations outlined
within the Plan are still pending. While this process offers a
comprehensive assessment of the various issues, and identified a
broad spectrum of solutions, it is the most time consuming. option
and does not lend itself to addressing immediate issues.
This option also does not allow for a comprehensive review of
development issues within the various other existing Nodes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: While staff has the capability to complete tasks associated with the
options detailed herein, any selected option will have to be weighed against the overall goals
established by the BOCC for staff to complete this calendar year.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Zoning Officer recommends the Planning Board focus on
Option Two (2), as detailed herein, as the immediate solution to the problem at hand. Further,
staff recommends the Board study the need for a Small Area Plan for the White Cross, and
other existing, Nodes as a potential work item for a future calendar year.
01
27
1 ATTACHMENT FIVE (5) — EXCERPT OF FEBRUARY 4, 2009 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
2
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
5 FEBRUARY 4,2009
6 REGULAR MEETING
7
8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At -Large (Chair); Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Vice -
9 Chair); Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative; Mary
10 Bobbitt- Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At- Large; Nathan Chambers,
11 Cheeks Township At- Large; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Mark Marcoplos; Bingham Township At- Large,
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large;
14 Joel Forrest Knight, Little River Representative;
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Alfieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Robert Davis,
17 Planner III; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
18
19
20 AGENDA ITEM 11: REVIEW OF OPTIONS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN ORANGE COUNTY NODES
21
22 Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
23
24 Craig Benedict (Reviewed various options and timelines relating to possible amendments to the Orange County
25 Zoning Ordinance clarifying development limitations within existing Nodes.)
26
27 OPTION ONE: Do nothing and maintain the current constraints contained within the Ordinance.
28
29 OPTION TWO: Amend Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance to remove existing
30 language establishing the five (5) acre limit on non - residential zoning within the
31 Rural Community Activity Nodes.
32
33 OPTION THREE: Amend Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance to include language
34 exempting the necessary active septic and /or repair fields from the acreage
35 computation.
36
37 OPTION FOUR: Complete a Small Area Plan for the White Cross Node developing specific
38 standards and guidelines governing development.
39
40 Judith Wegner: Could you clarify how many nodes are there in the County?
41
42 Craig Benedict: White Cross, Cedar Grove, Carr, Caldwell and Schley.
43
44 Judith Wegner: If you did a text amendment, it would apply to all those?
45
46 Craig Benedict: We could just do White Cross for now. A text amendment with a specific reference to White Cross.
47
48 Judith Wegner: You would have two classes of rural activity nodes?
49
50 Craig Benedict: Yes but implemented at the zoning level.
51
52 Judith Wegner: I have been thinking about Bingham Township with the airport proposal and wondered if it would be
53 possible to do a more developed township analysis.
54
55 Craig Benedict: I think the staff recommendation is to do something immediately and put it on the future calendar to
56 examine all the nodes. Option three would be next.
28
57
58 Judith Wegner. Could you clarify on that issue also. It has been a real concern to the community with the situation
59 with Fiesta Grill. I am wondering about whatever is done to this application, would that have a bearing on the
60 situation there?
61
62 Craig Benedict: Option two could correct that.
63
64 Judith Wegner. They have a health department issue because with the number of tables, they were exceeding their
65 septic space.
66
67 Craig Benedict: Let's move to Option 4 a full SAP would be time consuming' and not on the Board' of County
68 Commissioners 09-10 priority list. Those are the options.
69
70 Brian Crawford: It sounds like Option 3 settles the problem also.
71
72 Craig Benedict: Yes. For the grill.
73
74 Mark Marcoplos: The instigator of this is the property with the used furniture store? In terms of the Fiesta Grill, they
75 have enough land if they are allowed to go beyond the 5 acres?
76
77 Craig Benedict: They would have to ask for an expansion of their commercial use or a planned development would
78 be required since the Fiesta Grill is on the same site with another use on the site.
79
80 Mark Marcoplos: The projection would be September 15, 2009 but also an additional time period for them to work
81 out those issues?
82
83 Craig Benedict: Yes probably.
84
85 Judith Wegner If there is a solution here, people should know about it and support it.
86
87 Mark Marcoplos: Could be a few months after that. Going from five to nine acres, it would seem that the larger
88 facilities could be located there?
89
90 Craig Benedict: You may have the one or two acre commercial activities there. That is why the future plan could
91 take a good look at it. It has always been intended that the rural activity nodes could be some locations for rural
92 residents to decrease the miles traveling to the urban areas and would have more general stores and uses. We were
93 going to take a look at post comprehensive plan update. It was on our agenda to examine these nodes.
94
95 Mark Marcoplos: I would like a little note that if an increase is suggested that rural scale and architectural scale
96 should be adopted.
97
98 Judith Wegner. What is magic about nine acres?
99
100 Craig Benedict: It is not a magic number; we used nine because that is what the code said if it ever reached a
101 certain density standpoint in the future. If the board would like to come up with a different number, we would want to
102 try to have a little more logic to it.
103
104 Judith Wegner: It seems it would be too bad to move it to nine and then in later move it to-another number. -It would
105 be fair to everyone who was thinking of locating there to have some grounding as to why.
106
107 Craig Benedict: What types of uses to you anticipate there? If we do come up with a standard, we might say x
108 amount of acres for developed parcels.
109
110 Mark Marcoplos: Is there a minimum that would satisfy both of them. Maybe we do minimum and get what they
111 need and as soon as possible start this process where the community could get involved and decide what they want.
112
29
113 Judith Wegner: That community is aware and has a feeling of being pushed and pulled.
114
115 Jay Bryan: I don't live there but if I did, I would feel comfortable with addressing the individual situation. This
116 particular situation, the Fiesta Grill, is what spurred this in part. The second piece is that if White Cross wanted to do
117 a community plan for more acreage for that node, we would engage in a process that could be local. I am concerned
118 about these other nodes, what people feel in those communities and how they would react to an expansion. I don't
119 feel comfortable doing a broad change over the other nodes without more study.
120
121 Mary Bobbitt- Cooke: I thought we were also looking at Option 4 as a follow -up down the road? I think we are
122 answering everyone's concern.
123
124 Brian Crawford: I have heard from the comments that the Planning Board is supportive of the change to meet the
125 needs of the merchants, including the Fiesta Grill, and the second is that we also agree on the further plan for White
126 Cross and the third issue is that we do not want to expand that to all the other nodes because we want them to react
127 to this change and how it may affect them.
128
129 Jay Bryan: You may not need to go to the third one.
130
131 Judith Wegner: Between two and three, can you clarify since there is a distinction about not applying to the other
132 nodes that is a broader sweep and would take longer compared to three which is the one with the septic systems.
133
134 Mary Bobbitt- Cooke: I think Option 3 had record keeping problems that there is not staff to keep up with.
135
136 Larry Wright: I think that is right.
137
138 Judith Wegner: Number 2 would say limiting instead of all rural nodes; it would be this specific node.
139
140 Lary Wright: Where was the nine and seven acre?
141
142 Brian Crawford: Staff suggested nine acres and Judith asked about that number.
143
144 MOTION Planning Board recommends option 2 with the understanding that the modification would only apply to the
145 White Cross rural node as well as moving forward with option four (4) at the first opportunity specifically as to
146 developing a small area plan for White Cross node by Judith Wegner. Seconded by Larry Wright
147
148 Mark Marcoplos: Can we discuss this, briefly. I just want to ask again. Do we know what those two property owners
149 needs are?
150
151 Craig Benedict: Its only one acre for Mr. Davis.
152
153 Mark Marcoplos: He only needs one.
154
155 Craig Benedict: For Fiesta Grill, I do not know offhand, but I wouldn't think its more than two acres.
156
157 Mark Marcoplos: And they've got five there.
158
159 Judith Wegner: If I remember correctly, they can't accommodate it on the parcel owned by the guy who's leasing it,
160 the land to them. That's why I wasn't sure as to item 2 by saying you could have a larger commercial node. I think
161 that gets you someplace but there still would have to be an additional leasing of the adjacent property to
162 accommodate the septic.
163
164 Jay Bryan: How about saying up to the minimal amount that's needed to correct those two situations up to a
165 maximum amount.
166
167 Mark Marcoplos: Do you see what I'm getting at? I just don't want open the door to bigger stuff when later on the
168 community might say, no we only want six acres or seven acres. I don't know if that's important but it might be.
30
169
170 Craig Benedict I think the Board was saying, the minimum to meet the needs of these two situations up to a
171 maximum.
172
173 Judith Wegner: I just think its hard to draft an ordinance if you don't put a number in it I don't know what further
174 investigation is needed to determine that but let me try it one more time.
175
176 MOTION Planning Board recommends option two (2) with the understanding that it would not apply to other rural
177 nodes and that if the staff is able to determine that something short of nine (9) acres would be sufficient to meet
178 these two (2) pressing needs that the ultimate recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners would be
179 reduced accordingly and that we further recommend that option four (4) be pursued to develop a small area plan for
180 the White Cross node as soon as feasible. Seconded by Larry Wright.
181 VOTE: Unanimous
182
183 Judith Wegner Who will talk to the Fiesta Grill people?
184
185 Craig Benedict: Michael Harvey has been working with them.
186
187 Judith Wegner: With the economy it is important to keep local business alive so that is great.
188
Commissioner Hemminger asked how 48 months was selected and it was answered that
permits would have to be obtained from NCDOT and easements would also have to be
obtained. This is a reasonable amount of time for these things.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked for clarity on whether major projects would have to come back
every 12 months to show that they were proceeding.
Commissioner Jacobs asked Michael Harvey to check and see how Chapel Hill and
Carrboro do extensions and for the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board to
see. He thinks that when there is an extension, then the applicant could stipulate how many
months the extension should be. He thinks that the staff should monitor progress.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the first page and that the applicant can only
request an extension from the Board of County Commissioners upon the favorable
recommendation of the Planning Board. He thinks that this is wrong, and he would like to
change this. He respects the Planning Board, but there might be other interests of the Board of
County Commissioners that would make it important to have an extension.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the statement, "It should be noted that no
extension request shall be approved if such request represents an alteration." He asked for a
definition of an alteration. Michael Harvey pointed this definition out in the article.
There was no public comment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to refer
the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned in time for the August 18,
2009 BOCC meeting.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to
Article Four (4) Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule Section(s) 4.2.8 and
4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to modify existing standards governing the
acceptable level of non - residential zoned area permitted within Commercial activity, Rural
Neighborhood, and Rural Community Activity Nodes.
AGENDA ITEM: C2
PUBLIC HEARING
Review of a proposal to amend
Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9
of the Zoning Ordinance
to modify existing standards governing the acceptable level of non - residential zoning within
Nodes
ISSUE:
*The Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 4.2.8 and 4.2.9, establish limits on the total amount
of non - residential zoning permitted within a Node,
•The Ordinance would allow up to a total of nine (9) acres but only in instances where existing
density within a given Node is similar to existing Transition Areas,
*If density within the Nodes is not similar to existing Transition Areas, non - residential zoning is
limited to five (5) acres,
*The review of a recent rezoning petition during the November 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing
brought these limitations under greater scrutiny,
*Staff believes there is an opportunity to allow for the Nodes to be developed as originally
intended by the County and provide greater opportunity for the County Commissioners to be
more involved with the development process
Example Node Boundaries:
PROPOSAL:
*Amend Section(s) 4.2.8 (b) (4) and 4.2.9 (b) (4) to increase the maximum allowable non-
residential development within Rural Community Activity Nodes to ten (10) acres,
"Limit non - residential development within other Nodes to five (5) acres (i.e. Five (5) acres of LC-
1 and NC -2 zoning), and
*Include a provision allowing the possibility of additional non - residential development with the
submission, review, and approval of a Planned Development (PD) application
RATIONALE:
•The Rural Community Activity Nodes were intended to allow for higher intensity non - residential
development to eliminate the need for residents to commute to urbanizing areas. By increasing
the cumulative amount of allowable non - residential zoning we accomplish this goal,
*The remaining Nodes can still be developed at what staff has determined acceptable levels of
intensity given their purpose as defined within the Comprehensive Plan
'By adding new language relating to the possible allowance of additional non - residential zoning
through the review of a Planned Development project, the County has the opportunity to
address changing needs within the Nodes without having to continuously amend the Zoning
Ordinance
Staff Recommendations:
•Receive the staff initiated zoning text amendment proposal including staff's report and
presentation materials,
•Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties,
*Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County
Board of Commissioners in time for the August 18, 2009 BOCC meeting,
•Adjourn the Public Hearing until August 18, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's
recommendation.
Mark Marcoplos said that the Rural Neighborhood Node, which is close to where he
lives, has a convenience store, a nursery, a horse feed /general hardware store, and other
businesses, including a junk yard. He said that there is more activity in the rural neighborhood
than in the Rural Community Activity Node. He said that the transfer station is supposed to go
in the Rural Neighborhood Node. He said that there is a UNC Animal Testing Facility here and
there is a huge amount of expansion in this area. He said that the map does not really
communicate the activity that is going on and it is confusing.
Commissioner Gordon said that there is some uncertainty about boundaries and she is
concerned about this. She said that the boundary should be certain, and if the boundary has to
be modified, then it can be amended.
Michael Harvey said that one of the reasons for the planned development is so that
there can be some non - residential uses.
Commissioner Pelissier said that it seems that this is a response to a particular request
for rezoning. She said that, if the County is going to implement the Revised Comprehensive
Plan, then this seems piece meal and not looking at the big picture.
There was no public comment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon
refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board
of Commissioners in time for the August 18, 2009 BOCC meeting and adjourn the public
hearing until August 18, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to
Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requirements Section 6.23.1 Land Use
Restrictions to modify existing regulations prohibiting non - residential development within the
University Lake Critical and Protected, Cane Creek Critical, and Upper Eno Critical
Watershed Protection Overlay Districts.
AGENDA ITEM: C3
PUBLIC HEARING
Review of a proposal to amend
Section 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
to modify existing regulations prohibiting non - residential development within certain Protected
and Critical Watershed Overlay Districts
ISSUE:
*Section 6.23.1 prohibits non - residential development within the University Protected and
Critical, Cane Creek Critical, and Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay Districts,
*Staff has determined that the majority of the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node is
located within the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District,
"As a result the development potential of this Node is limited,
Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node:
STAFF COMMENT:
•Staff does not believe it was the intent of the County to outright prohibit non - residential
developments within established Nodes when it adopted the Watershed Overlay Districts in the
late 1980's and early 1990's.
*Staff believes that there is room for compromise that will allow for development within the
Nodes while preserving the integrity of the watershed areas consistent with the various goals of
the Comprehensive Plan.
PROPOSAL:
*Staff is proposing to amend Section 6.23.1 by adding the following language (in bold):
'No commercial or industrial uses are permitted except within established Nodes as
detailed within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.'
*This amendment would only permit non - residential development within various protected and
critical water sheds in instances where there is an established Node.