Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2009-31a-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to the Amount of Development of Non-Residential Land Uses Within Certain Watershed Overlay DistrictsORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 1, 2009 OQ ~- aoo ~ d3/~ ~,~,~dog 5' ~ Action Agenda Item No. ~_ SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to the Amount of Development of Non-residential Land Uses within Certain Watershed Overlay Districts DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Ordinance Amendment -Planning Board Recommendation and Map 2. Ordinance Amendment -Staff Recommendation 3. Map of Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node and Rural Industrial Node 4. Watershed Overlay and Land Use Element Maps .Showing Location of Various Nodes 5. Minutes from July 1, 2009 Planning Board 6. Minutes from May 18, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Harvey, Planner III 245-2607 Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592 PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board and staff recommendation(s) and consider taking action on a staff initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `the Ordinance) seeking to allow the development of non-residential land uses within certain critical and protected watershed overlay districts in instances where such areas are located within previously identified Rural Community Activity Nodes. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. As staff stated during the hearing, the Ordinance, specifically Section 6.23.1, currently prohibits the development of non-residential land uses within the A. University Critical and Protected, B. Cane Creek Critical, and C. Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay Zoning Districts. Approximately three quarters of the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node (Attachment Three) is located within the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District. This area cannot be developed for non-residential uses. There is also a Rural Industrial Node located within the University Lake Protected Watershed Overlay District that is similarly restricted. 2 As stated during the public hearing, staff does not believe the County intended to restrict non- residential development within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node and that the prohibition, as outlined within Section 6.23.1 of the Ordinance, was intended to prevent wholesale non-residential development throughout the aforementioned critical or protected watershed(s). During the hearing, the following general comments were made relating to the proposed amendment: 1. Board members agreed that it was not the original intent of the County to restrict development within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node when comprehensive watershed regulations were adopted, 2. A Board member expressed concern that we needed to be careful in what was permitted within any portion of a critical watershed and that wholesale non-residential development would be inconsistent with the goals of the County, 3. A Board member indicated there ought to be a comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses within the various Nodes and that development regulations ought to be tailored to promote the development of these various uses. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its July 1, 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. After deliberating on this item, the Planning Board voted six (6) to one (1) to recommend that: A. Section 6.23.1 be amended to only allow the properties at the intersection of Carr Store and Efland Cedar Grove Road within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node to develop non-residential land uses consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance, and B. That the County Board of Commissioners authorize the development of a Small Area Plan for the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node and that upon completion of that study, the entire Node be allowed to support non-residential development consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance. STAFF COMMENT: In addressing the various comments made by the BOCC and Planning Board, staff would like to offer the following: 1. While staff agrees that there ought to be a comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses within the various Nodes, staff does not believe that it is necessary to delay this proposed amendment to allow such a study to occur. This assessment might be possible through the completion of Small Area Plans for each Node as future work plans are prioritized. 2. Staff does not believe the Planning Board recommendation can be achieved given the lack of any documentation or rationale justifying exempting the properties at the existing road intersections from the existing prohibition on allowing non-residential development within a critical watershed overlay district. 3 3. It is staffs opinion that the Planning Board recommendation constitutes a modification to the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District boundary line, which was not advertised as part of the public hearing. 4. Any request for development through a rezoning application is determined through the legislative process. 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. RECOMMENDATION: The Interim Manager recommends the Board: Receive the Planning Board recommendation. 2. Deliberate on the petition as necessary 3. Close the Public Hearing,- 4. Adopt the Ordinance amendment recommended by staff contained within Attachment Two (Z) of this abstract. Attachment 14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 9-~-~om9 ~~ THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, there has been increased attention paid to existing Nodes throughout the County, and WHEREAS,~the majority of the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node is currently located within a Critical Watershed Overlay Zoning District that. prohibits the development of non-residential land uses, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that it was not the original intent to restrict development within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node when comprehensive watershed regulations were adopted, WHEREAS, the proposed amendment encourages the development of the Nodes consistent with the original intent of the Comprehensive Plan, 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 6.23.1 of the Ordinance be amended as follows: ISTRICT LAND USE RESTRICTIONS No new landfills are permitted. No commercial or industrial uses are permitted exce t wi the Cedar Grove Rural Communi Activi Node where th -CA ro roes at the intersection of Efland Cedar Grove and ~-PW Store Roads tannin westward from the intersectio CANE-CA roa~imatel ei ht hundred f 850 feet shall be allowed t -ENO-CA be dev~lo for commercial ses consistent with th requirements of the Ordinance. No new golf courses are ermitted IV-CA ANE-CA No residual (sludge) application is permitted. -ENO-CA CANE-PW -ENO-PW YCO-PW No discharging landfills are permitted. Industrial use is limited ITTLE-PW to nonhazardous light industrial uses characterized by low water ACK-PW use (less than 10,000 gpd, excluding domestic water (25 gpd per LAT-PW employee) and water used for heating and air conditioning). AW-PW -ENO-PW 5 ORDAN-PW Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner the foregoing Zoning Ordinance amendments were adopted this the day of 2009 and shall become effective upon adoption. Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners ""'~~ment pne ~~} ' Plannin J Board recommendation map de tail NOde Boundary Cedar Gr°ye Methodist Church ~k vAPer ~ ° : ~ ~ F.ramahy~ ~ ~o Cir~tIC.3~ ~ ~` ~4°'~ejf~ ~f}0°~ SYaerri Bow ~_ ; ,~' C4ry4 ~ tao yR ~: ( Corr ~ fiery ._ ~l" ETJ ~ ~. ~ F10or)yy~, (Fn (EQ~ Oy~yzro~ ~~~ r Scvta, _ Hdd by ~tf~~ ~nenfa. ~ YR F~ap1q~ ~E ~~ ' qg~~ ~ _ ~ BiHc#n~ a 02~ron - ~ ` ^. Con "h' i°n'atlarf Ea""men~ 760 ~ ~n~ry = 8pg.05 feet 1 ~5f t ~h ~~ p~dV~ O'R~ _ aOpc~ _ O3 Z Attachment 2 7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, there has been increased attention paid to existing Nodes throughout the County, and WHEREAS, the majority of the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node is currently located within a Critical Watershed Overlay Zoning District that prohibits the development of non-residential land uses, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that it was not the original intent to restrict development within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node when comprehensive watershed regulations were adopted, WHEREAS, the proposed amendment encourages the development of the Nodes consistent with the original intent of the Comprehensive Plan, 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 6.23.1 of the Ordinance be amended as follows: ISTRICT LAND USE RESTRICTIONS No new landfills are permitted. -CA No commercial or industrial uses are permitted earce t fo -PW commercial develo ment in accordance with the rovisio ANE-CA of the Ordinance located within established 1Vodes as detail -ENO-CA within the Orange Counlty Comprehensive Plan. No new golf courses are permitted IV-CA CANE-CA No residual (sludge) application is permitted. -ENO-CA ANE-PW -ENO-PW YCO-PW No discharging landfills are permitted. Industrial use is ITTLE-PW limited to nonhazardous light industrial uses characterized by ACK-PW low water use (less than 10,000 gpd, excluding domestic AT-PW water (25 gpd per employee) and water used for heating and AW-PW air conditioning). -ENO-PW ORDAN-PW 8 Upon motion of Commissioner Commissioner the Ordinance amendments were adopted this the day of 2009 and shall become effective upon adoption. seconded by foregoing Zoning Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners Attment T hree `: ~~ °~.,~' r ,,. ~~ :.1 . }~ ~_ ry t ~ ~ ~ To- it". Activit --y Node J I ~~ ~ 3 . ~ ~ ~ ~ P 1 bode Bound a :.~'~£ rY ~~, Cedar Grove Metho ~~-~±'.., ., ,._ _ dist Church ~... acs Baer ` ` Fc~~ `~~ sak ~ F der .~ . ` r ~ -. _~. ~_ , ~ , ~ UpAer ~ ''~ J Rn~ ~ Bad „ , Sclbq Sy~n F3~r...._ ~0'^~+rs _"^,,,q' ~' tirnits ~' E7,- ®l00 YR Ffoodp~~ ~ i:,~ ~ ~~~ +~ r w~"9 _ i Z ~ No++Eaa d ~ettt8 1' ~ r.e~-<J `~+~0 YR ~~~ 8 • w~ 30119 b ~ (~ ~ ~~ 01 {EII'eCtive p2p2b7) ~ - EitS c" ~. Y ~~ C '~ 'Cedar Grove Rural -~,~J Communi ~~~~~_~~ 0 74 '- inch =gob. 7,48[ Z4 feet Fr .~~ ~USGS V1~ter Feaera +~/.r~ Soik 9~ivey 1Malef Featwe OC Updated YrAter Feature V1t3ter Body tPover Basins K9lershfld ~_ ~~ L .J township T Sctwd System Bouidary ----- County .~.~ :. -~~ SOils v arcing ®100YR Floodplafn (Etfediva O~A210~ Ciy Limits - FWod~wey (EffaCive 0?IO2107) ~r E7J ~ sooYR Floodplain (EttecUve ozioza~ Conservatbn Easements O Buildings C•Iald blr Others Orarge Count'. Consenrafion Easements U 5/U l,l4U Feet 1 inch = 721.97 feet ~ Attachment Three -Rural Industrial Node ~ o =~ ~~ Orange Count Y Wate a'1V 4Ql.llllLC1 r~ned s ~~~ - ~ 1 N 70 tf ~ ~ l }~~~~,,,,,, _ ~ ~ r ~~. .~ ~t4 ~' i ~ fi. 3 s'. i A ~ raw ~ ~ _ ~ ..~ ''~ s R,` ~O 'Y yj '' I~~ ~ r ,.~ tr ~ ~ ~ Commercial industrial Node .Economic Development `,~ ' F Q Runt Community Node ~. r _ - ~ Runt Neighborhood N s ~ ,, ~ «~ t ' ' r r i ' , - Rural industrial Node ode ,: - ~.- - -Co e - ~ ;, ~ - L. ,r mmercial Nod t - - Munici _ ~ pal Jurisdiction - ~ rte ~'~ River Basin Q ijT _ _ ~. ~t oundary - - ~ ersheds: ~~ r ,,~ ~-• -, ~'' ~ r Q Protectedgrea ~. Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ' UnProtectedArea t _ Cn~icalArea ~~. r" i ` .~ , 1S ~.,... • o. 501 0 15 ~ t ~~ ° 2.75 Miles miles :" ,~' ~'O~ Tlriswatershedm '~f~rence `~' ~Plaoes ~ranRe Co J°rr°7bus rm~y2o~8O ix nce 501 ~. ~ ,' ~c~P1"'"'^a~tr~ °W' F^eF4ftd 6y ertb qrm t ~'~'~hd°~C"~alArea~& e~ ~~~ n ;' ;;~ ~-. .~. ~ `~'~ .~• c U DR 0 N 3 on W ~ ~~' S Legend: `foyer transftioq 2f) year ¢ansltfon Q Rust Rasidentlal Q Rurat Qutrer ~'48~+nural Residential Resource Pro Munkipal ton Areas 0 MuniGpa! Town Lfmrl sons! JurlsdlcYlon Q Public inter !ergo estAreash~s PP1y waters watershed CRNgI Areas Actlw7y Nodes 0 Rust CommunllY Node A p Rural NelBhborhooq Node o ~ Rura! IndusMal Node _~ Cornmerdal Node ~~~pa1/lndusMal Economic Develo NOde ~~NiCA Pment Joint Planni~'q~a .'~~ ~. C 2 ,,.3 4 1 fish ; Z 75 Miles G>S ~`~ A'O~ °~ °a'a ny C°!""a" 7-~ s°°`"°t`~s~psnan Hof ~ ~?~' ar^n sign % a,,,eni r~ ~ mao a ~ryoror: oor. -`_ ~ ~~ me"~~ 1983 a nB~ 13 Approved 8/5/09 Minutes ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JULY 1, 2009 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, At-Large Eno Township (Chair); Judith Wegner ice'Chair), Bingham Township; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Mark Marcoplos, At-Large Bingham Township; Earl McKee, Little River Township Representative; Larry Wright, At-Large Cedar Grove Township; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large; May Becker, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, At-Large Cheeks Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator, Michael Harvey, Planner III; Glenn Bowles, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II; (Documents handed out: Letter to Planning Board from Vicky Hendel; Memorandum from Robert Davis; Newsletter, Upper Neuse News) AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: 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. To consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding this item heard at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing Presenter: Michael Harvey, Planner III Michael Harvey: Good evening. As you all recall from the May quarterly public hearing, we presented a proposal to amend section 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance seeking to allow the development of non-residential land use within certain Critical and Protected watershed overlay districts in instances where such areas are located within previously established nodes. Section 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes protected and critical watershed overlay districts as well as a list of prohibitions on certain class cations of land uses. Within the University Lake Critical and Protected watersheds, the Cane Creek Critical, and Upper Eno Critical there's a prohibition on commercial and industrial uses. When staff started modifying the Comprehensive Plan as part of the recently completed update, as referenced within attachment iwo (2), staff identified an existing rural community activity node within the Cedar Grove Township at the intersection of Carr Store and Efland Cedar Grove Road. This node is almost entirely encumbered by the Critical watershed boundary and essentially cannot allow and will not support non-residential development. It is staffs contention that the County never intended for the nodes, which where specifically designed to go in strategically located areas throughout the County, to be overly restricted from what would or would not be allowed to be located within them. Staff certainly does not believe the County intended to restrict development within the node when it adopted the watershed overlay district standards. It should be known that there is another node, specifically a rural industrial node, located off NC 54 and Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road that contains a rock quarry that's located within the University Lake Protected Watershed. What staff has proposed with this amendment is adding language under 6.23.1 that would read as follows: No commercial or industrial uses are permitted except within established nodes as detailed within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. (Reviewed Map) This is the land use element map of the Comprehensive Plan that delineates and designates acceptable areas of development within County. The aforementioned rural industrial node (NC 54) corresponds to the location of an existing rock quarry operation that according to the Special Use Permit (SUP) it is to become a future reservoir. There will be no future commercial or industrial land use of this specific property. There is an end plan for this operation once the permits for the quarry expire. What this amendment is designed to do is stipulate that in those specific watersheds, the University Critical and Protected, Cane Creek Critical, Upper Eno Critical, if there is a node located within the critical or protected watershed boundary then non-residential development can occur within the node as the Orange County Comprehensive Plan had originally envisioned. It does not allow for wholesale, non-residential development within the Critical or Protected Watersheds. Approved 8/5/09 There are only two (2) nodes, the rural community activity node (Cedar Grove) and the rural industrial node (off NC 54) that will be impacted by this proposed amendment Any future node would have to be adopted by the County Board of Commissioners with the Planning Boards input through a comprehensive and a land use plan amendment Right now this amendment is going to address development issues within one spedfic rural community activity node because as I've indicated, the rural industrial node has a spedfic end game plan as far as allowable land uses once the quarry operation ceases. The SUP says that once the quarry ceases operation, it will convert to a reservoir. It is my understanding that the SUP also indicated the rural industrial node disappears. There will not be a node there. Larry Wright: What streams lead to that? Craig Benedict: Phil's Creek. They actually release water from a small OWASA reservoir on part of the site to a second reservoir and then into Phil's Creek to help fill University Lake. Michael Harvey: Just as a point of clarification, this existing section impacts the University Protected and Critical watershed overlay districts, where there are no other nodes except for the rural industrial node, the Cane Creek Critical where there are currently no nodes, and of course the Upper Eno Critical area. We have already seen the boundaries of rural community activity node located within the Upper Eno Critical watershed overlay district that is essentially three quarters (3/4) encumbered by the critical watershed area. At the public hearing, there were several comments made as a result of this proposed amendment. The Board members essentially agreed that is was not the original intent of the County to restrict development within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node but that there needed to be careful attention paid to what was permitted within the critical area. Larry Wright: I don't understand that statement by the Board members. When you take a look at the land use that is was not the original intent to restrict development you take the land use element and you look through on page.... Michael Harvey: That's the old copy of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Larry Wright: Is it still in effect? Michael Harvey: No. It's been usurped by the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. While the policy may still exist in some level and fashion we need to make reference to the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Lany Wright If the spirit of this did carry over, on 3.26.9 this seems to be inconsistent with statement one (1). I don't understand. When you stop and think, I guess the conditions of the soils have not changed and this is in here that it is largely characterized by poor soils, heavy day soils. How are you going to justify that when all water flows out of Orange County? No water flows in. Is that right? Craig Benedict: That's correct Larry Wright: So we have five (5) watersheds here in Cedar Grove. You have Little River, The Flat River, South Hyco, Black Creek, and Upper Eno. Then if you start dealing with runoff coefficients and bringing in more pavement and you have the packed day soil for probably a .3 or .4 in a runoff coefficlent and lawns are .25, drives are .75. You start bring in commerdal and I think you are going to get some runoff that you don't want in each of these five watersheds. Michael Harvey: My response is that I believe the rural community activity nodes came first, it was never the intent of the Board through the adoption of watershed overlay districts to exclude that portion of the rural community activity node from being developed. If that was the case then the node boundary would have been altered. As we indicated during the quarterly public hearing the actual critical area for the Upper Eno that the County adopted is much larger than what the state had recommended and what the state had justified back in the adopted watershed overlay regulations. Craig Benedict: We moved to keep the impervious the same even though it is commercial the impervious is still going to be limited like the residential. Yes the use may change but they are not going to be allowing more impervious. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Can you give an example of commerclal or industrial types of businesses that would meet the same standards as residential. Craig Benedict: If you have a 10,000 square foot parcel and you only allow a 6°~ impervious which we do at our critical watersheds in most cases, and then whether it's a residential use or anon-residential use it cannot have over at 6°~. That includes the building and the parking. It is very restrictive for commercial. This full circle was put on the map bads in 1981 as a 2 Approved 8/5/09 ~Cj historic crossroad for Cedar Grove. They had said at that time, five (5) acres of limited commercial and five (5) acres of neighborhood commerdal. When the 1994 watershed regulations went into effect, they overiayed and put widener restrictions in there. We do not know if they intentionally or unintentionally knocked out three quarters (314) of this node. What we are trying to determine was it the idea that they wanted to exdude this other area from non-residential. What we are suggestion now is yes you can have some non-residential uses on the other three quarters (314) of this intersection but not allow anymore impervious than if it was for residential use. Six percent (6°~) is very restridive. Lany Wright: Here it says, and again I'm referring to the land use which is dated but I'd like to know what I can use to substitute this or where I can find the content. Michael Harvey: In the Comprehensive Plan. Larry Wright: I couldn't find the counterpart to this. If you could send me an email. Thanks. Its says the soils are rated poor for septic tank absorption fields and most building types. What does that mean? Michael Harvey: That the soil are poor and do not lend themselves to normal septic systems. Larry Wright: Then we would be sensitive to that? Michael Harvey: If they can't get a septic permit they can't develop any uses on a parcel of property regardless if the proposed amendment is adopted or not This amendment will not eliminate the need for a property owner to comply with all applicable permitting requirements allowing for any type of development Larry Wright: Part of that really is in that watershed. Another thing, this looks like it is pretty big. From what I understand, the spirit of the Cedar Grove Township was to keep it rural. One of the things they are trying to do in the OUTBoard is to consolidate economic development areas to make them walkable and less driving and it would be nice since this is a sensitive area to consider making it small Michael Harvey: In my opinion, in order to do that would require a comprehensive plan amendment and a land use element map amendment to reclassify the rural community activity node. Larry Wright: So what kind of amendments are we looking at here? Michael Harvey: Here we are looking to darity what types of development are allowed within various critical and protected watershed overlay districts in instances where there may be a previously located node. Larry Wright Aren't we ultimately looking at this anyway? Michael Harvey: I don't know if that is the ultimate goal. Judith Wegner: I wonder, Michael, for the old time Planning Board, is there a chance to do a bus tour? To see different areas of the County and I wonder if before February maybe late fall we could do that, is that possible? It relates to our small area development and a field trip might really be benefidal. Tommy McNeill: Absolutely, I think that would be a wonderful idea, I agree with that one hundred percent (100°). Additionally, there are some public areas within the County that the Planning Board should be aware of and that could be added to the tour. Craig Benedict I've done a tour for some Planning Board members a few years ago about Economic Development Districts (EDD) also so that could be part of the tour. Judith Wegner: I think that would be helpful. I also think about the fire department and where they are located. We all are doing our best to pay attention to this but maybe even on a weekend we go and dig in and get knowledgeable and prepare with a number of folks who are doing it That would be very helpful. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I want to follow up on what Lany was talking about and it is a question. Larry was interested in an amendment that would reinforce the historical nature plus the watershed protection. I don't want to lose that If we do have an amendment for this watershed, my question is does it apply to all the activity nodes for economic development? Michael Harvey: No Approved 8/5/09 ( ~ Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Why not Michael Harvey: Nodes, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, have different levels of intensity relating to the acceptable level of non-residential development. There are also specific zoning district designations that are utilized to allow for development within the distinct categories of node. The only way to get specific, meaning to only allow certain uses within an individual node, is to essentially engage the Small Area Plan (SAP) process to identify those particular uses for each individual node and then amend the Comprehensive Plan to include those policies. It should be remembered that comprehensive plan and land use element map amendments are normally presented annually, normally at the February quarterly public hearing. In this case, at least in my mind, we could not engage in such an amendment until a SAP is completed, which has to be authorized by the Commissioners prior to commencement Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Thaf's what I am talking about, amending the Comprehensive Plan which occurs in February, so in preparation if that's what Lany wants us to think about and that's what we should think about when we are on this tour. Is it possible to amend it such as you can tweak one of these in a unique way as opposed to what you do you have to do to all. Michael Harvey: You have to remember that you would have to make a recommendation or request to the County Board of Commissioners to allow staff to initiate the SAP for any or all the nodes. It would have to be independent for each node. How long that will take is anyone's guess. Tommy McNeill: Do you feel that would be beneficial to have each node have its own unique circumstances for growth? Michael Harvey: As we talked about on page 24 of your abstract, we agree that there ought to be a comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses within the various nodes. Our concern is we don't need to delay this amendment while waiting for that process to occur. Lany Wright: I would like to say that just under that LC-1 there is a very small post office right there and then there are two (2) old stores that belong to Mr. Oliver, the general stores. Then right across from that is a wooded area and that was at one time where a new post office was supposed to go. I don't think they have the money to put it there but I guess the land is committed. Then there is a beauty parlor that is probably 24x24 that is just on the other side of that wooded area. There are structures there the next thing that is commercial is the Ruritan Club, is that inside the cirGe? Craig Benedict: No Glenn Bowles: I think the reason the post office didn't go in is because the soils there are terrible Mark Marcoplos: One thing I want to understand better is that statement you alluded to, while staff agrees there ought to be a comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses within the various nodes, we do not believe it is necessary to delay the proposed amendment to allow such a study to occur. Now it sounded like it is a pretty straight forward concept of the same impervious surface restrictions as residential and it has to meet all the health department requirements for septic, etc. So that sounds like that solves it right there. I wonder why there is a reference to having a process to determine what would be allowed in this watershed protected area and also, presumably if this is passed and it there has not been any study of what is allowed in the area, because that is going to happen later, nothing would be allowed in the area until that study was done, right? Michael Harvey: That is not correct Development would be allowed consistent with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. We could not begin a SAP process to specify land uses until the County Commissioners, a) authorizes the process and b) restricts development until the process is completed. There would have to be some sort of moratorium in order to limit development Mark Marcoplos: So if this thing would pass without specifying what activity would be allowed in the idea that would be done later, yet development would occur before the process to determine what ought to be allowed there. Michael Harvey: Right now the ordinance limits development in this node as all other rural community activity nodes for local commercal one (1) and neighborhood commercial two (2) as detailed within Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. There are specified land uses that are permitted in larger nodes based on those Zoning designations. Mark Marcoplos: Why then have a comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses if we're happy to have stuff be built there before it? Craig Benedict: The amount of uses might not be the 10 acres each so LC-1 and NC might not be the issue. What may be asked when we look is to compress the node, make the node smaller. Five hundred (500) acres and only allowing twenty (20) 4 l~ Approved 8/5/09 acres of commerdal maximum. Maybe part is not the type of uses or the amount of uses, it's just that we need to make these nodes more community or more neighborhood, and small. Mark Marcoplos: By that time something may have been built in the larger area. Craig Benedict: It's a rezoning which is a legislative decision. You might have the ability through the legislative to say 'IeYs cluster them near the intersection' so I think you might have some latitude because it's a legislative derision. You do have the ability to duster the LG1s and NG2s. There is that possibility admittedly but I think you have latitude because of the legislative nature to try to duster them with a lot of other poliries and push it more toward the center. Mark Marcoplos: ff you wanted to be thorough with this process, wouldn't we do the study first and then pass the ordinance we do the comprehensive evaluation. That way you'll ensure that nothing slips through the regulations that was built before the comprehensive evaluation and then you would have a full understanding of what was going to go on in that node and you would do it in relation to the watershed overlay which happened for presumably good reasons after the establishment of this node there just seems to me that would be the most thorough way to protect the water shed and to allow development that we all agree is appropriate, rather than say'go ahead and approve development and then we'll deride later on what that development might be. Judith Wegner. I have not understood the two (2) step practice in following the plan in where there is an expensive intensive study and then it is presented to the Commissioners in that there is some kind of later return to the topic to try to figure out what the Ordinance should be. I would think there is something to be said for thinking about it and how to implement it and then do it rather than a hiatus in the meantime. Now I understand the delay because I would think when we have small area study groups including Commissioners and ctizens, etc. when they come up an idea that it would make sense to try to say how to implement it, let's go ahead with that and deal with it I feel I am missing something on that Craig Benedict: I can give you a little background on that. When Small Area Plans (SAPs) are done, they are in a two (2) step process. The ideas of what needs to change in that SAP are put within a document When it is brought to the Commissioners the future recommendations are embedded in there and the Commissioners have said they want to approve a blueprint first and at least get the SAP accepted or approved and then have a second process that talks about implementing those regulations (noted in the SAP document) through the land use amendment process. Does it take longer, yes. Can it be done together, yes it can also. Judith Wegner. Could they accept certain things and then hold on other things for more work. Craig Benedict: I think 'rf it was very limited SAP focus topic and you wanted to put recent community involvement in and run with it and have the same hearing, it could work. Judith Wegner: We'll talk about it more but for some of the chinches with the speedway area, the discussion about possibilities of Conditional Use Districts, I just don't know if were a property owner in that area what I would think. I'd be in limbo. I wouldn't know whether it was coming balk, what the implication may be, recommendations, what was expected to be next. I have to think from the Planning Board point if we are trying to implement the Comp Plan, these are areas that have real potential for impact within the County and having this kind of floating out there unresolved makes me uneasy. I don't know when we go back to that. It's confusing even though we try to tradk all this for the dtizens and the community I don't know what they think or the Planning Board or the community group that helped plan this and that may mean that we may be caught unaware when it move ahead certainly for trying to implement the Comp Plan. It would seem to me that there are the areas we've got some pressure. We should have some priority about what we're doing. Craig Benedict: When I got here ten years ago, I suggested bring both things together, hot topics, community involvement. They just don't want to know the good ideas, they want to know how you're going to do that How it applies to their property. IYs more of a leap and Orange County often does things in very incremental steps. There are two (2) ways to do it. I think there are definite merits with what you're suggesting in bringing things loser together. If we do a Small Area Plan (SAP) and then wait another year to do the implementation it could take three (3) years from start to finish. Judith Wegner: As we think about implementing the Comp Plan we have to think about what are the hot spots to deal with first The water issues are profound if we foul this up and don't pay attention to what is streaming to University Lake or Cane Creek that will make a real difference to people so somehow we have to make a decision about what happens first and what we are going to do. Brian Crawford: Let me ask, the local citizens that are in the LC-1 right now, the property owners understand the rules of the LC- 1 and what they are able to do. Confusion arises because of the seemingly inconsistency with the watershed. All you are trying 5 Approved 8/5/09 to do is make sure that the inconsistency right now is alleviated by this amendment. They are not changing anything else about what is happening in that node, correct? Michael Harvey: Correct It is the node that is the subject of this amendment, the whole node, not the area outside the node. Lany Wright: I'm sorry, 1 agree with Mark and Commissioners two (2) and three (3). I think that Mark is right on and Commissioners two (2) and three (3) that we need to look at the blue up here and what is not considered the red area. Look at all the blue up there and then you start dealing with roofs, they have a high runoff coefficient of .85 and you're not even talking about soils or driveways and so I think we need to really move with caution and someone really needs to study this. Craig Benedict: The Board can make any decision they like, recommend to move forward with it at this time or make a recommendation that to proceed or to ask the Commissioners if you should proceed with the Small Area Plan and amendments attached thereto at some time in the future. When it gets on the Commissioners work plan and then your work plan and our work plan, based on some Small Area Plans that Perdita is going to go through tonight, it's probably going to be three (3) years out. We have enough implementation to do with the three (3) existing adopted plans that we have done already in the past that have been in limbo because we've waited for the Comprehensive Plan to be done. So, there is merit to what you are saying, if I had my druthers, I wish this was done already and we had studied the whole thing. I don't think, in my opinion, it hurts us in the interim based on the legislative authority you have to direct any rezoning that may go on in that red hatched area in the interim, If we come back and study this area in the timeframe that everybody agrees to and we decide to compress the node, there hasn't been much rezoning activity in the County to speak of in the ten (10) years I've been here, so I don't think people are running out there for commercial in the nodes. Mark Marcoplos: That's an argument also for not minding a iwo {2) or three (3) year timeframe. If f were going to draw a line right now, if someone said to me, you come up with a plan right now, I would say move this line and take that intersection and make it part of that (on the map-watershed line). Let non-residential development occur at that intersection and let this be studied. That way you keep it in one area. People have some flexibility and you still get a thorough process which ensures that,,,,, Lany Wright: And you consolidated the commercial area at that intersection and not had it sprawl out. Perdita Holtz: Changing the watershed line really isn't an option. Mark Marcoplos: Not changing the watershed line. Michael Harvey: No, you have to change the watershed line. What you are essentially proposing is to only allow a small portion of the existing node, at the intersection of the major roadways, to develop non-residential land uses. There is no mechanism for you to treat this intersection differently from the rest of the node that is within the critical watershed overlay district. The watershed boundary line would have to be moved to keep the intersection out of the critical watershed boundary so that it could develop non-residential land uses consistent with the zoning ordinance. Mark Marcoplos: That's not what I am saying. I am saying do, what you are proposing for this whole area, let's do for this area. Michael Harvey: It is my opinion that you can't differentiate one portion of the node within the critical watershed from other portions. You can't simply say we wiN only allow the properties at the intersection develop and leave the rest of the node alone without amending the location of the critical watershed overlay boundary line. It's the node or it's going to be left as it is, Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Why cant' you? Mark Marcoplos: Why not? Michael Harvey: Because right now in order to do what Mark is suggesting you are going to have to change the watershed overlay district, you're going to have the...... Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: No Mark Marcoplos: No Michael Harvey: Yes sir, you just can't draw a circle around the intersection with this amendment and indicate that the properties located at the intersection will be allowed to develop non-residential land uses while other adjoining properties cannot iS 6 Approved 8/5/09 ~a Mark Marcoplos: Well, you're proposing to change it by this.... Michael Harvey: I am proposing to amend the Zoning Ordinance where there is currently a prohibition to stipulate that in areas where you have a node, that non-residential will be allowed in established nodes based on established (imitations. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: What Mark is proposing is to follow the recommendation to change but not the entire node. Just a very small piece in there. Michael Harvey: In my opinion you can't do that. You can't differentiate property within the node as being more acceptable. That will not work with this amendment What you are talking about is simply changing the critics( watershed boundary line. Judith Wegner. Ifs amulti-phase aspect. Michael Harvey: You have a node boundary as it exist right now. In order to exclude that intersection you essentially have to amend the watershed boundary line in order to free that area up to allow for non-residential development. Mark Marcoplos: Now wait a second, that cannot be true because if this is being passed to apply to this area, that is being done without changing the watershed overlay, right? Michael Harvey: That's because we are proposing to amend Article Six (li) which is the watershed protection overlay district to allow for non-residential development within various critical and protected watersheds where a node exists. You are right we are not changing the line of the critical watershed, we are just saying that within various critical and protected watersheds, if there is anode, the node can be developed consistent with the ordinance. What you are saying is that you will allow a small portion, not the entire node, to be developed for non-residential land uses. In my opinion that proposal essentially discriminates against seventy-five percent (75%) of the existing node within the critical watershed by allowing twenty-five percent (25%) of property owners to have the benefit of being able to develop non-residential land uses on their property. In my opinion you either have to change the watershed boundary to allow the properties you are referring to in order to develop non-residential land uses or the whole node gets the same benefit of this amendment. Mark Marcoplos: I guess I don't buy into the legality of the whole node has to be addressed. What I am saying is the watershed boundary doesn't change either way. Michael Harvey: It would have to change with your recommended solution. In my opinion you cannot apply staffs proposed amendment to only a specific portion of the node. There is no data to justify that proposal in my opinion. Perdita Holtz Mark, you're recommending changing the proposed language to say except within a portion of Cedar Grove node established by some boundary to be determined. Mark Marcoplos: Yes, it down around the intersection. For now, then look at the rest of it and figure out what ought to happen away from the intersection. Judith Wegner: Can you conceptualize it as phases and that is the first phase. Mark Marcoplos: Exactly. Perdita Holtz That sets serious precedence for tampering with one small aspect of the various nodes. Michael Harvey: I am sorry, I still do not think we can do that Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: But the reality is if you see one node, you'll only see one node, all of these nodes are different, unique in character, history, culture, watershed issues and I think it should a prerogative to get to know them well enough to say does it need tinkering or do we have to give everybody the same shoes to wear. Earl McKee: I can understand what Mark is saying but the problem I see with it by, let's call it tinkering with this one little section, you're inviting someone in t_ittie River to want to do the same thing with part of their node or any other node in the County. You're inviting people to want special consideration for their particular profit. I can see it being used by individuals or developers and corporations to insist that you have changed one little section in the Cedar Grove Node and made it specal, then I want it done in this section too. 7 Approved 8/5/09 ~d Larry Wright But that's what started this whole discussion down in the White Cross area there was a septic problem in a commercial plot where they wanted to expand into a residential. So, this whole thing started on your basic premise that the White Cross had a problem and then a Commissioner, Barry Jacobs, if I remember correctly in the quarterly hearing, said we need to really take a look at all the nodes. So this is kind of the history of this, a specal look at a particular case is what, in my mind, catalyzed it. Earl McKee: I understand that. I guess I'm seeing problems that may or may not exist if you start instead of having the multiple nodes in the County with all of them having the same regulations and rules; you start having separate conditions for each one and parts of each one then I can see it getting very complicated and being twisted and pulled and bent. Larry Wright I think the art of this would be, Judith has already talked about Bingham Township with its issues of waste transfer site, etc. and what they are wrestling with, we've got the Cedar Grove Township and then other nodes and what they are wrestling with, and I think the balance would be actually what Mark had to say to study it and to take a look at each node individually and I don't think this County by the nature of it is a one size fits all. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I wanted to comment on what you said, the Supreme Court, when it give rules sometimes says this is not to be a precedent to be established and they say that so that other cases coming up can't say well in so and so versus suds and such, you said this therefore it applies. They limit it and l think if we want to do this which I think there's a spirit here to really discuss this and so to say this particular node deserves some special consideration, we can say this does not take away from the need to treat nodes equally, it's just a one time only kind of thing. So the person in Little River won't say well you did this up there. We did it with the caution that others don't get the same consideration without due process. Mark Marcoplos: What we would say to the person in Little River or some other node is you are totally welcome to have access to the process. You can request that it go through the same channel that this went through. It can go to the Planning Board, it can go to the County Commissioners or wherever it needs to go. That's what they get. They get access to the process. They don't get just because someone else went through the process stage by stage by stage and ended up with something they don't get that just by claiming it. They just get access to the process. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: On 54 where the guy had trouble with his septic field and needed something here which started this whole process, everyone got treated the same way instead of saying... what we want to do is stop that. Is that what you are implying Larry. Larry Wright: No, that's not what I was implying at afl. Brian Crawford: Let me make a suggestion here, clearly we are not in support of the recommendation as the staff has put forth but the staff has said that there's a significant legal issue. They think that we just can't make a change like that, I suggest that you go one of two ways, you can always have someone make proposal that we can vote on with Mark's change or we can table this and have staff go back and ask the attomey based on your recommendation if that's something that we are allowed to do or that we can do. That way we can at least get some legal guidance on whether or not tinkering with a line within the node is acceptable. I am not certain that it is within our authority to do so, I certainly would like to get guidance before we make that proposal to the Board. Mark Marcoplos: It's really illegal? Craig Benedict: I'll be the one writing what l believe it says or the three ways you can accomplish what you are talking about, three or four ways. There will be different time frames and different processes. I'll put that together for the next meeting. lt's not something, .I'll confer with the attomey if there is anything that I see that.... Brian Crawford: The only reason I said that is because it clearly has come across to me ftom staff that it is something that we can't do because a) the precedence it may set or b) dearly whether or not we have the authority just to tinker with the line within anode. If you're not saying that it's in conflict with any guidance that you have then it's just as well that Mark makes his proposal and we vote on that and send that up to the Board. Thats the issue. Craig Benedict: The objective is to have that intersection be allowed for commercial instead of the entire three quarters (3/4) hatched area then there are ways to do that. I'll explain what ways they are. Brian Crawford: So then Mark you seem to have a proposal that you want to put forth, why don't make that in form of a motion and then let the Board discuss and vote on it. Approved 8/5/09 p~ ~ Mark Marcoplos: It sounds like maybe as the process it would go to the Commissioner and you wouldn't have to do any work until they say yea or nay right? That way you may not have to do a lot of extra work if they say.... Craig Benedict If you say your recommendation is this is five hundred (500) acres this is probably (300) acres if you say create a fifty (50) acre area on this site and we'll come up with some sort of description. MorbN made by Mark Marcoplos: Ok. From what 1 know, I don't know enough to say fifty (50) acres. I would just say that there be some appropriate area centered on that intersection that is opened up to meet what is in this amendment and then that the rest of it be phase II as Judith termed it whereby there would be a comprehensive look at what kind of activity ought to be allowed in there. Seconded by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke. Judith Wegner. IYs not unique to this area right, .we've had this somewhat arbitrary concept about nodes and what you're proposing is we need to be more fine tuned? As to those nodes that there may be intersection would be the priority location for one thing or another for remote areas might be dealt with in some other way. This one but your concept is something that might apply to other nodes too right? Mark Marcoplos: I guess that's implied but I wouldn't want to mix it in. !just want to talk about this node right now but I think it's implied in the act of considering it. Judith Wegner. Maybe there's a second component in the motion that would be and that we believe thaf having unilateral treatment of nodes isn't necessarily the best way to go that we think that there may be a need to be more refined in approaches to nodes here as well as in other settings. Is that fair? Mark Marcoplos: Sure, that's right in there with the sentiment. Earl McKee: I have a couple of questions to make sure I'm clear. With Mark`s motion, everything in the red crosshatch (map) except the little section we're talking about cenfering on the intersection would be restricted to no commercial development is that correct? Everything except what we're proposing to open up right around fifty (50) acres or whatever it turns out to be, the remaining balance would remain off limits to commercial development? The second question I have is am I correct in understanding that there can only be twenty (20) acres in this roughly five hundred (500) acres of commercial development total? Michael Harvey: ThaYs only if the amendment, there is a separate amendment that is that passes you are correct. Currently, it's fen (10) acres total as LG1 and NCD combined. That's what the current Ordinance allows. Craig Benedict: The Commissioners will have something in August or September that take about that increase too. Ten (10) acres-ten (10) acres. Earl McKee: If that is correct and unless it is just absolutely untenable to find a perk site in that little, let's use fifty (50) acres for the sake of discussion, I really don't have a problem with it because you've got that plus everything from basically your eleven (11) o'clock to your four (4) o'clock position (map) to the northeast. I still think that to some extent it treats the two (2) halves of the node differently but I realize that it is in that watershed and there's no commercial development allowed at this point. Brian Crawford: So the amendment is specific to that node and is silent on the rest of the nodes. The rest of the nodes are going to be part of that comprehensive study that is the second portion of the amendment, is that correct? Mark Marcoplos: Yes, the other territory within that node except for the designated area around the intersection. Brian Crawford: Is that clear to everyone? There was a second on it? Any more discussion? MorroN made by Mark Marcoplos that there be some appropriate area centered on the intersection in the Cedar Grove Node that is opened up to meet what is in the amendment and that the rest of it be phase II whereby there would be part of a comprehensive look at what kind of activity ought to be allowed in there. Seconded by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke. Vore: 6-1 (Crawford) Craig Benedict By the next meeting, we'll probably have time as this will not go in front of the Commissioners until September. I'll give you my interpretation of how this would be accomplished with what you're motion was. So you understand what it takes to get it done. 9 D~F' T 1 Attachment 6 - Ezcept from Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes as DRAFT MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING May 18, 2009 7:00 p.m. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 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, Bany 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 ident~ed 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 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 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, 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. 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 ~~T 2 a3 • 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. RATIONALE: • As previously indicated, staff does not believe the County intended to restrict development within the various Nodes when it adopted watershed regulations, • This amendment would allow for a reasonable level of non-residential development within a Node even if it is located within a certain classification of protected or critical watershed, • This amendment would only impact the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node 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 in time for the September 1, 2009 BOCC meeting, • Adjourn the Public Hearing until September 1, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation. Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict said that three quarters of the uses at the intersection of Efland-Cedar Grove Road and Can- Store Road are within the critical area. There has been some difficulty with historic buildings that want to continue commercial operation into the future. This amendment will enable that. 32 Commissioner Gordon said that if there is a mechanism to expand outside this area, she would like 33 some language to prevent expansion into the watershed. 34 Michael Harvey said that the boundaries of the various Nodes can only be changed through a 35 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He said that staff is trying to provide a scenario where the node could be 36 utilized as it was originally intended. He said that Orange County was proactive in expanding and being 37 stricter in the watershed. 38 County Attorney John Roberts said that he would look into it and develop some language. 39 There was no public comment. 40 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to refer the 41 matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned in time for the September 1, 2009 BOCC 42 meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's 43 recommendation. 44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9- ~- ~~o y ~~ ~" ~ ,,00>-o~~d ~~ d. Addition of Subdivision Roads in Churton Grove Phase 3 to the NCDOT MaintaU~rfed q~,~,~ Road Svstem The Board forwarded the Petition for Addition to the State Maintained system for subdivision rods in Churton Grove Phase 3 to the NCDOT and recommended the Board of Transportation accept those roads for maintenance as State secondary roads. e. Resolution Naming Area in New Main Library for Rebecca B. Wall The Board adopted the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to officially name the local history area of the new Main Library on West Margaret Lane for Rebecca B. Wall consistent with the naming policy. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to the Amount of Develoament of Non-residential Land Uses within Certain Watershed Overlav Districts The Board received the Planning Board and staff recommendation(s) and considered taking action on astaff-initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance seeking to allow the development of non-residential land uses within certain critical and protected watershed overlay districts in instances where such areas are located within previously identified Rural Community Activity Nodes. Planner Michael Harvey reviewed this item. He made reference to Attachment 2, which, was the Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.. He said that the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node has approximately 295 acres, with 60% of it encumbered by the existing Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District. Section 6.31 of the zoning ordinance specifically stipulates that you cannot have any commercial or industrial development within the critical watershed overlay district and 60% of this node is unusable for that purpose. During the May Quarterly Public Hearing, the staff indicated that it was not the County's intention to stipulate that 60% of this node could not be developed for non-residential purposes. Staff proposed an amendment that stipulates that the prohibition would remain in place, but that language would be added to the section stipulating that commercial development could occur within established node boundaries consistent with policies and guidelines of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. If this ordinance is passed, the critical watershed overlay district would still exist on the zoning map and additional non-residential development would be allowed, consistent with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, which would include a maximum of ten acres of Local Commercial I and a maximum of ten acres of Neighborhood Commercial II, for a total of 20 acres, representing approximately 5% of the total 500 acres within the existing node boundary. He said that any development within this area would be limited to a 6% impervious surface limitation. He said that the Planning Board reviewed this item at its July 1, 2009 meeting and voted 6 to 1 that: Section 6.23.1 be amended to only allow the properties at the intersection of Carr Store and Efland-Cedar Grove Road within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node to develop non-residential land uses consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance, and that the County Board of Commissioners authorize the development of a Small Area Plan for the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node and that upon completion of that study, the entire Node be allowed to support non-residential development consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance. He said that the staff does not believe that the proposed amendments as offered by the Planning Board can be enforced. There is an area of the node that the Planning Board wants to exclude from the prohibition and staff is uncomfortable with this without any study being done. Administration recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendment that staff has proposed in Attachment 2. Commissioner Pelissier said that there was some reference that this would be looked at by the County Attorney because legally the County could not select just a few properties to be exempt. John Roberts said that he would be hesitant to recommend that this piece of property be carved out for these parcels without further study. There was no public comment. Commissioner Yuhasz asked why this was coming up at this particular time and Michael Harvey said that he was directed by the Planning Director and Manager in January to fix this issue. Commissioner Pelissier said that it looks like much of this node in the critical watershed is comprised of two large properties. She asked if these were in the present use value or conservation easements and Michael Harvey said that the property to the south is under present use value. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and do NOT adopt the Ordinance amendment recommended by staff contained within Attachment 2 of this abstract. Commissioner Jacobs said that he seconded for the purpose of discussion, but he would rather do something. In answer to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Craig Benedict gave some history about the nodes. Craig Benedict said that the nodes were put on in 1981 with the Land Use Plan and the watershed lines were put on in 1994 and there was no specific discussion about excluding commercial development in the nodes. Commissioner Jacobs said that an assumption could be that it was assumed back then that there would be no commercial development in these nodes because they were so close to the watershed. Commissioner Gordon said that the County was very proactive in watershed protection back in 1994. She said that she made the motion that she did because she would prefer to have a study. Commissioner Jacobs said that there may need to be a small area plan for this area. He said that there is some evidence that there is a historic commercial district in Cedar Grove and this is an opportunity to work with the community in an expeditious manner. He suggested amending the motion that staff recommend aone-step small area planning process for the Cedar Grove node. Commissioner Gordon agreed with this amendment, but asked that there be a reasonable timeline. Commissioner Pelissier said that she would not want to vote against what staff is recommending because there is so much on the plate for the Planning Board now. Secondly, this is only about 20 acres maximum and if the 6% impervious surface applies, this is not anymore than there would be if there was residential development. She does not see anything happening in this area in the near future that would be inconsistent with this area. She does not think that a small area plan could be completed in the near future. Chair Foushee agreed with Commissioner Pelissier. Commissioner Hemminger asked if this sets a precedent with other nodes in a watershed. Michael Harvey said that the only other node in a watershed is a rural industrial ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 1, 2009 OQ~- aoo g- ~~/ ~~ ~ .aoo9 ~~ Action Agenda Item No. ~Q SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to the Amount of Development of Non-residential Land Uses within Certain Watershed Overlay Districts DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Ordinance Amendment -Planning Board Recommendation and Map 2. Ordinance Amendment -Staff Recommendation 3. Map of Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node and Rural Industrial Node 4. Watershed Overlay and Land Use Element Maps Showing Location of Various Nodes 5. Minutes from July 1, 2009 Planning Board 6. Minutes from May 18, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Harvey, Planner III 245-2607 Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592 PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board and staff recommendation(s) and consider taking action on a staff initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `the Ordinance) seeking to allow the development of non-residential land uses within certain critical and protected watershed overlay districts in instances where such areas are located within previously identified Rural Community Activity Nodes. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. As staff stated during the hearing, the Ordinance, specifically Section 6.23.1, currently prohibits the development of non-residential land uses within the A. University Critical and Protected, B. Cane Creek Critical, and C. Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay Zoning Districts. Approximately three quarters of the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node (Attachment Three) is located within the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District. This area cannot be developed for non-residential uses. There is also a Rural Industrial Node located within the University Lake Protected Watershed Overlay District that is similarly restricted. 2 As stated during the public hearing, staff does not believe the County intended to restrict non- residential development within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node and that the prohibition, as outlined within Section 6.23.1 of the Ordinance, was intended to prevent wholesale non-residential development throughout the aforementioned critical or protected watershed(s). During the hearing, the following general comments were made relating to the proposed amendment: 1. Board members agreed that it was not the original intent of the County to restrict development within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node when comprehensive watershed regulations were adopted, 2. A Board member expressed concern that we needed to be careful in what was permitted within any portion of a critical watershed and that wholesale non-residential development would be inconsistent with the goals of the County, 3. A Board member indicated there ought to be a comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses within the various Nodes and that development regulations ought to be tailored to promote the development of these various uses. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its July 1, 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. After deliberating on this item, the Planning Board voted six (6) to one (1) to recommend that: A. Section 6.23.1 be amended to only allow the properties at the intersection of Carr Store and Efland Cedar Grove Road within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node to develop non-residential land uses consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance, and B. That the County Board of Commissioners authorize the development of a Small Area Plan for the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node and that upon completion of that study, the entire Node be allowed to support non-residential development consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance. STAFF COMMENT: In addressing the various comments made by the BOCC and Planning Board, staff would like to offer the following: 1. While staff agrees that there ought to be a comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses within the various Nodes, staff does not believe that it is necessary to delay this proposed amendment to allow such a study to occur. This assessment might be possible through the completion of Small Area Plans for each Node as future work plans are prioritized. 2. Staff does not believe the Planning Board recommendation can be achieved given the lack of any documentation or rationale justifying exempting the properties at the existing road intersections from the existing prohibition on allowing non-residential development within a critical watershed overlay district. 3 3. It is staff's opinion that the Planning Board recommendation constitutes a modification to the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District boundary line, which was not advertised as part of the public hearing. 4. Any request for development through a rezoning application is determined through the legislative process. 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. RECOMMENDATION: The Interim Manager recommends the Board: Receive the Planning Board recommendation. 2. Deliberate on the petition as necessaryr 3. Close the Public Hearing,- 4. Adopt the Ordinance amendment recommended by staff contained within Attachment Two (2) of this abstract. Attachment 14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, there has been increased attention paid to existing Nodes throughout the County, and WHEREAS, the majority of the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node is currently located within a Critical Watershed Overlay Zoning District that prohibits the development of non-residential land uses, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that it was not the original intent to restrict development within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node when comprehensive watershed regulations were adopted, WHEREAS, the proposed amendment encourages the development of the Nodes consistent with the original intent of the Comprehensive Plan, 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 ~PCtinn F '~.'~ 1 of tha (lrrlinanro ho ~monrlarl ~~ fnlln~e.n ISTRICT LAND USE RESTRICTIONS No new landfills are permitted. No commercial or industrial uses are permitted exre t withi NIV CA the Cedar Grave Rural Con~munit Activi 1Vode cohere ih - NIV PW ro roes at the intersection of Efland Cedar Grove and C - CANE CA St®re Roads rennin w+e~hvacd from the intersectio - ENO CA roximatei ei ht hundred ~i SSO f+e~et shall be allowed t - - be develo d for rommencial ses consistent with th r~uirements of the Ordinnance. No new golf courses are ermitted IV-CA ANE-CA No residual (sludge) application is permitted. -ENO-CA CANE-PW -ENO-PW YCO-PW ITTLE-PW No discharging landfills are permitted. Industrial use is limited ACK-PW to nonhazardous light industrial uses characterized by low water LAT-PW use (less than 10,000 gpd, excluding domestic water (25 gpd per AW-PW employee) and water used for heating and air conditioning). -ENO-PW 5 ORDAN-PW Upon motion of Commissioner Commissioner the Ordinance amendments were adopted this the day of 2009 and shall become effective upon adoption. seconded by foregoing Zoning Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners ""Cr11' ne (~) _ Pl ann~ng Baarq re~omme ngation map detail --' Node eoU~darY Gedar Grove Methodist Chu ~h 0 7so inch . 808.05 feet ~,5f OR(~ - a00q~ - O3 Z Attachment 2 7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, there has been increased attention paid to existing Nodes throughout the County, and WHEREAS, the majority of the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node is currently located within a Critical Watershed Overlay Zoning District that prohibits the development of non-residential land uses, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that it was not the original intent to restrict development within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node when comprehensive watershed regulations were adopted, WHEREAS, the proposed amendment encourages the development of the Nodes consistent with the original intent of the Comprehensive Plan, 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 6.23.1 of the Ordinance be amended as follows: ISTRICT LAND USE RESTRICTIONS No new landfills are permitted. IV-CA No commercial or industrial uses are permitted exce t I'o IV-PW commercial develo went in aecordunce with the envision ANE-CA of the Ordinance located within e~tabliished Nodes as detail -ENO-CA within the Oraa~e County Comprehensive Plan No new golf courses are permitted IV-CA ANE-CA No residual (sludge) application is permitted. -ENO-CA ANE-PW -ENO-PW YCO-PW ITTLE-PW No discharging landfills are permitted. Industrial use is ACK-PW limited to nonhazardous light industrial uses characterized by LAT-PW low water use (less than 10,000 gpd, excluding domestic AW-PW water (25 gpd per employee) and water used for heating and -ENO-PW air conditioning). ORDAN-PW 8 Upon motion of Commissioner Commissioner the Ordinance amendments were adopted this the day of 2009 and shall become effective upon adoption. seconded by foregoing Zoning Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners A~achment Threw ve Note: ~3) ~ Cesar Grove ~o ~__. `~: :-°-:,. _ Rural Comm,...: ~~ ~ --~~''yctiv;ty Now .. .4. P '. ~iq~,. • ~:r7 ~ ti} i `1~ a~ r pi ~'I 1 _ ~ ~t r U~DArf r ~ ... ,- x "- . a j , ,~ x ~~ Node _ $OU"'~tY Cedes. ~r~ Metier .ae ~ ~'RJ' F N s!. ~ ~ ~tedry~ F~ L . j rflw~, ~R' ..~ ~aaaa ~4 faa„1 S1ty~ ra ~? ~ ` w peer E . w._s,.~ Critical, ,a~''; '-t` ETJ R F ~ ~~ e~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ v F ~ R `~--~ ~ ~s t ~i - 0 740 1 ~~~ = 806.24 feet 7,48( • Ei..a~ e. *iV+~+ US+riS M~lirFsaY~e +-.r~ 9obs 9uvoyYb,ler FaeNre ~ OC tlp0oladY~klet FaMus ~~ RiwE~ins 0 ~ L.-J Ta1M1s11~ 9rlaal Si P'r. _'.QMIDIr1 N~. 9Q~ Doug ®t00YR Flood (Effsdiw OQ~P/07) CIA1 limbs ~ ,- lE A Sal" ETJ 900YR FloorlpleY~ (EReGNe OQ/O?/0~ Oonaawlian EmeaneNa ©g ~' !lld~Ohe~s QCIISNVYAiW1EWM1lM3 _ 0 570 1,140 Feet 1 inch = 721.97 feet ~ Attachment Three -Rural Industrial Node ~ 10 ~~ ~ w~ «~ ~~ ~ ; ;~ \ 1- -i*. .~~'v ,a' O a N 3 on W E `c S ~~'f9 ,~ ~' Legend: - ~B Year transition 20 Year transition Rural Residential Rural Buffer Agricultural Residential Resource Protecti~ Are L] Muni ~ as Pal Extra-Terriforial Jurisdiction Q Municipal ToN,n /_imits Q Public Interest Areas terSupplY Watersheds Watershed Critigt Areas s t Activity tVOdes Rural Community Node 'yy Rural Neighbortroo,d Node h ~p ~Rurallndusfial _ Com Node merpat Node ComtnefaaVlndustrfal Node Q Economic Development ~C'CN/GA Joint Planning,gma ®.. Q ~~ 2 a`. 3 4 1 in~t,~~Miles cts,Ha arnnoa Cq~ `•' ~ miles ~~ ri ~°t'>ata ~ ~ ~ ~ Th(s Copey Printedevartment ~ ~amnq Sta4~~ ~,~ is na Febniary 2n. 20eP, ggeGion: North ~a~*aJt ~~~ ~e ~ Datum: NorUt gm~5tcan f 983 a {reef) Minutes ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JULY 1, 2009 REGULAR MEETING 13 Approved 8/5/09 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, At-Large Eno Township (Chair); Judith Wegner (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Mark Marcoplos, At-Large Bingham Township; Earl McKee, Little River Township Representative; Larry Wright, At-Large Cedar Grove Township; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large; May Becker, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, At-Large Cheeks Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator, Michael Harvey, Planner III; Glenn Bowles, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II; (Documents handed out: Letter to Planning Board from Vicky Hendel; Memorandum from Robert Davis; Newsletter, Upper Neuse News) AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Article Six (ti) Application of Dimensional Requirements Secfion 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. To consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding this item heard at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing Presenter: Michael Harvey, Planner III Michael Harvey: Good evening. As you all recall from the May quarterly public hearing, we presented a proposal to amend section 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance seeking to allow the development of non-residential land use within certain Critical and Protected watershed overlay districts in instances where such areas are located within previously established nodes. Section 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes protected and critical watershed overlay districts as well as a list of prohibitions on certain classifications of land uses. Within the University Lake Critical and Protected watersheds, the Cane Creek Critical, and Upper Eno Critical there's a prohibition on commercial and industrial uses. When staff started modifying the Comprehensive Plan as part of the recently completed update, as referenced within attachment two (2), staff identified an existing rural community activity node within the Cedar Grove Township at the intersection of Carr Store and Efland Cedar Grove Road. This node is almost entirely encumbered by the Critical watershed boundary and essentially cannot allow and will not support non-residential development. It is staffs contention that the County never intended for the nodes, which where specifically designed to go in strategically located areas throughout the County, to be overly restricted from what would or would not be allowed to be located within them. Staff certainly does not believe the County intended to restrict development within the node when it adopted the watershed overlay district standards. It should be known that there is another node, specifically a rural industrial node, located off NC 54 and Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road that contains a rock quarry that's located within the University Lake Protected Watershed. What staff has proposed with this amendment is adding language under 6.23.1 that would read as follows: No commercial or industrial uses are permitted except within established nodes as detailed within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. (Reviewed Map) This is the land use element map of the Comprehensive Plan that delineates and designates acceptable areas of development within County. The aforementioned rural industrial node (NC 54) corresponds to the location of an existing rock quarry operation that according to the Special Use Permit (SUP) it is to become a future reservoir. There will be no future commercial or industrial land use of this specific property. There is an end plan for this operation once the permits for the quarry expire. What this amendment is designed to do is stipulate that in those specific watersheds, the University Critical and Protected, Cane Creek Critical, Upper Eno Critical, if there is a node located within the critical or protected watershed boundary then non-residential development can occur within the node as the Orange County Comprehensive Plan had originally envisioned. It does not allow for wholesale, non-residential development within the Critical or Protected Watersheds. Approved 8/5/09 ~~ There are only two (2) nodes, the rural community activity node (Cedar Grove) and the rural industrial node (off NC 54j that will be impacted by this proposed amendment. Any future node would have to be adopted by the County Board of Commissioners with the Planning Boards input through a comprehensive and a land use plan amendment. Right now this amendment is going to address development issues within one specific rural community activity node because as I've indicated, the rural industrial node has a specific end game plan as far as allowable land uses once the quarry operation ceases. The SUP says that once the quarry ceases operation, it will convert to a reservoir. It is my understanding that the SUP also indicated the rural industrial node disappears. There will not be a node there. Larry Wright: What streams lead to that? Craig Benedict: Phil's Creek. They actually release water from a small OWASA reservoir on part of the site to a second reservoir and then into PhiPs Creek to help fill University Lake. Michael Harvey: Just as a point of clarification, this existing section impacts the University Protected and Critical watershed overlay districts, where there are no other nodes except for the rural industrial node, the Cane Creek Critical where there are currently no nodes, and of course the Upper Eno Critical area. We have already seen the boundaries of rural community activity node located within the Upper Eno Critical watershed overlay district that is essentially three quarters (3/4) encumbered by the critical watershed area. At the public hearing, there were several comments made as a result of this proposed amendment. The Board members essentially agreed that is was not the original intent of the County to restrict development within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node but that there needed to be careful attention paid to what was permitted within the critical area. Larry Wright: I don't understand that statement by the Board members. When you take a look at the land use that is was not the original intent to restrict development you take the land use element and you look through on page.... Michael Harvey: That's the old copy of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. Lany Wright: Is it still in effect? Michael Harvey: No. It's been usurped by the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. While the policy may still exist in some level and fashion we need to make reference to the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Larry Wright: If the spirit of this did carry over, on 3.26.9 this seems to be inconsistent with statement one (1 j. I don't understand. When you stop and think, I guess the conditions of the soils have not changed and this is in here that it is largely characterized by poor soils, heavy clay soils. How are you going to justify that when all water flows out of Orange County? No water flows in. Is that right? Craig Benedict: That's correct. Larry Wright: So we have five (5) watersheds here in Cedar Grove. You have Little River, The Flat River, South Hyco, Black Creek, and Upper Eno. Then if you start dealing with runoff coefficients and bringing in-more pavement and you have the packed clay soil for probably a .3 or .4 in a runoff coefficient and lawns are .25, drives are .75. You start bring in commercial and I think you are going to get some runoff that you don't want in each of these five watersheds. Michael Harvey: My response is that i believe the rural community activity nodes came first, it was never the intent of the Board through the adoption of watershed overlay districts to exclude that portion of the rural community activity node from being developed. If that was the case then the node boundary would have been altered. As we indicated during the quarterly public hearing the actual critical area for the Upper Eno that the County adopted is much larger than what the state had recommended and what the state had justified back in the adopted watershed overlay regulations. Craig Benedict: We moved to keep the impervious the same even though it is commeraal the impervious is still going to be limited like the residential. Yes the use may change but they are not going to be allowing more impervious. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Can you give an example of commercial or industrial types of businesses thaf would meet the same standards as residential. Craig Benedict: If you have a 10,000 square foot parcel and you only allow a 6% impervious which we do at our critical watersheds in most cases, and then whether it's a residential use or anon-residential use it cannot have over at 6%. That includes the building and the parking. It is very restrictive for commercial. This full circle was put on the map back in 1981 as a 2 Approved 8/5/09 ICJ historic crossroad for Cedar Grove. They had said at that time, five (5) acres of limited commercial and five (5) acres of neighborhood commercial. When the 1994 watershed regulations went into effect, they overiayed and put widener restrictions in there. We do not know if they intentionally or unintentionally knocked out three quarters (3/4) of this node. What we are trying to determine was it the idea that they wanted to exdude this other area from non-residential. What we are suggestion now is yes you can have some non-residential uses on the other three quarters (3/4) of this intersection but not allow anymore impervious than if it was for residential use. Six percent (6%) is very restrictive. Larry Wright: Here it says, and again I'm referring to the land use which is dated but I'd like to know what I can use to substitute this or where I can find the content. Michael Harvey: In the Comprehensive Plan. Larry Wright: I couldn't find the counterpart to this. If you could send me an email. Thanks. Its says the soils are rated poor for septic tank absorption fields and most building types. What does that mean? Michael Harvey: That the soil are poor and do not lend themselves to normal septic systems. Larry Wright: Then we would be sensitive to that? Michael Harvey: If they can't get a septic permit they can't develop any uses on a parcel of property regardless if the proposed amendment is adopted or not. This amendment will not eliminate the need for a property owner to comply with all applicable permitting requirements allowing for any type of development. Larry Wright: Part of that really is in that watershed. Another thing, this looks like it is pretty big. From what I understand, the spirit of the Cedar Grove Township was to keep it rural. One of the things they are trying to do in the OUTBoard is to consolidate economic development areas to make them walkable and less driving and it would be nice since this is a sensitive area to consider making it small. Michael Harvey: In my opinion, in order to do that would require a comprehensive plan amendment and a land use element map amendment to reclassify the rural community activity node. Larry Wright: So what kind of amendments are we looking at here? Michael Harvey: Here we are looking to clarify what types of development are allowed within various critical and protected watershed overlay districts in instances where there may be a previously located node. Larry Wright: Aren't we ultimately looking at this anyway? Michael Harvey: I don't know if that is the ultimate goal. Judith Wegner: I wonder, Michael, for the old time Planning Board, is there a chance to do a bus tour? To see different areas of the County and I wonder if before February maybe late fall we could do that, is that possible? It relates to our small area development and a field trip might really be beneficial. Tommy McNeill: Absolutely, I think that would be a wonderful idea, I agree with that one hundred percent (100%). Additionally, there are some public areas within the County that the Planning Board should be aware of and that could be added to the tour. Craig Benedict: I've done a tour for some Planning Board members a few years ago about Economic Development Districts (EDD) also so that could be part of the tour. Judith Wegner: I think that would be helpful. I also think about the fire department and where they are located. We all are doing our best to pay attention to this but maybe even on a weekend we go and dig in and get knowledgeable and prepare with a number of folks who are doing it. That would be very helpful. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I want to follow up on what Larry was talking about and it is a question. Larry was interested in an amendment that would reinforce the historical nature plus the watershed protection. I don't want to lose that. If we do have an amendment for this watershed, my question is does it apply to all the activity nodes for economic development? Michael Harvey: No 3 Approved 8/5/09 1~ Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Why not. Michael Harvey: Nodes, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, have different levels of intensity relating to the acceptable level of non-residential development. There are also specific zoning district designations that are utilized to allow for development within the distinct categories of node. The only way to get specific, meaning to only allow certain uses within an individual node, is to essentially engage the Small Area Plan (SAP) process to identify those particular uses for each individual node and then amend the Comprehensive Plan to inGude those policies. It should be remembered that comprehensive plan and land use element map amendments are normally presented annually, normally at the February quarterly public hearing. In this case, at least in my mind, we could not engage in such an amendment until a SAP is completed, which has to be authorized by the Commissioners prior to commencement. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: That's what I am talking about, amending the Comprehensive Plan which occurs in February, so in preparation if that's what Lany wants us to think about and thaYs what we should think about when we are on this tour. Is it possible to amend it such as you can tweak one of these in a unique way as opposed to what you do you have to do to all. Michael Harvey: You have to remember that you would have to make a recommendation or request to the County Board of Commissioners to allow staff to initiate the SAP for any or all the nodes. It would have to be independent for each node. How long that will take is anyone's guess. Tommy McNeill: Do you feel that would be beneficial to have each node have its own unique circumstances for growth? Michael Harvey: As we talked about on page 24 of your abstract, we agree that there ought to be a comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses within the various nodes. Our concern is we don't need to delay this amendment while waiting for that process to occur. Larry Wright: I would like to say thatjust under that LC-1 there is a very small post office right there and then there are two (2} old stores that belong to Mr. Oliver, the general stores. Then right across from that is a wooded area and that was at one time where a new post office was supposed to go. I don't think they have the money to put it there but I guess the land is committed. Then there is a beauty parlor that is probably 24x24 that is just on the other side of that wooded area. There are structures there the next thing that is commercial is the Ruritan Club, is that inside the circle? Craig Benedict: No Glenn Bowles: I think the reason the post office didn't go in is because the soils there are terrible Mark Marcoplos: One thing 1 want to understand better is that statement you alluded to, while staff agrees there ought to be a comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses within the various nodes, we do not believe it is necessary to delay the proposed amendment to allow such a study to occur. Now it sounded like it is a pretty straight forward concept of the same impervious surface restrictions as residential and it has to meet all the health department requirements for septic, etc. So that sounds like that solves it right there. I wonder why there is a reference to having a process to determine what would be allowed in this watershed protected area and also, presumably if this is passed and it there has not been any study of what is allowed in the area, because that is going to happen later, nothing would be allowed in the area until that study was done, right? Michael Harvey: That is not correct. Development would be allowed consistent with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. We could not begin a SAP process to specify land uses until the County Commissioners, a) authorizes the process and b) restricts development until the process is completed. There would have to be some sort of moratorium in order to limit development. Mark Marcoplos: So if this thing would pass without specifying what activity would be allowed in the idea that would be done later, yet development would occur before the process to determine what ought to be allowed there. Michael Harvey: Right now the ordinance limits development in this node as all other rural community activity nodes for local commercal one (1) and neighborhood commercial two (2) as detailed within Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. There are specified land uses that are permitted in larger nodes based on those Zoning designations. Mark Marcoplos: Why then have a comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses if we're happy to have stuff be built there before if? Craig Benedict: The amount of uses might not be the 10 acres each so LC-1 and NC might not be the issue. What may be asked when we look is to compress the node, make the node smaller. Five hundred (500) acres and only allowing twenty (20) 4 Approved 8/5/09 ~ ~ acres of commeraal maximum. Maybe part is not the type of uses or the amount of uses, it's just that we need to make these nodes more community or more neighborhood, and small. Mark Marcoplos: By that time something may have been built in the larger area. Craig Benedict: It's a rezoning which is a legislative decision. You might have the ability through the legislative to say `let's cluster them near the intersection' so I think you might have some latitude because it's a legislative decision. You do have the ability to cluster the LC-1s and NC-2s. There is that possibility admittedly but I think you have latitude because of the legislative nature to try to cluster them with a lot of other policies and push it more toward the center. Mark Marcoplos: If you wanted to be thorough with this process, wouldn't we do the study first and then pass the ordinance we do the comprehensive evaluation. That way you'll ensure that nothing slips through the regulations that was built before the comprehensive evaluation and then you would have a full understanding of what was going to go on in that node and you would do it in relation to the watershed overlay which happened for presumably good reasons after the establishment of this node there just seems to me that would be the most thorough way to protect the water shed and to allow development that we all agree is appropriate, rather than say 'go ahead and approve development and then we'll decide later on what that development might be. Judith Wegner: I have not understood the two (2) step practice in following the plan in where there is an expensive intensive study and then it is presented to the Commissioners in that there is some kind of later return to the topic to try to figure out what the Ordinance should be. I would think there is something to be said for thinking about it and how to implement it and then do it rather than a hiatus in the meantime. Now I understand the delay because I would think when we have small area study groups including Commissioners and citizens, etc. when they come up an idea that it would make sense to try to say how to implement it, let's go ahead with that and deal with it. I feel I am missing something on that. Craig Benedict: I can give you a little background on that. When Small Area Plans (SAPs) are done, they are in a two (2) step process. The ideas of what needs to change in that SAP are put within a document. When it is brought to the Commissioners the future recommendations are embedded in there and the Commissioners have said they want to approve a blueprint first and at least get the SAP accepted or approved and then have a second process that talks about implementing those regulations (noted in the SAP document) through the land use amendment process. Does it take longer, yes. Can it be done together, yes it can also. Judith Wegner: Could they accept certain things and then hold on other things for more work. Craig Benedict: I think if it was very limited SAP focus topic and you wanted to put recent community involvement in and run with it and have the same hearing, it could work. Judith Wegner: We'll talk about it more but for some of the chinches with the speedway area, the discussion about possibilities of Conditional Use Districts, I just don't know if were a property owner in that area what I would think. I'd be in limbo. I wouldn't know whether it was coming back, what the implication may be, recommendations, what was expected to be next. I have to think from the Planning Board point if we are- trying to implement the Comp Plan, these are areas that have real potential for impact within the County and having this kind of floating out there unresolved makes me uneasy. I don't know when we go back to that. It's confusing even though we try to track all this for the citizens and the community I don't know what they think or the Planning Board or the community group that helped plan this and that may mean that we may be caught unaware when it move ahead certainly for trying to implement the Comp Plan. It would seem to me that there are the areas we've got some pressure. We should have some priority about what we're doing. Craig Benedict: When I got here ten years ago, I suggested bring both things together, hot topics, community involvement. They just don't want to know the good ideas, they want to know how you're going to do that. How it applies to their property. It's more of a leap and Orange County often does things in very incremental steps. There are two (2) ways to do it. I think there are definite merits with what you're suggesting in bringing things closer together. If we do a Small Area Plan (SAP) and then wait another year to do the implementation it could take three (3) years from start to finish. Judith Wegner: As we think about implementing the Comp Plan we have to think about what are the hot spots to deal with first. The water issues are profound if we foul this up and don't pay attention to what is streaming to University Lake or Cane Creek that will make a real difference to people so somehow we have to make a decision about what happens first and what we are going to do. Brian Crawford: Let me ask, the local citizens that are in the LC-1 right now, the property owners understand the rules of the LC- 1 and what they are able to do. Confusion arises because of the seemingly inconsistency with the watershed. All you are trying 5 Approved 8/5/09 ~~ to do is make sure that the inconsistency right now is alleviated by this amendment. They are not changing anything else about what is happening in that node, correct? Michael Harvey: Correct. It is the node that is the subject of this amendment, the whole node, not the area outside the node. Larry Wright: I'm sorry, I agree with Mark and Commissioners two (2) and three (3). I think that Mark is right on and Commissioners two (2) and three (3} that we need to look at the blue up here and what is not considered the red area. Look at ali the blue up there and then you start dealing with roofs, they have a high runoff coefficient of .85 and you're not even talking about soils or driveways and so I think we need to really move with caution and someone really needs to study this. Craig Benedict: The Board can make any decision they like, recommend fo move forward with it at this time or make a recommendation that to proceed or to ask the Commissioners if you should proceed with the Small Area Plan and amendments attached thereto at some time in the future. When it gets on the Commissioners work plan and then your work plan and our work plan, based on some Small Area Plans that Perdita is going to go through tonight, it's probably going to be three (3) years out. We have enough implementation to do with the three (3) existing adopted plans that we have done already in the past that have been in limbo because we've waited for the Comprehensive Plan to be done. So, there is merit to what you are saying, if I had my druthers, I wish this was done already and we had studied the whole thing. I don't think, in my opinion, it hurts us in the interim based on the legislative authority you have to direct any rezoning that may go on in that red hatched area in the interim. If we come back and study this area in the timeframe that everybody agrees to and we decide to compress the node, there hasn't been much rezoning activity in the County to speak of in the ten (10) years I've been here, so I don't think people are running out there for commercial in the nodes. Mark Marcoplos: That's an argument also for not minding a two (2) or three (3) year timeframe. If I were going to draw a line right now, if someone said to me, you come up with a plan right now, I would say move this line and take that intersection and make it part of that (on the map-watershed line). Let non-residential development occur at that intersection and let this be studied. That way you keep it in one area. People have some flexibility and you still get a thorough process which ensures that,,,,, Larry Wright: And you consolidated the commercial area at that intersection and not had it sprawl out. Perdita Holtz: Changing the watershed line really isn't an option. Mark Marcoplos: Not changing the watershed line. Michael Harvey: No, you have to change the watershed line. What you are essentially proposing is to only allow a small portion of the existing node, at the intersection of the major roadways, to develop non-residential land uses. There is no mechanism for you to treat this intersection differently from the rest of the node that is within the critical watershed overlay district. The watershed boundary line would have to be moved to keep the intersection out of the critical watershed boundary so that it could develop non-residentia( land uses consistent with the zoning ordinance. Mark Marcoplos: That's not what I am saying. I am saying do, what you are proposing for this whole area, let's do for this area. Michael Harvey: It is my opinion that you can't differentiate one portion of the node within the critical watershed from other portions. You can't simply say we will only allow the properties at the intersection develop and leave the rest of the node alone without amending the location of the critical watershed overlay boundary line. It's the node or it's going to be left as it is, Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Why cant' you? Mark Marcoplos: Why not? Michael Harvey: Because right now in order to do what Mark is suggesting you are going to have to change the watershed overlay district, you're going to have the...... Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: No Mark Marcoplos: No Michael Harvey: Yes sir, you just can't draw a circle around the intersection with this amendment and indicate that the properties located at the intersection will be allowed to develop non-residential land uses while other adjoining properties cannot. 6 Approved 815/09 ~a Mark Marcoplos: Well, you're proposing to change it by this.... Michael Harvey: I am proposing to amend the Zoning Ordinance where there is currently a prohibition to stipulate that in areas where you have a node, that non-residential will be allowed in established nodes based on established limitations. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: What Mark is proposing is to follow the recommendation to change but not the entire node. Just a very small piece in there. Michael Harvey: In my opinion you can't do that. You can't differentiate property within the node as being more acceptable. That will not work with this amendment. What you are talking about is simply changing the critical watershed boundary line. Judith Wegner: ft's amulti-phase aspect. Michael Harvey: You have a node boundary as it exist right now. In order to exclude that intersection you essentially have to amend the watershed boundary line in order to free that area up to allow for non-residential development. Mark Marcoplos: Now wait a second, that cannot be true because if this is being passed to apply to this area, that is being done without changing the watershed overlay, right? Michael Harvey: That's because we are proposing to amend Article Six (ti) which is the watershed protection overlay district to allow for non-residential development within various critical and protected watersheds where a node exists. You are right we are not changing the line of the critical watershed, we are just saying that within various critical and protected watersheds, if there is anode, the node can be developed consistent with the ordinance. What you are saying is that you will allow a small portion, not the entire node, to be developed for non-residential land uses. In my opinion that proposal essentially discriminates against seventy-five percent (75%) of the existing node within the critical watershed by allowing twenty-five percent (25%) of property owners to have the benefit of being able to develop non-residential land uses on their property. In my opinion you either have to change the watershed boundary to allow the properties you are referring to in order to develop non-residential land uses or the whole node gets the same benefit of this amendment. Mark Marcoplos: I guess I don't buy into the legality of the whole node has to be addressed. What I am saying is the watershed boundary doesn't change either way. Michael Harvey: It would have to change with your recommended solution. In my opinion you cannot apply staff's proposed amendment to only a specific portion of the node. There is no data to justify that proposal in my opinion. Perdita Holtz: Mark, you're recommending changing the proposed language to say except within a portion of Cedar Grove node established by some boundary to be determined. Mark Marcoplos: Yes, it down around the intersection. For now, then look at the rest of it and figure out what ought to happen away from the intersection. Judith Wegner: Can you conceptualize it as phases and that is the first phase. Mark Marcoplos: Exactly. Perdita Holtz: That sets serious precedence for tampering with one small aspect of the various nodes. Michael Harvey: I am sorry, I still do not think we can do that. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: But the reality is if you see one node, you'll only see one node, all of these nodes are different, unique in character, history, culture, watershed issues and I think it should a prerogative to get to know them well enough to say does it need tinkering or do we have to give everybody the same shoes to wear. Earl McKee: I can understand what Mark is saying but the problem I see with it by, let's call it tinkering with this one little section, you're inviting someone in Little River to want to do the same thing with part of their node or any other node in the County. You're inviting people to want special consideration for their particular profit. I can see it being used by individuals or developers and corporations to insist that you have changed one little section in the Cedar Grove Node and made it special, then I want it done in this section too. 7 Approved 8/5/09 ~d Larry Wright: But that's what started this whole discussion down in the White Cross area there was a septic problem in a commercial plot where they wanted to expand into a residential. So, this whole thing started on your basic premise that the White Cross had a problem and then a Commissioner, Barry Jacobs, if I remember correctly in the quarterly hearing, said we need to really take a look at all the nodes. So this is kind of the history of this, a special look at a particular case is what, in my mind, catalyzed it. Earl McKee: I understand that. I guess I'm seeing problems that mayor may not exist if you start instead of having the multiple nodes in the County with ali of them having the same regulations and rules, you start having separate conditions for each one and parts of each one then I can see it getting very complicated and being twisted and pulled and bent. Larry Wright: I think the art of this would be, Judith has already talked about Bingham Township with its issues of waste transfer site, etc. and what they are wrestling with, we've got the Cedar Grove Township and then other nodes and what they are wrestling with, and I think the balance would be actually what Mark had to say to study it and to take a look at each node individually and I don't think this County by the nature of it is a one size fits all. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I wanted to comment on what you said, the Supreme Court, when it give rules sometimes says this is not to be a precedent to be established and they say that so that other cases coming up can't say well in so and so versus such and such, you said this therefore it applies. They limit it and I think if we want to do this which I think there's a spirit here to really discuss this and so to say this particular node deserves some special consideration, we can say this does not take away from the need to treat nodes equally, it's just a one time only kind of thing. So the person in Little River won't say well you did this up there. We did it with the caution that others don't get the same consideration without due process. Mark Marcoplos: What we would say to the person in Little River or some other node is you are totally welcome to have access to the process. You can request that it go through the same channel that this went through. It can go to the Planning Board, it can go to the County Commissioners or wherever it needs to go. That's what they get. They get access to the process. They don't get just because someone else went through the process stage by stage by stage and ended up with something they don't get that just by claiming it. They just get access to the process. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: On 54 where the guy had trouble with his septic field and needed something here which started this whole process, everyone got treated the same way instead of saying... what we want to do is stop that. Is that what you are implying Larry. Larry Wright: No, that's not what I was implying at all. Brian Crawford: Let me make a suggestion here, clearly we are not in support of the recommendation as the staff has put forth but the staff has said that there's a significant legal issue. They think that we just can't make a change like that, I suggest that you go one of two ways, you can always have someone make proposal that we can vote on with Mark's change or we can table this and have staff go back and ask the attorney based on your recommendation if that's something that we are allowed to do or that we can do. That way we can at least get some legal guidance on whether or not tinkering with a line within the node is acceptable. f am not certain that it is within our authority to do so, I certainly would like to get guidance before we make that proposal to the Board. Mark Marcoplos: It's really illegal? Graig Benedict: I'll be the one writing what I believe it says or the three ways you can accomplish what you are talking about, three or four ways. There will be different time frames and different processes. I'll put that together for the next meeting. It's not something, I'll confer with the attorney if there is anything that I see that.... Brian Crawford: The only reason I said that is because it clearly has come across to me from staff that it is something that we can't do because a) the precedence it may set or b) clearly whether or not we have the authority just to tinker with the line within a node. If you're not saying that it's in conflict with any guidance that you have then it's just as well that Mark makes his proposal and we vote on that and send that up to the Board. That's the issue. Craig Benedict: The objective is to have that intersection be allowed for commercial instead of the entire three quarters (3/4) hatched area then there are ways to do that. I'll explain what ways they are. Brian Crawford: So then Mark you seem to have a proposal that you want to put forth, why don't make that in form of a motion and then let the Board discuss and vote on it. 8 Approved 8!5/09 a Mark Marcoplos: It sounds like maybe as the process it would go to the Commissioner and you wouldn't have to do any work until they say yea or nay right? That way you may not have to do a lot of extra work if they say.... Craig Benedict: If you say your recommendation is this is five hundred (500) acres this is probably (300) acres if you say create a fifty (50) acre area on this site and we'll come up with some sort of description. MOTioN made by Mark Marcopfos: Ok. From what I know, I don't know enough to say fifty (50) acres. I would just say that there be some appropriate area centered on that intersection that is opened up to meet what is in this amendment and then that the rest of it be phase II as Judith termed it whereby there would be a comprehensive look at what kind of activity ought to be allowed in there. Seconded by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke. Judith Wegner: 1t's not unique to this area right, we've had this somewhat arbitrary concept about nodes and what you're proposing is we need to be more fine tuned? As to those nodes that there may be intersection would be the priority location for one thing or another for remote areas might be dealt with in some other way. This one but your concept is something that might apply to other nodes too right? Mark Marcoplos: 1 guess that's implied but I wouldn't want to mix it in. I just want to talk about this node right now but I think it's implied in the act of considering it. Judith Wegner: Maybe there's a second component in the motion that would be and that we believe that having unilateral treatment of nodes isn't necessarily the best way to go that we think that there may be a need to be more refined in approaches to nodes here as well as in other settings. Is that fair? Mark Marcoplos: Sure, that's right in there with the sentiment. Earl McKee: I have a couple of questions to make sure I'm clear. With Mark's motion, everything in the red crosshatch (map) except the little section we're talking about centering on the intersection would be restricted to no commercial development is that correct? Everything except what we're proposing to open up right around fifty (50) acres or whatever it turns out to be, the remaining balance would remain off limits to commercial development? The second question I have is am I correct in understanding that there can only be twenty (20) acres in this roughly five hundred (500) acres of commercial development total? Michael Harvey: That's only if the amendment, there is a separate amendment that is that passes you are correct. Currently, it's ten (10) acres total as LC-1 and NCD combined. That's what the current Ordinance allows. Craig Benedict: The Commissioners will have something in August or September that take about that increase too. Ten (10) acres-ten (10) acres. Earl McKee: If that is correct and unless it is just absolutely untenable to find a perk site in that little, let's use fifty (50) acres for the sake of discussion, I really don't have a problem with it because you've got that plus everything from basically your eleven {11} o'clock to your four (4) o'clock position (map) to the northeast. I still think that to some extent it treats the two (2) halves of the node differently but I realize that it is in that watershed and there's no commercial development allowed at this point. Brian Crawford: So the amendment is specific to that node and is silent on the rest of the nodes. The rest of the nodes are going to be part of that comprehensive study that is the second portion of the amendment, is that correct? Mark Marcoplos: Yes, the other territory within that node except for the designated area around the intersection. Brian Crawford: Is that clear to everyone? There was a second on it? Any more discussion? MOTION made by Mark MarCOplos that there be some appropriate area centered on the intersection in the Cedar Grove Node that is opened up to meet what is in the amendment and that the rest of it be phase II whereby there would be part of a comprehensive look at what kind of activity ought to be allowed in there. Seconded by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke. VorE: 6-1 (Crawford) Craig Benedict: By the next meeting, we'll probably have time as this will not go in front of the Commissioners until September. I'll give you my interpretation of how this would be accomplished with what you're motion was. So you understand what it takes to get it done. 9 1 Attachment 6 - Ezcept from Quarterly as DRAFT Public Hearing Minutes 1 DRAFT 2 3 MINUTES 4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING 7 May 18, 2009 g 7:00 p.m. 9 10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for 11 a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, May 18, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Central 12 Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC. 13 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice IS M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz 16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson 17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts 18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Deputy Clerk to the 19 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 20 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Rachel Phelps 21 Hawkins, Mark Marcoplos, Jeffrey L. Schmitt, Tommy McNeill, Pete Hallenbeck, and Earl McKee 22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Judith Wegner, Dr. Larry 23 Wright, Samantha Cabe, and Nathan Chambers 24 25 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 26 27 28 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to 29 Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requirements Section 6.23.1 Land Use Restrictions 30 to modify existing regulations prohibiting non-residential development within the University 31 Lake Critical and Protected, Cane Creek Critical, and Upper Eno Critical Watershed Protection 32 Overlay Districts. 33 34 AGENDA ITEM: C3 35 PUBLIC HEARING 36 Review of a proposal to amend 37 Section 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance 38 to modify existing regulations prohibiting non-residential development within certain Protected and 39 Critical Watershed Overlay Districts 40 41 ISSUE: 42 Section 6.23.1 prohibits non-residential development within the University Protected and Critical, 43 Cane Creek Critical, and Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay Districts, 44 Staff has determined that the majority of the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node is 45 located within the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District, 46 As a result the development potential of this Node is limited, 47 48 STAFF COMMENT: 49 Staff does not believe it was the intent of the County to outright prohibit non-residential 50 developments within established Nodes when it adopted the Watershed Overlay Districts in the 51 late 1980's and early 1990's. DRAFT 2 a~ 1 Staff believes that there is room for compromise that will allow for development within the Nodes 2 while preserving the integrity of the watershed areas consistent with the various goals of the 3 Comprehensive Plan. 4 5 PROPOSAL: 6 Staff is proposing to amend Section 6.23.1 by adding the following language (in bold): 7 ` No commercial or industrial uses are permitted except within established Nodes 8 as detailed within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. ` 9 This amendment would only permit non-residential development within various protected and 10 critical water sheds in instances where there is an established Node. 11 12 RATIONALE: 13 As previously indicated, staff does not believe the County intended to restrict development within 14 the various Nodes when it adopted watershed regulations, 15 This amendment would allow for a reasonable level of non-residential development within a Node 16 even if it is located within a certain classification of protected or critical watershed, 17 This amendment would only impact the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node 18 19 Staff Recommendations: 20 Receive the staff initiated zoning text amendment proposal including staff's report and 21 presentation materials, 22 Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties, 23 Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned in time for the 24 September 1, 2009 BOCC meeting, 25 Adjourn the Public Hearing until September 1, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's 26 recommendation. 27 28 Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict said that three quarters of the uses at the 29 intersection of Efland-Cedar Grove Road and Can- Store Road are within the critical area. There has been 30 some difficulty with historic buildings that want to continue commercial operation into the future. This 31 amendment will enable that. 32 Commissioner Gordon said that if there is a mechanism to expand outside this area, she would like 33 some language to prevent expansion into the watershed. 34 Michael Harvey said that the boundaries of the various Nodes can only be changed through a 35 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He said that staff is trying to provide a scenario where the node could be 36 utilized as it was originally intended. He said that Orange County was proactive in expanding and being 37 stricter in the watershed. 38 County Attorney John Roberts said that he would look into it and develop some language. 3 9 There was no public comment. 40 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to refer the 41 matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned in time for the September 1, 2009 BOCC 42 meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's 43 recommendation. 44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS y.i_~~o~ ~~ D~,O La~o~'-off 1~ ,o >-o tI cod ~s d. Addition of Subdivision Roads in Churton Grove Phase 3 to the NCDOT Maintai ed a~~ Road Svstem The Board forwarded the Petition for Addition to the State Maintained system for subdivision rods in Churton Grove Phase 3 to the NCDOT and recommended the Board of Transportation accept those roads for maintenance as State secondary roads. e. Resolution Naming Area in New Main Library for Rebecca B Wall The Board adopted the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to officially name the local history area of the new Main Library on West Margaret Lane for Rebecca B. Wall consistent with the naming policy. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearinas a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relatina to the Amount of Development of Non-residential Land Uses within Certain Watershed Overlay Districts The Board. received the Planning Board and staff recommendation(s) and considered taking action on astaff-initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance seeking to allow the development of non-residential land uses within certain critical and protected watershed overlay districts in instances where such areas are located within previously identified Rural Community Activity Nodes. Planner Michael Harvey reviewed this item. He made reference to Attachment 2, which was the Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. He said that the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node has approximately 295 acres, with 60°10 of it encumbered by the existing Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District. Section 6.31 of the zoning ordinance specifically stipulates that you cannot have any commercial or industrial development within the critical watershed overlay district and 60% of this node is unusable for that purpose. During the May Quarterly Public Hearing, the staff indicated that it was not the County's intention to stipulate that 60% of this node could not be developed for non-residential purposes. Staff proposed an amendment that stipulates that the prohibition would remain in place, but that language would be added to the section stipulating that. commercial development could occur within established node boundaries consistent with policies and guidelines of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. If this ordinance is passed, the critical watershed overlay district would still exist on the zoning map and additional non-residential development would be allowed, consistent with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, which would include a maximum of ten acres of Local Commercial I and a maximum of ten acres of Neighborhood Commercial II, for a total of 20 acres, representing approximately 5% of the total 500 acres within the existing node boundary. He said that any development within this area would be limited to a 6% impervious surtace limitation. He said that the Planning Board reviewed this item at its July 1, 2009 meeting and voted 6 to 1 that: Section 6.23.1 be amended to only allow the properties at the intersection of Carr Store and Efland-Cedar Grove Road within the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node to develop non-residential land uses consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance, and that the County Board of Commissioners authorize the development of a Small Area Plan for the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node and that upon completion of that study, the entire Node be allowed to support non-residential development consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance. He said that the staff does not believe that the proposed amendments as offered by the Planning Board can be enforced. There is an area of the node that the Planning Board wants to exclude from the prohibition and staff is uncomfortable with this without any study being done. Administration recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendment that staff has proposed in Attachment 2. Commissioner Pelissier said that there was some reference that this would be looked at by the County Attorney because legally the County could not select just a few properties to be exempt. John Roberts said that he would be hesitant to recommend that this piece of property be carved out for these parcels without further study. There was no public comment. Commissioner Yuhasz asked why this was coming up at this particular time and Michael Harvey said that he was directed by the Planning Director and Manager in January to fix this issue. Commissioner Pelissier said that it looks like much of this node in the critical watershed is comprised of two large properties. She asked if these were in the present use value or conservation easements and Michael Harvey said that the property to the south is under present use value. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and do NOT adopt the Ordinance amendment recommended by staff contained within Attachment 2 of this abstract. Commissioner Jacobs said that he seconded for the purpose of discussion, but he would rather do something. In answer to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Craig Benedict gave some history about the nodes. Craig Benedict said that the nodes were put on in 1981 with the Land Use Plan and the watershed lines were put on in 1994 and there was no specific discussion about excluding commercial development in the nodes. Commissioner Jacobs said that an assumption could be that it was assumed back then that there would be no commercial development in these nodes because they were so close to the watershed. Commissioner Gordon said that the County was very proactive in watershed protection back in 1994. She said that she made the motion that she did because she would prefer to have a study. Commissioner Jacobs said that there may need to be a small area plan for this area. He said that there is some evidence that there is a historic commercial district in Cedar Grove and this is an opportunity to work with the community in an expeditious manner. He suggested amending the motion that staff recommend aone-step small area planning process for the Cedar Grove node. Commissioner Gordon agreed with this amendment, but asked that there be a reasonable timeline. Commissioner Pelissier said that she would not want to vote against what staff is recommending because there is so much on the plate for the Planning Board now. Secondly, this is only about 20 acres maximum and if the 6% impervious surface applies, this is not anymore than there would be if there was residential development. She does not see anything happening in this area in the near future that would be inconsistent with this area. She does not think that a small area plan could be completed in the near future. Chair Foushee agreed with Commissioner Pelissier. Commissioner Hemminger asked if this sets a precedent with other nodes in a watershed. Michael Harvey said that the only other node in a watershed is a rural industrial node and it is currently supporting a quarry operation. It is covered by a special use permit. Upon closure of that quarry operation, the rural industrial node disappears altogether. Craig Benedict said that if the Board of County Commissioners allows commercial development in this industrial node, it will come back to the Board of County Commissioners as a legislative item - a special use permit for rezoning. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he agreed with much of what Commissioner Pelissier said and that he is hesitant to add more to the Planning staff's workload. He said that he would be in favor of staff's recommendation. Commissioner Gordon restated her motion: Receive the Planning Board recommendation, deliberate on the petition as necessary, close the public hearing, and do NOT adopt the Ordinance amendment recommended by staff contained within Attachment 2 of this abstract, and direct staff to develop a plan and timeline for gone-step small area plan in this area. Commissioner Jacobs seconded this motion previously. VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Gordon); Nays, 5 MOTION FAILED A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to receive the Planning Board recommendation, deliberate on the petition as necessary, close the public hearing, and adopt the Ordinance amendment recommended by staff contained within Attachment 2 of the abstract. VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs) 6. Regular Agenda a. Update and Recommended Actions -Solid Waste Transfer Station Site Selection The Board received an update on several issues and considered actions for moving the site selection search process for a Sotid Waste Transfer Station in Orange County to a conclusion. Frank Clifton said that this item has been studied for many years and efforts have been pursued and the County Commissioners have narrowed the choices down to four options. The County has spent several hundred thousand dollars on consultants and analysis and this does not include staff time. He went through the options: Option A. Highway 54 site - If the BOCC is prepared to move forward on this site then: 1) Authorize the County Attorney and County Management to initiate negotiations to acquire the Hwy 54 site, up to a total of 150.87 acres (142.87 main acreage; 8.0 access acreage). The appraised value is $935,000. 2) Authorize Solid Waste Management to issue an RFP for an engineering firm to conduct the design/development of the Solid Waste Transfer Station facility at Hwy 54 or any other selected site; including authorization to retain a secondary engineering firm whose role will be to perform a peer review of technical services/work products provided the County by the primary firm. 3) Authorize Solid Waste Management to solicit letters of interest/intent from private and/or public entities to provide the recipient landfill for solid waste transferred from either a Millhouse Road or Hwy 54 Solid Waste Transfer Station.