HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2008-061 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments Article Six Section 6.20.1 Large Ground Absorption System~R~~~dOB-o~G/
~c
3
AMENDMENTS TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
(Only those sections or subsections amended are -set out below)
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:
Proposed Amendment: Part I
That Section 6.20.1 be amended as follows:
* 6.20 Large Ground Absorption Svstem (3,000 gals. per day) and
Package Sewage Treatment Plants Prohibited in AR Districts
* Amended and Rural Buffer Districts; Exceptions
/ /
*6.20.1 Ground absorption systems with a design capacity of 3,000
gallons per day, or more, -and package treatment plants systems
* Amended for sanitary sewage disposal, other than those to be used for
government facilities and government office buildings, are
4/4/1988 expressly prohibited in the ,4~ Agricultural Residential (AR)
~ ~ Zoning dDistricts and in the Rural Buffer (RB) Zoning Districts as
- - except as may be
approved through a Special Use Permit as provided in Section
8.8.3 or as may be approved as part of a Planned Development
District.
All such systems, including .those to be used .for government
facilities and government office buildings, shall meet all State and
Orange County Health laws, rules and regulations.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,
seconded by Commissioner
the
3
4
foregoing Zoning Ordinance amendments were adopted this the day
of , 2008 and shall become effective upon adoption.
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
4
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 19, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. C.4
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT of.Section 6.20 and 6.20.1 of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance to clarify permitting requirements for large ground absorption
disposal systems
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Ordinance Amendment
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Name, Phone Number
Craig Benedict 245-2592
Michael D. Harvey 245-2607
PURPOSE: To amend Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requirements, specifically
Section 6.20 and 6.20.1 large Ground Absorption System (3,000 gallons per day) and
Package Treatment Plants Prohibited in AR Districts and Rural Buffer Districts of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `Ordinance') to clarify the permitting requirements
for large ground absorption systems and/or package treatment facilities.
BACKGROUND: In consultation with the Attorney's office, staff has determined that there are
two (2) issues with respect to existing language within Section(s) 6.20 and 6.20.1. Specifically,
the issues are:
Pursuant to Section 6.20.1, large ground absorption systems andlor package treatment
plants developed within the AR or RB zoning districts are required to obtain.a Class A
Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP'). However, Section 6.20.1 does not make reference
to the standards contained within Article Eight (8) governing the review and approval of
such projects.
The proposed amendment seeks to correct this oversight.
2. As discussed above, these types of systems require the issuance of a SUP. The Board
of County Commissions issues Class A SUP's.
The issuance of a SUP is a quasi judicial process that requires compliance with due
process requirements, including having an unbiased decision maker. Recent North
Carolina case law holds .that there is a due process violation vvhen the County is the
applicant and decision maker on its own SUP applications. As the application for such
systems would be by the County, to the County for review and approval, there is an
inherent conflict that prevents the County Board of Commissioners for deciding on their
own applications. Therefore the requirement must be corrected to avoid further conflict.
In an effort to address these issues, staff is proposing the following:
1. Amending Section 6.20.1 to clarify that County projects are not required to obtain a SUP
when a large ground absorption septic system, or a package treatment plant, is proposed
to support a proposed, land use, and
2. To make specific reference to the standards relevant to the review and approval of large
ground absorption systems and/or package treatment plants developed within the AR or
RB zoning districts within Article Eight (8) Section 8.8.3.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Zoning Officer recommends that the Board
1. Receive the proposed amendments,
2. Conduct the Public Hearing,
3. Receive any and all comments on the proposal, and
4. Refer the amendment package to the Planning Board for review and comment with a
request that a recommendation be submitted no latter than August 19, 2008
~aQA ~oo8•a~,'l
Pf1 ~- l~~-toof~
~~
Commissioner Foushee said that there is only one public hearing scheduled, and there
needs to be at least one more public hearing.
Chair Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Foushee. He said that Ruby Sinreich makes
an excellent point and that the County should model the behavior that it wishes to support and
should provide opportunities for all municipal boards to comment on the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Jacobs thanked everyone involved in the creation of this document. He suggested
that the document say that it is printed on recycled paper. He also suggested putting the
document on a CD so that searching within it would be really simple. Regarding word usage, he
suggested that someone look at the difference between "more than" and "over" and "less" and
"fewer" in dealing with quantities, because they are not interchangeable. Also, the City of
Durham is "it" and not "who." Also, Durham Technical Community College prefers to be called
.Durham Technical Community College; and interchanging "manufactured housing community"
and "mobile home parks" would be easier.
Commissioner Gordon agreed with having more time to digest this. She suggested
working with the Planning Board and staff to adjust the timeline rather than trying to craft it
tonight.
Jay Bryan said that, on behalf of the Planning Board, it is ready to hear from the County
Commissioners about their thoughts. He suggested that the Commissioners should have a
work session or two before there is more public comment.
Chair Jacobs said that the County Commissioners break on June 24th, and they could
consider two weeks in June where there are not two meetings. A work session could be
scheduled during one of those two weeks.
Commissioner Nelson suggested that it would probably take two work sessions, one in
June and one after the second public hearing.
Judith Wegner said that the Planning Board has been having almost weekly meetings
and the reality is that the Planning Board will change significantly soon.
Michelle Kempinski echoed Judith Wegner's comments and said that the Planning Board
has been having many meetings.
Renee Price said that she would like instructions and direction from the Commissioners
as to the revisions that are going to be made. There have been goal changes suggested by the
public, and she would like direction on whether the goals will be changed.
Larry Wright said that the transportation objectives are not in the current draft. Tom
Altieri said that they are referenced in the Comprehensive Plan and are included in the
appendices.
Geof Gledhill suggested that the Board adjourn this public hearing to the next public
hearing on August 25~' and keep the public hearing open. The County Commissioners can hold
work sessions in the interim and invite the Planning Board to participate.
Chair Jacobs suggested that the Board make it a point to finish the business in one work
session.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
adjourn the public hearing to be reconvened at the next Quarterly Public Hearing on August 25,~
2008.
Commissioner Gordon added a friendly amendment to the motion to instruct staff to
work with the Planning Board and others to develop a new timeline and also that the public be
notified of the BOCC Work Session.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: REVIEW of a proposed ordinance amendment to
Article Six (6) Section 6.20.1 Large Ground Absorption System (3, 000 gallons per
day) and Package Treatment Plants Prohibited in AR Districts and Rural Buffer
Districts clarifying the type of projects that are required to obtain a Special Use
Permit or Planned Development approval for a proposed ground absorption system
that has a design capacity over 3,000 gallons per day of sanitary sewage disposal.
Purpose: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Michael Harvey said that staff was reviewing several different projects, one of which was
proposing a large ground absorption system over 3,000 gallons per day. One of the concerns
was that the existing ordinance was too vague. The County Attorney was also concerned that
there was a compliance issue because the County cannot issue itself an SUP. The purpose of
this amendment is to add language specifically referencing the section that the County will have to
adhere to: Also, the amendment will spell out that this requirement does not cover County
projects.
Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about the language, which were
answered by Michael Harvey.
Jay Bryan asked if there was any opportunity for public comment. Michael. Harvey said
that through the site plan review process, public comment will be accepted.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to 6.20.1 and said that the third line should say
"Orange County Government" instead of just "government." She also urged the .Planning Board to
track all of this through to see if what is in section 8.8.3 is adequate to substitute for the special
use process.
No public comment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
refer the amendment package to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request that
a recommendation be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners no later than August 19,
2008.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5. Sign Ordinance: REVIEW of a proposed ordinance amendment(s) seeking to
establish specific criteria governing the size, location, and number of permitted signs
that can be located within:
a. Parks, Public and Non-Profit (P14);
b. Recreational Facilities, Non-Profit (S34);
c. Recreational Facilities, Golf Course (S35); and
d. Recreational Facilities, Profit (36)
land uses per Article 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses of the Orange Gounty Zoning
Ordinance.
Pu ose: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Michael Harvey said that staff has been working with Orange County Parks and
Recreation to address sign needs. Given the fact that the Orange County Zoning Ordinance,
especially in residential districts, establishes a four square foot limitation on all signage, as part of
the comprehensive sign package, staff had proposed an overhaul to the existing regulations to
establish specific sign standards to govern the development and location of signs within Parks
and Recreation facilities.
The biggest distinction between the two proposals (Article 9 and the Economic
Development District Design Manual} is that Article 9 stiN proposes to maintain a limit on free-
standing pole-mounted signs at 20 square feet. In the EDD Design Manual, there is no limitation
technically on the square footage of afree-standing or apole-mounted sign, which they are
recommending to be 32 square feet. The plan is to recommend 32 square feet when there is a