Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19910826 APPROVED 9-17-91 MINUTES QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 26, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners held a Quarterly Public Hearing with the Orange County Planning Board on Monday, August 26, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , Vice-Chairman Stephen Halkiotis and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Verla Insko (arrived at 9:25) and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Betty Eidenier and members Paul Hoecke, William Waddell , Dan Eddleman, D. Kent Scott, Clinton Burklin, Virginia Boland, Amanda Carol Cantrell and Larry Reid. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planners, Gene Bell , Mary Scearbo and David Stancil . A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Moses Carey, Jr. deleted Item C2 - Special Use Permit for the Green Hill Bed & Breakfast has been deleted from the agenda. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey read the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1 . PROPOSED STATE WATERSHED CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This was presented by David Stancil . In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed State watershed classifications and development standards. The Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989 requires each local government in the state to protect water supply watershed, at a minimum, to the level of new standards adopted by the Environmental Management Commission [EMC] . The EMC has proposed preliminary classifications for each of the 11 water supply watersheds that are completely or partially within the county's boundaries. The classifications as proposed by the EMC were illustrated on a map and described by Planner David Stancil . Recent legislation in the N.C. General Assembly has delayed the final classification of watersheds until July 1 , 1992. A series of public hearings on the classifications and standards were held in mid-August by the EMC. The hearing for jurisdictions in the Triangle region occurred on August 15, 1991 . Although the hearings have been concluded, the EMC is accepting written comment as part of the hearing process until October 31 , 1991 . In addition, the EMC has indicated that it will hold a second public hearing (currently unscheduled) for the Triangle region prior to October 31 . The hearing process that closes on October 31 may offer the only chance for local governments to request different classifications and standards for watersheds than those proposed. As such, A staff report was presented to the Board of Commissioners on August 5 that: 1 . Identified the classification of each watershed as proposed by the EMC; 2. Compared existing and proposed development standards applicable in each watershed; 3. Identified issues of both regional and watershed- specific importance; and 4. Listed possible alternative actions to those proposed by the EMC and adjoining local governments. The report was presented to the Planning Board at its July 15, 1991 meeting. Comments were provided by the Planning Board in the form of a "Summary of Recommendations" (copy attached) . THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Nancy Mueller spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters. She indicated that the Leagues believes that protecting the source of the water supply is the most economical and effective way to protect the quality of the water. They support the Critical Watershed designation for University Lake as well as rules on wastewater discharges and limits on development densities. They also support the new rules proposed for agriculture in WS-1 watersheds and WS-11 Critical Areas. A copy of her statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Lois Herring spoke on behalf of Orange Water and Sewer Authority. She indicated that OWASA supports standards which promote the protection rather than degradation of our water. A copy of this statement in its entirety is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Ed Harrison, a resident of Chapel Hill and a member of the North Carolina Sierra Club, requested support for a strong statewide water supply protection program. He asked specifically that the Critical Area designation be strengthened and protected. He also requested that Orange County take whatever action is necessary to control agricultural pollution. Barry Jacobs commended Orange County Government for once again taking the time to involve its citizens in the governmental process. He asked that the Eno River Basin receive a more restrictive classification than the WS-4 that the State is proposing. If, in fact, the classification is going to be changed it must be done only after careful planning. Marty Mandell , a Carrboro property owner, thanked the Board of Commissioners for their willingness to protect the area drinking water. She presented a petition containing 150 names in support of HB-156 and the proposed WS-2 classification of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. This petition also supports recognition of the entire University Lake Watershed as a critical area. She requested that the Public Hearing remain open in order to receive comments from citizens who were unable to attend this meeting. Bobby Nichols spoke on behalf of Hillsborough Savings and Loan. In response to his question, David Stancil indicated that the State has made provisions to allow non-conforming uses to continue on a case by case basis. He indicated that he personally supports the minimum State requirements. Ellie Kinnaird spoke in favor of keeping the watershed standards high. She mentioned that Orange County is still in a position to avoid the serious problems that many parts of the world are now facing and she emphasized the importance of making the necessary decisions to protect the water. Billy Ray indicated that he wanted to be fairly compensated for any land that the county took as a result of these watershed restrictions. Ben Lloyd indicated that the county was overregulated which was making it impossible to run a profitable dairy farm. He was against the higher standards. Louis Cheek indicated that his land is located at the headwaters of Morgan Creek which is the main stream which flows into University Lake. He indicated that his land has been a dairy farm since 1925 and he believes that the cow manure filters out of the water before it reaches the lake. He asked that the regulations be made with the farmer in mind. John Kent, a member of the New Hope Audobon Society, indicated that he supported stricter standards for the water. He thanked the Board of Commissioners for their willingness to address this issue. Commissioner Carey entered a Resolution from the Town of Chapel Hill encouraging the designation of University Lake as a Critical Water Supply Watershed with recommendations regarding standards to be developed after discussion and study. He also entered comments from Allen Spalt to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on proposed amendments to rules for surface water supply watersheds. Both of these documents are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Dan Eddelman indicated that the 10 foot buffer and the possibility of building water management structures seem to be the major issues for the farmers. He asked for clarification from those in disagreement with these regulations as to what exactly they see as the problem. Ben Lloyd indicated that these regulations would require building a fence around the stream and pumping the water to the cows. He believes this is an impractical solution. Commissioner Willhoit asked if a fence would be required only in the water quality critical area of WS-II . David Stancil indicated that there are two provisions and that neither of the two provisions would by themselves require fence around the streams. They both apply in critical areas of the watershed in WS-2 and WS- 3 categories. Commissioner Gordon asked if there would be circumstances which would require a landowner to fence off a stream and pump water out to another area. The staff will research this question and forward a written reply to the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Willhoit also indicated that we need to point out to the State that if the farmers are to bear any of this burden it would put them at an economic disadvantage with the farmers in areas which are not required to follow these practices. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to hold the Public Hearing open to receive written comment until September 13th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS a. SUP-1-91 GREEN HILL BED & BREAKFAST This item was deleted from the Agenda. 3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. News/Used Car Sales - Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment in the Table of Permitted Uses to allow car sales in industrial districts. A citizen request was made to allow a specific parcel of land located within an industrial district to be operated as a car sales business. Car sales are currently not permitted in any industrial district. The Orange County Economic Development Commission has been contacted and are not opposed to the request. The proposed amendment would allow car sales within all industrial districts (EI , I1 , I2, I3) . QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon asked why the Ordinance was not originally drawn up as it is currently worded. Betty Eidiener indicated the EDC stated that industrial areas usually have a higher use. The current proposed use is a lower one. However, this particular use falls around the boarder between the two and a case could be made for either use. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Efficiency Apartments - Article 22 Definitions This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the definition of an efficiency apartment to clarify that a mobile home may be considered an efficiency apartment. On August 6, 1990, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance definition amendment which allows greater flexibility in the location of an efficiency apartment. An efficiency apartment may be attached or detached provided that the requirements found in the definition of "Efficiency Apartment" are met. The definition states that the unit must comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code. However, it was not the intent of the original amendment to allow only "stick- built" dwelling units but, rather, all types of dwelling units. By definition, this includes mobile homes and modular units. (Mobile homes and modular units must comply with the State of North Carolina Regulations for Manufactured/Mobile homes. ) The Proposed amendment adds the proper technical reference needed to accomplish the original intent of the Ordinance. QUESTIONS AND OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon requested that the language be clarified. She indicated that "efficiency apartment" has a certain meaning which confuses the reader in this context. She also suggested that staff review the entire Zoning Ordinance to assure that it is not contradictory as a result of changes which have been made. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Density Bonuses ( 1 ) Article 6.27 - Affordable Housing (2) Article 7 - Planned Developments This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In Summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment which would allow application of density bonus provisions for affordable housing to all residential development projects. In May, 1990, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow a density increase of up to 50% for developments which reserve a percentage of the units for occupancy by low or moderate income households. At this time, the density bonus provisions apply only to Planned Developments. Recent legislation provides the authority for Orange County to extend the provisions to all developments subject to the Zoning Ordinance. The bonus provisions could then be applied to Site Plans, Special Use Permits, and Subdivisions. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, OR PLANNING BOARD None. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. Jeff Peloquin asked if other concessions could be made for affordable housing, such as a leniency in the area of building permits, where the housing could be located, or to downsize the lot size. A motion was made b y Commissioner sio er Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Vested Rights ( 1 ) Article 8.4. 11 - Time Limits on Special Uses (2) Article 8.8 a) - Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses (3) Article 8.8.27 - Site Specific Development Plans (4) Article 14.3.2 - Site Plan Review (5) Article 22 - Definitions This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented, in conjunction with item 4(a) , to receive citizen comment. See 4 (a) for the presentation and motion. 4. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Vested Rights ( 1 ) Section 11 - Definitions (2) Section III- D-2 Preliminary Plan Approval This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary these provisions were presented to receive citizen comment for the vesting of property rights as required by Senate Bill 776, ratified July 22, 1990. Senate Bill 776 provides that local governments establish ordinance provisions pertaining to the point at which property rights become vested. The provisions of Senate Bill 776 go into effect on October 1 , 1991 . Currently„ the right to complete a development, even if zoning regulations change, is vested when a building permit is issued. The project remains vested for as long as the building permit remains valid. A development may also be vested if there have been "substantial expenditures" made in good-faith reliance on an a approved permit. The new vesting legislation is in addition to this current law, and requires that a vested right be established for at least 2 years upon the approval , after a public hearing, of a "Site Specific Development Plan" . A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Payments in Lieu of Dedications-Section IV-B-7-b-6 This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations regarding the use of funds received from payments made in lieu of recreation dedication. The North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 153A-331 (a) describes the contents and requirements of a county's subdivision control ordinance. Effective June 10, 1991 , this Section, as applicable to Orange County, was amended to allow the County to develop recreation areas using funds received from subdividers who make payments in lieu of dedicating land for recreation. Previously, the County could only acquire land with payment-in-lieu funds, by not developing the recreation area with monies from the same source. The proposed amendment to Section IV-B-7-b-6 will include development of recreation areas as a use for funds received from payments made in lieu of dedication. A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Chair Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING FEES (a) Re-Approval of Expired Subdivision Plats (b) Site Plan Approval - Non-Residential Projects ( 1 ) Plans Requiring Certification (2) Plans Not Requiring Certification This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented in order to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Planning Fee Schedule to include fees for the re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats and Site Plan Review. Re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats was presented for public hearing on May 28, 1991 . At the public hearing the Board of Commissioners requested that fees be established for the process which reflect the County's cost for processing applications. The recommended fee is $60.00. The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1989 to establish application requirements and review and approval procedures for Site Plans. No fees were established. It is recommended that a fee of $117 .00 be considered for site plans which require certification by a surveyor, architect, landscape architect or engineer, and $60.00 for those which do not require certification. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 7th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on September 3rd in the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chairman Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk