Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-22-2010 APPROVED 4/6/2010 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING February 22, 2010 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, February 22, 1010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford and members May Becker, Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Pete Hallenbeck, Tommy McNeill, Earl McKee, Jeffrey L. Schmitt, and Larry Wright PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Mark Marcoplos, Judith Wegner, and Rachel Phelps Hawkins A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Foushee called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM and asked everyone to observe the public charge. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Zoning Ordinance and Atlas Amendment and Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Text and Map Amendment: To receive public comments on proposed text amendments to Section 4.2.27 (Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) and Article 22 (Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 5 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan— Land Use Element. Application of the revised text will result in changes to the Zoning Atlas and Land Use Element Map. The purpose of the amendments is to: A. Revise the Watershed Protection Overlay Districts pertaining to "Critical Area." B. Revise and add definitions pertaining to watersheds, critical area, and water supply reservoirs. C. Use best available technology to map written descriptions of Watershed Critical Areas. D. Correct general typographical errors in Section 4.2.27. Planning Director Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation and made an introduction of the notices. He said that for the people that received a post card, there will be no changes to their land. Of the other people that were noticed, about 300 people were notified that they could be potentially included in the new critical area and about 300 people were notified that they would be excluded based on the new definition. Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area Amendments Quarterly Public Hearing February 22, 2010 What's Being Proposed? - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments o Criteria used to designate Critical Area o Definitions - Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments o Ensure consistency - Zoning Atlas (map) and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map Amendments o Depiect new definitions/criteria with a redefined overlay map Why Change? - Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan calls for re-evaluation of Seven Mile Creek area - Zoning Ordinance Text and Atlas need to match o Present Atlas does not match text in some areas o Can lead to disputes - Potential reservoirs protected in 1994 are no longer suggested - Focused economic development growth areas Proposed Criteria - Based on straight-line distances: o From normal pool elevations of reservoirs (Class I and Class II) o From centerline of third order and higher streams for a specified distance - Excludes areas designated as "Transition Areas" (i.e., growth areas) on the Comprehensive Plan Land use Element Map Rationale for Change - Town of Hillsborough has built its West Fork reservoir. Future Phase II is permitted - No plans by Town or County for additional reservoirs so delete language - Clarify that there are State-Required and County-Designated Critical Areas (same regulations— density, lot size, impervious surface) - Removes from "critical Area" designation lands in Efland area designated for growth/economic development Why Change? (continued) - Continue to protect: o Water quality o Headwaters o Fragile water supply o Groundwater resources o Aquatic environments - Remove text-map Conflicts Applying Proposed Criteria - Results in: o Some areas being removed from County-Designated Critical Area (-1,154 acres) • (change from "Critical Area" to "Protected") o Some areas being included in County Designated Critical Area (+2,274 acres) • (change from "Protected" to "Critical Area") o Net increase in Critical Area of 8% (1,120 acres) • Critical Area is approximately 14,000 acres o Entire Upper Eno watershed contains 38,500 acres Differences Between "Protected" and "Critical Area" - Most significant differences are: o Maximum Density • Critical Area: 1 unit per 2 acres (sometimes not achievable due to soil limitations and septic requirements) • Protected Area: generally 1 unit per 1 acre (but often not achievable) o Impervious Surface Limits • Critical Area: 6% and/or Sliding Scale • Protected Area: 12% o Table is Attachment 8 of packet Countywide Impervious Surface Limits A surface composed of any material which impedes or prevents the natural infiltration of water into the soil. Such surfaces include all concrete, asphalt, and gravel surfaces. These include, but are not limited to, streets and parking areas, sidewalks, patios, and structures which cover the land. Property Values/Taxes - Taxes based on property values - Property values based on market values o Determined by Tax Administration Department Public Outreach - Website up and running February 5, 2010 - Public Information Meeting held February 17, 2010 (approximately 75 attendees) Required Public Notification - In accordance with Zoning Ordinance: o Legal ad in newspapers o Notices mailed to affected property owners (approximately 665) o Notices mailed to property owners within 500 feet of affected properties (approximately 1,010) o Signs posted in strategic areas of affected areas (40 signs) Recommendation - Receive proposal - Conduct public hearing and accept comment - Refer to Planning Board for recommendation in time for the June 1, 2010 BOCC meeting - Adjourn public hearing until June 1, 2010 in order to receive and accept planning Board's recommendation (any comments after tonight must be in writing) Commissioner Nelson arrived at 7:18 PM. PUBLIC COMMENT: Shu-Fai Fung has property in this area. He said that he wants Hillsborough to be his future home. He is concerned about the market value of his property if this is approved. He is worried about whether he can resell his land if the impervious area is limited. He asked about the 12% ratio. Craig Benedict said that with this particular land, he could go to 11%. David Turner said that he has property—over 3 %2 acres—that is in the protected area, but it is to be transferred to the critical area. He said that the road easements that his neighbors use to get in and out of their property will be countered against the 6% limit that applies to his lot. He thinks that they should be applied to the 6% limit of the neighbor's lots. Craig Benedict said that if there are roadway easements that were part of a minor subdivision, sometimes in the language of the subdivision it says, "where the impervious area is assigned." He said that he would have to look at the roadway easements to see if there could be a transfer of shared impervious surface. Ben Lloyd said that Orange County has 18,000 acres of land in the critical area, which has no public water or sewer, no commercial, and no industrial activity. He said that the intent is to protect the water supply and he supports this. He has been on the Orange-Alamance Water Board for 40 years and he is Secretary and Treasurer of the board. He said that Orange- Alamance Water is noted throughout the State in having the cleanest, best-drinking water in the State of North Carolina. He said that some of these areas are identified as the most potential areas in the State for good economic development, which is needed in Orange County. He owns some of this property in the critical area and he supports some of the changes that have been made, but not all of them. He pointed out an area on the map around Eno River. He said that the water flows away from the river and some consideration needs to be given to the way the water flows rather than the way the crow flies. He also made reference to a three-acre tract around the Efland exit, which is in the proposed critical area, but the water from there flows out of the critical area. He thinks that this should be removed from the critical area. He suggested that the County use the stream flow rather than the half mile, and also, in the critical area, if water and sewer is available, some development should be allowed because the water is much more protected with water and sewer than with septic tanks. Gordon Brown said that his farm is bordered on the north side by West Ten Road and on the east by Mt. Willing Road. He said that his involvement began in 1970 when the stakes were driven on his farm. He said that for the last 40 years, they have been in a state of some uncertainty as to what would happen to this land. He said that he has tried to be a good citizen about it. He said that it appears that there will not be a reservoir on this land. He asked the County Commissioners and Planning Board to let it go and to not impose the proposed regulations upon the land. He said that the water quality critical area that is there should be released. He said that the four-mile stretch along West Ten Road has become an area for intense development, such as the proposed Buckhorn Village, Gravelly Hill Middle School, and the soccer park. He said that Orange County should not be wed to the planning concepts of yesteryear. He thinks that the Planning staff has the knowledge and the guidance to get to where the County needs to go. He disagrees that you cannot run water and sewer within the water quality critical area. Bob Lee said that he is concerned with where the County is going to get water in the future. Lake Orange was dry two years ago. He suggested coming up with some more water to supply the economic development zone other than Lake Orange. Bill Few owns about 37 acres on the east side of Dimmocks Mill Road. He said that his plan has always been to ultimately develop this land as a residential subdivision. He said that, listening to the proposed regulations, he is overwhelmed by the impact of the implementation of these regulations in this area. He said that the 6% impervious surface limits will render his property totally undevelopable from an economic standpoint. He made reference to a research paper that he came across that indicated that residential lots developed between %2 acre and 1 acre have a range of 13-16% of impervious surfaces. The paper also indicated that there has to be over 10% impervious surface before there is any measurable impact on water quality. He said that it seems that the proposed 6% impervious surface is unreasonable and unnecessary. Joe Phelps asked if a house burned down if it would be able to be built back as the same size that it was before it was changed into this new designation. He also asked what would happen if there is a fuel leak or a chemical spill. He said that there are no plans and this needs to be considered rather than changing a small area. Jeremy Browner is currently not an Orange County resident or landowner, but he has property under contract in Orange County. He agreed with the comments about economic development. He said that 1-85 is the best hope for the future for economic development. He said that another million people are going to be moving into the Triangle area in the next 10-15 years. North Carolina is the fourth fastest growing state in the country. He said that closing this off with this regulation is not allowing Orange County to grow the way it should be. He said that Orange County has to be able to raise its commercial tax base. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if there was input from Hillsborough or Orange-Alamance Water on these designations. Craig Benedict said that staff has communicated with the Town of Hillsborough and the Town Board would like to provide some comments. There has been dialogue over the last few years with Orange-Alamance Water about protecting Corporation Lake and the direction for future water sources. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 1, 2010 BOCC regular meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the public hearing until June 1, 2010 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the quarterly public hearing at 8:18 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board