HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2008-103 - Zoning Ord Amendment Section 6.20.1 to Address Using Large Ground Absorption SystemORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 21, 2008
~~
Action Agenda
Item No. ~- - n
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Sections 6.20 and 6.20.1 to Address Approval
Requirements for County Projects Using Large Ground Absorption Systems
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) NO
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Table of Contents
2. Proposed Ordinance Amendment
(Text Additions are in Underlined Text
and Deletions are in Strike-through
Text)
3. County Attorney Letter - Outlining
Issues Associated with the County
Issuing Itself an SUP and Relevant
Court Cases
4. JPA Review Comments from the
Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill
5. May 19, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing
Minutes
6. Planning Board Minutes -July 9 arid
September 3, 2008
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict 245-2592
Michael D. Harvey 245-2607
PURPOSE: To take action on a proposed amendment to 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').
BACKGROUND: This item was heard at the May 19, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing and
discussed at the July 9 and September 3, 2008 Planning Board meetings. The amendment
relates to the process Orange County projects are required to follow if proposing a large ground
absorption system. Originally all applicants were required to submit to a Special Use Permit
(SUP) process. However, the attorney's office notes case law preventing this review system for
County projects. Therefore, County projects with large ground absorption systems are
proposed to be permitted by right with the associated review process in Article 14 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
At the July 9, 2008 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested the following additional
information on this proposed amendment:
a
1. The Board wanted to review the court case, cited by the Attorney's office, that was the
basis for suggestion the amendment in the first place.
Staff Note -Please refer to Attachment Three (3) for this information
2. The Board wanted more time to review the possible ramifications of the proposed
amendment on limiting the amount of public comment that occurs on County projects
using Large Ground Absorption Systems.
Upon receipt of the requested information, the Planning Board determined that the amendment
was necessary to address identified legal issues associated with the County issuing itself a
SUP, specifically:
1. Recent court cases have questioned the legal ability of a governing body to issue itself a
SUP as there is a concern over the ability of the members to make an unbiased decision
on the evidence presented at the quasi judicial hearing,
2. The two (2) boards that are responsible for reviewing and approving SUP projects are
open to criticism on their ability to conduct a fair hearing and render an impartial decision
due to the County, or a County department, being the applicant,
PLANNING BOARD .RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board voted unanimously at its
September 3, 2008 meeting to recommend approval of the proposed amendment.
In addition, the Planning Board requested a comprehensive set of rules and procedures be
established for County projects using Large Ground Absorption Systems (see Minutes in
Attachment 6).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Ordinance amendment has been reviewed by various County
departments who have determined its approval will not create the need for additional funding.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
2. Close the Public Hearing, and
3. Take action to approve the amendment.
4. Direct the Planning Board to add to its work plan for the coming year (to be reviewed by
the BOCC) the aforementioned development of a comprehensive set of rules and
procedures for County projects using Large Ground Absorption Systems.
~~{ac~.wt,en ~ ~-.
3
AGENDA ITEM,=~
REVIEW of AMENDMENT of Section 6.20 and 5.20.1 of the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance to address approval requirements for
County projects using Large Ground Absorption Systems
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Attachment Two (2) -Proposed Ordinance Amendment:
Attachment Three (3} - t_etter from Attorney
Attachment Four (4) -Responses from Town(s) of
Chapel Hill and Carrboro on proposal:
Attachment Five (5) -May 19, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing
Minutes
Attachment Six (6) - Jufy 9 and September 3, 2008 Planning
Board Minutes
Pages 4 through 5
Pages 6 through 18
Pages 19 through 23
Pages 24 through 26
Pages 27 through 34
,nt 2
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 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 System (3,000 seals. per
day) and Packaoe Sewage Treatment Plants
'` Amended Prohibited in AR Districts and Rural Buffier
Districts: Exceptions
*g.20.1 Ground absorption systems with a design capacity of
3,000 gallons per day= or more, and package treatment
* Amended other than
plants systems for sanitary sewage disposal,
• ,
those to be used for Orange County govemment
4!411988 facilities and Orange County govemment office
1 1 buildings. are expressly prohibited in the ~
Agricultural Residential (AR) Zoning dDistricts and in
the Rural Buffer (RB} Zoning Districts
except as may be
approved through a Special Use Permit as provided in
Article Eight (8) and Section 8.8.3. and/or as may be
approved as part of a Planned Development District.
All such systems, including those to be used for
Orange County govemment facilities and Orange
County govemment office buildings. shall meet all
State and Orange County Health laws.. rules and
regulations. •
5
Upon motion of Commissioner •
seconded by Commissioner • the
foregoing Zoning Oniinance amendments were adopted this the day
of , 2008 and shall become effective upon adoption.
gonna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
hment Three (3): Courtly Attorney letter -Outlining issues • •
sstxiated with the County issuing itseff a SUP and relevant court
aces
..._ w......
COLLMAI~i, G7~HILL, HAIZ~(3RAVE & PEEK
APREA~PiALCORPiWtA170N
1798.'l3tYaN ~r
Y.Q>~AQ1E~ tSI4
~. A)Ol<i1lCe~i.B~Lt 2?2715
919.73L21%
FAX41!-73L799?
rrMarrt~aM~oolt
March 13, 2008
ivtr_ Craig B~slexiitYt, Plaumulg Dzrector
Osatlge Canmiy Planning Dot
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsbaxough, NC 27278
13e: Respo~nst: To Solid Wsste Management Fa~- Lot~ttton Teener
Dear Craig:•
191DK'1'e~DE6~CF
ffitiAN tut. Fl3>~.L
Geof and I have riwiewod tha dncwnsnt prepared by ywr o£~ce titled, "Solid Waste
Mauagemettt Faa~ity I.aotion Issues" {tlxs "l.'larmin8 Analysis'. The Planning Analysis
identifies six (t7 plarming altert:atives ava~.abl¢ to the County related to the zoning approval of a
County solid waste transfer amity {"SW'"1'F"} within Orange County. This let•~r aontsius our
response to the~PIanning Analysis.
~V'e would be f1x general agreement with tha alternatives c~taintxl. within the Planning
Anallsis if Orange County was not the applicant fur the SW'1'F. However, is an important
distincxioa is the zoning rtsgnlations applicable to a private entity locating a S~V'TR, or other solid
waste ~ disposal l'acEity, wifl~i~a the County, and the Cauuty looting that same facility. The
distins~iatt is based on the fact that ~e governmend, in this t,:t~ the County, is and always will
be acoauntable to its citi~ns m its'deCisions regarding the location nerd aperatYOr1 of government
faca7itiea and gKrvtmtment b~dings. .
Section 43 of the Zoning C~mance; the `~etmittsd. Use Table" makes all
`•Qov+enmm~rtal Fact~ities & Office Buiidiogs" ~ utter ~ most of the zquirtg disttit~s
within the Co~ subject o~aly to Site Plan nwieuv and approval as prescribed itt Amide 14 of
the Zoning Ordinaaca. Only the BC 5, E-1 and A.8 districts do mot include t3otal
Facdities and f>ffice Building,~t as petmitted ust«s.Z
' Seotiaa 4.1 of the Zolxing 0ldimaace a list of twelves (i~ land uses that are permitted as a zn o£rIght
i11 ~ utiniag . Number ] 1 as timt list is, "(s]olid waste oollecdasi ovvaed and aperatiad by a public
agency for the purpose of d;eposai of hoasellold wants by tea Count}- residents." It is not clear m us that t<
SW1F Sts wkthia flea plain mealsin$ o£ a "solid waste oolkc~wl faciT3ty " ~ 111e list of 7 districts
pac>aittiag th4 ioc~ou of a ~ Faciltty i9 abzbost as inclusive as an zo~g districts, it is oat rrmcessary m
ac~svicer the c~es~rnt of w1>aE~ a solid waste collactioai facility includes a SWTF.
t The ~D Maaoual and the H171sbomugh Aran EDD design soanunt Lave tbeir owaPesmutitad Use Tables.
aGovem~i ~ and otHce btliidwgs" ace permitted uses i1t both dcsi$a Ms7laals, subject tc design
standards sad related appo~ovats also cones is the Msnnsls. .
tt
1
_ Mr. Craig Bet~ct -,.
Page 2 ''
March 13, 2008
A `5plaiu meaning" analysis of the term "governmental i~rlities" indicates #ha# a SW"I'F
is a gAveamnea~tal faa7ityr pursuant to fire Section 43 of San Zoning Ordinances Webstex's
defines the noun °`govearsrnetrt" as fire orgenizatiort, nY, or agcy' through which a
political tarot exercises autis~tity and parBomas fiurctions atut whidr is usuali`y classified
accor~dia$ to the distn'butioa of paver within it_" Webstm's defines a "facility" as, "something
(as a hospital) that: is bunt; installed, or establis&ed to serve a parEirular p~upose" Clearly a
SWTF, built and operated. by the County for the parpose of collecting and then tra~usfearing ~e
Qvaste generated by Ccrarrty utizens rA another disposal fsa'lity, fits within the plain meaning of
the tnrm "govewme~al. fadlit3-." Smtilarly, given the con~ruct of the glirase, "Clovernmental
Facilities & Office dings" (empPhasis added), the~e.i~s no basis to oonehide that ~t~e term
"office building'' modifies or limits the farm "goveaYmnental facilities" or vice versa
It is, 8ierefore, our opinion that a Carroty SW`1'F is a gvveammeutal facrlity and. can be
looted in any zoning district within the Comity's planning jurisdiction (other than EC-5, &~1 and
AS) as a permitted use is acxorda~ace witb use "P24" of Section 4.3 of the Permitted Use Table
of the Toning Ordinance and the relevant EDD Design Manuals.
P~uther, there is a canc~ptuai probl~aa with an interpretation~of the Permitted Use Table
that requires or would require an Grange County btrilding or Orange County facility ba have a
Class A special use permit. A n~ for BOCC approval of a Special Use Permit for use by
Orange County of ifs land renders all land within 4raags Cotmty,'s planning jurisdidion
unavailable for a Cwnty use•regniring scecdr a permit.
In a case upholding Mecklenburg County's approval of a zoning permit (nit a Board of
Commissioner approved special use permit) for a Mecklenburg County sanitary landfill by the
C,haz'lotin-Ivtoakleanburg Zoning Administrator, the North Carolina Supreme Court wrotie as
fellows:
Due Process requires art ifipartial decirtonmaek~:. .
Additional oonsidearrttons beyond these, f inanclal
int~eresxs t~guire nonparticipation in quasi judtclal '
zbni~tg dectaians A fixed oprnio~t that is not
susceptible to change may well cotrrtKute imperrtt~tssibls
bias. as will undisclv-sed ex pane aommunirxrtion or a
close frrmitial or business relationship with the appiicartr
The County of LarLCaster, South line v Mec~errb~re Countt.~ 334 N.C. 49b (1993)
(cltatrons omitfied). Mecklenbuug County had previwsly required all sanitary landfills to receive
a special use pamitt. That roquiremaxt was held, ir} an earlier cozut challenger to it, tD violate the
due process reginrements cited above. Id, 336 N.C. at 500-503. The Cauit's balding, with regard
a "rf 9~ wards of a atata~e ace ptain.amd m~ombigeovay dtie avert nxd loak~ fhcther."
r.~`~ ~ V
~t•~
i~ _ ' ,
Wing DGUWiCf
Page 3 .
Marc~.13, 2{)08 .
to the d~ provass rogaiteo-eats cs#ed above, is they are less la'~y to "Dome iuGo play what
adYmnisixative zar~ deci~sians are made since these involve the d~nvnatian of objective fads
witi~rt as element of disc~ion " Id., 336 N.C. at 51 }.-12
In the sitaatioia at hand, the $oard of t:omrrrissia~rs is seaming as the commitrse of the
wlmle in xegards tb tbdt selection of a site far the 1oc:atlon of ~ 3WI'F. If a special use pe'cmit
weae required i~ iho 3WTF, the County would be requixcd' to apply to the Board of
Commi~ioners Sar appa~oval of a special use patmit on ffie very same site that the Board satecteal.
'Phis special use permit approval parocess wan~ld require aquasi-judicial hearing and the exeacase
by ~e Board of (7e~mmissioners of discxetiou. Tl-e Board would not be art "ial
dec~$ioa~maker" because the Board wauld be called upon to appravc a special use permit on a sate
that the Board. hacl itself selected. T"h in ear opinioA, there can be no oonstracx of drango
County Zo~ung~gegulations reguiri~gg the Board of County Conuuissioners to approve a special
use permit for ~e Coua~ty SWTC or for eery other County budding ~ CouutY tY•
Cfiveu the plain language and intent of the Zoning thdinance, it is our opinion tl~t a
SoG'fF station can be located anywhere within the County that govermnental fadlities and
govexma~eantal off ce buddings are permitted pursuant to Line P?A of ffie Permitted Use Table end
-iii any of the BDDs as prescribed in the Permitted Use Tables of die E~3D Manuals, subject to au
Site Plan and E3~D Manual emits and permits as applicable.
s~x~as.
CQLEMAM, GL$DHI~.L, H~ZCtR.A~, & PEEK, P.C.
cc: Leiner Bladanon, County Manages i
t~ayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director
A,tnuchmet~t
~earc~ - tt it~suus - &oecla,E nse Hermit w/a cour-ty
Sw,os~ flicsor~u>>~lomii~r,m~~mec
,~ •a•a+ ~. pMeat ate weir ~t
C$.wetior Poais~ orDelp~srp
IVY lV.C. LEa1'LS 4Q3, ~'
' Ps¢C i ttf iR'Q"
tits
s^se-arlrnr....laMal~geD
~ o~i~i~
THE C OF LAI~I(`AfiTER- SOUfH CARALD4A; THE COliN1Y pF UNTONi NORTH CARbfINA; ROr3A POTYS OSBQIWE; ROBERi
8r4RR; SAIi ARDRi~ anA wlfe- JAN1E N. ARDREY; l.AllA1iA A, ICEf.I; MARrC,IE K. BdYLSfQid; Ti)CiCER X. )tIHN5061 anr! wpie- ANGE[uS
R, 7OEdtSGN Y. Mi~Kl.BISURG aDtJ1iTY, NORTH CAROLINA; THE BWIRD OF OOllN'TY C~ OFD C70UW?1--
NORTH CAROLINA- TO VY2T: !;AREA pt~UY, ROD AU'fREY, BAitB,ARA IAQCYYOOD- ROBERT 4 WAtIUit, PETER !. JOHN G.
gtACiQ~ION, and I~tEfH 4 ANDREWS: and RQBBtT L BRANDON, ZAr-ifg ~~ d ~ CaunLY, North Cata~
No. z93PA92
suPite~ oouRT ai: NoRTH cAROwu
334 N.G d96; d34 5.E.2d 644; 1993 N.C. Ll:XLS 403
7arwary i3, 1993, Heard Is1 the b'yuatne Court .
' ' . : Sepbernber 14,1993, F11M ..
P[tiOR HIS'fOR1fs [**ela Otf dtsa'stiarary rtivlevr of a decigon of the N
f 19921, teV~~ stR enOered b1/ ~on,1• .h~ tfte SuQafor Caust, m'p Cotn~y, ors 7 Jeswery 1991 and remeRdinp
tllfiPb~CYOt~ AFFittMEts,
CJtliE StiMWARY
PROf.'LDt?ttAL Ptl<S7tIREs Defendarsks, stelghbarkfg toutrty snd ks xuMrs9 amC- appealed a derision of fife Court of
Appaais (North Catvlinej, fvhieh reversed a dacislon granting wmtnary jadgrrfertt m ~var of pisinttff ootcdy and deciarkrg a iertcNpl
zotfing arri<ttartce wfaorfsttdttiottai.
t)YBiCVIE+,W: A county arxi fndhdduals fUed an aCttOrt for declaratory relief, seeWnp to.heve a nelgAborin9 7:ortkfg
ardr>artce declared tafa~ttstRs#ortal. The court of appeals t the judgment tUtding tfie ost$nanoe tmoonsgdsiianal and. on
' appeal, the Coiat atArtrteti. The court held that lire dettslon of whether tb perltrk a sat>ltary leridAU was art administretlve zonng
dec!>:torf. The esxs-rkYs grant of a app3catlort that p lire ardinartoa eounh- was an adrahfistretive g deci~asf.tfiat
ffie °~ zanin9 adm~trator aoui6 properly metoe. Tt was Trot er- ps~nrmismlbk aa'dlkt ~` Fnterest beCatsBe lire appifmnt for fife
pemdt was tfre county it9df. The same logic that vans>lttied the counq ~ to dehsgaba auttforiGy to the inning
adnfiNstral»r pa issue spacial iliac perturbs also atspported tits dedsJon that the oommFesiotfors had autifority to agow tht zoning
adrnintstramr to issue pernrRS for uses by rlplrt subject to spndat seQukemerKs. '
OUTCOa14tre The jttdgrnert nsvesshsg the An~trg the c~railty lendl111 ardMfar{ce u~ was stOrtned because K
' was a valid tegisistive pretagatlve bd dtanpe the swtHary TarrdflU use from a "apeefai awe asrsrrir' catagory~ tb a'uoe by~right
' under ps'esa'>>xd cortdidoits" CetegwY• The ot+dtnarraa- whidr aitarod the zortirfg ~ to apprtnre the ~permR appiketton for
siii~ of a Isifr~- was ooaxstltutioiral end iawNl on Its coca.
CARE TERi7~ landfi>E, zoning admirrSs4atGr, s>oMuII ordi~nat;, zonirtg- ordharfca- use per:rdt- sanitary, zordrtg dedsWry ouaei-
judlclal, aPoe- preecr~ed- kstPtTSni~bf0. cortdttiortat, psrmit appitcegon- wnxrrary jtrdginm+t, apedAed eonditlorts- dekgatlon,
issuance, tat'tdfNi pet~rt>C, soJld waste, prvmutgatsd- zordn9 disMcts- eMecttve feckS, de rfavo. pr'eVertY ownenr. pubpe hearing,
per>~ tree, P9 agency, evidesrUsrY, declaratory .
L
. IA
~~
W
W
~,
~~
~~Y Y
~~9 Y
~ SSi
~~
~gg~ Y Y
~ Y
~~~
~~~
m ~,
~~~ ~'
r
~~
~~
^~
~~
rfl+
~a
~~~
•~~~ Y Y Y
r~
~~~~
~~A Y Y
. ~ ~ Y
a
w
Y
~.
~~
.~
~.~
m
_~~~
. °~
~~
~n
~~~
d
0
P
J
d
i
N
~'
jr
~~
~.
~.
.~.
.~
.~.
.~,
a~
~~ r
p V
~~~ g yy
~~
~ ~.
v
Y
g: $ ~~.~
~~~ ~.
~ g~~
~~ ~
g~~
~~~ ~ .
~~~
A~~~
g~~$
.~$
~~
~~~ ~~~~d
~p ~
$~ ~
~~~ ~~o~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~~ .
$~
~~~
g ~- ~ ~~
;~.
~'
~~e~~.
t
~3~~
_~,
igii
~~i~
~~
~a
yyy~
Y
y Y.
~~
Y
Y y
~~
~.
.~
~~~ ~~-
~~
r
g
~~
•~.
,~.
~~
.~
f
!°
t
1
Y
.r-•
....
.~
~-~
,0
C
~y ~ ~
.< ., asstlti#( s~~ z'f
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~~~~~ ~
. ~~
. ~
~~
~~
~ -a
. g
.~' ~ ~ a
~ ~ ~
y.-t ~ ~ +
~ .~ $~ ~,
.~ ~ ~'~ .
~ ~ ~~
• P.
M eJ
~,~ ~~~ ~ ~
_~ ~ ~ ~~~
.~ ~
~ ~~~ ~ ~
a
~.~
~. ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~~
`^
a ~" ~~ ~~ ~ B 8B'
~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
Atli ~~s1.~ .]j~~~i ^+ ~ .s yy X51 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A ii . ~ .yL' 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ C ~~ . _ ~ ewe +~ !~ t~ ~~~ ~ ~ r t: n. ~.
*.y
h
ty
M
;_,~ ~~ ~~
a V17' W
~'1
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
M gr'
y T#
W ~~
~ . ~ ~gu
~ ~ S~~¢
~• ~ A W ~ iP A
~~ 8 ~
~~~ ~ ~
a~ ~~
. ~ ~~
~'~ " ~ $
ti Q
~~ . ~~
w F~
W ~ ffi
~ ~ ~~
~~ ~
~ _
$~
'r
~ a ~~.
4 _~ ~ ~
1 ~ ~~ ~
00
~~
!3'
r
a
~~ ,
~.
~~
~ R
I
i ~ ~j
' ~~
~~
:~
g
~~
~ y
~,
~' S
~¢, ~ ~ ~~ ~
$ a ~ ~ r+ ~ ~r $ V
+~ ~ ~ g
~ .
~ ~
g ~~' ~ ~ ~ p ~ Iii ~ ~ ~ ~.
~, n ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~
3 ,~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~~~ ~~~~
~~ ~~~ m~
~g~ d ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~~. ~ ~
0~ R~
~ ~ ~ ~ 9 76
~ ~ ~ ,~ s~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~
~ ~ F ~ ~~ ~ ~.$~ ~f ~ ~
'~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q
if R ~ ~C ~~ ~ ~ g
~ ~ ~~~ s~
~~a~~
~ ~ g ~~
~ ~ ' ~~~
s ~ ~ s g ~ ~ ~
m ~~
~~ ~ ~~ R
x w
~' ~' !g
o~
~~ ~
~~ ~.
~~~
~g ~.
~~
~~ ~ ~
a
~~
e~~
~~
~~ ~
~• {
.~ ~ ~ ~,.,
~ ~.
~~
~~
g
s
0
...~
-~
~:,
~~
W
N
W
to
U
g~~~
m
~~~.~
~~~
~'~
~~~~
;_ g~
~"~
;~ ~
+~~~.
n
°~
:a
Q~
.~
0
g~,
~~ag~
~~~
~~
~~
m~
~~
~~~
'~
a g..
a
~~,~ g ~~
~ g
~. ~,~~ ~
a ~ ~ i
~~ ~$
~ m ~~
~~ ~~ ~~ g~
~ ~ ~~ ~' ~
~ ~
~~
a
p ~ R Q
p ~ N p q
~ R.
~~
~ ~ ~~
~~
~ ~ ~.
d
~~ p
~~ . ~~ ~ ~
~~~~ ~ ~ ~
p
~ ~
~~~
$ ~ ~ g ~
~ ~
-~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ wit ~
o~ ~~ ra
~ ~ ~~
~ s g .~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ 88
-~~ ~~g~~g ~~~~ ~
g y, ~ a'i' ~` 2i 3 8
fa ~ i~ ~ ~ N ~ c~~~ ~~ ~ T ~~~.
i A ~ ~_~ ~~ ~~ ~
~ ~~° I ~ ~ ~ ~ Wig p~ ~-~
~ ~~° .~~ A "~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ , ~gM
~ . ~ ~ .
l ~ ~
,~~ ~md A
-~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ..try
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3 ~ ~ 3 ~ g
.~ ~
s~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~~.~.~~~
~~
~d~
~~ ~~
~~~~
. ~ ~ ~
g'.
~~a
~ ~.~~
~~
~m
~~~
~~
.~~~~~
"*
~~
.~~5~
~~~.~
~~'~ ~
~.~
~`~~g~
u
a
.i
.~
t
f~f
t
~.
~~ ~
-~ i . ~ ~ ,~
-w--_._.. g :. ~ ~
,~~,
'^ ; ~ , ~ ~
a
•1 ~~
~~ ~ ~~ ~ f ~ ~ ~.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~
• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~° .~ ~ ~
c 1~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~$ .~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~.
1 ~ ~ .~ ~
_ ~~
~ ~ t ~ ~.
.~ ~ .~
.ts~'S a 'g a +s
.8 ~ .~ ~~
t
~ ~ ~~ ~ -.
o~ ~ ~ ~
! ~ • 4
.~~ ~ s ~' ~
~~ `.~ ~ ~~
. ... .~
~_
~~
V .
..
~.
• emit _?7 Ttnanlt~x _ anwvai naos~aetnif •evlo e~nnr~tas Paoxt 1n of in jQ
~~ a pam~ beta srufr atticxr, or ttoar~ m Ire Issued wtrerr he of b ao detatNnes, as a Ihrther sonditlon pnooadetrt bo
lta: rfgfrt tD ex+eet such atrtretura in suds aros. Sack tx'~t k not one for a varfattos or depatttue froar tfis statUb6 or -
ae+dlnanoe, but k the da r~trt bq the:1 or ordhamae itself. Qttly, lire defegtRian to
such olfloer, or boaTd~~a~ M tnafas suds det>~aiaatiorr as to the erQsterroe or none>astixnae of the s'P~ed
mtrditions to not a detegetiar o! cite legtsprtlve parser to taalo6 fair.
~. ,r e~,~a ~~. rls N~~3~'_~;.tl'rf.,: r z rs 65 rtaret ' r •
tie i'~ie3~4] decfaton d ttte psnd aP the Coat of ADP baila~r held that the same bgk Mat pertrriCS the R~tmh C~ to
' delepats att}irarlly to f?re Zoate~ Adtrxnistrator to fosse spatial vas parnJes afro supborts our dadalotr tf~t tfie ~ have
Alklld'RiF b0 BIfOw ttr~ Zonltrg AdrfNafSl7a~Or Zn iiir0 pen:nits [eS33~ ttrr "rlsBi ~Y ilgftt lNb~ tII spetisi ~' We
t.~e the p9net below, rrs frotd first Cdtmty Corrrr~{onas hour autlrorfilr to at{aw the Zoning labor m issrm petntits for'utaes
bV tiger svt7~ Os special taquhernents.` _
Sumtrraty
1Na assturre standing dtlx pla~ffa arynerralo. We hold that the 3 llugrut 1996 Judgment in the tetu'~r fiti~tiotr has no etieCt 8n the
present {piprtao~ We'festtKr hold tfiat the 1 Ntay iti69 arr-~rdrrxrrt to the xpidng ortYnagce aaa~bes a vain ~ pretayallva
to drarrge the sanitary IserdflR vee tiara s ^{ rove pennB." t$begory tb a'use by right undas prescribed oondlgons' cabegary end
titatSeetiott 3iZ4 of Ms Maciddriwnp tbrprU! >'oring ar,~tatrae, whkh afloadi ttre Zonin~¢ Admlydstratartospprove the Cetart~'s
permit appRastlon far fix sitirg of a iatdtfU, is corrstlWNotra] and lawful tx-1CS face. The dedsloa [e*'t3Sj of tt-e Court of Appeals is
affltmed.
~t$t6~Raut•>yEMli~> NC t14M•Caee~ Coa1'blssd~
7wma eptUti uee ptmOtw/e wa~ttt- (6d1.~.{
vre~ fwt
D~-terrFeC 'tleaelty 6lereh 0.2006-497 Pict ~7
.~ •
t+rarnu+~ Nep~egte tremwerd fated -
®- fhas6o~V~raxs6onsdl+YdlnPtotc
~- Cee6oncPoetttlargpaeretlewYlx+t
4- Po9ltet+eeleesitlsirdeered
~, - CtlnpRtJR!'VlbAns~rstt/braaa>ia
~~ tstrbnh~fam~lonavatsWe
C~t7e m say SMpwdU tt6atlb 9wt ante.
ttllll~.°_IIHaslt i~f Iil~m~ ~ena~Ae~seorlr
~~~. { ar Ia~Alri~atcresnvdd.
h!lvJlwwvvle~cis.oomfre~ar~eve? m~8~40c535Q04351da7e1ceb95cfa069a5&doc~u... 3!6/2048
chment Four (4): JPA review comments from the ~ . •
owns of Carrboro and Chapel HiN _
70WN OF CARRBORO
wo~xrn cAROUw-
TRANSMtTTAI.. PLANNINt3 DEPARTMENT
DELNERED YxA~ ^ H~tND ^ ~bGl1L d FAX
To: Perdita IIaltx
Pram: Patricia J. McGuire, Plannfng Administrator
Date: Angust 8, 2008
Subject: Aineadment to .Osage County ZaniJng Ordinance -Large Graund
Absori-tlon Systeioos and Appllcabilify to [huge County Govermn~t
Fadlltfes snd Office Buildings. '
Thank you.for sending ~ auiendmant for xeviow. Carrlaom staffhas Meted its
review of this staffmemo and Sra$ arduoance (attached} and encourages that Orange
County's Zoning ~idinance ensure that County facs~ifie~s and office bindings excluded
franc this pcpauit requ aro subject to careful review avid the need fryr compliance
with all other operating pzmciples and policies, development regulations and. staAdards.
Please don't hesitate to let me Ia~ow if you seed any other information.
Ec: Roy WiIlifard, Plaimiag Duecfor
W
Plernd~ osparbnont. Plara4ng oturcrw+
301 VYesf Amain ~bsek Carrbora,lJC 27510 . (9i8} 918.7327 • FAX (919) 91&4454 . To01-800-826-7653
AN ELZE7AL~RTUMR7Y EMPLOYER
/t~
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING S INBPECTIONB DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Bstse~t, AICP~ Dlrectar
NtEMORANDU.M
To: L . Town of Chapel F~li Manager' .
JB. Culpepper. Town aFChapei t-lilt Pianr~ng Dear
Steven S'latn-act. Tou~m of Carroboro Manager
Roy Word. Town of Carrbora Planning Direk~or
F~~~,~~~. dib Holz. P~nrdr~g sYs~s Coor+dhrator
Date: June 25.2008
Subject; prangs CouMyZaning OrdoeText Ameruiment
TRANSMITTAL DELNERED VIA EMAIL AND LISPS
An amendrnerrt to the County's Z,ot~ng Ordinance has been proposed. The amendment is
descxrbed below:
To amend Amide Six (6} Application of Dimensional Requinemer>ts~
spedficalfy Sec~fon 6.20 and 620.1 Large Ground Absorption System
(3,000 gallons per day) and Package Treatment Plants Prohibited i n
AR O~tric~ and Rural Buffer Districts of the Qrange County Zor~g
Ordinance tD add langt~e darifyirrg the review and approval of County
PmI~ P~ !mod absorption systems and/or package
tr~bnertt fadlities.
The 13aa~round sedlon beiow provides additional i~ regarding this
BACKGROUND: Whiff completing work on several County development projects. in
pr+epara~n fnr issuing a Zoning Compliarwe Permit, staff detem~ned that there is a
plc ~ P~~ r+esulting from the need b require County Pr+ojeds that are
(n `~ *~p~+} ~ p~~{ ~ s Permit process per sec~ok,U 6.~ea~
620.1 of the Ordinance.
pdt~nisaatiw~ °~ ~ 306E Revere Road
(919) 245-2;iT5 ~ ,~ ~ P O Box 8181
(919) 644-3ffg2(FAX} ~IISh,
voww.cooran~.nc us ~ North Carolina, 27278
T. 1. ••
• ~~
~~'~
~~•
Section 6.20.1 of ffse Ordinance reams as fo~ows:
Gnwnd absorption systems with a design capa~y of 3,000 dons Pte' ~Y ~'
more and package traatmer>t planfs for sanitary sewage c~spasal are exp~iy
prohibited ~ the AR disfrids and Rtmaf 8trlterDisi-icts asshown in ffie aak~pteai
Comte Plan exraspf as maybe approved through a Specfal Use Pemu~
ore Planned L7~iooprnentDisblct
In consuitaUon witfi ~e Attorney's office. staff has determined that tl~e is a major issue
vYti h respect to the County dev~ebping a lid use r~ubing the issuance of a StJP.
SpeaficaAY. the issues are:
1. There ~ a oonoem over the geed to make oermin findings ~ fad during
the review of a SUP project. speaficcly that the responsible board has
maw ~ inparfial d~sikrn. Recent court cases nave questforred the
legal ab~'rty ~ a n9 body ~ issue itself a SUP as there is a
oonc~rri bust the abi~.y of the members to make an unbiased decision cn
the evfdenca presented at the quasl~udicial treartng.
2 From a practical standpourt the BOCC and the t3oard of Adjustment, the
finro (2) boards That are respora;ible for revisM+ing and approvir~ SUP
project. arrr opened up bo aiiiasm on their ablllfy to conduct a fair
department, beingeth app~~, ~~~ due to the County. ~ a County
3. The ficestuous nature of the SUP permitting process creates a ~
conundrum that k havkrg to be corrected Stalra wkle.
in an effart to address this problem, staff is proposing the fioilauvp~g:
1. Amend~rg Sec~ort 620.9 to clarify that County projects are oat required
to obtain a SUP when a large ground absorption septic syst~rr, ar a
package treatrr~ent piasd~ is proposed to support a proposed land use
Staff does riot believe the Cowtiy ev8r intended for pubic projects to obtain a SUP where
a large ground absorption system was proposed. Throrigh this amendm~rt the County
avokts the legal conturdrum of_l)aving to review. ad upon, and approve County prvjec~s•
through the qua$i~udiktial Pnai:ess•
it should be Hated the proposed dwrge wilii Amt affect a property owner's abikty to devebp a
ground absorption system that has a design capak~y aver 3.000 gallons per day within the
Agria~ih~ra) Resider>tiai (AR) or Rural Buffer (RB) zoning d' upon issuance of a Speast
Use Pem~t or Pietnned Developrnerrt approval. The ~rrendmeM w~, t~wever, riot n3quhe
the Courtly to obtain such apprcnrais.
This amendmer~ is ne~aryto address the permitting and approval of County projects due
to recent fierrges in Slate roars.
~, ;.
d..z~
~E
~9B8Ep
22g6~~g
Y ~
~~~~]}
~~~£~~
~~~~~~
~~~~:~
ei;~~~, ~
~~~~~~~
~'
i•
:~.
:f
.f
.r'
~.,
.;.
y:
..
~:
:;~.
~:
a~
;~O~dJ ~'~_ O,c
,~~
July i, 2aas
Ms. Perdita Holtz
Planning Systems Coordinator
Orange County Planning Department
PO Box818I •
Hillsborough, NC 27278
. PLANNING
Town of Chapel Hill
• 4os l i~~ ~7~ Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
pboae (919 sbs-zras f~ ~i~y ~9-~i~
dvww.mwno&;hapelh~l.osg
Subject: Courtesy Review Comments on proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
. regarding Ground Absorption Systems and Package Plants
Dear Ms. Holtz:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed zoning ordinance amendment regarding
ground absorption systems and package~plants for Orange County government development
proposals. We do not have any comments on the proposed ordinance amendment as it relates to
the 3oint Planning Agreement.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate_to call me at (919) 968-2128.
. Regards
(~~'~''H''~
Gene Poveromo .
Development Manager
Page 1 of 1
~~ ~ - Iota 1 Q Gov 8 Q ~'~ M ~nu~es /~~facl? n-r~-t5
Y ,
http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink7/IinageDisplay.aspx?cache=yes8rsessionkey=....10/1/2008
:,
O
p~
. td
~_
,~,[~
C4~+
1
y
~~
ei
~~f
~4~
_~
at
`e
:~
~t
i
000
N
..r
O
...~
...
.~
bhp
L
.S~
1
Q
~-.
O
r+
N
O
O
00
aj
~~
~~
$a
~~
~~
b
t~~
f
I
1
t
1
ji
I
b
OQ
Y
r~' ~
Excerpt of Minutes °~
Approved 9/3/08
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JULY 9, 2008
REGULAR MEETWG
MEI~ERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representati~;
Mictietle Kempinsld, Cedar Grove Townsh~ At-large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Renee A.
Price, Hillsborough Township At Large (Vice Chair); Brian Crawford, Era Township At-Lange; Joel Forrest Knight,
Little River Reptesentatnre; Beriadetbe Pelissier, B'mgham Township; Jeffrey Schmitt„ Cedar Grove Township At
MEMBERS ASSENT: Judith Wegner, Bingham Township Af-Large
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Tom Alfieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Nr~tiael
Harvey, Planner II;
AGENDA tTEal 8: Z~IING ORDWANCE AMENDINENT: ARTICLE 6, SECTION fi.2tl.1 LARGE GROUND ABSORPTION
SYS'TEN (3,000 GALLONS PER DAY) AND PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANTS PROHIBRED IN AR
DISTRICTS AND RURAL BUFFER
a) To consider a recommendation fa the BOCC regarding this proposed amendment heard
at the May 79, 2008 QPH
Presenter. Michael Harvey, Planner II
Michael Harvey: Reviewed Amendment.
Renee Prime: What lady w~! have oversight of the County does?
Michael Harvey: They would have to go through the normal pemtiiiiing process as other ind'nridual would which
means State, Health Department Regulations, Orange County Health Departrnettt Reguk~ions and local site plan
sutxnission requirements would s011 need th be met but would not have to go through the Specal Use Pernitting
process with the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Adjustment would have to issues a Special Use
permit The majority of large ground atuorption systems have th be a Class Special Use Permit
Renee Price: Does that allow or disallow any public comment?
Michael Harvey. It would not allover any public comment because it is not a Spedal Use Permit process but it win ~
through the namial site plan review as most County projects do now.
Renee Price: So you could move next door th someone and they can't object.
Michael Harvey: For County government projects only. Everything else has th get a Special Use Permit because
that is the requiremenit.
Jeffrey Schmitt: Not having read the court's decision, did our attorney explath the concern the court case came with,
saying there is a legal dilemma with the County approving ~seff a Special Use Permit?
Michael Harvey: The Segal d~emma is that you have the gaveming body issuing itself a Special Use Permit We
included the tern incestuous nature of the permft process that creates gem for staff and the attorney's office
Excerpt of Minutes
Approved 9/3/08
espea~ty after the court n,ratg that stipr~ates the County or ~vemmenf coot issue itself Special use Perrrrit.
When you look atthe findings that have to be made there is concern that you cannot guarantee an imparti~ hearing.
Jeffrey Schmitt So the solution ~s that we wiq eliminate having to get the Spertial Use Pemrit?
Il~hael Harvey: They stiq have fb go through a simgar permitng process. .
Jeffrey Schmitt It doesn'f seem bo me to address the cornem.
M'~chael Harvey: Unforhmatefy, as with a majority of County pro~cts, it is the same as any simple srte plan. There is
not abgity on a pemirtted land use th get any type of pubec comment erq~r. In this partk;ular inst~rce, it has th go
through the rromral permitting process. ff cannot go through the Special Use Permitting process.
Midrege Kempinski: At feast the Spertial Use Permit process, being incestuous or not, for the County, requires a
pubrrc hearing. What is the difference between gamg to thniugh the Special Use Process and the County approving
its own project versus the County just ddng it anyway without any public hearing at all?
Michael Harpy: The ordy reason the County has bo go through any heightened level permit review is because you
have a septic tank over 3,000 gagons. The permit or project in and of itself is permitted; IeYs say Northern Human
Services Center, which was done through normal site plan approval under Articlel4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
orgy reason that project woukl have gone before the County ~ because it has over a 3,000 gallon septic system that
is now being proposed. The fad that it has an over 3;000 capacity septic system does not, from the attorney's
standpoint and from staff's standpoint, alter the nature of the process. ff creates a dilemma for us if we can't cmmply
with recent case law and stiq issue ourselves a permit If we take it through the nom~al process where the same
standard has to be met, ff the concern there is just not an opportunity for pubec c:anment, there is not normal
opporturirty for pubec comment on 9990 of the Cotmty projects.
Michelle Kempinsld: Not schools?
Michael Harvey: Schools are Special Use Permit because it is the Orange Courrty Board of Education, not the
County itseff. That comment was brought up but you are dealing with two different entities.
Ngchege Kempinski: Because the b'brary on the north side of Orange County is no longer a school, that is why it
would not go through the Speaai Use Permit.
Renee Prrce: Who would actually do the tegu{ating? This woukl seem to agow the County th do whatever it wanted
with no oversight.
Ngchael Harvey: The County has the saran oversight as any other individual proposing a development w~tFrin the
County. They stiq have to go through the perrnitting process. Unfortunately, the problem is that the County cannot
issue itselF a Special Use Permit.
Renee Price: You are saying °do what you want to do.'
Michael Harvey: No. I am saying that it cannot go through the Special Use Permitting process. They sfi11 treed
Environmental Health approval, state approval acrd local sibs plan approval under Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Renee Price: What level of intervention would the state have? .
Mictr~l Harvey: Most normct large scale septic systems, the state has to issue the permit along with state and local
Health Departments.
2
a~
Excerpt of lvfinutes
Approved 9/3/08
Renee Price: The Health Departrnent that is part of the Countt//
Michael Harvey. Yes. 8 is the mange County Health Deparbrrent that enforces the state rubs.
Brian Crawford: My corrcem is that it sounds pke that it is putting the County on an uneven Playing field with the rest
of the devebpers in the County whereas the Board of County Commbsioners can say ip another devekper, you
can't do that In this instance, we are saying, that doesn't apply th us and we can do that and there is no one that
can say no th the Board of County Comnbsrorinrs based on this policy.
Midtael Harvey: Let me make two corrections to your statement It still has fib go through the similar permitting
process as far as getting a permit for both bc~ and state agencbs th apow the system to be developed as arty other
developer. The second is the issue the Permitting process. Unforttmately, the permittttrrg Process, based on recent
case law, states that the County carrot issue itself a Speaal Use Permit Making those findings acrd taking it through
that process is something we can no bnger do.
Brian Crawford: I don't think that as the intent of the case. I am really uncomfortable witi~out having an analysis of
the case decision or what the court is saying. The court may have said that we have to come• up with another
mechanism th have the County appn~ve their projects.
Michael Harvey: I can tell you from my own personal review of the case that is not the case. If you would rather
have us comment fi an expanded memorandum that can certainly be a recommendation.
Jeffrey Schmitt Michelle has an excepent point and that is the public will not get to comment on this. is that right?
NGchael Harvey: Yes. ~ •
Jeffrey Schmitt I don't think that is right Notwithstanding, whether or not the County cannot issue itself a permi#, i
think the public should still have its hearing and the Board of County Commissioners need th know the concerns of
their constrtcrer>ts even if it does not impact the abipty of the County to proceed this. I think ~ are short changing the
ability of the people of this county tD express their opinions. This was partiapated by the change in the septic field up
at the Northern Human Services Center witty the new park, is that correct?
M'~hael Harvey: Yes. That is one of the geneses of this issue.
Jay Bryan: It appears to be a policy that will have an affect on others.
Midtiael Harvey: This wip have an impact on any County Project PrePcefi9 over a 3,000 galbn system. This is only
going th ~P~ ~uMY P~~ under the County's planning jcrrisdiction proposes over 3,1x10 galbn septin systems.
There are County projects wdhin munrc~papt~s or on sewer system that this will not have an impact on whatsoever.
Judith Wegner. I agree with Michelle and Jeff, I wouk! I'tke to see publc comment You could make a policy.that we
would require public comments for such a proposal. it is n~ a Special Use Pem~t but we require by policy that you
will go through a certain process with the pubrtc. That wip address sane of the questions.
Npchael Harvey: I personapy thfik that if the Board would pke to make that recommendation th the Board of County
Commissioners, I think it is reasonable.
Renee Price: But then again what would be menu, people can't sue, if they're in opposition what work or body does
that go before? The State body or what?
3
Excerpt of Minutes
Approved 9/3/08
Jay Bryan: What if we refer this back th staff and asked them to pn:pate a proposal as to how b include public
comment in the permit~ng process whether if is for the Board of County Commissioners or the staff, how that woukt
be weighted. I think we also need a descriptiorr of the cue fir.
Michael Harvey: I can provide someth'aig but I would rattrer have more direction on what you are ~9 for.
Jay Bryan: You have' heard the idea that we have in the permitting Process that there is a public hearing befae the
Board of County Commissioners on these types of ap~ications for the Boats of County Commrssiorrers to get input.
If the permittkg process is suds that staff is maksrg the derision then taw does that input get th the board of County
Commissioners. .
Jeffrey Schmitt I think part of this t~arirrg needs ip be in a time horimn where the Board of County Commissioners
hearing the public, if there is a voice large enough, that could potentially impact their dectission to purchase the
property andlor modifir what is there. If the County is gone so far that this is defac~o been approved then yes, the
comment made by Renee ~s sustafiable in that we are rat doing anything except giving the public a chance to be
upse# and not doing anything. This needs to happen in such a 6rrre tarizon that we could potentially iMkience the
deasion of the Board of County Commissioners to not do something.
Brian Crawford: My issue is the issue of fairness.. I am concerned that the Board of County Commissioners and the
Board of Adjustment, then the process you are sr~gesbed addresses that fairness. Somehow we need to bring
fairness bads into the system in the dec~ion making process. ff fairness is a hearing ttrat the pubic can be up in
arms and say we don't want this to happen, then there has to be ability for the Board of County Commissioners to
t~k off that project.
Renee Price: The thing is Brian, if that didn't happen and they claimed eminent domain...
Middle Kemptnski: That is a different sut~ect.
Jay Bryan: t et's keep the issue to what we lurow. The issue of tim'arg for such an opportunity.
Michael Harvey: The Planning Board woukf like th see same disctrssion about there being a type of publ~ comment
for the Hoard of County Commissioners engaged in a project that may see a 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 galbn septic
system. You would like to see a report and continue to discuss it.
Brian Crawford: i wouk! kke th understand the nature of the court case and what the court was saying.
Midalle Kempinski: Does everyone ham a copy of the full Zoning Ordinance if we wanted to see all of Section 6 or
is that sorrrething we need m include with the amendment th see wtrat the whole section says to have context for this
box of irrfomratan.
Michael Harvey: We have provided taw Article 6 Section 6.20.1reads raw. Article 6 is the Application of
Dknensionai Requirements and contains a variety of standanis and some do not apply at alt and some are separate.
[[end of item]]
4
Excerpt of Minutes
Approved 10/1/08
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 ~ SEDER 3, 2008
4 REGULAR MEETWG
5
6 MEMBeIts PRESENT: Renee A. Price, Hglsborough Township At Lange (Vk:e Chair); ~Crauftsd Goodwin, Hglsbarough
7 Representatirre; Bemafefte Pel'ISSier, Bingham Township; Brian Crawford, Fro Townsh~ At Large; Joe( Forrest
8 Knight, Li#tie River Representative; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At Large; Lany Wright, Cedar Grove
9 Township At-Large
10
11 NRS ABSENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Michege K~npinsid, Cedar Grove Township At
12 Large; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At Large; Cheeks Representatnre, Vacant; Fro Township, Vacant
13
14 STAFF PRESENT: Tom Alfieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Michael Harvey, AICP, Planner ll; Glenn Bowles,
15 AICP, Planner Ii; Robert gari~, AICP, Planner III; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant p
16
17 OTHER ATTENDEES: Rita Leadem, Repn:sentative for Comprehensive Plan Coalition; John Bugg, Appl'~ant The
18 Forest at Little River
19
20 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
21
22 AGENDA tTEM 10: ZONDIG ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: ARTICLE 6, SECTION 6.20.1 LARGE GROUND AssoRPTION
23 SYSTEM (3,000 GALLONS ~ PER DAY} AND PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANTS PROHIBRED IN AR
24 DLSTR~TS AND RURAL BUFFER
25 To consider a recommendation th the Board of County Commissioners regarding this
26 proposed amendment heard at the May 19, 2008 Quarterly Pubfic Hearin and discussed at
27 the July 9, 2008 Planning Board Meeting.
28 ~ '
29 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Planner II
30
31 Michael Harvey: We began discussing this at the July meeting. Two planning board members had requested
32 documentation from the Attorney's office on why they begeve, from a legal standpoint, the county can no longer issue
33 itself a Special Use Permit I have provided you with what the County Attorney had Originagy sent to Craig Benedict
34 as their rationale to begin the amendment process. Essenfrally, the County Attorney's office has determined; based
35 on recent court deasrons, that it can no bnger issue itself a Specie Use Permit This discussion was precipitated
36 from my denial of the site plan for the development of a 4,500 gallon per day waste water treatment system for the
37 Northam Human Service Park Article 6 requires anything aver 3,000 gagons to obtain a Special Use Pemrit I was
38 infomred, while I was bechnl;agy correct, the County could not issue itself a Spedal Use Permit We do have
39 comments from the Towns of Chapel Hiq and Carrboro. The Town of Chapel Hiq has no comment and the Town of
40 Carrboro would qke a guarantee that all county pro)ects would go through some type of development review process.
41 This amendmentt stipulates that if it is a County Project within the Agricultural Residential (AR) or Rur~ Buffer {RB)
42 Zoning District and proposes m have a septic system over 3,000 gallons per day, it does rmt have to get a Special
43 Use Permit for tita system. The project would stiq go through the normal site pthn and approval of Article 14 of the
44 Zoning Ordinance. The orgy speafic permitting process exempted as the result pf this amendment would be that the
45 County vuoukl not have th seak an SUP for the septic system. In the previous meeting. there was a convem that a
46 private citizen would have to ga through the SUP process and the County would not I canrat addn~s that problem.
47 Pmrate citizens wql still have the capabUity of applying for a permit to get a large ground absorption system per the
48 ordinance which requires an SUP.
49
50 Renee Price: The County would not be subject th any type of review or comment or checks and balances.
Excerpt of 1~Iinntes
Approved 10/1/08
51
52 M'rcthaef Harvey: County projects sffil have m receive sire plan approval in xcordance with Artthfe Fourteen (14) of
53 the Z.orilng Ordinance but th be fair, the majority of the County Projects don't have tD go through a public approvrd
54 process. We still have to submit doairrrerrtation mplanning partners ff it in the Joint Planning Area Agreement th
55 Chapel Hill and Carrboro, utilities companies, DOT, the State and we would be issuing a ZAning Compliance Permit
56 With regards th this, it would only be Environmentav Health.
57 ~ .
58 Brian Crawford: I read G~fPs fetter.
59
60 NGch~l Harvey: Then: was a question ~ the last meeting of if there could bean amendment to this that we requrne
61 the County th adhere to the design standards speaficafions and relevant information contained in the SUP.
62
63 .Renee Price: That woad just go thtargh staff review.
64
65 Judith Wegner. Wouldn't there be a staff r+ev~w anyway if firers were a proposal to put a facility there?
66
67 Michael Harvey. Yes.
68
69 Judith Wegner. What would be different if there were an ord'u~rce change?
70
71 Michael Harvey: The coraem was essentially there was specific design aiteria referenced in Attjde 8 (Special Use
72 Provisions}. The ooncem is that if a private citizen is required to go through these steps, you shoukf make the
73 County go through, even though they may tat go through the SUP process. That may go beyond what local or state
74 would requrne as far as submittal requirements.
75
76 Brian Crawford: But in some cases it may tie their hands in that it would not have to go through ttre SUP process.
77
78 Michael Harvey: h may have to supply the infomiatarr. ff this any other project than a County project and it
79 proposes a septic system of over 3,000~then it would need to go through the SUP process.
80
81 Larry Wright: I understand the County is high profile so if this far7s it will be much more at stake.
82
83 Michael Harvey. It should not matter who the applicant is. The County Attorney has determined that there is a
84 procedural issue with the County issuing itself a SUP because of the poienfial ramifications of being able to justify fair
85 acrd impartial hearings.
86 '
87 Larry Wright It seems it is adding more fo an agenda that is window dressing.
88
89 Mrctmef Harvey: i have been given an opinion and that is that I cannot hold up a County projed for this reason but I
90 will rat and cannot put my name of a paper authorizing a project because this is in the ordinance.
91
92 Joel Knight: The County put this ordinance about the SUP n~uirement in the first place. it seems the County has
93 put their sehres in a comer. I think the way it should be done is that they may n~ have to get an SUP but they have
94 ~ to do ail the steps an individual has tD do in the same way. Any r+equiremerrts placed on an individual atizen should
95 apply th the Courrty.
96
97 Brian Crawford: I agree, I second that
98
99 Judith Wegner. I have to disagree. The County is on the hook because the County has all the expertise in house on
100 all this stuff. The Countyy reviewed these th be a private Party is fn be sure that there's nothing getting slid by the
32
Excerpt of Minutes 33
Apprnved 10/1108
101 private party but if we've got the review within the County before doing this, we'll have represent who can get allowed
102 if they don't do the job right. f'm convinced by what Geoff said that you can't have an SUP because you can't get the
103 quasi-judicial deiberation when it's your Duet project at stake. This may be a pdicy review issue. It seems to me it
104 would be appropriate for the Board of County Commissioners m have an irrtemai review. ft seems there are other
105 ways tp do this.
106
107 Brian Crawford: ti creates the appem~arroe by the citizens that Orange County has not Played by the same toles.
108 Government changes and raw we have a government that is friendly towards ernironmer>Eai issues and that may not
1.09 always be the same. i parr image one day that we could have a Board of County Commissioners that would be
110 arbitrary about how we select a site so ff there is any appearance that the county has two sets of rules; I could see
111 that as a problem.
112
113 Judith Wegner. If it is in the ordinance, l don't understand who will enforce it
114
115 Brian Crawford: At least the atizens will be able th hold them accounta~e. The way it is now, the citizens have to
116 say now you get m ~ what you want because you are the Board of County Commissioners.
117
118 Bernadette Pelissier: The whole issue of environments responsibaities goals, part of the whole thrust behind that
119 was that the county should be a model. If you want the cit¢er~ fio do things that are energy efficiency, water
120 efficient, etc. The county should be the first one to model this behavior.
121
122 Mici~! Harvey: Unto the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and the Board of County Commissioners direct staff on
123 how to implement these goes, we are rat suns how that is going to be addressed. We have recommended adoption
124 of goals and objectives and we have existing goals and objectives but from an implementation standpoint, there have
125 been no direction from the Board of County Commissioners an how fio address this issue.
126
127 Bernadette Pelissier. f was taikkrg about the environmental resporrsi~~fies and goad.
128
129 Michael Harvey: 1 have no clue from an implementation standpoint because we have not been given direction.
130
131 Bernadette Pelissier. That answers that question.
132
133 Michael Harvey: The reason I brought up the Article 8 sue was because the question posed to me at the last
134 meeting, could we require the county to adhere to the submittal requirements, as part of the normal site plan review.
135 My comment was that would at least address some of the concerns about the inconsistency of a submittal .process
136 and that would address that point. These projects still have th go through.
137
138 Larry Wright: I agree that the county should set the standard of the way this should be handfed. Who is the ors that
139 checks ilia checker?
140
141 l.atry Wright: Right now, if is Environmental 'Health and the state tp ensure the systems is instaAed adequately. ff
142 you have a getup of Board of County Commissoners that is not conducting themselves in acoorclance with the
143 wishes of the community, they are voted out of office.
144
145 Craufurd Goodwin: ti seems we ~ recommend to the Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager
146 that the process be devised to replicate the process required of the public. How that is imp{emenbed, I don't think we
147 can deade around this table but we slauld recommend it
148
Excerpt of Minutes ~ 3~t
Approved IO/1/08
149 Mich~i Harvey. You would make a recomr~ndatron to approve or deny this and asked the Board of Comity
1 SO Comrus~ioners direct the Managers off~e, Planning, Health Deparbnent begin the process of establishing rx>fresive
1 S 1 acrd oarrprehensive pollees that would esser>tiaNy n3quur3 the county UD go thrxrgh a srmrlar process of review.
1S2
1S3 Ctaufurd Goodwin: Beautifully expressed.
1S4
1 SS Renee Price: The one other issue is oversight and who actually has the final signoff.
156
1 S7 Michael Harvey: We don't issue a zoning onmp6ance permit urrtG ~ know that aA the permits will be issued. We are
1S8 the ulfiinabe catchall.
1S9 .
160 Renee Price: Mostly the oversight.
161
162 Judith Wegner. his better to put it in terms of a policy. What other parts of the orrirrances are directed inward?
163
164 Brian Crawford: I can go with the policy tomzat as opposed to an oefinance if that policy is clear as opposed to
16S something buried in the minutes somewhere so the public will feel the sense the county is following the same game
166 plan as everyone else. ~ •
167
168 Renee Price: Without the rules and the regulations?
169
170 Brian Crawford: i can live with a pot'~cy statement.
171
172 Robert Davis: Would it be somethng that Environmental Health would need to put in their rules?
173
174 NGchael Harvey Envronmental Health issues the pem~t but it is based on state law and slate standards. If we have
17S a kocai policy, as I am hearing from the group, that the aunty woul assume the move rigorous policy standard for
17b submitting addiltorr~ information to Environmental Health to secure a permit based on the concerns I am hearing.
177
178 Brian Crawford: ff DENR turns it doom, they will not get it anyway, right?
179
180 Michael Harvey If one department turns down the permit, it Hn'q not be issued.
181
182 Joel Knight I think what makes everyone uncomfortable is that we saw fit io put this requirement in and then we are
183 being asked to allow the county to do what they want. We should have a policy to let tts public know that the county
184 will follow the same ales we wGl.
185
186 Morrow Craufurd Goodwin b approve the ordinance and the Planning Board request the Soars of County
187 Commissioners to direct the Manager of the Planning Department and the Orange County Heatth Department th
188 devise and develop a comprehensive set of rules, guidelines and policies th address large ground absorption
189 systems for county Projects tJO ensure compli~ce with any and aq standards to promote established gods and
190 policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Environment tesponsib(e.. Seconded by Judith Wegner.
191 Vo7E: Unanlnous
192