Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-23-1998 - C3 (a)w II ~ .1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 23. 1998 Action Agenda Item # C 3 f a ) SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS: CANE CREEK WATERSHED OVERLAY DISTRICTS DEPARTMENT:: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: a Yes No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): • Letter to property owners • Executive Summary of staff report • 10/29 Community Meeting Summary • Staff Recommendation • Proposed Amendments INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stencil, Eat 2590 Adhir Kackar, Eat 2589 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to implement new development standards for Cane Creek watershed. These amendments are being heazd in conjunction with proposed companion amendments to the Subdivision Regulations. BACKGROUND: Changes aze proposed to Section 2.2 (Definitions) and Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance to implement new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. These changes, along with companion amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, result from athree-yeaz study of Cane Creek Watershed conducted by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), and subsequent recommendations by the OWASA Boazd of Directors in October 1997. The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would offer two sets of development standards for protecting water quality. The first option would change the minimum lot size for new development in the watershed from two acres to five acres, with a provision allowing up to five lots as small as two acres in size for all lots of record. A second option is available for Flexible Development in Cane • 1 ~ I) Creek watershed. In this special option, new major subdivision development could occur at the current two-acre lot density, but new proposed standards for the County's Subdivision Regulations would change the amount of open space from 33% to 50%. Specifically, the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would alter a definition and change the existing protected watershed (CANE-PW) and critical azea (CANE-CA) overlay districts for Cane Creek. The changes to the definitions section would reflect the special 50% open space standards for the Flexible Development option in the watershed. The changes to the overlay districts would apply a minimum lot size of five acres in the watershed, and allow for up to five lots as small as two acres in size for lots of record as of January 1, 1999. Staff presented an evaluation of the Cane Creek Watershed Study and OWASA recommendations to the Board on October 20, identifying the above standards and two other management options for further evaluation. A community meeting was held on October 29 at Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department in Cane Creek watershed, and was attended by 25 persons (the meeting summary is attached). Subsequently, on November 4, staff proposed taking only the OWASA- recommended management option to public hearing. A memo regazding this recommendation is attached. RECOMMENDATION: Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Boazd at the public hearing. Zoning Officer Recommendation Provided that the Planning Board and County Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendments. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than February 2, 1999. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278 `~..1 ~ ~, •~ . ^ November 6, 1998 Dear Property Owner: You have been identified as an owner of property within Cane Creek watershed or within 500 feet of Cane Creek watershed. Please be advised that a proposal to change the land development standards for Cane Creek watershed (and its oveHay zoning districts of CANE-PW and CANE-CA) are being considered. The new provisions would amend the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Orange County Subdivision Regulations to provide for a different minimum lot size and different open space standards. Please find attached a copy of the public hearing notice for additional information. These proposed amendments will be presented at a public hearing before the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Orange County Planning Board at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, November 23, 1998. The public hearing will be held at the new Gordon Battle Courtroom in the annex of the "new" County Courthouse in Hillsborough. These proposed changes result from recommendations by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and subsequent consideration by Orange County staff. The proposed amendments would make the following changes to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations: Rezone the existing Cane Creek watershed overlay zoning districts of CANE-PW (protected watershed) and CANE-CA (critical area), and amend the Flexible Development provisions of the Subdivision Regulations, to provide for: a) A five-acre minimum lot size* in the CANE-CA and CANE-PW districts b) Existing tracts as of June 26, 1997 (or an alternative date to be set by the Board of Commissioners) would be allowed up to five lots as small as two acres in size, subject to site constraints; or c) New major subdivision developments could be developed under a Creative Open Space Design alternative, with SO% of the tract left in permanent open space, with a minimum lot size of one-acre and an overall density of ISM 15 ~; one unit per two acres (the current minimum lot size in the Cane Creek zoning overlay districts), * -Please note that these proposed new standards would apply to new development only. You are invited to attend the November 23 public hearing and comment on this proposal. Please note that changes may be made in these proposals as part of the public hearing review and decision process. If you have any questions or desire more information about this proposal, please contact our office at 732-8181, 967-9251, 227-2031 or 688-7331 (extension 2589 or 2590). Sincerely, ~. R. Eugene Bell, AICP Interim Planning Director 15;3 ~~ \~r fat Orange County Planning & Inspections Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Telephone: (919) 732-8181 FAX (919) 644-3002 CANE CREEK WATERSHED STAFF REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY October 30,1998 The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) report entitled "Final Recommendations for Protecting the Cane Creek Water Supply" was referred to Planning staff to 1) evaluate the watershed study, and 2) prepaze a staff report with applicable recommendations, prior to the development of any proposed ordinance amendments. Accordingly, this summer, planning staff members formed the Cane Creek Analysis Team (CCAT) to evaluate the implications of the Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed Study and final OWASA recommendations. Because of the cost and time required to quantify impacts, and the unknown cost-effectiveness of such reseazch, assessment of the watershed study and OWASA recommendations impacts was lazgely of a qualitative nature. At this point, staff are able to provide preliminary recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. Following additional input, staff will prepare a final recommendation for the November 23, 1998 public hearing. Staff Analysis. Preliminary analysis of the watershed study and OWASA recommendations reveals that ensuring adequate and reliable long-term protection of the water quality of Cane Creek Reservoir necessitates a reduction in the pattern, intensity and/or amount of future development activity in the watershed. Such a reduction can only be accomplished with certainty through land use controls that cause development to occur in either lazge-lot or cluster configurations. Based on staff s analysis, there appear to be three watershed management options that would accomplish the needed long-term water quality protection. Each offers potential benefits and drawbacks. Option 1: Mandatory Flexible Development/Large Lot Current two-acre zoning along with mandatory flexible development (33% open space) outside of the watershed critical azea. In the critical area, five-acre lot zoning with up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record. OWASA 20-year plan for land acquisition resulting in 1,266 acres. Option 2: Creative Open-Space Development ("Open-Space " or "Cluster ") Current two-acre zoning along with mandatory "Creative Open-Space Design" (50% open space with one acre minimum lot size). Tributary detention ponds on Caterpillar Creek and ~~~ Anne Creek L~'aterclied `tn(f Report Orange Count~~ Planning and Inspections Department Watery Fork would be needed. OWASA would acquire 1377 acres of land (413 through fee-simple and 964 through conservation easements). Option 3: Large Lot /Creative Open Space Design (OWASA Recommended) Rezone watershed to 5-acre lot zoning (with up to five two-acre lots for lots of record), or "Creative Open Space Design" with 50% open-space and current two-acre zoning (1-acre minimum lot size). Possible construction of tributary detention on Caterpillar or Tom's Creek, depending on participation rate in cluster development and effective lot size of developed lots. OWASA acquisition of 1266 acres of land. All of the options are capable of protecting water quality to the same general level. Differences lie in the certainty of water quality protection, the substantive variation in the ability of the options to meet other non-water quality considerations, and perhaps in the economic feasibility of each option. The benefits offered under each options are as varied as the differences. Mandatory Flexible Development /Large Lot uses an existing, known program and may provide greater developer flexibility in site design, since only 33% of the tract would be required to remain in open space. Additionally, land acquisition by OWASA and the focus on non- structural controls in the critical area adds to the certainty of protecting water quality -although regional-scale structural controls in the rest of the watershed may offset any gain in certainty and the downzoning in the critical azea would affect property owners. Creative Open Space Design guarantees that 50% of all new major subdivisions will be open space and may minimize land owner costs, since there would be no change in zoning. As a result it offers significant resource protection benefits that transcend water quality and could also preserve natural azeas and wildlife habitats, flora and fauna and cultural or archaeological resources. It would, however, result in higher costs to OWASA customers due to needed structural controls. The Large Lot /Creative Open Space Design ("OWASA-Recommended") is a hybrid of two options recommended by OWASA. It offers the most developer familiarity -using conventional single-family lots without open space set-asides. The lower residential yield and density should reduce the level of public services provided by the County to serve development, but also affects landowner impacts. This option offers the highest certainty of protecting water quality, but the exact level of certainty may depend on the level of participation in the "clustering" option. Preliminary Staff Recommendation. Having identified three alternatives for consideration, staff plans to use further research and feedback from the Board and stakeholders to make a final recommendation for the November 23, 1998 public hearing. Regardless of the management options ultimately selected, staff feels that implementation through amending existing Cane Creek watershed zoning districts and/or a special section in the Flexible Development provisions for Cane Creek (please see page 31 of staff report) would be the best approach. Finally, the OWASA recommendations on potential "tradeoffs" to the watershed community were not evaluated herein, since they do not relate to water quality. Executive Summary 2 October 30, 1998 ISM outiSP a! ~ ~~ yp A Orange County Planning & Inspections Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Telephone: (919) 732-8181 FAX (919) 644-3002 ~~ fir! ~ ~~~ CANE CREEK WATERSHED COMMUNITY MEETING MEETING SUMMARY November 09,1998 On October 29, 1998 the Orange County Planning Department held a community meeting at the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department. The purpose of the meeting was to give planning staff and watershed residents the opportunity to discuss development mangement options for the Cane Creek watershed. The meeting began promptly at 7:30 PM and was attended by 251 community members. Also in attendance were representatives from the Orange County Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and staff from the Orange County Planning Department (see Appendix A). David Stancil of the Orange County Planning Department began by welcoming community .members, and discussing with them the purpose and agenda of the evening's meeting. After the community indicated that they approved of the meeting format, Mr. Stancil proceeded to a slideshow. The slideshow outlined the three proposed watershed management options currently being considered by Orange County to protect watershed water quality. After Mr. Stancil's presentation, Alan Rimer of OWASA briefed community members about the role that OWASA will play in protecting watershed water quality. Following Mr. Rimer's comments, the floor was opened up to clarification questions from the community. In general, community members asked for clarifications of OWASA's role in watershed protection. Specifically, residents were interested in learning how much future land OWASA is planning to acquire, the purpose of acquisition, and the methods that may be used for acquisition. In response, to these inquiries Mr. Rimer indicated that: • Land may be acquired for the construction of tributary impoundments on either/or both Caterpillar Creek and Watery Fork; • The need for impoundments will vary according to the management option selected, generally options in which cluster development predominate will require tributary impoundment's; • The exact amount of watershed land to be acquired by OWASA is yet to be determined; • A variety of tools including fee-simple purchase and conservation easements may be employed by OWASA, to acquire watershed properties. ~ Richard Norton, a Ph.D. candidate at UNC-CH Dept. of Ciry and Regional Planning atd Durham resident, atunded the meeting as an interested observant and not as a community member. His attendance is not counted toward the number of persons in attettdance. 15t~ In response to citizen concern about the current level of build-out in the watershed, Ed Holland of OWASA indicated that watershed buildout is between 5-10%. Stancil added that 78% of the watershed is agricultural or forest. Following the question and answer period, citizens formed three small groups to further discuss the management proposals. All three groups were facilitated by staff from the Planning Department. Following discussion, planning staff highlighted the comments expressed during the small group session. The concerns of watershed residents are combined by topic and summarized below. Concerns about OWASA's treatment of watershed landowners and the distribution of the cost and benefits of watershed protection. • OWASA continues to come back and ask for more from watershed residents but does not give anything positive to watershed residents. (Group 1) • OWASA is interested in meeting their needs and not those of watershed residents. For instance when they purchase land it is taken off the tax rolls, thereby removing any fiscal benefits for watershed/county residents. (Group 1) • The benefits of water quality protection are accrued to OWASA customers, while watershed residents are bearing the costs, therefore why should we be concerned with protecting reservoir water quality. (Groups 1,2) • Regulation of the watershed robs people of the opportunity to develop their properties as they wish, this is in contrast to Chapel Hill/Carrboro where people can develop as they wish. (Group 1) • Development regulations will restrict who can live in the watershed. (Group 1) Concerns about the performance of watershed management options • Ponds will help reduce runoff, but will OWASA be constructing them? (Group 1) • How stagnant and smelly will the water in the ponds be? (Group 1) • If we develop using cluster in the watershed new developments will not be served by sewer, this could have an adverse effect on groundwater. (Group 1) • What is the difference in property value/acre under the conventional approach vs. the cluster approach. Is the yield higher in one? (Group 3) Community Preferences and Suggestions • OWASA's recommendations are more preferable given that they have the least impact on existing dwellings. (Group 1) • If OWASA chooses to acquire land then residents should receive some type of benefit, such as long-term family ownership. (Group 1) • Mandatory flexible development maybe a more acceptable watershed protection option, given that the watershed is not near 25 % build-out, and since mandatory flexible permits continuation of current development patterns. This will allow a higher lot yield in the critical area than in the protected area. (Group 1) I S '? • Watershed residents do not obtain their water from OWASA, therefore the costs of watershed protection should be borne by the beneficiaries: OWASA customers. (Group 1) • To ensure that OWASA customers bear some portion of the burden, a $.O1/100 gallon surcharge should be instituted to generate money for watershed land acquisition. (Group 3) • OWASA should not acquire watershed land for the purposes of constructing detention facilities through condemnation. (Group 3) • The rights of individual property owners should be kept in mind during the decision-making process. (Group 3) • OWASA should buy land that is closer to the reservoir and sell off properties that aze further away. (Group 3) • Free market exchange should govern the process of land acquisition. (Group 3) Additional concerns and comments • Residents didn't want the Cane Creek Reservoir in the first place and felt harassed by OWASA during the creation of the reservoir. (Group 1) • People move out here to get away from development (Group 1) • Is OWASA concerned with water conservation? (Group 1) • The decision to change watershed regulations has already been made and represents the continuation of OWASA power. (Group 2) • Our property is our retirement. (Group 3) The meeting adjourned at 8:45. As residents exited the building, they were given the opportunity to vote for one of the three management options. Of the 21 residents who voted, five indicated a preference for the OWASA recommended option (5/2 acre zoning), the remainder indicated a preference for neither of the three management options under consideration. 155 Appendix A: Persons in Attendance: Cane Creek Community Mtg. Name Address Jce M. Kenyon 6201 Orange Grove Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Ronnie Kirl 6016 Orange Grove Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Tommy Holmes 4311 Bradshaw Quarry Rd. Efland, NC 27243 Gregg Hemmen 6901 Orange Grove Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 David Perry 6520 Buckhorn Rd Hillsborough, NC 27278 Scott Hudson 6601 Buckhorn Rd Hillsborough, NC 27278 Edwazd Johnson 6000 Buckhorn Rd Hillsborough, NC 27278 Frances Cates 422 Overland Dr Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Felton Johnson 6505 Orange Grove Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 C.M. Kirk 6200 Orange Grove Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Don Cheek 7504 Orange Grove Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Chazles Miller 7416 Orange Grove Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 William F & Catherine Jernigan 7727 Orange Grove Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Kenneth Kirk 6108 Orange Grove Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Ben Nichols 6641 Orange Grove Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Allan & Christine Green 5604 Dairyland Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 David Hinkle 8802 Partridge Run Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Patrick Mulkey 8702 Stanford Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Matthew Arnsberger PO Box 674 Carrboro, NC 27510 Quentin & Evelyn Patterson 4827 Orange Grove Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Donald Cox 7010 Thunder Mtn Efland, NC 27243 Chazles Snipes 5200 Dairyland Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Richazd Norton 323 Brandermill Rd. Durham, NC 27773 OWASA Representatives Ed Kerwin 400 Jones Ferry Rd. Carrboro, NC 27510 Ed Holland 400 Jones Ferry Rd. Carrboro, NC 27510 Alan E. Rimer 519 Hooper Lane Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Barry Jacobs 2201Moorefields Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Planning Staff David Stancil 306 F Revere Rd Hillsborough, NC 27278 Gene Bell 306 F Revere Rd Hillsborough, NC 27278 Adhir Kackar 306 F Revere Rd Hillsborough, NC 27278 15' w Memorandum To: John Link, County Manager From: Planning Staff Date: November 16, 1998 Subject: Cane Creek Watershed Recommendation On October 20, the Planning staff presented a staff report on the Cane Creek Watershed Study and subsequent recommendations for protecting water quality by the OWASA Board of Directors. Staff would like to take this opportunity to provide a recommended development management option for Cane Creek watershed. The October 20 staff report identified three management options that were recommended for further evaluation: 1. Mandatory Flexible Development (with Large-Lot Zoning in the critical areal); 2. Creative Open Space Design, and 3. Large-Lot Zoning/Creative Open Space (the OWASA- recommended approach). As mentioned in the staff report, staff indicated that the options would be discussed at a community meeting in the watershed. These three options were presented to 25 citizens at a community meeting at Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department on October 29, 1998. In addition, staff was to complete its research on these options and make a single recommendation by the time of the public hearing on November 23. As you may recall, the primary downside to the Mandatory Flexible Development and Creative Open Space options (#1 and #2) was whether these options could protect water quality given their use of cluster development (and the apparent requirements for using structural impoundments to do so). Staff completed its research into this issue in late-October. We have been unable to find any examples of communities that have used cluster development solely for water quality protection, with or without relying on structural controls (detention basins) or very large-lot base . ~ "1 I zoning. As such, we have found no evidence to counter the findings of the Cane Creek Watershed Study -that options #1 and #2 above will not protect water quality to the same level of certainty as the OWASA- recommended approach (#3) of large-lot zoning /creative open space design. In conducting the research, staff contacted planning jurisdictions that had been identified in the American Water Works Association (AWWA) publication "Effective Watershed Management for Surface Water Supplies" as currently employing or considering employment of cluster development for water quality purposes. Based on the AWWA report the following planning departments and agencies were contacted: Fairfax County (VA) Planning, Prince William County (VA) Planning, Loudoun County (VA) Planning and the Northern Virginia District Planning Commission. All of these planning entities hold responsibility for protecting the water quality of the Occcoquan River basin. Discussions with the identified planning departments & agencies revealed that: 1) Fairfax and Prince William Counties permit rural cluster development, but do so for reasons other than water quality protection, and 2) both counties have a lower underlying density than is currently, or anticipated to be, in place in the Cane Creek watershed. As a result of this lower density, the need for alternative or off-site wastewater systems necessitated under cluster development options is eliminated. In addition, staff conducted an Internet-based literature search to locate other municipalities or counties which employed cluster development. None were found. Given this, staff recommended on November 4 that, to simplify matters for the public hearing, only option #3 (OWASA-recommended) be taken to the November 23 public hearing. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations have been drafted to implement this management option. The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will alter the definition of Flexible Development to allow for 50% open space in Cane Creek watershed, and to provide for afive-acre minimum lot size, with up to five lots as small as two acres in size. The amendments to the Subdivision Regulations would amend the open space standards to provide for 50% open space in Cane Creek, and to clarify other sections that specified 33% only. The draft amendment to the Zoning Ordinance recommends one modification to the OWASA package -that the effective date for lots of record (the "up to five lots as small as two acres" test) be set at 7anuary i, 1999, rather than the proposed date ~c~~ of June 26, 1997. This would be watershed overlay zoning district effective date of January 1, 1994. Recommendation in keeping with the last round of changes in 1993-94, which set an The Planning staff recommends that the County approve the ordinance and subdivision regulation text amendments implementing management option #3 (the OWASA-recommended option). Our reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. Our completed research on the use of cluster for water quality protection has not yielded any other programs that use cluster development for water quality protection, with or without using structural controls (detention ponds and basins) or large-lot base zoning. 2. In the Cane Creek Watershed Study, the other two options did not protect water quality to the same degree of certainty as the OWASA-recommended approach. Staff has not determined any mitigating factors that alters this finding. 3. Option #2 (Creative Open Space) is not a true alternative, as it could be done through the OWASA-recommended approach. 4. In addition to the lack of supporting data for options #1 and #2 for water quality certainty, there was also no support for these two options at the October 29 community information meeting. i. The October 20 staff report failed to note that Option #1 (Mandatory Flexible Development) also included large-lot zoning in the critical area. 2. At the community meeting, participants were asked to participate in a straw poll of the three options at the close of the meeting. Four persons supported Option #3 (OWASA), while the remainder supported none of the above. No one voted for Options #1 and #2. ~~ ~ ~.. Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance ~ ~ ;i (changes shown in bold underline) *6.23 EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS * Amended 1/1/94 Pursuant to requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-214.5 (Chapter 143, Article 21), thirteen (13) Watershed Protection Overlay Districts, as described in Article 4.2.27 of this Ordinance, have been established for lands within the watersheds of existing or potential drinking water rivers and reservoirs. These districts overlay other zoning districts established in this Ordinance and delineated on the Orange County Zoning Atlas. Wherever standazds of the underlying zoning district differ from the watershed overlay standards, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. 6.23.1 LAND USE RESTRICTIONS 6.23.2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Maximum residential density shall be as indicated in the Table below, or as required by the underlying zoning district, whichever is less. *Amended 1-17-95 DISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY UN1V-CA 1 du/five acres. UNIV-PW Lots of record existing on October 2, 1989 may contain up to, but no more than, five lots with a density of one du/two acres. Contiguous lots of record existing on October 2, 1989 may be combined into one pazcel for development. The number oftwo-acre lots and the total .number of lots in the combined pazcel cannot exceed the sum of the number of lots which could be created from each lot of record. ~ :~ ,~ DISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY CANE-CA CANE-PW , a., ~ ,, 1 du/ five acres Lots of record existing on January 1, 1999 may contain ua to, but no _ more than, five lots as small as two acres in size. Contiguous lots of record existing on Januarv 1,1999 may be combined into one parcel for development. The number of two-acre lots and the total number of lots in the combined parcel cannot exceed the sum of the number of lots which could be created from each lot of record; OR In Flexible Development subdivisions, an overall density of one du/two acres is permitted provided at least 50% of the land within the subdivision s_set aside as open space (see Section IV.B.10 of the Subdivision Regulations) U-ENO-CA 1 du / 2 acres LITTLE-PW HYCO-PW 1 du/ 40,000 square feet (.92 acre) FLAT-PW U-ENO-PW Maximum density is as permitted in the underlying zoning district. L-ENO-PW HAW-PW Structural BMPs are required in some cases where density exceeds 1 dwelling JORDAN-PW unit per acre. Refer to Article 6.23.3c1. BACK-PW 6.23.3 STORMWATER INFILTRATION AND DETENTION Amended 1 /4/94 Non-Residential Development DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON-RESIDENTIAL) UNIV-CA Same as Residential (See previous Table) UNIV-PW . DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON-RESIDENTIAL) CANE-CA 5-acre minimum lot size. with potential of up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record 1/1/99• AND 6% impervious surface limit. BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. CANE-PW 5-acre minimum lot size with potential of up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record 1/1/99• AND 50%ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; AND 12%ISR for all other non-residential uses; AND on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non-residential use (139 acres in CANE-PW ). BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. U-ENO-CA 2-acre minimum lot size AND 6% impervious surface limit BMPs cannot be used to satis watershed re uirements. I~ 1 vi DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON-RESIDENTIAL) LITTLE-PW 2-acre minimum lot size AND 50%ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; AND 12%ISR for all other non-residential uses; AND on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non-residential use (403 acres in LITTLE-PW ). BMPs cannot be used to satis watershed re uirements. U-ENO-PW 70%ISR in Commercial and/or Industrial Nodes as designated in BACK-PW the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (high-density option) with structural BMPs if ISR > 12%; AND 50%ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers outside of Commercial and\or Industrial Nodes as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, with structural BMPs if ISR > 12% ; AND 12%ISR for all other non-residential uses outside of Commercial and\or Industrial Nodes as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements); AND on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND a limit of 1,151 acres of non-residential use throughout U-ENO- PW (5.0%) and 163 acres throughout BACK-PW (1%). HYCO-PW 50%ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; FLAT-PW AND 12%ISR for all other non-residential uses; AND on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND a limit of 1% of the watershed for non-residential use (37 acres in HYCO-PW, 66 acres in FLAT-PW). BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. ` DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON-RESIDENTIAL) L-ENO-PW 70% impervious surface, with structural BMPs required when impervious surface exceeds: 24% (w/ curb and gutter); or 36% (w/o curb and gutter). HAW-PW 24% impervious surface limit. JORDAN-PW BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. 6.23.4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURAL BMPs (DETENTION PONDS) 6.23.5 PLACEMENT OF STREETS, DRIVEWAYS AND BUILDINGS 6.23.6 UNDISTURBED AREA 6.23.7 STREAM BUFFERS 6.23.8 WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES *Amended 1-17-95 7-1-96 DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL UNIV-CA Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to UNIV-PW individual wells and on-site septic tanks systems or individual C' A ATl; DII7 ~T rAi.rt; nA ~raTa-~rz T TT T L'A~~ on-site alternative disposal system , , j~Tnt «..1.e.7 /!'' A ATZ: DII11 .,«,i !`«:+:....1 A ..~.. /!` A ATL' !"' A \ ,a ~l. \ 7 ° par ~ All Watershed Overlay Districts No new treatment system will be permitted where effluent disposal occurs on a sepazate lot from the source of wastewater generation; provided, however, off-site systems shall be permitted in all Watershed Overlay Districts except the University Lake Protected Watershed (UNIV-PW) and Critical Area (iJNIV-CA) when located in a Flexible Development subdivision approved in accordance with Section IV-10-B of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. UNIV-CA New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers, or 300 feet from a reservoir or perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, whichever is further. 1 cj ~ ~ :~ ~ DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL CANE-CA New septic tanks, pump tanks and their appurtenances shall be U-ENO-CA located outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, and at least 150 feet from a reservoir. New nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, and at least 300 feet from a reservoir. CANE-PW Water suaaly and sewage treatment systems shall be limited CANE-CA to individual wells and septic tanks or individual on-site U-ENO-CA alternative disposal systems; provided however, off-site systems shall be permitted when located in a Flexible DeveloQment subdivision approved in accordance with Section IV-10-B of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. UNIV-PW New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located CANE-PW outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a U-ENO-PW perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS HYCO-PW Quadrangle maps. LITTLE-PW BACK-PW HAW-PW JORDAN-PW L-ENO-PW FLAT-PW 6.23.9 CLUSTERING DISTRICT CLUSTERING REQUIREMENTS UNIV-CA Clustering of residential lots is permitted in accordance with Section IV-B-9 UNIV-PW of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, with the additional provision that each lot contains a minimum of one acre. All Other Clustering of residential lots is permitted in accordance with Section IV-B-10 Overlay of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Districts 6.23.10 APPLICABILITY *Amended 1-17-95 a) Existing Development 19' ~ For the purpose of determining compliance with or applicability of Article 6.23 of this Ordinance, existing development is defined as a residential or non-residential structure which 1) was constructed prior to January 1, 1994 (January 1. 1999 in the CANE-CA and CANE-PW districts); or 2) was constructed in accordance with a valid building permit issued prior to January 1, 1994 (January 1.1999 in the CANE-CA and CANE-PW districts); or 3) was included as part of a Site Specific Development Plan approved by the Board of Commissioners prior to January 1, 1994 (January 1. 1999 in the CANE-CA and CANE-PW districts); or 4) had otherwise established a vested right under North Cazolina Zoning law prior to January 1, 1994 (January 1.1999 in the CANE-CA and CANE-PW districts) Existing development is hereby deemed to be conforming with respect to requirements of Article 6.23 of this Ordinance. ij ~., b) Redevelopment The rebuilding or replacement of residential or nonresidential structures which are defined as existing development according to Article 6.23.11 a is allowed, provided that the rebuilding or replacement does not result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface, and does not encroach any farther into stream buffers or setbacks from reservoirs than the previous development. A structure which is rebuilt or replaced in accordance with these provisions is deemed conforming with respect to setbacks from streams and reservoirs required by Articles 6.23.7 and 6.23.8 if this Ordinance. c) Existing Lots An existing lot, for the purpose of determining compliance with Article 6.23, is defined as a lot which was created prior to January 1, 1994, or a lot within the Cane Creek watershed (CANE- CA or CANE-PW districts) which was created grior to January 1,1999. Stream buffers as required by Article 6.23.7, and setbacks for septic systems as required by Article 6.23.8 may be reduced to the extent necessary to allow development of the lot, provided that all of the following criteria are met: 1. The septic system is sized to serve no more than four bedrooms; and 2. The septic tank, drainfield and repair area (where required) can be accommodated on 20,000 squaze feet of area or less; and 3. The Orange County Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange County Environmental Health and/or the Orange County Engineer has determined that encroachment of the structure into the stream buffer and/or encroachment, of the septic system or repair azea into the stream buffer or reservoir setback is necessary in order to provide adequate area for septic disposal and repair while maintaining required separations between wells, septic systems, structures and property lines; and 4. The Orange County Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange County Environmental Health and/or the Orange County Engineer, has determined that the relative locations of the well, septic system and structure maximize the amount of watershed protection that can be achieved while allowing development of the lot. Generally, an exception to setbacks for repair area is preferable to an exception for the initial septic system, and encroachment of structures or gravity septic systems into the setback is preferable to the installation of a septic system pump. 5. The amount of encroachment into the stream or reservoir buffer is the minimum amount which can be obtained while meeting the above criteria. () ti Section 22 Definitions Amended Flexible Development - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design 7-1-96 creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community chazacter that might otherwise be lost through development approaches. At lease one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space, •-~ . A Ereater percentage of open space maY be required based on the density requirements in certain overlay zoning districts In Cane Creek watershed at least 50% of the land within a Flexible Develo went subdivision must be set aside as oven space. In order to meet open space requirements open space may be preserved through: (a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or greater in size, building limits (50%) aze established for each lot, and the land azea outside such limits is preserved as open space; or (b) a "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open space is preserved through the use of conservation easements applied to portions of individual lots; or (c) A "cluster" approach where lot sizes aze reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space; or (d) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units aze clustered azound a village green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded by open space; or (e) Some combination of the above. ~~ • , ~~~