Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19861124305 JOINT QUARTERLY MEETING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for the purpose of holding a joint quarterly public hearing on November 24, 19$6, 7:3o p.m. in Superior Courtroom, orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Jr., and Sen Lloyd. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Norman Walker. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and members Sharlene Pilkey, Betty Margison, Mike Lewis, Chris Best, Steve Yuhasz, Carl Walters, Prince Taylor, and David Shanklin. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Gene Sell, Greg Szymik and Brad Torgan. A. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Lloyd announced that Commissioner Walker would not be in attendance because of family illness. `'! Chair Willhoit called the meeting to order and introduced the Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs who conducted the meeting. Jacobs announced that item 2d Article 12 Landscaping and Screening and item 3b which pertains to Section IV-B-B of the Subdivision Ordinance for Landscaping and Suffer Requirements would not be heard tonight. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. Z-9-86 Oran a Count Desi nation of Rural Buffer Area Director of Planning Marvin Collins made the presentation. He explained that this amendment is to the Zoning Atlas which is a map showing the various zoning districts in the County. The change deals with the Rural Buffer which surrounds the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He reiterated the events leading to this point in time. On October 13, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a Joint Planning Area Plan with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He pointed to the map and noted all the designations that were adopted, including the areas that were designated most suitable for agricultural use, rural residential for very low density, urban development or higher densities, commercial-office development and also the resource protection areas. As a part of that plan adoption, a minimum lot size standard was designated for the Rural Buffer section surrounding Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He pointed out these areas on the map noting the minimum lot size of two (2) acres. He stated that because of the standards contained in the Subdivision regulations, the minimum lot size of two acres could be enforced as of the date of the adoption of the Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning 306 Area. Any new subdivisions which have been received by the Planning Department since October 13, 1986 for either preliminary or sketch plan approval have been required to comply with the two acre minimum lot size standard. He explained that in order to provide continuity between the Land Use Plan and the Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Atlas and Zoning Ordinance,. the public hearing on establishing the Rural Buffer district, the dimensional requirements that apply within that district and the designation of that area on the Zoning Atlas was set for tonight. Collins made reference to the map indicating the boundaries of the proposed Rural Buffer district. He noted that it comprises approximately 38,000 acres and involves approximately 4300 parcels. There are currently two zoning designations in this area which are Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R1). If this proposal is approved by the Board of Commissioners, those two designations would be changed to Rural Buffer (RB). ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS a. Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule_(4.2.1 - Rural_Buffer~ Collins explained that Article 4 establishes a list of all the zoning districts included in the Zoning Ordinance and also designated in the Zoning Atlas. Article 4 also indicates the intent of the various zoning districts, when the district will be applied and the criteria used for such application. The intent of the Rural Buffer district is to provide locations for Rural Residential development and agricultural, silvicultural or horticultural uses which serve to buffer or separate more intensively planned and/or developed portions of Orange County. Development within the Rural Buffer District is at very low densities (the minimum lot size per dwelling unit being two (2) acres). Development within. that area would also rely on individual wells and ground absorption systems for domestic water supply and sewage disposal, respectively. In terms of the application criteria, the district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: (1) Designated by the adopted Countywide Land Use Plan as Rural Suffer or by the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential or both. (2) Urban services, including water distribution and sewage collection mains are not likely within 10-20 years. Collins noted that in order to accommodate this district, renumbering would be necessary within Article 4 to provide consistency in zoning district arrangement. b. Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule Renumber 4.2.1 to 4.2.4 Collins pointed out that the establishment of a new zoning district classification would require a renumbering of the current Articles 4.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4. No changes are proposed to the text of these articles. No changes are being recommended in the uses in the AR or R1 districts. All the uses that are currently permitted in these two districts would continue to be permitted in the proposed Rural Suffer districts. c. Pro osed Zonin Ordinance Text Amendment -Article 5 - Establishment of Dimensional Re irements Rural Buffer 307 Collins indicated this item is to receive public comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish dimensional requirements such as lot area, lot width, setbacks, building height, etc. for a proposed new zoning district classification, Rural Buffer (RB). Collins indicated that the information regarding lot sizes in the agenda packet was based on 80,000 square foot lots and should be disregarded. He said updated information was distributed based on a two acre lot size before the meeting. Collins said data was collected from the Orange County Land Records Office indicates that approximately.50~ of the parcels within the proposed Rural Buffer have lot sizes of less than 2 -acres. This indicates that 50~ of all parcels within the area would become nonconforming if the proposed minimum lot size. standard of two acres were adopted. These parcels constitute only five percent (5~) of the total acreage. Other dimensional requirements that would apply include lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, building height and standards which apply to Planned Developments. The minimum lot width proposed. in the RB district would be 200 feet. The proposed front yard setback would be 60 feet from the front property line. The proposed side and rear yard setbacks would require a 30-foot setback. The proposed maximum building height is 25 feet. For Planned Developments, the minimum gross land area required would be 4 acres. A maximum floor area ratio of .04 is proposed and the minimum required open space (a11 areas not covered by buildings) would be 86~ of the site. The required livability space ratio would be 80$. The minimum required recreational space ratio on a lot-by-lot development would be equivalent to .014. He explained that for any type of multi-family development or non- residential development, the same minimum lot size would apply. The dimensional requirements for non residential use are identical to those for residential development in this Rural Buffer area. Collins emphasized that any existing one acre lot that existed prior to the time of the adoption of this Ordinance could be built upon provided the owner of that lot did not own other lots with continuous frontage. If a person owns more than three lots, the continuous frontage rule would apply. There are provisions that would allow three lots with 80~ of the lot area and 80$ of the lot width required in the Rural Suffer district. If any structure within this proposed Rural Buffer became nonconforming. as a result of the application and was destroyed up to 75~, of the floor area, it could be reconstructed and would not need to meet the minimum lot size or minimum width standards. It would have to comply with front, side and rear yard setback requirements as well as the building height requirements. 3. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS a. Section IV-B-1 Lot Standards To clarify the application of lot standards within the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, it is recommended that the following wording for the first sentence in the first paragraph of Section IV-B-1 read as follows: "The minimum lot size shall be as required by the Orange County Land Use Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance or the Hillsborough Zoning ordinance, whichever is applicable." Collins noted for the record the receipt of several letters. Those writing in support of the 2 acre minimum lot size are Mr. William Mead, Mr. Dale Hammond, and R. R. McGregor Converse. Those writing in opposition of the 2 acre minimum lot size are Mazie Cradle, Surtronics, 308 Inc., and Mrs. Edna C. Harville. UESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF CLARIFICATION Several members of the audience asked questions of clarification.' These were answered by Marvin Collins. In answer to a question from Commissioner Lloyd, Collins explained that the. 6% impervious ratio has no real relationship to the Rural Buffer. It would apply indirectly for Planned Developments through application of the open space ratio. It does not apply to individual lots. Collins explained that if there is a planned development in the Rural Suffer whereby cluster units are proposed, the two- acre minimum would still apply in terms of overall density. Collins explained that any plan that has not received preliminary plan approval or sketch plan approval in the case of phased developments where at least one phase has received preliminary plan approval, will be required to meet the two-acre minimum lot size if within the AR and R1 district. Several in the audience expressed the fact that they knew nothing about any of the informational meetings or public hearings that were held or the issues being discussed. Marvin Collins explained that what is being presented for public comment is a proposed zoning district designation. It has not existed ~> before and the dimensional requirements that are being proposed have not existed before. The two acre minimum lot size standard was approved as a' part of the Joint Planning Area Plan. Marvin Collins explained that the extension of water and sewer will be controlled by the two acre minimum lot size requirement in that such extensions are cost prohibitive for such large lots. COMMENTS UESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS In answer to a question from Commissioner Lloyd, Collins stated that the extension of water and sewer into the Rural Suffer will be prevented from reaching that area. If water and sewer were allowed in the RB, there would be a great deal of pressure to develop and the very low density area that would be achieved by this change would be lost. Collins explained that if a person owned three acres and wanted to svrdivide, that each lot would need to have 1.6 acres or 80~ of the two acre minimum lot size requirement. It would have to meet the 200 foot width requirement - 80% of which would be 160 feet. Chair Don Willhoit made reference to the number of made nonconforming and asked if it was absolutely Zoning Ordinance be amended to be consistent with the that regard or could it be just a part of the Land Us• prospectively to subdivisions. Collins indicated it could be done but there would contradiction in the standards contained in the two lots that would be required that the Land use Plan in Plan and applied forever be a ordinances and the 3a9 Land Use Plan. Commissioner Marshall asked if it would be possible to have the old standards apply to the 5~ nonconforming areas and the new standards apply to the remaining 95%. Collins suggested an alternative would be to leave those properties that were developed with a one acre standard in an R1 district where the lot sizes are 40,000 square feet. It would not address every single lot in that area but it would greatly reduce the number of lots affected by the two acre lot minimum standard considerably. Collins indicated in answer to a question .from David Shanklin the advantages of a two acre minimum lot size. Planning Board member Steve Yuhasz asked what particular advantages will be accrued to the county to create a large number of nonconforming lots. Collins indicated the real advantage is that the intent of the Rural Buffer would be carried out by applying the standards as uniformly as possible throughout that area. Anytime a change is made where zoning is being applied there will be lots placed in a nonconforming status. In answer to a question from Commissioner Carey, Collins indicated that the number of nonconforming lots where a contiguous lot is owned by the same person is unknown. In answer to a question about notice of public hearings, Barry Jacobs explained the procedure that is followed. Note: The Public Hearing was opened at this point for the purpose of receiving public comments or additional questions. _.. 1. REGINA NOBBLITT spoke in opposition of the proposal. She owns two acres of land and objects to the fact that she cannot give one acre to her son to build a home. 2. DELOIS TURNER expressed her difficulty in getting a building permit. 3. JOHN SHERRON spoke in opposition of the proposal indicating he would do on his acre whatever he wanted. 4. JOHN LATE spoke in opposition of the proposal. 5. LOTS BURNETTE spoke in opposition of the proposal and the fact that the County Commissioners are requiring the taxpaying citizens to build on two acres of land. 6. TOM HEFFNER spoke in opposition of the proposal. He expressed a concern that the requirement of two acre minimum lot size will increase lot prices by at least 10$ while the current market value of the raw undeveloped land will decrease. He suggested that a one acre minimum be approved for those who want only a one acre lot. He noted that usually dup to soil perk problems most developments have lots between 1 acre and 2 acres. He stated that the extension of water and sewer should be encouraged because of the health problems associated with septic tanks. In answer to a question from Planning Board member Peter Kramer, Heffner stated that the developer will receive a return on .investment but that from an economic standpoint, a developer will pay more for land that they can develop at a ratio of one lot per acre than for a piece of land they would develop at a ratio of one dwelling per two acres. 3~0 7. HAZEL M. COTTON asked about a situation in which she deeded to her san an acre of land but because of a problem with the right--of-way cannot get a building permit to move her sons trailer onto the one acre of land. ~ Barry Jacobs explained that without knowing the entire situation, he could not address the problem. He informed her of the appeal procedures: through the Board of Adjustment. 8. BOB HOGAN expressed opposition to the proposal. He indicated that the proposal was not in the interest of the majority of people. He expressed a concern that the watershed continue to be protected. 9. DICK HAVENS, Real Estate' Broker, spoke in opposition. He mentioned concern for the land that had been handed down through generations. He questioned the legality of attaching such a regulation to land owned by individuals. 10. JOHN HODGES-COPPLE, Habitat for Humanity, expressed opposition to the proposal and expressed a concern for affordable housing. He agreed with keeping Chapel Hill and Carrboro away from Hillsborough. He feels there must be another solution for what the Board is trying to do. 11. CHARLOTTE THOMANN spoke in support of the two acre minimum lot size. She agreed that the undeveloped land should be kept to the minimum growth but that any pre--existing properties should be exempted from the two acre minimum. Development is encroaching upon orange County and she feels the people who live in the County should be protected. The two acre minimum would also help protect Duke Forest which hopefully will remain undeveloped to provide green space in the County. 12. J. BARRY WESTON, Civil Engineer specializing in land planning,;.,,..,:; emphasized that the minimum two acre lot size will significantly increase` the price of lots. There are problems with water and sewer within those areas already. The proposal will be unfair to those existing property owners both large and small. It will be unfair to prospective buyers because it will raise the cost of those lots. 13. W2LLTAM HUTCHINS, Falls of the New Hope, indicated that the vast majority of landowners in that area desire the two acre minimum lot size. He.stated that six wells are already polluted making it difficult to have one acre lots. 14. PETE THORN, Homebuilders Association, spoke in opposition of the two acre minimum because it prohibits affordable housing. If water and sewer is not extended into the Rural Buffer most of the land will remain undeveloped because of the inability of the soil for septic tanks. He stated that unless the Rural Buffer is going to be set aside as a bedroom community, the two acre lot size does not make sense. 15. FORREST D. LOY owns one and one half acres and voiced opposition to the proposal. 16. LULA M. COTTON asked that the County Commissioners think about what an acre of land costs. She asked that they. let one acre stand. 17. JOSEPH FEARRINGTON spoke a,n opposition to the proposal. He wants the proposal changed to one acre lots. 18. GROVER WEBB of the Orange Grove Community strongly opposed the two 3>> acre proposal. 19. CECIL GRIFFITH stated he lived in the area for 23 years. He questioned the logic for requiring a two acre lot size. He noted that septic. tank inspections have limited the amount of territory necessary for a site. If a person has only one acre of land, he should be permitted to build upon that site. He asked why~it was .necessary to change the setback requirements because of the two acre minimum lot size. He spoke of the tax rate and questioned why the County did not allow more density to increase the tax base so taxes. would be lower. He see no logic in the proposal. He questioned who on the Board voted for the two acre minimum lot size and was informed that it was a unanimous vote.. Peter Kramer stated for the record that the vote of the Planning Board on the two acre minimum lot size was a five to five vote. He noted that increased density increases the need for services which will not decrease the tax rate. 20. HENRY WFiITFIELD spoke in opposition of the proposal. He reemphasized that two acre lots will prohibit water and sewer extensions. He stated that there are health problems that need to be corrected and there needs to be enough density to pay for the needed services and utilities which cannot be done with two acre lots. The cost of building would be greatly increased and the cost of. property would increase. He noted that one acre lots should be permitted and if the developer wants to run sewer and water lines permit that developer to have one half acre lots. He indicated that growth is coming and the County needs to prepare for it. 21. STEPHEN QUINT of the Falls of New Hope area stated that he had no idea that this proposal would be so restrictive. He feels that the Falls of New Hope Association will change their position on this proposal once ~~~~ they are informed of the ramifications. Because of the side setbacks he will not be able to expand his home. He criticized changing the regulations and making them retroactive to the existing lots and houses. He stated it seems that the people are here for the convenience of planning instead of planning being here for the convenience of people. He expressed concern for those people who want to give a portion of their land to relatives for a home. He questioned why the setbacks had to be changed. He indicated that while he is concerned with development he is also concerned about the increase in hardship as a result of lower density. 22. LIZ PETERS stated that what the Planning Board is doing is defeating the purpose. She expressed concern for maintaining the character of her neighborhood. She lives on one acre and feels it wrong that people who own two acres cannot develop both of those acres. 23. HELENS IVEY, Realtor in Chapel Hill, expressed concern for the poor people in the County. She feels that penalizing people -- for the County to come in and set a minimum lot size -- is not right. She noted that she just had 90 acres tested and not one acre perked. The extension of water and sewer is essential because there is a lot of land in the County that will not perk. The price of land will be out of reach for most of the minorities in the County. ,, 24. DAVID PARRISH, indicated he has four acres and three children. He asked if his three children could live on the other three acres he owns. Two of his children will not be able to purchase land in Orange County. He is looking out for his children but the Commissioners are not looking 312 out for him. 25. ROBERT MCMTLLAN, Minister, asked if he will be able to subdivide a two acre lot and .Chair Willhoit indicated he would not be allowed to da_.,,-~ so. McMillan stated that it seems that ordinances and town rules and regulations are taking the place of people. He recommended that this, proposal be reconsidered because those who want the two acres are those who are rich or live in the town and want to run all over country people. It is making .it impossible for black people to own or develop land if you go to the two acre minimum. 26. BOB HARTMAN, Contractor, stated that it seems that most of the people in the audience are opposed to the proposal and asked what the procedure will be following the public hearing. Don Willhoit explained that at the end of the public hearing the proposal will be referred to the Planning Board fora recommendation. They will meet on December 15 and the recommendation will be received by the Board of Commissioners on January 5. 27. GREG MCALLLSTER, agreed with what Mr. Hefner and Mr. Whitfield said. He approves of the one acre lot size and emphasized that water and sewer extensions should be encouraged to go into those areas. 2$. MARK O'NEILL noted he and four sisters own 160 acres in the Rural Suffer zone. He had a contract with a developer to purchase this property. However, with the proposed changes, the developer is no longer interested and the contract fell through. He stated that it does adversely affect the land values. The development costs are going to increase thus making it more difficult for the average homebuyer to vwn a- ~. home. The lack of housing is affecting economic development in the county because of the lack of a workforce. The future. growth of Orange ,;, County will be adversely affected as well as the economic wellbeing of~~~' the County. 29. RAY LEIGHENDORFF, spoke in favor of the two acre minimum. He stated that the County would be better served with two acre lots. 30. ALOIB CALLEMYN, Surveyor, spoke on behalf of his clients. The twa acre versus one acre has an impact on future development. Most developers want to do something that works. Generally, if you come in with 100 acres, you get 70 lots. The two acre minimum lot size would reduce the number of lots to 40. The developers will leapfrog the Rural Suffer. There will be development but it will be further out in the Cc°a.nty. This proposal would add an increased burden to the land. He asked if there was any hope that this proposal will be turned down and when will the effective date be known. Chair Willhoit stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive public input and that all comments will be taken under advisement in making a decision. Commissioner L1ayd asked if this two acre minimum lot size was in effect at this time and if so what procedure must be followed to revert back to the one acre minimum lot size. Collins indicated that if anyone wants to amend the existing two acre standard, the Land Use Plan would need to be amended. This procedure can be initiated by the citizens of Orange County or by the Board of Commissioners. ~" 31. RANDY DANZINGER, Calavander Neighborhood Association, indicated that 373 the main purpose of initially supporting the two acre minimum lot size was to maintain the rural character of the area. He noted that the interest of those homeowners in the Calavander area was in not seeing high density housing in the rural area. Another concern was that water and sewer not be extended out into the rural area because high density would follow. He suggested that one way to address these concerns would be to keep the one acre minimum lot size but to cluster developments so that open space would be provided and dedicate this open space to protect it from ever being developed. This would satisfy those concerns expressed by those in attendance and those needs for affordable housing. This density would make it economically feasible to run sewer and water and provide other necessary services. 32. LARRY REID spoke in opposition to the proposal. 33. ANN JOYNER, Cedar Grove Township, spoke on behalf of Dolly Hunter. She expressed concern that this regulation will cause developers to leapfrog and come out into the rural agricultural section of the County. 34. BOBBY GRIFFITH spoke in opposition to the two acre minimum lot size. He indicated he will have to pay double for the amount of land he will need in order to build a house. 35. MERRILL FISHER spoke in opposition of th.e proposal. 36: ROY STRAND stated that sewer should be extended as far as possible and the property to the west and north developed. 37. HENRY WELLS stated that water and sewer should be extended through the entire County wherever feasible. 38. CHARLES HIGH spoke in opposition to the two acre minimum lot size. He asked about the setbacks and Marvin Collins reiterated the dimensions. 39. DIANE RIGSBEE indicated she had been since June trying to get her plan approved by the Planning Staff. She has paid out $600 for a survey and would like to be able to move her trailer to her land. She felt it the responsibility of the Planning Staff to inform her of any changes that may affect her request. 40. WADE PARRISH spoke in opposition of everything proposed. 41. J. C. MCLAMB, resident of New Hope, stated it was not the place of any body of government to tell people what they can do with their land. 42. JOSEPHINE BYRD spoke regarding some land that was sold to pay the taxes. 43. HENRY WHITFIELD questioned why this proposal the Planning Board and why a decision could not be Willhoit explained the procedure in accordance Whitfield asked if a petition would be in order to acre lot requirement be dropped and asked that petition for those in attendance to sign. had to be returned to made tonight. Chair with the Ordinance. request that the two Collins draw up the e. ARTICLE 6 - A lication of Dimensional Re irements 6.16.12 Telephone Exchanges, et~;, al. Collins presented for the receipt of public comment a proposed 3~4 Zoning ordinance text amendment which would establish a minimum lot size requirement for telephone exchange facilities (without offices), subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations, water and sewer pump stations in all zoning districts. OWASA and the Town of Hillsborough reached an agreement to develop the capability to pump water to the Hillsborough system. OWASA has indicated a site of 10,000 square feet is sufficient for the pump station. Also Mebane Home Telephone wishes to acquire property in the vicinity of Mebane Oaks Road to install a telephone exchange (without offices) and have indicated that 5,000 square feet is sufficient to serve their needs. Collins acknowledged receipt of a letter from oWASA in which they express their support for this amendment. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion .was made by Commissioner Marshall,. seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer all of the public hearing items presented to the Planning Board for a recommendation and continue the public hearing until. January 5, 1986 for receipt of the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on Monday, December 1, 1986 at 7:30 in the Board of Commissioners Room, orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. :~:` Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk :':~