HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-20-1998 - 8gORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: JanuM 20, 1998
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
Article 6.23 Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
Article 22 Definitions
Action Agenda
Item #A4_
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X—Yes No
BUDGET AMENDMENT Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Amendments
Correspondence from Division of Water Quality
Draft 11/24/97 Public Hearing Minutes
Draft 1/7/98 Planning Board Minutes
Emily Cameron
Extension 2580
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Durham 688 -7331
Mebane 227 -2031
Chapel Hill 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to achieve full
compliance with State- mandated watershed protection regulations.
BACKGROUND: Zoning Ordinance amendments which were adopted by the Board of
Commissioners on January 1, 1994 were soon thereafter submitted for review and
approval by the Environmental Management Commission.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ), responsible for reviewing the ordinances
for all NC counties and municipalities within water supply watersheds, returned
its comments in the attached letter to the County Manager dated August 1, 1997.
The following revisions are required in order to obtain full compliance with the
State mandate:
• Change the word "sludge" to "residual ";
• Change references from "Division of Environmental Management" to
"Division of Water Quality "; and
• Clarify definitions for Major Variance, Minor Variance, and Discharging
Landfill.
The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on November 24,
1997. There were no citizen or Board comments.
The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on January 7, 1998 and
recommended approval. The vote was unanimous.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board of Commissioners close the
public hearing and approve the proposed amendment.
3
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: ARTICLE 6.23 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
ARTICLE 22 Definitions
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
X Other: NC Division of Water Quality
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_ High Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 24, 1997
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend Orange County watershed protection regulations in response to
comments from the NC Division of Water Quality on compliance with the
State mandate.
IMPACTSASSUES: Zoning Ordinance amendments which were adopted by the Board of
Commissioners on January 1, 1994 were soon thereafter submitted for review and
approval by the Environmental Management Commission.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ), responsible for reviewing the ordinances
for all NC counties and municipalities within water supply watersheds, returned
its comments in the attached letter to the County Manager dated August 1, 1997.
The following revisions are required in order to obtain full compliance with the
State mandate:
• Change the word "sludge" to "residual ";
Change references from "Division of Environmental Management" to
"Division of Water Quality "; and
Clarify definitions for Major Variance, Minor Variance, and Discharging
Landfill.
One of the revisions in the attached letter (item 4.b - definition of Non-
Conforming Lot of Record) is not necessary. The Zoning Ordinance already
contains a definition of Non - Conforming Lot which satisfies the state
requirement. DWQ staff was not aware of this definition when their letter was
written, and indicated during a phone conversation with Planning Staff on
October 3, 1997 that revision to the current definition was not necessary.
Likewise, DWQ staff was unaware that the Zoning Ordinance already defines
Discharging Landfill. The existing definition needs to be revised only to state that
discharging landfills require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)permit.
The August 1, 1997 letter from DWQ specified that revisions to the must be
adopted by the Board and submitted to DWQ by November 28, 1997. That
deadline was extended to March 27, 1998 in order to allow sufficient time to
complete the ordinance amendment review and approval process.
5
EXISTING/PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
6.23 EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS
6.23.1 LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
All uses and activities allowed in the underlying zoning district are permitted with the following
exceptions:
DISTRICT
LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
UNIV -CA
No new landfills are permitted.
UNIV -PW
No commercial or industrial uses are permitted.
CANE -CA
No new golf courses are permitted.
U- ENO -CA
UNIV -CA
No slime residual (sludge) application is permitted.
CANE -CA
U- ENO -CA
CANE -PW
No discharging landfills are permitted.
U- ENO -PW
Industrial use is limited to non - hazardous light industrial uses characterized by
HYCO -PW
low water use (less than 10, 000 gpd, excluding domestic water (25 gpd per
LITTLE -PW
employee) and water used for heating and air conditioning).
BACK -PW
FLAT -PW
HAW -PW
L- ENO -PW
JORDAN -PW
6.23.4 Operation and Maintenance of Structural BMPs (Detention Ponds)
5. Annual Inspection Required
a. All stormwater structures shall be inspected by Orange County at least on an annual
basis to determine whether the controls are performing as designed and intended.
Records of inspections shall be maintained on forms approved or supplied by the
North Carolina Division of Water Ouality. Annual
inspections shall begin within one (1) year of the filing date of the deed for the
stormwater control structure.
6.23.11 ADMINISTRATION
a) Appeals
Decisions of the Zoning Officer in the implementation of this Article may be
0
appealed to the Orange County Board of Adjustment in accordance with Article 2.3.7 of this
Ordinance.
b) Variances
Minor variances for dimensional requirements may be approved by the Board of Adjustment in
accordance with Article 2.3.6 of this Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment may also approve
variance requests to allow the use of off -site septic easements for lots created after January 1,
1994.
A Minor Variance is defined as a variance from the minimum statewide water supply watershed
protection rules that results in a relaxation by a factor of up to ten (10) percent of any
management requirement under the low density requirement.
..
A Maior Variance is defined as a variance from the statewide water supply watershed
regulations that results in the relaxation by a factor of greater than ten (10) percent of any
management requirement under the low density option or the relaxation of any management
requirement that applies to a development project requiring construction of a BMP.
A description of each project receiving a variance and the reason for granting the variance shall
be submitted for each calendar year to the -Eem issien ea an am ua4 basis. Division of Water
Quality on or before January 1 st of the following_} ear.
All other local governments having jurisdiction within the watershed area and the entity using
the water supply for consumption shall be notified of the proposed exemption.
ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS
Landfill, Discharging - A landfill facility with liner, monitoring equipment and other measures to
detect and/or prevent leachate from entering the environment and in which the leachate is treated on
site and discharged to a receiving stream. Discharging landfills require a National Pollution System
(NPDES) Permit from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary � c
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director C
August 1, 1997
Mr. john Link
County Manager
Orange County
200 South Cameron Street.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Re: Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance
Dear Mr. Link:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the status of the water supply
watershed protection ordinance for Orange County. As you are aware, the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) revised the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules in 1995
in order to clarify certain provisions and add flexibility for local governments administering
their water supply watershed protection programs. Staff of the Division of Water Quality
reviewed the ordinance for compliance under both the 1992 and 1995 versions of the Rules. The
corrections recommended under the 1995 version of the rules are optional, and are noted as such
in this letter. The other corrections listed below are not optional. Once the ordinance is
amended and submitted to the Division of Water Quality, we will recommend approval of the
ordinance by the Environmental Management Commission. In accordance with the Water
Supply Watershed Protection Act (NCGS 143 - 214.5), the County has 120 days to correct and
submit the ordinance to the Division of Water Quality. The deadline for submission is Friday.
November 28 199 The additional changes that are necessary in order for the ordinance to
meet the minimum statewide requirements are as follows:
1. In Section 6.23.1, change the word "sludge" to the word "residual' consistent with
statewide terminology. All other references to the word "sludge" in the ordinance
should be corrected.
2. In Section 6.23.11, correct the following-
" A description of each project receiving a variance and the reasons for granting the
variance shall be submitted for each calendar year to the Genmiisaien Division of
Water Quality on or before lanuar 1st of the following ye
In July 1996, the Division of Environmental Management became the Division of Water
Quality. Please amend all references in your ordinance to the Division of
Environmental Management to reflect this change.
3. Modify the definitions of major and minor variance in Section 6.23.11, based on the 1995
Rules revisions:
Major Variance. A variance from the minimum statewide water supply
watersheds rotection rules that results in (1) the eemplete weiver
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 -0535 Telephone 919 - 733 -5083 FAX 919 -733 -9919
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post- consumer paper
Mr. John Link
August 1, 1997
Page Two
management _ the relaxation, by a factor of greater than ten (10)
percent, of any management requirement that takes the form of a numerical
standard ...
Minor Variance. A variance that dees net qualify as a majer waketshed
Yafieznee from the ii.i.l _ll • .•i t_ _
4. Add or amend the following definitions to the ordinance, consistent with the 1995
revisions to the State Rules:
landfill Discharging Landfill. A discharges treat-. leachate and
which reQuires a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NP ter
• •
IT! • ! • VIM= _ i _ _ • _ i • • i _ • 11 l ! !l i _ i c
• • - l • �i ti l " ll.. l 1l _ tl • - • • i _ � _ _ • • it _ ! - • - ll " l • t
All other aspects of your ordinance are acceptable and we anticipate an expeditious
final approval from the Environmental Management Commission once the above noted
corrections are made and the ordinance is resubmitted. Although you are not required to update
your ordinance to meet the 1995 revisions to the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules, you
may wish to consider these new rules when amending your ordinances to incorporate the
required changes listed above. If you have any questions regarding the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Program, please contact Lisa Martin at (919) 733 -5083, ext. 565 at your
convenience. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support of the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Program.
Sincerely,
Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc Lisa Martin
Judy Garrett, RRO DWQ
Marianne Frederick, ARO DCA
DWQ Central Files
Mary Willis, Orange County Planner
N
1
1 Mr. Morrison indicated that he owns a lot next to the 11/24/97 Public Hearing Minutes
2 infOr=V0n regarding what would actually parcel.
and is building a home on the lot Me asked for
3 auy be done with this parcel.
4 Mary Wills Indicated that the possible uses are listed in the packet on pages So and 31. Some of those uses
5 are tight industrial, light manufacturing and a number of commercial uses.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the
8 Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than February 3
9 1998.
0 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
1
2 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
4 a) Garden Center
5 This item was presented by Planner Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on
5 proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to create a new land use category called 'Garden Cents' with
appropriate standards as included to Article 6 and a definition of the use In Article 22. On September 30, the
7 Planning Department received a citizen's request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a new land use category
8 Called 4garden center.' Garden center is a type of retail use providing landscaping supplies primarily for home use.
8 The definition prnposad for Article 22 Includes a list of typical products to be sold. The proposed amendment to the
0 Permitted Use Table indicates Harden center as a permitted use in all commercial zoning districts as well as in the
1 Agricultural Service District. Therefore, the use would be su*d to Planning Department review and approval of a
Z site plan before zoning and building permits may be issued. Standards for operations are proposed for Article 5.16
3 which list additional requirements for certain permitted uses. The suggested standards specify that outdoor storage
4 and display of goods are permitted and limit the area allowed for outdoor storage of bulk materials such as sand,
5 topsoil, mulch, etc.
7 Mr. Greg Shepard. of Phillip Post A Associates, indicated that he represents a diem who wants to put a
9 garden center at this location. Upon examination of the Zoning Ordinance he discovered that the two dosest use
0 o were ember greenhouse or retail sales. He found that a Garden Center does not fit either category. They
present this proposal to be considered countywide. They created this proposal themselves with help
1 from the Planning staff. He mentioned that outside storage would be allowed and would be located to the rest or side
2 of the building and would be screened by an a' foot fence. The amount of square footage for the outdoor storage
3 would also be limited to 1 SAW square feet per acre.
4
5 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONiER$
6 None.
7
8 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
9 None.
0
1 allESTHM ANGIOR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
2 Harold Newton stated that he owns a Garden Center in this general area and would like to move a portion of
3 his business to this new location. He wants to display plants, topsoil. firewood and pumpkins. This property is
5 aurrenny zoned Local Commercial (LC) which does not allow outside products to be displayed.
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey. seconded by Commission Hal kiotis, to refer this Item to the
7 Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Comrnissioners no sooner than February 3.
8 im.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOU8
0
1 b) Watershed Protection Overlay oftokts
2 This item was presented by Planner Mary was for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a
3 proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance amendments which were adopted by the
4 Dowd of Comrtlssloners on January 1, 1994 were soon thereafter submitted for review and approval by the
5 wart ad Management ommission. The Division of Water Quality (DWO) who is responsible for reviewing the and municipalities within water supply watersheds, returned its a c mnrerRS in a letter to
7 the County Manager dated August 1. 190. The following revisions are required do ceder to obtain fun compliance
8 with the Shit mandate:
9 • Charge the word Sludge' to'reai0 C,
4
Change references from 'Division of Environmental Management' to 'Division of Water Quality`; and
2 . Clarify definitions for Major Variance. Minor Variance, and Discharging Landfill.
3
4 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 None.
6
7 QUESTIONS ANWOR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
8 None.
9
0 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
1 None.
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, second by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the
4 Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 20,
5 19M.
6 VOTE. UNANIMOUS
7
8 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
9 Zoning OreBnance Teat Amendment
0 SubdivWon Regutativns Text Amendment
1 aI Functional! Road Classification
Z This item was presented by Planner Slade McCaffp in order to receive comment on the draft
3 ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the update to the Functional Road Classifications of the
4 Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. On June 4, 1997 staff presented to the Planning Board a
5 pr and schedule for updating the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan including an update to
6 the road functional classifications. An amendment to update the functional classifications is necessary because the
7 maps in the Transportation Element to the Comprehensive Plan depict planned reads that are no longer planned.
8 Some of the current functional classifications are not referenced by other adopted plans and ordinances and the
09 existing Classifications have begirt applied to every road in the county's land use planning jurisdiction outside the
thoroughfare planning jurisdictions for the municipalities. This has made it difficult to clearly and quickly identify the
1 most important roads and also apply urban road classifications to the roads in 45% of the county's land use planning
2 area. As a part of the Functional Road Classification System update, the planned major thoroughfares adopted by
3 Orange County mu nic"Wes which are outside of a municipality's land use planning jurisdiction will be presented for
4 consideration and adoption by Orange County. In thls way Orange County can classify the proposed thoroughfares
5 and then protect the rights- of-way for those thoroughfares that are consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
6
7 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
a Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification about how the roads inside the municipal jurisdiction and the
9 roads in Orange County compare on the colored map. She asked if they were using the same definition. She asked
0 for clarification about how they would be used together with the municipal plan.
1
2 Slade McCalip indicated that they were not using the some definitions. Chapel Hill and Carrboro use the
3 definitions in the wdsft plan and Hillsborough is using the States functional classification. DOT was responsible for
4 doing the classifications. some of which are teased on maintenance. A lot of the DOT roads in urban areas were
5 classified as major thoroupMaros which relate to arterial roads out in the County. He agreed that there was a change
6 at the Town boundaries but it is coordinated in this plan. He felt that using this designation would simplify
7 identification so that the same classification would be used throughout the county. This would not be a
88 Transportation Plan. It would help in the consideration and design when the traffic projects are identified next year.
0 Commissioner Gordon asked what Chapel Hill's classification was for Old Lystm Road. Slade indicated that
1 he would have to look at Chapel Hill's classification for that information.
2
3 There was further discussion about specific roads. Slade McCalip stated that this plan was not intended to
4 direct traffic but rather to include how roads are actually being used.
5
6 Commissioner Gordon pointed out MAN the system called for certain roads to be upgraded then that would
7 er1 —frage traffic. She mentioned that if the assumption was that Old Lystra.15 -501 and Smith Level are all at least
8 eolkdom. then in order to get around laterally you would have to classify Damascus Church Road . She requested
9 that additional considerAion be given to Damascus Church Road and Old Greensboro out to White Cross.
A
10
7/ J Q ' Trd P nn Minutes
� :. 11
The proposed amendments were presented at the public hearing on
November 24, 1997. The Planning Board and Board of Commissioners had
no questions or comments at the hearing. The applicant spoke in favor of
the proposed changes which were referred to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner
than February 3, 1998. Provided that the Planning Board and the Board of
Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends
approval of the proposed text amendments.
MOTION: Strayhom moved approval as recommended by the Zoning Officer.
Seconded by Selkirk.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2) Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
Presentation by Emily Cameron.
This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
achieve full compliance with State - mandated watershed protection
regulations.
Zoning Ordinance amendments which were adopted by the Board of
Commissioners on January 1, 1994 were soon thereafter submitted for
review and approval by the Environmental Management Commission.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ), responsible for reviewing the
ordinances for all NC counties and municipalities within water supply
watershed, returned its comment to the County Manager in a letter dated
August 1, 1997. A copy of this letter is an attachment to these minutes on
page
The following revisions are required in order to obtain full compliance with
the State mandate:
Change the word "sludge" to "residual';
Change references from "Division of Environmental Management" to
"Division of Water Quality"; and
Clarify definitions for Major Variance, Minor Variance, and
Discharging Landfill.
The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on November
24, 1997. There were no citizen or Board comments. A copy of the
proposed amendment is an attachment to these minutes on pages
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment.
MOTION: Selkirk moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by
Allison.
VOTE: Unanimous.
d. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments