Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19881128' MINUTES JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1988 7:30 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board met for a Joint Meeting on Monday, November 28, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners John Hartwell, Shirley E. Marshall and Don Willhoit. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Stephen Halkiotis. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill (left at 8:20 p.m.) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Sharlene Pilkey, and members Chris Best, Virginia Boland, Carol Cantrell, Dan Eddleman, Betty Eidenier, Mike Lewis, and Steve Yuhasz. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Barry Jacobs, Abbie Dickinson, Jean Hamilton, and Prince Taylor. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Administrative Assistant Joanna Bradshaw, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Erosion Control Officer Warren `---~ ~'aircloth, Economic Development Director Sylvia Price and Planners Emily Crudup, .Eddie Kirk and Mary Scearbo. L_ ~ A. $OARD COMMENTS Commissioner Hartwell reported on a Joint Governmental Meeting with Chatham County, Town of Chapel Hill and Town of Carrboro noting that one of the items to come from that meeting was additional protection for the Haw River. He stated that Chatham County has a special zoning designation such as a rural designation along the Haw River in Chatham County. He noted that he felt the request would be made to Orange County to make the same designation along that stretch of the Haw River which is in Orange County and that this designation is very similar to the overlay district in Orange County for watersheds. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1 MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Chair Moses Carey announced that those who want to speak to a specific item on the agenda will be recognized at the time that item is heard. 2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None C. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Moses Carey, Jr. read the public charge. D. PUBLIC HEARING ~, ~: . 1. WATER AND SEWER POLICY t The presentation was made by Planning Director Marvin Collins. He indicated that on October 10, 1988, a public hearing was conducted for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on the proposed policy. At the conclusion of the comments, the Board of Commissioners continued the public hearing until November 28, allowing two additional weeks beyond October 10 for the receipt of comments, In the two weeks following the October LO public hearing, comments ,were subsequently received from the Economic Development Commission, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority and, most recently, from the Town of Carrboro. When the Policy was presented in October it was organized around five goal statements that 'involved water supply, sewage disposal, urban development patterns, the County's involvement in the provision of water and sewer services and also the basis on which the County would become involved financially. Based on the comments received to date revisions have been made to the proposed policy, a revisions are underlined in the draft copy (copy attachment to these minutes)~1°~~rincipal among the revisions is the merging of Goals 4 and 5 into a single goal - County involvement. The revision was warranted because both goals address the financial involvement of the County in the provision of water/sewer services and facilities, At its November 15, 1988 meeting, the Board of Commissioners authorized ..,` for inclusion in the policy proposals of the County Attorney which clarified the basis on which public water and sewer extensions would be permitted outside of Urban and Transition Areas as designated on the Comprehensive Plan. The recommendations to the Board of Commissioners on November 15 also included substantial revision to the extension policy. To summarize the extension policies, we do foresee water and sewer services within the Transition and Urban Areas of the County and would like to encourage water and sewer services onlq in those areas. Where there is a public health emergency such as a subdivision with failing septic systems, where there is a proposed County facility which is noted in the policy as an essential public service such as a school, or where the failure to provide public water and sewer would result in a citizen's inability to develop their property or make reasonable use of that property, public water and sewer services would be allowed outside of transition or urban areas, The only exceptions to that general rule would be in the case of water quality critical areas that are designated around existing and proposed reservoirs and also within the Rural Buffer area of the County which is a part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and surrounds Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Such extensions would be allowed within those two areas but the lines would be sized to serve the situation at hand. For example, if a school site were proposed in the Rural Buffer, public water and sewer lines could be extended to that school but the lines would be sized to serve only the school. Furthermore, there would be no further connections primarily because of the line sizing limitations, In areas outside of the Rural Buffer or outside a Water Quality Critical Area the line could be sized in accordance with the policies of the utility provider. If such a line were installed, then connections would be 'allowed to those lines but only at the densities which are permitted by the zoning of the land at that time. With regard to the merging of the two goals for County involvement, there has been little change other than one of organization. At the October 10 public hearing and other meetings where the water and sewer policy was discussed same questions were raised about which criteria would be used to evaluate projects for funding. Changes have been recommended in an effort to try and clarify those criteria. A provision has been added which states that a project must have a positive fiscal or financial impact upon Orange County government; revenues received from the project must equal. or exceed the cost of serving that particular area. In order to make a determination any person, firm, organization, or agency, who wished to have the County participate financially in a project would be required to submit a fiscal impact analysis of that project which listed the cost of serving the project and the anticipated revenues. Another aspect of the criteria which has been amended related to wage scales. Previously, this section of the policy indicated that wages had to be in compliance with Federal and State wage guidelines. These vary according to the type of jobs and the type of use involved so a statement that the wage scale must be in compliance with Orange County standards adopted from time to time has been substituted. This policy does not propose at this time any standards for wage scales but it does suggest that the Gounty take steps in order to establish such standards which would be applicable on a local level. A final amendment to the list of criteria involves the statement that ~:.'~ the project has to improve job opportunities available to Orange County citizens, '-'~'~ especially women and minorities. A provision was added that indicates that the applicant must provide documentation that the proposed project does, in fact, improve job opportunities and that those job opportunities available to women and minorities are equal to those of other Orange County citizens. Other concerns, which were voiced by the Economic Development Commission and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, were addressed through minor amendments. Some amendments are definitions which help clarify the policy. One other major addition to the policy is a statement of purpose which is provided at the beginning of the policy. Collins concluded noting that the Carrboro Bnard of Aldermen have passed a resolution requesting that the Board of Commissioners delay action on the policy until several of their concerns are addressed which will be presented by Mayor Kinnaird. A letter was received today from Orange Water and Sewer Authority asking that an additional thirty-day period be provided beyond this date for receipt of additional comments from OWASA. Collins noted that this same thirty-day extension could apply to the Economic Development Commission because they have not had sufficient time to review the revised Draft. The Administration recommends that the comments received at public hearing be referred to the Planning Board for preparation of a recommendation at its December 19, 1988 meeting. The Administration will present a recommendation on the proposed Water & Sewer Policy for the Board of Commissioners consideration on January 3, 1989. Planning Board member Chris Best asked if the Planning Staff was recommending a thirty-day extension. Collins responded that the Staff would like _,_, to recognize the concerns of OWASA and the Economic Development Commission in terms of being able to provide comments on this policy. If the additional thirty-day period is allowed, the Planning Board could cansider the additional comments at its Long Range Planning Meeting in January and provide a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners at their first meeting in February. In answer to a question from Best, Collins responded that OWASA and EDC would provide such comments to the Board of Commissioners as well as the County Manager with the Planning Staff providing Collins noted that at the November 15 meeting, Commissioner Marshall asked to have something included in the policy which addressed the carrying capacity of treatment facilities as well as discharge points of those facilities. The definition "Assured of installation" means that the utility provider to whose system a development is to be connected must have reviewed and approved preliminary plans fox a project and proposed water and sewer lines. As a part of that review process, they would also have to comment on the adequacy of the existing system to which the connections are made and on the capacity of the existing treatment facilities. To address Ms. Marshall's concern, the carrying capacity of the discharge stream or discharge paint has been added. It has also been added that the approval by the municipality, private association, or water or sewer authority shall contain a certification that service to the development project is authorized by any water management plan and discharge permit in effect at the time of approval. This was added to the policy in order to address the Eno River Management Plan under which the County is operating at the present time. Sylvia Price, Economic Development Director, presented written comments which are attached to these minutes on pages ~`~ She noted that changes were easily understood due to the underlining but expressed concern that deletions were not explained. She noted that the two deletions were very important since they both referred to extensions to Economic Development projects where those projects were the end object. She noted that EDC feels it also should be an exception as well as schools and public health concerns. She continued that the EDC should be included in the section related to Urban development and that the entire section should address Urban and Economic Development. Max Kennedy expressed, as a member of the Qrange County Board of Education, appreciation for considering extending water and sewer services into the Rural Buffer as this will impact on the new school which is in the planning process. He indicated he felt this is a step forward and a necessary one rather than building a new school using wells and septic tanks. Mr. Kennedy, as a private citizen, expressed concern that the line size is to be limited to that which would serve only the school site.- He felt this was very shortsighted and encouraged the Boards to consider extending water and sewer services to the properties along the line and control the number of tap-ons rather than not allowing tap-ons at all. He felt the County must, to a certain extent, get into the business of water and sewer services. r' - Ms. Eleanor Kinnaird, Mayor of Carrboro, expressed thanks for the - effort and work which was needed to prepare the Proposed Water and Sewer Policy. She read the resolution prepared by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen which is attached to these minutes on pages qo-q2. Mayor Kinnaird expressed concern with `- the lack of landfill space and asked that the landfill issue be kept a separate issue from that of water and sewer. Commissioner Carey noted that the recommendation from the Planning Staff is to continue the public hearing to a time no sooner than January 3, 1989 and he indicated he felt there were still questions as well as misunderstandings how the policy relates to the growth management plan which still need to be resolved. He stated he was encouraging one of the Commissioners as well as a staff member to meet with the Carrboro Board of Aldermen to perhaps resolve some of those questions. Commissioner Marshall agreed with Commissioner Carey but also noted that it is extremely important to remember the time already involved in the issue of water and sewer and stated she would not like to see it extended through a long process of consultation again. It is important to move on with this policy and not lose time unnecessarily. Commissioner Carey agreed but wished to clarify any sections of the policy as may be necessary. Phillip Whitaker, Town Administrator for the Town of Hillsborough, noted that he would need to have the Town Board review the most current draft of the Water and Sewer Policy and expressed the desire for a thirty-day extension. He also noted that he felt it would be extremely helpful for a Commissioner as -. well as a Planning Staff member meet with the Town Board to clarify and answer questions as needed. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to continue the public hearing on the Water and Sewer Policy until the first meeting in January to receive additional written and verbal comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. Z-5-88 Starpoint Partners The presentation was made by Emily Grudup. The property in question is located on the west side of Smith Level Road (SR 1531) approximately 100 feet north of the intersection with US kiighway 15-501: It is known as lot 19B and part of lot l9 of Tax Map 120 in Chapel Hi11 Township. The property proposed for rezoning contains approximately 8.88 acres. The current zoning on the property. is CC-3 (Community Commercial) and PW-II (Protected Watershed). The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan designation of the subject property is Rural Suffer and University Lake Water Supply Watershed. Adjacent land uses include a day care center, residential, commercial and undeveloped property. The property is located in a Protected Watershed II overlay district. The .current CC-3 zoning permits several uses of an intense nature +i~~ ~.~a which are not permitted in the proposed EC-5 zone. These uses include hotels/motels, multi-family dwellings, assembly facilities, nightclubs, and ~-°°,3 higher impact retail trade. Rezoning to EG-S would provide a margin of added protection for the University Lake Watershed and would be consistent with the :~ Zoning Ordinance and JPA Land Use Plan since the property is no longer in an activity node. The Planning Staff recommends approval of rezoning the property from Community Commercial-3 to Existing Commercial-5. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the proposed amendment at its December l9, 1988 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on January 3, 1989. Commissioner Hartwell asked what benefit this rezoning would have for the applicant. Crudup responded that there are existing commercial structures, warehouses, on the property. The use proposed by the applicant is not allowed in CC-3 but is allowed in EC-5. The rezoning would make it consistent with the Land Use Flan since the node was removed when the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan was adopted in October 1986. Planning Soard member, Steve Yuhasz, asked why the EC-5 designation was not assigned at the tiime the node was removed. Crudup responded that it was an oversight at the time and should have been EC-5. Yuhasz asked about buffer requirements. Crudup responded that the landscape requirements are very similar for EG-5 and CC-3. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to refer Z-S-88 to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be brought back to the Soard of Commissioners no sooner than January 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Z-6-88 Dale G. Davis The presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. The property in question is located on the north side of US Highway 70 approximately 385 feet west of the intersection with Buckhorn Road (SR lll4). The applicant, Dale G. Davis, is requesting a rezoning of Lot 9 of Tax Map 2S - Cheeks Township. The property proposed to be rezoned contains 51.712 square feet or 1.19 acres. The current zoning of the property is R-1 (Rural Residential) and PW II (Protected Watershed). The proposed rezoning is EC-S (Existing Commercial) and PW II (Protected Watershed). The area is designated as 10 Ten Year Transition in the Land Use Plan. The applicant indicates that the existing use was in operation in 1984 when Cheeks Township was zoned. The existing commercial building is located on two lots and the lot line runs through the building. Only one of these lots was zoned commercial in 1984. The applicant is requesting the other lot be rezoned to allow the building to become conforming. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. .. _.~ There were no Board or public comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to refer Z-6-88 to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be brought back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. APPLICANT c. PD-1-88 University Station Associates - WITHDRAWN AT REQUEST OF 3.' ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Article 4 - Permitted Uses, Article 6 - Application of Dimensional Requirements, and Article 8 - Special Uses (Electrical Substations) The Presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. This amendment was proposed by the Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation and the request is to allow electric substations to be permitted by right in any zone. The Ordinance currently requires approval of a Class A Special Use Permit for all electric substations. The reason for the request is that the substation facilities are part of a larger infrastructure system for distribution of electrical power. Location is determined by need and there is little flexibility in where the ..._,._, facilities can be placed to meet demand. The Department recommendation is to permit by right substations ~~~~'~ which reach up to 100 KV, providing that the facility meets certain requirements. Scearbo provided photographs which were representative of the size of 100KV substations. By comparison, the Eno Tie Station, located at I-85 and US 70 receives 230KV of power and would not be permitted by right under this proposal. Under current regulations all electrical substations require approval of a Class A Special Use Permit and must meet certain requirements. It is required that a site plan, elevation and landscape plan be submitted. Standards of evaluation require that facilities in residential districts be screened where setbacks are less than 200' from property lines. Storage areas are also to be fenced and screened and the site must be of sufficient size for any proposed sewage disposal system. Requirements relating to sewage disposal and storage areas do no apply to substations. The only applicable requirements relate to landscaping. Although it is recommended that the use be permitted by right, there are additional standards and criteria which are proposed which are more stringent and specific than those currently required to obtain a Special Use Permit. Scearbo summarized those conditions as follows: l) Perimeter fencing around the structure in accordance with the National Electrical Code 2) The components of the structure itself shall be contained _,; ,r •~,;) within an area not to exceed 12,000 sq, ft. or .27 acres 3) The easement or parcel on which the facility is located must be at least 5000 sq, ft. though in most cases it will be at least several acres. 4) Access easements shall be at least 30' in width 5) A Type E landscape buffer is required along any portion of the easement or parcel adjacent to a residential district, except where it's adjacent to another parcel ox easement owned or leased by a public electric utility. A Type E buffer requires evergreen vegetation, opaque to a height of 25' and semi-opaque of 30'. This can generally be met by existing vegetation. 6) Any modification of existing facilities is subject to these same requirements. The Ordinance Review Committee considered the amendment and recommended approval with one exception. The maximum size of the structure was originally proposed to be 8000 sq. ft. Piedmont EMC later requested that it be increased to 12,000 sq, ft. Best noted that the issue was not just substations but also transmission lines which could include all the easements. Scearbo responded that transmission lines themselves are permitted by right through the list of permitted uses in the Zoning Ordinance. Concern was expressed by Commissioner Willhoit that attention should focus on screening which could be provided by terrain rather than relying on landscaping. Commissioner Marshall agreed with Commissioner Willhoit and added that a substation is an obtrusive use and impacts are different in every case. She noted that she felt this is a logical use for which to require a Special Use Permit, Mike Parker, Counsel for Piedmont EMC, noted that the lines leading into the substations at the present time are all served by wooden poles and not tower structures. He noted that the proposed amendment would meet the needs of the power companies fox substations in Orange County. He also noted that the Little River Substation, the most recently constructed by Piedmont, is an excellent example of how substations can be constructed and screened so that they do not interfere with surrounding communities. He stated that the proposed amendment is one that has been agreed upon by Piedmont and the Planning Staff with the aid of the County Manager and County Attorney. There were no public comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be brought back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 3, 1989. .~ .. 4 . VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Article 9 - Permitted Signs (Industrial Development Signs) The presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. A proposal was submitted by the Meadowlands to amend signage requirements in the I-1 Industrial Zone. The requested changes pertain to signs permitted in the Major Transportation Corridor, sign setbacks and square footage, and the addition of a provision for entrance signs to industrial developments. The requests were reviewed by the Planning Staff and Ordinance Review Committee and recommendations provided. In summary, the requested change is to increase the maximum number of signs allowed in the Major Transportation Corridor from 2 to 4, or increase the square footage permitted for directional signs from 4 to 9 square feet. The Planning Staff and the Ordinance Review Committee found this increase from 2 to 4 signs in the Major Transportation Corridor to .be excessive based on other ordinances in nearby counties. The increase in size for directional signs is also excessive. Wake County allows a 4 square foot directional sign and Durham County permits a 4 to 8 square foot directional sign. Based on this information, the. Planning Staff would recommend the present requirements not be changed. The request is also to decrease the sign setback from the road ''-'' right-of-way from 25 feet to 10 feet. The present 25-foot setback is more than setback requirements of Durham and Wake Counties, which permit a 10' setback. The Planning Staff recommends that a 10' setback be permitted along the frontage of interior streets created within the subdivision and that signs along the perimeter streets maintain the current 25' setback. Also, a change is requested to increase the total square footage for all signs from 100 square feet to 120 square feet. The area used to compute square footage for signs is defined in Article 9.10 of the Zoning Ordinance and includes the face of the sign but does-not include supporting framework. An increase in the permitted square footage is not recommended. A change is also requested to allow one entrance sign for industrial developments. Corner lots on which entrance signs are placed are disadvantaged in that the sign area allotment for that lot is totally or partially used for a sign benefiting the entire development. It is recommended that an entrance sign with a maximum area of 100 square feet be permitted and that the setback be reduced from 25' to 10' from the right-of-way if the sign is no more that 6' in height (as measured from the ground). It is also recommended that the entrance sign provisions also apply to office and commercial developments. Pursuant to an amendment to Article 6.8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Visibility at intersections) approved on October 3, 1988, setbacks for signs and other structures are to be measured from the edge of the sight triangle at all road intersections. It is also required that the area of sight triangles be included in the dedicated right-of-way. A recent amendment ~ .i' ~,J~ changed the dimensions for the edge of the sight triangle from 25' x 25', to 10' ~'~"~, x 70'. Article 9.2 a) of the Zoning Ordinance also references sight triangles as } they apply to the location of signs. In order to be consistent with Article 6.8, the diagram in Section 9.2.a which illustrates the sight triangle should be modified to reflect the revised dimensional requirements. Planning Board member Chris Best asked how sign area is computed. Kirk responded that the sign area includes the face of the sign but does not include the supporting framework. Commissioner Willhoit asked how these recommendations compare with ordinances regarding signs of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Kirk responded that the comparison was made with surrounding counties but not towns. Commissioner Willhoit asked that comparisons be made with Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Mark Farrell, Meadowlands Associates, expressed support for the recommendations to the Sign Ordinance. He expressed concern with the 6' height requirement. He noted that the entrance sign that Meadowlands would like to utilize is 10' long and 6' 6" high and would have landscaping surrounding it. Sylvia Price, Economic Development Director, submitted comments from EDC regarding revisions to the Sign Ordinance. These comments are attached to these minutes on page ~_. Guido De Maere, attorney for Tecan (located in Meadowlands), expressed concern that there is no relation between the number of signs allowed and the amount of property frontage. He indicated this would not allow directional signs for delivery vehicles. Mark Farrell noted that there will probably be a nuTnber of businesses within Meadowlands which will have a need for a number of directional signs. Commissioner Marshall stated that the idea of the MTC far all counties was far uniformity along I-40 through Wake County, Durham County and Orange County. She noted that while there is sympathy with Meadowlands and a desire to help it to be the kind of quality industrial park it has always shown promise of, the Board must still look at the major uniform expectation that it participated in when the MTG's were put into place. Motion was made by Acting Chair Moses Carey, Jr., seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to continue the public hearing on this item to January 3, 1989 for receipt of additional information and comments. Commissioner Marshall and Acting Chair Moses Carey encouraged the EDC and Planning Department to resolve the issue of timing with meetings in order that future delays would not be cxeated simply due to conflicting schedules. Planner Eddie Kirk noted that small directional signs are allowed and are not considered a part of the permitted total square footage. r- .- -, VOTE: UNANIMOUS. c. Article 7 - Planned Developments/Density Bonuses (WTTHDRAWN FOR FURTHER CONSTDERATION) d. Article 4 - Permitted Uses, Article 8 - Special Uses and Article 22 Definitions (Day care Facilities) The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. These proposed amendments would revise existing provisions applicable to day care facilities so that they are consistent with State licensing requirements. Day care, day nursery, and kindergarten facilities of all types are currently permitted in residential zoning districts upon approval of a Class B Special Use Permit. In commercial and office zoning districts, such facilities are permitted by right. It has been brought to the attention of the Planning Department that erroneous information was provided to Child Care Networks 4 1/2 years ago. The information provided indicated that no permits of any kind were required for such facilities. For this reason, permits have not been obtained by those facilities within Orange County's jurisdiction. Another concern identified by staff of Child Care Networks is the inconsistency between State licensing requirements and the permit requirements of Orange County. The State requires that day care facilities of a certain size and operating certain hours be licensed, whereas Orange County requires that all such . facilities in residential areas be required to obtain a Class B Special Use Fermit. The staff of Child Care Networks has recommended that Orange Gounty's zoning provisions be amended to be consistent with the State licensing requirements. The proposed amendments incorporate the definitions of "day care" and "day care facility" from the State licensing requirements into the Zoning Ordinance. The zoning Districts in which day care facilities are permitted, by right and upon approval of a Class B Special Use Permit, would remain unchanged. The standards for evaluation of a Special Use Permit application have been proposed for amendment. The proposed changes would include the following: a) The day care facility is to be located in an area which is free from conditions dangerous to the physical and moral welfare of the children. b) The minimum requirements to qualify for a State of North Carolina day care facility license are satisfied. c) There is direct access from the property on which the day care facility is to be located to a State-maintained road or a private road approved by Orange Gaunty. .a ~:~ d) Adequate access to and from the site as well as adequate space - off the road right-of-way, is provided for the safe bringing and pick-up of children and is provided in such a manner that traffic generated by the day care facility is not disruptive to adjacent residential properties. e) Fencing and/or screening is to be provided which assures the protection of the children receiving day care, protects adjacent residential properties from trespass, effectively screens the view of any outdoor play area, and reduces noise associated with the operation of the day care facility. The Board of Child Care Networks have reviewed a draft of the proposed amendments and provided comments which are included in the agenda abstract. The Planning Staff amended the proposals to reflect the concerns of Child Care Networks and are recommending approval of the proposed amendments. In answer to a question from Planning Board member Eddleman Collins stated that this amendment uses language contained in a booklet produced by the State licensing agency. A copy of the state licensing requirements could be obtained. Commissioner Marshall noted that she felt specific criteria could be provided for this standard. Collins responded that this could be reviewed. ~-'~} He continued that establishing a cut-off point between what is safe and what is ,. not safe is a difficult one and varies £rom location to location. There were no public comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be brought back to the Board of Commissioner no sooner than January 3 , 19$9. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Section III (New) Application and Approval Procedures and Section V (New) Specifications for Plat Drawings The presentation was made by Planner Mary Scearbo. This is the second public hearing for proposed amendments to Sections III and V of the Subdivision Regulations relating to plat approval procedures and plat specifications. The first hearing took place on August 22. At that time the Board of Commissioners directed that a committee be formed to discuss and refine the amendment in response to concerns expressed at the hearing. The draft being r - :1 - presented is a product of those committee meetings. Scearbo summarized briefly the concepts underlying the proposed amendments as presented on August 22 and the concerns expressed at that hearing, discussed the activity of the committee and finally highlighted the changes made as a result of the committee meetings. Basically, the amendments seek to accomplish three things: 1) To involve the Planning Board in the approval of a Concept Plan prior to preliminary plat submittal. This would give the Planning Board mare input during the early phases of plan development. The Final Plat, on the other hand, would be approved by the Planning Staff when all preliminary plat conditions are met. 2) The material to be shown on the preliminary and final plat is specified more clearly and is pulled together in one section of the Subdivision Regulations. 3) To clarify all steps necessary for plat approval. The intent is to make the requirements for subdivision approval more understandable and to gain input from the Planning Board at an earlier stage. This is a benefit to the applicant in that potential problems and -~ conflicts may be identified earlier in the development process. There were several concerns expressed at the first hearing. Land -~' Records and the Register of Deeds pointed out that there was too much information required on the face of the plat, making it difficult for the public to understand. There were also questions from the Orange County Bar Association and the Society of Surveyors concerning legality of some of the provisions and costs to the developer. The committee established to revise the draft included the County Manager, Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs, Register of Deeds Betty .Tune Hayes, Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve, Robin Lackey and Guido de Maera of the Orange County Bar Association, Walter Kleckley of the Society of Surveyors and Planner Mary Scearbo. Two meetings were held and a number of changes were made. Scearbo stated that in addition, she met with both the Register of Deeds and Land Records Manager to learn more about the specific problems which they had experienced. The draft amendment iri the agenda packet is a crossout-underline document which shows the changes made since the last hearing. The more substantial items are summarized as follows: 1) As much information as possible was removed from the face of the final plat. To accomplish this, certain restrictions or requirements including landscaping and buffers, impervious surface data, lots of restricted development, and stormwater control data will be recorded as a separate document with cross-reference between the plat book and deed book. lNl ;r~ An attempt was made to remove some of the certificates from the face of the plat and record them separately except for those required to be an the plat by State law. Work is continuing on developing a format for a document containing the information just described to simplify and streamline the plat approval and recordation process. 2) An attempt was made to eliminate any ambiguities in the requirement that certain natural and man-made features be shown on the final plat. 3) Proposed is a redefination of minor subdivision as the creation of 5 or more lots, including any remainder during a two year period. Mare and more small subdivisions are being processed as major subdivisions. Currently, minor subdivision process applies only when 4 or fewer lots are being created from a lot in existence at the time the subdivision regulations went into effect. This portion of the amendment represents a significant savings in time and money to the developer as well as to the County. This change was originally proposed as a separate amendment. It has been incorporated into this more comprehensive amendment. The Ordinance Review Committee recommended that the minor subdivision be defined as 3 lots plus remainder rather than ~+ lots plus remainder. We are recommending the latter to be consistent with the practice of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. 4) A fourth change involves the recordation process as indicated in III-C-A and III-D-c-3. It is proposed that the Planning Department rather than the applicant record the plat and associated documents for minor and major subdivisions. By doing this it will be assured that plats get recorded with all auxiliary documentation, and would provide the Planning Department with a copy of the recorded plat. Additional fees .would be needed to cover costs. 5) Changes were made regarding time limits for phasing. This offers flexibility in time limits between Final Plats for projects which are phased. A six-month period would be 'permitted between final plat submitals unless a longer period was specified in a phasing plan submitted with the preliminary plat. Handouts were sent from the Planning Director listing some other clarifications and changes not included in the revised draft. (1) The second paragraph in III A-General Provisions previously stated that the Clerk of Superior Court may not order changes to a plat which would be in conflict with the ordinance. That was deleted because of a question of authority to make that statement. However, it was found that that wording is -- the same as that in State enabling legislation, so are recommending that it be included. (2) An administrative mechanism to simplify the approval process is being worked out. The intent is to develop a document with consistent format which would be approved along with the Preliminary Plat and include a specific list of all requirements to be met in order for the plat to be recorded. This document would serve as a checklist and when all items were completed, the Final Plat could be recorded. This would be a simple way for staff and the applicant to keep track of remaining conditions. This administrative document would reflect the intent of the ordinance. (3) This change includes comments from the Planning Director regarding the provision that the Planning Department would record the Final Plat. There is a conflict in the wording in that in the one paragraph it states that the applicant records the plat while the next paragraph refers to the Planning Department being responsible for recordation. That can be resolved by eliminating any reference to the applicant's responsibility in having the plat recorded. The remainder of the changes are editorial and for the most part relate to the County's responsibility to act on subdivisions within the designated timelines. On November 9 all committee members were sent a copy of the draft '°-' amendments and it was found that those copies sent through the mail were not received until November 15. No comments have been received from committee members but Scearbo stated she felt that the majority of their concerns have been addressed. Commissioner Hartwell expressed concern with the duplication of functions and did not understand why the Planning Department needed copies of recorded plats. Ms. Scearbo responded that if the Planning Staff had easy access to those records copies would not be necessary. There are times when a deed needs to be researched for a subdivision project and Planning Staff has to go to the Register of Deeds Office to obtain the information. This can cause unnecessary delays in the process of the application. Commissioner Hartwell continued expressing opposition to the maintaining of such distributive data in more than one location referring to the cost to the County as well as the maintenance of the integrity of documents such as plats. Commissioner Marshall stated that she felt monies spent an duplications would be better spent on the GIS and building so that all those offices would vbe near enough to each other to obtain information easily. Gommissioner Hartwell also expressed opposition to the Planning Department recording the plats as well as maintaining two sets of records. Planning Director, Marvin Collins stated that the Flanning Department is not attempting do maintain a second set of retards but to do its job. He noted that there had been instances in other jurisdictions where he had `a been employed where changes were made on a plat between the time it was seen by .ry the Planning Staff and the time of recording. This created problems that were !; not discovered until a much later point in time. For this reason, other Y jurisdictions are now requiring a copy of recorded plats to assure that staff is working with the true plat. Collins also noted that another reason for the staff to have a copy of a recorded plat is that sometime there is a lag between the time a plat is approved and a tax map is received showing the newly created lots. With a copy of the recorded plat in hand, it expedites the issuance of building permits. When plats are being reviewed for new subdivisions, it is very helpful to have a copy of the recorded plat in looking at the extension of road systems. The documents are needed in order for the Planning Staff to check off that conditions have been met and the subdivision is built as it was approved. The copy of the xecorded plat will be placed in the subdivision file along with all other materials relating to that particular subdivision. R. S. McClintock, Orange County resident, encouraged the Board to approve the recommendations as presented by the Planning Staff. He noted that the subdivision process to provide a lot for his son from his 8 1/2 acre tract, would be much easier and less time consuming if these amendments were approved. Guido de Maere, Chair of the Real Property Section of the Orange County Bar Association, indicated he felt that great strides have been made in the right direction for the approval process. He noted an item which was discussed at the meeting which the committee thought would be in the ordinance and now is being considered as administrative which is the procedure of going from preliminary to final plat approval and recording. Under the new system, all conditions are set with preliminary plat approval. He felt that the ordinance should state that part of the approval is a list of requirements and that the Planning Department checks the conditions off as they are complied with, and the final plat can be recorded when all the requirements are met. He noted that the forms are administrative but he would like to see the procedure referenced in the ordinance. Ms. Scearbo responded that the Staff is continuing to work on the administrative mechanism to formulate a document which can contain some of the items that are presently listed on the plat itself. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be brought back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than .Tanuary 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Section IV-C-10- Cluster Developments The Presentation was made by Emily Crudup. ' This item is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations, Cluster Developments. The purpose o£ this amendment is to limit the amount of the required open space that may be used for nitrification fields, stormwater detention facilities or any uses that would prohibit access by the residents due to safety concerns or soil compaction. The proposed amendment is that at least 20~ of the gross land area =, ... is designated as common open space. The amendment is that no more than 50$ of the required common open space shall be used exclusively for sewage treatment systems, utilities or other uses that prohibit access by the residents of the cluster subdivision. This restriction does not apply to areas of historical or natural significance which may be protected by access restrictions. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Acting Chair Moses Carey, Jr. to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be brought back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. c. Section III-C (Existing) Procedures for Review and Approval of Minor Plats This item was covered in the presentation given by Mary Scearbo in agenda item #4a. Commissioner Willhoit questioned the number of lots for a minor subdivision and stated he felt that it would encourage piece-meal development and the establishment of a twenty-four month time period. Callins•responded that the intent is to do something that would benefit the small landowner who simply desires to deed lots to family members.- Collins noted that Chapel Hill and Carrboro both have a minor subdivision cutoff point of five lots. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer this item to the Flanning Board for a recommendation to be ;brought back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 3, 1898. ~' '"'' VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. LF OOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Article 2 - Definitions (Definition of "Lowest Floor" and Article 4 Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction (Equipment Design and Location) The Presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. The North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety has reviewed the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and recommended two changes. First, a definition of "lowest floor" should be added to the definition section to avoid confusion with the term "lowest habitable floor". Second, a clarifying amendment concerning the elevation or floodproofing of electrical and mechanical equipment should be added to Article 4 Section /+.1(a). Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be brought back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS a. Erosion Control Manual The presentation was made by Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control ~; Officer. The proposed manual (copies distributed previously) is an effort '~ to compile requirements and standards for designing site plans for erosion ' control techniques and devices and for presenting the erosion control plan. The primary purposes of the Manual are: to formalize erosion control standards; to have the standards in written form and make them accessible to designers of developments in Orange County; to improve the effectiveness of erosion control techniques and devices; to be more consistent in the application of requirements and standards; and to improve the overall effectiveness of the County's erosion control program. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be brought back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Sections 5, 6, 17, 18, and 22 (Incorporation of design standards and specifications, administration procedures and notification procedures, and changes in enabling legislation) The presentation was made by Erosion Control Officer Warren Faircloth. The Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance is proposed for revision to adopt and incorporate by reference the design standards of the Erosion Control Manual. Staff is also proposing several changes to administrative procedures, revisions recently passed by the State Legislature, and changes in notification procedures for violations as recommended by the County Attorney. Proposed amendments are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be brought back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. ADJOURNMENT .__.. With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Moses Carey, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on Monday, December 5, 1988 at 7:30 p.m, in the courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Acting Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Assistant -~ -- - - UP.~r'GE CUUI~'TY ECOIVOAZIC DEVELOPMENT COM~IISSION I'.U. Box 71~ ~ ll0 1`T. CFIUP~TON ST. HILLBBOI~OUGH. N.C. ~37?7t3 (919) 73?-8181 Ex•r. ;.,79 (919) 9G8-301 November 2$, 19$8 Public Hearing EDC Comments Item D.1 Water/Sewer Policy The EDC continued its regular November meeting, which was held on the lgth, to November 22 in order to be able to comment on the revised water/sewer policy. A copy was made available to us on the morning of the 22nd, and our comments attached are based upon this document. We understood that additional changes would be made in Sect ion III. I have compared the copy of the policy u-ade available for the Public Hearing tonight, and there are changes made since November 22 on 12 pages. Whereas most of these changes may be very good ones, their cumulative effect is not apparent, and it would not be appropriate for me to try to assess this on behalf .of the appointed citizens who make up the EDC. While the underlined sections indicate changes in wor8.ing since Octobex.lq, there is no indication made where deletions have occurred. ~ ~f these deletions were of real.imF~ortance to the EDC, namely what was Paragraph ~-A.2, second pars, and also Paragraph 4-C.1.b. These are copied below for information. Antached are the EDC comments based on the draft we received on Nov 22. Respectfully submitted, ~i..~..~...- Sylvia rice Director - V.:.; . •,_ -~ }:~:cerpt froze 1=UC Draft ITinutes 22 I]ovEmber 19E8 i. Fevised []ater/Sewer Polio Sylvia Price circulated- copies of the latest version of the 1•]ater/Sewer Policy, dates: Y?oven;ber 21, 1988, r~hich she Y~ad received today from I~larvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director. The attached ceu;o from I•iarvin Collins e:_pl~ined that chan;;es made in the policy since the October 10, 1983 public hearing have been undc:rlired and include the cor~uaents at the hearing as well as tliase of the wDC and OCdASA. rIe added l:e was awaiting additional correspondence frog the County Attorney regarding, incorporation of the changes into the policy suggested in the County Atto~•nay's letter dated P.ovember 9, 19E8. These proposals are to replace the provisions of III-C.3. Diecubers read thrau~h the docun<ent, noted the underlined sections, and suggested that the fo1lo~~in~ continents be con;u;unicated by the Director to the laaard of County Con,n:issiar.E-rs at tY~e public hearin8 on Ilovember 28, 19u8: 1. 5-A-3. rieuibers agreed unanirilously that this paragraph could and should be deleted from the I~later/Sewer Policy, since it is already covered elsewhere. namely in paragraph 4- A-2 and Section 4-C. Tlie entire par¢grapli is redundant. Goal ~+-C..1 ovcrra.des this statement ,:nd gives a 'list of criteria for county participation. 2. Goal 3. tier:.bers e::press.ed concern at the necessity to search throuLh tl~e dater/Setter Po' icy in order to f~.nd relevant sections which apply to economic development. It t•~as felt unaniraausiy that the best caay ~~~auld be tv zaalce major changes ro Goa1 3, e;hich shoui.d be rc-titled "Urban and Econoa;ic Devclol;uient". The changes are detailed belati~, and are also shorn as inserts into a photocopy of the revised policy. Changes sug,+,ested by ' the L•'conoric Developr,:ert Couc:~:scion are underlined Belo:~r, and shown in bo::.:~ an the photocopied ordinance (to distinguish they; froze the underlining used in tl;e policy document) . Goal 3 should 'zee re-stGted as folloi:s: "Goal 3 -Urban ar~d Ecorozi_c Development Establish an urban development and economic development pattern compatible with the ?;oal of directing urban growth and econo~ai c developn;ei--t to t.reas r~here they are respectively dcsi.rsble and can be practically and efficiently served by r•~atcr and sewer facilities." _-~ h , EDC Nov 22 , 1988 ; I 3-A. Genert.l policies ldesr 13umber 1. "Orange County should develop a plan to encourage the prevision of hater and sewer in area designated in the Land Use Plan for economic developuerit. a. Economic development projects should be supported c;-it1~ water: and se~~~er. Oran~,e County should do its urr~ost to _ bring cater and sewer to irdividuai economic development projects. b. Priority ,in the provision of water and scorer should be given tc approved economic dcvelaprient projects, consistent ~v:~th the application guidelines." Peiiur.:ber. General Policy A.l should be re-numbered A. 2. Paragraphs numbered A.2 through A.6 are not necessary, since t'riey ax•e already covered in the Larid Use Plan ~:nd else~•rhere, and should be deleted. 4--13.1 "Urban, Economic Developt~ient, and transition areas as designated in the Land Use elen:cntlof the camprehensivE plan - - -n 4-C. l:~stension Policies 4-C.2 ";.he e..tCrsian of public and/or private water and server services in areas designated [dater Supply T7atershed, [•7ater Quality C~,~itiCal Area,vand P.urai Suffer in the Land Use Ele~ient of tte Co~apreiiensive Plan sl.ail be prohibited e1_cept to address public safety, e:.•;;ential public servicew, approved economic development concerns, and hardship solely the result of the inability to use tl-~e land proposed to be served by said services; , ~~ 4-C.3.a. "The project is located in Urban and Transition areas as designated in the Land Uce Element of the Caupreliensive Plan, or is s targeted econaaiic devel.a meat ra'ect; or? and?" ~ ' " _ _~ 4-C.3.b. "Service to the project is available thrauuh a rater and/or server line e::tensiarr to address a public :;afcty and/or essential pu'alic service purpose, economic develo n:ent, ar hardship solely tl:e result of the inability to u::e the land. ." Page 2 •§ EDC Nov 22, 1988 (Changes made since 10110188 public hearing are underlined. ) Goal 5 - Financial Participation Establish a basis for orange County's participation in the financing of water and/or sewer services and facilities. A. General Policies 1 . Orange County's investment in water and or sewer facilities and/or extensions which have a relation to safeguarding the public health , safety and general welfare may be financed DZ the following means : a. Revolving fund; b. State/Federal grants and loans; and/or C. General Fund and Enterprise Fund contributions . (Includes both capital and operating funds) General Fund contributions, both capital and operating, will be used only if funding cannot be obtained from other sources . 2 . Water and/or sewer facilities and/or extensions for economic development purposes or for the development/expansion of a County-owned system may be financed by the following methods : a. Revolving fund; b. State/Federal grants and loans; and/or C. General Fund and Enterprise Fund contributions . ( Includes capital funds only) Capital funds from the General Fund will be used only if funding cannot be obtained from other sources . Delete 3 . Orange County ill not participate in projects which will ben it exclusively private interests . Public expenditu s shall further be limited to projects in approv d service areas (Transition Areas designated on he Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan) a /or for which there is County funding response ility. EDC Novemlt4i,'-22,19, Suggsted changes underlined (Changes made since I0110188 public hearing are underlined. ) and Fco—no mic Goal 3 — Urban, Deve opment and economic development Establish an urban development pa ith the goal of directing urban growth to areas where they are,, and can be practically and efficiently served by water and kXespectivel sewer facilities. and economic development A. General Policies Ilew Number 1. "Orange County should develop a plan to encoura;;e the provision of water and sewer in areas designated in the Land Use Plan for economic developuent. a. Economic developr.:ent projectc should be supported with water: and sewer. Oran,e County should do its utuost to b_in eater and sewer to individual economic development projects. b. Priority in the provision of water and serer sl.ould be Siven to approved economic dcvelopuenr projects, consistent With the application -uidelinu:i ." ~No 2~ 1. A cooperative joint planning process should be developed and implemented among the County, its ~: municipalities, surrounding jurisdictions and utility providers responsible far water and sewer ' lines to guide the extension of lines in accordance with the land use plans and policies of the affected jurisdictions. Delete 2. Land in areas changing from rural to urban in . character and which could reasonably be developed to accommodate urban-type densities should be designated as Transition Areas in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Such lands are currently but not completely served. by urban systems such as water and sewer lines. Transition Areas should be further classifi~3 into Ten and Twenty-Year areas to reflect the most appropriate sequence of development as the areas change from rural to urban and services are extended. Delete 3. Intensive land uses should be directed to Transition Areas and away from areas which are suitable for continued agricultural uses and which are protected as Water Supply Watersheds and Water Quality Critical Areas. Delete 4. Rural, low-density land surrounding Urban Areas, but beyond the Transition Areas, should be designated as Rural Buffer in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. These areas will remain rural in character, will not require urban services and will maintain farming or rural non-farm residential development as the most appropriate land use. Delete 5. Land in areas suitable for low-density residential development but not suited for agricultural uses, that is not dependent on urban services and to which urban services will not be extended within the next twenty years should be designated as Rural Residential a.n the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. EDC Nov,,22; 19$81 6. Land in areas where the prevailing land use Delete activities consist of agricultural and forestry and which should continue in these uses should be designated as Agricultural-Residential in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. S. Service Capability/Ca acity Folicies econam~c eve_opment , 1. In Urba ran yeas as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, public and/or private water and sewer lines should exist at the site ar be assured of installation as part of the development process prior to the approval of any development project. a. "Assured of installation" shall mean that the municipality, private association or water or sewer authority to whose system the development project is to be connected has reviewed and approved preliminary plans for proposed water and/or sewer lines, the adequacy of the existing system(s) to which the connection(s) will be made, the capacity of existing water and/or sewer treatment facilities, and the method of funding proposed extensions of water and/or sewer lines. b. "Development process" shall mean the commencement of construction on the development project. Following review and approval of preliminary plans as described in "a" above, the board of directors or governing board of the municipality, association or authority must have approved, through formal resolution or other agreement, the provision of water and/or sewer service to the development project. Such approval is contS,ngent upon the developer submitting final construction plans for review and approval to the municipality, association or authority as well as appropriate State and/or Federal agencies prior to commencing construction of the improvements. 2. Since Transition Areas would be considered for annexation bymunicipalities once development is proposed or has occurred, areas proposed for or with individual on-site or alternative wastewater treatment systems would represent a potential concern to the municipality, private association ar water or sewer authority to whose system the develapment was to be connected. For this reason, Orange County will evaluate the following provisions for inclusion as part of its approval - ~i " ~` ~ EDC Nov 22 , 1' Said system shall be completed according to r~~;, the approved plans, provided that where said - improvements are to be installed or constructed subsequent to the approval of a ' final subdivision plat, special use permit ar planned development, plans and specifications for said improvements shall be approved by the appropriate agencies and references to said improvements shall be made a part of the final plat or permit. b. Plans for proposed public or community water supply systems shall be approved by the utility service provider, the Health Department Director or by the Division of Health Services of the N.C. Department of Human Resources, whichever is appropriate. The requirements for the approval of plans are the same as for proposed public or community sewage systems above. C. Extension Policies 1. Urban service areas far Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, Mebane, Durham, and the service area of the Orange-Alamance Water System should be ~'- established which correspond with Urban and Transition Areas as identified in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Water and sewer t°'`~~ lines should be directed to those areas which contain and are appropriate for higher density levels of residential, commercial and industrial development. 2. The extension of public and/or private water and sewer services in areas designated Water Supply Watershed, Water Quality Critical Area and Rural Buffer in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be prohibited except to ddress public safety and essential public services , oncerns, ,approved • hardships solely the result of the inability to use aevelopm~ the land proposed to be served by said services;. i. e. , if the soil at a' site is not' suitable for individual on-site or alternative wastewater treatment systems. 3. Development projects to be supplied by public and/or private water and/or sewer service will not be approved unless: a, The project is located in Urban and Transition Areas as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or is a targeted economic development project: or? and? + EDC Novembr 22 , X98-$ .. economic develo menta b. .Service to the project is available through a water and or sewer line extended to address a public s fety and/or essential public service purpose and hardships solely the result of the inability to use the land proposed to be served by said services; i.e., if the sail at a site is not suitable for individual on-site or alternative wastewater treatment systems; or c. The project is an approved master-planned development for residential purposes consisting of at least 500 acres or dwelling units in which the existing zoning of the site is retained and wha.ch qualifies for water and/or sewer service through an approved system of density bonuses established far the purpose of achieving affordable housing, energy efficiency, recreation/open space, and environmental protection goals. "Development-project" refers to any res5.dence, place of business or place of assembly, and any major or minor subdivision, special use ar planned development which requires the approval of Orange County through administration and enforcement of the N.C. State Building Cade ar its Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Draft: 7-31-87 Revisions: 8-2fi--87 9-2-87 11-16-$7 11-24-87 9-17-88 -~ 11-21-8$ .., :, _~= ,.;~. ~,. Nr. L ~r -~_ ~'t. ~.. la:. /~occ. _~.~.P~ e~P...~1k-^~j RECEIVED P.p. Box 337 ~~ O ~ O 301 West Main Street (}a rrbOrO, North Carolina z7510 ~...,,~ r r9,s; sda-noo 1919; 9a2-e54, . ; November 17, 1988 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Mr. Maser Carey, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Dear Mares: The Carrboro Board of Aldermen at its meeting held an November 15, 1988, adopted the attached resolution requesting the Commissioners to delay action on the proposed Water and Sewer Extension Policy, dated September 17, 1988. The reasons for requesting this delay are included in the resolution. X would very much appreciate your forwarding this resolution to the Commissioners far consideration. Sincerely, r . ~.y~ Eleanor G. innaird Mayor EvK/scw Enclosure cc: h1ayor Howes 'ter ,~` 'k. P O. BOZ 337 ,t. '1. - '.~:~ 301 West Mom Street . - ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ (;eYYDOfO. NOrih Carolina 27510 r/^'~- (Qt91966-7700 (9191942-E5a1 ~5' The following resolerman RandynMarshall.by Alderman Judith Wegner and seconded by Ald A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO DELAY AGTIDN REGARDING THE pROPOSED ORANGE CO DTSEPTEMBERN17SE1gg$POLICY DATE Resolution Na. 19/8$-$9 WHEREAS, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen appreciates the Orange County Commissioners taking the initiative to develop a water and sewer policy and circulating it to the Tawn of Carrboro far comments; and WHEREAS, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen previously gave detailed comments on the proposed policy; and efforts to coordinate planning and to WHEREAS, continuing j,:;;;;,;1 water quality protection policies are of grave concern to _ _ develop all ~.acal jurisdictions. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF CARRBORO RESOLVES: Section 1. The Board of Aldermen hereby requests the Orange County Board of Commiss~ oaated S eptember 17 , t 19 8 8 ppun ~ 1 athe and Sewer Policy draf following steps are taken: a. That there be a clear statement of the policy objectives sought to be attained. b, _ That there be consultatianw?~h a~ffnxtsd undertaken this policy's development ~.n connection with the Orange/Chatham Cooperative planning discussions. c. That there be coordination with the upcoming report of the i7niversity Lake Watershed Study. Page " i;....:_I ~ :J ~~ d. That the Town of Carrboro request~hich oshv ld Abe r.,,.~ to da.scuss the proposed policy provided either through the Assembly of Governments ;; ropriate Cooperative ,~. or through same other aPP ~...~ discussion. Section 2, This resolution shall become effective upon adoption. The foregoing resoluti~e andvwas dulynadoptedtthis 15th day of received the following vo November. ].988: . Ayes: Randy Marshall, Hill~nr granceseShetleyeanor ginnaird, Judith Wegner, Jay Sry , Noes: None Absent or Excused: Tom Gurgaxxus Page 2 R.. ., ~:.`, ~ ELO~'~'CF.tiT GO:~I~IISS10` O~~~GE CoL~T~ Eco=`o~slc DE - P.p• Bow 71'' ' 110 ~. COY ~.~''~~~~' ST. HYLL.EiOI:OL'GYi. :~ .C. 0191 % 3'.2-51 r~T. '.= l~l~l ~)Ei8-~~Ol Public Hear~n1agS I,over,ioer 2B. Item ~` D•3 •b ADC Cor,ments on the proposed revision in the Zoning h - Parmitted Signs Ordinance. Erticfe 9 T have been zslced by ~,et:hers oS t County hco am`ctllevelopuentg comments on behalf of the 0-ange Camnission. ~ulur copy of tl:e On Ilovember 22 tY~e EDY `gas an 1]ove~bertlbl o~ its re„ ~„h ns (dated I~ovetioer meet}nG Ordinance re sig proposed revisions in the Zon~n~, riot to the meeting. p:uoust 22, 198$) h„d been circulated p - on 13ovember 22, =t was learned tl;at anew vets-on of the but oduced for tl:e Plannin;, board r~~et--ng on ~enduent kad been pr .:over~~ber 21. Gopies of the reeri3ecs didsno feel able,no n:al.e during the BUG meet}ng. put reasoned comment in the twine available. The following motion ~:as made and psssed unaniL~ous. riot been tiiLLe to nce there hG~ to the "The ~1;C believes ti:at si draft ay the anendraent rev-' ce; ade ° y the Tina";.zed ry , cinance s::culd gLate- the Zon=nom G~•. -, thi: a^~_end:~.:ert to fct :ev~e~;. The ~C Sigr. pydtnanc~, to be tabled unt~.i there 'r:a: becn rtcrc t~t:e ' ;,;-_tiA the needs of the I•:eaao~:_anu~ s rn4t'r:wes Frig, and t.or has s t rorp y • . " t a t'r~e p" Tia~'e of tC:C entiarce _ Lz- tY:e hove adequ4te s}6 ~ ~. - ~rl~, bcth to wdeT.t~-j each tenFrt compan3 r:-t-:-r. t.ie p" 4;e c;e'~- eve that ria:e Gnc to Ui~.c c-reCt~.ons. ~ c e_'~.pie, and companies end a ~ ooc, ~•:o~=1caG- - f s'roulZ be g'-aon ~esearch Ttlianole Par]: sy.ster be ef_ort i ~ re' ~'t tY:St file su- e~ r.,odel for business part: signs n c•:curd ,,~ invest-lgGted as a possible n Orange County- i espectftizlly submitted S) D}rector