HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19891127:~ ~._ `
MINUTES ~~-_
REGULAR QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 27, 1989
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session
with the Orange County Planning Board for the Quarterly Public
Hearing on November 27, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom,
new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and
Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis (excused at 9:45 p.m.), John
Hartwell, Shirley E...Marshall and Don Willhoit.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Yuhasz, Pegge Abrams,
Dan Eddleman, Jean Hamilton, Betty Eidenier, Clint Burklin, Chris
Best, Carol Cantrell.
PLANNING BARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Barry Jacobs, William Waddell,
Jr., Michael Lewis, Virginia Boland.
COUNTY-ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant
County Manager Ellen Listen, Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve,
EMS Director Nick Waters, Planners Emily Crudup, Don Powell, and
Jim Winkley, County Engineer Paul Thames, Clerk to the Board
Beverly Blythe, and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker.
A. BOARD COMMENTS
None
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
1. Matters on the rinted agenda
Those who wish to speak will be recognized at the
appropriate time.
2. 'Matters not, on the _p rinted agenda
None.
C. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., read the Public Charge.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION: E911 AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO HOUSE NUMBERING
Roscoe Reeve, Land Records Manager, made brief introductory
remarks about this system and then presented a nine minute video
explaining the Enhanced 911 system and how it works in relationship
to house numbering.
i
~•
D. PUBLIC HEARING
zY
1. SSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS '
a. Rural Routes 6. 7, and 13 (partial) - Chanel H_i_1.1
b. Rural Route ~ - Hillsborough
(Note: Bath items to be heard concurrently.)
These items were presented by Marvin Collins. The purpose of
this presentation was to receive citizen comment on the assignment
of house numbers for Rural Routes 6, 7 and 13 (Partial ) Chapel Hill
and Rural Route 4, Hillsborough. .
Per. an agreement reached between Orange County and the US
Postal Service all rural box numbers are being converted to street
addresses within the county. Routes 6, 7, and 13 (Partial) Chapel_
Hill include an area in the extreme southeastern corner of the
County, in the vicinity of U.S. 15/501, Old Lystra Road, and Mt.
Carmel Church Road. Included are the following roads: Parker,
Clearwater Lake, White Rock Church, Madison Womble, and Mangum
Court.
Route 4 Hillsborough encompasses an area north of Hillsborough
extending between N.C. 57, St. Mary's Road, and U. S. 70, including
Governor Burke Road, Miller Road, Walker Road, Orange High Road,
Palmer's Grave Road, Yates Road, Gibbs Lane, and portions of New
Shoran Church Road, Lawrence Road, and U. S. 70 By-Pass.
Notices have been sent to all affected residents and posted
in the Courthouse and two other public places within each proposed
area.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING
BOARD
Commission Hartwell asked why there was no North or 5auth
designation for his new address on Lawrence P,oad.
Collins indicated that the designation of north, south, east,
and west was used only when a road crossed one of the major
dividing lines in the county. If the road stays all to one side
of a major axis it does not use that designation.
In response to a question from Best, Link indicated that the
E911 system will be in place at the same time that the assignment
of house numbers for all the rural routes are done, within the next
18 months.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WA5 OPENED FOR CITIZEN COMMENT
Richard Taylor spoke in apposition to having his house number
changed. He indicated that he believed that the plan was a gaud
nne. However, on smaT1 streets where no further development was
~.~- 3,
possible he felt the numbers could be left as is.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the proposed house and building
numbers for Rural Routes 6, 7, and 13 (partial) Chapel Hill and
Rural Route 4 Hillsborough.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
a. Article 6 15.2 - Interim Develo ment Standards
3. a. Subdivision Re ulations Text Amendments
These item were presented by Marvin Collins. The
purpose of this presentation is to receive citizen comment on the
proposed amendments to the interim development standards applicable
in University Lake watershed. The proposed amendments, if adapted,
would provide more flexibility in the administration and
application of the current standards contained in Article 7.15.2
pf the Zoning Drdinance and Section IV-C-2 of the Subdivision
Regulations.
In March 1989, the Final,Reoort - University Lake Watershed
Studer was issued by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM). Following the
release of the Final Report, the Town of Carrboro adapted a
moratorium an development within that portion of its planning and
zoning jurisdiction in University Lake watershed, pending a
decision an water quality protection strategies.
Orange County subsequently adopted interim development standards
for the watershed for a six-month period, including a five-acre
minimum lot size where mare than five lots are created. DWASA also
continued its moratorium on water and sewer extensions into the
watershed.
In addition to the above actions, the governing boards of Orange
County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro adopted resolutions, requesting
that the Joint Chatham-Orange work group review the study and
provide recommended watershed protection strategies to its
constituent jurisdictions. In October, the Work Group completed
a proposed agreement on University Lake watershed protection and
asked that it be circulated to the respective governing boards for
comment and adoption. The proposed agreement included several
provisions which, if implemented, would provide greater flexibility
in the interim development standards by addressing potential
hardships experienced by landowners in the watershed. These
provisions include #2, #3, #4, and #5a of the attached agreement.
Though not the stimulus far the proposed ordinance amendments, an
example of the flexibility needed in the standards was presented
to the Planning Board at its October 16 meeting. The Durham
Estates Subdivision consists of ten lots with an average density
;,,
_ .' 1
~ 4.Y
of one unit per 5,38 acres. The smallest lot proposed is a 3.59
acre tract separated from the main portion of the subdivision by ,
a public road right-of-way. All other lots exceed five acres in
size.
The current standards require each lot to be at least five acres
in size. The proposed standards would allow the subdivision to be
approved, provided all other non-watershed standards were met.
THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING
BOARD
THE PUBLIC NEARING WA5 OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT.
H. DOBSON, JR:-,`spoke in opposition to the five (5) acre
minimum lot size in the University Lake Watershed.
MARVIN POYTHRESS, spoke in apposition to the five (5) acre
minimum lot size in the University Lake Watershed.
BILL BURCH, spoke in apposition to the five (5) acre minimum
lot size in the University Lake Watershed.
BEN LLOYD, spoke in opposition to the five (5) acre minimum
lot size in the University Lake Watershed. He asked what density
bonuses means?
Collins indicated that density bonus means additional units
which would be permitted in addition to those permitted by the
basic regulations.
LLOYD also asked about clarification of the requirement for
twice the minimum lot size for a parcel an which is located a
septic tank field serving an adjoining lot. He also asked what
federal wetland permits would be required?
BILL, DURHAM, spoke in apposition to the 5 acres minimum lot
size i n the University Lake Watershed .area. He asked why catch
basins were not being used in Orange County.
COUNTY ENGINEER PAUL THAMES i ndi toted that catch basins do not
lessen the amount of run-off. They simply catch it and redirect
it. It would still all go back into the watershed. He indicated
that Best Management Practices were not being used because they
were a. high maintenance item. The responsibility for maintaining
them would be difficult to determine.
VICTOR TRIPP spoke in opposition to the 5 acre minimum lot
size in the University Lake Watershed area.
ROY STROUD spoke in apposition to the 5 acre minimum lot size
in the University Lake Watershed area.
._.. ~~~
~~-
5 _ _.
KENNETH LLOYD, development coordinator for Flat River
Prapertios, spoke in- opposition to the 5 acre minimum lot size
unless it also allows for averaging of lot sizes. A copy of his
statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
In response to a question from the floor, Thames indicated
that the CDM watershed study did recommend settling lakes as a
possibility. Several lakes would have to be built far the
different creeks that feed into University Lake.
KENNETH MARTIN spoke in opposition to the 5 acre minimum lot
size in the University Lake Watershed. He also asked for
clarification on the different types of pollutants going into the
University Lake.
Commissioner Willhoit indicated that by using "structural best
management practices" the equivalent in water quality would be
achieved. However, it would require 18 settling lakes.
Commissioner Willhoit indicated that one type of pollution was
from organic pollution and the other was contaminants as a result
of man's living in the Watershed. Development activities increase
the rate of run-off of both natural and man-made pollutants.
Development is what causes an increase in the rate of run-off. In
the joint, work group with Chapel Hill, Carrbaro, and Orange County
the issue of equity was raised. There needs to be a lot more
understanding of the CDM Engineering Study. It would be worthwhile
to have at least one work session addressing the CDM study between
staff, CDM, OWASA and possibly others.
In response to a question from the floor, Commissioner
Hartwell indicated that the specific amendments that are under
consideration tonight are to allow some flexibility in lot sizes
so that on an average all lots will be five (5) acres but same
could be larger and some smaller. Another amendment being
considered is to allow clustering sa that a lot could be one acre
per unit providing that the total property is not developed over
the five acre per lot minimum. Another amendment would allow far
lots of record as October 2nd to be subdivided up to five lots of
2 acres each.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Commissioner Willhoit, to refer this matter to the Planning Board
far a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners
no sooner than January 8, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Article 7.14.4 - Densit Bonus for Affordable Housin
(Commissioner~Halkiotis was excused from the meeting)
The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose
of this presentation was to receive citizen comment on a proposed
~,
_ - ....,
~~
fi v _ _.
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment, if approved,
would clarify the intent of Article 7.14.4 regarding those portions
of the County in which density bonuses would be applicable.
At the August 28, 1989 public hearing, a proposed amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance was considered which would provide density
bonus incentives to encourage the construction of low and moderate-
incvme housing. The density bonuses ranged from 25 to 50 percent,
depending upon the percentage of low and/or moderate-income
families benefiting from such a project.
At its October 16, 1989 meeting the Planning Board considered
the proposed amendments and recommended approval with specific
revisions. However, concern was expressed by the Planning Board
that the granting~of density bonuses in•water supply watersheds
would need to be balanced against the goals of watershed
protection. The Planning Berard recommended that the applicability
of the bonus provisions in protected watersheds be considered at
this public hearing.
The density bonus provisions presented at the August 28, 1989
I,.„I public hearing were scheduled to be considered by the Board of
Commissioners at its November 21, 1989 meeting. The proposed
I,,:_;f;~~ amendment would change the subsection entitled "Applicability" of
Article 7.14.4 by adding the following provision: A density bonus
` may not be approved far a Planned Development project located,on
land designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a Protected Water
Supply Watershed in a Water Quality Critical Area except land that
is also designated as a Transition Area.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING
BOARD
In response to a question from Commissioner Willhvit, Collins
indicated that the percentage of impervious surface would still
need to be met.
Commissioner Marshall indicated that she agreed with the
Planning Staff that this not be approved for water quality critical
areas.
Best indicated that he felt that, affordable housing was needed
in the University Lake Watershed area and it is not known what
effect clustering would have on the water quality.
THERE .WERE NO CITIZEN COMMENTS
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
- Commissioner Hartwel 1 , to refer thi s i tem to the P1 anni ng Board for
a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners
office no sooner than January 8, 1990.
..~'~ . -l
c. Article 8.2.1 ~- Soecial Uses
This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The
purpose of this item was to receive citizen comment on a proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment, if approved,
would clarify the intent of Articles 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 in regard to
the findings required for approval of Special Uses.
Under Article 8.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, before any
application for a Special Use Permit is approved, this applicant
has the burden of establishing, by competent material and
substantial evidence, the existence of the facts and conditions
which the Zoning Ordinance requires for approval.
In addition, the Board of Commissioners, for Class A Special
Uses, and the Board-of 'Adjustment, for Class B Special Uses, must-
make written findings certifying compliance with the specific rules
governing the special use under consideration and that the use
complies with all the required regulations and standards, including
three general conditions and all applicable provisions of Articles
4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Among the three
general conditions is the following: The use will promote the
public health, safety, and general welf are, if located where
proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as
submitted.
Under Article 8.2.2, a similar finding is required. Where the
Board finds a preponderance of evidence to indicate compliance with
the general standards and specific rules governing the special use,
and that the use complies with all required regulations and
standards, the application must be approved unless the Board finds,
in some specific manner, that: The use will not promote the public
health, safety, and general welf are, if located where proposed and
developed and operated according to the plan as submitted.
The findings referenced above are generic in the sense that
they are•-widely used in zoning ordinances around North Carolina.
The wording is also that with which courts are familiar.
The use of the wording "will promote" and "will not promote"
sets too great a standard for an applicant to meet. The principal
concern is that a project not do harm to the public health, safety,
and general welfare. Thus, a preferable standard, and that
proposed far Articles 8.2.1 b) (2) and 8.2.2 a), is that a project
at least "maintain" if not promote the public health, safety, and
general welfare. Such a standard already exists in Article
8.2.1 b) (2). The use will maintain or enhance .the value of
contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which
case, the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous
property).
i
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING
BOARD
Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he was very pleased to
see this recommended change in wording.
Attorney Geoffrey G1 edh i 1 1 i nd i sated that he wanted to cl ar i f y
that the case law in North Carolina almost uniformly analyzes
ordinances that have a standard that i s as ours wi 1 7 be i f thi s
amendment is approved. This will bring the County's ordinance in
line with the norm in North Carolina.
THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Commissioner Willhoit, to refer this item to the Planning Board for
a recommendation to- be returned to the Bard of Commissioners no
sooner than January 8, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Article 6.19 - Federal Wetlands Permits
3. f. Section IV-B-II-Wetlands
These items were presented by Marvin Collins. The
purpose of this presentation was to receive citizen comment on
proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations. The amendments are proposed in response to a request
of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
The Regulatory Branch of the U. S. Army Carps of Engineers is
responsi bl a for implementation of the Department of .the Army permi t
program pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and 5ectian
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Due to the broad areas
of jurisdiction and numerous projects in ar adjacent to such areas,
the Carps of Engineers is requesting placement of a paragraph
concerning Federal jurisdiction and permit requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
The proposed amendments would add a new Article 6.19 to the
Zoning Ordinance and a new Section IV-B-iI to the Subdivision
Regulations, serving as notification to anyone who may be planning
construction/filling activities. It is the responsibility of the
Corps of Engineers to identify the wetland jurisdiction limits and
discuss the need for, and availability of, Federal permits.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE
PLANNING BOARD.
Best questioned how a builder would knave that they are in
wetlands.
Collins indicated that the flood plain maps and the USGS
topographical maps both show the wetlands. The. Planning Department
has ordered wetland maps which are being prepared at this time.
This will indicate all wetlands in Orange County.
-. ~;:
~~ ''
9 _ _.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Marshall, to refer this matter to the Planning Board
for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners
no sooner than January 8, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. Subdivision Re ulations Text Amendments
a. SectionIV--G-2 - Interim Develoom_ent Standards
This item was heard concurrently with Item 2 a.
b. Section II - Definitions
This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. The purpose
of this presentation was to receive citizen comment on an amendment~~
to Section II of the Subdivision Regulations which will add
language to the definition of ''subdivision" to be consistent with
State enabling legislation and to clarify standards for lots
resulting from the combination or recombination of existing lots.
The definition of subdivision in Section XX of the Subdivision
Regulations follows the language of the North Carolina General
Statutes and contains a list of exceptions to the regulations.
The words, "portions of," have been added to the description
of combinat ions and recombinations to be mare consistent with the
wording in the General Statutes. According to the definition,
combinations and recombina~ions are exempt from the regulations
provided "the total number of lots is not increased and. the
resultant tats are equal to or exceed the standards of the County
as shown in its subdivision regulations."
The applicable standards for resultant lots have been
specified as 1) minimum lot size and lot width, 2) access to a
public road, and 3) evaluation of sewage disposal sites by the
Health Department, or notice of restricted development potential.
The purpose of listing these standards is to make clear the intent
that recreation and landscape requirements a_re not applicable to
combinations and recombinations since the number of lots is not
increased.
Subdivision means al.l divisions of a tract or parcel of land
into two or more lots, building sites, or other divisions far the
purpose of sale ar building development (whether immediate or
future) and includes all divisions of land involving the dedication
of a new street ar a change in existing streets; -however, the
fallowing is not included within the definition and is not subject
to any regulations pursuant to this part. (1) The recombination or
combination of portions of previously subdivided and recorded lots
if the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots
are equal to or exceed the standards of the County as shown in its
subdivision regulations; (2) The division of land into parcels
greater than 10 acres if no street right-of-way dedication is
~*~
10
involved; (3) The public acquisition by purchase of strips of land
for widening or opening streets; and (4) The division of a tract
in single ownership of the entire area of which is no greater than
two acres into not more than three lots, if no street right-of-way
dedication is involved and if the resultant lots are equal to or
exceed the standards of the Gounty as shown by its subdivision
regulations.
THERE WERE NO COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING
BOARD, OR CITIZENS ON THIS ITEM.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Cammi ss i oner Marshal 1 , to refer thi s i tem to the P1 ann i ng Board for
a recommendation to be returned to the Bard of Commissioners no
sooner than January 8, 1989.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Sect ion III-D-2-c d - Preliminar Plat Review
Procedures
This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. The
purpose of this presentation was to receive citizen comment on an
amendment to Section III--D-2-c/d of the Subdivision Regulations to
establish a minimum time period within which recommendations from
the Planning Board will be transmitted to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Currently there is no time limit an the period between the
time the Planning Board makes its recommendation and when the
Commissioners take action an a preliminary plan. A time limit is
necessary so that the p ra j ects are not de 1 ayed i ndef i n i to 1 y between
meetings.
THERE WERE NO COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING
BOARD OR CITIZENS
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Chairman 'Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no
sooner than January 8, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Section III-D-2-e - Preliminar Plat A royal
This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. The purpose
of this presentation was to receive citizen comment on an amendment
to Section III-D-2-e of the Subdivision Regulations to allow
subdividers to request amendments to phasing plans.
The proposed amendment will authorize the Board of County
Commissioners to amend, at its discretion, the phasing plans of
major subdivisions. The new text will list the factors which must
be considered when an applicant requests an amendment to a phasing
plan. The proposed addition to Section III-D-2-e will provide a
-r - .;
`-,
_ eJ ~,~
~•
.,.~
11- _.
;~
remedy for development plans on which the 12-month time limit has -
expired or is about to expire.
THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Wartwell, to refer this item to the Planning Board for
a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no
sooner than January 8, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e. Section IV-B-1 - Lat Standards
This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. The purpose
of this presentation was to receive citizen comment on an amendment
to Section IV-B-1 of the Subdivision Regulations which will
establish standards for lots that will provide septic easements,
and for lots served by community water or sewer systems.
Two changes are proposed in Section IV-B-1, which pertains to
minimum lot standards. The first will formalize a policy
established by the Board of County Commissioners in September 1986 ...._,
which requires twice the minimum lot size far any lot served by an-
site sewage disposal when that lot provides, in addition, a septic
easement service for a different lot. -~
A second aspect of the amendment involves the minimum size of
lots which are served by either public/community water ar sewer,
but not both. The current ordinance specifies a minimum lot size
of ~D,000 square feet unless bath public (or community) water and
sewer are available. The amendment would allow lots served by
public/community water or sewer systems to contain a minimum of
20,D00 square feet.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING
BOARD.
Commissioner Hartwell questioned if this was to address a lot
that is served by water or sewer but not both and Crudup indicated
that that was correct.
Commissioner Willhoit asked if a person would have to provide
= their own septic tank to get by with 20,000 square feet and Crudup
indicated that they would if they had community water.
Commissioner Carey indicated that he believes that work needs
to be done an the wording. Link indicated that the staff would work
on this.
Commissioner Marshall indicated that ordinances are
continually being passed that will effect the sanitarians and how
they work. She questioned why the Wealth Board does not see, and
~~- V -
12.
have an opportunity to comment on these ordinances before they are .
passed.
In response to a question from Eddleman, Crudup indicated that
the current 4p,000 square foot minimum is set by Health Department
recommendation. That is usually the minimum in the initial
installation required to locate the house, well and septic tank
because each of those has a setback from each other as well as
setbacks from other systems and wells on adjacent lots. The 20,000
square feet, if one of those restrictions as f ar as location is
taken away, should be sufficient.
THERE WERE NO CITIZEN COMMENTS
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by
Commissioner Willhoit, to refer this item to the Planning Board for
a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no
sooner than January 8, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
f. Section TV-B-11 -- Wetlands
This item was heard concurrently with Ttem 2.d.
E. ADJOURNMENT
With no further items far Board consideration, Chairman Carey
adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on
December 4, 1989 at 7:30 in the Courtroom of the old Courthouse,
Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman
Beverly A Blythe, Clerk