HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-28-2011 - C.1ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and
PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 28, 2011
Action Agenda
Item No. C.1
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. BOCC- Approved UDO Schedule (p. 5)
2. Proposed Changes to the November 2010 Draft
UDO — Planning Board Approved 2/2/11 (p.7-
65)
3. Proposed Changes to the November 2010 Draft
UDO — Additional Changes Proposed by
Planning Staff (p. 67)
4. Comparison Tables — Planned Development/
Conditional Districts (p. 69 -71)
5. Written Comments Received to Date with Staff
Responses (p. 73 -106)
6. Planning Board Minutes — January 5 and 19,
2011 (Approved) and February 2, 2011 (Draft)
(p. 107 -211)
7. Minutes of November 22, 2010 BOCC /Planning
Board Dinner Meeting and Quarterly Public
Hearing (p. 213 -234)
8. Abstract and Attachments of November 22,
2010 Quarterly Public Hearing (p. 235 -328)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Director, 245 -2592
Perdita Holtz, Planner III, 245 -2578
Shannon Berry, Planner II, 245 -2589
Tom Altieri, Planner III, 245 -2579
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, 245 -2597
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing continued from November 22, 2010 to receive comment
on the proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
BACKGROUND: At the August 24, 2009 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meeting,
staff was authorized to:
• Develop a UDO that combines all existing land development regulations into one
document, using the existing language wherever possible;
• Correct any identified inconsistencies that exist within the individual regulatory standards;
Update the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance: Article 9 - Signage, Article 10 -
Parking, Article 12 - Landscaping, and Article 6 — Dimensional Requirements including,
but not limited to: Section 6.31 Lighting and Section 6.27.11 Stream Buffers; [Note:
Planning staff was not able to update the Lighting regulations as part of this phase].
® Revise existing subdivision regulations to incorporate recent changes to State law and
eliminate identified inconsistencies;
• Develop a Conditional Use /Conditional Zoning District process;
• Update existing graphics and tables detailing development standards; and
• Provide recommendations for subsequent phases of UDO amendments and 2030
Comprehensive Plan implementation. [Note: These recommendations and others as
necessary are intended to be prioritized by the BOCC each year].
November 22, 2010 Quarterly Public Hearina
The Unified Development Ordinance was on the November 22, 2010 quarterly public hearing
agenda. The abstract (and all attachments) for the November hearing are included in this
packet as Attachment 8. The Minutes from the November hearing are included as Attachment
7. Nine of 10 speakers at the hearing we in favor of proceeding with Phase 1 of the UDO. E-
mailed messages primarily from Chapel Hill residents requested more time to review the UDO
(see Attachment 5). At the conclusion of the November hearing, the BOCC directed the
Planning Board to recommend a revised UDO schedule which would allow for more review time
but would complete this phase of the UDO process before May. The BOCC also directed staff
to send letters to the municipalities. The Planning Board recommended a schedule which was
approved by the BOCC at its December 14, 2010 meeting (see Attachment 1).
Additional Planning Board Review of the Draft UD® and Planning Board
Recommendation
As part of the discussion pertaining to recommending a new review schedule to the BOCC, the
Planning Board decided at its December 1, 2010 meeting to focus its additional review on two
topics: conditional districts and stream buffers.
The Planning Board discussed the conditional districts (Conditional Use and Conditional Zoning)
contained in the draft UDO at its January 5, 2011 meeting. At the successful conclusion of the
January 5 meeting, the Board decided to devote its January 19 special meeting to the topic of
stream buffers as the vast majority of the Board seemed satisfied with the conditional districts
discussion. The stream buffer provisions contained in the UDO were discussed extensively at
the Planning Board's special meeting on January 19, 2011.
Planning staff incorporated the Planning Board's recommendations and some additional staff-
recommended revisions into a revision packet that was reviewed at the Planning Board's
February 2, 2011 meeting. The Planning Board voted at its February 2 meeting to recommend
approval of the adoption of the entire UDO with the revisions presented at the meeting. The
revision packet is included as Attachment 2. Minutes for the January 5 and 19 and February 2
Planning Board meetings are included as Attachment 6.
Planning staff concurs with the revisions recommended to date by the Planning Board.
Additional Staff Recommended Revisions
Subsequent to the February 2, 2011 Planning Board meeting, Planning staff discovered two
additional clarifications to be incorporated into the adopted UDO. Attachment 3 contains these
two revisions.
3
Additional Public Outreach
As listed on the BOCC- approved schedule in Attachment 1, the County Manager sent a letter in
December to the municipal managers inviting requests for presentations on the LIDO at
municipal meetings. Only the Town of Carrboro requested a presentation and Planning staff
made a presentation to the Town on January 18. Written comments from municipalities were
requested by 5:00 p.m. on February 2, 2011. To date, no written comments have been
received.
A public outreach meeting was held on January 27, 2011 in the Lower Level Conference Room
of the Orange County West Campus Office Building. Notifications of the meeting was e- mailed
to interested parties, including the people who e- mailed comments in November requesting
more time to review the UDO. Approximately 30 people attended the meeting, including two
County Commissioners. The outreach meeting sign -in sheet indicated that none of the people
who e- mailed on November 22, 2010 requesting additional time to review the UDO attended the
outreach meeting. Staff explained various aspects of the LIDO, the process that has been
followed, current zoning and development processes, and the conditional districts which are
included in the draft UDO as a replacement to the existing Planned Development provisions in
the current Zoning Ordinance.
In addition, Planning staff has met with individuals and has attended group meetings as
requested.
Subsequent Phases
Naturally, during development and review of the initial UDO there were and will be tendencies to
provide comments and ideas in areas where changes are not being made during this project
phase. In these cases, comments and ideas have been documented for consideration in future
phases of UDO amendments. A list of ideas suggested to date is included in Attachment 8.
It is a primary task of the County's Consultant, Clarion Associates, to document comments and
provide formal recommendations to the County on subsequent phases of LIDO amendments.
These recommendations will be forthcoming after the public hearing.
Proposed Unified Development Ordinance
The proposed UDO is approximately 800 pages in length and combines all existing land
development regulations under one cover. Although a sizeable document, staff has "tracked"
changes to enable the reader to identify new text from existing as quickly and easily as possible.
Furthermore, a comparative table (included in Attachment 8) has been prepared as a tool for
anyone interested in knowing where existing regulations are located within the new UDO format.
Upon adoption, all text currently shown as proposed for deletion will be removed, thereby
shortening the length of the document. More importantly, staff will develop user friendly
brochures of different development processes so our customer interaction can be focused on
their specific interest. Therefore, the typical customer will likely be relating to small sections of
the overall document.
The UDO is available to the public on the Planning Department's UDO website and upon
request, can be provided on CD. A paper copy is also available for review in each of the
following locations during the regular business hours of each facility: the Orange County
Planning Department offices, the Chapel Hill Library, the Carrboro Cybrary, and the Orange
County Main Library in Hillsborough.
4
Implementation Bridge and Improvements to Adopted UDO
The Consultant working with staff on this project will produce an "Implementation Bridge"
document which will provide recommendations for future phase work. Additionally, once all of
the text proposed for deletion is removed from the draft document by staff, the Consultant will
produce an Index for the UDO. Staff is also discussing with the consultant the possibility of
providing a variety of hyperlinks in the electronic version of the adopted document and an
estimate of the cost for the next budget cycle.
Economic Development Districts — Name Changes and Zoning District Name Chancres
The existing Economic Development District (EDD) Design Manual (which has been
incorporated into the UDO) lists names that are no longer used for the EDDs. A table included
in Attachment 8 shows the name in the EDD Design Manual along with the proposed name.
Additionally, the existing economic development zoning district classifications are inconsistent
with the numbering scheme used for other zoning districts and are proposed to be changed for
consistency. These proposed changes are also shown in Attachment 8 along with maps
depicting where these zoning districts are located. More specific work in these areas is
proposed by staff for the next phase.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The BOCC provided $32,600 in the 2009 -2010 budget, Departmental
Contract Services Account, to complete this BOCC priority. The costs of consulting services, as
outlined in the executed contract, are not to exceed $30,000. The additional $2,600 was
budgeted for advertising, copying and printing expenses. Monies were not carried forward from
the previous budget, so staff is working with Financial Services to accommodate this multi -year
BOCC priority. Advertising, copying and printing expenses have exceeded $2,600 but in the
interim have been paid using general Planning Department budgeted funds for these types of
activities. Additionally, Planning staff time on the project has been significant.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Conduct the continued public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board
comment on the proposed November 2010 Unified Development Ordinance - and the
proposed changes to the draft document contained in Attachments 2 and 3.
2. Accept the Planning Board's recommendation of approval of the entire UDO with the
revisions contained in Attachment 2.
3. Direct the Planning Board to consider the following at its March 2, 2011 meeting and
return a recommendation on the same in time for the April 5, 2011 BOCC regular
meeting:
a. The revisions contained in Attachment 3.
b. Any new information brought forward at the February 28, 2011 continued public
hearing.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 5, 2011 in order to receive- and accept the Planning
Board's recommendation on the revisions in Attachment 3 and any new information
brought forward at the February 28, 2011 continued public hearing.
Attachment 1 5
BOCC- Approved (12/14/10) UDO Review /Approval Schedule
Nov 22 nd
BOCC /PB Joint Quarterly Public Hearing
(Remains open until Februa 28, 2011
Dec 14
Revised UDO schedule approved by BOCC.
Dec 1.5
Manager sends out letter to municipalities with UDO info and asks what
form of UDO presentation is necessary and what dates are suggested.
Jan (Month of)
If requested by municipality, Planning Staff to present UDO to municipalities
(up to 4). NOTE: UDO does not directly apply to municipalities or their
ETJ.
Jan 5
PB meeting — PB to review Conditional Use District and Conditional Zoning
Districts
Jan 1 9th
Special PB meeting — PB to continue and complete review of Conditional
Use District and Conditional Zoning Districts
Jan 27
Public Outreach Meeting*
Feb 2 nd by
5:00 p.m.
Deadline for any written comments from municipalities and advisory boards
other than Planning Board).
Feb 2"
PB meeting - PB to review stream buffers and make recommendation to
BOCC regarding entire UDO adoption.
Feb 15
BOCC meeting - PB recommendation reported to BOCC.
Feb 28
Continuation of November 22 public hearing *. Public comments will be on
the November 2010 UDO draft and any further revisions recommended by
the Plannin Board would be presented.
Mar 2nd
PB meeting — recommendations about next steps based on continued
public hearing; recommendations regarding Phase II of UDO process.
April 5th
BOCC meeting — BOCC receives PB recommendation on UDO adoption
and Phase 11 process /priorities, closes public hearing, and considers
adoption of UDO.
* - Public notification will be via e-mail distribution lists, County website, press release,
posted bulletin, and letter to municipalities.
Attachment 2 7
Article 6: Development Standards
Section 6.13: Stream Buffers
(13) c3tF6e9ti'1-dttFte�$ -c l v$o r�.rl.. rn.:,.i 11_Othe_r: nFor feat Fes if any
p9rtl9n- 3ft,t-°— �u}cre ^m ham,„ "f�mniOf
pe- dal -ing to carter feature de..^.'.°.*vnv by G914-"' efnif -k-11 hca filers Alrentl r 4o the
es
(C) Stream buffers for Soil Survey streams shall only be calculated using Method A
as explained in Section 6.23.7d 6.13.3.
6.13.6 Remitted -Uses P'e it-ted Allowable Within Stream Buffers724
(A) General Standards
(1) Nor to any laird disturbing activity within a designated stream buffer,
Fthe property owner shall provide written notification tc 444a - -f-Ja
of the location and nature of the PIL)l'M3 Ji use to tlw>
Planning Department for review. The f��ert� {3wr�r sha4l z�rovide a
wry+# a ►a tt�a h?1a 1i {�cd +t � �t notification ,hall state that
the use shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize soil
disturbance and to provide the maximum water giiality protection
practicable.
(2) All land disturbing activities within a designated stream buffer require
approval of the Erosion Control Officer in accordance with applicable
State and local regulations, as well as all other required local, State
and /or Federal permits and approvals t �rftu- e- rel>„
-*pFeval ef a site- plan and all e�.pn rrv, i91
d -prior to commencement of land disturbing activities,
(3) The submittal of additional information andlor applications may be
required prior to any land disturbing activity within a designated stream
buffer, in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
(B) Additional Standards for Uses Rern*ted Allowable With Mitigation
(1) Development proposals shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance
with this Ordinance and all applicable State regulations.
(2) Mitigation shall be provided in accordance with adopted State standards
and shall be approved and inspected by the Erosion Control S�c
Officer or his /her designee.
(C) 4ses Per #ecl- i9it Uses Allowable
The following uses are allowed as a matter of right in stream buffers, subject to
the General Standards established in Section 6.13.6(A), and any specific
standards for the use: All other uses aFe prehibited,
6.23AQ of this Ordinanre.
(1) Above- ground and buried utility lines for local distribution of electricity,
telephone, data, and cable television service, as well as accessory and
724 ZO 6.23.7(b); uses and standards added are consistent but still more restrictive than State regulations
Orange County, North Carolina - DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -141
ARIcte 6: Wvelopment Standards
Section 5.13: Stream Buffers
appurtenant apparatus such as poles, guy wires, transformers and
switching boxes, aW
(2) individual or community wells
(3) . Public water and sewer lines are permitted only as
allowed by the Orange County Water and Sewer Policy, and may be
located within stream buffers only to the extent necessary to cross the
stream buffer as closely as possible to perpendicular. Individual or
community wastewater disposal systems are not permitted in stream
buffers.
(4) Public and private streets, bridges, aPA- railroad rights -of -way, and other
similar travel ways, provided that they enter and exit the buffer area as
nearly perpendicular as possible
(6) ,archaeological activities /projects conducted in accordance with all
applicable County, State and Federal regulations
(6) Dam /reservoir maintenance activities
(7) Maintenance of existing outfalls provided they are managed to minimize
the sediment, nutrients, and other pollution that convey to waterbodies.
(8) Driveway crossings on single - family residential lots that disturb less than,
or equal to, 25 linear feet or 2,500 square feet of stream buffer.
(9) Greenways and /or hiking trails six feet in width composed of natural
materials at least 30 feet from the top of bank of a stream or water body.
(10) Historic preservation projectslactivities
(11) Periodic maintenance of modified natural streams, such as canals, and a
grassed travel way on one side of the surface water when alternative
forms of maintenance access are not practical.
(12) Public water and sewer lines that do not disturb over 40 linear feet
('13) New- eff", ids - pravi€ �.a- ; ip� ria♦a ##er tha t
+�e�s-- tt�e -r�u i rerx�ets- of- �# �t+ on-+ s-. esk�blish�- adjPrsea�t-- to --ttae
RGAd-
(14) Stream restoration and /or stream bank stabilization
(16) Wetland restoration, in accordance with all applicable County, State and
Federal regulations
(16) Vegetation management, including but not limited to:
(a) Emergency fire control measures provided that topography is
restored
Orange County, North Carolina - DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -142
Article 6: development Standards
Section 6.13: Stream Buffers
(b) Planting vegetation to enhance the riparian buffer
(c) Pruning forest vegetation provided that the health and function of
the forest vegetation is not compromised and the pruning activity .
is conducted by hand
(d) Removal of individual trees which are in danger of causing
damage to dwellings, other structures or human life provided the
activity is conducted by hand
(e) Removal of poison ivy and other nuisance vegetation, including
invasive exotics, as identified by the NG Cooperative Extension
(D) Uses P+:r -R fitted Allowable With Mitigation
The following uses are perm +tted allowable within stream buffers with mitigation,
subject to the standards established in Sections 6.13.6(A) and 6.13.6(8) above,
as well as any specific standards for the use:
(1) Water dependent structures, such as docks, piers, public and private
boat ramps, boat houses over the water, walkways, water recreational
amenities, and other similar uses.
(2) New drainage outfalls provided that a stormwater management facility is
installed to control nutrients and attenuate flow before the conveyance
discharges into the stream buffer
(3) Driveway crossings on single - family residential lots that disturb less than,
or equal to 150 linear feet or 1/3 of an acre of stream buffer
(4) Any driveway or roadway, whether for a single -family residence or a
subdivision, that is parallel to the stream or water body, regardless of
cumulative impact
(6) Greenways and /or hiking trails six feet in width, with improved paths (i.e.
paved, wood decking, etc.) at least 30 feet from the top of bank of a
stream or water body
(6) Trail crossings, and associated bridge or other structure, provided they
are oriented perpendicular to the stream and constructed in accordance
with best management practices to minimize soil erosion and other
adverse impacts to water quality
(7) Public water and sewer lines that disturb over 40 linear feet, but not
greater than 150 linear feet of riparian buffer
(8) Temporary roads intended for access to a property for development
purposes
(8) New stormwater management ponds, with or without where a riparian
buffer is -trot established adjacent to the pond
Orange County, North Carolina — DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -143
10
Article 6: Development standards
Section 6.14: Stormwater Management
(10) Vegetation Management tii « includes the installation of new
vegetation its - �Jiilr --,is rf t r..�f- ,! mitiq- _iiion ,>I< :r;; and a one-
time application of fertilizer to re- establishrno+" the vegetation
(11) Vegetation Management/ Replanting in an effort to protect existing
structures
6.13.7 Diffuse Flow Requiremene"
(A) Diffuse flow of runoff shall be maintained in the r Ic-m stream buffer by
dispersing concentrated flow and re- establishing vegetation.
(B) Concentrated runoff from new ditches or constructed conveyances shall be
converted to diffuse flow before the runoff enters the riyaFiarr stream buffer.
(C) Periodic corrective action to restore diffuse flow shall be taken if necessary to
impede the formation of erosion gullies.
6.13.8 Land Disturbance and Planting of Vegetation726
(A) Area within a stream buffer which is subject to serious erosion may be disturbed
for the purpose of planting and maintaining erosion- resistant vegetative cover.
(B) Existing forested areas or any other healthy vegetation sanAnt may riot be
removed from a stream buffer, except where replaced with vegetation resulting in
comparable stormwater runoff velocity and quantity one year after planting.
(1) 721
Ars�y�tadn- sh:_+lt - -be- ativwsacl_ tE3r-{ ���If- co�rr�c�,5- �rvkr�e- t#a�- lia -re- of -ptay
t�rese�- �- a-- fitrearra tsrcffr -�l -y- trees- v, �taaf, t�- r��t�rrct- tkre`-- ir�tr%:r�:�e�N+r - }�,#
flay t��4�y -be vkrt;- tarvuider#-- =_>�rr�f�- ;arid -rat rraass- arf3- rrest-- re��af��r:c4 --�r�
t Pis wtaietr -rte -r.E►t -Gan —t + —rr�r rc3�rerit i}� a- sw itiv na rrrn : vk�i ;l�
rxairairxai es �aEtfiitiEar at �I +stArrtararasr� t'a-#W_Stre�rr-n-t-a!:a#fer
(C) New vegetation shall be planted to capture non - source pollutants before they
reach the perennial stream, as per applicable Orange County Standards.
SECTION 6.14 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
6.14.1 Introduction
As a watershed becomes more developed, the amount of impervious surface increases, causing
a decrease in the rate at which stormwater runoff which can be absorbed into the soil. This
results in more stormwater flowing directly into streams and other water bodies. Because this
direct runoff has not been filtered through the soil, pollutahl.4 from the air and land surface enter
streams and increase the potential for pollution of drinking water supplies.'
725 From SW Ord Section 3
728 ZO 6.23.7(c)
727 Not permitted by State, therefore deleted
728 Merging stormwater regs from ZO (Countywide) & Stonnwater Ordinance (Neuse only); see UDO Notes
729 ZO 6.23.3 first paragraph
Orange County, North Carolina - DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -144
11
Definitions to be added to the UDO
The following are existing definitions found on page 6 -13 of the Zoning Ordinance. They were
inadvertently omitted from the Definitions article of the UDO and should be included in the UDO.
Habitable Rooms
Rooms designed and used for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or combinations thereof.
Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage rooms, laundry and utility spaces,
basement recreation rooms, and similar areas are not considered habitable rooms.
Walls, Primary
Walls containing primary windows and /or main exterior entrances to individual living quarters
when directly facing the primary wall or other living quarters
Walls, Secondary
Walls containing only secondary, or secondary and tertiary, windows.
Walls, Tertiary
Windowless walls or walls containing only tertiary windows.
Windows, Primary
Principal windows in habitable rooms except bedrooms and kitchens.
Windows, Secondary
Windows of habitable rooms other than primary windows, as defined above.
Windows, Tertiary
Windows other than for habitable rooms.
The following is a term requested by the Planning Board to be defined:
Conditional Districts
A zoning technique authorized by N.C.G.S. 153A -342 which allows for the imposition of mutually
agreed upon individualized development conditions as part of the legislative rezoning process.
The Conditional Use District and Conditional Zoning Districts are subsets of the term Conditional
Districts. Land may be placed in a conditional district only upon petition of all of the owners of the
land to be included; said petition must be approved following the procedures set forth in Section
2.9 of this Ordinance.
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES - GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
* = PERMITTED USE
A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE
B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE
Use not permitted as a Conditional Use District; permitted only in zoning districts where noted on Table of Permitted Uses; See Section 5.1.4(E) ca
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB
AR
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R8
R13
LC7
NC2
CC3
GC4
EC5
OI
AS
El
11
12
13
Agricultural Uses
Agricultural Services Uses
Commercial Feeder Operation
Farm Equipment & Sales
Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing
Stockyards
Child Care & Educational Facilities
Center in a Residence for 3 to 12 Children
Child Care Facilities
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Libraries
Non - Profit Educational Cooperative
A
Schools: Dance, Art & Music
Schools: Elementary, Middle & Secondary
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Schools: Vocational
Universities, Colleges & Institutes
Commercial Uses
Banks &'Financial Institutions
Beauty & Barber Shops
Bed & Breakfast
Bed & Breakfast Inn
B
B
Country Inn
A
A
Drive In T#ea#es- •Theaters
Funeral Homes
Garden Center (On Premises Sales)
Greenhouses (No On Premises Sales)
Greenhouses (On Premises Sales)
Hotels & Motels
Junkyards
A
A
A
Kennels, Class I
Use not permitted as a Conditional Use District; permitted only in zoning districts where noted on Table of Permitted Uses; See Section 5.1.4(E) ca
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB I AR I R1 I R21 R31 R41 R51 R81 R131 LC1 I NC2 I CC3 1 GC4 1 EC5 1 01 1 AS I El 1 11 1 12 113
Kennels, Class II / Riding Stables
B
B
B
B
B
B
Laundry & Dry Cleaning Services
Massage, Business of
Nightclubs, Bars, Pubs
Offices & Personal Services, Class 1
Offices & Personal Services, Class 2
Offices & Personal Services, Class 3
Repair Service Electronic & Appliance
'
Restaurants: Carry Out
Restaurants: Drive In
Restaurants: General
Retail, Class 1
Retail, Class 2
Retail, Class 3
Storage of Goods, Outdoor
Storage of Warehousing: Inside Building
Studio (Art)
Tourist Home
Wholesale Sales Trade
Extractive Uses
Extraction of Earth Products
a
a
a
a
a
Governmental Uses
Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings
Governmental Protective Services (Police & Fire
Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire
Departments
Military Installations (National Guard & Reserve
Armory
Manufacturing, Assembly & Processing
Assembly and Packaging Operations Including
Mail Order Houses, But Excluding On- Premises
Retail Outlets
Industrial, Heavy'
Industrial, Light
Industrial, Medium
XUse not permitted as a Conditional Use District; permitted only in zoning districts where noted on Table of Permitted Uses; See Section 5.1.4(E)
Use not permitted as a Conditional Use District; permitted only in zoning districts where noted on Table of Permitted Uses; See Section 5.1.4(E) to
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB
AR
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R8
R13
LC1
NC2
CC3
GC4
EC5
OI
AS
El
11
12
13
Printing & Lithography
Sawmills
Medical Uses
Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians
Health Services: Over 10,000 S . Ft.
Health Services: Under 10,000 Sq. Ft.
Hospitals
Recreational Uses
Botanical Gardens & Arboretums
Cam /Retreat Center
B
B
B
Golf Driving and Practice Ranges
B
Parks, Public & Non - Profit
Recreational Facilities Non - Profit
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Recreational Facilities (Profit)
Golf Course
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Residential Uses
Dwelling; Mobile Home
Dwelling; Multiple Family
Dwelling; Single - Family
Dwelling; Two - Family
Family Care Home
Group Care Facility
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Rehabilitative Care Facility
Residential Hotel (Fraternities, Sororities, and
Dormitories
q
A
A
A
A
Rooming House
Telecommunications
Telecommunication Tower — Stealth (75 feet or
shorter
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Telecommunication Towers (150 feet in height or
shorter
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Use not permitted as a Conditional Use District; permitted only in zoning districts where noted on Table of Permitted Uses; See Section 5.1.4(E) to
.-A
IUse not permitted as a Conditional Use District; permitted only in zoning districts where noted on Table of Permitted Uses; See Section 5.1.4(E)
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB
AR
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R8
R13
LCII
NC2
CC3
GC4
EC5
OI
AS
El
11
12
13
Telecommunication Towers (greater than 150 in
height
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Temporary Uses
Buildings, Portable
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Temporary Mobile Home Custodial Care
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Temporary Mobile Home (Use during
construction /installation of permanent residential
unit and for 30 days following issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy)
Transportation
Bus Passenger Shelter
Bus Terminals & Garages
Motor Freight Terminals
Motor Vehicle Maintenance & Repair
(Body Shop) 1
Motor Vehicle Repair Garage
Motor Vehicle Sales / Rental
New & Used
Motor Vehicle Services Stations
Parking As Principle Use, Surface or Structure
Petroleum Products: Storage &Distribution
Postal & Parcel Delivery Services
Utilities
Elevated Water Storage Tanks
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Public Utility Stations & Sub - Stations, Switching
Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water &
Sewage Treatment Plants
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Transmission Lines
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Water & Sanitary Sewer Pumping
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Waste Management
Landfills 2 Acres or More
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Landfills Less Than 2 Acres)
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
IUse not permitted as a Conditional Use District; permitted only in zoning districts where noted on Table of Permitted Uses; See Section 5.1.4(E)
Use not permitted as a Conditional Use District; permitted only in zoning districts where noted on Table of Permitted Uses; See Section 5.1.4(E)
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB
AR
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R8
R13
LC1
NC2
CC3
GC4
EC5
OI
AS
El
11
12
13
Waste Management Facility; Hazardous & Toxic
A
A
A
Miscellaneous
Accessory Uses
*
*
*
*
Airports, General Aviation, Heliports, S.T.O.L.
A
A
A
A
A
A
Assembly Facility Greater Than 300
Assembly Facility Less Than 300
Cemetery
B
*
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Church
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Clubs or Lodges; Social; Fraternal or Union
Clubhouses
Community Center
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Crematoria {4}
*
*
*
Historic Sites Non - Residential /Mixed Use
A
A
A
Research Facilit
Research Lands & Installations, Non - profit
Special Events (Less than 150)
Use not permitted as a Conditional Use District; permitted only in zoning districts where noted on Table of Permitted Uses; See Section 5.1.4(E)
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES - CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS
* = PERMITTED USE
NOTE: Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration / approval
cc
CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS
MPD -CZ
MHP -CZ
PID -CZ
Agricultural Uses
Agricultural Services Uses
Commercial Feeder Operation
Farm Equipment & Sales
Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing
Stockyards
Child Care & Educational Facilities
Center in a Residence for 3 to 12 Children
Child Care Facilities
Libraries
Non - Profit Educational Cooperative
Schools: Dance, Art & Music
Schools: Elementary, Middle & Secondary
Schools: Vocational
Universities, Colleges & Institutes
Commercial Uses
Banks & Financial Institutions
Beauty & Barber Shops
Bed & Breakfast
Bed & Breakfast Inn
Construction (Sector 23)
Contractors, Building & Trade
Country Inn
DFOve IR Theatre
Finance & Insurance (Sector 52)
Funeral Homes
cc
N
O
NOTE: Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration / approval
CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS
MPD -CZ
MHP -CZ
PID -CZ
Garden Center (On Premises Sales)
"
Greenhouses (No On Premises Sales)
"
Greenhouses (On Premises Sales)
Hotels & Motels
Insurance Carriers & Agents
Junkyards
Kennels, Class I
Kennels, Class II / Riding Stables
Laundry & Dry Cleaning Services
Management of Companies & Enterprises (Sector 53)
Massage, Business of
Nightclubs, Bars, Pubs
Offices & Personal Services, Class 1
Offices & Personal Services, Class 2
Offices & Personal Services, Class 3
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services (Sector 54)
Real Estate Agents & Brokers
"
Repair Service Electronic & Appliance
Restaurants: Carry Out
Restaurants: Drive In
Restaurants: General
Retail, Class 1
Retail, Class 2
Retail, Class 3
Storage of Goods, Outdoor
Storage of Warehousing: Inside Building
Studio (Art)
Theater, Indoor or Outdoor (including Drive -ins
Tourist Home
Wholesale Sales Trade
Extractive Uses
NOTE: Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration / approval
N
NOTE: Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration /approval
CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS
MPD -CZ
MHP -CZ
PID -CZ
Extraction of Earth Products
Governmental Uses
Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings
Governmental Protective Services (Police & Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments
Military Installations National Guard & Reserve Armory)
Public Administration (Sector 92)
Manufacturing, Assembly & Processing
Assembly and Packaging Operations Including Mail Order Houses, But Excluding On- Premises Retail
Outlets
Industrial, Heavy
Industrial, Light
Industrial, Medium
Manufacturing (Sector 31 -33)
Pharmaceutical Products
Printing & Lithography
Sawmills
Medical Uses
Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians
Health Services: Over 10,000 Sq. Ft.
Health Services: Under 10,000 Sq. Ft.
Hospitals
Recreational Uses
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation (Sector 71)
Botanical Gardens & Arboretums
Camp /Retreat Center
Golf Driving and Practice Ranges
Parks, Public & Non - Profit
Recreational Facilities (Non- Profit)
Recreational facilities (Profit)
Golf Course
N
NOTE: Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration /approval
N
N
NOTE: Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration / approval
CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS
MPD -CZ
MHP -CZ
PID -CZ
Residential Uses
Mobile Home
-Dwelling;
Dwelling; Multiple Family
Dwelling; Single - Family
Dwelling; Two - Family
Family Care Home
Group Care Facility
Rehabilitative Care Facility
Residential Hotel Fraternities, Sororities, and Dormitories
Rooming House
Telecommunications
Telecommunication Tower — Stealth (75 feet or shorter)
Telecommunication Towers (150 feet in height or shorter)
Telecommunication Towers (greater than 150 in height
A"
Temporary Uses
Buildings, Portable
Temporary Mobile Home Custodial Care
Temporary Mobile Home (Use during construction /installation of permanent residential unit and for 30 days
followinq issuance of Certificate of Occupancy)
Transportation
Bus Passenger Shelter
Bus Terminals & Garages
Motor Freight Terminals
Motor Vehicle Maintenance & Repair
(Body Shop)
Motor Vehicle Repair Garage
Motor Vehicle Sales Rental
New & Used
Motor Vehicle Services Stations
Parking As Principle Use, Surface or Structure
NOTE: Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration / approval
N
NOTE: Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration /approval cu
CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS
MPD -CZ
MHP -CZ
PID -CZ
Petroleum Products: Storage & Distribution
Postal & Parcel Delivery Services
Utilities
Elevated Water Storage Tanks
Public Utility Stations & Sub - Stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water & Sewage
Treatment Plants
*
,4
Transmission Lines
Water & Sanitary Sewer Pumping
Waste Management
Landfills 2 Acres or More
Landfills Less Than 2 Acres
Waste Management Facility; Hazardous & Toxic
Miscellaneous
Accessory Uses
Airports, General Aviation, Heliports, S.T.O.L.
Assembly Facility Greater Than 300
Assembly Facility Less Than 300
Cemetery
Church
Clubs or Lodges; Social; Fraternal or Union Clubhouses
Community Center
Crematoria (4)
Historic Sites Non- Residential/Mixed Use
Information (Sector 51)
Research Facility
Research Lands & Installations, Non - profit
N
NOTE: Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration /approval cu
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
* = PERMITTED USE
A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE
B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE (Rezoning & Class A SUP)
1 Buckhorn EDD Secondary and Primary Districts renamed; see Article 3
z Eno EDD Secondary and Primary Districts renamed; see Article 3
3 Current Hillsborough EDD Districts renamed; see Article 3
" Hillsborough EDD only; all activities must be wholly within building
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District' —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU)
N
G7
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Buckhorn EDD'
Eno EDD2
Hillsborough EDD3
EDB -1
EDB -2
EDE -1
EDE -2
EDH -1
EDH -2
EDH -3
EDH-4
EDH -5
Agricultural Uses
Animal hospital/veterinarian
A-RD C#
Kennel, Class I
ABC#
Kennel, Class II
B
B
Construction
Building contractors
Construction (Sector 23)4
Plumbing, heating, electrical, and similar trade contractors
Finance
Banks, savings and loans, and credit unions
A-RD C#
Credit agencies and institutions
A-PD C#
Finance & Insurance (Sector 52)
Insurance carriers and agents
A-129 C#
Real estate agents and brokers
,-RD C#
Security and commodity brokers, and investment offices
A-PD C#
Government
Governmental facilities and office buildings
1 Buckhorn EDD Secondary and Primary Districts renamed; see Article 3
z Eno EDD Secondary and Primary Districts renamed; see Article 3
3 Current Hillsborough EDD Districts renamed; see Article 3
" Hillsborough EDD only; all activities must be wholly within building
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District' —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU)
N
G7
N
Q�
Hillsborough EDD only; all activities must be wholly within building
Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District' —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU)
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Buckhorn EDD'
Eno EDD2
Hillsborough EDD3
EDB -1
EDB -2
EDE -1
EDE -2
EDH -1
EDH -2
EDH -3
EDH -4
EDH -5
(including solid waste collection centers
Governmental protective services
(Police and fire stations, rescue squads, and volunteer fire
de artments
Parks, public and non - profit
Public Administration (Sector 92)
Information
Information (Sector 51)
Manufacturing, Assembly & Processing
Manufacturing (Sector 31 -33)5
Electronic Equipment (see listing below)
• Communications equipment
• Electric lighting and wiring equipment
"
• Electric transmission and distribution
• Electrical industrial apparatus
"
• Electronic components and accessories
• Household appliances
• Radio and television receiving equipment
Fabricated Metal Products (see listing below)
• Cutlery and hand tools
"
• Fabricated structural metal products
"
• Heating equipment, except electric and warm air; and
plumbing fixture
• Metal cans and shipping containers
Hillsborough EDD only; all activities must be wholly within building
Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District' —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU)
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District " —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU) ry
4
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Buckhorn EDD'
Eno EDD2
Hillsborough EDD3
EDB -1
ED13-2
EDE -1
EDE -2
EDH -1
EDH -2
EDH -3
EDIT -4
EDH -5
• Nuts, bolts, screws, rivets, and washers
Food Products (see listing below)
• Bakery
• Bottling plants
• Dairy
• Miscellaneous food preparation; e.g., coffee roasting,
condiments, confectionary products, etc.
Industrial Machinery (see listing below)
• Engines and turbines
• Farm /garden machinery and equipment
• General industrial machinery and equipment; e.g.,
purification equipment, ball and roller bearings, etc.
• Metalworking machinery and equipment
• Office, computing, and accounting machines
• Special industrial machinery; e.g., textile machinery
Instruments (see listing below)
• Measuring, analyzing, and controlling instruments
• Photographic, medical, and optical goods
• Watches and clocks
Paper Products (see listing below)
• Converted paper and paperboard products
• Paperboard containers and boxes
Furniture and Fixtures (see listing below)
• Household and office furniture
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District " —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU) ry
4
N
OD
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District' —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU)
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Buckhorn EDD1
Eno EDD2
Hillsborough EDD3
EDB -1
EDB -2
EDE -1
EDE -2
EDH -1
EDH -2
EDH -3
EDH -4
EDH -5
• Miscellaneous furniture and fixtures
Pharmaceutical Products
Printing and Publishing Establishments
Rubber and Plastic Products (see listing below)
• Miscellaneous plastic products; e.g., plastic pipe,
packaging materials, etc.
• Rubber and plastic footwear
• Rubber and plastic hose and belting
Stone, Glass, Clay, and Concrete Products (see listing below)
• Cut stone products
A-2B C#
A-RD C#
• Flat glass
• Glass and glassware
• Pottery and related products
Transportation Equipment (see listing below)
• Miscellaneous transportation equipment; e.g., motor
vehicle components
• Motorcycles, bicycles, and parts
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (see listing below)
• Jewelry and silverware
• Miscellaneous manufacturing industries; e.g., costume
jewelry, novelties, buttons, etc.
• Musical instruments
• Pen, pencils, office, and artist supplies
• Toys, sporting, and athletic goods
Recreation
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District' —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU)
6 6 -12 units per acre in the Hillsborough EDD
' Only Hillsborough EDD eat through Conditional Use District or MPD -CZ
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District' —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU)
R
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Buckhorn EDD'
Eno EDD2
Hillsborough EDD3
EDBA
EDB -2
EDE -1
EDE -2
EDHA
EDH -2
EDH -3
EDH -4
EDH -5
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation (Sector 71)
Residential
Dwelling, single - family
Dwelling, two - family
Dwelling, multi- family6
Dwelling, mobile home (For replacement of existing mobile
home
Temporary mobile home (For custodial care)
B
B
B
B
Temporary mobile home (For occupancy during construction of
permanent residential unit and for 30 days after issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy)
Retail
Farm equipment sales
A-P-D C#
Motor vehicle service station
A-RD C#
Motor vehicles, new and used, sales and rental
A-PP C#
Nightclubs, bars, and pubs
(Only as accessory use to hotel, motel or restaurant
Restaurants (carry-out, and general) when located in a service
building, court or plaza, or enclosed mall consisting of multiple
uses
Restaurants (carry -out, drive -in, and general) in a separate,
free - standin building
A-RD C#
Retail Trade (Sectors 44, 45; excluding Subsector 454 Non -
store retailers )7
Retail trade, sales and rental of durable and convenience
goods, merchandise, and equipment, including mail order
houses, in a separate, free-standing building
A-RD C#
Retail trade, sales and rental of durable and convenience
6 6 -12 units per acre in the Hillsborough EDD
' Only Hillsborough EDD eat through Conditional Use District or MPD -CZ
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District' —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU)
R
W
Eating and drinking establishments are permitted only as accessory use to hotel, motel or restaurant; Hillsborough EDD only
Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District " —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU)
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Buckhorn EDD'
Eno EDD2
Hillsborough EDD3
EDB -1
EDB -2
EDE -1
EDE -2
EDH -1
EDH -2
EDH -3
EDH-4
EDH -5
goods, merchandise, and equipment, including mail order
houses, when located in a service building, court or plaza, or
enclosed mall consisting of multiple uses.
Services
Accommodation and Food Service (Sector 72)8
Administrative & Support Services (Sector 561)
Art/photographic studios
A-RD C#
A-PP C#
Assembly facility - 300 or more person capacity
A-PM C#
Assembly facility - less than 300 person capacity
A-IaD C#
Beauty and barber shops
A-RD C#
Churches
"
Clubs and lodges, and social, fraternal, and union clubhouses
A-RD C#
A-RD C#
A-RD C#
A PD C#
Community center
A
A
A
A
Day care facility
B
B
Educational Services (Sector 61)
Funeral homes
A-RB C#
Golf driving and practice ranges
Health Care & Social Assistance (Sector 62)
Health services, including doctors and dentists offices, and
medical and dental laboratories
A-RD C#
Hotels and motels
A PD C#
Indoor theaters
A-R9 C#
Large day care home
B
B
Laundry, dry cleaning, and shoe repair services
A-RD C#
A-RD C#
Eating and drinking establishments are permitted only as accessory use to hotel, motel or restaurant; Hillsborough EDD only
Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District " —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU)
' Hillsborough EDD only; clarification of uses included in this category will be necessary in subsequent phase when looking at EDDs and the
Table of Permitted Uses
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District " —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU) w
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Buckhorn EDD'
Eno EDD2
Hillsborough EDD3
EDB -1
EDB -2
EDE -1
EDE -2
EDH -1
EDH -2
EDH -3
EDH-4
EDH -5
Libraries
ADD C#
A-RE) C#
Management of Companies & Enterprises (Sector 53)
Motor vehicle maintenance and repair (body shop)
A-121) C#
Other offices and personal services; e.g., attorneys, watch and
jewelry repair, computer programming and data processing,
employment and travel agencies, advertising agencies, and
accounting, engineering, architectural, and surveying offices
Aug C#
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services (Sector 54)
Recreational facilities (Non - Profit)
A-RD C#
Aug C#
A-RD C#
A- 2D C#
Recreational facilities (Profit)
A-PD Co
A-PD C#
A-RD C#
A PC) C#
Repair service, electronic and appliance
A 121) C#
A-RD C#
Research facility
Schools, dance, art, and music
A-RD C#
Schools, elementary, middle, and high
A-RD C#
A
Schools, vocational
A P[) C#
Other Services9
Transportation
Bus terminals and garages
A Pl) C#
Elevated water storage tank
Permitted as accessory use without Special Use Permit
B
B
Postal and parcel delivery services
Public utility stations and sub - stations, switching stations, and
telephone exchanges
A
A
A
A
Radio and television transmitting and receiving towers
B
B
' Hillsborough EDD only; clarification of uses included in this category will be necessary in subsequent phase when looking at EDDs and the
Table of Permitted Uses
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District " —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU) w
I
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District " —CU (i.e. ED13-2 -CU)
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Buckhorn EDD'
Eno EDD2
Hillsborough EDD3
EDB -1
EDB -2
EDE -1
EDE -2
EDHA
EDH -2
EDH -3
EDH-4
EDH -5
Rail /bus passenger shelter
Storage and warehousing, inside building
"
Storage of goods, outdoors
(Accessory only and subject to screening)
Surface and structure parking as principal use
(When associated with a local or regional transportation goal
such as mass transit or ark - and -ride
Transmission lines
B
B
B
B
Transportation and Warehousing (Sector 48, 49)
Water and sanitary sewer pumping stations
Wholesale Trade
Wholesale Trade (Sector 42)
Durable Goods (see listing below)
• Automotive parts and supplies (in an enclosed building)
'
• Electrical goods
• Furniture and home furnishings
"
• Hardware, plumbing, and heating equipment and supplies
• Lumber and other construction materials
• Machinery, equipment, and supplies
• Sporting, recreational, photographic, and hobby goods;
toys and supplies
Non - Durable Goods (see listing below)
• Apparel and piece goods
• Beer, wine, and distilled alcoholic beverages
• Groceries and related products
• Paper and paper products
"
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District " —CU (i.e. ED13-2 -CU)
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District " —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU) w
W
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Buckhorn EDD'
Eno EDD2
Hillsborough EDD3
EDB -1
EDB -2
EDE -1
EDE -2
EDH -1
EDH -2
EDH -3
EDH -4
EDH -5
• Pharmaceuticals and cosmetics
Miscellaneous
Accessory uses
Historic buildings for non- residential/mixed use
A
A
A
A
# Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as "Zoning District " —CU (i.e. EDB -2 -CU) w
W
35
REVISED UDO GRAPHIC
The following graphics were either noted in the November 2010. draft UDO to be subject
to revision or are suggested by staff for minor revisions. The graphics shown below are
intended to replace the graphics in the draft UDO and are to be incorporated into the
adopted UDO.
• Figure 6.2.7: Corner Lot Setbacks on Side Street, shown.-below, to replace
graphic in UDO Public Hearing Draft
• Page 6 -4
Figure 6.2.7: Corner Lot Setbacks on Side Street
❑ Buildable Area
' Front Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback „
m
n
::3 m _ — _.........�.
LA ' Q
n
F=d Yaw SetbKk
Side Street
• Figure, 6.2.11: Building Spacing Requirements, shown below, to replace
graphic in UDO Public Hearing Draft
• Pages 6 -7 & 6 -8
• Minor LIDO Text changes accompany revised FigLKpp 6.2.11 (see changes to
Section 6.2.11(D))
Figure 6.2.11: Building Spacing Requirements
0 Length of Walls ® Height in Stories 40 Depth of Yard or Required Open Space
36
• Figure 6.3.8. B.1 .c: Berm Volume Calculations, shown below, to replace
graphic in UDO Public Hearing Draft
• . _Page 6 -15
• Graphic lightened for clearer reproduction
Width = 25' minimum
Figure 6.3.8.B.1.c: Berm Volume Calculations
Note: For security purposes, berms shall not exceed three and one half feet when
adiacent to public rights -of -ways (see Sec. 6.8.7.D.1.c).
• Figure 6.5.1.C.2: Site Considerations, shown below, to be added to UDO
• Page 6 -32
• Minor UDO Text changes accompany revised Figure 6.5.1.C.2 (see changes
to Section 6.5.1(C))
Figure 6.5.1.C.3: Site Considerations
37
• Figure 6.5.1.C.5: Architectural Scale, shown below, to replace graphic in UDO
Public Hearing Draft
• Page 6 -34
• Minor UDO Text changes accompany revised Figure 6.5.1.C.5 (see changes
to Section 6.5.1(C))
Figure 6.5.1.C.5: Architectural Scale
nianmm
I �\
An interval is the measure of articulation; e.g., the distance before architectural elements repeat.
Diagram 3
Modulation is a measured and proportioned setback in a building's face. Together, articulation, modulation, and their
intervals create a sense of scale important to buildings.
Diagram 4
38
• Figure 6.6.2.A.3: Shared Access, shown below, to replace graphic in UDO
Public Hearing Draft
• Page 6 -51
Hwy 70
Shared
Driveway
Service Street _ Cut
® s �
Non- residential Developments Within Pre - defined Commercial Areas of Highway 70
Figure 6.6.2.A.3: Shared Access
• Figure 6.7.2.A: Permitted Utility Adjustments, shown below, to replace graphic
in UDO Public Hearing Draft
• Page 6 -59
Figure 6.7.2.A: MPD -CZ Permitted Utility Adjustments
Example
Plan
A
-J_
a NJ n 13 �a
Shift < 50' QLa
r.
p p Approved Utility Approved Stormwater Pond
Permitted Utility Adjustment Revised Stormwater Pond
- --
Required Setback (Not Adjustable)
• Figure 6.8.7.B: Between Lot Plantings, shown below, to replace graphic in
UDO Public Hearing Draft
• Pages 6 -73 & 6 -74
Figure 6.8.7.6: Between Lot Plantings
Rear Lot Line
(10 'Min. j Required Rear
Landscape Buffer
Area
j Required Interior
o Side Landscape
Buffer Area
Future _. Existing Trees
Structure O
CL
m
j p
,-r
M.
Front Yard
EXAMPLE: If a 40,000 square foot lot has a dimension of 150 feet, the depth of the lot would be 266 feet
(minimum lot size and width). Not included for the purposes of the calculation is the 40 foot front yard
setback (typical) or the 10 foot rear line landscape area. The remaining side lot line dimension would be 216
feet, multiplied by the 10 foot width of the landscape area. 2160 square feet, divided by 1,000 results in 2.16
trees, or 2 trees.
• Figure 6.8.7.D: Vehicular Use Area Landscaping, Terminal Islands, shown
below, to replace graphic in UDO Public Hearing Draft
• Page 6 -76
• Graphic lightened for clear reproduction
0 No more th
be permittt
being inter
0 Terminal islands shall have a minimum of 300 square feet and be planted with a minimum
of one canopy tree, as well as shrubs and ground cover.
0 Not less than 5% of the interior of any parking or other vehicular use area shall be landscaped.
0 A landscaped area of at least 10 feet in width shall be provided between the vehicular use area and the right -of -way.
Figure 6.8.7.D: Vehicular Use Area Landscaping, Terminal Islands
I:1
39
40
• Figure 6.9.10.A: Standard and Compact Parking Space, shown below, to
replace graphic in UDO Public Hearing Draft
• Page 6 -95
• Graphic lightened for clear reproduction
/V
)�
Q Wheel stops or curbs y be
required to prevent encroachment on
pedestrian ways and/or landscaping.
IS Parking spaces shall have a minimum of 180 square feet and a minimum
width of 9 feet.
® Compact spaces shall have a minimum width of 7 feet 6 inches.
Figure 6.9.10.A: Standard and Compact Parking Spaces
• Figure 6.9.10.E: Drive Aisles, shown below, to replace graphic in UDO Public
Hearing Draft
• Page 6 -96
Figure 6.9.10.E: Drive Aisles
I
90 Degree
60 Degree
16'
45 Degree
1
I TI
Parallel
41
• Figure 6.9.14.E: Off - Street Loading Dimensional Standards, shown below, to
replace graphic in LIDO Public Hearing Draft
• Page 6 -102
Figure 6.9.14:Off- Street Loading Dimensional Standards
• Figure 6.12.12.A.6: Three - Dimensional Sign Allowable Volume, shown below,
to replace graphic in UDO Public Hearing Draft
• Page 6 -125
Figure 6.12.12.A.6: Three - Dimensional Sign Allowable Volume
- - ------ - - - - -- - -------
-
i
NOTE: L x W x H may not exceed 54 cubic feet with no dimension
exceeding 6 feet.
42
• Figure 7.7.4.B: Flag Lots, shown below, to replace graphic in UDO Public
Hearing Draft
• Page 7 -15
Figure 7.7.4.13: Flag Lots
Diagram 1
i
Flag Lot
s
� I
I
i
—Local -- - Local Street
Diagram 3
Diagram 2
River
Flag Lot
I
I
I
Street------
Diagram 4
IV
13 Septic Tank Nitrification Field
- — - Proposed Lot Line
• Figure 7.7.4.D: Flag Lot Measurement Standards, shown below, to replace
graphic in LIDO Public Hearing Draft
• Page 7 -16
Figure 7.7.4.D: Flag Lot Measurement Standards
Flag Lot
---------- - - - - -; —
i
i
Regular Lot i Length of Flag
i Staff Allowed
Width of Regular Lot
130' - -✓]
—__ —= Street
43
• Figure 7.8.5.D.8: Intersection with Public Roads, shown below, to replace
graphic in UDO Public Hearing Draft
• Page 7 -31
Figure 7.8.5.D.8: Intersection with Public Roads
Class "A" Private Road Connection R/W
Unpaved Apron
See detail in
fig. 78.5.0 -18
Variable
i
i
i
i
i
18'
i
i
R/W
I
I
I
Scale: 1"= 30'
Note: Additional R/W may be required
to accomodate tapers, turn lanes, and
median islands.
� 5(Y-per 70 � i Sight Triangle
lff
" -- I -_- -� (10'x701
R =20' O'Min. R =2ff — ---
d---- 15"Min.(oras
R =20' R =20' directed by engineer) w
a
Edge of Pavement Edge of Pavement
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- --- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
Existing Road
Note: Permanent drainage easements may be required to accomodate drainage beyond the right -of -way
Class "B "Private Road Connection RAN
Unpaved Apron
See detail in
fig.7.8.5.D.18
Variable
i
i
i
i
i
i
12'
I
1
R/W
i
Scale: I* - 30'
Note:Additional R/W may be required
to accomodate tapers, turn lanes, and
median islands.
i I SffTaper
i
70' Sight Triangle
10' i
N20'� � -_- -� (to'x709
0'Min. R =20'
4 15 "Min.(or as
R = 20' R = 20' directed by engineer) 7f
a
Edge of Pavement i Edge of Pavement m
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -- >
Existing Road
Note: Permanent drainage easements may be required to accomodate drainage beyond the right -of -way
44
• Figure 7.8.5.D.10: "T" Type and Cul -de -sac Turn - Arounds, shown below, to
replace graphic in UDO Public Hearing Draft
• Page 7 -32
Figure 7.8.5.13.10: "T" Type and Cul -de -sac Turn - Arounds
11 !
40'
I RNV
I
i
• Figure 7.8.5.D.18: Typical Cross Section, shown below, to be added to UDO
• Page 7 -36
Figure 7.8.5.D.18: Typical Cross Sections
6.00'
N
Class "A" Typical Roadway Section
,t---- Var. 20' ---No[
Class °B" Typical Roadway Section
6' -1 °Per Ft
4.00 "Compacted Aggregate Base Course
45
• Diagram 1, shown below, to replace graphic for 'Lot Area, Gross', in UDO
Public Hearing Draft
• Pages 10 -20 & 10 -21
.Diagram 1 .
Midpoirt of Street
A'
I, Lot Line
Lot 1 Lot 2 Permanent
Open Space
Periphery area to be included in lot 1 gross lot area calculation Moff Lo of
Periphery area to be included in lot 2 gross lot area calculation
The gross area of lot 1 in the illustration would thus be the area within its boundaries plus the hatched
areas at the top and side, including the small rectangle marked A. The gross area of lot 2 would include
its net area plus the hatched area across its front and hatched area within `permanent open space'.
• Diagram 2, shown below, to replace graphic for `Lot, Regular', in UDO Public
Hearing Draft
• Pages 10 -22 & 10 -23
• Modifications to references in text of definition necessary (see revised
definition for Lot, Regular)
Diagram 2
street
Plaidng strip
Sde-1k
COfrler LOt
Interior Lot
Reverse Frontage lot
--- .— __— __—
� Through Lot � Through Lot ;
Reverse Frontage Lot Reversed Frontage ,
Lot
ICorner Lot" I I
'Corner lot with interior angle greater than 135 degrees
Note: Corner lots and through lots may be referred to as
doulbe frontage lots.
47
Additional UDO Text Modifications
Below is a brief summation of proposed changes to the text of the current UDO Public
Hearing Draft. Following this summary are the actual text changes, in order, with
modifications shown in purple.
• Section 2.9.1 Conditional Use Districts- Additional text was added as Subsection
2.9.1(A)(4) to clarify a slight modification made to the Table of Permitted Uses - --
Economic Development Districts. In the current Zoning Ordinance, which
includes the EDD Design Manual, certain uses within the EDD required approval
as a Class A SUP as well as a PD. As PD is no longer included within the
proposed UDO, a change was made to the referenced table that shows approval
of those uses must now be as a Conditional Use District (CUD). The modification
to Section 2.9.1(A)(4) addresses that proposed change.
• Section 2.9.2 Conditional Zoning District — After further review of the UDO Public
Hearing Draft, staff determined there was an inconsistency with the text in this
section and the submittal requirements for the MPD -CZ. The MPD -CZ requires
the submittal of a Master Plan, while all other CZs require the submittal of a site
plan, prepared in accordance with Section 2.5. The proposed modifications
correct the conflict.
• Section 6.2.11.D Calculations of building spacing requirements — The
modifications to this section include the addition of the correct references to the
new, correct graphic that will be added as Figure 6.2.11.D. In addition, the text
associated with the current incorrect graphic shall be deleted.
• Section 6.5.1.0 Design Standards — The modifications to this section include the
addition of the correct references to the new, correct graphic that will be added
as Figure 6.5.1.C.2. In addition, another correct graphic will be added to this
section (Figure 6.5.1.C.5) and the text associated with the current incorrect
graphic in this location shall be deleted.
• Section 6.14.8 Peak Runoff Volume — The only change to this section is a minor
formatting change to subsection 6.14.8(B) with the addition of a subset (2) which
is comprised entirely of existing text already within the subsection. This text was
formatted incorrectly in the UDO Public Hearing Draft.
• Section 7.7.4(B) Lot Standards — An incorrect reference was deleted in
subsection (5).
• Section 7.8.5(D)(8) Intersection with Public Roads — This is a minor text
modification to be consistent with the new correct graphic to be inserted into this
section. The required flare at the intersection must be 20 feet versus the 25 feet
currently noted in the UDO Public Hearing Draft.
• Article 10, Definition for 'Lot, Regular'— The modification to this definition is the
deletion of the incorrect references to the old graphic which will no longer be
included in the UDO document.
C9s7
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
2.8.10 Text Revisions Pertaining to Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Provisions 105 —
(A) The GGunty Erosion Control Officer shall review all of the Gernmissie►�s North
Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission's revisions to the State's Model Soil
Erosions and Sedimentation Control Ordinance and, within 90 days of receipt of
the recommended revisions, submit draft amendments to the GonmrAssieR North
Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission for its consideration and comments.
(B) Within 150 days after receipt of the Gemagssismls North Carolina Sedimentation
Control Commission's comments, tha Orange County wili shall formally consider
proposed amendments and, to the extent deemed necessary by the Board of
County Commissioners, incorporate the amendments into the G Sinn Control
9rdinanse this rIrdinance.
(C) Text amendments to this ordinance for soil erosion and sedimentation control
provisions shall comply with the requirements in effect for any other text
amendment.
2.8.11 Text Revisions Pertaining to Stormwater Provisions'Q('
(A) The Geunty Erosion Control Officer shall review all of the State Environmental
Management Commission's revisions to the State's Model Stormwater Ordinance
and, within 90 days of receipt of the recommended revisions, submit draft
amendments to the State Environmental Management Commission for its
consideration and comments.
(B) Within 150 days after receipt of the Gemrnissieas State Environmental
Management Commission's comments, ft Orange County wiii shall formally
consider proposed amendments and, to the extent deemed necessary by the
Board of County Commissioners, incorporate the amendments into the
this Ordinance.
(C) 'Text amendments to this ordinance for stormwater provisions shall comply with
the requirements in effect for any other text amendment.
2.9.1 Conditional Use District (CUD)
(A) Generally
(1) Any use permitted under the CUD process shall conform to all applicable
development regulations for the corresponding general use zoning
district as well as any specific development standards outlined within this
is >rdinance.
105 SE &SC Section 27
'06 SW Sec. 21
1117 Conditional Districts are one of the "new regulations" authorized to be added to the UDO by the Board of County
Commissioners. Aspects of the existing Planned Development district are part of the Conditional Districts.
Orange County, North Carolina – DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-38
50
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
(2) The Board of County Commissioners, in reviewing a CUD application,
may impose such reasonable conditions upon approval of a CUD
request as will afford protection of the public= health, safety, and general
welfare, ensure that substantial justice is done, and ensure equitable
treatment.
(3) Only those conditions mutually agreed to by the applicant and the Boar(]
of County Commissioners may be imposed on a CUD application.
(4) Within the Economic Development Districts (EDDs), there are specific
uses that require approval of a CUD. These uses are noted on the Table
Of Permitted Uses - Economic Development Districts (Section 5.2)
(B) Applications
Applications to establish a CUD shall be submitted to the Planning Director and
shall be processed in accordance with the procedure(s) for:
(1) Zoning Atlas amendment (Section 2.8),
(2) Class A Special Use Permit (Section 2.7), and
(3) The provisions of this Section.
(C) Submittal Requirements
(1) In addition to the CUD application form, an applicant shall also submit
the following information:
(a) A plan prepared in accordance
with the provisions of Section 2.5 including the following:
A detailed description of the proposed use of property
including an outline of the proposed operational
characteristics of the proposed development,
(ii) A detailed traffic survey, regardless of the estimated
number of trips per day, prepared in accordance with all
applicable North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NC DOT) requirements or standards as well as Section
6.17 of this Ordinance, and
(iii) The appropriate environmental document prepared in
accordance with Section 6.16.
(iv) A landscape plan showing the location of on -site
significant trees; proposed screening, buffers, and
landscaping; and any proposed treatment of any existing
natural features.
(b) A summary of utility services, including processing of
wastewater.
Orange County, North Carolina — DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -39
51
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
2.9.2 Conditional Zoning District (CZD)
(A) Generally
Only those uses listed on the Table of Permitted t1ses in Section 5.2 for a
specific, Conditional Zoning District and detailed in Section 3.7 of this _`Ardii7anee
shall be developed.
(B) Applications
Applications to rezone property to rta CZD shall be submitted to the Planning
Director and shall be processed in accordance with the procedure(s) for:
(1) Zoning Atlas amendment (Section 2.8).
(2) Site plans (,Section 2.5) for ('/-1.0 , that roquire a site
flan, and
(3) The provisions of this Section.
(C) Submittal Requirements
(1) In addition to the CZD application form, an applicant shall also submit the
following information:
(a) A -�k plan prepared in accordance
with the provisions of Section 2.5,)f ii is Ordinance i+askac i taw
Wow4iq except for mpn -C;Z applications (c')(2) below).
(b) A detailed description of the proposed use of property including
an outline of the proposed development.
(c) A detailed traffic survey, regardless of the estimated number of
trips per day, prepared in accordance with all applicable North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) requirements
or standards as well as Section 6.17 of this Ordinance —, a+ad.
(d) The appropriate Environmental Document prepared in
accordance with Section 6.16.
(e) A landscape plan showing the location of on -site significant
trees; proposed screening, buffers, and landscaping; and any
proposed treatment of any existing natural features.
(f) A summary of utility services, including processing of
wastewater.
(g) A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal; aAd.
(h) Any other Information identified during the pre- application
conference deemed essential to demonstrate the project's
compliance with these regulations.
Orange County, North Carolina – DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -43
52
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
(2) In odditioo4ri iieu or the requirements in (1)(a) above, an application for a
Master Plan Development (MPD) CZD shall include the requirements in
Section 6.7. Tlv.: rPgL1ir00'1r_nts of (1)(b) Worlgh (1)(h) ahL )vo are
applicable for lblt'ti -r ;Z appiic,;id nr s.
(3) i t';o!�iei; ul 1111- �Ippllt�ation I �K� ^���? 1'€.�IIIIri'�7 in iii ::iwl {') :',i1(,,w ii,iii
a91!Illltto-'._i till tilt, 41p1 }lip`.. 0i
(4) The Planning Board and /or Board of County Commissioners may
request additional information in order to evaluate and properly process
the application for a CZD.
(13) Neighborhood Information Meeting
(1) Before a Public Hearing may be held on an accepted application for a
CZD, the applicant is required to schedule, with the assistance of the
Planning Department, a minimum of one neighborhood information
meeting. fhe purpose of this meeting is to obtain surrounding property
owner input and comments on the proposed development project.
(2) The applicant shall obtain property owner mailing address information
from the Orange County Land Records department and shall mail
certified notices of the meeting date and time to each property owner
within 500 feet of the property for which a (:;L4? CZD has been
requested.
(3) 'The notices shall be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the
proposed Neighborhood Information Meeting.
(4) The Neighborhood Information Meeting shall be held a minimum of 14
days prior to the date of the Public Hearing where the application is
scheduled for review and public comment.
(E) Review and Evaluation of Application
The review, processing, and evaluation of a CZD application is a legislative
process subject to judicial review using the same procedures and standards of
review that apply to general use district zoning decisions.
(F) Approval and Conditions
(1) The Board of County Commissioners shall take action on the application
to rezone the property in accordance with the procedures outlined within
Section 2.8.
(2) The applicant or the County may recommend that reasonable and
appropriate conditions be attached to the approval of the application
(3) Conditions and site- specific standards shall be limited to those that
address. the conformance of the development to County ordinances, the
adopted Comprehensive Plan, or any other retevant plans that address
the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed
development. Any such conditions may address:
Orange County, North Carolina — DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -44
53
Article 6: Development Standards
Section 6.2: I..ot & Building Standards
{1) areas. Where
walls containing primary or secondary windows at or below the third -
story level face streets or parking areas for ten or more cars, the full
dimension of the required yard shall be provided outside the boundaries
of the street or parking area.
(2) PFimaFy 9F se pen spaGe. Where walls
containing primary or secondary windows at or below the third -story level
face other permanent. offsite open space without an intervening street,
driveway, or parkway area, the full dimension of the required yard shall
be provided outside the boundaries of such offsite open space if offsite
use is likely to be of a nature adversely affecting privacy or tranquility of
occupants.
(CI) Calculations of building spacing requirements
(1) Spacing requirements for buildings or portions of buildings containing
dwelling or lodging units shall be based on the- following:
(a) horizontal length of walls,
(b) number of stories,
(c) types of windows in walls involved, and
(d) orientation of main exterior entrance to individual units.
(2) Distance between walls shall be at least the sum of depths of the open
spaces required for each.
(3) Where portions of buildings contain different numbers of stories, required
clearance from lot or building site lines shall be as established for the
portion nearest to the lot or building site line except as follows:
(a) where the spacing required for the portion of the building further
from the line is of greater depth, i -which -case the depth so
established is the required clearance from the line, (as projected)
vertically when space is provided other than at ground level. [D1
.-- Figure 6.2.11. DI
(b) Lower portions of buildings may extend into clearance distances
required for upper portions if roof areas are appropriately
improved in relation to views from the same or higher levels but
shall provide clearance to meet their own requirements. [D2
f=igure 6.2.11. DI
Figure 6.2.11.D: Building spacing Requirements
CORRECT GRAPHIC TO BE INSFRTED
Orange County, North Carolina - DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -7
54
Article 6: Development standards
Section 6.2: Lot & Building Standards
' f2h,-�btgildini7 tt }r? -tQ3t f3}= Iwt11 }f if�4J Pik:` IFF?F��n' - ,J,,.{ -fi t a -fJ r it ?E!r} k�` r- I)�3it}
z�bVti }G- ti- ttii��ii3i�nc"ai -e}t- sot -_ rtes'• i6hE� `= _t�a�- ti}K- 4di���i {I;t;;c` -t1 F.1 a +,i't!t�FS---= ,�- ti }[:?
'. Yt} Hit�til�F�f9r�El� .'tE�Fn�iNP.lhta rE'a�6!df�F'1�1,?H"
(4) Length of walls.
(a) Length of walls shall be measured as the horizontal distance
from corner to corner. (1-1 m- Figure 6.2. 11.0)
(b) Where walls in continuous general frontage (as in the case of
attached dwellings) are offset by angles or setbacks of six feet or
more, length of each segment so set off shall be measured
separately in establishing pertinent yard depth. [1.4 '- Figure.
6.2.11.01
(c) Where walls in continuous general frontage enclose portions of
buildings varying one story or more in height, as in Figure
6.2.11.13, the length of each segment so varying shall be
measured separately in computing pertinent yard depth. (L.2 &
L3 — Figure 5.21'1.13]
(d) Length of the wall of a circular building shall be construed as the
diameter of the building.
(5) Height in Stories
(a) Height in stories shall be computed as the actual number of
stories in the wall above ground level, with the following
exceptions:
(i) Where the wall is along a slope, the number of stories
shall be construed as the arithmetic mean number, with
half a story or more considered as a full story, and less
than half a story ignored in computations.
(ii) When height per story exceeds an, average of eleven 1'I
feet, calculations involved in yard or spacing
determination shall be based on an assumed number of
stories derived by dividing building height by ten feet.
(b) Penthouses, roof shelters, and housing for mechanical
equipment shall be ignored in computations. except However, an
additional story shall be included in the computation in the
following circumstance:
(i) where they are visible from the ground level within the lot
or the building site,
(ii) are ten feet or more in height, and
Orange County, North Carolina — DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -8
55
Article 6: Development Standards
Section 6.5: Architectural Design Standards
(b) The architectural form of building[s] must reflect the underlying
topographic form and retain the integrity of a natural slope.
GRApMCS FR011rf- CURRENT EMU TO BE REDONE BY
CONSULTANT 4 (c) -4"OW acx ampaaygraphics
(c) Architectural form at the base of a hill must provide a natural
transition between the intersecting slope and the base. [A
Figure 6.5.1.0.21
(d) On a hilltop, especially at the ridgeline or crest, building forms
must not break or detract from the natural lines of the hillside.
Building[s] must be provided with sufficient setbacks to maintain
the integrity of the natural slope and minimize the impact on
scenic views.
(e) Where neighboring buildings have responded to similar
topographic conditions on their sites in a consistent and positive
way, similar treatment must be considered for a new structure.
(f) Where buildings are to be located near natural features such as
scenic vistas, stands of trees, and open space, views and
pedestrian access must be provided to these amenities. [G —
Figure 6.5.1.0.2]
(3) Compatibility With Neighbors
Unless there are overriding concerns or poorly defined aspects, a new
building must reflect the architectural character of surrounding buildings
in the following ways:
(a) Similar unifying design concept
(b) Similar proportions, scale, and roof line
(c) Similar architectural style and exterior finish materials
(d) Similar patterns and proportions of windows
(e) Similar entry configuration and relationship to street
(f) Similar architectural details or features
(4) Unified Design Concept
To unify a building's architectural character and individual elements such
as entries, windows, pedestrian areas, and roofs, all buildings must be
visibly organized by a clear design concept. Examples of-sorne sonsepts
include:
(a) Symmetrical Balance: A formal organization which balances
equal elements and features around a vertical plane.
Orange County, North Carolina — DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 6-32
W
Article 6: Development Standards
Section 6.5: Architectural Design Standards
(b) Asymmetric Balance: A dissimilar, yet harmonious composition
of numerous similar or complimentary forms. The composition
reflects the surrounding area, site conditions, and /or building
T
1
11~ - - -- `� I--- Ionia 9_3J
- -- T
s
------------ 0 Unified individual elements - entries, windows. roofs, etc. -
. provide formal organization
------------- 0 Symmetric balance creates organization through equal elements and features
------------------ Asymmetric balance creates organization through dissimilar, yet
complimentary forms and compositimi
0 Cluster organization of buildings creates clearly defined usable outdoor spaces
0 Major architectural features provide strong areas of focus
Figure 6.5.1.0.4: Unified Design Concept
functions.
(c) Cluster Organization: Groupings of building elements help to
clearly define usable outdoor spaces such as pedestrian plazas
or malls and prevents long "barracks - like" rows of structures.
(d) Major Architectural Element: Focus around a strong
architectural element such as an arcade or major entry.
(e) Environmental Response: Base the design on significant views,
solar orientation, siting for usable outdoor space, etc.
(5) Architectural Scale
Architectural scale generally refers to the size of a building relative to the
buildings or elements around it.
(a) To insure that new buildings do not overpower their neighbors,
they must be designed to be compatible with existing
neighboring structures as well as their general surroundings.
(b) , Architectural elements such as
windows and entries must be given emphasis so that they create
a complimentary pattern, dividing large buildings into smaller
identifiable parts. This aspect of design is referred to as
articulation.
Art-- ir►tew.�i- +s- tkle- +t�fre - e#- �:�ti�l=:atis t� --��. ;- tft�- �i►�tetr�ve
1�eft>Fei -arm# 4e,G W,al-- elamei#s- repeat
Orange County, North Carolina - DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -33
57
Article 6: Development standards
Section 6.5: Architectural Design Standards
r d'1, "�itl -i (- zkAP, IIIG TO t3F_ lH1Si_ NI_l t) HER—
Figure 6.5.1.C.5: Architectural Scale
irtervets a�t:� z sca# ate ira�l;ari t, t +ik#i� ,Fr
(c) All building elevations are to be architecturally treated so as to
avoid long, "unarticulated" or blank facades.
(6) Building Setbacks and Height 7
(a) A variety of building and parking setbacks shall be provided in
order to avoid long monotonous building facades and to create
diversity.
(b) Placement of structures which creates opportunities for plazas,
courts, or gardens is encouraged. Setback areas can be used to
provide space for patio areas.
(7) Exterior Finish Materials
The following standards apply to new non - residential development in all
Economic Development Districts:
(a) Exterior finish materials must conform to and be in harmony with
the exterior design of neighboring structures and the overall
design of improvements described throughout these guidelines.
(b) Building exteriors must be constructed of materials which are
sufficiently durable to guarantee low maintenance and a
reasonable life span, and to withstand abuse by vandals or
accidental damage from machinery.
(c) Exterior materials must have an attractive texture, pattern or
quality of detailing. Acceptable building materials include those
which appear natural in texture and color such as stone,
unpainted brick, wood, and textured concrete.
(d) Siding must reflect in texture and color that which is typical of the
area and region.
(8) Roof Lines and Materials
The following standards apply to new non - residential development in all
Economic Development Districts:
6d7 Specific building setbacks noted in Article 3
Orange County, North Carolina — DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -34
59
Article S: Development Standards
Section 6.14: Stormwater Management
(3) Offset payment fees and calculation methods are determined by the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) as approved by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission. The total amount of offset
payment will be calculated pursuant to the current fee schedule and
calculation methods listed in section 15A NCAC 026.0240 "Neuse River
Basin — Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Nutrient Offset
Payments" of the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCDWQ's "Red
Book ").
(D) Permanent Niltrogen Nutrient Export Reduction Best Management Practices
Permanent On site Nitrogen G. peFt Red.detiArt- --BMPs The following on -site
BMPs may be utilized for reducing nitFG@en nutrients from new developments:
(1) Wet detention ponds
(2) Constructed wetlands
(3) Open channel practices
(4) Riparian buffers
(6) Bioretention
(6) Or others approved by NCDWQ744
(E) Total Nutrient Removal Rates
Total nutrient removal rates of stormwater BMPs and BMPs in a series will be
credited and calculated pursuant to the current edition of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality's Stormwater Best Managetent Practices Manual
(Stormwater BMP Manual). To receive full nutrient reduction credit, design
standards must follow those outlined in the Stormwater BMP Manual. Variances
from the design standards may be allowed as approved on a case by case basis.
6.14.8 G�tng -Peak Runoff Volume 745
(A) Standard
For all new development, there shall be no net increase in peak flow leaving the
site from the predevelopment conditions for the 1 year, 24 hour storm.
(B) Exemptions to the Peak Flow Requirements7..
(1) Peak flow requirements are waived for development that meets the
following criteria:
744 Per OC stormwater division to ensure compliance with state regs
745 SW Ord Section 6(D) except as indicated, modified as shown
7415 SW Ord Section 6(E), 'Exemptions' only
Orange County, North Carolina — DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -150
60
Article 6: development Standards
Section 6.14: Stormwater Management
(a) Increase in peak flow between pre- and post- development
conditions does not exceed 10% (ten per-Gen -.
(b) Proposed new development meets all of the following criteria:
(i) total impervious surface is less than 15% (fifteen
pement), and
(ii) remaining pervious surface maximizes stormwater runoff
control and conveyance.
(c) Detention will cause further flooding on lands that have
experience flooding during previous storm events.
(2) This request for exemption must be prepared by a North Carolina
registered professional engineer and submitted in writing to the Planning
Director or Designee. Appeals of this decision will follow Section 7-€
2.24 of this Ordinance.
(C) Calculating Peak Runoff Volume
(1) The following are acceptable methodologies for computing the pre- and
post- development conditions for the 1 year, 24 hour storm.
(a) Rational Method
(b) Peak Discharge Method as described in the USDA Soil
Conservation Service's Technical Release Number 55 (TR -55).
(c) Putnam Method
(d) Alternative methods must be approved by the County and the
EMC
(2) The same method must be used for both the pre- and post- development
conditions.
(3) Raleigh Rainfall Depths
Orange County, North Carolina — DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -151
61
Article 7: Subdivisions
Section 7.7: Lot Layout Lots
(5) where it is unlikely that a road created in lieu of a flag lot would ever be
extended, or otherwise needed to provide access to adjoining parcels
or
(6) to provide for the protection of significant natural or cultural resources.
(C) No flag lot wa4l- be-atlewed shall be permitted if it increases the number of access
points onto an arterial or collector street.
(D) The length of a flag lot between the street onto which it has access and the point
where a lot dimension parallels the street shall be based on the size of the
proposed regular lot. The following table indicates the allowed length of the flag
portion of the lot based on the required minimum width of the regular lot (see
example graphic).
Figure 7.7.4.D: Flag Lot Measurement Standards
i----------- _— _.- -_. - i
I I
Flag Lot j
I I
JA
I I I
I I I
Regular Lot i i Length of Flag
Staff Allowed
I I I
Width of Regular Lot
130' I
Street
(E) The maximum length allowed on any flag lot is 700 feet.
Orange County, North Carolina - DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 7 -16
63
Article 7: subdivisions
Section 7.8: Access and Roadways
Figure 7.8.5.D.8: Intersection with Public }load
CORRECT GRAPHIC TO Bl!' )H8Ff- TED HERE
(d) The Private Road must flare at the public road in order to permit
a vehicle to enter the Private Road when another vehicle is
waiting to exit on the Private Road. The dimensions of the
required flare are shown 9A the speGiftatlens sheet feF eaG14
Glass of road 25 20 -feet for both a Class A and Class R Private
Road, as shown in Figure 7.8.5.D.8.
(9) Drainage
(a)
Ditches shall be constructed to provide drainage from the road
and adjacent areas.
(b)
The ditches shall be built with sufficient depth and width to carry
the expected volume of water.
(c)
The side slopes shall be graded so that they can be stabilized
and to prevent vehicles from becoming stuck if they slide into the
ditch.
(d)
Where the road crosses streams or minor watercourses, culverts
shall be installed to prevent ponding and washouts of the road
for the fwe -fear design five -year storm.
(e)
On streams where it is not economical to install a large culvert of
the required size, the Erosion Control Officer may allow the
installation of a smaller culvert if engineering equivalent
provisions are made to protect the road surface and fill slopes
from erosion when runoff tops the road.
(10) Turn - Arounds
(a) Vehicle turn - around areas shall be provided at the end of all
dead end roads. This can be accomplished by ending the road
in a cul- de-sac or a "T ".
(b) The 'T" type turn- around is preferred.
(c) Gu4-de -sass Culs -de -sac shall have a minimum diameter of 70
feet.
(d) A "T" turn - around must conform to the dimensions in the diagram
below.
Figure 7.8.6.D.10: "T" Type Turn - Arounds
Orange County, North Carolina — DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 7 -31
65
Article 10: Definitions
Section 10.1: DEFINITIONS
exterior side lot line, while a lot line separating a lot from another lot, or lots is an interior side lot line.
Lot, Non-Conforming
A legally subdivided lot shown on legally recorded plat, existing at the time regulations were passed
requiring greater minimum width or area than provided on such lot, or establishing other limitations while
such lot does not meet. Such lots may be considered substandard lots of record.
Lot, Nora -Legal for Zoning Purposes
A lot which is neither a zoning lot nor a non - conforming lot. No such lot shall be used or occupied until it is
made to conform to the requirements of this Ordinance and other applicable regulations.
Lot of Recor 9lo
A lot created by through the recordation of a deed or plat prior to the existence of subdivision regulations or
created through the subdivision process as .detailed herein. Lot of Record has other connotations within
the confines of the Ordinance, including:
1, Compliance with density allotments detailed within Article 7 of this Ordinance, and
2. Compliance with impervious surface limitations as detailed in Articles 4 and 6.
The area and dimensions of the lot shall meet any regulations in effect at the time the lot was created.
Further development of a lot of record shall be in accordance with the standards detailed herein.
Lot, Regular
A lot with direct vehicular access to a street as required by subdivision regulations and so located, shaped
and oriented to adjacent lots as to be reasonably adapted to application of general measurements as
indicated below, and with location of setbacks by type (front, side, rear and special) logically determined by
and related to adjacent setback patterns.
1. Types of Regular Lots - Diagram 2, indicates terminology used herein with reference to regular,
corner, interior, reversed frontage and through lots. In the diagram,
A. corner lots, defined as a lot located at the intersection of two or more streets. A lot
abutting on a curved street or streets shall be considered a comer lot if straight lines drawn
from the foremost points of the side lot lines to the foremost point of the lot (projected if
rounded) meet an interior angle of less than 135 degrees. (See-I in4he
B. interior lot, defined as a lot abutting only one street.
C. through lot, defined as a lot other than a corner lot with frontage on more than one street.
D. reversed frontage lot, defined as a lot on which frontage is at right angles or approximately
right angles (interior angle less than 135 degrees) to the general pattern in the area. A
reversed frontage lot may also be a corner lot (A}, an interior lot (a-D) or
a through lot {G-04.
Corner lots and through lots may be referred to as double frontage lots.
918 A different definition is in the Subdivision Regulations. Staff suggests using the modified definition as shown.
Orange County, North Carolina — DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance Page 10 -22
Attachment 3 67
Planning staff found two additional necessary revisions after the February 2, 2011
Planning Board Meeting. The staff - recommended revisions are in purple text as
follows:
1. Section 3.7.3 (B) — requested addition by Commissioner Gordon at the November
22, 2010 public hearing:
(B) Conditional Use Districts
(1) Conditional Use Districts allow for the development of a specific land use,
or land uses, listed on the Table of Permitted Uses in Section 5.2 of this
Ordinance, even if such use is not listed as a permitted use or special use under
the current zoning designation of the subject property.
(2) Conditional Use Districts shall conform to all applicable development
regulations, including uses, for the corresponding general use zoning district, as
well as any specific use standards and development standards established in
Articles 5 and 6 of this Ordinance.
(3) A Conditional Use District requires the approval of a rezoning by the
Board of County Commissioners, approval of a site specific deve!opm °n} plan,
the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit, and may include agreed -upon
conditions of development.
2. Section 4.4.4 (B) — a deletion that is needed due to the fact numbering is no longer
used in the Table of Permitted Uses. Instead, the uses referred to are now defined in
Article 10.
(B) Non - residential uses within the Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District, shall be
limited to professional office and similar institutional uses on the
Peffnitted Use Table found On SecAien 4.3 Z-4) and shall abide by the standards
contained herein in this Section and Section 6.6.2.
• We
IVJ
Attachment 4
Present Zoning Ordinance to UDO - Comparison Tables
Prologue
Attached are two charts comparing existing provisions of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance to zoning constructs proposed in the UDO.
The `Comparison of Planned Development and Conditional Use District' shows that
there are only limited differences between the proposed Conditional Use District system
and the existing Planned Development construct. The changes proposed within the
UDO were done largely to conform to North Carolina General Statutes- :and._to.c ear up a - - -.... .
number of ambiguities in the current Zoning Ordinance with regard to Planned
Development.
The second chart compares the proposed Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning
District (MPD -CZ) with the existing Planned Development -Mixed Use (PD -MU) district
within the current Orange County Zoning Ordinance. MPD -CZ is one d three
Conditional Zoning Districts proposed within the UDO. -- Again, the proposed - terminology
and construct is consistent with current North Carolina General Statutes-. This - --
conditional zoning district draws from many of the existing components of the Planned -
Development construct,' largely the PD -MU program. A big difference between the
proposed MPD -CZ and the existing PD -MU construct is that approval of the MPD -CZ is .
a legislative approval only. Changes to General Statutes in 2005.permitted the use of
Conditional Zoning Districts and the approval of conditions with._specific: - rezoning -
requests.
Overall, comparisons show the many similarities between the existing- Planned
Development provisions of the current Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the
conditional use district and conditional zoning district constructs proposed-within the
UDO. The key differences between the existing provisions and the proposed- constructs
are based largely on changes to General Statutes instituted in 2005:
70
Comparison of Planned Development and Conditional Use District
Oranne Countv. North Carolina
Planned Development
Conditional Use District
Status
Current regulations; Orange
Proposed for inclusion in
County Zoning Ordinance
Unified Development
Ordinance
Where Permitted
County -wide
County -wide
Relationship to
Comprehensive Plan & JPA
Yes.
Yes: -
Land Use Plan
Yes.
Yes.
Linked to a General Use
Subject to all standards of
Subject to all standards of
Zoning District (i.e. CC3, 1 -1,
general use zoning district,
general.use.zoning district,
R -v)?
including setbacks, height
including setbacks, height
limits, and uses permitted.
limits, and uses permitted.
Use(s) requested limited to
Uses) requested limited to
Uses Permitted
those uses permitted in linked
those uses permitted in linked
general use zoning district.
general use zoning district.-- -
Yes.
Yes.
Specific Use(s) Approved?
Only those uses specifically.
Only those:uses- specifically -W-
approved with PD shall be
approved with CU District shall
permitted.
be ermitted: - - -:_
- -
Waivers to development
Waivers to development
Waivers
standards (not uses) must be
standards (not uses) must be
specifically approved by the
specifically approved by the
BOCC.
BOCC.
Who Approves Application
BOCC
BOCC
Approvals Required
Rezoning (Legislative) AND
Rezoning (Legislative) AND
Class A SUP (Quasi - Judicial);
Class A SUP (Quasi - Judicial);
concurrent
concurrent -
Conditions of Approval
Allowable if agreed to by
Allowable if agreed to by
Count AND applicant
Count AND applicant
1. PD requires submittal of
Site plan approved by BOCC
Required Plan Submittal
"concept plan"
with rezoning & SUP
2. SUP required for all
Planned Developments
Planning Board Review and
Yes.
Yes.
Recommendation?
Time Frame
Construction to begin within 12
Construction to begin within 12
months of date of approval
months of date of approval
Specified in State Statute
No.
Yes.:.
Comparison of Planned Development - Mixed Use (PD -MU) and Master Plan Development 71
Conditional Zoning District (MPD -CZ)
Orange County, North Carolina
Master Plan Development - Conditional
Planned Development - Mixed Use
Zoning District
I
PD-MU
MPD - CZ
Current regulations; Orange County
Proposed for inclusion in Unified
Status
Zoning Ordinance
Development Ordinance
Where Permitted
County wide
County -wide
Relationship to
11-and
Comprehensive Plan & JPA
Yes.
Yes.
Use Plan
Yes.ik..
Linked to a General Use
Subject to all standards of general use
Separate zoning_district lasted on the
Zoning District (i.e. CC3, t - ?,
zoning district, including setbacks, height
r
,able of Permitted Uses. -
R -�)?
limits, and uses permitted.
Use(s) requested limited to those uses
OWN Rz,
Uses Permitted
permitted in linked general use residential
lCee(s) rea�a�iSHmrtedo #ham uses
li$#efbr+'I CZ on the `aklesQf�
zoning district and the Community
!
Commercial (CC -3) zoning district.
-
Yes.
Yes.
Specific Use(s) Approved?
Only those uses specifically approved with
Only those. uses specifically approved with
PD shall be permitted.
the MPD -CZ shall be permitted.
1. Specific standards approved with the
MPD -CZ Master Plan by the BOCC.
aivers
Waivers to development standards (not
2 Limited changes may be approved by
uses) must be specifically approved by
the Planning Director; parameters for
the BOCC.
administrative modifications clearly
articulated in proposed UDO.
Who Approves Application
BOCC
BOCC
Approvals Required
Rezoning (Legislative) AND
`
Re�orlmg (t.rg�slatbie) -with o�grall project
Class A SUP (Quasi - Judicial) for
conditions; concurrent
Conditions of Approval
Allowable if agreed to by County AND
Allowable if agreed to by County AND
applicant (Overall Project)
applicant (Overall Project)
1. Master Plan approved by BOCC with
rezoning
2. Site plans for each "pod" shown on the
1. PD requires submittal of "concept plan"
Master Plan shall be approved
Required Plan Submittal
administratively and must be consistent
with BOCC approved Master Plan.
2. SUP required for all Planned
3. Deviations from approved Master Plan
Developments
require amendment to Master Plan and
must be approved by the BOCC.
Planning Board Review and
Yes.
Yes.
Recommendation?
Time -Frame - -- __._ . __
Construction to begin within 12 months of
..._ -- . -. - .-- ._ -_ -- ----- ....._ —_ --
E�tebiishp11witfi=apprvvat�i fi �tlaster'Plarr�
date of approval
Specified in State Statute
No.
73
Attachment 5
Tom Alfieri
Orange County Planning Department
Tom:
I am responding to the request to review the proposed Unified Development Ordinance,
specifically for the SECTION 6.6 LANDSCAPING, BUFFERS & TREE
PROTECTION67s
Following are some comments that I hope will be helpful in your updates. What is in red is
extracted from the draft UDO and in black are my comments.
(D) Landscaping of Vehicular Use Areas
(1) Perimeter Buffer
(b) In addition to the trees required on -site a hedge of at least three_
feet in height at maturity shall be installed to provide a
continuous opaque landscape barrier for the purpose of reducing
glare and visual distractions to passing motorists and to adjacent
properties Berms and/or fences or a combination of all three
may also be utilized.
(c) For security purposes hedges berms and/or fences shall not
exceed three and one half feet when adjacent to public rights -of ways.
This section has conflicting aims and provisions. As I understand it, subsection b) requires
a hedge of at least three feet in height to provide a continuous opaque landscape
barrier and subsection c) the hedges, etc, cannot exceed three and one half feet. First
of all, it will be very difficult to maintain shrubs between 3 and 3'/2 feet in height. Plants
grow and depending on the selection and conditions of the 'native' plant, it is not
practical the way this is written. Please clarify intent - suggest a more prescriptive
approach rather than being specific. It will be extremely difficult for any agency to
enforce this the way it is written.
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: This requirement is consistent with Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidelines for vehicular use areas, which
support the regular trimming of landscaped areas to maintain adequate line of sight at
intersections and other areas of public right -of -way.
6.8.9 Screening
(B) Standards
Features and uses specified above shall provide a visual obstruction from
adjacent properties in conformance with the following standards:
Trash and recycling containers must be contained within a gated,
durable and attractive enclosure co patible with building architecture.
Shrubs shall be planted around the foundation.
What does this mean? Shrubs planted around foundation of what? The dumpster /trash
enclosure?
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Yes, shrubs planted around the foundation of the
enclosure for the refuse container(s).
74
6.8.12 Additional Standards for Economic Development Districtss»
(C) Buffering Neighborina Uses
I am very confused by the whole section for Buffers and in particular, interpreting the
table
TABLE 6.8.12.C: LAND USE BUFFER SCHEDULE
This section needs significant study and rewrite. There are many implications in this
section affecting the use of property that needs study. What about other land forms and
natural site conditions that are impacted by the buffer requirement?
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE:
(D) Landscaped Parking Areas
(e,) Hillsborou hg EDD
(ii) Landscaping islands having a minimum area of 1000 sic
ft. (vary by size tree ) shall be provided at a minimum
intervals of every 10 ten parking spaces and at the ends
of all rows of parking.
Have concern with requirement for a min. area of 1,000 sq. ft. for landscape islands. The
normal island that is sufficient for trees is 10 ft. wide X 18 or 20 ft. in length which is around
200 sq ft. 1,000 sq ft. is excessive. In other sections, reference is made to a minimum of
300 sq. ft. for islands.
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: This is existing text taken from the Economic
Development Districts Design Manual ( EDDDM). No changes were proposed to the
EDDDM landscape design standards in this phase. Modifications to the EDDDM design
standards may be addressed in future phases.
There are numerous examples of formatting issues (example - the outline is labeled D.
and then a), b), c), etc. and should be numbered instead. This makes it difficult to track
the particular references.
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Not only is formatting consistent within the draft UDO,
it is common formatting and consistent with UDO's of other jurisdictions.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have questions, please
contact me at the address below. Also, if you could put me on the email list for future
updates, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks,
- David
David Swanson, RLA, ASLA
Swanson and Associates, P.A. Landscape Architecture
100 East Carr Street
Carrboro NC 27510
phone 919 - 929 -9000
fax 919 - 929 -1500
75
David's cell 919 - 260 -0163
www.swonsontandscapearchitecture.co
David Swanson david @swansonlandscapearchitecture .com
Terri Swanson terri @swansonlandscapearchitecture .com
General inquiries info @swansonlandscapearchitecture .com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Dolly Hunter, Bingham Township,
Carolyn Christman, Efland- Cheeks Township
Allan Rosen, Chapel Hill Township
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance Phase 1 Evaluation and
Recommendations
Evaluation
UDO Phase 1 has achieved its purpose of integrating Orange County's land development
ordinances into one cohesive document, eliminating inconsistencies, updating certain
regulations and applying state statutes. It is better organized, more clearly written and has
better tables and illustrations. Conditional Zoning is an improvement over Planned
Development, provides some flexibility to tailor rezoning uses to the site while protecting
neighboring properties by limiting the use to only what it is rezoned for.
The Planning Board's focus has been to assure the UDO has the same protection of their
Townships and the environment as currently required maintaining the same standards,
performance levels and revisions retaining the current intents.
A recommendation for UDO Phase 1 before adoption is that the revisions of
Landscaping, Buffers and Tree Protection; Parking and Loading, and Signage be
compared to current regulations by local professional architects, landscape architects and
business developers in order to insure accuracy and no added costs.
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Both internal County staff reviewers and members of
the public who have reviewed and submitted comments, have the professional credentials
and background suggested. Any additional pro bono review and comment is welcomed.
Recommendations
UDO Phase 2 should:
Focus on the greatest value for the greater good of the entire county with purposeful
philosophy and policies to achieve the economic resiliency and community diversity we
desperately need and require at this time.
A time -line chart for each land -use review process (re- zoning, subdivision, permits, land -
use amendments etc.) should be made showing who reviews each step and when.
Identify time lags and the reason - such as delays caused by review board's schedules.
Identify how approval processes can be simple, efficient, and short.
ff-1
Examine other review and approval processes such as Durham's Development Advisory
Committee (DAC) and Design District Review Team (DDR T) which are efficient and
streamlined.
The members of the above DAC and DDRT are similar to Orange County's Development
Advisory Committee (DAC) but have Rules of Procedure, meetings, minutes and quorum
requirements consistent with state Statutes. This could replace our current review
approval processes when a rezoning application meets all applicable standards.
Examine what our local private businesses need in order to expand and thrive.
Examine why successful businesses left Orange County, such as Smith Breeden, Rho,
iContact and B1ueCross BlueShield's expansion, and determine what we need to do to
have helped them grow here.
Economic development projects in the Economic Development Districts should have a
predictable and expeditious approval process. Economic development projects in other
appropriate areas should have a similar approval process.
Economic development approval processes and standards should be revised by local
business and planning professionals in conjunction with UNC's Planning, Business and
Law Schools.
An Economic Development Workgroup consisting of the BOCC, Planning Board and
Economic Development Commission should meet Spring /Summer 2011 to examine
expediting approval, targeting industries, permitted uses, specialized zoning district by
SAP subarea and revised standards.
Agricultural Support Enterprises/Rural Economic Development Area, Speedway Small
Area Plan and Transit Oriented Development are important initiatives using Conditional
Use District structures should be important 2011 BOCC goals.
Examine Durham's American Tobacco Campus and American Underground to create an
Orange County campus that is walk -able, diverse and attractive for mixed use including
affordable space for Incubation and Startup businesses.
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: To be included in Consultant's policy bridge report
and considered for subsequent Phase(s).
Phase 2 Priorities requiring a Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Amendment be
designated "THIS TEXT SUBJECT TO REVISION" in adopted Phase 1 and be given an
expedited amendment approval process.
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE. All sections of the UDO are subject to future review
and amendment.
Dolly Hunter, Bingham Township,
Carolyn Christman, Efland- Cheeks Township
Allan Rosen, Chapel Hill Township
77
From: gkneeb @aol.com fmailto:gkneeb @aol.coml
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 6:04 PM
To: Barry Jacobs; Bernadette Pelissier; gordon.alice @gmail.com; Mike Nelson (External); Pam
Hemminger (External); Steve Yuhasz; Valerie Foushee
Cc: pennyrich.ch @gmail.com; randee.haven- odonnell @da.org
Subject: UDO proposal needs further consideration and input
November 21, 2010
Dear Members of the County Board Of Commissioners:
During the November 15, 2010 meeting of the Chapel Hill
Town Council, I noted Penny Rich's request for further information
regarding the Unified Developmet Ordinance which is being
discussed during your November 22 meeting.
As the organizer for a group of citizens who are concerned
about the proposed Obey Creek project in Southern Chapel Hill, I am
curious as to the impact this new process will have on the rural buffer
and extraterritorial districts in Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
A search on the Chapel Hill News and Carrboro Citizen
websites show only one reference to this major endeavor — an
announcement of a public hearing in August. The article announced
that the UDO would provide " a more user - friendly, understandable
document by incorporating all land use development regulations into
a central document and eliminate inconsistencies among
ordinances." For most, this seems like a housekeeping item, not a
major change in policy and would not have solicited public interest.
The article makes no mention of changes in the zoning
process through the introduction of "conditional zoning districts" and
"conditional uses ". There is no mention of the Board's intention to
eliminate the Special Use Permit which provides protection for the
residents of Orange County .
Given that the 800 page, updated document was only posted
on the website in mid - November and that there has been very little
notice or explanation given to the public through the newspapers, it
seems that the County Commissioners should revise the current time
line and offer the appropriate public hearings and opportunities for
public input based on a more accurate description of the process that
is unfolding.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Brown
104 Beechridge Court
78
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE. Additional time provided through BOCC revised
timetable, including the continuation of the November 22, 2010 Public Hearing.
From: Julie McClintock [mailto:mcclintock.julie @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:58 PM
To: Valerie Foushee
Subject: Land Use Ordinance
Dear Valerie
I understand that you will be discussing the Unified Development Ordinance
tonight, November 22.
With this document, the County is contemplating large changes in the zoning
process and a scheduled vote in early December.
I am involved in a group that encourages managed growth in Chapel Hill and
we would be interested in providing comment to you after we have a chance to
fully analyze the document.
I request that you reconsider your schedule and provide more opportunities for
public input. This input could take the form of several presentations in January
with opportunities for questions and answer sessions in various parts of the
County, as well as a public hearing at a time when people are not involved in
celebrating a major holiday.
One particular concern is the new conditional use zoning which can allow large
development projects to pop us in areas that would be expensive to serve with
urban services such as water and sewer. This type of zoning would be similar
to a "floating zone" which could change precipitously well - established land use
policies in disregard of the careful planning that the County has pursued for
many years.
Please alter your review schedule and allow maximum opportunities for public
input.
Thank you for considering this important issue.
79
- -Julie
Julie McClintock
614 Beech Tree Ct
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919- 967 -3661
mcclintock julieggmail.com
mcclintock.julie(gLmindspring com
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Additional time provided through BOCC revised
timetable, including the continuation of the November 22, 2010 Public Hearing.
From: Lorraine McBride [mailto:lbmcbride @aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:58 PM
To: Barry Jacobs; Bernadette Pelissier; gordon.alice @gmail.com; Mike Nelson (External); Pam
Hemminger (External); Steve Yuhasz; Valerie Foushee
Subject: Request to slow down UDO proposal
The UDO proposal process is moving too quickly. Please slow it dowse! The onerously
long document includes some significant changes in the County zoning process that merit
more opportunities for citizen education and input. Of particular concern to me are
changes to the Rural Buffer Zone and extraterritorial districts since I live in an
unincorporated part of the county.
Thanks for your consideration.
Regards,
Lorraine Belden McBride
1418 Gray Bluff Trail
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Additional time provided through BOCC revised
timetable, including the continuation of the November 22, 2010 Public Hearing.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Alice Gordon [mailto:gordon.alice @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 9:40 AM
To: Donna Baker
Subject: Fwd: Unified Development Ordinance:please slow down!
[.*III
FYI
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Betsy Smith <betsys @nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:27:57 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance:please slow down!
To: bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us, bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us,
gordon.alice @gmail.com, mikenelsonnc @aol.com, Vfoushee @co.orange:nc.us,
phemminger @bellsouth.net, syuhasz @co.orange.nc.us
Dear Board members - I just recently learned of the proposed Unified
Development Ordinance at a recent CH Town Council meeting and I am very
concerned. This proposed effort to simplify the development process
for the sake of improving economic development on first glance appears
to favor developers over the concerns of residents and the ordinance
itself appears to be fast - tracked with little opportunity for public
input or even any attempt to make the proposed changes clear to those
who would be most affected by it. Thus I would urge you to postpone
the vote on the UDO, extend the timeline to something that is more
reasonable given the scope of the changes (and the size of the
document!), and make a sincere effort to engage the public in
discussions of how development should proceed within Orange County and
if we should use this new proposed process.
We all know that development simply for the sake of economic reasons is
unsustainable and often leads to unintended consequences with
associated unplanned for costs.
thank you,
Betsy Smith
1412 US Hwy 15/501
Orange County
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Additional time provided through BOCC revised
timetable, including the continuation of the November 22, 2010 Public Hearing.
From: info @preserveruralorange.org [mai Ito: info@preserveruralorange.org]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:52 PM
To: Valerie Foushee; Mike Nelson (External); Alice Gordon (External); Pam Hemminger
(External); Barry Jacobs; Bernadette Pelissier; Steve Yuhasz; Frank Clifton
Cc: Donna Baker
Subject: UDO request from Preserve Rural Orange
To the Orange County Commissioners,
With regard to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to be reviewed at tonight's
Board of County Commissioners quarterly meeting, Preserve Rural Orange requests
that you extend the UDO decision - making process to ensure that citizens understand
the proposed changes and have opportunities to respond after the meeting and
before changes are adopted. In particular, we are concerned with new language on
conditional zoning which appears to allow for increased development without the
protection of the special use permit application process used previously for planned
developments.
81
The hDO is a very large document, requiring considerable time for non - experts to
navigate. We ask you to seek feedback from the public following the quarterly
meeting, in order to give citizens a chance to respond to specific issues raised by
BOCC and Planning Board members and to understand fully the potential impacts of
proposed changes.
Thank you,
-Laura Streitfeld
Laura Streitfeld
Chair, Board of Directors, Preserve Rural Orange
Email info(c preserveruralorange.org
Phone(919)801 -7294
Preserve Rural Orange
P.O. Box 1314
Carrboro, NC 27510
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Additional time provided through BOCC revised
timetable, including the continuation of the November 22, 2010 Public Hearing.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Donna Baker
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 11:03 AM
To: Perdita Holtz
Subject: FW: Unified Development Ordinance
More emails from Alice Gordon
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Alice Gordon [mailto:gordon.alice @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:58 AM
To: Donna Baker
Subject: Fwd: Unified Development Ordinance
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Kurt Riitters <kriitters @nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 06:29:18 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance
To: Barry Jacobs <bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us >, Bernadette Pelissier
<bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us >, gordon.alice @gmail.com, Mike Nelson
<mikenelsonnc @aol.com >, Pam Hemminger <phemminger @bellsouth.net >, Steve
Yuhasz <syuhasz @co.orange.nc.us >, Valerie Foushee
<Vfoushee @co.orange.nc.us>
Dear Board Members,
As a resident of Orange County I request that you (a) postpone the
vote on the UDO, (b) extend the timeline for this process, and (c) make
a sincere effort to educate the public about the purpose and
RYA
consequences of the 800 -page document which was released only it days
ago.
Thank you,
Kurt Riitters
1412 US Highway 15 -501 South
Chapel Hill
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Additional time provided through BOCC revised
timetable, including the continuation of the November 22, 2010 Public Hearing.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Donna Baker
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 11:03 AM
To: Perdita Holtz
Subject: FW: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Alice Gordon [mailto:gordon.alice @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:58 AM
To: Donna Baker
Subject: Fwd: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Linda Finch <fotofrieze @nc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:40:47 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
To: Barry Jacobs <bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us >, Bernadette Pelissier
<bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us >, Alice Gordon <gordon.alice @gmail.com >,
Mike Nelson <mikenelsonnc @aol.com >, Pam Hemminger
<phemminger @bellsouth.net >, Steve Yuhasz <syuhasz @co.orange.nc.us >,
Valerie Foushee <Vfoushee @co.orange.nc.us>
Cc: Haw River Assembly <info @hawriver.org >,
info @preserveruralorange.org
Dear Members of the County Board of Commissioners:
Only this evening have I become aware of some of the content of the
proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), that you will be
discussing during your meeting tomorrow, November 22, 2010. As a
member of Preserve Rural Orange, Citizens for Responsible Growth and
the Haw River Assembly, I am extremely concerned that this document is
not just "organizing" land use development regulations but could be
fundamentally changing the way development is conducted in this County.
I don't believe the general public nor architects like myself, have
been made aware that this document introduces "conditional zoning
districts" and "conditional uses." There is no public understanding
that the Planning Board intends to eliminate the Special Use Permit
which provides the residents of Orange County special protections.
There has been no discussion as to the impact this new process will
have on the rural buffer and extraterritorial districts in Chapel Hill
and Carrboro.
83
Given that the 800 page, updated document was only posted on the
website in mid - November and that there has been very little notice or
explanation given to the public through the newspapers, it seems that
the County Commissioners should revise the current time line and offer
the appropriate public hearings and opportunities for public input
based on a more accurate description of the process that is unfolding.
Sincerely,
Linda Finch, Architect
1438 Gray Bluff Trail
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Additional time provided through BOCC revised
timetable, including the continuation of the November 22, 2010 Public Hearing.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Donna Baker
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 11:04 AM
To: Perdita Holtz
Subject: FW: Unified Development Ordinance
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Alice Gordon [mailto:gordon.alice @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:57 AM
To: Donna Baker
Subject: Fwd: Unified Development Ordinance
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: John or Yvonne Schmidt <schmidj @nc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:24:57 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance
To: bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us, bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us,
gordon.alice @gmail.com, mikenelsonnc @aol.com, phemminger @bellsouth.net,
syuhasz @co.orange.nc.us, Vfoushee @co.orange.nc.us
Dear Commissioners,
I urge you to postpone the vote scheduled for the Unified Development
Ordinance, and to slow things down. This is a long and very complex
ordinance and more time needs to be available to provide for
information to and input from the public. I don't think it can be
properly addressed without advance notice and public hearings. I don't
think most of the citizens in Orange County know about it or understand
it.
Sincerely,
John E. Schmidt
1417 Gray Bluff Trail
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
84
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Additional time provided through BOCC revised
timetable, including the continuation of the November 22, 2010 Public Hearing.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Alice Gordon [mailto:gordon.alice @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:38 PM
To: Donna Baker
Subject: Fwd: UDO proposal requires more time for further consideration
and much more citizen input
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Mary Buonfiglio <mary.buonfiglio @gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:54:34 -0500
Subject: UDO proposal requires more time for further consideration and
much more citizen input
To: bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us, bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us,
gordon.alice @gmail.com, mikenelsonnc @aol.com, phemminger @bellsouth.net,
syuhasz @co.orange.nc.us, Vfoushee @co.orange.nc.us
November 22, 2010
Dear Members of the County Board of Commissioners:
We want to address the Unified Development Ordinance which is being
discussed during your meeting tonight (11/22/10).
We are part of a citizens' group extremely concerned about the proposed
Obey Creek project in southern Chapel Hill, and more than a little
apprehensive about the impact on the rural buffer and extraterritorial
districts in Chapel Hill and Carrboro this new process will have.
In light of the massive 800 -page document which was updated and posted
on your website in mid - November, you are moving far too fast on the UDO
issue to give Orange County citizens a chance to digest the information
and participate in a process which will directly impact their lives.
We hope you will recognize that the UDO you propose engages in what
appears to be sweeping changes in the zoning process through the
introduction of "conditional zoning districts" and "conditional uses."
In essence, the Board is eliminating the Special Use Permit which
provides major protections for the residents of Orange County. The
problem is: who really knows? You're moving so fast that citizens'
input is being circumvented.
This has the effect of giving the citizens of Orange County the
perception that backroom deals out of the sunshine of public scrutiny
are in our future. And while we know this is not your intent, the
speed at which this UDO process seems to be moving forward ... a rush
before the Thanksgiving break when many of your constituents cannot
attend the County Commissioners'
meeting ... leaves an extremely bad impression of the process at hand.
85
We urge you to dramatically slow the process down and give the citizens
of Orange County a chance to react.
Sincerely,
Joe & Mary Buonfiglio
216 Copper Beech Court
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Additional time provided through BOCC revised
timetable, including the continuation of the November 22, 2010 Public Hearing.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Alice Gordon [mailto:gordon.alice @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:37 PM
To: Donna Baker
Subject: Fwd: slow down total overhaul
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Website.Message @co.orange.nc.us
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:20:48 -0500
Subject: slow down total overhaul
To: gordonam @mindspring.com
From:
Phone Number:
Message:
I think congress and the mortgage industry just learned a valuable
lesson. It is better to take the time to understand what you are
agreeing to rather than rush to get it done.
While the consults 97 page summary of an 800 page document says this is
just a consolidation and clarification of policies- this is not
completely accurate as it has the potential to drastically alter the
process for planned development and reduces the power of the citizens
of the county and the board.
Please defer this report until the potential ramifications can be fully
understood and clarified.
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Additional time provided through BOCC revised
timetable, including the continuation of the November 22, 2010 Public Hearing.
From: Lori Taft
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 9:41 AM
To: Craig Benedict
Cc: Marabeth Carr; David Stancil
Subject: FW: Materials
:.
Tom,
Please submit the comments and documents above (following pages) as part of the public
hearing for the lighting section of the UDO.
Thanks
Lori
PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE: Since staff was unable to incorporate revised lighting
standards into the UDO during Phase I, it is suggested that this become a high priority
during Phase II. Height requirements for outdoor light poles and potential impacts on
County recreational facilities is one of the areas that should be revisited.
Tom Altierl �`: ®raP�E t- 1>✓�iSiJ E �I tin( t�l , CMG}
From: Lori Taft (D C-'o ?,, 6 C.
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:59 AM
To: Tom Altied
Subject: FW: Materials
Tom,
Page 1 of 3 87
PA?, K S AO ID
Please submit the comments and documents above as part of the public hearing for the lighting section
of the UDO.
Thanks
Lori
Page 2 of 3 89
Lori
Some excellent resources attached for you.
Power point shows impact of compromising mounting heights. Same aiming
point, but shorter mounting heights negatively
impact the adjacent homes. This can be quantified in footcandle or candela
values which is why a horizontal illuminance
value at the property line is appropriate without the restriction on mounting
heights so that the players are safe because the
fields are lighted correctly AND the environment is as pleasing as possible.
Included NCHSAA and Little League lighting standards which are just 2
examples of where minimum, not maximum, mounting heights
are called out. This is a major safety issue in designing a sports field correctly.
From Little League lighting standards
D. Glare for Participants Aiming Angles
To achieve placement of lights in positions that enhance playability, pole
heights, pole locations and
fixture placements should be as shown on the layouts in the appendix. Aiming
angles are a function of
both pole height and the distance from fixture to aiming point. Little League
minimum pole heights and
minimum aiming angles must both be met to be in compliance
From NCHSAA lighting standards
B. Vertical Aiming AnglesTo enhance playability on the field, reduce glare,
and minimize spill light, minimum pole heights should be defined in the project
specifications based on site conditions to ensure proper vertical aiming angles.
Refer to notes about minimum vertical aiming angles in the appendix. Certain
sites may require steeper vertical angles due to enhanced spill and glare
concerns.
The other technical bulletins I included you can use as needed to demonstrate
the importance of all components of a good lighting
design that provides a safe, pleasing environment for both players, spectators
and neighbors.
Call me once you have had a chance to review if you have any questions.
Thanks, Dina
10/22/2010
11/22/2010
Mounting height4
*Appropriate mounting heights or additional poles allow for
optimum aiming angles: Below see 2 poles aimed at same
aiming point but note difference in impact of spill and glare
on adjacent properties. Restricting mounting height
aggravate, not improve, the impact of spill and glare light.
1
CO
0
91
Fighting Standards
North Carolina High School
Athletic Association
92
2009 Little League.
Lighting Standards
& Safety Audit
H
Excerpted from the Little League* 2009 Operating Manual
93
Design Elements of Spill Light and Glare Control
I. Introduction
H. Why are aiming angles important?
III. Why is photometry of the fature important?
IV. Summary of Light - Structure Green'm features that control spill light
and glare
1. Introduction
# T130015
Purpose: Spill light and glare are a nuisance for nearby neighbors and the community. This
bulletin discusses ways to limit spill light and glare.
Scope: The scope of this bulletin is limited to lighting design. There are other things a property
owner can do to limit spill and glare. For example: build fences or plant bushes or trees.
Spill light illuminates areas off the field of play, which can be a nuisance for nearby neighbors.
Glare is the discomfort experienced when looking directly at a light source. The design elements
that affect of -site spill light and glare are basically the same, so this discussion is relevant for both.
The two primary design elements that control spill light and glare are the fixture aiming angle and
fixture photometry. Both elements need to be coordinated within the design to properly control
offsite spill light and glare.
In addition to preventing light trespass on neighboring properties, another benefit of controlling spill
light is that fewer fixtures and less electrical power may be required to light a field, since less light
is wasted.
See Technical Bulletin # TB0005 for a more detailed explanation of spill light and glare.
H. Why are aiming angles important?
The vertical aiming angle is a key element in controlling the amount of light that is directed onto
the field, with steeper aiming angles generally directing more light onto the field resulting in less
spill and glare off -site. The two factors that determine the vertical aiming angle are fixture
mounting height and pole setback, assuming a fixed aiming point. Below are examples showing
how mounting height and setback affect aiming angles.
A. Mature Mounting Height
Mounting height is typically the factor that is most easily adjusted in a lighting design, since
pole locations are frequently subject to various constraints. The higher the mounting height, the
800 825 6030
m WWW.musco.com
email: lighting @musco.com
0 2001, 2003 Musco Lighting Page 1 of 3
94
steeper the vertical aiming angle. The steeper the aiming angle, the less spill light and glare that
result. The effect of mountng height on spill and glare can be seem in the example below.
Exam 1p a #1: A single NEMA 4M 150OW Light - Structure Green fixture is aimed to the center
of a soccer field. The only difference in this example is the mounting height; all other
parameters (aiming point, pole setback, fixture type, field size, etc.) remain the same. In the
illustration, the edges of the light beam represent the rays at which the beam's intensity is 10%
of the maximum candlepower.
max OF MM
t � �
'LW Rva I urn (WW W S=W FW
ma W Ma
xrw uaa wax
isa.• (+sa,.) mob � ma a M noo
As shown in example #1, the taller mounting height produces a steeper aiming angle which
distributes more light from the fixture onto the field, thereby decreasing the spill light and glare
for the nearby house.
B. Pole Setback
The closer the setback, or closer the pole is to the edge of the field, the steeper the vertical
aiming angle. The steeper the aiming angle, the less spill light and glare that result. The effect
of different setbacks can be seen in the example below.
Exam field.
a #2: A single NEMA 4M 150OW LSG fixture aimed to the center of a soccer field.
The only difference in the example is the setback of the poles; all other parameters (aiming
point, mounting height, fixture type, field size, etc.) remain the same.
.�FAW
W rue
�r� SEIBCII
100 mA: ?1010
masWKW
AW tss.0 xot soau ms SM UM mom mw
1500' taIW " W W m0E ff "FM
As seen above in example #2, the pole with the closer setback produces.a steeper aiming angle
which directs more light from the fixture onto the field, thereby decreasing the spill light and
glare for the nearby house.
# TB001S
Page 2 of 3
95
Decreasing the setback can create shadows on the field of play and when too close can cause a
hazard for players. When considering decreasing pole setback, the lighting designer will
evaluate on -field lighting and safety along with off -site spill and glare concerns.
ML Why is photometry of the fixture important?
Fixture photometry defines the light distribution characteristics of a fixture, essentially describing
the shape and intensity of the beam. Since photometric characteristics differ between fixtures,
selecting a fixture with appropriate beam control is very important.
IV. Summary of Light - Structure Green features that control spill light and glare
• Reflector System — Hundreds of photometric patterns in their proper application provide
minimal spill light for each project
• Visor System — Multiple visor choices provide efficient light on the field and minimal spill
light
• Side Shift Beam Control — Beams can be adjusted within the luminaire horizontally and
vertically, enabling the lighting designer to custom fit light to the field.
• Die -Cast Housing — Protects the optics of the system from damage ensuring photometric
performance throughout the life of.,the system.
• Factory Aiming of the fixture to the tenth of a degree ensuring light is placed where it is
intended
The purpose of this document is to provide an educational reference for specific technical Issues that affect the quality and performance
of a sports lighting system.
Prepared by. Chad McSpadden
Draft data. July 31, 2001
Released: May 23, 2002
Revised: Nick Tippett,10/26107
Musco products referenced or shown are protected by one or more of the following patents. U.S. Patents: 4712187, 4811181; 4994718; 5012398. 6076828: 5134657;
5181883; 5207747•, 6211473; 5229681; 5313378: 5337221; 5343374; 6377811; 5398478; 640MZP 5423281; 6428577; 6519690; 6695440; 6600537; 5896024; 6647681;
5707142; 6794387; 6800048; 5816691, 6868721; 6860733,,5887969; 69118426; 5944413; 6016389; 5038338: 6203178: 6220726; 6250586; 6340790; 6398392; 6446406;
6404196•, 6676277; 8881110; 6692142; 8833875.6929385; 69 034; 8988897; 7069572; 7059746; 7171793; 7176835; 7208968; 7216437; 7246782; D337168; 0353797;
D353911; D411098. Au*da Patents: 670082; 705971; 708912: 780683; 784165; 2002251908. Braazll Patents: P193057245; P196071745. Canada Patents: 89366; 2009148;
2028850, 2027033; 2035014; 2058281; 2080585: 2087064: 2103874; 2110014; 7100611; 2200516; 2204958; 2210226; 2217872; 2378279; 2376283; 2378318: 2407922;
2407924. China Patents: ZL95192709.7; 2130139428.7. EPC Patents: 440631; 804704; 821776; 1192793; 000376498.0002. France Patents: 440531. Gemrany Patent
440531. Greece Patent: 3032360. Hungary Patent 216501. Ireland Patents: 804704; 821776•, 1192793. Italy Patent 804704 Japan Patents: 3270932; 3651008 :3740581.
MeAco Patents. 176853. 183226; 196897; 241985. New Zealand Patents: 245820; 301212; 307706; 333808. Norway Patent DESIGNREQNR.: 79833. Russia Patent
61440. South Korea Patents: 292548; 406147: 405754; 561799. Spain Patent 440531. Sd Lanka Patent 13133. Taiwan Patent: 1263753. Vietnam Patent 9892. Other
patents pending.
# T130015
Page 3 of 3
96
Factors Affecting the Perception of Glare
I. Introduction
U. Situation Factors that Affect the Perception of Glare
III. Human Factors that Affect the Perception of Glare
L Introduction
Glare can be defined as any brightness that causes a viewer discomfort, interference with vision, or
eye fatigue. The sensation of glare occurs when the brightness (luminance) of an object is
significantly higher than the brightness to which the eye is currently adapted. The severity of the
sensation of glare experienced by a viewer is dependent on a number of factors relating to the glare
source(s) and the viewer.
U. Situation Factors that Affect the Perception of Glare
A. Brightness (luminance) of the Glare Source
The severity of the glare sensation depends on the brightness of the glare source. The
human eye can adapt to a wide range of luminance, so small changes in luminance are not
noticeable. Generally speaking, the illuminance of an object must be doubled or halved in
order to significantly affect the perceived glare from that object.
B. Size of the Glare Source
The severity of the glare sensation depends on the size of the glare source. The greater a
portion of the field of view that is occupied by the glare source, the greater the sensation of
glare will be. The size of a glare source can be expressed mathematically as the solid
angle it fills.
For sports lighting, an entire light bank is often perceived as a single light source. Thus, it
is generally desirable to have several small light banks as opposed to a few large light
banks, so that individually light banks cause less glare sensation.
C. Position of the Glare Source
The severity of the glare sensation depends on the position of the glare source within the
field of view. The closer the glare source is to the viewing direction, the more severe the
glare sensation. For sports lighting, the position of the glare source is a key design
element. Use of proper pole locations and heights ensures that the position of floodlights is
not in the primary viewing directions of players. Likewise, it is important to consider the
position of light poles relative to nearby roads or intersections.
D. Brightness Contrast and Eye Adaptation
The severity of the glare sensation depends on the brightness contrast of the glare source to
the surroundings. The human eye adapts to the average brightness of the field of view by
800 825 6030
WWW.musco.com
email: lighting @musco.com
0 2001 Musco UghHng Page 1 of 2
97
adapting the size of the pupil to let in more or less light. For this reason, a given glare
source will seem more severe in dark surroundings than in lighter surroundings, since the
pupil is more dilated in the darkness. For a simple illustration of this principle, consider
that automobile headlights can give the perception of glare at night, but do not seem bright
when viewed in daylight.
For sports lighting, the brightness of the surroundings generally cannot be controlled. For
recreational fields, the surroundings generally are quite dark. The eyes' adaptation will be
based on the average luminance of the field and the dark sky. For an outdoor professional
stadium, the eye will be adapted to a higher average luminance, as the field generally has a
higher luminance (due to a higher illumination level), and due to part of the field of view
being filled by sea*Wspectators, instead of dark sky.
E. Number of Sources
The severity of the glare sensation will increase as the number of glare sources within the
field of view increases.
F. Time of Exposure
The severity of the glare sensation can be affected by the time of exposure. A glare source
that is not objectionable for short periods of time may become uncomfortable if viewed for
a long period of time. The human eye, just as other parts of the body, can become fatigued
by unfavorable conditions.
M. Human Factors that Affect the Perception of Glare
A. Age
With age, the lens of the human eye becomes thicker and increasingly opaque. As a result,
a portion of the light entering the eye is scattered randomly within the eye, instead of
forming a clear image on the retina. Therefore, older individuals are generally more
affected by glare than younger individuals.
B. Fatigue
Like other physiological processes, a person's vision can be affected by how rested or
fatigued that person is. Generally speaking, the more fatigued a person is, the more severe
a glare source will be perceived. For example, viewing the headlights of oncoming cars
may seem more severe in the evening when the viewer is tired than in the morning, when
the viewer is rested, even though the visual characteristics are equal.
The purpose of this document is to provide an educational reference for specific technical issues that affect the
quality and performance of a sports lighting system.
Prepared by: Mark DeJong
Draft date: 11 -Sept 02
Released: 27- Sept -02
Musco products referenced in this document are protected by one or more of the following U.S. patents: 4190881; 4374407; 4423471;
4450507; 4712167; 4725934; 4729077; 4816974; 4947303; 4994718; 5012398; 5075828; 5134557; 5161883; 5207747; 5211473;
5229681; 5313378; 5337221; 5343374; 5377611; 5398478; 5402327; 5423281; 5426577; 5519590; 5595440; 5600537; 5647661;
5707142; 5794387; 5856721; 5887969; 5906425; 5944413; D337168; D353797; 0353911; 13411096. Canada Patents: 70479; 74939;
1114798; 1181380; 2009749; 2009749; D73755; 2217872. MeAco Patent: 175863; 1697. Australia Patents: 670062; 708912. New
Zealand Patent: 246820. Europe Patent: 440531. Other patents pending.
#TB0025
Page 2 of 2
# TB0005
Fundamentals of Spill Light, Glare, and Sky Glow
I. What is spill light?
H. How is spill light measured?
M. What is glare?
IV. How is glare measured?
V. What is sky glow?
VL How is sky glow measured?
I. What is spill light?
Spill light is the light that trespasses or "spills" off the intended area and illuminates adjacent property,
and it is generally considered as unwanted. If the neighboring property owner is concerned about spill
light, steps can be taken to control it.
H. How is spill light measured?
Spill light is measured in terms of illuminance, for which the units of measure are foot - candles (fc) and
lux (lx).
It is common for local authorities to place limitations on the amount of spill light that is allowed at a
lighted sports facility, and the limits are typically specified either at the property lines of the facility or
at a perimeter that is ISO' from the playing field. These limitations may be applied to new or retro -fit
lighting installations, and they are often written into the specifications of the project. When developing
a lighting design for a project where spill light may be a concern, Musco commonly produces spill light
scans showing both horizontal illuminance and max - illuminance at the locations of concern.
A. Horizontal spill light readings provide the end user with a bench mark for understanding the
amount of illuminance reduction that occurs from the relatively brightly lit sports field to the low
illuminance levels at the neighboring property line. Horizontal illuminance can be measured in the
field with an illuminance meter, having the lens of the meter parallel with the playing surface.
There are limitations in doing field measurements for horizontal spill light:
• Generally speaking, a light meter is less accurate .when applying cosine correction to an
extreme angle of incident light, as is the case with spill light.
• Horizontal light meter readings may be inaccurate at an extreme angle of incidence, unless a
level tripod is used, due to sensitivity with holding the meter in a level position.
B. Max-illuminance is a reliable measurement for evaluating the quantity of spill light. Often the
concern of a neighboring resident is the light on the side of a house or shining through a window.
It is relevant to use max - illuminance to quantify such spill light conditions, since max-illuminance
is measured in a nearly vertical plane, with the lens of the meter directly facing toward each light
bank. When taking field measurements at any particular location, the lens of the meter is pointed
directly toward each light bank and panned across all the light banks until the highest illuminance
reading is found.
lilig.
02001, 2003 Musco Ughtlng
800 825 6030
Www.musco.com
email: lighting @musco.com
Page 1 of 5
M09
VMJ
M. What is glare?
Glare refers to the sensation we experience when looking into an excessively bright light source that
causes a reduction in the ability to see, or causes discomfort. Glare is commonly experienced by each
of us as we drive our vehicles into the sunset or approach oncoming high beam headlights at night.
A. Based on the human response, glare can be classified as causing either disability or discomfort.
1. Disabili dare: Glare that impairs our ability to see objects and may also cause discomfort
to the eye.
2. Discomfort tare: Glare that causes discomfort without necessarily impairing our ability to
see objects in view.
B. Our response to glare is dependent on the following factors.
1. Source brightness: The brightness, or luminance, of a glare source is a key factor in our eyes'
sensitivity to the offending source. The brighter the light source, the more it will tend to cause
discomfort to the eye, and at a very high brightness, the eye's ability to function decreases.
2. Contrast: The perception of glare is very dependent on the contrast between the brightness of
the offending source, and the brightness of the surrounding environment. For example the
brightness of a high beam headlight is perceived as discomfort glare at night when contrasted
against the dark environment, however during daylight the headlight does not appear as a glare
source at all.
3. Size: The perception -of glare is stronger when the offending source occupies a larger portion
of our field of view. The size of the glare source can be defined in terms of a visual angle,
which is the included angle subtended at the eye by the glare object. As the distance away
from the glare source increases, the visual angle becomes smaller and eventually becomes so
small that our eyes are no longer sensitive to the glare source.
4. Position: The position of the light source plays an important part in the design process. A
proper design will locate the light sources in locations which are generally not in the principle
viewing direction. This is why the lighting designer should place a very high emphasis on
locating light poles outside of each sport's established "glare zones ".
IV. How is glare measured?
Glare is commonly considered in terms of candlepower, expressed in candela (cd). Candlepower is the
luminous intensity emitting from a light source in a particular direction. Measurement of candlepower
can be done with an illuminance meter (light meter), providing the distance from the glare source to the
meter is known.
Glare can also be considered in terms of luminance, a metric intended to quantify the brightness of a
light source from the observer's viewpoint. Luminance is defined as the luminous intensity of the
source in the direction of the observer, divided by the area of the source seen by the observer. Some of
the units of luminance are candela/ft and footlamberts. Luminance can be measured using a
luminance meter.
Glare that is observed fiom a neighboring location near a lighted facility is sometimes called off -site
glare. Methods can be applied during the lighting design process to prevent off -site glare from
exceeding specified limits, and these are described below.
# TB0005
Page 2 of 5
100
A. Often specifications will limit the amount of candlepower that a luminaire may emit at a specified
angle above maximum candlepower of the luminaire. This ensures that the chosen luminaire will
be efficient in controlling spill light and glare. Along with this, it is important.to set limits on
vertical aiming angles, since aiming angles that are too shallow can result in glare. Even a well
designed luminaire requires an appropriate mounting height and sound aiming logic, which will
result in good vertical aiming angles.
B. Specifications can be written that limit the candlepower that may be emitted at the horizon, 900
from nadir. This provides flexibility in the type of luminaire that may be specified, allowing for
the use of a luminaire that is less efficient at controlling spill light and glare, and using a higher
mounting height to achieve equal cut -off as a more efficient luminaire. Since increasing the pole
height adds to the structure, foundation, and possibly maintenance costs of the project, it is
important for the specifier to fully evaluate and compare the costs associated with alternative
designs that utilize a less efficient luminaire and a higher pole height.
C. Specifications may be written to control the amount of candlepower emitted by the luminaires to
specific locations where glare is a concern.
1. A point -by -point analysis may be done to calculate the theoretical candlepower at locations of
concern. This method requires analysis of each individual fixture that may be a source of glare
to the subject location. Since it is a very time consuming process for the manufacturer and/or
specifier, this method is not as commonly use as the two methods described above.
2. A simple way to illustrate potential glare at a location of concern, such as a neighboring house,
is to construct a simple elevation view that shows the house, the ballfield, and a light pole with
one fixture that is a potential glare source. Light rays can be shown that indicate the aiming
point and beam spread of the fixture. The rays illustrating the edges of the beam would
typically represent beam's intensity is 1094o of the maximum candlepower.
D. Because of the complexity of the above methods, on projects where glare is a concern, it is
common practice to create a specification that simply limits the total amount of off-site illuminance
contributed by all of the luminaires on the facility.
1. With this type of specification, a standard illuminance (light) meter can be used to measure
max - illuminance values at the property line or at the specified location of concern.
2. It can be reasonably assumed that placing a tight limitation on the amount of spill light at the
location of the glare concern will often result in a lighting design that will also provide good
glare control. This method however is not always effective, since it does not limit the
candlepower of each fixture individually.
If it is necessary to perform field measurements to quantify the amount of glare on a site, there are two
basic methods available.
A. An illuminance meter is the most commonly used meter to measure glare, in terms of candlepower,
since this meter is readily available.
1. In order to obtain candela values, the illuminance readings needs to be multiplied by the square
of the distance from the light meter to the light source.
2. Candlepower (cd) = Illuminance (fc or 1x) x Distances (ft or m).
3. Since glare is determined by the intensity of an individual fixture or light bank, much time and
patience may be required in order to switch on and off the fixtures until sufficient readings are
taken in order to verify that all of the fixtures or light banks of a lighting system are within the
# TB0005
Page 3 of 6
101
specified limits. To obtain accurate readings, any surrounding light sources, such as street
lights, should also be eliminated, which may not always be possible.
B. A luminance meter may also be used to measure glare, in terms of luminance, although this type of
meter is not as readily available. In order to acquire an accurate reading using a luminance meter,
the reading must be taken with the entire light source of concern within the acceptance angle of the
meter. A project's specification may be written to control glare for an entire light bank or for each
individual luminaire. In either case, meter's acceptance angle will need to be selected such that the
glare source fills the entire measuring area of the meter, when the user is standing at the specified
location of concern and is aiming the meter directly at the light source.
1. Some luminance meters require manual focusing, and the accuracy of the measurements
depends on how well the meter is focused.
2. The most common luminance meters have either a 1/3 -degree or 1- degree acceptance angle.
The appropriate angle to select is a function of the area of the light source and the distance
from the light source to the meter.
3. If a meter acceptance angle is not available that will allow the entire viewing area of the meter
to be filled with the glare source when standing at the specified location of concern, a method
of calculation is available to approximate the luminance of the source. Basically, an estimate
is made of the percentage of the field of view that is filled by the light source, and the
luminance reading is factored up accordingly.
4. Based on the limited choices of acceptance angles of the common luminance meters, and
because of variables involved in this technique, it is generally impractical to use measurement
of luminance to audit a project for compliance to a glare specification.
5. A luminance meter can also be used to compute candlepower, providing the distance is known
from the light source to the meter. This makes it possible to measure candlepower without
having to switch other light sources off, as when using an illuminance meter. The candlepower
values calculated are the total candlepower within the acceptance angle of the meter, so it
would be necessary to have a meter with the appropriate acceptance angle.
Observation of glare may be based on each individual fixture in a bank of fixtures, or collectively on an
entire bank of multiple fixtures considered as one source.
1. At relatively close distances, the observer can distinguish between individual fixtures, and it is
then practical to evaluate the design based on the maximum candlepower of any single fixture
as viewed from the location(s) of concern. At greater distances, all of the fixtures in the light
bank appear to our eyes as a single glare source. When viewing the light banks at these greater
distances, better results are achieved by combining the candlepower of all of the fixtures
contributing to the light bank's glare in the direction each location of concern.
2. When viewed at close distances, our eyes begin to experience some discomfort when a glare
source exceeds approximately 12,000 candela, which is also the approximate intensity of a low
beam automobile headlight. The average high beam headlight is approximately 30,000 candela.
3. When viewed at greater distances, an average of approximately 6,000 candela for a light bank
with eight or more fixtures aimed in the direction of concern will provide results satisfactory
for most concerned residents.
V. What is sky glow?
Sky glow is the light that "spills" into the sky above the horizon and illuminates the moisture and other
tiny particles in the atmosphere. Sky glow is generally unintended and is produced by luminaires with
poor upper beam control or by the use of too short of mounting heights. It is important for a lighting
# TB0005
Page 4 of 5
lrOIN
designer to provide adequate illuminance above the ground on sports fields in order to ensure the
players will have proper visuaj perfbrmance while. the ball is 9n flight, however excessive illia in -ation
in the sky is regarded as wasted energy. Additionally, excessive sky glow results in reduced visibility
of the night sky for local astronomers. Some local authorities are limiting the amount of sky glow with
specifications governing all new and retro -fit installations.
VL How is sky glow measured?
Sky glow is sometimes controlled by establishing a limit on the average and maximum illuminance at a
specified elevation above the height of the light poles. This method is effective in quantifying the
severity of the sky glow, however it is not easily field verified. Due primarily to the limitations
associated with field verification, many ordinances require pre - qualification of the manufacturers'
ligj Ling designs based on the theoretical values calculated by a fighting-design computer program.
A. Specifications can be written to limit the amount of lumens or candlepower the luminaire emits at a
specified angle from the direction of maximum candlepower of the luminaire, which ensures that a
luminaire is, being utilized that is efficient in reducing spill and glare. Along with this, it is
important to set limits on vertical aiming angles, since aiming angles that are too shallow can result
in glare. Even a well designed luminaire requires an appropriate mounting height and sound
aiming logic, which will result in good vertical aiming angles.
B. Another way of specifying sky glow is to place a limit on the amount or percentage of the
luminaire's total lumens that may be emitted at or above the horizon. This method allows for the
use of a luminaire with less ability to control spill and glare to meet the specified limit on sky glow,
providing a taller mounting height is used.
The purpose of this document is to provide an educational reference for specific technical issues that affect the
quality and performance of a sports lighting system.
Prepared by: Dave Barker
Draft date: April 12, 2001
Released: revised October 1, 2001
Mu3co products referenced or shown are protected by one or more of the following patents. U.S. Patents: 4712167; 4811181; 4994718; 501239.6075826; 6134557;
6161883; 5207747; 5211473; 6229881; 5313378,6337221; 5343374; 5377811; 5398478:6402327.6423281:542W7; 55195W. 6595440; 6800537; 5838024; 5647661;
5707142: 6794387; 580004.6816691; 5851317211:68607M; 5887969; 5900425; 5944413; 6016389; 6038338; 8203176; 8 22072.625069.6340790; 6398; 0446408;
6464186; 6676277; 6681110; 6692142; 6839876; 6929386, 8909034; 6988697; 7069872; 7059746; 7171793; 7178836; 7208850; 7216437; 7246782: 0337188; 0353797;
D363911; 0411098. Australia Patents: 670062; 705971; 706912; 760663; 784185; 200715190& BrarB Patents: 13193057245; PM=174& Canada Patents; 8936.2098749;
2026860: 2027033; 2035014; 2058261; 2060565; 2087064; 2103874; 2110014;2200511,2200616;2204958; 2210228; 2217872; 2378279 ,2518283;2378318;2407922;
2407924. China Patents: ZL9S192709.7: ZL30139426.7. EPC Patents: 440531; 804704; 82177.1'19270% 0003764904DM France Patents: 440631. Germany Patent;
440531. Greece Patent: 3032360. Hungary Patent 216501. Ireland Patents: 804704; 821776;1192793. It* Patent 804704 Japan Patents: 3270032; 3651008; 3740681.
WACO Patents: 17586. 183226;198837; 241985. New Zealand Patents: 248620; 301212:307705; 333808. Norway Patent DESIGNREG.NR.: 79633. Russia Patent
61440. South Korea Patents: 29254.405147; 406764; 581799. Spain Petard: 440631. Sri Lanka Patent 13133. Taiwan Patent 1263753. Vietnam Patent 9692. Other
patents pending.
# TB0005
Page 5 of 5
MIR
Orange G.rnty
Parks & Recreation
ORANGE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION
P.O. Box 8181
300 West Tryon Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: 919 -245 -2660 Fax 919- 644 -3042
TO: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor
Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
FROM: Lori Taft, Parks and Recreation Director
RE: Comments on Draft Unified Development Ordinance Sections
DATE: April 9, 2010
Thank you for circulating the preliminary draft sections of the UDO for advisory board and staff
consideration and comment. Unfortunately, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council has been
unable to address them due to excessive agenda items previously scheduled as well as other
issues.
Staff has reviewed the Outdoor Lighting and Signs sections and offer the comments listed below
for your consideration in moving forward with this document. If clarification is needed on any
of the comments, please do not hesitate to call or email me.
In addition to the two sections mentioned above, we would like the opportunity to review the
following sections at a time when it is convenient for you.
Section 50 -113: Open Space Management
Section 50 -124: Demonstrated Compliance with Environmental Management
Section 50 -135: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
Section 50 -17: Coordination with Other Regulations
Section 50 -21: Rules of Construction
Section 50 -104: Conditional Use Districts
104
Comments related to proposed Section 50 -116 — Sign:
S absection:
(b) The recommendation is made to add item 14 at the end of subsection be to include temporary
signs among others not requiring a zoning permit. Suggested wording would include:
Temporary signs or banners announcing special events or activities. (i.e. Baseball
registration, Hog Day, etc.) These signs and banners may be off site and on site.
Temporary signs must be removed no later than ? ?? 14 days ? ?? after installation.
(c) Item 11 seems overly prohibitive, especially in the case of temporary signs or election
signs. The recommendation is made to eliminate this item.
(d) Item 2 may require clarification. Are non -profit organizations to be prohibited from the
display of their logo or advertisement? This restriction seems unnecessarily prohibitive.
(d) Item 5. Why prohibit a sod farmer or even a strawberry farmer from erecting a permanent
sign? Permanent signs are generally more aesthetic and in the case of strawberries, could
indicate when strawberries are generally available (i.e. May — June)
(d) Item 7. This restriction would represent a conflict with existing conditions in parks: Some
parks have hundreds of small ones. Generally, they are placed every quarter mile on trails for
directional, informational and emergency purposes. Each sign post may have 2 -4 markers (or
signs) on it. It would be difficult for OC Parks and Recreation to comply with the restriction of
no more than 3. We might comply if we would fall under subsection (b) 1 for this purpose.
Others, such as Duke Forest Properties may not fall under that category and as such may have
difficulty with compliance.
(f) There are signs in and around the county, not within the public right of way, but which are
mounted on large boulders. The boulders are effectively the structure to hold and secure the
signs. These are generally of good aesthetic value. Could this sill be allowed?
(i) Item 3 — Wall Signs. Could a section be added to allow murals as in Chapel Hill?
(i) Item 8 — Special Event Signs — It is recommended that consideration be given to removing
this category from the requirement for a permit. Hundreds of special events exist and most have
more than one sign. The volume of work associated with this item might make management and
enforcement difficult. In addition, many of these signs are typically places off site.
(i) Item 9 — Political Signs — these are often on single posts as would be prohibited in section (c)
item 11.
(j) This subsection goes from item five (5) back to one (1) — required re- numbering.
0) Item 4 v (the second item 4) The restriction of seven feet in height is too low due to potential
head hitting hazard of roof overhang. Ten (10) feet is recommended.
105
Comments related to proposed Section 50 -115 — Outdoor Lighting
Parks sand Recreation requests that Planning consider exempting public parks and recreation
facilities from the provisions of this ordinance. Many of the. standards listed and noted below
would be difficult or impossible to comply with. There are only a few manufacturers of athletic
lighting systems currently in operation. Some of the proposed items would eliminate one or
more of the manufacturers, setting the county up for proprietary bidding. We believe that it is
also in the best interests of Orange County to allow and encourage competitive bidding.
Comments are provided considering lighting use by the private sector as well as the public
sector.
Subsection:
(a) Item 1 - Please consider changing the last sentence to read: "It is the intent of these
regulations that lighting unnecessary for recreational use, safety or security be discouraged."
(a) Definitions: Floodlamp — Consider revising the last sentence to add the words
"commercial and" before the word residential.
Footcandle — Consider changing to: "The measurement of the
amount of light falling onto a surface."
Fully Shielded fixture is not defined.
Lumen — Please change foot -candle to footcandle as in other
references. Certain manufacturers require a burn -in time to meet their footcandle requirements.
This language would unfairly eliminate some manufacturers.
Semi -cutoff fixture - not sure what this means — especially the 20
percent 10 degrees below part. — "An outdoor fixture shielded or constructed in such a manner
that it emits no more than five (5) percent of its light above the horizontal plane of the fixture,
and no more than twenty (20) percent of its light ten (10) degrees below the horizontal plane of
the fixture. " Where does the remainder of the light go? It seems too restrictive, depending of
what is supposed to be illuminated.
(c) Please consider adding: "Public Parks and Recreation Lighting" as an exception.
(d) C. Shielding is pre set by the manufacturers to comply with footcandle requirement both
on and off the surface to be illuminated. This is not typically shown in submittals
provided.
(d) D. Does this mean as on a site plan? Not sure what is meant by "horizontal."
106
(d) G. Additional information may not always be available depending on that is requested.
Specificity would be preferred.
(e) C and E. Athletic facility lighting may not be able to comply with either the degree
requirements or the visibility of the bulb. With high poles, if you look right at the bulbs,
you can usually see them even from a distance. The bulbs at the Eurosport Soccer Center
are visible from 185/40. As such, they do not represent a hazard.
(e) M. Parks and Rec could not comply. Parks rely heavily on security lighting throughout
our system. Some are pole, some wall, some bollard lighting, and sign lighting. Without
this, parks would be subject to increased vandalism.
(f) B. Recommend changing the word ...athletic "field" to athletic "facility" This would
accommodate courts, dog parks, skate parks, etc.
(g) C. Parks and Rec could not comply. The lamp surfaces of most of our athletic facility
lighting are visible from residential areas and private roadways. This proposal would
eliminate most athletic facility lighting.
(h) B. Parks and Rec could not comply with the 80/60' limitations. We could most likely
comply with a 100 ft restriction in both urban and rural areas.
(h) C. This language would require bid specs be written so as to be proprietary. I believe
there is only one manufacturer that could meet this requirement. It is not in the best
interest of Orange County or any public entity to structure specifications allowing only
one or two manufacturers product.
(h) E. Parks and Rec could comply at this time, but may not be able to in the near future as
play pressure increases on our facilities. This restriction would also eliminate specialized
night time programming. Many communities enjoy special events scheduled after
midnight.
(h) F. Parks and Recreation could not comply. (see above) Many of our current and future
facilities are in rural areas and we frequently run past 10 or 11 pm.
(i) A. Recommend changing the fourth sentence to read: "Bottom mounted outdoor
advertising light fixtures shall not be used.
cc: David Stancil,
Rich Shaw
Marabeth Carr
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Attachment 6 107
Approved 2/2/11
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 5, 2011
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT. Judith Wegner (Vice- Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Larry Wright, At- Large, Cedar Grove
Township; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative; Samantha Cabe,
Chapel Hill Township Representative; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; May Becker, At -Large Chapel Hill
Township; Mark Marcoplos, At- Large, Bingham Township; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Andrea
Rohrbacher Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township
MEMBERS ABSENT. Brian Crawford (Chair), At- Large, Eno Township; Vacant- Little River Township Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Alfieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning
Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love,
Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Dolly Hunter
(Documents handed out. 2011 Planning Board, Board ofAdjustment, and Quarterly Public Hearing Schedules)
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Judith Wegner: Thank you to the staff for your hard work. Is everybody ready?
AGENDA ITEM 2: SELECTION OF CHAIRIVICE•CHAIR FOR 2011
Judith Wegner. We have to decide on a Chair and Vice- Chair. I will entertain nominations or volunteers.
Mark Marcoplos: What has happened in the past?
Judith Wegner: What's happened in the past, the last couple of years Brian agreed to serve again. I agreed to serve again. I
think the tradition, as best I know, is two to three years for the Chair and then some rotation depending on what is going on in the
Board. I didn't ask Brian if he'd serve again, I think he probably would, I'd be happy to release Vice-Chair and defer to somebody
else who'd like to do that so we'd have some continuity as well as some shift in change.
Larry Wright: Hasn't he been Chair for two sessions?
Judith Wegner: Two years, right and I've been Vice -Chair for two years. As best I know there isn't a limit. Is there anyone would
consider serving as Chair?
Larry Wright: I'd serve as Chair.
Judith Wegner: Anybody else want to be considered as Chair or nominate Brian to serve again?
Mark Marcoplos: Do you know if Brian will serve again.
Judith Wegner: No, but he hasn't indicated that he didn't want to serve again. My sense is that he would be willing. If you want
to we can have a closed ballot to have everybody have paper and fill in their choice and we can do something similar for Vice -
Chair so if say Brian was elected Chair, Larry if you'd consider serving as Vice- Chair.
Craig Benedict: Brian has said he'd be willing to serve.
Judith Wegner: The Chair does meet with staff every month to set the agenda and works with the County Commissioners and
Chair when we have a public hearing. Ok are there other candidates beside Brian and Larry that would like to volunteer? Ok, is
108
Approved 2/2/11
62 there a motion to close nominations?
63
64 Mark Marcoplos: I move to close nominations. Seconded by Samantha Cabe.
65 VOTE: Unanimous
66 (Board wrote choice on blank ballots)
67
68 Judith Wegner: Tina will count and then we'll do Vice - Chair.
69
70 Tina Love: The Chair is Brian Crawford by majority of votes.
71
72 Judith Wegner: How about Vice- Chair.
73
74 Samantha Cabe: I nominate Larry Wright if he is willing to serve. I nominate you too (Judith Wegner).
75
76 Judith Wegner: Motion to close nominations for Vice - Chair?
77
78 Mark Marcoplos: Move to close Vice-Chair nominations. Seconded by Rachel Hawkins.
79 VOTE: Unanimous
80 (Board wrote choice on blank ballots)
81
82 Tina Love: The Vice-Chair is Larry Wright by majority of votes.
83
84 Judith Wegner: Congratulations to Larry. Thank you all very much, thank you Larry for agreeing to serve.
85
86 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
87 a) Special Planning Board Meeting scheduled for January 19, 2011
88 b) Next Regular Planning Board Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 2, 2011
89 c) Planning Calendar for January and February 2011
90
91 Judith Wegner: Craig do you want to give us an update?
92
93 Craig Benedict: We have included the schedule on page 19 in your packet. That is the timeline as we move forward. There will
94 be a continuation of the November 22 Public Hearing in February for additional public comments. The January 19 meeting is a
95 special meeting determined by this Board. The timeline noted on page 19 still has all the Planning Board recommendations
96 wrapped up by March 2 and the Commissioners would bring up the item for a decision or action by their April 5 meeting which
97 would give them time to review the material. They do want us to have an outreach meeting in January and specifically invite
98 those people that had comments by email to answer their questions directly and meet with local governments. We sent a letter
99 on December 20 inviting all local governments.
100
101 Judith Wegner. In Chapel Hill, is there a firm date for that?
102
103 Craig Benedict: Not yet. We sent material regarding conditional use and zoning. There is not a specific presentation date
104 scheduled.
105
106 Larry Wright: If I remember correctly, there was a gentleman that represented Durham in the Eno Economic Development
107 District, were they solicited in any fashion?
108
109 Craig Benedict: Aaron Cain was the person who was with Durham and I don't know if we sent a letter to them but they have
110 been forwarded copies during the process in April and August of last year as we went through the process. We have been
111 explaining to the Durham - Chapel Hill- Orange County work group and we have giving progress reports to that work group.
112
113 Alan Campbell: The outreach meetings, would it be useful for some of us to be there so we could brief them?
114
115 Craig Benedict: At this phase where you came into the process, any meeting would be good for a briefing because we ear going
116 to give an overview, broader than what we are focusing on tonight or February. We will start at these outreach meetings almost
117 from square one.
118
119 Alan Campbell: The prior meetings, you had one that was not well attended but I am assuming this one will be because of the
120 requests we got and the attendance at the public hearing.
121
2
Approved 2/2/11
122 Craig Benedict: That is correct and we will also invite the people who sent emails. There were nine or ten people who spoke at
123 the meeting and they were looking at our process positively, it was the emails that we spent more time on.
124
125 Alan Campbell: That is the 27th?
19,6
127 127 Craig Benedict: Yes.
128
129 Alan Campbell: Is there an indication where that will be?
130
131 Perdita Holtz: In this room, 6:30 to 8:00.
132
133 Andrea Rohrbacher: Chapel Hill Town Council has been in recess since December 6 and their next meeting is Monday night so 1
134 expect you will hear from them this next week.
135
136 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
137
138 MOTION made by Rachel Hawkins to approve the December 1, 2010 minutes. Seconded by Alan Campbell.
139 VOTE: Unanimous
140
141 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
142
143
144 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE
145
146 Introduction to the Public Charge
147 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints
148 the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County.
149 The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development.
150 OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and
151 businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety,
152 and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive
153 governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
154
155 PUBLIC CHARGE
156 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to
157 conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At
158 any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will
159 ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should
160 decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment
161 to this public charge is observed.
162
163 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS
164 Judith Wegner: We are all committed to working hard to get questions resolved about the UDO. We met with staff a couple of
165 weeks before Christmas and the staff will present tonight but I would like to know if there are any particular questions that any
166 Board member would like to have addressed. Let's go around the table.
167
168 Samantha Cabe: It might be helpful to give a short and broad overview of the different venues a developer can take in order to
169 do a project. For example, the applications Special Use Permit process versus the current process versus the new process. An
170 overview of the choices they have if the property is zoned for what they want or not because I think we get tunnel vision as this is
171 the only way something can be done.
172
173 Pete Hallenbeck: I am fairly comfortable with this the way it is. There is some clean up we can do. Way back in this process, we
174 made this a manual and not a UDO for dummies and I think that decision has bit us a little bit in this area of floating zones.
175
176 Alan Campbell: Specifically on the issue of mixed use, the master plan developments and how we now take them into a
177 structure where a special use permit is not required and therefore the decision is entirely legislative by the Board of County
178 Commissioners. Was an that intentional decision or did this just happen as a result of how this was reorganized?
179
180 Larry Wright: I do have some questions regarding the terminology. Also, there is confusion I would like clarified with conditional
181 uses. If you look at Section 5.1.4 Conditional Uses on page 53 of our current draft and look at exclusions, there is a reference to
C,
109
110
Approved 2/2/11
182 4.18, Uses Excluded for Consideration of Conditional Use District. Then you go to Permitted Uses and there are the same items.
183
184 May Becker: I have some questions. You mentioned targeted areas and the idea of using some pre conditional use districts for
185 targeted areas. Could staff specifically talk about why we need or what the motivation is for adding these conditional use
186 districts. In other words which targeted areas would benefii from it? How would that change development? Also how
187 agricultural and farming may be affected by these areas. How it would change the land use.
188
189 Judith Wegner: Are there questions about Conditional Use Districts or Conditional Zoning Districts to let the staff know before we
190 get into that if there is something particular you would like to ask. I would say I think that some of the terminology is very
191 confusing. The way the statutes read, there are uses that are as a right that if you are in a particular district that you are entitled
192 to any of the uses within that general district or there may be permitted uses within that general use district that are subject to the
193 Special Use Permit. Another fundamental point is that we have been using planned development strategies to work with different
194 kinds of mixed uses but that terminology doesn't have a root in the way the statutes read so I think part of what the staff has
195 recommended is to use these other provisions about conditional use districts and conditional zoning districts to try to read what is
196 in the ordinances more directly into the statutes and if staff wanted to explain it to us, it would take 10 to 15 minutes and take
197 another round of questions.
198
199 Craig Benedict: I think there were two things that were said that were valuable to us. One is an overview of how zoning is done
200 now and that puts everyone on a level playing field because we are talking about some of the complexities which are not often
201 used in even the old zoning book which was called planned development and in the UDO it is called conditional use. We never
202 used planned development so it is hard to get a context of it without knowing what it is like now and is there a change for the
203 future. The second part is what is rooted in state statutes and what is not and we have to link or match up as close as possible
204 to state statutes because that gives both flexibility and authority to plan as well as we can.
205
206 Judith Wegner: I really appreciate the hard work staff has put into this especially over the holidays.
207
208
209 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) — REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE DISTRICTS/CONDITIONAL ZONING
210 DISTRICTS:
211 To review and discuss the Conditional Use District and Conditional Zoning Districts contained in the
212 proposed UDO.
213 Presenter.' Planning Staff
214
215 Craig Benedict: We have talked about terminology a lot. We hope to break it into two main categories of zoning. One is what we
216 have used over the years and something more regularly is something we call General Use Districts where someone has a limited
217 commercial one or neighborhood commercial two. That is what people have used since zoning has started. Those have a list of
218 standards and gives a permitted use table of about 200 uses and maybe 50 of them can go into that LC1 category (limited
219 commercial one).
220
221 Judith Wegner: What about agricultural?
222
223 Craig Benedict: In Agricultural Residential AR, conventional zoning district, gives a list of uses which say residential uses are
224 okay and some mobile homes are okay. Once you get into a category, you look at a list. Let's talk about Agricultural Residential.
225 If there is a star in this, such as a single family, it is permitted by right, which means we can't say no. If there is no star, it is
226 prohibited.
227
228 Judith Wegner: This is in part 5.
229
230 Craig Benedict: On 5 -6 and 5 -7. This is an idea of how to read the table. For any general use category, you see what uses are
231 allowed there. The star means permitted by right. If there is a B, it is a different process, it is still permitted but you have to go
232 through a Special Use Permit Class B which involves the Board of Adjustment. There is special criteria whether it can be allowed
233 or not. There may be expert testimony.
234
235 Judith Wegner: The general concept is that it is possible the ordinance says it is possible that this type of use could be
236 appropriate but you have to make factual findings.
237
238 Craig Benedict: If residents show up at a Board of Adjustment meeting and say I don't like it and don't think it is appropriate, that
239 is not a standard. They would need to bring their expert to show proof or findings of fact.
240
241 Samantha Cabe: If you have to go through that process and there is a letter in the box, that means if you meet a specific set of
242 standards, you must be allowed to do it.
4
Approved 2/2/11
243
244 Tommy McNeill: The point I would make is now that you would have someone on the staff for those who may not be literate to
245 walk through this process, we provide that kind of service to help them understand the complexity.
246
247 Craig Benedict: Yes. We have tried to make this as user friendly as possible but this is not what we will give our customers. We
248 do have to take them through the process with Michael Harvey's department. He is working on a brochure to narrow down the
249 places to look in the document.
250
251 Tommy McNeill: The reason I ask that is that I don't think we are looking for anything that would impede growth, I think we are
252 trying to move forward an area that is simplistic. Someone walks in and gets assistance to open a small business and follow the
253 guidelines and work with Michael Harvey's office and get assistance with the ordinance to make sure it is in compliance.
254
255 Judith Wegner: It is pretty complicated?
256
257 Tommy McNeill: Listening to it, yes. We speak with very simplistic terms but if you look at the county, there are a lot of
258 individuals in the County that may not be as smart as Craig and they may need assistance in getting through this process and we
259 want to ensure the playing field is level.
260
261 May Becker: I have a question about what happens if the Special Use Permit is granted and the property is sold and such, is the
262 use still designated as special use?
263
264 Craig Benedict: Yes, in the case of a Special Use Permit, that special use permit does not mean they are rezoning the property,
265 it is using their base zoning. It is either approved or denied. If it is denied, they can't have it in that area or they schedule
266 another meeting of the Board of Adjustment to try to change the application to meet the standard. There are some very specific
267 standards within special use permits and there are general standards. They are not as specific and that means the project meets
268 the health, safety and welfare of the general neighborhood or it may enhance the property value. There is a generality there.
269 You can't be over subjective but there are a few general standards that are a part of that process but if they are meeting the
270 specific standards then you also answer the general standards.
271
272 Michael Harvey: One more important thing to remember is that once it is issued the applicant by ordinance and by conditions
273 imposed by the approving body, a permit has to be recorded at the Register of Deeds office. This approval runs with the land so
274 if I get approval to operate a child care facility that means it is a legal use of that property. I can sell it to someone else but it will
275 be a daycare facility. If it is used for something else there may be a need to come back before the Board to seek re approval of
276 that use.
277
278 Craig Benedict: Could you start out with a bed and breakfast and turn it into a country inn. You can see there is a description of
279 the bed and breakfast there are a certain number of beds but if they increase it in size, that is not allowed. There is a limitation
280 and they would need to come back for a Class A Permit.
281
282 Judith Wegner: The general concept is that the more substantial possible impact, it ramps up to the elected board rather than to
283 an appointed board.
284
285 Tommy McNeill: What type of enforcement do you have?
286
287 Craig Benedict: We monitor that closely. We know where all the special use permits are and we monitor on at least an annual
288 basis. This is more limited to a certain area.
289
290 Larry Wright: We have had cases before the Board of Adjustment where we would have really liked to have granted something
291 to an applicant but we are not the Board of Commissioners so we must go by the ordinances.
292
293 Tommy McNeill: When it is a close call, what is the process for the applicant?
294
295 Larry Wright: We vote on it, has the case been made by the applicant and those who oppose the application, and then we must
296 weigh those. Since I have been on the Board, you don't really get a strong opposition on some of these.
297
298 Judith Wegner: Kennels have been a real issue for people because the way kennels are defined, there is not an intermediate
299 modest kennel. Is everyone comfortable with this? You can get a general district that you can do a whole range of things or you
300 have an existing district and then come in for a permit for a particular use.
301
302 Craig Benedict: I will go over a few different avenues for different options. The ones across the top are general use districts that
303 have a list of permitted uses, a list of SUP's in there, the special processes. If someone wants to open a dance studio in AR, it is
111
112
Approved 2/2/11
304 blank and they cannot unless they get rezoned. They are not going to rezone in AR because it is not allowed. They may go to a
305 Limited Commercial 1 category, they may ask for a rezoning. If they just ask for an LC1 it is called a general use rezoning and
306 they want to place an LC1 on the map, we have other criteria that says is an LC1 appropriate in that area. A lot of the transition
307 areas in the county that are activity nodes. When they ask for that LC1 in White Cross, they only have to ask for an AR to LC1
308 rezoning. They do not have to bring forward a site plan. We have very few of these rezoned in the county because when you
309 give an LC1, you give them the list of all the LC1s that are on these 200. When you ask for a general use rezoning, you don't get
310 the site plan and a very important thing is that you cannot set conditions. That is why the general use rezoning process is
311 somewhat limited in what you can ask for. The State has another category which is called Conditional Districts which are more
312 general. You can rezone and set conditions in both cases so when that process of rezoning, which is legislative, which does not
313 have to have those iron clad standards. It is a policy decision of the Commissioners with recommendations used from the
314 Planning Board. It is a lot easier to deny because it is a legislative process.
315
316 Lary Wright: It would be nice if section 10 had a definition of Conditional Districts and it was in terms of Conditional Use and
317 Conditional Zoning.
318
31.9 Judith Wegner: I have written about this stuff because I teach about property and things and for a long time, Conditional Use
320 was thought of as potentially Contract Zoning where the local government would agree that if you come in with a particular
321 proposal and give us goodies to go with it, we will approve it but we won't necessarily limit it to particular types of uses so at
322 some point, the legislature decided to approve Conditional Districts that would allow you to set up a mechanism that would limit
323 out of its whole range of 50 possible uses in that district limited to only a few in keeping with what you were proposing to do. It
324 gets more. complicated because Conditional Zoning Districts were added as a further amendment to the statutes later and that
325 terminology is confounding to people because it sounds very much the same but the point here is to do with whatever is going to
326 be an SUP in question so it gets to be technically confusing to people.
327
328 Craig Benedict: We are going to try to lock in about three different types here today. We have the General Use. I think you have
329 a better idea that when someone asks for a General Use, you cannot set conditions, you do not get a site plan because that is
330 done later. After somebody gets the LC1 then is a permitted use in LC1 then they bring their site plan to staff and it gets
331 approved.
332
333 Samantha Cabe: Larry, there is a definition that is just Conditional Use District on page 10 -7.
334
335 Craig Benedict: When we talked with Brian and Judith when were explaining something, we were using General, Specific or
336 Conditional. I think that needs to be separated into two areas. One is that you cannot set conditions in this one and the one
337 where you can set conditions is called Conditional Districts.
338
339 Samantha Cabe: Is it Conditional District or Conditional Use District?
340
341 Craig Benedict: This is the main heading and there are two categories under that. This is the way the statute says there is
342 Conditional Districts and there is the Conditional Use slot or the Conditional Zoning Districts. Both are considered Conditional
343 Districts. This was the original construct and having the rezoning to say we will approve your rezoning with a list of bigger
344 buffers, different access, etc.
345
346 Judith Wegner: A subset of what otherwise would be permissible in the General Use District.
347
348 Craig Benedict: The Conditional Use has some similarities to the Special Use Process. In the SUP process under General Use,
349 you are seeing the specific site plan and set conditions because the general use is in place already.
350
351 Judith Wegner: If you were the elected Board making the decision, you would have the possibility of someone coming in to say
352 let us have any 50 uses by redistrict or rezoning this to the LC1 or else you were the proponent of that, you would talk to staff
353 and they said that is such a wide spread you will have harder time convincing people that is a good idea if you decide you only
354 want a subset of everything in the LC1 option and you only as for a dance studio to be a subset slice of that with a permit that
355 gives you even further constraint that is much more likely to be acceptable to the elected Board and to the neighborhood
356 because it will constrain you more.
357
358 Samantha Cabe: It is important for the public to understand that all these things that have an A or B in different uses on the table
359 don't have to go through that new process. If you live in an AR and you want to have a child daycare facility nothing changes for
360 you, nothing changes for you. A majority of businesses that come up in these areas, there are still a lot of As and Bs there so
361 nothing changes for the majority of people.
362
363 Craig Benedict: We have not changed our role in this. Part of the Phase 1 LIDO was to take all the General Use zoning districts
364 and all the Class As and Bs and leave them the same as they are.
6
Approved 2/2/11
365
366 Samantha Cabe: One example of positive change would be if someone wanted a barber shop or beauty shop in their home, the
367 way it currently is that would not be possible without a complete rezoning but if their area is also zoned as one of these
368 Conditional Zoning districts, it may be possible?
369
370 Craig Benedict: Let's not answer that question. We need to let it evolve into that discussion. We have a better grasp on the
371 General Use. In that General Use, there are some permitted by right and there are some that go through a Special Use Permit,
372 Class B which goes to the Board of Adjustment and some are Class A SUP. That requires a public hearing also standards, it
373 goes to the Planning Board and to the Commissioners. The Board of Adjustment might be a three or four month time period and
374 Class A would be six to nine months or more.
375
376 Tommy McNeill: What is the result of those applications? Are they successful or unsuccessful?
377
378 Craig Benedict: The Class B have been successful. They thought that was a business they wanted to have. Usually Class B or
379 A may not be completely compatible unless they follow these standards. There have been individuals asking for that use. There
380 has been success with that but less success with Class A SUPs. Gravelly Hill Middle School had to go through a Class A permit
381 even though it was in an Economic Development Zone. We had it noted in the Economic Development Zone as needing a Class
382 ASUR
383
384 Judith Wegner: Conditional Districts are more constrained, more controlled than General Use Districts?
385
386 Craig Benedict: That is correct.
387
388 Judith Wegner: Do we have any Conditional District type methodology already in our ordinance?
389
390 Craig Benedict: That is what is in your agenda package. The Conditional Use and Conditional Zoning Districts track our planned
391 development standards which are in our existing zoning code, on page 21, that shows what we have presently within our booklet
392 and I will accent some the aspects of this.
393
394 Judith Wegner: What does planned development mean?
395
396 Craig Benedict: A zoning tool that someone can use to ask for a unique use that might be in the table of the conventional zoning
397 district. You might be in an R1 area. Someone could ask for a planned development residential project. A planned development
398 can be both residential, mixed use or non - residential. Planned Development can set their own standards or can match a
399 combination of these General Use Districts. For example, Churton Grove is an example of a planned development.
400
401 Judith Wegner: If you had 20 acres, you would have to otherwise seek a separate rezoning for four acres and three acres and
402 fifteen acres to make it add up.
403
404 Craig Benedict: The Planned Development is described well in the old code and the new one is to have a larger project to have
405 it planned all together to know how the roads will service those multiple uses, how the stream buffers will be preserved through
406 that larger project, how to get water and sewer there, etc. A way of looking at the entire project. In Churton Grove, there were
407 about 50 conditions set with that planned development from 1988 and we are still monitoring those conditions. Also, in a planned
408 development, you have the standards of your Conditional Zoning districts. Why are we going from PD to Conditional Use? We
409 will match item for item but the only difference is that State law talks about Conditional Districts as a big heading and talks about
410 specifically about Conditional Uses and Conditional Zoning Districts as subheadings. Before we proceeded with reviewing the
411 Buckhorn Planned Development, we made amendments to our zoning code to make our planned development look like a
412 Conditional Use Districts that is authorized by State law. That was the item we had on the agenda before because the way the
413 PD was written was weak without the statutory oomph behind it. We tried to make amendments to the PD and said we need get
414 rid of the PD and turn it in to what is more closely reflected by State statutes.
415
416 Judith Wegner: What is the ultimate difference? There is more control?
417
418 Craig Benedict: There is more control in both Planned Development and Conditional Use Districts than in general. As you will
419 see here, you will set the uses you want in there and you can set conditions during that rezoning process. Those conditions
420 should be reasonable and they have to be mutually agreed upon and cannot be imposed conditions. That is where State law
421 stepped in to say that a local government cannot have unreasonable conditions but mutually agreed upon and reasonable.
422
423 Judith Wegner: The other thing is about the site planning requirement?
424
425 Craig Benedict: Yes. There are two nuances and that is a question Alan had and one they had. Why does one have a site plan
113
114
Approved 2/2/11
426 and one you don't. Let me go through Planned Development and Conditional Use Districts and page 22. This is in the existing
427 zoning code and I think there has been anxiety about this being something completely new.
428
429 Samantha Cabe: One thing that make is seem new is that looking at the Table of Permitted Uses, you don't see a planned
430 development but there is the new Conditional Use zones.
431
432 Shannon Berry: The last three columns are CZDs not Conditional Use Districts, they are Conditional Zoning Districts.
433
434 Samantha Cabe: How does in a Conditional Use District, someone would apply for that like they would apply now for a planned
435 development?
436
437 Craig Benedict: Correct.
438
439 Samantha Cabe: Regardless of what their current property is zoned, it could be anything on that list? It is really not different at
440 all.
441
442 Craig Benedict: It is not different at all. You can ask for PDs throughout the county. It is a legislative process that the
443 Commissioners can say it makes sense or not. We have been doing planning studies like the Efland Buckhom Mebane, the Eno
444 Economic Development District, in the Orange County Speedway area that says these areas may be more appropriate for more
445 intense growth and might be more opportunity for this creative flexible development.
446
447 Larry Wright: I understand the Permitted Uses as they are on the table but I don't understand what is on page 54, Exclusions.
448
449 Shannon Berry: If you would disregard the last three columns on the table when you talk about exclusions. The exclusions are
450 what you cannot ask for as far as Conditional Use District.
451
452 Samantha Cabe: If I own a big tract of land zoned Rural Residential and I wanted to do a Southern Village, I would go through
453 the Conditional Use process and I could not ask for any of these things to include in my project?
454
455 Shannon Berry: Yes. If you want a Conditional Use District but on the scale of Southern Village, you would probably go for the
456 MPD -CZ zoning district and rezone to that with the master plan concept because you would be phasing it.
457
458 Samantha Cabe: I would do a mini Southern Village. That is why the master plan wasn't used very often because it was either
459 rezoned or not.
460
461 Craig Benedict: If you have a specific project, you know what you are doing, you will be doing a CU. You are coming in with a
462 specific use or dance studio or karate studio. You can come in and ask for it and set your own standards, get it approved and a
463 site plan comes with it.
464
465 Samantha Cabe: That would be like a strip mall.
466
467 Shannon Berry: As far as the exclusions, on the list, they seem to be more intensive uses. The idea being that while you want to
468 have flexibility, these more intensive uses, you probably don't want someone to come in areas because they are very specific.
469 This give a little more leeway and approval work.
470
471 Larry Wright: In terms of the next person who comes through there, we might want to think about putting something with the
472 exclusions listed.
473
474 Shannon Berry: The footnote.
475
476 Larry Wright: It is ambiguous for me.
477
478 Shannon Berry: Excluded for a CU district. One difficulty is that the words are so similar. In the footnotes, it states CU district
479 but these are excluded from that old Planned Development stuff but not the new conditional use zoning. Anyone applying for this
480 will not do it alone.
481
482 Larry Wright: If you think about these exclusions and somehow how to wrap it around and help the reader a little more. That
483 would be helpful.
484
485 May Becker: What is the standard for the planned development? Can the County Commissioners say they don't think it is a
486 good idea?
Approved 2/2/11
487
488 Craig Benedict: They can say it is not a good idea. It is legislative and the standards for denial of a legislative decision are not
489 as finite.
490
491 Judith Wegner: Conditional Use rezoning of any type.
492
493 Alan Campbell: Are you talking about a Planned Development?
494
495 Craig Benedict: First rezoning and then meshed with an SUP.
496
497 Alan Campbell: Is the big picture that planned development still requires, at some level, Conditional?
498
499 Craig Benedict: Certain kinds of planned development. It is called your basic, smaller scale planned development that might ask
500 for some unique setbacks, etc. That will come in with an SUP and specific site plan.
501
502 Tommy McNeill: Can you give an example on the ground?
503
504 Craig Benedict: The only on the ground example I know is the Piedmont Electric Tower. They have their offices there. It was a
505 multiple use project with a telecommunications tower, their offices, a storage yard. They knew everything they wanted to do.
506 They brought in what the towers would look like and we went through a planned development process with the site plan and that
507 was the more smaller scale PD. That is when you have the site plan and an SUP that comes with the rezoning process.
508
509 May Becker: Could you summarize which cases don't need a site plan?
510
511 Craig Benedict: The third category is Conditional Zoning Districts. You still have the rezoning with conditions. People still ask for
512 a MPD, a conditional zoning district but I want to have a Churton Grove type of arrangement. I don't know what the store is going
513 to look like but this is where it will be, here is the road plan, the stream plan, the drainage. They approve the rezoning with some
514 conditions. At that time there was a Master Concept Plan, not the final site plan. This is where the Master Plan differs from an
515 SUP that has a specific site plan.
516
517 Lary Wright: Do you have elevation?
518
519 Craig Benedict: It can be a conceptual elevation. How much of the land will be preserved as open space? This is more of a
520 Southern Village type of plan. That master concept plan is part of their rezoning petition so it becomes a guideline. They cannot
521 waiver from that Master Concept Plan.
522
523 Samantha Cabe: The 33% can be rearranged?
524
525 Craig Benedict: A little. There are two types of PDs. One you know what it is and one you don't. The second is more
526 speculative and that is what I think we would expect more of a Master Concept Plan with some of our Economic Development
527 Districts. It is not likely that someone will come in with a 20 acre Economic Development proposal and know the exact building
528 shape. The Master Concept says in pod A you can put 100,000 square foot, in pod B 50,000 square feet, and in pod C 25,000.
529 You can set all those parameters and you can max the entire project to 200,000 square feet of a certain use because you can
530 link that to how much traffic comes from office or retail, etc. After that Master Concept Plan comes, you do not have that specific
531 site plan. It comes through later and approved by staff looking at the standards that were created in the Master Concept Plan.
532 This is what is in our present code under the Mixed Use Planned Development. They can set all conditions and parameters to
533 make sure it is a good project. That is the difference and what we would expect is that even though Churton Grove did have a
534 SUP process with it, it actually used a Master Concept Plan that gave the latitude to not know exactly what the house looked like,
535 it didn't set the amount of square foot of the house but enough parameters that we could guide the developer.
536
537 Judith Wegner: Both gives more flexibility and also more control.
538
539 Larry Wright: Is there any time restriction between the concept plan and the site plan?
540
541 Craig Benedict: Yes it is in here. If they know they want to break ground on the infrastructure in one year, then they say they
542 want break ground in one year, etc. You can set all the reasonable conditions on the timing and the phasing within the rezoning
543 process.
544
545 Larry Wright: Is there wiggle room if Hillsborough doesn't get the water in?
546
547 Craig Benedict: In the case of Scottswood, they were waiting to get the new reservoir going.
I
115
W-1
Approved 2/2/11
548
549 Larry Wright: There is wiggle room in case conditions do?
550
551 Craig Benedict: Yes.
552
553 Samantha Cabe: These Conditional Zoning Districts are necessary because no one knows on day one what things will build out
554 to but our current structure, you have to wink and nod about adjusting things are you go because once you get a special use
555 permit, technically you should have everything planned but that is impossible so it left everyone in limbo.
556
557 Craig Benedict: When we had an attorney opinion during the Buckhom Village Project about having a specific site plan or not
558 and our attorney said if you are in Economic Development Zones and you do not have the ability to provide all these specificity of
559 the site plan, then you work on the Master Concept Plan. That Bubble Plan gets wrapped into it as one of the conditions of
560 rezoning. It becomes law.
561
562 Judith Wegner: Could you comment more on that? How would that be different?
563
564 Craig Benedict: Someone would ask for a Conditional Zoning District because they do not know every foot print of the building
565 when they come in. Buckhom Village would be known as the Buckhom Village Master Plan Development — CZD. They would
566 ask for that rezoning and proceed with the conditions of how much traffic, what are the buffers, they would do a master signage
567 plan. That could be a condition. Buckhom would more than likely be in this Conditional Zoning District program because we do
568 not know all the site plan. If they want to bring in the Phase One site plan to get clarity with that.
569
570 Judith Wegner: If they didn't, what would be the subsequent?
571
572 Craig Benedict: This Master Concept Plan would say pod A has 100,000 square feet with retailed allowed. The next phase
573 would be adopted by the Commissioners. A site plan would come into staff. The staff would review it with every department in
574 the County, DOT, any water /sewer provider to review that site plan and make sure it meets the standards and any conditions of
575 the Buckhom Village Master Plan Development - Conditional Zoning District. We then sign off and we attest that the 56
576 conditions put on Buckhom Village are being met by the site plan. That is submitted to the manager which is forwarded to the
577 Commissioners. We inform this Board that the site plan has come in for Phase 1 or Pod A of this Master Plan Development and
578 we would report on how this administrative site plan meets those conditions.
579
580 Pete Hallenbeck: Of the two columns under Conditional Districts, is it generally correct that the Conditional Use path is less time
581 than the Conditional Zoning Districts path?
582
583 Craig Benedict: I would say yes because you know exactly what the building is like and someone could go pretty fast from
584 getting this approved to working on final building plans and moving forward. This will probably take six to nine months. When
585 this Board reviews this as a rezoning and when the Commissioners review it as a rezoning, it probably moves a little faster
586 because it is finite and in front of you and you see the final site plan.
587
588 Pete Hallenbeck: If you took that chart and you flipped where those two columns, and then take those three different types of
589 zoning, General, Conditional Use and Conditional Zoning Districts, you would be going from a more general, lots of time, hard to
590 get, to a middle of the road, to a more specific least amount of time.
591
592 Craig Benedict: You could say that. This would take a little longer because you are setting parameters for some unknowns.
593
594 Pete Hallenbeck: My goal in saying this was to try to read the chart to have flow to it. The other is I am thinking of how to
595 explain this to people. With the middle of the road and Conditional Zoning, we have a rough idea but not too specific. The last
596 one is very specific.
597
598 Craig Benedict: We already said this takes a little longer but afterwards, those site plans, when the developer says that pod A
599 has a sign for it, you can put 100,000 square foot retail. If somebody comes into this site plan at that time, they can bring the site
600 plan within a four or five week period. A developer invests in a larger site, gets all this out of the way and then can market a
601 planned site. Then it happens faster and time is up front.
602
603 Alan Campbell: Is there any real difference in the current planned development, as far as timing?
604
605 Craig Benedict: I think it is about the same. We weren't charged with changing process time frames.
606
607 Alan Campbell: That might be something for Phase 2.
608
10
Approved 2/2/11
609 Craig Benedict: That has been mentioned as for EDD, in those zones, someone wants to come in and it takes nine months but
610 having this in the new code lets people do some preliminary work and they respond faster to the actual business.
611
612 Andrea Rohrbacher: I like the Conditional Zoning Districts especially what has happened with the economy. It gives developers
613 latitude to pursue an idea knowing they have time and flexibility with economic changes that may give them the opportunity to
614 move ahead at a certain point or to delay.
615
616 Craig Benedict: That is an excellent point. Larry had asked about time frames. With Conditional Use, you have to do some sort
617 of development activity within one year. In the Conditional Zoning District, you can set your phasing plan. The State recognized
618 that the Conditional Use construct that was authorized by state law put a pinch on a lot of people in this economy so they had
619 two or three local bills to allow for a one year extension. In December, we did not opt out which meant we authorized another
620 one year to 2011 to allow those projects that would have expired to allow them to continue because of the economy.
621
622 Samantha Cabe: Thinking about the emails we received on the eve of the public hearing, I wonder if what scared people was
623 they saw a new zone with all the stars and permitted uses with the MPD -CZ and thinking they are going to allow someone to put
624 this there.
625
626 Judith Wegner: Hearing what we have heard tonight, if we are advising staff about what the high points were and what they
627 should say to the public in the informational session and how them might change their presentation to the Commissioners and
628 develop another two pager to hand out to people, what would we say are the most notable things we have observed about this
629 move to Conditional Use /Conditional Districts. My question would be to go around the room and say if you could say one thing
630 that would be the best way to explain this or make things clearer, what would that be?
631
632 May Becker: I have a question regarding the email the email you sent out and the Conditional Use Districts and floating districts.
633 You are scraping conditional districts?
634
635 Judith Wegner: I had thought that there may be way to do it using different terminology would be helpful to people. If you say
636 floating zones, they would understand these are not formally on the map until you apply for them however; I understand the
637 staffs desire to track the statutory language but the statutory language came in a couple different stages so I am grateful the
638 staff divided this into general then conditional. Also, as to Conditional Zoning Districts, I am very eager to get to the agricultural
639 enterprise it supported because it is initiative that I think has been around for a couple of years and that will be advanced by
640 some of these options. I don't know if there is anything beneficial in your charts. I urge staff to think about pictures as opposed
641 to small words. Anything that will help people absorb conception of what is going on and not get drowned. Having examples
642 has been helpful.
643
644 Marc Marcoplos: Is this the presentation you will give to the elected officials?
645
646 Craig Benedict: No. This was something to try to dig in.
647
648 Marc Marcoplos: I think it would be great to give the elected officials. It would answer a lot of questions.
649
650 Judith Wegner: One of the issues is this is a major change compared to something else that helped people. This makes clear
651 that this dramatic change it is helpful in some simple ways.
652
653 Larry Wright: I think the floating districts, I can see how they apply now and the way it was so ambiguous.
654
655 Marc Marcoplos: I think most of the elected officials are looking at it the same way Samantha was saying the public would look
656 at it and seeing new lingo and all these uses. It is no more complicated than that.
657
658 Judith Wegner: That was a concern and that someone would be landed upon with an airport and I think for some of the Chapel
659 Hill officials some of it had to do with the rural buffer questions. Say, in effect the rural buffer is not subject to some of these to
660 keep it from being at risk of further development. The main thing is that we have to give staff this meeting, if we have the second
661 one in February, which I would be included to do to bring up your questions about the water issues. The sooner we can clear
662 this, the sooner we can give applause that we understand it. That was one of the things Brian tried to say at the last meeting
663 because this seemed to be more enormous that we had fully absorbed. My sense tonight is that everyone is pretty comfortable
664 with this.
665
666 May Becker: I am still questioning some of the things you mentioned in your email. The differences between the Conditional
667 Use and Conditional Zoning District in terms of you need a Special Use Permit for the Conditional Use and for the Conditional
668 Zoning Districts and it is more open.
669
11
117
118
Approved 2/2/11
670 Judith Wegner: You don't need a permit. The gist of it was, in some ways, having a permit was redundant with very closely
671 commissioned zoning requirements. I found that some of the very difficult stuff that trying to figure out what goes in zoning forms
672 and what goes in permits. I think the staff would say they like Conditional _Zoning Districts because you don't have this
673 redundancy of the permits if you do it all closely with Conditional Use Districts, why is it you are having a permit in addition and it
574 would clarify for the decision makers what they are dealing with. My view was let's have both because it gives both the
675 legislative side and the fact finding side and protects you from challenges but there has not been much litigation about this stuff
676 and it may well be if you've got an elected board that is confused about which piece goes where you may walk into more
677 litigation.
678
679 Craig Benedict: The conditions that are here, these SUP conditions are no more elaborate than the conditions that with
680 rezoning. These are redundant where those are. We are not losing anything out of all those specific standards and conditions
681 that need to be met are noted here. All you lose is seeing where the tree goes in the parking lot but you have the same amount
682 of trees.
683
684 Samantha Cabe: I favor a little less control than most people. I am supporting the Conditional Zoning Districts because I think it
685 is needed. I would like to point out that I think, if in the Conditional Use, the way we have it where the BOCC approves a
686 rezoning with conditions and then it is up to the Special Use Permitting process whether they are met. It is more of an objective
687 determination whereas in the new plan, determining whether those conditions are met is purely legislative so if there is a big
688 uproar about it there is more description on the part of the BOCC to ax the plan. That can be a good thing or bad thing but that is
689 a major difference because in the Special Use Permitting process you are more likely to run into litigation.
690
691 Marc Marcoplos: You are basing that on what has been the typical makeup of the BOCC that they may be more inclined to ax a
692 project. The legislative process also allows them the flexibility gives them ability to approve a project. What if a university
693 wanted to build a research facility to study diseases and they were going to have microbes, etc. How does a facility like that ever
694 get sited in your county and what conditions are met?
695
696 Judith Wegner: Let's do one more round of any other things we would like to say about tonight's topics but I wonder could we
697 deal with the stream buffer issues in two weeks? Is that pushing it?
698
699 Samantha Cabe: Going back to the issue of freaking the public out and the new zone that is listed along with the other general
700 use districts. In my reading of the emails, they were looking at this as the County can let anything happen on expanding the
701 uses. It would be helpful coming out of the gate saying that these new zoning districts are not designated without the application
702 and approval processes. Indicate these are not mapped until someone applies and the BOCC approves it.
703
704 Judith Wegner: A lot of things about how things can help or hinder the standing. If you could do some shading to make it clear.
705
706 Shannon Berry: It is already on my notes to differentiate the new districts.
707
708 Samantha Cabe: Even though the two new definitions you have, just a conditional district definition that says it is not mapped
709 until that location pops up. We need to lead our discussion saying this is not going to be a zoned district that can be widely
710 assigned. Each individual project has to ask for the zoning and it has to go through this process.
711
712 Craig Benedict: That will be helpful.
713
714 Pete Hallenbeck: I'd reorganize that diagram and go from most general to most specific so when people look at it and it is
715 explained, then they make more sense. With regard to Conditional Districts, the concern was voiced by the citizens that you can
716 put anything anywhere. I think you should point out in the document that this is a BOCC approval event, it has to be consistent
717 with the Comprehensive Plan, it has to fit in with the area and many of these types of zoning and uses are explicitly excluded in
718 the rural buffer and residential areas. Regarding the Conditional Zoning Districts, I think it is important to point out that it is
719 faster for business. Regarding Conditional use, it is a specific site plan that is more suited for an entrepreneur effort. The MP
720 zoning flexibility if you have something come up that just can't be planned. Regarding the stream data, I would love it if you
721 could come up with information before the meeting.
722
723 Judith Wegner: When I thought I couldn't be here tonight, I sent some information in advance.
724
725 Pete Hallenbeck: I would love to see May write something up.
726
727 Judith Wegner: It would help the staff to be prepared.
728
729 Andrea Rohrbacher: I would like to see a clear explanation of the exclusions and how the conditional districts address these
730 exclusions because some of the speakers mentioned airports, that was scary. If we could present as to how this new process is
12
Approved 2/2/11 1 1 9
731 protective against these scary uses rather than the new processes would be more permissive.
732
733 Rachel Hawkins: I think as Pete said if we show that it can be faster than it has been it would be an advantage because we have
734 a reputation in the state that we are the hardest people to get along with and we've got to make that........ they say the same
735 thing in Chapel Hill but still I think we haven't said explicitly, like we have here tonight, it's not something hard.
736
737 Larry Wright: I agree with Pete and Andrea. I would like to emphasize in this exclusion list, it looks like in those permitted tables,
738 it is too much is being given away which is not the case at all. It is very difficult to read through that. Use chart Craig created.
739
740 May Becker: I am thinking from the discussion tonight, what we're talking about there, what I've been considering there also is
741 Samantha's original question about the person who wants to have a barber shop in his or her house and how that fits in mixed
742 use development and these types of zoning. How that might relate to sprawl versus being able to maintain a historic center,
743 walkable ....
744
745 Samantha Cabe: After the discussion I realize I should have not asked that question because it is not relevant.
746
747 May Becker: I think it's interesting too down the line if you create it where you do have people walking and people being able to
748 have the opportunity to have a business in their own home, how does that fit into the type of zoning.
749
750 Judith Wegner: Two weeks is agreeable from now.
751
752 Tommy McNeill: What is fascinating is staffs knowledge. I think we are all more educated because of the process tonight.
753
754 Marc Marcoplos: I thought you and Michael would talk briefly about did they speed up the process and you said they didn't
755 necessarily speed up the process.
756
757 Craig Benedict: That was the UDO Phase 2 to talk about what uses are in our EDD Conventional zones and how long does it
758 take to get through that.
759
760 Marc Marcoplos: A couple people said we should tell the public that it speeds it up. I would be careful.
761
762
763 AGENDA ITEM 9: COMMITTEEIADMsORy BOARD REPORTS
764 a) Board of Adjustment
765 No Meeting.
766 b) Orange Unified Transportation
767 No Report
768 c) Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group
769 No Meeting
770
771
772 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT
773
774 MOTION: Alan Campbell made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Larry Wright.
775 VOTE: Unanimous
776
777
778
Brian Crawford, Chair
13
120
Approved 2/2/11
THE PAGES FOLLOWING WERE DIRECTED TO BE ADDED TO THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE
JANUARY 5, 2011 PLANNING BOARD MEETING BY THE PLANNING BOARD AT THEIR FEBRUARY 2,
2011 PLANNING BOARD MEETING
PA
NOTE: Chart used during staff presentation at meeting
r
X- M-#
.(More
.`J
REZONING
without
Conditions
r
I Time
6 months
Ir
LW07L 10 11
CONDITIONAL
USE
CONDITIONAL,
ZONING
DISTRICTS
Rezoning with Rezoning with
Conditions Conditions
SUP Master
Conce t Plan
_ — _ — r r ....�� s.
:Admin. Time
e Plan 7 months I
rte. r r•. r _ — _ ..� r�
� r rr r
Single Use or Time '
Mixed Use 8 -9 months
121
122
NOTE: E -mail from Judith Wegner and all files attached to the e -mail
From: Wegner, Judith Welch [mailto:judith_wegner @unc.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 3:09 PM
To: Wright Larry; Brian Crawford L.; Perdita Holtz; Alan Campbell; arohrbacher @earthlink.net; Earl
McKee; Mark Marcoplos; May Becker; Pete Hallenbeck; Samantha Cabe; Tommy McNeill; Craig Benedict;
Michael Harvey
Cc: Wegner, Judith Welch
Subject: RE: Conditional Districts discussion at QPH: More From Wegner
Importance: High
Hi, folks. I'm hoping not to kill your inboxes by sending you too much information, but did want to offer
some thoughts in response to Larry's mails.
1. First, as to *conditional use districts and spot zoning.* As Larry knows, I've tried to explain this
previously because I've written on this subject and understand why it can be confusing. I'm going to
give it another go here:
a. Traditional districts. Traditionally, areas within a city or county are "mapped" in accordance
with a standard set of district definitions, characteristics, and eligible uses. Thus, in simple terms
(forgive me if this is overly simple... just trying to lay it out straightforwardly), an area might be
"mapped" as R -1 residential (meaning that residential uses with certain lot sizes, setbacks, heights, etc.)
are permitted as of right; or C -1 commercial (meaning that certain commercial uses are permitted with
related lot sizes, characteristics, setbacks, etc.) as of right. In addition, most districts have associated
"conditional uses" meaning that such uses are permissible after an elected board or board of
adjustment hearing with particular factual findings that say that the proposed uses are not problematic
in the particular context (for example, day care centers might be allowed as a conditionally permitted
use in a residential or commercial area if transportation considerations are met; gas stations might be
permitted as a conditional use in certain commercial contexts but not if there were traffic problems
associated with them).
b. Rezoning (changing district designation as to given property). When proposals are made to
rezoning a given locale from one district designation to another, that process is seen as a "legislative
process" so that there is a good deal of discretion in the hands of the elected board that has to make the
decision whether to grant the rezoning request (or not). In addition, rezoning proposals may require
"super majority" votes of the elected board if there are petitions filed by those owning adjacent
property in some circumstances.
c. "Spot zoning." The term "spot zoning" has used by courts when they are suspicious about an
elected board's decision to rezoning (because in effect, the area being rezoning is a "spot" that is out of
character with surrounding district designations). The courts therefore *apply more intensive inquiry in
such contexts,* but *that does not mean that rezoning a "spot" to a different designation is per se
illegal (only that the decision must be looked at more closely). The particular concern sometimes
focuses on a snazzy proposal presented from a given developer for a particular type of development in a
given district (for example, a proposal to rezone in order to allow commercial use in a previously
residential local in order to build a modest office building). The developer shows great plans and makes
great promises. The problem is, once a rezoning is approved from one district to the next, *all* the uses
allowed as of right for the new district designation would be available. The developer could sell off to
someone else, and something entirely different could then be built based on the approval that had
assumed the initial facts from the first proponent would continue to apply. There are related concepts
123
that have historically been flagged as problematic, including "contract zoning" (in which a developer
may offer inducements as part of a proposal for rezoning... great park land or something of that sort) in
order to seduce the elected board to accept the proposal. That approach, too, has been found to be
problematic if the elected board has not looked at all the possibilities and reasons for /against the
project and how the rezoning would square with the comprehensive plan. I've attached a separate
excerpt from Dave Owens at the UNC School of Government relating to spot zoning for your
information.
d. *Conditional Use Districts* (NOT YET "Conditional Districts "). Conditional use zoning
districts have been expressly authorized by the state legislature as a means of avoiding the perils that
might arise from these kinds of dynamics. In effect, *conditional use districts* (we'll get to "conditional
districts" later, so stay with me here)... *Conditional use districts *are generally set up as a kind of
"parallel universe" to standard zoning districts. That is, for example, if there's a standard industrial
district (call it the *Standard Industrial I -One District *) it might allow as of right a whole variety of
uses... lumber yards, quarries, warehouses, printing plants, breweries. Imagine in the parallel universe a
*Conditional Use Industrial I -One District* that a developer might also consider, but in that instance,
the developer would only seek rezoning to permit *one* of the listed uses (maybe a *warehouse* but
*not a printing plant, quarry, or brewery *). The developer then could either (a) seek rezoning of a
particular local to *Conditional Use Industrial I -One District* designation, and, if approved, could only
use the site for a warehouse. Alternatively (b) the developer could seek redevelopment to the
*Standard Industrial I -One District* in which the full range of uses would be allowed as of right. In most
cases, having these two options available is better public policy because it allows more tailored
authorization of only particularized uses not a broader range of uses. In addition, the "Conditional Use
District" approach typically includes an opportunity to combine a *conditional use permit* along with
the targeted *conditional use district* (the one that would only allow the warehouse). As a result,
there's a double layer of very targeted and nuanced requirements. First, the elected board has
considerable discretion to say "yes" or "no" to the rezoning to conditional use district (seen as a
legislative determination and difficult to overturn on appeal if the elected board says no to the
rezoning); in addition, the elected board gets to impose detailed requirements on the project (such as
buffers, site plans, planting requirements, etc.) to be sure that surrounding properties are protected.
The reference that Larry made to the Dave Owens (School of Government) publication may be unclear
because it only says that the judicial standards relating to spot zoning need to be applied if a given small
area is rezoned (whether to a new general district or to a new conditional use district). That's not
unreasonable. The fact is that the *conditional use district* approach allows governing boards to use a
scalpel in deciding whether to permit a different use (rather than a whole band of new uses including
some that might not fit).
e. *Conditional use districts in Orange County: Wegner views.* I, for one, think we need
conditional use zoning districts but in more focused arenas that have currently been proposed. I'm
attaching comments I sent to staff earlier this week on that point. I'm also attaching the speedway small
area plan and an earlier presentation on agriculture support enterprises (both important initiatives that
are currently stalled and which had anticipated using conditional use districting structures in order to
achieve important objectives). I just wanted to go on the record as saying that the Planning Board has
historically encouraged staff to move forward with conditional use districts as a means of implementing
these and other projects. I think that this point (as I said in the note to staff this week, attached) that
we would do well to develop conditional use districts in targeted arenas (rather than employing them
everywhere in the county) because we could then more clearly explain their function and importance to
achieve substantive objectives. Let me provide some examples. First as to the *Speedway Small Area
124
Plan* (background attached here): the ideas proposed by the working group included targeted,
selected, careful rezoning in ways that would tailor added, environmentally sensitive uses that would
nonetheless serve economic development objectives (again, by rezoning to a new *conditional use
district* with a narrowed band of permitted use and a conditional use permit (unlike the parallel
general district), it would be possible to make suitable accommodations between existing and proposed
new uses. The same is true as to *agricultural support enterprises* (actively discussed in 2007 as
indicated in attached background, but also discussed again in late 2009 by the BOCC regarding
agricultural initiatives in the county... the file is 6 MG plus so I don't want to attach here but can send
separately and probably will later via "you send it "). The idea here has been that the County should
encourage the ability of farmers to introduce targeted companion uses in agricultural districts without
having wholesale rezoning to permit industrial uses in general. Thus, back to my earlier industrial
example. A particular farm might want to become a distribution center for "community supported
agriculture" (that is, a pick -up point for weekly vegetables that have been paid for by individuals in
advance)... or it might want to create a microbrewery on site. You can see that there might be a need
for a tailored approval for things of that sort... are there going to be more traffic impacts in the first
instance? Are there issues about adequacy of space, smells, water supplies in the second? If there were
some sort of special Agricultural Development *conditional use district" created, it might be possible to
allow such uses on a targeted basis, without allowing any and all throughout the district. I think it's
important that we get going in this arena before we lose our farms. A conditional use district approach
would be very suitable for that purpose. It would also be helpful in other areas where we have not yet
done small area plans... for example along NC 54 where proposals for certain business development by
UNC or the county or others might have been addressed through general district controls... much better
to have more tailored options. In some ways, I hope I've shown that overall conditional use districts
may be helpful on a fairly wide- ranging basis. On the other hand, if people don't fully understand them,
and if we want to get the kinks out, maybe we should go slow and start with authorizing them in only
specific areas. That's my suggestion for a compromise at this point.
2. Second, as to *conditional districts.*
a. *Generally on "conditional districts" (better to be called "floating zones ").* I think the
terminology used in the new UDO is very confusing when used at the same time that the term
"conditional use district" is being introduced. The classic term for this kind of thing is indeed *floating
zones* (better, perhaps, "floating districts" so we don't think that we're moving into the Bermuda
Triangle). The term "floating zone" has been used for 50 years or more so it shouldn't be that scary).
That doesn't mean that the aliens are landing and taking us away. Instead it means that there are
certain kinds of uses (framed as districts) that should be defined in advanced, but not put on the map
until a rezoning request is made by a property owner and the governing board does an appropriate
review and approves. I think this shouldn't be a worrisome concept... it's really well - established
standard practice here and elsewhere. It's just that we've had a confusing name change proposed and
we should instead return to standard terminology in the first instance.
b. *When and how to use the floating district concept.* One such use is the classic "planned
development" (often with mixed uses). Another is a "shopping center" which may be of a scale that
needs extra review and which shouldn't be put on the map so as to favor one particular property owner
in advance. Yet another might be a "mobile home park" or an "airport." Indeed, I have suggested that
airport use be treated as a floating zone so that the governing board has the maximum authority to
decide whether to authorize such use at all (rather than treating an airport as a type of use as of right or
with a special use permit in any existing district). The reason I feel that way is that there are many,
125
many questions about the impact of a possible airport (as those of us who fought against the proposed
UNC airport location are well aware)... environmental, traffic, safety, pollution, effect on nearby lands,
and more. I'm not sure that I'm yet at peace with the proposed types of floating districts in the UDO.
Mobile home park makes sense. It may be that for the other proposals (airport, public interest and
master planned), I think we need something more: floating zone with permit also required so
something along to the lines of a "conditional use district" but for certain uses that have not "general
zoning district counterpart." If the Planning Board agrees with that proposition, I think it could help us
move ahead by (a) focusing on whether some "floating districts" should be authorized in concept but
only if combined redistricting and permit approval are incorporated, and (b) if so, which uses should be
treated in that way.
C. *Larry's point about limiting the use of floating districts.*
L *Barring rezoning ?* I also wanted to respond to Larry's particular question
about whether "floating zones" could be foreclosed in AR or RB designated zones. I have two
thoughts here. First, "floating districts" involve rezoning from an existing zone to one of the
new "floating zones." Thus, I think it's problematic to say that some areas of the county could
never be rezoned (which would be the result if that tack were taken).
ii. *Crafting particular district requirements.* On the other hand, I think that it
would be very possible to frame the details of any given floating district to say more about when
it should be used, what compatibilities are required to satisfy the comprehensive plan, etc. So,
for example, an "airport floating district" might be described as one requiring a minimum parcel
of xxx size; a distance from environmentally sensitive, water bodies, residential uses, school
uses, of xxx; proximity to certain transport corridors [if fuel is being brought in and out] of xxx;
compliance with FAA requirements re flight paths, meteorology, etc.; necessity based on public
necessity [not just private preferences])... I have old files from the time of fighting against the
airport that I could pull out if needed on this point.
ii. *Rural buffers and watershed.* As to rezoning in the rural buffer or protected
watersheds: Since these are areas of mutual concern to the municipalities as well as the county,
it might be that we could propose to the BOCC that they enter into some kind of mutual
agreements with the affected municipalities that rezoning in such areas requires a higher level
of approval (the statutes provide for supermajority approval of rezonings if there are protest
petitions from specified neighbors... I think [but haven't researched] that there might be a
possibility to do something of this sort pursuant to legislation that related to joint planning or to
provisions relating to intergovernmental cooperation but someone would need to research
that. It seems to me that this is a broader question than just "floating districts" (since rezoning
to districts other than floating districts has implications for shared commitments /obligations as
well). Maybe we could request further legal counsel on this point.
3. *Process, timing and next steps.*
a. *2/28 Public Hearing.* Perdita kindly shared the draft of our resolution and a proposed
schedule with Brian and me on Thursday. I'm attaching my response and my suggestions on the
schedule. In particular, I responded that I thought we anticipated that the BOCC would want to hold a
hearing on the UDO and anything else we've been able to propose for revisions at the date set for public
hearing in late February. I don't think treating that meeting as a work session is functional because the
126
thrust of the feedback we received was that people hadn't had a time to digest the document and
wanted a chance to be heard at a later date. If we treated the late February date as a "work session" we
should thereafter hold another public hearing and that would set the timing back significantly. If I was
unclear on that point at the meeting, I wanted to say I'm sorry but to clearly communicate to all that
what I'm saying here was how I thought things would proceed. I ran into Alice Gordon at the grocery
store and she said that was what she thought as well.
b. *Alice Gordon's helpful framing.* I also asked Alice to share by email the careful comments
and framing of questions that she had offered at the hearing (and am attaching those here for those
who were not able to attend the 11/22 BOCC /PB public hearing). I hope that these comments will help
everyone in their reading of the UDO.
C. *January 5 Planning Board meeting.* 1 regret that I have to be at a meeting in San Francisco
1/5 but will try to attend by conference call if I can. In the meantime, I wanted to try to help everyone's
understanding and efforts to decipher the details of the UDO by writing at some length here. I also think
that it's crucial that we do our best to share our thoughts and get them to staff as well as soon as
possible because we're coming up on the holidays and we need to give them time to digest and think
about our views.
d. *Lawyers and our limitations *. I want to note that I do not wish or intend to play an
overweening role in the Planning Board deliberations or to ask anyone to put too much weight on my
legal background (we're lucky to have several lawyers, including Brian, Samantha, and Alan in our
midst... but I'm sure that all of them would join me in saying that we don't claim wisdom that would
exceed anyone else since all members of the board have long had very interesting, diverse, and wide -
ranging backgrounds that contribute substantially to the collective deliberations... the law is just one
lens that sometimes helps and sometimes obfuscates... I've written at length here in part because I've
taught land use law and really thought a lot about these issues ... and also feel bad to miss the 1/5
meeting... so have tried to put some of my thinking in writing for your consideration in advance).
I guess that's more than enough for one afternoon. Enjoy the snow! Best -- Judith
127
UDO Comments from Judith Wegner to Staff 12/1/2010
Hi, folks. Thanks for sharing the statement of the motion adopted by the Planning Board last
night and the proposed schedule to accompany the resolution.
I think that the statement of the motion (below) is accurate. I think that the initial proposed UDO
schedule that you attached misses some important nuances and have accordingly attached both
the initial draft from Perdita and a revision that I think more accurately reflects the Planning
Board discussion last night.
I particular, I think that the UDO schedule should anticipate an opportunity during the 2/28/2011
joint BOCC/Planning Board meeting for public comment on the November version of the UDO
as well as any proposed changes identified from the Planning Board that were submitted to the
BOCC by that date. I really don't think that the Planning Board viewed this occasion as a "work
session "... but rather as an opportunity for public commentary. I've also included other
revisions in the prosed UDO schedule to bring the summary more closely into conformity with
my understanding of last night's discussion.
I also wanted to some observations about how to proceed with the conditional use
districts /conditional use districts discussion moving forward. As it happens, I ran into Alice
Gordon and her husband at the grocery store late this afternoon on my way home and talked
about some of these ideas.
1. I think that the use of the terms "conditional districts" and "conditional use
districts" makes things very confusing for the public. I think that "conditional districts" might
better be termed "floating zones." At the same time, in retrospect, I admit that I'm confounded
by the decision to identify only three "conditional districts" as ones involving mobile home
districts, "master planned" districts" and "public interest districts." I honestly don't recall
discussion by the Planning Board as to use of the term "conditional district" or a limited focus on
these three types of "conditional districts" (in effect floating zones). There are other traditionally
recognized "floating zones" and I think that the Planning Board should discuss (a) whether this
terminology ( "conditional districts ") is advisable or unduly confusing (I think it's confusing,
particularly in the context of referencing "conditional use districts" as well). I also don't
understand why these three types of "conditional districts" are the only ones identified and am
bemused about the categories and why they have been selected rather than others. I think that
this topic deserves considered attention on its own footing and would be happy to meet with any
of you during December to share these concerns and help shape the conversation for the PB in
January. Absent such a meeting, I plan to write about this topic to the PB and BOCC (since I'll
have to miss the 115 PB meeting).
2. As to "conditional use districts ": I think that this concept is not clear to lay people,
and that the wide - spread application of this concept to all districts is ultimately inadvisable at
this juncture. I'd suggest that the planning staff, Planning Board, and BOCC consider targeting
128
certain districts (not all districts) as suitable for the establishment of companion "conditional use
districts" parallel to general districts with a wide range of uses that would be permitted as of
right. In talked with Alice vordor, about this topic at the grocery story, I think there may be
common ground if everyone focused on the areas in which "conditional use districts" have an
obvious benefit: possibly agricultural districts (where a narrower band of uses might be suitable
and would limit wide - ranging rights of use, so as to make the narrower band of uses available
under a conditional use district conceptually desirable); likewise certain economic development
districts; likewise a certain narrow range of commercial -type districts. I think that trying to
establish the need for parallel conditional use districts for every type of existing district is a
harder case to make and is confusing to lay people who haven't worked with the details. As I
recall, I think Planning Board (or at least I) thought that it was desirable to incorporate a
conditional use district concept to respond to proposals relating to some of the "small_ area
planning" initiatives that had been articulated over the last several years. I understand that the
planning staff may think that conditional use districts are generally desirable for the purpose of
flexibility... but on the other hand, I think that introducing this concept to the BOCC and the
public would be better advanced by focusing on creating specific conditional use districts that
parallel only some (not all) of the general districts (so that people can begin to see the benefit and
the methods that such districts employ). I appreciate the planning staff's possible preference to
incorporate a conditional use district protocol across the board, but I really think we'd get further
if we focused on some specific areas in which conditional use districts are potentially most
viable and most important rather than trying to incorporate parallel conditional use districts
across the board.
3. I don't think the debate is necessarily well advanced by trying to incorporate
conditional use districts across the board. I also think that there are textual issues here (as Alice
Gordon indicated). That's one of the issues that I hope to look at closely in the coming days.
Just thought I should note these observations as early as possible to allow the planning staff to
offer their own thoughts on these points.
Best wishes -- Judith
................................................... ...............................
MOTION made by Judith Wegner to:
Number 1 that the Planning Board expresses its intent and desire and commitment to
work in detail with Conditional District and Conditional Use District by having two
meeting in January and to address stream buffer issues in a meeting early in February.
Number 2 that the Planning Board recommends that the staff meet with any of the
interested other municipalities in the County during the month of January to provide them
with information and to solicit their input.
Number 3 that the Planning Board commits itself to submit to the Board of County
Commissioners substantive recommendations by the middle of February so that the
Board of Commissioners can determine whether they would like to calendar a further
discussion of those matters for the end of February scheduled public hearing.
Number 4 that the Planning Board recommends that the planning staff hold an additional
outreach meeting by the end of January to inform the public more fully about issues,
particularly Conditional Districts and Conditional Use Districts.
129
Number 5 that the Planning Board further commits itself to develop a proposal for the
priorities among the continuing issues to be considered in part two of this process and
will advise the Board of County Conn issioners about its recommendation by mid March
on that point.
Seconded by Larry Wright
VOTE: 9 —1 (Cabe opposed)
130
http: / /www.sog.unc.edu/ organizations /planning /keyissues /spot htm
Key Legal Issues
Spot Zoning
David W. Owens, Professor, Institute of Government, The University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, CB# 3330, Knapp Building, UNC -CH, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599 -3330
May 1998
Spot zoning occurs when a relatively small tract of land is zoned differently from the
surrounding area. In North Carolina, spot zoning is not illegal in and of itself, as it is in many
states.[1] However, it must be clearly supported by a reasonable basis to be upheld.
The precise legal basis for invalidating certain spot zonings has not been explicitly set forth by
the North Carolina courts, but invalidation could be based on the state constitutional prohibitions
against the granting of exclusive privileges,[2] the creation of monopolies,[3] or the violation of
due process or equal protection of the law. [4] The admonition in the zoning enabling acts that
zoning be in accordance with a comprehensive plan is another ground for invalidation. [51
Although flexibility is granted to have relatively small zoning districts, the court is sensitive to
ensuring that there is a legitimate public interest in having a small district and will invalidate
rezonings in which one owner benefits or is relieved from zoning burdens at the expense of his
or her neighbors and the community at large.
The table below summarizes the eighteen reported North Carolina appellate decisions on spot
zoning.
Overview of Spot Zoning Cases
Case Court Date Parcel Size
(acres) Zoning Change
Invalidated
Allred Sup.Ct. 1971 9.26 To higher density residential
Blades Sup.Ct. 1972 5 To higher density residential
Stuffs Ct. App. 1976 4 To mobile home park
Lathan Ct. App. 1980 11.4 Residential to light industry
Godfrey Ct. App. 1983 17.45 Residential to heavy industry
Alderman Ct. App. 1988 14.2 Agricultural to mobile home park
Mahaffey Ct. App. 1990 0.57 Residential to commercial
Covington Ct. App. 1992 1 lot Office to conditional use business
Budd Ct. App. 1994 17.5 Residential - agricultural to special use industrial
Upheld
Walker Sup.Ct. 1960 3.5 Residential to neighborhood business
Zopfi Sup.Ct. 1968 27, 12, 20 Commercial/residential to commercial/multi - family residential
Heath Sup.Ct. 1971 15 Residential to mobile home park
Allgood Sup.Ct. 1972 25 Residential to commercial
131
Graham Ct. App. 1982 30.3 Residential to office /conservation
Nelson Ct. App. 1986 1 lot Residential to business
Chrismon Sup.Ct. 1988 5, 3 Agricultural to conditional use industrial
Dale Ct. App. 1991 4.99 Residential to highway commercial
Purser Ct. App. 1997 14.9 Residential to conditional use commercial
Definition
Rezonings that will be subjected to more intensive review as spot zoning were simply and
concisely defined in North Carolina's first case on the subject, Walker v. Town of Elkin, as
zoning "changes limited to small areas. "[6] In 1968 in Zopfi v. City of Wilmington,[7] a case
that upheld rezoning of a 60 -acre parcel into three zoning districts, the court ruled that illegal
spot zoning arose "where a small area, usually a single lot or a few lots, surrounded by other
property of similar nature, [was] placed arbitrarily in a different use zone from that to which the
surrounding property [was] made subject. "[8] Four years later in Blades v. City of Raleigh,[9] a
case that invalidated a 5 -acre rezoning, spot zoning was more completely defined thus:
A zoning ordinance, or amendment, which singles out and reclassifies a relatively small tract
owned by a single person and surrounded by a much larger area uniformly zoned, so as to
impose upon the smaller tract greater restrictions than those imposed upon the larger area, or so
as to relieve the small tract from restrictions to which the rest of the area is subjected, is called
"spot zoning. "[ 101
There are several notable aspects to this definition. First, spot zoning can be an issue with initial
zoning as well as with subsequent rezonings. Second, no specific minimum or maximum size of
area constitutes spot zoning. The size of the tract must be considered relative to the surrounding
area. A 20 -acre rezoning in a rural setting where that tract and thousands of adjacent acres have
previously been zoned the same way may be spot zoning, whereas a 1 -acre rezoning in a dense
urban setting with numerous zoning districts may not be spot zoning. In the North Carolina cases
that have resulted in invalidation of rezonings as illegal spot zoning, the size of tracts involved
has ranged from 0.57 to 17.45 acres. Third, there is an emphasis on a very limited number of
property owners being involved, "usually triggered by efforts to secure special benefits for
particular property owners, without regard for the rights of adjacent landowners. "[11] A large
number of affected parties is more likely to bring the rezoning to broader public scrutiny. Fourth,
spot zoning can be involved when the proposed new zoning requirements for the small area are
either more or less strict than those for the surrounding area. The key element is that the
proposed zoning is different from the other zoning, "thus projecting an inharmonious land use
pattern. "[ 12] In sum, the heightened scrutiny of spot zoning applies when there is the appearance
of possible discriminatory treatment (either favorable or negative) for a few, rather than a
decision based on the larger public interest.
Factors in Validity
A local government adopting a "spot" zone has an affirmative obligation to establish that there is
a reasonable public policy basis for doing so.[13] Thus the public hearing record should reflect
consideration of legitimate factors for differential zoning treatment of the property involved.
Does the property have different physical characteristics that make it especially suitable for the
proposed zoning, such as peculiar topography or unique access to roads or utilities? Are there
132
land uses on or in close proximity to the site that are different from most of the surrounding
property? Would the proposed range of newly permissible development be in harmony with the
legitimate expectations of the neighbors?
In Chrismon the court set out in detail four factors that are considered particularly important by
the courts in determining whether there is a reasonable basis for spot zoning:
At the outset, we note that a judicial determination as to the existence or nonexistence of a
sufficient reasonable basis in the context of spot zoning is, and must be, the "product of a
complex of factors." The possible "factors" are numerous and flexible, and they exist to provide
guidelines for a judicial balancing of interests. Among the factors relevant to this judicial
balancing are the size of the tract in question; the compatibility of the disputed zoning action
with an existing comprehensive zoning plan; the benefits and detriments resulting from the
zoning action for the owner of the newly zoned property, his neighbors, and the surrounding
community; and the relationship between the uses envisioned under the new zoning and the uses
currently present in adjacent tracts. Once again, the criteria are flexible, and the specific analysis
used depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.[14]
A review of North Carolina litigation illustrates the application of these factors to spot zoning
challenges of rezonings.
Size of Tract
The first factor to be considered in determining whether spot zoning is reasonable is the size of
the tract. The general rule is that the smaller the tract, the more likely the rezoning will be held
invalid. However, it is very important to consider the size of the tract in context: a 1 -acre parcel
may be considered large in an urban area developed in the 1920s, but very small in the midst of
an undeveloped rural area.
The rezoning of an individual lot from a single- family and multifamily residential district to a
business district was upheld in Nelson v. City of Burlington.[ 15] In this instance the majority of
property directly across the street was already zoned for business use, and the court concluded
that given the prevalence of business zoning in the immediate vicinity of this lot, there was
"some plausible basis" for the rezoning.[161 However, a rezoning of 17.6 acres from residential
agricultural to industrial was held to be spot zoning in Budd v. Davie County.[17] was ruled
impermissible spot zoning (the site was some four to five miles from the nearest industrial zone,
with all of the intervening property being in residential districts). A 17.45 -acre rezoning was
ruled to be impermissible spot zoning in Godfrey v. Union County Board of Commissioners.[18]
This case involved a rural tract that was zoned for single - family residential use, as was all of the
surrounding property, and the rezoning was to an industrial district. Similarly in Alderman v.
Chatham County,[19] the rezoning of a 14.2 -acre tract from a residential district to a mobile
home park, when the surrounding 500 acres were residentially zoned, was ruled to be spot
zoning.
The fact that other small areas nearby have similar zoning to that proposed in a rezoning will not
avoid a spot zoning label. The tract to be rezoned is considered in relation "to the vast majority
of the land immediately around it. "[20]
133
Compatibility with Plan
The second factor in a spot zoning analysis is compatibility with the, existing comprehensive
zoning plan. This involves an inquiry into whether the rezoning fits into a larger context
involving rational planning for the community. Whether set forth in a formal comprehensive
land -use plan or reflected in an overall zoning scheme, zoning regulations must be based on an
analysis of the suitability of the land for development (e.g., topography, soil types, wetland
locations, and flood areas), the availability of needed services (e.g., water, sewers, roads, and rail
lines), and existing and needed land uses. To the extent that a small -area rezoning fits into a
logical preexisting plan that is clearly based on this type of analysis, it is much more likely to be
upheld.
An example of a zoning scheme involving relatively small parcels that was judged acceptable
because it fit the context of the land and the surrounding uses is found in the Zopfi case. The
court upheld the rezoning of a 60 -acre triangle formed by two major highways, into three zoning
districts with decreasing density moving away from the point of the highway intersection. A
27.5 -acre parcel at the point of the intersection was zoned commercial, the next 12 acres were
zoned for multifamily residential use, and the remainder were zoned for single - family residential
use. Similarly in the Nelson case the rezoning of a lot from single- family and multifamily
residential use to business use was upheld on the basis that the majority of the property directly
across the street was already zoned for business use.
A contrast is provided by situations in which there is no discernible reason to single out a small
tract for differential zoning treatment. Several North Carolina cases illustrate this point.
In Stuffs v. Swaim[2I ] the town of Randleman had in 1967 zoned virtually all of its entire half -
mile extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction (some 500 acres) for one- and two - family residences. An
attempt in 1968 to rezone a 4 -acre tract to a mobile -home zoning district, when there were no
special characteristics present on that site, was ruled invalid spot zoning.
A similar situation was presented in Lathan v. Union County Board of Commissioners. [22] In
this 1980 case an 11.4 -acre rezoning from residential to industrial use was ruled to be invalid
spot zoning. A sawmill on the site was being operated as a nonconforming use, and the rezoning
was necessary to accommodate the facility's expansion. The site had no access to major
highways, rail lines, or public utilities, and the planning director concluded that industrial
development would be incompatible with the surrounding residential community. Nevertheless
the planning board recommended that the tract be rezoned as requested.[23] The Union County
commissioners agreed with the planning board's recommendation and adopted the rezoning. The
adjacent landowner then sued and won in court. The court of appeals ruled that no special
features on the tract made it any more suitable for industrial use than the surrounding property
was. The rezoning was invalid spot zoning because there was no clear showing of a reasonable
basis for the rezoning.
In Godfrey v. Union County Board of Commissioners, [241 another Union County rezoning was
successfully challenged on similar grounds. The comprehensive plan designated the area as a
low - density residential district, and the nearest industrial uses were approximately a half mile
away. The owner sought rezoning to heavy industrial use because he wanted to relocate a grain-
134
bin operation to the site. The planning director recommended approval of the rezoning from
residential to industrial use based on the site's accessibility to a major highway, a railroad, and
public water. The planning board approved the recommendation, and it was narrowly adopted by
the county commissioners. The court invalidated the rezoning, finding that the "whole intent and
purpose ... was to accommodate his plans to relocate his grain bins, not to promote the most
appropriate use of the land throughout the community. "[25] The court acknowledged the
availability of some services that would make this tract suitable for industrial development, but
concluded that the same was true of the surrounding property and because this tract was
"essentially similar," there was no reasonable basis for zoning it differently.
Mahaffey v. Forsyth County[26] illustrates the growing importance of a formal comprehensive
plan and the recornmendatiors of the planning board in spot zoning analysis. In this 1990 case a
0.57 -acre tract was rezoned from a residential and highway- business district to a general-
business district (both the prior highway- business district and the new general - business district
were special use districts). The comprehensive plan designated the area as "predominantly rural
with some subdivisions adjacent to farms." The planning staff and the planning board
recommended against the rezoning, but it was adopted by the board of commissioners. In ruling
the action to be illegal spot zoning, the court pointedly noted, "[T]he County Planning Board and
Planning Board Staff, made up of professionals who are entrusted with the development of and
adherence to the comprehensive plan, recommended denial of the petition." [27]
A similar result was reached in Covington v. Town of Apex,[28] in which the rezoning of a
single lot from office and institutional use to conditional -use business was held to be
impermissible spot zoning. The court concluded that the rezoning contradicted the town's
policies on location of industrial uses, as set forth in the comprehensive plan. The court also
found minimal benefit to the public and substantial detriment to neighbors.
In Budd v. Davie County[29] the rezoning of a fourteen -acre site along the Yadkin River, along
with a half -mile long, sixty feet wide accessway, from residential - agricultural to industrial to
accommodate a sand mining operation was invalidated in part because it directly contradicted the
previously adopted policies for the area. The zoning ordinance's stated intent for the Rural -
Agricultural District was to maintain a "rural development pattern" with an aim "clearly to
exclude commercial and industrial uses. "[30] Based on such considerations, the planning board
twice recommended denial of the rezoning petition. The court held the rezoning was in direct
contravention of the stated purpose of the comprehensive zoning scheme and this factored into
invalidation of the rezoning. [3 1 ]
On the other hand, consistency with a comprehensive plan can justify differential zoning for a
small tract. In Graham v. City of Raleigh, [32] a 1981 case, the rezoning of a 19.3 -acre tract from
a residential to an office district was upheld in part based on the need to rezone the property in
accordance with the nodal concept of development of Raleigh's comprehensive plan.[33]
It should be noted that formal amendment of an inconsistent comprehensive plan is not
necessarily required to avoid a finding of illegal spot zoning, though a reasonable basis for the
deviation must be established. In Purser v. Mecklenburg County[34] the court upheld a rezoning
of a 14.9 acre tract from residential to a business conditional use district to allow construction of
135
a neighborhood convenience center. The county's small area plan for the site indicated a nearby,
but different site, was suitable for such a center. However, testimony at the public hearing
indicated the suitability of the other site was dependent upon construction of as yet un -built roads
and that shifting a center to the site in question would be consistent with the policies in the
county's general development plan.
Benefits and Detriments
The third factor in spot zoning analysis is who benefits and who is harmed by the rezoning and
what the relative magnitude of each consequence is. If the rezoning is granted, will it greatly
benefit the owner? Will he or she be seriously harmed if it is denied? The same questions must
be asked for the neighbors and the community at large, and then the effects on all three must be
balanced. In a spot zoning challenge the courts, rather than the governing board alone, review
and weigh the balance of harm and benefit created by the rezoning.
Although the court may be sympathetic to a situation in which there is considerable benefit to the
owner and only modest harm to others, even a substantial benefit for the owner will not offset
substantial harm to others. An example is found in the rezoning ruled invalid in Blades. This case
involved rezoning a 5 -acre tract in the midst of a large single- family zoning district to a
multifamily district in order to allow twenty townhouses to be built. The court found that no
reason was offered to treat this property differently and that considerable harm to the character of
the existing neighborhood might result. [35]
The Chrismon case illustrates the other side of this analysis. The court noted:
[W]hile spot zoning which creates a great benefit for the owner of the rezoned property with only
an accompanying detriment and no accompanying benefit to the community or to the public
interest may well be illegal, spot zoning which provides a service needed in the community in
addition to benefiting the landowner may be proper. [361
In Chrismon the rezoning of a 3 -acre and a 5 -acre tract from an agricultural district to a
conditional -use industrial district in order to allow an agricultural chemical use was upheld. The
court weighed the benefit to the owner, the harm to the immediately adjacent neighbor, the broad
community support for the rezoning, and the need for these services within the surrounding
agricultural community, and concluded that there were "quite substantial benefits created for the
surrounding community by the rezoning. "[37]
The benefits to the community must, however, be real and substantial, not merely convenient.
For example, in the Mahaffey case it was argued that rezoning a 0.57 -acre tract to allow
establishment of an auto parts store would be beneficial to a rural community in which virtually
everyone depended on automobiles. The court rejected this argument, noting, "[A]uto parts are a
common and easily obtainable product and, if such a retail establishment were said to be
'beneficial to a rural community,' then virtually any type of business could be similarly
classified." [3 8] Likewise, in Budd the court ruled generalized benefits from increased business
activity related to operation of a sand mine did not offset harm to neighbors that would have
been generated by substantial heavy truck traffic in a rural residential area.[39]
136
Relationship of Uses
The fourth factor in spot zoning analysis is the relationship between the proposed uses and the
current uses of adjacent properties. The greater the disparity, the more likely the rezoning is to be
held illegal.
This was a consideration in the court's invalidating the rezonings in the Lathan, Godfrey, and
Budd cases, even though all three situations involved relatively large acreage (11.4 acres, 17.45
acres, and 17.6 acres respectively). In these cases the rezoning was from low density residential
to industrial use. Given the magnitude of this change, the court looked closely for a supporting
rationale and found none. [40] Likewise in the Allred and Blades cases, proposals to locate high -
density multifamily projects in single- family residential neighborhoods were invalidated.
On the other hand, in the Chrismon case there was only a modest change in the allowed uses: the
landowner could carry on the storage and the sale of grain under the original zoning; the
rezoning allowed the storage and the sale of agricultural chemicals. Further, the site was in the
midst of an agricultural area that needed such services. Thus the court could conclude:
... [T]his is simply not a situation ... in which a radically different land use, by virtue of a
zoning action, appears in the midst of a uniform and drastically distinct area. No parcel has been
"wrenched" out of the Guilford County landscape and rezoned in a manner that "disturbs the
tenor of the neighborhood. "... In our view, the use of the newly rezoned tracts ... is simply not
the sort of drastic change from possible surrounding uses which constitutes illegal spot
zoning. [41 ]
Another factor is that limitations on the proposed uses included within the zoning approval can
be an important factor in minimizing adverse impacts on neighboring properties. For example, a
conditional use district rezoning to allow a neighborhood convenience center was upheld in
Purser in part because "the development of the Center was governed by a conditional use site
plan that was designed to integrate the Center into the neighborhood and insure that it would be
in harmony with the existing and proposed residential uses on the surrounding property. "[42]
A change in the conditions is not required to justify a rezoning in North Carolina, but it can be an
important factor in establishing that a proposed new zoning classification is compatible with
surrounding land uses. For example, in Allgood v. Town of Tarboro,[43] a rezoning of a 25 -acre
tract from residential to commercial use was upheld in part on the basis that in the eight years
between the initial adoption of zoning and the challenged rezoning, the surrounding area had
substantially changed because of the expansion of an adjoining road, the extension of water and
sewer lines, the construction of a school and an apartment complex nearby, and the annexation of
the site by the city.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For an overview of national spot zoning cases, see 1 KENNETH H. YOUNG, ANDERSON'S
AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING §§ 5.12 to 5.22 (4th ed. 1996); 3 EDWARD H. ZIEGLER, JR.,
RATHKOPF'S THE LAW OF ZONING AND PLANNING §§ 28.01 to 28.05 (4th ed. 1998).
2. N.C. CONST. art. I, § 32.
137
3. N.C. CONST. art. I, § 34.
4. N.C. CONST. art. I, § 19. The "law of the land" provision of section 19 is the equivalent of
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See Chapter 8 for
a discussion of constitutional issues.
5. G.S. 153A -341, 160A -383.
6.254 N.C. 85, 89, 118 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1961).
7. 273 N.C. 430, 160 S.E.2d 235 (1968).
8. Id. at 437, 160 S.E.2d at 332.
9. 280 N.C. 531, 187 S.E.2d 35 (1972).
10. Id. at 549, 187 S.E.2d at 45.
11.2 E. C. YOKLEY, ZONING LAW AND PRACTICE § 13 -3 at 207 (4th ed. 1978), quoted
with approval in Chrismon v. Guilford County, 322 N.C. 611, 626, 370 S.E.2d 579, 588 (1988).
12. Id. See also Dale v. Town of Columbus, 101 N.C. App. 335, 399 S.E.2d 350 (1991).
13. Professor Phil Green summarized this point as follows: "I would like to suggest that at root
'spot zoning' is nothing but giving special treatment to one or a few property owners, without
adequate justification.... If there is a reasonable basis for treating particular property differently
from nearby or similar property, that should be enough to support the validity of the zoning."
Philip P. Green, JR., Questions I'm Most Often Asked: What Is "Spot Zoning " ?, 51 POPULAR
GOVT 50, 50 (Summer 1985).
14. 322 N.C. at 628, 370 S.E.2d at 589 (citations omitted).
15. 80 N.C. App. 285, 341 S.E.2d 739 (1986).
16. Id. at 288, 341 S.E.2d at 741.
17. 116 N.C. App. 168, 447 S.E.2d 438 (1994), rev. denied, 338 N.C. 524, 453 S.E.2d 179
(1995).
18. 61 N.C. App. 100, 300 S.E.2d 273 (1983). Cf. Rose v. Guilford County, 60 N.C. App. 170,
298 S.E.2d 200 (1982), in which the court held that summary judgment was inappropriate when
the rezoning of a 100 -acre tract from an agricultural to a residential district that allowed mobile
homes was challenged as arbitrary and capricious on spot and contract zoning grounds.
138
19. 89 N.C. App. 610, 366 S.E.2d 885, rev. denied, 323 N.C. 171, 373 S.E.2d 103 (1988). The
fact that an adjacent 16 -acre tract owned by the same person had been rezoned to a mobile home
park some eleven years earlier did not change the court's conclusion that this was spot zoning.
20. Mahaffey v. Forsyth County, 99 N.C. App. 676, 682, 394 S.E.2d 203 (1990), rev. denied,
327 N.C. 636, 399 S.E.2d 327 (1991). But see Orange County v. Heath, 278 N.C. 688, 180
S.E.2d 810 (1971), in which the court held that rezoning a 15 -acre tract from a residential district
to a mobile home park was not spot zoning because it adjoined a 5 -acre tract already in legal use
as a mobile home park.
21. 30 N.C. App. 611, 228 S.E.2d 750, rev. denied, 291 N.C. 178, 229 S.E.2d 692 (1976). There
were two preexisting mobile home parks in the extraterritorial zoning area, both of which were
zoned for mobile home use. One was three- fourths of a mile from this tract, the other two -and-
one -half miles. The litigation was initiated some five- and -a -half years after the contested
rezoning. The court applied a traditional laches analysis and allowed the litigation. G.S. 160A-
364.1, which establishes a nine -month statute of limitations f6r challenging rezonings, was
subsequently adopted.
22.47 N.C. App. 357, 267 S.E.2d 30, rev. denied, 301 N.C. 92, 273 S.E.2d 298 (1980). 23. The
planning board's reasons for a favorable recommendation were "(1) Because of how long it has
been there. (2) You can't tell a man that he can't grow and will have to go up U.S. 74 to expand.
(3) How long they have had the land." Id. at 359, 267 S.E.2d at 32.
24. 61 N.C. App. 100, 300 S.E.2d 273 (1983).
25. Id. at 104, 300 S.E.2d at 275. The court concluded that the rezoning constituted improper
contract zoning as well as improper spot zoning.
26. 99 N.C. App. 676, 394 S.E.2d 203 (1990), rev. denied, 327 N.C. 636, 399 S.E.2d 327 (1991).
27. Id. at 683, 394 S.E.2d at 207.
28. 108 N.C. App. 231, 423 S.E.2d 537 (1992).
29. 116 N.C. App. 168,447 S.E.2d 438 (1994), rev. denied, 338 N.C. 524, 453 S.E.2d 179
(1995).
30. Id. at 175.
31. However, the governing board's attempted rezoning would have made this policy, which
applied to all land zoned R -A, inapplicable to this site. An argument can be made then that the
rezoning is not inconsistent with the policies in the zoning ordinance. This re- emphasizes the
importance of being able to point to a comprehensive plan or other planning studies, reports, and
policies extrinsic to the zoning ordinance itself.
32. 55 N.C. App. 107, 284 S.E.2d 742 (1981), rev. denied, 305 N.C. 299, 290 S.E.2d 702 (1982).
139
33. The character of the surrounding neighborhood was also a factor in Finch v. City of Durham,
325 N.C. 352, 384 S.E.2d 8 (1989), though the spot zoning issue was not explicitly addressed in
this taking challenge. The rezoning from commercial to residential use, which was upheld in a
taking challenge, was supported by policies of protecting an adjacent residential neighborhood
and limiting commercial development to the opposite side of the adjacent interstate highway.
34. 127 N.C. App. 63, 488 S.E.2d 277 (1997).
35. See also Covington v. Town of Apex, 108 N.C. App. 231, 423 S.E.2d 537 (1992), rev.
denied, 333 N.C. 462 (1993) (invalidating rezoning of former post office site adjacent to a
residential neighborhood to an industrial district to accommodate an electronic assembly
operation).
36. 322 N.C. 611, 629, 370 S.E.2d 579, 590 (1988).
37. Id. at 633, 370 S.E.2d at 592.
38. 99 N.C. App. 676, 683, 394 S.E.2d 203, 208, rev. denied, 327 N.C. 636, 399 S.E.2d 327
(1991).
39. 116 N.C. App. 168, 175 -77, 447 S.E.2d 438, _ (1994), rev. denied, 338 N.C. 524, 453
S.E.2d 179 (1995).
40. See also Mahaffey v. Forsyth County, 99 N.C. App. 685, 394 S.E.2d 203 (1990), rev. denied,
327 N.C. 636, 399 S.E.2d 327 (1991) (holding that auto parts store allowed by rezoning was
significantly different from existing surrounding use as rural residential neighborhood).
41. 322 N.C. at 632, 370 S.E.2d at 591 -592.
42. 127 N.C. App. 63, 70 -71, 488 S.E.2d 277, 282 (1997).
43. 281 N.C. 430,189 S.E.2d 255 (1972).
140
Proposed UDO Review /Approval Schedule
(in accordance with Planning Board approved motion of December 1, 2010)
Nov 22"
BOCC /PB Joint Quarterly Public Hearing
Remains open for new timetable to be set on December 14, 2010.
Dec 1 st
Planning Board (PB) meeting - process /timetable recommendation was
made.
Dec 14th
BOCC meeting to receive PB recommendation on revised UDO
process /timetable and set new date for closure of public hearing —
suggested new date is March 15.
Dec 15
Manager sends out letter to municipalities with UDO info and asks what
form of UDO presentation is necessary and what dates are su_ggested.
Jan (Month of)
If requested by municipality, Planning Staff to present UDO to municipalities
(up to 4). NOTE: UDO does not apply to municipalities or their ETJ.
Jan 5th
PB meeting — PB to review Conditional Use District and Conditional Zoning
Districts (arrange for conference call participation
Jan 19th
Special PB meeting — PB to continue and complete review of Conditional
Use District and Conditional Zoning Districts
Jan 27th
Public Outreach Meeting
(persons who e- mailed comments will be contacted via e-mail to be notified
of meeting, a press release will be written, and the UDO website will contain
meeting information) ; Planning staff to consider other supplemental
strategies (publications, etc.) for advising public about UDO
Feb 2 nd by
Deadline for any written comments from the -paw municipalities,
5:00 p.m.
advisory boards (other than Planning Board), or other source. Invite
public comments at continuation of public hearing on 2/28/2011 ??
Feb 2"
PB meeting - PB to review stream buffers and make recommendation to
BOCC regarding entire UDO adoption.
Feb 15
BOCC meeting - PB recommendation reported to BOCC. BOCC to
determine +fa BOCC WGFk session Is needed on FebFuaFy-W
how February 28 public hearing should be advertised and structured
to invite further public comment on UDO draft (11/2010 version and
any proposed revisions).
Feb 28
needed. Continuation of November Public Hearing to receive
comments from the public on the November UDO draft and to share
possible further revisions as recommended by Planning Board by 2/15
Mar 2 nd
PB meeting — approval of February PB meeting minutes (necessary to send
to BOCC); recommendations about next steps based on public
hearing; recommendations regarding phase 2 of UDO process
March 15
BOCC meeting — BOCC receives PB recommendation, regarding phase 2
priorities, closes public hearing, and considers adoption of ewe UDO
based on recommendation from Planning Board's 3/2 meeting
141
NOTE: The Planning Board's approved motion at its December 1 meeting included
developing a proposal for the priorities among the issues to be considered for Phase II
of the LIDO project and advising the BOCC of its recommendation by mid- March. This
item is anticipated for either a special Planning Board meeting in February or for the
March 2 regular meeting. It is not specifically included in the schedule above as it does
not directly affect the schedule for Phase I of the UDO.
142
Comments from Commissioner Alice Gordon distributed at BOCC /PB public hearing
11/22/2010
CONSIDERATION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
A. CONDITIONAL DISTRICTS
Conditional Districts (floating zoning districts) can have a significant effect on
development in Orange County. Therefore it is important that citizens are not only
aware that this new type of zoning district is being proposed, but that they also have
time to understand the implications of the two new conditional districts.
1. Conditional Use District (CUD). Except for Certain exclusions, it appears that for a
Conditional Use District, any use permitted in the Table of Permitted Uses can
potentially go almost anywhere in Orange County's planning jurisdiction. Whether that
is true or not needs to clarified, and the ambiguity eliminated. If it is true, here is a list of
some of the uses that could be permitted almost anywhere:
Banks & financial institutions; kennels; laundry & dry cleaning services; massage
(business); night clubs, bars, pubs; offices & personal services; restaurants; retail;
storage or warehousing; assembly & packaging operations; animal hospitals,
veterinarians; health services (under 10,000 square feet); rehabilitative care facility;
rooming house; motor vehicle sales & rental; motor vehicle services stations; parking as
a principal use (surface or structure); assembly facility (i.e. place for people to meet ?);
research lands and installations; special events.
2. Conditional Zoning Districts (CZDs). It appears that these floating zoning districts
can be placed in any of the general zoning districts, as long as the regulations
associated with each specific district are followed. Also, in contrast to the current
zoning ordinance (for Planned Developments), no Special Use Permit (SUP) is required
for CZDs. Thus the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has more discretion over
whether to approve a rezoning request for a CZD than it would in approving a SUP
which requires making a quasi-judicial decision that must be based on competent,
substantial evidence presented at a public hearing.
B. UDO CHANGES
There have been many changes between the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
discussed earlier this fall and the final document brought to the November 22 Quarterly
Public Hearing. In addition, this document was not available to the public until less than
two weeks before the hearing. Furthermore, the Chapel Hill Town Council and Carrboro
Board of Aldermen need a chance to review the UDO to ascertain how it applies to the
areas covered by the Joint Planning Agreement.
C. ADDITIONAL TIME FOR REVIEW
Because of the proposed addition of floating zoning districts (Conditional Districts)
which is a significant change to Orange County's current zoning ordinance, and the
number of changes that were incorporated into the extremely large UDO document
143
brought to this public hearing, the Commissioners should allow more time for the public,
the towns, the Planning Board, and the BOCC itself to assess how the changes will
impact all of us. AMG 11/2212010
144
(distributed by Commissioner Alice Gordon at 11/22/2010 BOCC /PB Hearing)
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - KEY ARTICLES AND SECTIONS
The Planning Board should review all articles in the UDO, and then vote on whether or
not they recommend approval.
I. KEY ARTICLES
The following articies should be reviewed with special care.
Articles 2; 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and related definitions in Article 10.
II. KEY SECTIONS
In addition, there are some key sections to be reviewed. They include, but are not
necessarily limited to, the following sections.
A. CONDITIONAL DISTRICTS
Here are the sections (that I have identified so far) that cover Conditional Districts.
There are also definitions in Article 10.
Conditional Districts, Sec 2.9, pp. 2 -38 through 2 -46
Conditional Districts, Sec. 3.7, pp. 3 -62 through 3 -72
Conditional Uses, Sec. 5.1.4, pp. 5 -3 through 5 -5
Table of Permitted Uses, Sec. 5.2, beginning on p. 5 -6
Additional Standards for MPD -CZD, Sec. 6.7. pp. 6 -54 through 6 -63
B. RURAL BUFFER AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT
Here are the sections (that I have identified so far) that are related to the Rural Buffer
and Joint Planning Agreement. Also related are the sections listed above for
Conditional Districts.
Applications for Amendment - Joint Planning Area - Sec. 2.8.4 - pp.
2 -35 and 2 -36
Residential Districts, Rural Buffer, pp. 3 -2 and 3 -3
Conditional Uses, Sec. 5.1.4, pp. 5 -3 through 5 -5
145
Table of Permitted Uses, Sec. 5.2, beginning on p. 5 -6
Additional Standards for MPD -CZD, Sec. 6.7. pp_ 6 -54 through 6 -63
Cluster Developments, Application Criteria for the Rural Buffer Zoning
District, Sec. 7.12, pp. 7 -48 and 7 -49
C. OTHER COMMENTS
Here are other sections that need review. Note that there is some overlap with sections
described above.
Review all sections shown in green type. Also, all sections that are new, and not simply
related to consolidation of the county's ordinances, should be reviewed.
Review all sections and definitions related to Site Plan, Site Specific Development Plan,
and Plot Plan. (For example, look at Sec. 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, pp. 2 -10 through 2 -12).
Also note that there is no definition of "Plot Plan" in Article 10.
Review the changes related to Special Use Permits. For example, look at Sec. 2.7,
starting on p. 2 -24.
Review the requirements for public hearings. For example, Sec. 2.8.6, p. 3 -36 deletes
the dates for the quarterly public hearings (February, May, August, November). These
dates were specified so the public would be able to keep track of when these important
hearings were to be held.
Clarify where "institutional uses" and "professional services" can be found in the Table
of Permitted Uses. It appears that there are no categories (e.g. "commercial uses ")
corresponding to these uses.
Review the significance of the requirements and changes related to "wastewater
treatment facility." For example, see page 3 -3, bullet 6. Also note that in this bullet
"Conditional Use (CU) District" is not in red type, even though these words are new.
Review the significance of the requirements related to "minimum usable area for lots
that utilize ground absorption wastewater systems." For example, see page 3 -7, bullet
5.
There are surely other sections that need further review, but these are the ones I have
identified so far.
AMG 11/22/2010
146
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 12, 2007
Action Agenda
Item No. + -*I i
SUBJECT: Agricultural Support Enterprises (ASE)
DEPARTMENT: Economic Development PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
Planning & Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Matrix
2) Schedule
3) Draft Rural Buffer Memo
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tina Moon, 210 -2595
Noah Ranells, 245 -2330
Michael Harvey, 245 -2607
PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is to: 1) respond to questions and comments from the May
21, 2007 Joint BOCC /Planning Board Work Session on the Agricultural Support Enterprises
project, 2) request the Board's endorsement of those concepts, or elements, which staff believe
are key to the success of the project, and 3) receive authorization to complete the project in
accordance with the schedule provided as Attachment 2.
BACKGROUND: At the May 2007 Joint BOCC /Planning Board Work Session, staff presented
the Board with an update of an on -going project (currently called Agricultural Support
Enterprises) to provide more business opportunities for local farmers and requested the Board's
endorsement of three underlining concepts. At previous meetings on this topic, staff presented
the Board with colored "matrices" and "color progression charts" showing how new agricultural
uses could fit within the framework of the County's existing land uses. These materials were
intended to provide the -Board with illustrative examples, a general sense of the types of uses
that staff hoped to add to the ordinance, and the type of permitting process that staff believed
would be appropriate for each use.
Staff shared the most recent matrix with the Board during a February 28, 2005 Work Session, at
which time the project was referred to as "Rural Enterprises." While there were specific
comments regarding the matrix, the focus of questions at that meeting shifted to broader issues.
What were the economic ramifications of-these uses? How would staff enforce them? How
could these uses compatibly occur within suburbanizing areas? Could rural enterprises dovetail
with a TDR program? Staff noted changes that Board members requested for specific entries
within the matrix, particularly the request to divide the intensive uses into two categories (shown
in italics). This change would allow the Board ample opportunity to review and consider
applications for the most intensive uses. Staff presented updates on the project to the Board on
May 23, 2005 and May 22, 2006.
147
2
Staff also presented a detailed summary of the Agricultural Support Enterprises proposal in July
of 2006 to give new members of the Planning Board a history of the initiative and additional time
for questions. Staff referenced the two -tier intensity level at the July meeting.
At the May 2007 meeting, staff recommended the creation of a new Agricultural Support
Enterprises Manual to make the program more user - friendly. Staff hopes to begin meeting with
local farm agency boards (Soil and Water Conservation District, Agricultural Preservation Board,
and others) during the summer to ask for input on the contents and format of the Manual. Staff
found farmer and farm agency staff input invaluable during the initial stages of the project and
would like to offer them the opportunity to provide meaningful input into this important project. A
version of the use matrix would be included in the proposed Manual, so there will be additional
opportunities for the Board to review and discuss specifics, should the need arise,* during the
final approval process for the initiative. This approach would allow the Board to consider staffs
original material along with comments from the farming community, Planning Board and
Economic Development Commission.
This initiative remains an important part of the County's effort to preserve farmland and farming
as a viable economic pursuit. The economic development aspect of farming has become so
important to the survival of local farms that the county has hired an Agricultural Economic
Development Coordinator and has included the farm economy as a critical component of the
Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this discussion.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board authorize the key
elements of the Agricultural Support Enterprises proposal in accordance with the schedule
provided as Attachment 2:
1) Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow conditional district zoning and develop minor
revisions to the Land Use Element, only where required to establish support and /or
consistency;
2) Prepare clear performance standards; and
3) Create the ASE Manual.
By approving this recommendation, the BOCC is NOT approving specific uses that may
have been provided for the purposes of discussion.
RAFT 2 -loos
C proP posed Land Use Schedule for aural Enter rises
Changes to SenriceslProcessing & p
Industrial Uses, based on intensity (Matrix)
1 This column identifies zoning uses as existina—uses that are currently listed in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as permitted and have not changed; revised —uses that are
currently listed in the Zoning Ordinance but have been modified in some way as part of this project and; proposed —uses that were not previously included in the zoning ordinance
and therefore not allowed, but are recommended as suitable new uses as part of this effort.
2 This column speaks to some of the criteria that will likely be linked to a particular land use. It does not replace the speck and detailed performance standards that will be included
in any ordinance amendments to clarify what may or may not be permitted. In addition, watershed regulations limit/prohibit commercial uses in some protective watersheds.
3 The matrix lists new types of enterprises that would be allowed in the rural parts of the county as part of this proposal. The revised Permitted Use Table (Section 4.3 in the Zoning
Ordinance) shows how the new Rural Enterprises would be integrated into the existing use table and includes all zoning uses in all zoning districts.
4 One of the key components in this proposal is to revise the existing.Agricultural Services floating zoning district to allow for a conditional district rezoning process. Using
conditional district rezoning, the BOCC would be able to review applications to rezone rural property for a specific use in accordance with specific standards and conditions to the
project proposed.
5 The bona fide farm section (uses 1 -11) is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all bona fide farms, but rather an illustrative list of the types of farms that are currently in operation
in Orange County. As local farming activities continue to evolve to stay viable, planning staff will work with farm agency staff to determine what new uses constitute a "bona fide"
farm. Staff can provide the BOCC with periodic reports outlining changing trends in our local farm economy and /or requests for new bona fide farm uses that are either particularly
innovative or simply unanticipated.
j
00
Zonin g
Special
Zonin
Distri
Farm Intensity
Permitting
Land Use
Use
Standards2
Rural Activity
Nodal
New or
process
I
Status
Other requirements such as Building
Residential
Commercial
Revised
Code and Health permits may apply.
or Industrial
District a
4
1
A uaculture
2
Aviary
Community Supported
3
Exempt
*�
Agriculture CSA
LU
4
Forestry
u}�
.W.t
5
Greenhouse
s+
No Process
a
.
6
aM
�Bo fide
Horticulture
C3
fJ.
J
�
7
Horse Farming
{,=
�• ki
8' (Per North
—'
CL
—i
a
�
a
w
}
O
k r' Carolina State
�8
rE
8
Organic Farming
.
�[
IL
Q
� HIM t,+ Statutes
Exemption for
Traditional Farming
(row crops, dairy, beef cattle,
Z
O
Z
O
Counties)
9
goats, sheep, hay,
Z
Z
ricultural research etc.
10
Vineyard
Other, as identified by local
farm a en personnel5,
1 This column identifies zoning uses as existina—uses that are currently listed in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as permitted and have not changed; revised —uses that are
currently listed in the Zoning Ordinance but have been modified in some way as part of this project and; proposed —uses that were not previously included in the zoning ordinance
and therefore not allowed, but are recommended as suitable new uses as part of this effort.
2 This column speaks to some of the criteria that will likely be linked to a particular land use. It does not replace the speck and detailed performance standards that will be included
in any ordinance amendments to clarify what may or may not be permitted. In addition, watershed regulations limit/prohibit commercial uses in some protective watersheds.
3 The matrix lists new types of enterprises that would be allowed in the rural parts of the county as part of this proposal. The revised Permitted Use Table (Section 4.3 in the Zoning
Ordinance) shows how the new Rural Enterprises would be integrated into the existing use table and includes all zoning uses in all zoning districts.
4 One of the key components in this proposal is to revise the existing.Agricultural Services floating zoning district to allow for a conditional district rezoning process. Using
conditional district rezoning, the BOCC would be able to review applications to rezone rural property for a specific use in accordance with specific standards and conditions to the
project proposed.
5 The bona fide farm section (uses 1 -11) is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all bona fide farms, but rather an illustrative list of the types of farms that are currently in operation
in Orange County. As local farming activities continue to evolve to stay viable, planning staff will work with farm agency staff to determine what new uses constitute a "bona fide"
farm. Staff can provide the BOCC with periodic reports outlining changing trends in our local farm economy and /or requests for new bona fide farm uses that are either particularly
innovative or simply unanticipated.
j
00
DRAFT 2 -2005 Proposed Land Use Schedule for Rural Enterprises
Changes to Services/Pmcessing & P
Industrial Uses, based on intensity (Mats ix)
Zoning District
Permitting
Zoning
Special
Rural Activity
New or
Farm Intensity
process
Land Use
Use
Standards
Residential
Node/
Revised
Status
Commercial
District
or Industrial
12
Farm Employee Housing.
None
Farm Building Rental —Horse
s { 4
13
Boarding Stable.
None
{ �;
`� =r'�'
Operation must support the
, du
i I5 C ' 1�A 1t i
agricultural use. May process
incidental off -site timber as
i.r�a ( f.I
14
Saw Mill
accessory and supplemental
iy S 15 4 I.}
d.
txt.
income.
�' ` s
See also Use 54 for saw mill, not
incon 'coon with farm.
■ Must be linked to specific farm.
■Retail sales must be related to
Direct Marketing:
the farm operation. Any retail
f �7' a �i y
■ On -site retail sales of raw
sales of products not produced
4'ACtlYlties
I r rw, u �. Verify bona
roducts rown or raised on
P 9
ap
on the farm must be incidental
i, .,
relating of „ ` fide farm
15
farm (fruits, vegetables,
v
y Operation may be located on
f�incidentaC toy status &
herbs, nursery &
rural commercial property
prepare file . a
g reenhouse crops, etc.
■ Individual Farm Stand.
IL
owned b farmer.
■ Adequate is
�
W
LU
Z
information
Q
off -road parking
a�Bonatde
"I �� for records
encouraged to prevent
O
otential hazards.
; 2
Z
Adequate off -road parking is
16
Pick - Your -Own.
encouraged to prevent potential
,SZ k
hazards.
tr sGti
ti ��'`,1'Y; ` `{
■ Operation must be linked to
h =
specific farm.
{ j'
■ Retail sales of products grown 1
Small -Scale Processing of
raised, produced, processed,
`�,,, -,.,
17
products grown or raised on
or manufactured on the farm
,
r k� N
the farm.
may be allowed as accessory.
�.�uv�, �'}
■ Operation may be located on
rural commercial property
I owned by farmer.
n.
Seasonal Agricultural
Adequate off -road parking is
18
Tourism (Com Mazes, Hay
encouraged to prevent potential
Rides,
hazards.
DRAFT 2 -2005 Proposed Land Use P rises Schedule for Rural Enterprises
Changes to Services/Processing & P
Industrial Uses, based on intensity (Matrix)
s Landowners may apply to have property rezoned to Agricultural Services (AS) using a conventional rezoning process whereby all of the AS uses would be permitted subject to site
plan approval. Landowners may also apply to have property rezoned to one of the AS uses through a conditional district rezoning process, in which case the new district would be
labeled Agricultural Services - Conditional District -the speck rural enterprise use, such as AS- CD -RE2.
cn
0
01
Zoning
District
Farm Intensity
Permitting
Land Use
Use Zoning
Special
Rural Activ'
RurNode/
New or
Process
Status
Standards
Residential
.
Revised
Commercial
or Industrial.
District
;_ FV�Yz''' a rya'
■ This use is not an "ag -use" but
" ^ya , �: `4`,ti
rather an existing land use that
ti
farmers may wish to consider
�f
t'
g" .z
as an income producing option
'�;cGi
:t$�ir
Bed & Breakfast (3 or less
19
Existing
for their farm.
AR, R1, RB
11 N 9% �y4F'
guest rooms)
■ Applicants follow the standard
site plan review process. Site
TO
plan does not have to be
SJ J!, rL,l t i
professionally prepared for thi3
use.
I
Fr },�Str7'4�tty,�2 Yii
p V N fi
Must have adequate off -road
parking.
' h�' `
■ Must be linked to, and located
az et, r gars ''4
IV
,p
on, or adjacent to the bona fide
Srnall Scale
Modified
farm of one of participants, or
fiR ral
'0" '5M
Site Plan
Cooperative Farm Stand (2-4
commercial property owned or
1/� @I1lJreSa
3 s, is t is r nr
20
farmers) w/ link to specific
leased by one of the
LC1, NC2,
AS,
z pct s „$
farm
Proposed
participating farmers.
AR, R1, RB
El, EC5
AS -CD6
-
,Y � �''� rrF,�„
[RE 2]
■ Retail sales of products not
produced on the farm must be
�u
incidental and related to and a
AF
subordinate component of all
participating farm operations in
� � � �
l
.
scale and profit
r,5�h�
■ Ma y beopen ear - round.
Cooperative. or Teaching
Farms (with communal
hh
facilities such -as joint
■ Must be linked to bona fide
AS,
21
kitchens and /or classroom
Proposed
farm.
AR, R1, RB
El, EC5
AS -CD
space)
J'
s Landowners may apply to have property rezoned to Agricultural Services (AS) using a conventional rezoning process whereby all of the AS uses would be permitted subject to site
plan approval. Landowners may also apply to have property rezoned to one of the AS uses through a conditional district rezoning process, in which case the new district would be
labeled Agricultural Services - Conditional District -the speck rural enterprise use, such as AS- CD -RE2.
cn
0
01
DRAFT 2 -2005 proposed Land Use Schedule for Rural Enterprises
Changes to Services/Processing &
Indusbfal Uses, based on intensity (Matri
DRAFT 2 -2005
Changes to Services/Processing &
Industrial Uses, based on intensity
CA
Proposed Land Use Schedule for Rural Enterprises 5 N
(Matrix)
' Existing retail or agricultural service facilities may sell locally grown products such.as flowers and vegetables as an accessory use. Such products may be sold inside or at a
separate stand or display area outside, so long as there is sufficient area for the structure(s) and any supplemental parking as needed to accommodate additional traffic.
Zoning District
Zoning 9
Special
Rural i�
Farm Intensity
process
Land Use
Use
ode�
New or
Status
Standards
Residential
Commercial
Revised
District
or Industrial
i t r 4
No changes are proposed for
Botanical Gardens,
this existing use, which is
AS,
25
Arboretums
Existing'
allowed in almost all zoning
AR, R1, RB
LC1, NC2
AS -CD
�TraPr}a
districts..
■ This use is not an "ag -use" but
s,
sll�yl ;Ah �u
rather an existing land use that
rrYa''
farmers may wish to consider
µ �'
as an income producing option
for their farm.
t 4 �, Y„
■ Applicants must follow the
n,
26
Studio (Art)
Existing
.
standard site plan review
AR, R1, RB
LC1, NC2
;w M {�
process for studios in
"�x
commercial zoning districts.
UMetlit�m'Sce le
■ Applicants must follow the
I�UiGal� fi`
Site
a f
Plan
home occupation process for
tjf;V @t1tV @SF'U�
studios in residential zoning
districts. '
�y xU =� ;,y ;
■ Must be in commercial zone.
■ This is a revised version of use
r Y,s
S1- Garden Center (On
Premises Sales); and may
contain some uses previously
Retail Garden Center'
classified as S14 Greenhouses
LC1, NC2,
AS
27
[RE7]
Revised
(On Premises Sales). See
CC3 GC4
'
AS -CD
`rr14
also use 42— Retail Garden
EC5
Centers outside of commercial
£w tK
�
zoning districts.
L
;�� ;r ''� ; ' r
■ Landscaping services may be
allowed as an accessory use.
' Existing retail or agricultural service facilities may sell locally grown products such.as flowers and vegetables as an accessory use. Such products may be sold inside or at a
separate stand or display area outside, so long as there is sufficient area for the structure(s) and any supplemental parking as needed to accommodate additional traffic.
DRAFT 2 -2005 Proposed Land Use Schedule for Rural Enterprises
Changes to Services /Processing & r p
Industrial Uses, based on intensity (matrix)
$ Light industrial (11), medium industrial (12) and heavy industrial (13) are designed for use in rural industrial nodes. The Existing Industrial (El) zoning district, similar to Existing
Commercial (EC5), was designed to accommodate existing industrial uses that were in operation in the rural parts of the county when zoning was adopted. It is intended to serve w
industrial uses outside of the rural industrial nodes.
Zoning District
Permuting
Zoning
Special
Rural Activity
�Y
New or
Farm Intensity
Process
Land Use
Use
Standards
Nodel
Revised
Status
Residential
Commercial
District
or Industrial
Needed
' 71 t `F
.
■ Must be in commercial zone.
S,K n i
r�, °5,
■ The existing ordinance
;, ,
for but
+
provides retail uses
does not speak to the general
28
Country Store
Proposed
all- purpose store that
LC1, NC2,
AS,
4 y Y +
[RE8]
EC5
AS-CD
traditionally serves rural
communities. See also use
Y 1
43— Country Stores in
residential zoning districts.
.
r Grp r
■ Must comply with all applicable
federal, state, and county
health regulations.
" °'' ,'s, ' "'
■ Taxidermy establishments in
29
Taxidermy
Proposed
residential zoning districts
AR, R1, RB
LC1, NC2
[RE9]
4FS,@I��IC'eSf Lx
M`Sn t.•i{`2 iY t uq d
must have Home Occupation
+
a P 'did sang
permits.
S ,
■ Site must have sufficient on-
"^
?
Site Plan
site parking.
■ Must be in commercial zone.
Commercial +`
,Zones' t; =
■ Rental and Sales uses must
meet additional performance
Farm Machinery Service,
standards r ardin storage
regarding g
LC1, NC2,
30
Rental & Sales
Revised
and screening.
E 8 5, 11,12,
AS
[RE10]
■ This is a revised version of use
13
AS -CD
S10 -Farm Equipment & Sales.
See also use 44 for same use
in residential zoning districts.
+ .5' S
■ Must be in commercial or
rt
Feed Mill,
industrial zone.
Feed & Seed Storage w/
■ This is a revised version of use
LC1, NC2,
31
Retail Sales
Revised
S11 Feed, Seed, Storage &
EC5, E=l, 11,
AS,
Farm Supply
Processing. See use 45 also.
12,13
AS
`
[RE11]
■ Landscaping services may be
j . � .�r, s L ° ti,r ;
allowed as an accessory use.
$ Light industrial (11), medium industrial (12) and heavy industrial (13) are designed for use in rural industrial nodes. The Existing Industrial (El) zoning district, similar to Existing
Commercial (EC5), was designed to accommodate existing industrial uses that were in operation in the rural parts of the county when zoning was adopted. It is intended to serve w
industrial uses outside of the rural industrial nodes.
DRAFT 2 -2005
Changes to Services/Processing & p p Proposed Land Use Schedule for Rural Enterprises
Industrial Uses, based on intensity (Matrix)
_L
Cn
Zoning District
Permitting
Zoning
Special
Rural Activity
by
New or
Farm Intensity
Process
Land Use
Use
Standards
Node/
Revised
Status
Residential
Commercial
District
or Industrial
Needed
, j
■ Must be linked to specific bona
r..Ct
fide faun or farm cooperative
Processing Facility with
venture to occur in a
°,`] ?
Accessory Retail Sales.
residential zoning district.
y�t.�-irj_
„ ¢�A, , ,�
�,�� ,
Sales
Sales limited to goods
■ May be independent from
LC1, NCB.,
AS,
-F7,
32
processed at operation &
Proposed
specific farm(s) only if
AR, R1, RB
El, 11, 12,13
AS-CD
�r
subsidiary companion items.
o
business uses primarily (75%
r ,
M L�
[RE12]
locally grown products for
f u.;
processing operation
p
■ Maximum size of building
facility- 5000 s uare feet.
i,S ®NIGrP..S/ N,
■ Must comply with all applicable
cessi gE,-
federal, state, and county
health regulations.
Site Plan
■ All pen areas must be properly
su In
Ngr ,/� C
fenced, and screened from
Commer,c�al ,
. r ,
adjacent properties.
4'f ;D�s>tr�cts µ ;
■ Must be consistent with animal
r =
Veterinarian Mobile- Clinic w/
kenneling requirements of the
4".
33
1 -2 animal observation
state and other County
AS,
shelter
Revised
ordinances.
AR, R1, RB
GC4, EC5
AS -CD
Y SY s n
[RE13]
■Permit may limit maximum
A k k '
rr n r
number of days for
observation.
{ , , 4
■ This is a revised version of use
f
S3- Animal. Hospitals;
°�ti�'tY 4 k
Veterinarians. See also use
13 L
rjy
46— Veterinarian Hospital with
observation facilities.
_L
Cn
DRAFT 2 -2005 proposed Land Use Schedule for Rural Enterprises
Changes to Services/Processing &
hndushial Uses, based on intensity (Matrix)
O -.1
c.n
Zoning District
Permitting
Zoning
Special
Rural Activity
New or
Farm Intensity
Process
Land Use
Use
Standards
Residential
Node/
Revised
Status
Commercial
District
or Industrial
Needed
:•��
This use is not an "ag -use but
rather an existing land use that
tie �f;'w
farmers may wish to consider
Bed & Breakfast Inn
as an income producing option
34
4-8 uest rooms
g
Existing
for their farm. Applicants must
AR, R1, RB
sr✓a r
follow the standard Class B
Y ru
�� C5
SUP process.
No public restaurant facility.
Minimum 5 -acre tract.
This use is not an designated
LageScale
fr- y , Class B
nF al Use
Special
"ag -use" but rather an existing
R.r cm��
c ntures � Permit
M
land use that farmers may wish
AR, R1, RB
35
Camp/Retreat Center
Existing
to consider as an income
0,
producing option for their farm.
Applicant must follow the
standard Class B SUP process.
This use is not a specially an
rrtr�a��i{ lid
"ag -use" but rather an existing
land that farmers may wish
use
36
Class II Kennel
Existing
to consider as an income
AR, R1, RB
Riding Stables /Academies
producing option for their farm.
Applicant must follow the
standard Class B SUP process.
O -.1
c.n
DRAFT 2 -2005 rises Proposed Land Use Schedule for Rural Enter
Changes to Services /Processing & P p
Industrial Uses, based on intensity (Matrix)
CA
9 M
Zoning
District
Fans Intensity
Permitting
...Land Use
Zoning
Use
� Special �
Rural Activity
�Y
New or •
Process
.:
Status
Standards
Residential
Node/
Revised
Commercial
District
or Industrial
Needed
O-
■ Site must have sufficient on-
site parking, screened from
adjacent properties and public
rights -of
��tix P A}4�t+1dr °fi`v I
�• � ��M� °r'���s�� } }�`
Rural Heritage
-way.
• Must comply with all applicable
federal, state, and county
I
Museum
Proposed
health'regulations.
AR R1 RB
'
r=
��0
OR
[RE14 l
■ May include the retail sales of
products raised on
ry'xi'4��k
demonstration farm,
neighboring farms, and
companion items, but may not
include generic gift: shop or
Y�xt yl
general retail sales.
{i!}
?ait�^i
■ May be seasonal or year -
Community Farmers Market
round facility.
Must comply with all
�"��
4? alp
Class B
38
(Principal use, general sale of
local
Proposed
applicable federal, state, and
,,
LC1 NCB., AS,
"v ^4 �"
:cr . I yjFr t
tures
Special Use
produce or
complementary items)
county health regulations
including
AR, R1, RB
EC5 AS -CD
.
Permit
[RE15]
those related to
sales of meat
k,
products.
■ Site must have sufficient on-
I
ryii' �a�y -0%12.1•A3y Fh� {,,{'iC•ltr4 •}
site parking.
■ Must comply with all
fA r, is
applicable federal, state, and
t'
county health regulations.
�,5 X JL�� £'rr
■ Site must have sufficient area
for event parking.
p g•
,�"aSY�r. r F
N'
Wine or Brewery
ry ry
■ Events limited to 75 people, at
of "w
z;lf
with Minor Events
one time, twelve times a year.
tiyf��r�
39
(production with tours and
Proposed
■ Event hours may be limited
AR, R1, RB
El, 11 ` AS CAD
sales incidental)
per permit.
[RE16]
■ Retail sales must be
�M
incidental, related, and
subordinate.to the primary
operation of the winery as a
VIA, �4r
`' {�`;' '` 'ail
production facility.
''
■ See use 51 also.
DRAFT 2 -2005
Changes to Services/Processing & Proposed Land Use Schedule for Rural Enterprises
Industrial Uses, based on intensity (matrix)
10
(Dk-
Cn
Zonin District
Permitting
n
Zoning
g
Special
Rural Activity
New or
Farm Intensity
Process
Land Use
Use
Standards
Residential
Node/
Revised
Status
Commercial
District
or Industrial
Needed
.ry
�� ,r,s
■ Must be on or adjacent to bona
fide farm tract.
Class B
Small -scale butcherin g
® Must comply with. all applicable.
R aN�
Special Use
40
operation, abattoir
Proposed
federal state and county
AR, R1, RB
LC1 NC2
AS
n" , ,rtti
r�ai,~ �,
Permit
[RE18]
regulations.
g
EC5
AS -CD
�� _
■ Limited to owner and 4 other
,�s�' j` 'ryT
employees.
3L "a,,g�> e�S�ales "J
■ Must have on -site arkin .
p 9
�RUral it
■ Minimum 10 acres unless
connected to public services
i!.7�p��tt4-y
■ May contain public restaurant
�'ti� ar'� °��� + fi
Class A
■ This use is not an "ag -use" but
Special Use
41
Country Inn
Existing
rather an existing land use that
AR, R1, RB
Permit
farmers may wish to consider
4`
as an income producing option
for their farm. Applicants must
l r
follow the standard Class A
SUP process.
(Dk-
Cn
DRAFT 2 -2005 - Proposed Land Use Schedule for Rural Enterprises
Changes to Services/Processing &
Industrial Uses, based on intensity (Matrix)
j
CA
11 Co
9 One of the key components in this proposal is to revise the existing Agricultural Services floating zoning district to allow for a conditional district rezoning process. Using
conditional district zoning, the BOCC would be able to review applications to rezone rural property for a specific use. Applicants would still be able to apply to have their property O
.rezoned from AR to AS using the conventional rezoning process — meaning that all of the uses permitted in an AS districts would be allowed on the rezoned tract. Applicants would
also be able to apply to have property rezoned .from AR, R1, RB, EC5, or El to a new conditional district for a rural enterprise use. Rather than request all of the AS uses, the
property owner would request one or perhaps two uses and submit a schematic site plan illustrating the proposed project.
Zoning District
Farm Intensity
Permitting
Land Use
Zoning
Use
Special
Rural Activity
New or
Process
Status
Standards
Residential
Node/
Commercial
� Revised
District
or industrial
Needed9
tam lqR
��'�a�'� .�� I';� �
��ad4i xr !J,
■ This is a revised version of
S1- Garden Center
n, rani¢
use (On
Premises Sales); and may
T4�a1i•i
i r3 iN' fr�2,t1f
contain some uses previously
GsJ
.,z �4 f s
Retail Garden Center
classified as S14
Greenhouses (On Premises
AS
42
Revised
�r,�r�
[RE7]
Sales).
AS -CD
_';�
Landscaping services may be
allowed as an accessory use..
4,Se,�IrveeSL Yes.
■ See also use 27 for Retail
Garden Center in commercial
,ra
?tik Y 8��1 Idlustr�ai�
Zoning districts.
The existing ordinance
y Rezoning
s .gib
provides
but does
*Iq�
`
for retail uses not
rte+ 4
`puts _ (Site Plan)
h „�,�;d
Commercial
43
Country Store
[RE8]
Proposed
speak to the general all - purpose
store that traditionally served
rural communities. See also use
,
AS-CD
Mt,� DistGicts
���laf ai3. yh +Mib Ay.
”
28 for Country Store in
'Fi
gip£ 1
commercial zoning districts.
q�j`
■Machinery under repair must
be in building or screened from
r�
road.
£A gr £1I An u s u�l
kl ��Iti
Farm Machinery Service,
Outdoor lighting must stay on
AS,
�;�
fit
44
Rental and Sales
Existing
property.
AS -CD
[RE10]
■ Permit may limit hours of
operation
■ See use 30 for same use in
X
rural commercial districts.
9 One of the key components in this proposal is to revise the existing Agricultural Services floating zoning district to allow for a conditional district rezoning process. Using
conditional district zoning, the BOCC would be able to review applications to rezone rural property for a specific use. Applicants would still be able to apply to have their property O
.rezoned from AR to AS using the conventional rezoning process — meaning that all of the uses permitted in an AS districts would be allowed on the rezoned tract. Applicants would
also be able to apply to have property rezoned .from AR, R1, RB, EC5, or El to a new conditional district for a rural enterprise use. Rather than request all of the AS uses, the
property owner would request one or perhaps two uses and submit a schematic site plan illustrating the proposed project.
DRAFT 2 -2005
Changes to Services/Processing & N Pronosed Land Use Schedule for Rural Enterprises
Industrial Uses, based on intensity (Matrix)
12
Zoning District
Farm Intensity
Permitting
Land Use
Zoning
g
Use
S ecial
Rural
�
New or
Revised
Process
Status
Standards
Residential
Node/
District
Commercial
Needed
or Industrial
,4, s•
��
■ Permit will specify hours of
Feed Mill
operation.
■ Outdoor lighting
q } air
Feed & Seed Storage w/
must stay on
property.
AS,
rFr�rr�, a s
°;s
45
Retail Sales
Proposed
■Landscaping services may be
AS -CD
Nrrr� x;r „ }�
,
Farm Supply
[RE11]
allowed as an accessory use.
See 31 for facllifies in
also use
,P°�'`i.
commercial zoning disMcts.
Must comply with all applicable
;�y$erVices
.? f
rocng
„8t
federal, state, and county
health regulations.
I�dUSnal
Rezoning
® All pen areas must be property
”, -A
,b�N` a�°
(Site Plan)
fenced, and screened from
adjacent properties.
r��utstde4°..
Veterinary Hospital,
® Permit subject to review and
t
LC1, NC2,
AS,
Cam a Ctaly�
TDttcts
46
Clinic w/ Observation Facility
[S3]
Revised
comments from Animal
Control.
GC4, EC5
AS -CD
-p ' * I
■ This is a revised version of use
r s�
S3- Animal Hospitals;
Veterinarians, designed for
farm animals. See also use
i,t,
I
33-- Mobile Veterinarian.
�x }44 1 t �fli
song
■ '
No grinding
[RE19]
Revised
■ See use 53 for composting
AS CD
�._t
with rindin
DRAFT 2 -2005
Changes to Semices/Processing & Proposed Land Use Schedule for Rural Enterprises
Industrial Uses, based on intensity (Matrix)
J
Q"
13 c
l�)
2oning District
Farm Intensity
Permitting
Land Use'
Zoning
Special
Activity
New or
Process
Status
Standards
Residential
Node/
District
Commercial
Needed
or Industrial
} `,
■ Permit will specify hours of
operation.
■ Must
j�4 4
comply with all
.1"
applicable federal, state, and
county health regulations.
Livestock Market, Exchange/
■ All be
48
Auction Facility
Revised
pen areas must
fenced,
AS
[RE22]
properly and
screened from adjacent
AS -CD
t!,,F�k,YSI—,,,
��•y4 ;,�u1'��p
properties.
■ Must be consistent with
,i`�,aF�',�` 1�`
animal kenneling
rM`fl ..
STK" 9 111 t 7
requirements of state and
n„
li r m7SeNI�SI��yY�
other County ordinances.
■Must comply with all applicable
8IndUStriel
Rezoning
g
Processing Facility:
federal, state, and county
cal /Re iona
(Lo l
g )
regulations.
health re 9
AS,
(Site Plan
49
■ Food Packing
Proposed
■ Hours of operation specified in
12, 13
AS -CD
�;•n, 'Y�f S.fi�l j,j k,1
or
Wholesales
permit.
�tJOuts�tle--
Class A SUP
[RE23]
■ Permit authority may limit daily
�� '`
;r E�Com ercial
;"t
k
''� ry�' M�'
/ CUP
number of trips.
■ Must comply with all applicable
:
roNOW-4,
federal, state, and county
I F
��}
health regulations.
■ All
�F
pen areas must be properly
7 9�z ?
H1` 7iww str 2
Large-Scale Equestrian
fenced, and screened from
adjacent properties.
■Permit to
'K5" � '°
Facility w /Commercial
subject review and
AS,
F, t
,A
50
Stables, Events, Rodeos
Proposed
comments from Animal
AS -CD
F �F,�
,
.13.
.
(RE24J
Control.
f �,;
■ Events may be limited by
permit granting authority.
titi', „��z'd
■ Event hours may be limited per
permit.
hr�'� Yi,y4y' FK�.,t`%14T�Y I
May contain tack shop as
accessory to overall operation.
l�)
DRAFT 2 -2005 f
Proposed Land Use Schedule or Rural Enterprises
Changes to Services/Processing & p
Industrial Uses, based on intensity (Matrix)
14
ZonIng
District
Farm Intensity
Permitting
process
Land Use
Zoning.
Use
Special
Rural-
Activity
New or
Status
Standards
Residential
Node/
District
Commercial
Needed.
or Industrial
Y� ^F��
■ Must comply with all applicable
ati �nra
federal, state, and county
srwrt ��
health regulations.
�
��,
■ Site must have sufficient area
for event parking.
Mkt }t i��rL
Winery or, Brewery with
ry ry
■ Number
�r
"� _,r�FS�:I
51 Major Events
J
Proposed
p
of events, and event
hours
AS,
[RE 17]
may be limited b
Y by permit
AS -CD
granting authority.
en,
i
Retail sales must be incidental,
related, and subordinate to the
primary operation of the winery
as a production facility.
Cold Storage Facili /Frozen
g ty
Must comply with all
AS,
"� NOR,'���
Se.
:ICeS/
P ,. "�
ocessing•;
52
Food Locker
Proposed
applicable federal, state, and
AS-CD
[RE21]
county health regulations.
S I Ostfl-
Rezoning
■ E
quipment must be sheltered
(Site Plan
or screened from road and
;rs'1 q!�V Mi
f M"
or
Class A SUP
adjacent properties.
■ Grinding area must be more
� y.
5. r*Comrc1al
/ CUP)
than 1000' away from any
strl ctsr,
dwellings not located on same
53
Composting
property & 300' from property
AS,
with Grinding [RE20]
Proposed
lines.
■ Organic materials may be
12 ' 13
AS-CID
stockpiled for a limited period
ryaflkrt�s
specified in permit.
■Hours of operations specified in
P
Jx alhA,, fy,
permit.
i ht'!��+i<L�
t ���
�Uu r
■ See also use 52 for
G i r�l �i,sTy l _
composting without grinding.
■Hours of operation specified in
�,
y �y rYSk G� H
;;�, �, , �• �r5'�,��' :r. �, +i'
W ` r� ""
0.j
Saw Mill, not in conjunction
permit.
AS,
; �F} «
54
with farm
Existing
° Permit authority may limit daily
AS -CD
txs� "sr�
number of trips.
■See also use 14 for saw mills
7P" 4 AN
linked to bona fide farms.
162
Agricultural Support Enterprises — Schedule for Completing Project
Staff work in April -May 2007
Prepare materials for May 21, 2007 Quarterly Pubiic Hearing
Begin performance standards
Develop outline for proposed Agricultural Support Enterprises Manual
Review materials with County Attorney
Draft informational memorandum to Planning Partners
May 21 2007 – QPH Work Session
• Request Board's endorsement of three key concepts: 1) amend the Zoning Ordinance to
allow conditional district zoning, 2) prepare clear performance standards, and 3) create the
ASE Manual
• Request authorization to complete the project in accordance with this schedule and
permission to sent informational memo to Joint Planning Partners
Staff work follow up from May 21 2007 Work Session
Prepare materials for June 12, 2007 BOCC
Prepare legal advertisement for consideration at June 26, 2007 BOCC
June 12, 2007 BOCC
• Request Board's endorsement of three key concepts: 1) amend the Zoning Ordinance to
allow conditional district zoning, 2) prepare clear performance standards, and 3) create the
ASE Manual
• Request authorization to complete the project in accordance with this schedule and
permission to sent informational memo to Joint Planning Partners
June 26, 2007 BOCC
Request for legal advertisement, consideration for August Quarterly Public Hearing
Staff work in June
Complete matrix —list of uses, locations and permit requirements
Complete performance standards
Revise Conditional District Zoning amendments per BOCC comments at May 21, 2007 QPH
Finish drafts of all remaining ordinance amendments w/ all linkages
Draft ASE Manual
Create additional brochures as needed
Send draft materials to County Attorney for input
June 2007
Meet w/ Planning Staff at Town of Carrboro & Town of Chapel Hill to discuss key concepts
June Advisory Board Circuit: PB, EDC, APB Meetings
Present key concepts
Matrix of uses, locations and permit requirements
Present Conditional District Zoning construct & process
Present draft materials on ASE Manual and brochures
Revise new article providing for conditional district zoning
Staff work in July
Revise Zoning amendments per County Attorney
Modify Manual and companion brochures per input from advisory boards
Prepare materials for August 27, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing
IN
Agricultural Support Enterprises -- Schedule for Completing Project
continued
July or early August Advisory Board Circuit
Follow up with advisory boards, as requested, for additional discussion and opportunity for input
Mid August 2007
Begin to engage Joint Planning Partners in discussion of ASE
August 27, 2007 - QPH
Present to BOCC
Revise. per Bvvv Input, If necessary
Request permission to forward materials to Joint Planning staff prior to September meeting
September Advisory Board Circuit: PB, EDC, APB Meetings
Review materials presented at August 27, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing
Resolve any remaining-issues and request formal approval, if appropriate, at November QPH.
164
Memorandum
To: Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Chapel Hill Town Council
Carrboro Board of Aldermen
From: Laura Blackmon, County Manager
Date: June 12, 2007
Subject: Agricultural Support Enterprises
Backaround
At *a March 2004 Joint Planning Area Planning Public Hearing, Orange County Planning
Staff presented information on an on -going initiative hosted by the Economic
Development, Planning and Environment and Resource Conservation departments to
provide more business opportunities for local farmers in the rural parts of the county.
The project continues to be part of the County's effort to preserve farmland and farming
as a viable economic pursuit. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide our Joint
Planning Area (JPA) partners with an update of this project and to begin a dialogue on
the future of farming in the Rural Buffer..
Agricultural Support Enterprises (ASE)
Agricultural support enterprises are becoming increasingly important to the survival of
our local farms. The focus of the agricultural support enterprises project is to add new
farm - related uses to our zoning ordinance that would provide farmers with opportunities,
to gain more revenue from their farms. These new uses would be logical extensions to
existing farm operations, such as com mazes (agritourism), roadside stands (direct
marketing) and small -scale processing facilities to make sauces (value- added), as well
as services related to farming such as feed stores and large animal veterinary services.
Process
Farmers would be required to go through a standard process and obtain a permit like
any other development project. (Bona fide farm purposes, which are exempt from
zoning per the North Carolina General Statutes, would remain exempt.) Staff are
reviewing the existing permit process, as part of this initiative, and are considering ways
to streamline it or, at least, to make it more user - friendly. While most of the potential
changes to our zoning ordinance would only affect the rural parts of the county, it is
possible that some changes may have implications within the Rural Buffer. With that in
mind, County staff wanted to provide our JPA partners with an update on the project
prior to any formal consideration of amendments.
Rural Buffer Intent
The second component to this memorandum is to revisit the original intent of the Rural
Buffer, to begin a dialogue with our JPA partners to determine if this intent is still
valid /appropriate as it pertains to agriculture and related agricultural enterprises. When
the Joint Planning Land Use Plan was adopted in 1986, the state of local farming was
very different from what it is today. It was assumed that the area within the Rural Buffer
Agricultural Support Enterprises Page 9
00
�65
would gradually phase out of traditional farming and develop into low- density residential
uses. The pattern of development is another subject area for later discussion. The
amount of land in the Rural Buffer enrolled in the present use value program for
agriculture, forestry and horticulture, today, is approximately 28 percent.-
Two things have changed during the last twenty years. One is the emergence of
organic farming as a popular alternative to traditional farming. Organic farming typically
requires less land than traditional farming and can occur as a compatible neighbor to
residential uses. Second is the trend of connecting urban residents to local farms,
which is linked to food sustainability issues, supporting local growers, buying locally
produced goods.
Agricultural Sustainability
The agricultural support enterprises proposal is designed to keep farmers farming, by
making agriculture profitable. Should this program extend into the Rural Buffer, it would
likely encourage the continuation of the existing active farms. It could encourage, new,
smaller -scale and organic farmers to consider starting operations in the Rural Buffer. It
could also encourage new farm businesses, such as farm stands and "pick- your -own"
operations.
Promoting new agricultural operations and agricultural support operations may be seen
as inconsistent with the intent of the original Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. But as
residential development continues -to occur in Orange County and its municipalities,
many town residents are seeking a farm connection —as evidenced by the recent
Piedmont Farm Tour when approximately 6,500 individuals visited farms in Orange
County on two afternoons in late April. Residents in Chapel Hill and Carrboro seem to
enjoy not only the rural character of places like Dairyland Road but also the potential
link to the farming community. Operations such as Maple View Farm illustrate the
potential for successful relationships between urban residents and local farmers, one
that provides the farmer with supplemental income and one that provides residents with
a rural experience and a locally grown product.
ASE Consistency with County Land Use Plan
The agricultural support enterprises proposal is designed to allow selected farm uses to
occur in a way that'is consistent with our overall land use plan. The proposal provides
more opportunities for advisory board input and public comment during the approval
process. In addition, staffs recommendation to develop a conditional district process
for rezoning property to Agricultural Services'for specific agricultural support enterprises
provides a mechanism for the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to limit the
extent and intensity of an enterprise as part of the approval. Unlike general rezoning,
property subject to the conditional district rezoning process may only be used for a
specific land use(s), based on a site - specific development plan. Since applications are
site specific, the BOCC can consider the suitability of the proposed use based on its
location within the county. In other words, the BOCC could approve a rezoning for a
certain use in a rural area in northern Orange County and deny a rezoning request for
the same use in the Rural Buffer. The location factor will become increasingly important
as sections of the county transition from active farming 'to low- density residential.
Agricultural Support Enterprises Page 2
166
-WO
Rezoning JPA Process
Rezonings are legislative decisions, reviewed by governing boards in accordance with
existing 'Joint p!aPning agreement procedures. Any rezoning application would he
considered through a public hearing process, neighbors would receive notice and
members of the general public would have an opportunity to comment. If the tract in
question were located in a joint planning area, the'appropriate governing board(s) would
have an opportunity to provide input on the request as well. The proposed process to
rezone to the Agricultural Services District includes opportunities for the town governing
boards to comment on any agricultural support enterprise project early in the process.
Summary
In summary, the agricultural support enterprises proposal is an agricultural economic
development program. Staffs proposal to allow farmers more value -added options
places no long -term obligations on their land. It is designed to keep farming an
economically viable business by permitting farmers to explore more innovative farm
operations.
Planning, Economic Development, and Environment and Resource Conservation staff
would like to begin a dialogue with town staff before it is further discussed by elected
officials, possibly at the fall JPA.
Agricultural Support Enterprises
Page 3
ar
167
0 • - •; 0
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 21, 2007
Action Agenda
Item No. & — C1
SUBJECT: NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (WN)
Economic Development
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 5 -21 -07 DRAFT QPH Minutes
2. Draft 7 -11 -07 Planning Board Minutes -
3. 6 -14-07 Economic Development
Commission Minutes
4. Final Draft of NC Highway 57
Speedway Area Small Area Plan
(separate enclosure).
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Planning Dir., 245 -2592
Willie Best, Asst. Co. Mgr., 245 -2300
Glenn Bowles, Planner II, 245 -2577
PURPOSE: To review the recommendations of the Economic Development Commission and
the Planning Board for the final draft NC Highway .57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan and
consider adoption of the Small Area Plan. Proposed Implementation regulations are not
part of this approval and will be addressed at a later date.
BACKGROUND: On June 27, 2006 the County Board of Commissioners - authorized the
formation of a citizen Task Force for the purpose in working with County staff to complete a
Small Area Plan for an area of the County along NC Highway 57, near the Person and Durham
County lines, including the Orange County Speedway and the Hanson Aggregate Quarry
operation.
The purpose of the Small Area Plan was to evaluate and review the constraints and
opportunities of allowing for additional development within the area and identify opportunities for
the County and existing non - residential developments to work together to address identified
offsite impacts on surrounding property owners. .
This work was originally being completed according to the planned update of the Orange County
Land Use Element. As the- Land Use Element's timeline for completion has been extended,
staff believes. that this project should be completed independently of the update.
The recommendations contained within the Small Area Plan attempt to address the following
questions identified by the Task Force, local citizens, and County staff:
1. What is an appropriate level of additional residential and nonresidential development
within the area?
2. Is there a desire for additional non - residential development in the area?
168
2
3. How will buffering and transitioning of existing, and possible future, nonresidential
development be accomplished to avoid impacts on existing, and possible future, low -
density residential development within the area?
4. How will the County address noise ievels generated by the Speedway and possible future
reopening of the go -kart track?
5. What types of additional nonresidential land uses are to be considered for the area and
how will their impact be mitigated?
6. What additional traffic related issues would be generated by potentially allowing for
additional nonresidential development?
7. How will allowing for additional development within the area affect the existing
groundwater public water supply and how will existing, and future, residential
developments be protected from the increase in groundwater demand?
8. 'What will be done to protect the environmental integrity of the Flat River and Little River
Watershed Overlay districts?
9. What ancillary impacts will be generated in Person and Durham Counties as a result of
potentially allowing for additional development in the area?
Four planning principles contained in the Task Force Report include:
1. Preservation and protection of the rural character and nature of the area;
2. Minimization of negative impacts on natural systems /environmentally sensitive areas;
3. Restrict growth and development so that it complements the rural character aed-
lifestyles; and
4. Maintenance of present service levels for existing infrastructure.
Traditional rezoning and special use permit processes were not felt to afford the community and
Task Force sufficient protection and assurances of maintaining a rural lifestyle and character,
and the Task Force suggests a zoning overlay entitled Rural Economic Development Area
(REDA) be.created to facilitate bringing the nonconforming activities into compliance.
The Draft Small Area Plan was presented at the May 21 Quarterly Public Hearing. Comments
were received from three speakers. Task Force members Karen Barrows and Bruce Peters
expressed concern about damage to wells from blasting, noise and traffic impacts, impacts of
additional development, rights of property owners, and increased air pollution from non-
residential uses in the area. Melvin Stanley spoke on behalf of Orange County Speedway
emphasizing they were a legal non - conforming operation. He expressed concern about
representation of speedway representatives on the committee early in the process and the
impacts of potential regulatory changes discussed by. the committee. He closed by asking if
there would be a list of potentially permissible uses. Commissioner Jacobs suggested a word
change on goal #5 on page 28. He suggested "Air quality issues shall be an integral part of any
future permit reviewed within the Study Area."
The BOCC referred the NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan to the Economic
Development Commission and Planning Board and for review and recommendation.
The Economic Development Commission considered the Small Area Plan at their meeting on
June 14, 2007 and voted unanimously "to recommend the Plan be forwarded for. approval by the
Board of County Commissioners."
169
The Planning Board discussed the Small Area Plan on July 11. There were questions about
support for the plan by residents (staff indicated general acceptance of the Task Force Report)
and whether the speadway owner could continue in non - conforming status if he chose (he
could); also the impact of this on possible future owners of the property (they would have same
options as current owner). There was also discussion as to whether -or not REDA was specific
to the Highway 57 area or might be applied countywide (staff indicated that the Task Force was
recommending the use of REDA 'for this plan; however, before it could be used anywhere it
would have to go through the normal zoning and land use text amendment process).
The Planning Board voted 7 -2 to recommend approval of the plan with the understanding that
residents have agreed to it and that REDA will not be adopted countywide.
It is acknowledged that the uses in this Small Area Plan are unique and no public sewer
and water service is proposed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact at this time; existing County staff will be
utilized in the small area planning process.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the BOCC adopt the NC Highway
57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan.
170
DRAFT -NOT APPROVED YET 4
1 DRAFT
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (Item A.1)
5 AND
6 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
7 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
8 May 21, 2007
9 7:30 p.m.
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners, Hillsborough Town Board, and the
12 Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, May 21, 2007 at
13 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C.
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners
16 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, and Mike Nelson
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
18 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, and Deputy Clerk to the
20 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Brian
22 Crawford, Craufurd Goodwin, Sam Lasris, Renee Price- Saunders, Sandra Johnson - Quinn,
23 Judith Wegner, and Jeffrey Schmitt
24 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Kempinski, Joel Knight, and
25 Bernadette Pelissier
26 HILLSBOROUGH BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens and Members
27 Evelyn Lloyd, Brian Lowen, Michael Gering, and Eric Hallman
28 HILLSBOROUGH BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Frances Dancy
29
30
31 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
32 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE
33
34
35 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
36 The meeting was called to order by Chair Carey at 7:37 pm. He noted that this is the first
37 time that a meeting has been held with these three boards in a very long time.
38 Planning Board Chair Jay Bryan welcomed everyone.
39 Mayor Tom Stevens said that he and his board were delighted to be at the table.
40
41 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
42 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
43
44 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
45
46 2. NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan: A citizen task force, Durham and
47 Person County representatives, and two Orange County Commissioners have spent the
48 past 10 months addressing planning issues for a 900+ acre area in the northeast corner
49 of Orange County. Issues include non - conforming, non - residential land uses,
50 trafficlaccess management, water quality and quantity, noise and noxious odors, and an
51 appropriate level of residential and non - residential development. The Task Force
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
suggests a zoning overlay entitled Rural Economic Development Area (REDA) be
created to facilitate bringing non - conforming activities into compliance.
Planning Director Craig Benedict made this PowerPoint presentation.
NC HIGHWAY 57 SPEEDWAY AREA
SMALL AREA PLAN
TASK FORCE REPORT
A collaborative effort between the Economic Development Department, Planning and
Inspections Department,
and Durham County
May 21, 2007
Orange County, North Carolina
Task Force Members
County Commissioners
Anita Badrock
Moses Carey, Chair
Karen Barrows
Barry Jacobs, Vice Chair
Moses Carey
Valerie Foushee
Darrell Chandler
Alice Gordon
Jonathan E. Huppert
Mike Nelson
Barry Jacobs
Debra Logner
Dianne Reid, Economic Development
Mac Miller
Craig N. Benedict, Planning Director
Bruce Peters
Kevin D. Peters
James Walker
Helen Youngblood, Durham County Planning
Presentation Outline
• Background Map
• Plan Development
• Task Force Charge
• Planning Principles
• Goal Statements
• Standards
• REDA (Rural Economic Development Area)
• Plan Adoption Timeline
Map:
• 38 parcels
• 930 acres
• Bisected by NC 57
• Little River Township
• AR zoning with 2 small EC -5 zones
• Flat and Little River Watershed
Staff
Glenn R. Bowles, Jr.
Michael Harvey
5
171
172
DRAFT -NOT APPROVED YET
1 Plan Development
2 Inventory and assessment,
3 Identification of issues and concerns,
4 Public Feedback through Task Force meetings, and
5 • Process to Review Plan Drafts.
6
7 Task Force Charge
8 ° Issues, concerns, and opportunities and constraints
9 • Focus on
10 ✓ New development
i i ✓ Safety hazards
12 ✓ Outdoor activities
13 ✓ Soils & groundwater
14 ✓ Traffic
15 ✓ Rural character
16 ✓ Nuisances
17
18 Planning Principles
19 ■ Preservation and protection of area rural character.
20 ■ Minimization of impacts to natural systems and environmentally sensitive areas.
21 ■ Growth /development complement rural character and lifestyle.
22 ■ Maintenance of present service levels.
23
24 Goal Statements
25 • Augment or enhance the area's rural character.
26 • Aesthetically enhance NC 57 entranceway.
27 • No adverse impact to existing groundwater supplies.
28 • Stormwater runoff shall be maintained on site.
29 • Air quality issues are intricate to any future permit.
30 • Non - conforming uses to be brought into compliance.
31 • The quarry needs SUP to renew NC permits.
32 • Non - residential uses held to specific criteria.
33 • No negative impact to existing infrastructure.
34
35 Site - Specific Design Standards for:
36 Stone Quarry properties
37
38 And
39
40 General Suggested Conditions for:
41 Orange County Speedway and
42 Go-Kart property
43
44 REDA (Rural Economic Development Area)
45 2 -Step Process
46 o LU Map/Text Amendments
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
i3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
FPRAFT-NOT APPROVED YET -7
o Rezoning Application
• Only with approved SAP
• Conditional Use Zoning
• With Review Criteria
• Public Review
The Plan Adoption Timeline is incorporated by reference. The Small Area Plan could be
approved by the Board of County Commissioners by August 2007 and the Zoning Atlas Map
Amendment could be approved by the Board of County Commissioners by October 2007.
Staff recommends the Board accept public comment on a Small Area Plan and then
forward comments to the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission.
Chair Carey recognized the members of the task force.
Renee Price- Saunders asked for more Specificity on the rion- curiirming use. Craig
Benedict said that presently this section of the County is agricultural - residential on the land use
map. Non - residential uses are not allowed in this part of the County. Since the speedway was
in existence at the time the zoning went into effect, it was given a legal non - conforming status.
In order for it to operate in a different status, the land use and zoning maps must be changed to
allow uses of this nature.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the differences between the original and
amended /revised document and Glen Bowles explained the differences. The changes were on
pages 31, 34 -37. The specificity was taken out. The taskforce voted to make the changes.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the plan for the August public hearing. Craig Benedict
said that, concerning the conditional use rezoning planning device that Orange County does not
have, this will be brought forward for the August Quarterly Public Hearing. This can be used in a
lot of other cases throughout the County and not just this project.
Craig Benedict answered several clarifying questions of Commissioner Gordon.
Commissioner Gordon said that the hardest thing about economic development is to get it
in areas that will support it.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the very last page in the new package, page 51,
which was an appendix. This was pulled out by the task force. He said that these might be the
kinds of requirements that a non - conforming use would have to meet when it applied for a
conditional use permit. He said that the specifics in the first packet became the appendix on
pages 51 -52.
Jeff Schmitt said that he was present when the citizens brought their concerns to the
Board. He asked if this plan met the requests that some of the citizens had that would allow them
to proceed with the development of the small businesses.
Craig Benedict said that the business community has participated in every meeting, and
this creates a mechanism by which an expanded business or different uses can be pursued. The
neighborhood is concerned that some of the adverse impacts that exist now do not get worse.
The County is trying to strike a balance. The conditional use approval process would allow for
those concerns to come out through a public hearing process.
Public Comment:
Karen Barrows thanked the County Commissioners and the Planning staff that worked
with the citizens. She said that there are a lot of conflicting interests in the area. A lot of the
neighbors are concerned about damage to their wells from the blasting of the quarry, etc. The
noise and increased traffic are also issues related to the quarry and the speedway. Some people
do not want any more development in the area. She agrees. She does understand that other
people have bought land with the intent to develop it, and those needs should be addressed also.
173
174
DRAFT-NOT APPROVED YET
1 She said that the REDA is a pretty good vehicle to strike a balance_ She hopes that it will he
2 adopted. She said that this has to be done properly.
3 Bruce Peters said that he represents some neighbors. He was asked to speak to the
4 speedway, go- cartlmotocross facilities, and the potential reopening of the asphalt plant. This is a
5 big concern for people that live within a quarter of a mile. He said that if these commercial
6 establishments are allowed to operate without any constraint, mainly noise buffers, the rural
7 residential area will be equivalent to a heavy industrial zone because of the excessive pollution of
8 the air from motors without exhaust systems and the burning of oil and other agents in the
9 production of asphalt. There is also excessive noise pollution. He said that Durham recently
10 adopted a new noise ordinance, in which no construction can take place on Sunday or on
11 weekdays after 6:00 p.m. He said that many neighbors see no reason to change from the present
12 limited use if these operations do not care about giving the air relief from the overwhelming
13 pollution, especialiy noise. Lastly, the neighbors do not have a great deal of concern about some
14 of the County's requirements in detail (i.e., landscaping, signage, parking entrances, etc.)
15 because they do not affect the quality of life or the value of the property.
16 Melvin Stanley was representing Orange County Speedway, but as an interested party
17 and not as legal counsel. He said that the speedway property has been operating as a legal non -
18 conforming operation since 1994 when "blanket' zoning was done. He said that he understood
19 that the County would have a rezoning to make the property more consistent with the existing
20 uses. He said that the interested parties proceeded with the understanding that this was a legal
21 non - conforming use and that it would not be permitted to expand, such has more seats or
22 expanded racetrack. He said that somewhere in this process, they fell through a crack. There
23 was a discussion about the committee that was put together and two of the meetings were held
24 before the speedway representatives knew there was a committee. He said that an application
25 was made to put one member of the speedway staff on the committee, and this was not acted
26 upon. He said that he had proceeded expecting to see some kind of a commercial zoning that
27 would apply that would cover the racetrack. He said that at the last committee meeting, he
28 expressed some fairly strong concerns, in that the specifics that were listed would require that the
29 speedway give up some 70% of the land so that nothing could be done on it. It would also require
30 rebuilding some roads and relighting the facility. He said that this is not economically feasible for
31 the speedway. He asked what would happen if the speedway did not participate in this plan. He
32 said that they do not know what they can and cannot do. He asked for a list of what is permissible
33 and presumed to be permissible with reasonable conditions. He asked if they would be forced to
34 be a part of this plan, or if they could opt out.
35 Craig Benedict said that the new zoning overlay and the conditional use rezoning would be
36 available for someone to voluntarily ask to be included. If an entity wants to remain in its present
37 status with no expansion, then it can do that. He said that the County was not forcing anyone to
38 ask for a conditional use rezoning and be subject to the process.
39 Melvin Stanley asked if there would be a list of potentially permissible uses. He
40 specifically referred to concerts, car shows, and animal shows. He encouraged staff to bring a list
41 that would be sensibly usable, provided that reasonable guidelines are followed.
42
43 Commissioner Jacobs suggested a word change on goal #5 on page 28. He suggested,
44 "Air quality issues shall be an integral part of any future permit reviewed within the Study Area."
45 He said that, as far as participation in the task force meetings, no one was precluded from
46 speaking. He said that everyone that attended felt quite free to speak.
47 Melvin Stanley said that he did not mean to imply this.
48 A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer
49 this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than
50 August 21, 2007.
51 VOTE: UNANIA40US
6) 175
DRAFT MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
jux 11, 2007
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Crawford, Eno Township At- Large;
Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Sam Lasris, Cedar
Grove Township At Large, Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee Price, Hillsborough Township At
Large (Vice- Chair), Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at
Large;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township
Representative (Resigned); Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At- Large,
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor, Tom Alfieri,
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Glenn Bowies, Planner Il; Donna Davenport, Administrative Assistant
II, Perdita Holtz, Michael Harvey, Gene Bell, Jennifer Leaf
OTHERS: Steve Yuhasz
Agenda Item 11: QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING REFERRALS
NC HIGHWAY 57 SPEEDWAY AREA SMALL AREA PLAN
Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II
Jeffrey Schmitt: Were the managements of the quarry, race track and go -kart tracks present?
Glenn Bowles: The go -kart management and speedway management were always there. The quarry
management was invited and came to one meeting to make a presentation. They have a copy of the draft
plan and know all the details of the Task Force's work.
Renee Price: Have the residents of the adjoining neighborhoods feel comfortable about the development?
Glenn Bowles: Are they comfortable with a go -kart track or speedway? No.
Jeffrey Schmitt: What are the issues?
Glenn Bowles: The surrounding neighbors. The go -kart track is noise, the speedway is the noise and trash
and traffic. The quarry wasn't too much of a problem, but the neighbors do feel the vibration of the blasting
and hear the sounds of the vehicles. The quarry has a wide buffer.
Renee Price: But the meetings have not caused concerns.
Glenn Bowles: Yes, we had a lot of discussion about issues.
Renee Price: Are they mellowing out?
Glenn Bowles: They are. The neighbors generally accept the task force report. They are not happy with
the uses. It was a balancing act.
176
Jay Bryan: Are we being asked to approve this small area plan? Does that plan include a recommendation
for implementation? This whole proposal is not what we are voting on tonight.
Jeffrey Schmitt. What are we voting on tonight?
Jay Bryan: The small area plan on pages 79-127 up to but not including the appendices. It includes the
REDA section?
Glenn Bowles: It introduces the REDA.
Jay Bryan: Does anyone need any more information about the plan?
, ieffrey Schmitt: On page 135, how does the information listed about the speedway relate to what is in ft
plan?
Glenn Bowles: Everything listed about the speedway and /or the go -kart track was derived from the listing of
issues, constraints, liabilities and opportunities that was early in the report.
Jeffrey Schmitt: The ownership of the speedway, not having 'a concept of this may or may not be coming
forward, has what type of comments to this list?
Glenn Bowies: He thinks it is a constraint on him. If the speedway isn't going to make it, he wants a list of
acceptable uses for that site. We are not prepared to do that.
Craufurd Goodwin: Referring to planning principals; Preservation of projection of area rural, we were told
there Is a lot of noise. Impacts to the natural systems, there seem to be nothing but impacts. Growth
development to compliment rural character and lifestyle, the whole thing seems to be an impact.
Glenn Bowles: If you go back to look at the planning principals, they are complimentary of the goals you are
being ask to look at.
Craufurd Goodwin: Will these help get a resolution of the problem?
Glenn Bowles: They organize the objectives.
Brian Crawford: I'm not sure how long the speedway has been there. It would seem that this situation is
that no matter how many environmental issues are attended with its use to come in on a retroactive basis
and impose economic conditions which are so substantive in nature they cannot afford to do them.
Glenn Bowles: We are not imposing those on them unless they step forward to become conforming. If they
want to stay non - conforming, they can do that but if they would like to become conforming then it would also
be a negotiation. In the end, they may be stated differently or some may fall off.
Jay Bryan: They can continue to use the site in that manner.
Brian Crawford: We can't do anything unless they want a change.
Jeffrey Schmitt: I think that is a trap because I am not sure what a change is.
Glenn Bowles: if they want to expand; for example parking.
Ile]
177
Sandra Quinn: If we pass this, and the property is sold, will this be a change or will the new owner still be
non - conforming.
Glenn Bowles: He still has the same options.
MOTION made by Renee Price to approve the plan with the understanding that the residents have agreed to
the plan. Brian Crawford seconded.
VOTE: (9 Ayes, 2 opposed (Jeffrey Schmitt, Joel Knight)
Jay Bryan: I would like to make it clear that I am not supportive of the REDA section.
Glenn Bowles: You want to remove the Section 5 in its entirety?
Jay Bryan: No. It is not something we approve with this motion.
Brian Crawford: Is Section 5 part of the SAP?
Glenn Bowles: Yes, It is. The plan goes up to but does not include the appendices.
Brian Crawford: I don't accept that.
Renee Price: My understanding is that it would not include REDA?
Glenn Bowles: REDA as the implementation tool.
Brian Crawford: What section is the Small Area Plan?
Glenn Bowles: Everything up to Section 6. The concept of the REDA, the conditional zoning with the
approval of the Small Area Plan, it introduces the concept but it does not deal specifically with how the
REDA will be worded.
Renee Price: Would the REDA have to be used?
Glenn Bowles: Planning staff is only suggesting that it be used.
Michael Harvey: You have the SAP that makes a list of recommendations. The SAP identifies the public
participation with the process a recommended course of action or recommended course of action. This
Task Force, with staffs input and assistance, has developed a process which includes a Section 5 which
they have recommended as the Rural Economic Development Area. Their recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners is that in order to implement the standards and policies identified within this
document, you follow a Rural Economic Development Process. The Board, in accepting this document, is
not bound by that recommendation. You are recommending approval for is that you are accepting the Task
Force SAP including the recommendation, which you will get back to take formal action on implementation
measures. This will go for the normal approval and process as usual.
Brian Crawford: What is your concern about the REDA?
Jay Bryan: I am okay with it being used for this plan but not being adopted as a broad County wide
approach. This is implied to be a County wide approach and I don't agree with that.
178
Michael Harvey: The task force is making a recommendation, whether it is accepted or not, to use REDA in
this plan. By adopting this plan, it does not establish the REDA. It still has to go through the normal zoning
and land use text process amendments to bring it to frukiuli.
Brian Crawford: I think we want to recommend the SAP but we have reservations about REDA being
adopted County wide. I think it is fair to state that in the motion.
MOTION made by Renee Price to approve the plan with the understanding that the residents have agreed to
the plan and REDA will not be adopted County wide. Brian Crawford seconded.
VOTE: (2 opposed (Jeffrey Schmitt, Joel Knight)
I�1
X3179
MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
June 14, 2007
Present: Anita Badrock, Bryant Colson, Dan Coleman, Keith Cook, Mark Crowell, Jim Evans, Lilyn
Hester, Chris Hogan, Eric Hallman, Barry Jacobs, Anne Loeb, Tony McKnight, Lauri
Michel, Bob Ward
Staff. Willie Best, Yvonne Scariett, Craig Benedict, Tom Alted
Guest: Dianne Reid
Absent: Mike Nelson, Alois Callemyn
Highway 571Speedway Area - Anita Badrock and Dianne Reid
Badrock b, iefly explained that this v:as a small area plan that about 968 acres in the northeastern part of
Orange County, bordered to the north by Person and to the east by Durham County. This area was picked
because right now it primarily zoned rural agricultural, but there are a number of nonconforming uses there —
Orange County Speedway, a rock quarry, and go -cart track. There has also been some interest from
property owners up there about other things that they might be able to do with their property. Two community
meetings and six meetings of the Task Force were held with good attendance with one of the goals being to
collaborate with those nonconforming uses property owners to bring them into conforming use. Another thing
was to think about whether there was ways that people could do some things on their property that were a
little more expansive than just the rural agricultural. Basically the outcome was to charge the community with
trying to reconcile some commercial aspirations with the property with neighborhood values and goals. The
Task Force recommended that the Commissioners consider an establishment of a permitted use — a -
conditional use permit. Which would be specific to the property, it would go through the kind of review that
conditional use permitting has (the County currently does not have conditional use permitting) and that we
would better define and promote a rural economic development district — which would be to allow some
increased commercial use of what has been historically rural agricultural property. This Task Force Report
has now been given to the BOCC, went to Public Hearing on May 2181, and referred to this Board for
approval.
Craig Benedict — Again, this is a small area - planning document and it has embedded recommendations. If
the small area plan is approved by the Commissioners, that is a go ahead to proceed with developing new
ordinances — what is conditional use district, consider new over -lay districts which is to be entitled rural
economic development area, so this would be the go ahead. Some people think the document makes
everything start working — this is actually (if approved) the go ahead to start preparing zoning ordnance
changes — new zoning constructs and it also would not infer rights to Raceway immediately. They would
have to petition afterwards to use these new rules to make them go from a nonconforming to a conditional
use conforming status.
A motion was made by Keith Cook, and seconded by Mark Crowell to recommend the Plan be
forwarded for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The motion was approved
unanimously.
Craig Benedict — a lot of these small area plans that are tracking through both the Planning Board and EDC
and these are the plans that have recommendations and all of a sudden coming down the pike you will see
the zoning amendment, you'll see a permitted use change possibly. So we're trying to put together a mid-
range plan to let you know in advance when these things will be coming your way, so in about a month, we
hope to work with EDC staff and work with Willie to plot out the course of these implementation strategies of
these plans. We'll try to get a master plan for you and whatever meetings these things hit, you'll see where
you are in the process of these five or six different small area plan processes and moving into the
implementation phase.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Approved 2/2/11
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY19,2011
SPECIAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), At- Large, Eno Township; Larry Wright (Vice- Chair), At- Large, Cedar Grove
Township; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative; Alan Campbell,
Cedar Grove Township Representative; May Becker, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Mark Marcoplos, At- Large, Bingham
Township;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Bingham Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative;
Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Vacant- Little River
Township Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altied, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning
Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner; Terry Hackett,
Stormwater Resource Officer; Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant 11
OTHERS PRESENT: Dolly Hunter
(Documents emailed from May Becker prior to meeting: Email from May Becker, Stream Notes - Riparian Buffers, NC DENR-
Riparian Buffer Protection Rules and Tar - Pamlico River Basins, Orange County Protected Watersheds/Critical Areas Map,
Article by May Becker and others on Hydrodynamic behavior of the Cape Fear River and estuarine system: A synthesis and
observational investigation of discharge - salinity intrusion relationships, Article by May Becker and others on Effects of intratidal
and tidal range variability on circulation and salinity structure in the Cape Fear River Estuary, North Carolina)
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) — REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE DISTRICTSICONDITIONAL ZONING
DISTRICTS AND STREAM BUFFERS:
To review and discuss the Stream Buffer provisions in the proposed LIDO and to conduct any remaining
discussion on the Conditional Use District and Conditional Zoning Districts.
Presenter. • Planning Staff
Brian Crawford: Who is taking the lead tonight?
Perdita Holtz: At the last meeting we opened it up the Planning Board to express concerns.
May Becker: We talked about the Conditional and Conditional Zoning and I am still concerned about the Conditional Zoning that
it is too open ended for the developer. I am concerned about the lack of a Special Use Permit and I would like to discuss more
restrictions on that.
Brian Crawford: What specifically?
May Becker: I think that from our discussion /presentation last time that the planned development sounds like that was available
or an option, had more restrictions and now it has been divided into Conditional Use and Conditional Zoning.
Craig Benedict: There was chart we used on Elmo last meeting that was something that majority of the Planning Board
members understood the differences between the three different types of development. Maybe that is what she wants to see
again?
May Becker: Yes. There is also the email that went around discussing the conditional use districts versus conditional use.....
181
182
Approved 2/2/11
61 Craig Benedict: Some of the other Board members may be able to help my recollection. This meeting we were talking about
62 stream buffers first and then if there was any time left over we would go back to conditional use. Is that how others remember it?
63 That is what I understood. I remember Judith saying, let's make sure we have a good grasp on stream buffers at this meeting
64 and then as time permits, go back to conditional use because we came to some degree of finality on conditional use and
65 conditional zoning and general use last week.
66
67 Brian Crawford: Let's go to stream buffers and try to do as much as possible and then if there are lingering issues from the last
68 meeting, Planning Board members will be free to bring them back up.
69
70 May Becker: My understanding was similar to that except that I felt that I voiced some concern about some of these issues and
71 wanted to follow up about them. I sent an email about particular concerns and overview about stream buffers in general and
72 some research I have been doing in North Carolina and how it relates to streams in general and river basins. Then I made some
73 particular comments at the end regarding uses permitted by right. It appears there are a number of uses that were not included
74 in the ordinance. Uses permitted with mitigation and what mitigation involves and in general with respect to permitted uses by
75 right and I don't see any specific protections in there. If we have a area stream that has trees around it now, the buffer zone, and
76 then you clear cut if for some particular reason, development or putting sewer lines, I would like to look at specifically what will be
77 done to make sure there is some kind of vegetative buffer in there so that if nitrogen and phosphates and such get into it we don't
78 have problems down the line with dissolved oxygen where the fish can't breath or erosion and flooding and also all the way down
79 to the estuary and you consider what drives the estuary flow and what causes we to have health and fisheries that is all one
80 system and if you are urbanizing something in one part and changing on fresh water coming into the estuary for example that
81 changes the salinity gradient. In other words you have more fresh water pushing toward the ocean that changes the salinity
82 gradient between the ocean and fresh water infusion and that changes the potential for the salt water to come in or the strength
83 of the circulation of the salt water coming in on the bottom, saltwater coming in on the top which tends to change mixing
84 characteristics. I think there is a lot of evidence that the stream buffer, put in the handout with that, have had studies done at the
85 Neuse River Basin and the Cape Fear Basin and they have looked at results of putting stream buffers in as a result of problems
86 they had before and they have had positive results. I feel like that instead of later having to go down the line and clean up after
87 mistakes that have been made, I think we should look at it more carefully and make sure that we maintain the water quality that
88 we have. The other thing in the email was a link to an article about Falls Lake and how eventually when they have to consider
89 how to clean up the water quality they look at TMDL and consider who is going to pay the 1.5 billion dollars in clean up costs. 1
90 marked in the lower Cape Fear and did some critical field study for TMDL environmental management plan. It is long process
91 and there are a lot of different issues in this state so sometimes it comes up in meetings, why do we need more regulations when
92 the state has these regulations. These processes take a long time and they have to consider natural factors that are causing the
93 circulation. Sometimes people get the impression that we are at the point in technology where we have all the answers and can
94 solve everything but as we've seen in the Gulf with the oil spill, you have a problem and then all of a sudden people ask how do
95 we solve this. I feel like we shouldn't be of the kind of illusion that somebody is going to clean it up and everything is going to be
96 ok.
97
98 Tommy McNeill: Dr. Becker, I hear what you are saying and I have looked at the attachment looking at the houses and the 100
99 year flood in Orange County, the wetlands, etc. What is it that concerns you?
100
101 May Becker: It concerns me to take trees in areas close to the river because if you have trees or other vegetation and you have
102 got urbanization, runoff, etc. that you have a ,filter system to keep excess nitrogen and phosphates from coming into the water
103 body. If they do come into the water body, you have green algae or different types of chlorophyll that grow and as they grow,
104 chemical process take place. For example, vegetation or algae can rot and as the algae rots it sticks to the bottom and starts to
105 consume oxygen. As it consumes oxygen, fish or the other creatures that are used to living there don't have enough oxygen to
106 breathe and you start to see fish kills. We've seen that in the Neuse River Basin, it's an area where it's largely surrounded, the
107 Outer Banks for example, serve as a barrier island to stop the flushing of the tidal currents coming in and out so you have a
108 system that is basically temperature stratified because you don't have a lot of mixing, you tend to have problems with dissolved
109 oxygen. In the Cape Fear, in contrast, you have an estuary that is open to the ocean and you have the tides coming in and out
110 and you have more oxygenated waters that can dissolve oxygen, you will see there are different industries, they monitor these
111 areas to see how much they're discharging into the estuary. They have different ways of overseeing this. My concern is that in a
112 public area like streams here you don't have a monitoring system in place and you continue to potentially .... you go to a
113 subdivision for example, you have a lot of new residences, you have people fertilizing their lawns and you don't have some type
114 of vegetation buffer, some strict, specific area that is keeping a filter or some kind of vegetation to prevent development close to
115 the stream, then you don't know what you will have.
116
117 Brian Crawford: Help us think about policies. As I understand the buffers, and they can clear cut maybe 25 feet of it and you
118 have the vegetation portion that has to stay in place. Specifically that is what the buffer is at state law and you are suggesting
119 something further to increase the absorption and a potential runoff into the streams.
120
2
183
Approved 2/2/11
121 May Becker: I would like to go through what is there and what is not there. The way it reads to me is things that were not
122 permitted within this area are now being permitted.
123
124 Tommy McNeill: Could you give an example?
125
126 May Becker: Let's go to page 6 -142, 143, Section 6.13.6. A whole bunch of things have been added in red. The properly
127 owners provide a written notification to the planning department and location of the accepted use. Property owners shall provide
128 a written statement to the planning department that the use shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize soil
129 disturbance and to provide the maximum water quality protection practicable. If structures are proposed, approval of a site plan
130 and all applicable building permits shall be required prior to commencement of land disturbing activities. From my understanding,
131 these particular activities or uses are now being permitted by right according to Section C. For example number 8, driveway
132 crossing on single - family residential lots that disturb less than, or equal to, 25 linear feet or 2,500 square feet of stream buffer
133 number 12, public water and sewer lines that do not disturb over 40 linear feet, and New stormwater management ponds,
134 provided a riparian buffer that meets the requirements of this Section is established adjacent to the pond. So another concern 1
135 have is ponds. We have seen in Cape Fear what these waste lagoons do when farmers have industrialized hog production
136 facilities and they put their waste into these lagoons, during storm events they overflow into the stream and you've got fish kills
137 and you've got... essentially people don'i monitor whaVs going on over these stor ni events and you have a big mess.
138
139 Tommy McNeill: Regarding the lagoons, do you feel that is really typical here in Orange County? I understand the Cape Fear,
140 and certainly I understand your concern in the Cape Fear River Basin but here in Orange County do you think that would be a
141 concern of Orange County residences to worry about the quality in Orange County.
142
143 May Becker: That was an analogy really.
144
145 Tommy McNeill: Craig, the things that she has brought up, the things discussed, is that a red flag? How does staff feel about
146 them?
147
148 Craig Benedict: Presently, our code allows for private driveway crossings, utility crossings to stream buffers and that is an
149 acceptable encroachment to the stream buffers. We are suggesting for some additional encroachments to be allowed if there is
150 mitigation in accordance with State and the Department of Natural Resources. Terry Hackett is here tonight, he is the
151 Stormwater Officer in Orange County, and can explain the technology behind these mitigation rules. The State presently allows
152 more encroachment than even our modified version. At the appropriate time tonight, I will give somewhat of an answer not now
153 but at the appropriate time, we can go through why the modification that is being suggested will exceed state requirements as we
154 always have in Orange County.
155
156 Brian Crawford: Have you gone through the list and checked the ones of major concerns.
157
158 May Becker: I put a couple of questions I have, what do the ordinances say now, what they do in the proposed LIDO. To me
159 when you add something residences are permitted by use or permitted by right, it applies to me that previously.... that these are
160 new rights. If somebody has a piece of property now an ordinance is written that says this is his or her right then I would like to
161 know how, is this something new? I have marked those that are of particular concern. I would like to see what the particular
162 rules are regarding ponds as well as the public water and sewer water lines, what kind of vegetative would be maintained? On
163 Page 6 -144, 1 would like to discuss what the steps of mitigation are, also, letter D number 4- 6.144, with regard to cumulative
164 impact. I think there were comments on temporary roads by other members.
165
166 Brian Crawford: Perdita, can you flush it out?
167
168 Perdita Holtz: I would like to explain what Orange County regulations and what the state regulations are so we can have a basis
169 to start the discussion. (Reviewed chart projected) On the left is the state requirements and on the right is Orange County
170 existing requirements and as it exists in the UDO. State requires, in the watersheds that comprise Orange County, 50 feet wide
171 on both sides of the stream, which is measured from the top of the stream bank. In Orange County, we have two methods of
172 calculating width and the required methods depends on which watershed you are in. In the UDO, it tells you which method you
173 have to use. In protected and critical watersheds, generally, a 130 foot total buffer. It is measured from the edge of the flood
174 plain for streams that have mapped floodplains, so we are measuring from the edge of the flood plain which is further out than
175 the stream bank. If you have steeper lands, there will be 160 foot total buffer. There are specific nuances for Cane Creek,
176 Upper Eno, Lower Eno that may require a larger buffer than that. In the unprotected watersheds, which is a fairly small area in
177 the county, we require a 50 foot minimum on both sides of the stream. That is a state requirement. The state requires buffers on
178 intermittent and perennial streams, lakes, ponds and estuarine waters and those are shown on the soil survey map or the USGS
179 map. They are fairly major water bodies. In Orange County, we are requiring the same as the state except we also require that
180 you buffer water features identified by field determination. Our storm water folks go out to development projects and look for
3
184
Approved 2/2/11
181 drainage. We require buffers along what others might consider to be fairly insignificant streams. The state allows specific uses
182 in the stream buffer. Some are permitted outright and some are with mitigation. We currently allow some uses in the stream
183 buffer, in black, in the section May was referring to on page 142 through 143 and we are proposing to allow some additional uses
184 in the stream buffers. Some will be outright and some will be with mitigation but we are proposing allowable uses far less
185 expensive than those allowed by the state. Shannon has put together a chart showing what the state allows.
186
187 Tommy McNeill: In other words, in the final analysis, Orange County is a little more strict than the state?
188
189 Perdita Holtz: Yes. And we are recognized through the state for that.
190
191 May Becker: You are proposing to be more lenient than before and these particular numbers came from a local ... people before
192 here have considered Orange County as a local area as opposed to the state and if the state would come up with a buffer law
193 that would presumably apply to water bodies that are not as well known to people in Orange County, for example, because they
194 have the buffer for general buffer ordinance. Whereas in Orange County they presumably put some time into considering how
195 they protect the streams in Orange County and do we feel these buffer laws are what we want.
196
197 Perdita Holtz: Terry, has the list of state allowed uses expanded since our regulations were adopted?
198
199 Terry Hackett: Yes they have.
200
201 Perdita Holtz: So the state has changed and expanded their uses and we are now looking at what the state allows. Ultimately,
202 we have to be at least as restrictive as the state.
203
204 May Becker: No, I understand, I just feel that we have very limited number of water bodies and we have potentially a huge
205 amount of people who want to develop or move to Orange County and I feel that if these water bodies have laws to protect them
206 1 think we should carefully consider if we are going to weaken any of those laws, what is the impact, and is it necessary, what is
207 the reason for it.
208
209 Perdita Holtz: There are actually a large number of water bodies that are protected in Orange County. Every stream or drainage
210 is essentially in the stream buffer.
211
212 May Becker: My point is that if there is that protection, to take it away is something that I feel one really has to think about and
213 know what the affects are going to be rather than look at it and say we have this bigger government agency, the state, that has
214 something that is less restrictive so we are okay because we are still more restrictive than they are.
215
216 Perdita Holtz: So it comes down to the Planning Board deciding whether the added uses are reasonable in the Planning Boards
217 view and making recommendations about it.
218
219 Mark Marcoplos: Do we know where North Carolina is ranked nationally in terms of its standards on water quality?
220
221 Terry Hackett: I would say that North Carolina's Water Quality Protection laws are one of the better ones in the country. We
222 have a big push now to look at stormwater and the impacts of run off from development. Obviously Falls Lake and Jordan Lake
223 are in our area a big concern. The nutrient reduction strategies the state has that are now in effect for those water bodies are
224 probably the most stringent in the country. No one has ever done that. I would say that I don't know exactly how we would rank
225 but I would certainly say we are near the top with what we do.
226
227 (Tommy McNeill left meeting)
228
229 Mark Marcoplos: So the Jordan Lake plan is a relatively new instituted plan in reaction to years of failed management, right? A
230 lot of pollution has gone into Jordan Lake and that was the impetus of the Jordan Lake Plan.
231
232 Terry Hackett: It was but I would not necessarily chalk it up to failed management. Folks knew that and is very typical with our
233 impoundments which are very shallow relatively and the appropriate conditions for eutrophication.... we knew there was going to
234 be a problem and of course as things developed certain portions of the watershed without these stringent buffer rules and that is
235 probably contributing a lot to the eutrophication . I think basically that the buffer rules we have in place now and even most of the
236 rules proposed in the UDO are very reasonable and low impact and we will be able to manage those.
237
238 Pete Hallenbeck: May, there is language in this LIDO that talks about determining the size of the buffer zone and what it should
239 be whether it is woods or grass. Are those generally speaking acceptable? A follow up question would be, the concerns are with
4
185
Approved 2/2/11
240 the permitted use in general, in particular these new ones? Is there a problem defining what the buffer should look like or a
241 problem of all these places you can violate the buffer?
242
243 May Becker: My other concern is the places where you can violate the buffer. I don't know for sure about the specific details of
244 how, say woods versus material, went into that calculation. I am assuming that came from a method that has been developed
245 before this UDO has been presented so when I read it I moved on and said this is the method that has been used. Also, I want
246 to be clear on a few formatting things at the end followed by ... there were a couple of methods presented and later described as
247 to which method would apply to which area and I felt it wasn't ....
248
249 Pete Hallenbeck: Another reason for asking is we are at the point of merging the UDO and we said we will not change it but get
250 it all together, and then we will worry about change. I am also looking at this, are the definition of how much buffer you need
251 acceptable for this stage so we could focus solely on these new permitted uses and if that would be 80% of where we need to be
252 on water or is absolutely everything off and we have to look at both how we calculate the buffer size and the uses.
253
254 May Becker: I agree. I would like to understand better how the buffers are calculated.
255
256 Pete Hallenbeck: Are they acceptable at this stage?
257
258 May Becker: Yes. I would rather talk about new changes to understand where they are.
259
260 Brian Crawford: We are more restrictive.
261
262 Larry Wright: This would be 6.13.6 item 9, New Stormwater, I would like to know what that is and if this relates to a type of pond
263 that is used to mitigate with a built in wetland and then they build a pond without providing ... so they just build a pond in back of
264 the Harris Teeter on Martin Luther King, is this really a cesspool? It seems like it is mitigation. Stormwater that comes off the
265 parking lot. Is this the type of thing we are talking about on this item 13?
266
267 Terry Hackett: That is a yes and no. What you are referring to behind the Hams Teeter is a stormwater pond that was designed
268 to manage the amount of stormwater coming off those facilities. It was constructed before any of the newer stormwater
269 requirements. This is referring to, when we say stormwater management pond, is stormwater quality pond. It is a wet pond and
270 it will look like a pond but it is designed to treat the amount of stormwater in it and settle out pollutants from the runoff. Primarily
271 nitrogen and phosphorus. Those are the two we are most concerned with. The pond itself has to meet the design requirements
272 as we use the state's stormwater best management practices manual they have to meet. There are certain design guidelines
273 that a designer would have to meet. Basically, if we were to look at a development plan that proposed a stormwater management
274 pond such as this, our first suggestion is that we don't want it in a buffer at all. Unfortunately, because of site constraints, there
275 may be a reason it has to be in a buffer. This rule is saying you have to establish a riparian buffer around that pond just like if it
276 were a farm pond.
277
278 Larry Wright: So EPA has one of those? You can imagine all the guidelines but muskrats and beavers have made channels so
279 these are flowing directly into what they call the lake. What the EPA wanted to have for their holding ponds for their parking lots
280 doesn't seem to be working.
281
282 Terry Hackett: That really falls back on them because any engineered stormwater facility requires an operation maintenance
283 plan, requires to be recorded on the deed and that the owner of that pond would have to inspect that and provide a report. We
284 try to do it as we have time to go and inspect these. We don't have many in the county at this time. All that authority is in the
285 stormwater section of the UDO so there are provisions to take care of those issues. If you design something and it is not
286 maintained that is the problem because it not functioning.
287
288 May Becker: The way the ordinance reads now in terms of the new ordinance in red says this pond that we talked about is
289 permitted by right. What is it presently? What is the procedure if someone has a piece of property and said I am interested in
290 putting a storm pond close to the buffer or in the buffer zone?
291
292 Terry Hackett: I don't think we have anything in the existing rules that spells that out. Right now we have a stand alone
293 stormwater ordinance that includes the whole list of buffers that doesn't really apply because the zoning ordinance trumps that
294 but there are provisions in there. What basically with this particular use is just making clarification. Most of the time most of the
295 development we are seeing in the county, the stream buffer is just one tool we use to manage the stormwater runoff. We also
296 have impervious surface limits and open space requirements, etc. that also work together. We have very few of these types of
297 ponds out there now.
298
186
Approved 2/2/11
299 Brian Crawford: Here is the confusion. You said initially the state has this list of permitted uses and we went through that list
300 and selected 24 and said we will do these or we are suggesting we do these. I think May is saying that it sounds like that of
301 those 100, we have none of those left and so why would we want to add these 24 when we are doing fine without them. I think
302 that is what we need help to figure out why we are making this change at this point when they UDOs purpose was to consolidate
303 and worry about change later but then we are confronted with 24 changes here.
304
305 Terry Hackett: It takes a couple of uses by right were already there in our existing ordinance. These are clarifications of those.
306
307 Craig Benedict: Orange County has been in process of acquiring land over the last 15 years and it is important that when we
308 purchase new lands, and Rich Shaw is here from Environment Resources, that we are able to enjoy those natural areas and
309 presently we cannot put a six foot pathway 30 feet away from the stream so we suggesting, for the money that Orange County
310 citizens have invested in the county to enjoy these beautiful natural areas, that we be allowed to encroach on these natural areas
311 with a six foot unpaved pathway by right. That we are allowed to have a fire truck go down next to a pond so that we have rural
312 fire control which we cannot currently do. If there is a nuisance species, like poison ivy, that we can go down there and remove
313 it. If we get money for environmental enhancement, funds, if someone gives us money for enhancements, we can't do that
314 because there is some disturbance but there is more enhancement and mitigation that comes forward. All these suggestions on
315 1 through 15 are for purposes of enjoying, restoring or enhancing that stream buffer. Trail crossings, associated bridges, docks,
316 presently we own lands that are on behalf of the public and we cannot put a dock on that pond. We have had requests from
317 citizens and our own departments to use the resources we have purchased by some access to the docks, etc.
318
319 Larry Wright: Uses permitted by right. You said these were uses that were listed for enjoyment. Can you say that phrase
320 again?
321
322 Craig Benedict: So that we can enjoy the natural areas we have purchased in the county.
323
324 Larry Wright: If this was a preamble to this section so they would understand the spirit of the section, I think a lot of this
325 confusion and discussion would be directed towards that- the recreational.
326
327 May Becker: I feel like there are two different things going on. I see Craig's point but I am also hearing that these ponds have
328 been viewed as a right in a sense. On one hand you have the ponds that potentially .... depending how it is regulated....
329 additional buffers may be required that could work or they could not work. To me that is important to establish and when I read
330 this about ponds and we all ask what is analogous to this and is this analogous to something else. I think that is what we need to
331 understand and be comfortable with if these things are permitted by right, to me that tells the owner of a piece of property will
332 think I have a right to do this.
333
334 Brian Crawford: Does that still allow your department to inspect that?
335
336 Terry Hackett: Absolutely. The stormwater management pond would be covered under the stormwater management plans that
337 are required for development in a different section of the UDO. They were required to meet the stormwater standards.
338
339 Brian Crawford: Why does it have to be by right? Can it be mitigation or some other language that announces to the public that
340 you have the ability to do these things but you just can't do it the way you want to do it. If I am reading this as a private citizen 1
341 am going to think that I can hear dimensions, I am going to cut that hole and make the dimensions but it may not necessarily be
342 to the specifications that the Erosion Control Department would require. We need to make an announcement to the public that
343 they still have to go through a stringent process to allow this permitted use to be approved.
344
345 Michael Harvey: Could I direct your attention to 6.13.6c. There is a specific standard for stormwater ponds that the UDO is
346 subject to that. If there is a specific standard dealing with dam or reservoir maintenance mentioned in the UDO it has to meet
347 that standard. Stream restoration projects, stream buffer erosion control standards has to meet those standards. I think what
348 you are looking for is there.
349
350 Craig Benedict: Single family houses are permitted by right in agricultural areas but there are still standards to meet. I like
351 Larry's idea to further this preamble and the same introductory paragraph that says you have to meet standards but we could
352 also put in there that these permitted uses are being allowed as noted below are for the general enjoyment and maintenance of
353 these natural areas. These are all on behalf of the preservation of the resource.
354
355 Larry Wright: The mountains to the sea trail will be coming through Orange County and I understand if there are problems with
356 that trail coming through and I would like to see it come through this county. If we can do something to have this trail come next
357 to a stream buffer, I for one, would like to be able to see that happen.
358
6
187
Approved 2/2/11
359 Perdita Holtz: It almost sounds like in A, the General Standards, you want to make it dear that everything requires approval of
360 some sort of permit or approving document in order to do the uses permitted by right. Not just if structures are proposed but also
361 in general, you want everyone to know they need to get the approval of the planning department in order to do this.
362
363 Shannon Berry: Basically all activities require approval of the site plan and all applicable permits which would be Erosion
364 Control, etc.
365
366 May Becker: I guess the term "permitted by right'. For example, if you want to build a house then you would say you have the
367 right to do that however, why would a pond be permitted by right.
368
369 Perdita Holtz: The use is permitted but without mitigation.
370
371 May Becker: The ponds have been added as permitted by right. So you are saying the ponds have been defacto existing
372 permitted by right or something else even though they are listed as permitted by right. I am asking if this has gone on so
373 productively for years, why does it have to be put into this document?
374
375 Shannon Berry: I think ponds permitted in a buffer, provided siunnwater ordinances are permitted based on site plan approval. 1
376 don't think what Terry was saying that they have allowed ponds all over the place in stream buffers.
377
378 May Becker: That is my concern. If they are going to do that now by right.
379
380 Terry Hackett: We have thousands of ponds on streams in Orange County. They are ponds not for stormwater management
381 most of them were probably created as farm ponds at one point. There is a whole permitting process they would have to go
382 through. This specific issue is stormwater ponds and they would not be allowed in the stream. That is something we would
383 never approve and the state doesn't allow or the EPA. This would be something where for space constraints, this stormwater
384 pond in order to treat the impervious surface that belongs to this property encroaches into this stream buffer, we are saying since
385 that pond encroaches in stream buffer, you have to establish a buffer around that too.
386
387 Craig Benedict: (Provided a picture of the example.) In the Unified Development Ordinance, we are balancing a lot of different
388 interest in the context of a bigger picture. In Orange County, all of these issues we have going on here, we are stricter than the
389 state for the Orange County watershed protection. We have some of the strictest requirements of any county in North Carolina.
390 The nutrient loads are being monitored by both the Neuse River, Jordan Lake and Falls Lake rules. We do monitor TMBL with a
391 stream monitoring process. We are still not being more liberal than the state. When you combine these things, we are doing
392 more for water quality in North Carolina than any other county.
393
394 Mark Marcoplos: I would like to second Larry's preamble just so that it is read, they understand the goal of these things are to
395 enhance the quality of life while protecting the waters and streams so that when someone comes along and finds a loop hole, at
396 least that is there and we can go to them and say, that was not the intent. What is stream bank stabilization, is that a potential
397 loop hole?
398
399 Terry Hackett: That is basically where you have possibly a degraded stream bank from erosion, or excess flow. It allows you to
400 come in there and stabilize that bank by various means and those would have to be submitted in a plan and approved. Typically,
401 when you talk about stream bank stabilization, anything below the ordinary high water mark also has to be approved by the
402 Corps of Engineers and the State of North Carolina. It is to eliminate in stream erosion.
403
404 Mark Marcoplos: So it could be rip rap or wood?
405
406 Terry Hackett: There are various different methods, but what we would certainly prefer to see is plantings but sometimes it
407 actually it takes engineering to re -slope the bank and put in a stabilization.
408
409 Pete Hallenbeck: I would like to clarify two things. Is there currently an ordinance in Orange County that prohibits repetitive
410 fertilizers in stream buffers?
411
412 Terry Hackett: Yes. In the Neuse stormwater ordinance. It allows for fertilization once for the establishment or reestablishment
413 of vegetation.
414
415 Pete Hallenbeck: If someone says I have this wonderful lawn 20 feet from the stream, they are not allowed to fertilize that every
416 year?
417
418 Terry Hackett: That is correct.
7
188
Approved 2/2/11
419
420 Pete Hallenbeck: Everything we are talking about, existing ponds will be grandfathered in, we are not proposing you go through
421 the county and find everyone with a pond and have them plant trees.
422
423 Craig Benedict: With existing ponds, we would not be retroactively pursuing conditions around existing ponds.
424
425 Pete Hallenbeck: On page 6 -143, under C, number 13. New stormwater management ponds. We have talked a lot about
426 stormwater management ponds. There are ordinances in the LIDO regarding stormwater management ponds, are there any
427 about plain old ponds?
428
429 Terry Hackett: The way we would regulate that is if the pond is for non - agricultural use. If it disturbs enough land to trigger an
430 erosion control permit then we would have require a permit and erosion control plan, etc. There are state rules, even with
431 agricultural ponds. There is a dam safety act, the rule of thumb is from top of the dam to toe is 15 feet requires a dam safety
432 permit and actually an engineered dam. It would hold enough water back that it could cause down stream flooding. The state
433 actually does inventory ponds and sends letters on a three or five year cycle.
434
435 Pete Hallenbeck: I have heard that. I have talked to farmers and they have this awareness that if you are making a pond, don't
436 go deeper than 15 feet.
437
438 Terry Hackett: It is true. If I have an actual live stream and I place fill to create a dam, I may have to have a section 404 Clean
439 Water Act Permit from the Corps of Engineers which also has state review and there is a whole list of requirements that they
440 have to do to protect down stream's habitat, etc. and they would have to establish a riparian buffer around that pond.
441
442 Pete Hallenbeck: What I am reading in both of those replies is to put a pond in Orange County, one way or another, you will run
443 into a permitting process. The only possible exception would be a homeowner putting in a pond disturbing less than the amount
444 of square footage for Erosion Control change based on the critical watershed area
445
446 May Becker: I am interested in what they are but I am also ... I am not trying to say that one homeowner is trying to have a
447 pond. My concern is the general trend. We have talked about development and zoning and such. If you have a right or you
448 could propose putting in that you have the right to put a pond into the development. For example, a developer comes and claims
449 he has the right to put a pond in the buffer zone, where is this runoff going to go and are there specific standards and what will
450 stop a developer essentially going too close to the river?
451
452 Pete Hallenbeck: So your concern is earlier in the process when the permits are run than the more general question which is
453 how we tell the people they have a right to put ponds in buffer zones.
454
455 Perdita Holtz: Can I address this one thing? Terry Hackett may not have been aware of this but new ponds with riparian buffer
456 adjacent to the pond is actually a use that is in the state's list of uses and it is not in the county's proposed uses so it probably is
457 not allowed to just do a pond that is not for stormwater management purposed.
458
459 Pete Hallenbeck: Stormwater or ag?
460
461 Perdita Holtz: Ag will fall into a whole different category because ag is not subject to the zoning ordinance. You said you want to
462 have a pretty pond with decks, the way it is written now, you would not be able to do that.
463
464 Larry Wright: What is 29?
465
466 Perdita Holtz: This is the list ....
467
468 Larry Wright: Give me an example of what that would be.
469
470 Perdita Holtz: A new pond like what May was just describing. You want a pond on your property that is in the stream buffer.
471
472 May Becker: I am essentially concemed about the runoff, new development and whether it would create more impervious
473 surface, you will have to have that runoff go somewhere. If it goes into the pond and that pond is too close to the stream buffer
474 than what is going to stop someone from putting it too close to the stream buffer and does that developer interpret that he has
475 the right to put on there.
476
477 Craig Benedict: The developer can locate a new stormwater pond in a stream buffer but it will not change the nutrients that
478 comes from the site no matter where it is located. The site output is still regulated so by allowing it in there, it is likely the
8
189
Approved 2/2/11
479 improvement will decrease the runoff speed and the nutrient load by having it held back for a while. If it is within the stream
480 buffer, there will be an enlarged stream buffer that will be created around this new device. In any event, we will not be increasing
481 the water quality aspects of the site.
482
483 Brian Crawford: In your scenario, the contractor wants to build a new storm water management pond, even though it is a use
484 permitted by right, I think Mr. Harvey said was that you still have to go through these general standards. In the general
485 standards there is a list that says, a written notification, a written statement, you have to provide a .plan to minimize soil
486 disturbance, etc. so it is still an approval process for the site plan.
487
488 May Becker: There is an approval process but it is not very specific. It does not say you have to be 50 feet from the stream
489 whereas, previously if it wasn't permitted by right, it would be more difficult for a developer to say I need to have this pond and 1
490 have the right to put it here.
491
492 Brian Crawford: But it still goes back to what our standards are. We still have the 80 feet that would kick in.
493
494 May Becker: They are saying it doesn't kick in if it is within the buffer zone, right?
495
496 Brian Crawford: That is not what I heard.
497
498 Craig Benedict: It is allowed in the stream buffer.
499
500 May Becker: There is no specific regulation stating that it has to be ....
501
502 Michael Harvey: As far as erosion control and state standards, they will not allow stormwater under 20 feet to the top of the bank
503 so there is going to be a required buffer.
504
505 May Becker: State standards will apply?
506
507 Michael Harvey: The only difference here is, Perdita provided this example on a chart, one of the uses that is allowed in streams
508 buffers, according to the state is airports and we don't allow that and we are not proposing to allow that. If we say you can have
509 a stormwater management pond approved through our process, then the state will say is we don't have a problem with that as
510 long as it is 20 feet from the edge of the top of the bank.
511
512 May Becker: You are proposing to have more lenient standards or no specific county standards.
513
514 Craig Benedict: If we put that under the uses permitted with mitigation ... let me think about that.
515
516 Mark Marcoplos: Is mitigation always project specific?
517
518 Craig Benedict: Yes. We will review where it is, what natural vegetation may or may not have been removed and we will ensure
519 that under state rules that the vegetation, ground cover, trees, will more than compensate for what we have removed from the
520 buffer. We can still never go within 20 of the top of the bank. These are really enhancements.
521
522 Mark Marcoplos: Isn't mitigation under this where it says, provided or repairing buffer. So moving it to the mitigation section
523 helps a little but you still get the same outcome.
524
525 Craig Benedict: That is correct.
526
527 Brian Crawford: May's point is well taken. We don't have any readily ascertained standards as we do in new proposals. You
528 guys work with the public all the time, doesn't it seem that you may have a developer or contractor come in and say I have a
529 permitted use by right and argue with you that the way the standard is written, they get to do what they want.
530
531 Terry Hackett: Not in this case because one thing you have to remember is this is a stormwater management pond and there is
532 no developer that will install a stormwater management pond unless they have to. If someone was trying to do something
533 because they felt they had the right, they would be doing it covertly I guess. If a stormwater management pond is required it's
534 because our stormwater standards meet the nutrient loading requirements to say you have to do this to develop this property the
535 way you are proposing so during that process, there is a whole list of standards.
536
537 May Becker: Putting permitted with mitigation, if approved by .... in other words, that it is just allowed to be approved by mitigation
538 if approved by the particular ...... standards.
9
190
Approved 2/2/11
539
540 Alan Campbell: If you moved 13 to D and then D crosses back over in 6.13.6b requires that the erosion control supervisor
541 approve it.
542
543 May Becker: If a use is permitted, it sounds as if it is permitted if I mitigate whereas if you say permitted if, that it sounds like it is
544 unconditionally permitted. You are not unconditionally permitted to do it unless you fulfill the obligations and approval.
545
546 Alan Campbell: There is a standard that says for uses permitted with mitigation, this is the extra step you have to do. It says if
547 you are going to do anything in 6.13.6, you have to do everything in A and B.
548
549 May Becker. But it also reads that you are permitted to do it and you have to everything in A and B but ....
550
551 Michael Harvey: But we would still have to approve it.
552
553 Alan Campbell: B is the approval, you have to do everything in A which is frankly not anything special by B you have to get
554 approval.
555
556 Perdita Holtz: But A3 does require approval of a site plan if you have a structure and we had talked about some sort of other
557 approval mechanism if there is not a structure.
558
559 Alan Campbell: I am saying for the issue of everything in here in addition to whatever else it may require, it also it has a
560 mechanism.
561
562 May Becker: To me it says, mitigation shall be provided in accordance with these standards and shall be approved kind of
563 implies that it shall be approved it is not saying it might not be approved.
564
565 Mark Marcoplos: I think we are at a point where the changes are good and it is protected. I can tell you as a builder, I have
566 made great arguments to building inspectors and I have been absolutely right some of the times and not all those times was 1
567 allowed to continue on with my right to complete that house. In the end, if they are there inspecting, they will make a judgment.
568
569 May Becker: I would feel more comfortable if it did not say it was there right.
570
571 Pete Hallenbeck: It is there no matter what.
572
573 Brian Crawford: Are there any others? I think we can suggest some changes and suggestions. Outside of the new stormwater
574 management clause, are there any other issues that we need to address.
575
576 May Becker: Sewer lines.
577
578 Brian Crawford: What about sewer lines?
579
580 May Becker. Again, clear cutting to get to them, maintenance of them, if they will be too close to the stream buffer, why are they
581 necessary for the stream buffer. I am not really clear again on permitted by right. What is stopping the nutrients from getting into
582 the water body if you are moving some trees to put sewer lines.
583
584 Alan Campbell: Are these the sewer lines that would be put in by eminent domain, to put them where they want to anyway?
585 This is probably a technical correction to make sure they don't create a technical violation.
586
587 Craig Benedict: That is correct. These are serving the public interest. Public water and sewer lines and streams where, in North
588 Carolina, sewer outfalls parallel streams because they all run down hill by gravity. They don't put them in the streams, they cross
589 the streams, sometimes they are up the back. They parallel many streams, that is how a gravity public sewer system is and that
590 there is a right that people have to develop their property in designated areas of public water and sewer and we are allowing that
591 right for someone to develop public water and sewer.
592
593 Brian Crawford: That is more of a clarification than allowing because there is really nothing you can do if someone developed
594 property and you have a utility and someone comes in to put an easement within the allowable lot, I think the state will allow that.
595 1 think you can clarify to say what that distance needs to be.
596
597 May Becker: Yes but we are talking about new sewer lines. If somebody already has something tagged so we are adding new
598 sewer lines to areas that ... have trees, or whatever.
10
191
599 Approved 2/2/11
600 Craig Benedict: Public sewer lines would trump the stream buffer regulations. There is a balance of the public interest for public
601 water and sewer in certain areas and the aspects of the streams. If we thought that public water and sewer would cross stream
602 buffers or parallel up the bank, it is something that would be occurring on a regular basis within our economic development
603 zones. There are streams there too. In many cases in rural areas, we are not going to be crossing streams because the septic
604 systems are located on site and usually outside the stream buffer.
605
606 May Becker: Are you saying there is already the right for the ...
607
608 Craig Benedict: Yes, they have the right to put public utilities within stream buffers.
609
610 Alan Campbell: I read this as a technical correction. There are many laws that say this is the way things happen and somehow
611 that creates a technical problem with another wall. This is fixing that saying this does not violate something we said you can't do
612 even though we can't prohibit it anyway.
613
614 Pete Hallenbeck: Is this referring to a crossing or parallel to the stream? Or does it matter?
615
616 Craig Benedict: It says that when it crosses, it should cross as much to a 90 degree angle as possible. It also pertains to
617 parallel streams and where the parallel could occur.
618
619 Pete Hallenbeck: One thing that is interesting about both buried utilities and sewer lines is the area of the buffers have to be
620 kept clear of trees and what is the impact here if someone comes along and the easiest way to put a cable in is to follow the
621 stream line and say we can do that and keep that 12 foot area clear of trees. Is there anything you can do about that?
622
623 Craig Benedict: There is certain public service commission rules as you can see gas lines that they go cross country, or electric
624 lines where we have very little input. There is more input with the location of sewer lines because we are working with the utility
625 provider and have some environmental sensitivity to the location.
626
627 Pete Hallenbeck: On item 1, 1 am not sure why when we talk about buried utilities, it calls it electrical, telephone, cable,
628 television. If it is necessary to call those out, I would also throw in data to make sure we can do everything but run a fiber optic
629 cable.
630
631 May Becker: On sewer lines who determines how far from the stream they are.....
632
633 Craig Benedict: Terry, are there zone one exclusions for sewer lines?
634
635 Terry Hackett: Generally, yes. If it is a sewer line public the utility will still have to get state approval so if it is a public utility, the
636 jurisdiction is usually removed from us and they generally don't want any utility line running parallel in the stream buffer if they
637 can avoid it and if it has to be it is usually in the outer 20 feet. If utility lines cross the stream buffer perpendicular, the state
638 buffer rules has an exempt category that says if you clear less than 40 feet to build it and maintain only 10 feet over the pipe, that
639 is exempt. Sewer lines are also approved by the Division of Water Quality that approves sewer systems. We would look at
640 these if a private developer is installing the utilities as part of their development and turning it over to public utilities.
641
642 Brian Crawford: If you build a community waste water system and for some reason turn it over .... but it's possible.
643
644 Terry Hackett: But the utilities lines do have some additional review if it is the larger gas transmission lines, some of those have
645 a federal review process. There are added steps beyond what we do for a utility project.
646
647 Mark Marcoplos: From a practical standpoint, the impact of sewer lines is at its peak when they are being installed and you can
648 never write a policy keeping someone from driving along the stream bank and taking out extra trees when it comes down to who
649 is monitoring the process when it happens and how much integrity they have. There are ways to do it with a lot less impact and 1
650 don't know if there is a policy that can really write site specific stuff.
651
652 Terry Hackett: As far as sewer outfall and buffer easements, because a lot of the older, for instance here in the town of
653 Hillsborough, they follow right next to the stream and other communities have the same problem and they are looking at how
654 narrow can they maintain that maintenance corridor to gain access. Obviously if you have crossings or man holes that are down
655 in the flood plain, you want to be able to access them if you have an overflow. We are also having discussion with the state
656 regarding getting some shrubs back here so we could actually have a riparian buffer that has woody vegetation and still maintain
657 some integrity in the stream buffer.
658
11
192
Approved 2/2/11
659 Brian Crawford: Any other discussion?
660
661 May Becker: Number 8 .....driveway crossings and single family residential lots.
662
663 Perdita Holtz: What about it specifically?
664
665 May Becker: You have developers and at this point, they don't necessarily have access to lots and make sure you have the kind
666 of ... if you have a driveway you will have more runoff. If you have something that is not developed, if you add this as a
667 permitted use by right, again, it seems it is offering developers options that are kind of open ended.
668
669 Perdita Holtz: Michael, doesn't this occur fairly frequently because there is no other option?
670
671 Michael Harvey: You are correct. This actually codifies an interpretation. Existing language says public and private streets and
672 railroad rights of way. It has been interpreted through out subdivision process that there are many instances where we don't
673 want a right a way where you have a 20 foot road, we would rather encroach with a driveway which is anywhere from 12 to 15
674 feet.
675
676 Brian Crawford: Much of that is runoff.
677
678 May Becker: But if you are saying something is permitted by right that doesn't mean they are not going to do something else?
679
680 Michael Harvey: Just because it is permitted by right does not mean that it is not reviewed and approved in accordance with
681 standards of the UDO. It still has to go through that review and approval process. Single family residences just aren't put on
682 property overnight or at the whim of a developer because they can do it'by right'. It has to go through an approval process.
683
684 Brian Crawford: If this was a single developer or a single person building a home there are minimum the lot sizes anyway.
685
686 Michael Harvey: There are minimum lot sizes. They range from district to district and conceivably by subdivision.
687
688 Lary Wright: If you want to build a kennel, and you want it at the back of the lot, we have a case where there is a problem with
689 getting emergency vehicles back there. It is only 12 feet wide driveway so there are restrictions that way. Here, you have a
690 developer that wants to take place, a kennel back in someone's yard, and the fire marshal has issues. There are other things
691 that come into play.
692
693 May Becker: I understand it is just I have gotten into talking about permitted by right as opposed to suggesting it is permitted if
694 certain approval is given. It's the language.
695
696 Brian Crawford: I think I hear folks, with the Section of number 13, that the other Planning Board members are becoming
697 convinced that there is still an approval process in this term permitted by right. I know you have issues with term but we have to
698 get to try to get you comfortable somehow that this permitted by right isn't as open ended as you are interpreting. We can keep
699 going down this list and that is what we keep coming back to. We have got to come to a point that the "permitted by right" term,
700 we have to decide to change it or we ... as in my case, I am comfortable that the language is restrictive enough. That is
701 essentially where the issue is now. I don't know how we make you comfortable or how you make us comfortable. I do agree on
702 13 that I think one of the suggestions were that we move that to D and I didn't think the staff had a problem with that.
703
704 May Becker: Pretty much ... I suggest we add if particular approvals are given as opposed to my interpretation that it shall be
705 given.
706
707 Brian Crawford: So you are still suggesting additional language in number 13.
708
709 May Becker: Permitted with mitigation suggests that I am permitted to do this if I do what is listed on page 6.4.2 a and b and
710 these as mitigation shall be provided in accordance with the state standards and shall be approved and inspected by the Erosion
711 Control Supervisor.
712
713 Alan Campbell: In b1 if we went to something like the landowner shall be required to provide mitigation in accordance with that
714 so it's active. Basically, this shall require approval from the Erosion Control Supervisor. Something that makes it clear that the
715 Erosion Control supervisor isn't required to give the approval, the landowner is required to get the approval.
716
12
193
Approved 2/2/11
717 Shannon Berry: We can add language to B1 along those lines that says basically this shall be reviewed in accordance with state
718 requirements and must be approved by the Erosion Control supervisor. We can change the language so it doesn't imply that is a
719 done deal.
720
721 Alan Campbell: Make it active.
722
723 Brian Crawford: I like that. May, do you want to look at that change.
724
725 Shannon Berry: We can come up with a couple of options for that.
726
727 Brian Crawford: After tonight we will reword that and shoot it out.
728
729 Alan Campbell: That will cover everything, not just 13, everything in D.
730
731 Brian Crawford: We are back to "permitted by right ".
732
733 May Becker: It is a concern. You are putting up a list of Things people aie allowed to do with a stream buffer and I think we
734 should know what they are.
735
736 Brian Crawford: What would your suggestion be about this permitted by right? What would you like to see?
737
738 May Becker: Something along the lines, I would take right out and say something along the lines of, permitted if special use or
739 some kind of permitting is approved.
740
741 Brian Crawford: Staff?
742
743 Perdita Holtz: I think we could change it to uses permitted without mitigation and change the sentence that's right behind that
744 says the following uses are allowed as a matter of right and then make sure when you look at A3 it says structure are approved,
745 approval of a site plan and all that but add a 4 that says if structures are not proposed that they still have to ... we need to
746 determine what the permit would be called but a type of permit shall be required to be approved prior to commencement of the
747 activity.
748
749 Shannon Berry: If you are not happy with the word "permitted or permit ", the state uses the term "allowable" which is a little more
750 open ended. We could change permitted by right to uses allowable with mitigation. We could change the topic of the whole
751 section, the whole title that says allowable in the stream buffers. Does that help?
752
753 Craig Benedict: It is more requested than permitted.
754
755 Shannon Berry: We can change all the "permitted" to "allowable ".
756
757 Pete Hallenbeck: May, on item 8 is there some specific scenario you are thinking of? You have to let people go to their land, it's
758 25 feet, the streams are big, what exactly are you going to do? What's worrying you?
759
760 May Becker: What's worrying me is the developers. In places like Florida, they have very lax laws where they build shoddy
761 buildings, they pave over things.
762
763 Pete Hallenbeck: Is your concern, for example, you go down the stream and they are putting in a driveway and they are going to
764 pave it and put in ditches and let it run right into the stream? Is this gravel versus asphalt?
765
766 May Becker: My concern is just thoughts it could potentially change one particular landscape to something else. For example, if
767 you have a lot with a lot of trees or fairly rural and then you allow, you don't have a lot of rules, and a developer comes in form
768 you know where and doesn't know the community well and decides to subdivide that land into very small lots close to the stream
769 with a lot of driveways and not much vegetation is around there anymore. The other question, can people just fertilize lawns
770 without any regulations, I think the answer was not it was a one time application that was allowed but for me it's not clear.
771
772 Pete Hallenbeck: So a lot of what you're wrestling with is big picture stuff.
773
774 May Becker: It is but it also not completely unrealistic. We are welcoming development which, there are different ways to
775 approach development.
776
13
194
Approved 2/2/11
777 Brian Crawford: You know our ordinances are restrictive for subdivisions. We have one lot per five acres. These issues will be
778 before the Board and you will see some of these issues. Concept plan, preliminary plan, you'll see some of these come before
779 you.
780
781 May Becker: I feel like this is an ordinance that is a major starting point or major step and I get the sense there is a push to get it
782 through quickly and if I don't know and if we move on and don't talk about things like driveways. It's not ok with me. Another
783 thing, I live in Chapel Hill in an older neighborhood and there is lot of talk about developers coming in and changing the
784 neighborhood and people in the neighborhood there want to keep lawns there and old houses with porches. When you read
785 stuff like this, you don't know what type of developers are coming here and what is going to happen.
786
787 Brian Crawford: I know the driveway issue is a direct response from complaints from some of our more rural homeowners that
788 did not have access. This is a direct response from an Orange County meeting. Not necessarily a developer. This is
789 homegrown.
790
791 May Becker: If that is what is wanted, I don't see why we couldn't put in something like ... attach some type of approval to it. It is
792 something individuals wanted and something the inspections department are okay with, I would suggest we put it in here so that
793 when people read it, or the public reads it when developers consider this that is what is being communicated. Another thing 1
794 want to point out is there is a lot of development coming into Chapel Hill and they have a lot of particular restrictions, they want
795 green buildings, they want certain affordable housing, they want public area for a fountain so there is kind of a community sense.
796 If you have high quality developments with people who care about the community who are willing to revise things so it fits in the
797 community then it would be okay with ordinances that make sense whereas if you have a developer who doesn't care, I don't
798 think we want those types of developments. Quality developers aren't going to be scared away by ordinances.
799
800 (Larry Wright left meeting)
801
802 Mark Marcoplos: One small change on the driveway crossing it's really a bridge, isn't it? A culvert which would be with a small
803 stream and a bridge with a larger stream so maybe there is a way to pinpoint that so you don't have this image of an oil leak and
804 75 Ford driving through the stream.
805
806 Alan Campbell: This is a single family so if you put the bridge just to go to your house, that would be pretty expensive.
807
808 Mark Marcoplos: It happens. If it is a significant body of water you can put a bridge over it but if it is a small body of water, a
809 culvert is a little bridge. What I am getting at is an image of a driveway crossing and you are going to drive through the stream
810 and maybe tidy up the language. I feel like right after C, those lines basically say, you will have to meet the standards. I am very
811 concerned about keeping the waters clean but I am quite comfortable with that language.
812
813 Brian Crawford: At some point we will have, taking the suggestions, we will have to come to a vote. If we come to a vote right
814 now with the existing language is okay with the exceptions of the suggestions we had, we might not reach the goal you want to
815 reach tonight. We are coming to the point where we have to figure out how to make you comfortable but not to shut you down.
816 At this point, we have discussed it pretty much in depth.
817
818 Mark Marcoplos: I have found that it is necessary to be redundant. To phrase the same thing in a different way. Maybe we can
819 insert a sentence that says, don't be mistaken, you are not going to just do this without going through the proper process so no
820 one can say I didn't understand that.
821
822 Shannon Berry: We can come up with some language that will address the concerns I hope makes it very clear that you go
823 through a process. We can beef up the front part of that section and more clearly articulate that there is a process.
824
825 Brian Crawford: May, when I got your email, I realized that you did a lot of work on this and I am relying on your expertise on
826 this. But at the same time, I think we have discussion it and I think we are convinced that there is language is there to secure the
827 suggested changes that the staff have put in. I still want you to be comfortable. I think the compromise is that we allow staff to
828 suggest some changes to hopefully end discussion on those issues.
829
830 May Becker: Yes that sounds like a plan. On those issues meaning we are going to reconvene at the next meeting and
831 continue.
832
833 Brian Crawford: I don't know about the next meeting but I want them to send out language to address the concerns we talked
834 about this evening and hopefully, that language is agreeable to you. It sounds like permitted by right gives you some concern so
835 they will attempt to make sure that doesn't confuse the general public that they can do what they want without some process that
836 we believe is in there but we will beef it up to make you more comfortable.
14
195
837 Approved 2/2/11
838 Pete Hallenbeck: My main goal tonight was to take advantage of May's expertise to ensure there was not some glaring thing that
839 was omitted. This driveway thing might be a problem but it seems to be covered.
840
841 May Becker: Since you bring up driveways over streams and all that. It is all a matter of degree, in that sense we've got a
842 homeowner who happens to be close to a stream and he wants to have his pickup truck over that stream and I don't think that is
843 necessarily going to be a problem hundreds of miles downstream. On the other hand if you have a tendency to develop Orange
844 County and you are going to do it near streams and you are sitting a precedence of sorts, I think we should be aware of what that
845 potentially could do to down stream erosion, to the flooding, to the question of fisheries, there the question may come up on how
846 you know but there are things we do know. We know for example that you look at hydrograph, you look at rainfall and then there
847 is a big storm and you see this big peak. There is also a low area that is called base flow which is like ground water flow and a
848 lot of what we rely on is being able to analyze these types of hydrographs. We don't necessarily know what is going on with the
849 ground water because we don't have the data for it and so we see more urbanization and see these peaks. You see the base
850 flow, if you don't see as much of a base flow signature in the hydrograph. Potentially it means there is more quick flow going to a
851 river. Base flow is associated with slow flow, like ground water flow or like, if you go to a river bank and it has been a dry
852 summer and then you can see the river bank water level is approximately representative of the ground water table. If you go out
853 There after a big sturrn Tiled you are going to see u)e water is rushing by so if you urbanize areas then you are going to get more
854 peak flow. That means if you have more fresh water coming into the estuary then the boundary between salt and fresh water is
855 pushed more toward the ocean then you've got this density driven flow.
856
857 Pete Hallenbeck: I get the feeling that a lot of your concerns are almost more global concern up until quality of development and
858 it is hard for me to bring that into each little piece.
859
860 May Becker: My general point is here are some things that are best management practices like having buffers, open space,
861 filtering nutrients and not creating a lot of impervious surface.
862
863 Brian Crawford: I don't think any of that has gone away. We are all on the same page and comfortable with the next steps. We
864 don't need to revisit this in February. I will leave a section open for new business. I think if we could wrap this up.
865
866 Alan Campbell: The next meeting, are we going to try to approve the whole thing?
867
868 Brian Crawford: I have not seen the minutes for the first meeting, how did we resolve it in the first meeting. We got all buy in on
869 the first meeting.
870
871 May Becker: We didn't know we were still talking about conditional zoning.
872
873 Brian Crawford: Were there things not resolved?
874
875 Craig Benedict: I thought there was consensus, there was clear consensus, we went around the table, that doesn't mean that
876 100% of people would vote for conditional use.
877
878 Brian Crawford: We didn't take a vote? There are still things still outstanding but at the next meeting we will take a vote.
879
880 May Becker: I did talk about some .... I just feel like...
881
882 Brian Crawford: Remember there is still Phase 2 and we will go through the substantive things that you were concerned about.
883 What stopped this piece was there lack of clarity on conditional use and conditional zoning and your suggestion about stream
884 buffers so I think we have gone through this and there was a general consensus. I don't think we can do anything but go for a
885 vote next month and yes there will be those that vote against it but we have to a vote to be consistent with the timeline we
886 suggested when we submitted to the BOCC and that has to take place in February.
887
888
889 AGENDA ITEM 3: ADJOURNMENT
890
891 MOTION: Alan Campbell made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mark Marcoplos
892 VOTE: Unanimous
893
Brian Crawford, Chair
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
DRAFT
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 2,2011
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT. Larry Wright (Vice- Chair), At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative;
Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; May Becker, At-
Large Chapel Hill Township; Mark Marcoplos, At- Large, Bingham Township; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township
Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township
MEMBERS ABSENT. Brian Crawford (Chair), At- Large, Eno Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township Representative;
Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Vacant- Little River Township Representative;
STAFF PRESENT. Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning
Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love,
Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT. Dolly Hunter
(Documents handed out Planning BoardAgenda Schedule Revised by Larry Wright)
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Larry Wright: Unfortunately, Brian can't be here and others. I would really like to hear their comments. In reading over the
minutes, I would like to make a general statement and that is as I looked over the agenda and looked at the minutes, one of the
charges we had for this meeting was to bring a vote on the topics we had discussed so in order to get some sort of discussion
going that could lead to a vote, I took the liberty to rearrange the agenda. You have a handout and you may want to look it over
as we go through the first part of the agenda. I am going to start with the agenda that we were mailed. The first item is the call
to order, we've done that and what I'd like to do next is waive the public charge and then go to number two and let staff discuss
the calendar and overview of items of in number seven and pages 37 through 39.
AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints
the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County.
The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development.
OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and
businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety,
and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive
governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to
conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At
any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will
ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should
decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment
to this public charge is observed.
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a) Next Regular Planning Board Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 2, 2011
b) Planning Calendar for February and March 2011
c) Draft Legal Ad for February 28, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing
197
198
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
DRAFT
Craig Benedict: Good evening, February 15 is a Commissioner's meeting and we are giving an update of the progress the
Planning Board has made through its January meetings and tonight's meeting so that is scheduled to be updated with the
Commissioners. February 281h is the continuation of the Quarterly Public Hearing from November 22, 2010 that means that
people will be able to speak at that meeting, February 28th. At that time the Planning Board will give their recommendation. The
Quarterly Public Hearing in February, besides the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), on page three of your agenda, notes
that there are two other issues on the Quarterly Public Hearing. Item one is the UDO, Item two is a Master Telecommunications
Plan Map, I will explain in detail on the 28th, briefly this is an identification of County sites and some fire department sites where
limited height towers could be placed in the future going through a normal process to help get additional wireless capability in
both urban and rural parts of the county to augment public safety and information technology purposes as well as private
industry. The third item on the public hearing is a property owner initiated request to modify our Zoning Ordinance and
depending on how the UDO goes forward it may be a modification to the UDO. This is to add another type of use to the
Neighborhood Commercial District to allow limited motor vehicle sales and rentals not more than 12 cars. As you probably
heard, Neighborhood Commercial is our smaller size commercial. That is being initiated by citizens and we will give our report or
our view on that zoning ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Larry Wright: I would like to move to the approval of the minutes. They start on page 7, this will be the January 5 meeting. Are
there any changes or additions to the minutes. I would like to make an overall suggestion, I was reading these and on the
discussion regarding the overhead presentation and the other thing missing that was discussed was Judith's email and I would
like to make a motion that these be added to the minutes.
MOTION: Lary Wright made a motion to add the presentation chart and the email from Judith Wegner that were part of the
January 5 meeting to the minutes. Seconded by Alan Campbell.
VOTE: Unanimous
Craig Benedict: Any staff handouts should be either referenced in the minutes or part of the minutes.
Larry Wright: Any changes or additions to the January 19 meeting starting on page 21. Ok, so let's take a vote on both minutes.
This is the January 5, 2011 and January 19, 2011.
MOTION: Pete Hallenbeck made a motion to approve the January 5, 2011 and January 19, 2011 minutes. Seconded by Alan
Campbell.
VOTE: Unanimous
Larry Wright: Thank you, vote is unanimously carried.
AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
Larry Wright: I have a public service announcement. I have a flyer that I will pass around. This is Orange County
Comprehensive Transportation Public Input Meeting on February 7th at 4:30 p.m, at the Orange County Public Library. Ok, does
anybody have any additional considerations to the agenda?
AGENDA ITEM 9: COMMITTEE/ADVISORy BOARD REPORTS
Board of Adjustment
Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group
Larry Wright: Committee reports, I'd like to take now. Tommy do you have anything?
Tommy McNeill: Thank you very much Larry, could you give me a few minutes to get everything together?
Larry Wright: I will say that the Board of Adjustment did not meet and we maybe meeting this month we don't know.
AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS
DRAFT
122 Larry Wright: I would like to start on this agenda, this is the one I modified and that you have. One of the things I would like to
123 impress upon you is the importance of your opinions on this Board. The Commissioners do read the minutes and while the votes
124 are extremely important showing overall Board approval, Commissioners do take a look at specific opinions of the members and
125 sometimes these opinions may be in the minority and they weigh heavily in debates among the Commissioners so one of the
126 things I would like to do during this meeting is to make sure that each of you has an opportunity to express your opinion. What
127 I'd like to do is deal with the first item here. One of the things I'd like to do here is to point out that at the end of February,
128 February 28th, we have a quarterly public hearing. Two days later we have our March meeting. One of the things I would like the
129 members of this Board to consider is how we might handle those recommendations within two days after the Quarterly Public
130 Hearing and I ask you to consider this, do we need an additional meeting in March to handle that, remembering that we are to
131 hand in a final report on April 5. Is that right?
132
133 Perdita Holtz: Well it needs to be long before April 5m because of agenda deadlines, it is more like no later than the 11 th of
134 March.
135
136 Larry Wright: Ok, so one of the things we need to consider while we are going through this meeting, and I will entertain a motion
137 here if you want to bring it up, but at least this has to be handled in the March 2 meeting on how we are going to dispatch with
138 request from the Commissioners after the February 28 meeting.
139
140 Mark Marcoplos: I think we are probably not going to get any huge surprises and we can deal with the March 2nd meeting and if
141 we feel like we need another meeting, we can schedule another meeting. I think we have been through this and been around the
142 track a couple of times and I think we'll probably be able to deal with it on March 2nd, if we don't we can schedule another
143 meeting.
144
145 Larry Wright: Think about it and we can make that decision then but it's something we really need to consider. Especially as we
146 go to the Quarterly Public Hearing and we hear what transpires.
147
148
149 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO):
150 To discuss the Planning Board's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding
151 adoption of the entire UDO and to make said recommendation.
152 Presenter: Planning Staff
153
154 Larry Wright: Ok, so now we'll handle the first item which is review of Conditional District, Conditional Zoning, General Use
155 Zoning Permitted Uses, and General Use Zoning. I want to take this first because it does address some storm water issues in
156 this topic. It's the reverse of what the first agenda was. Could staff give us a brief overview of what we reviewed here and a brief
157 overview addressing the modifications resulting from Planning Board suggestions.
158
159 Craig Benedict: Perdita will certainly go through that and the changes that were made based on your comments in January.
160
161 Perdita Holtz: As a result of the January 5th meeting, the Planning Board requested specific changes and those are listed in the
162 abstract. One was to add a definition for Conditional Districts, another had to do with providing a clearer explanation regarding
163 the exclusions listed from Conditional Use District and then the last request was to modify the Table of Permitted Uses in some
164 way to more clearly differentiate the Conditional Zoning Districts. In attachment two of your packets, if you look on page 45, we
165 do have a suggested term for Conditional Districts, a definition, it's down at the bottom of the sheet and hopefully you've had a
166 chance to review that. As far as the exclusions from Conditional Use District consideration, if you look at the Table of Permitted
167 Uses, on pages 47 through 51, you'll see that we added a symbol behind each use that cannot be used for a Conditional Use
168 District, a lambda. The lambda is footnoted on each page indicating that use is not permitted as a Conditional Use District. In
169 addition to the list of exclusions, it is still going to remain in Section 5.1.4. Lastly, we modified the Table of Permitted Uses, you
170 may recall that the former Table had three additional columns at the end for Conditional Zoning Districts and we decided to have
171 a separate Permitted Use Table for Conditional Zoning Districts since we are anticipating that there will be additional Conditional
172 Zoning Districts in the future such as for ag services or airport. There is a whole different chart now that is on page 53 through
173 56 and we hope it is clearer now that Conditional Zoning Districts are different from the General Use Zoning Districts and we also
174 added the note up at the top of page 53 that says, Note: Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for
175 consideration/approval. This is for it to be a bit clearer when people are looking at the chart and they haven't read the
176 procedures in Article 2 that you can't have all these starred items, you have to request certain uses you are applying for. That
177 certainly is clear in the procedure section for Conditional Zoning Districts but we heard that there might have been some
178 confusion about what exactly it meant if you were just looking at the Table of Permitted Uses. Those were the changes we were
179 requested by the Board that we incorporated.
180
181 Larry Wright: Any discussion or questions?
182
3
199
200
DRAFT
183 May Becker: I brought this up at the previous meeting and I don't know to what extent we're going to follow up. From my
184 understanding you're ready to make a recommendation but I had a concern about the Conditional Zoning, the new zoning that
185 was being put into the new UDO. In other words, we went through the discussion at our meeting before the last meeting, where
186 on the overhead there was discussion of the differences between Conditional Use and Conditional Use Zoning and we talked
137 about in which case there was a requirement for a Special Use Permit. I pointed out that I was concerned about it being too
188 open -ended for developers. I think that is where the discussion ended. There was a kind of question of whether we would revisit
189 that discussion and I just wanted to bring that up again that I still have those concerns. To me there wasn't a real, it was a
190 presentation where I felt we understood better what the new language or what the UDO was describing but to me it wasn't clear
191 whether that's really what should be incorporated into the UDO.
192
193 Larry Wright: Ok, does anybody have any other comments? There will be a time for staff to respond to that. I have a question,
194 the lambda, the footnote, use not permitted as a Conditional Use District, permitted only in zoning districts, could you expand on
195 that?
196
197 Perdita Holtz: Its permitted only in General Use Zoning Districts where there is an asterisk or the requirement for a Class A or
198 Class R Special Use Permit on this chart. You cannot apply for Conditional Use District, that's linked to the General District.
199
200 Craig Benedict: For example, page 49, in order to have a hospital somebody would have to ask to rezone maybe from an R -1
201 residential area on a land use plan designation that says general commercial 4 is a place where hospital would be permitted so
202 somebody would have to ask for a General Use Rezoning from R -1 to GC -4 if it met the Comp Plan locational criteria. Then
203 somebody would have the ability to come back at a later date and have a hospital, somebody cannot go into a NC -2 and ask for
204 an NC -2 -CU, Conditional Use to get a hospital that would not permitted.
205
206 Larry Wright: Could you address May's concerns please?
207
208 Perdita Holtz: I can, you may recall that Judith and Brian met with staff in December and Judith talked about some of that
209 meeting. One of the things that staff talked with Judith and Brian about was that with Conditional Zoning you are placing all sorts
210 of conditions on the zoning so to go back and still require an SUP concurrently, you are taking all those conditions you've just put
211 on the zoning and attaching them to the SUP, its redundant. Staff believes it is redundant and Judith pretty much said that at the
212 January 5th meeting if you look in the minutes, she had thought about it and kind of concurred with staff that it is redundant to
213 require both the Conditional Zoning District and a Special Use Permit.
214
215 Craig Benedict: If I could add another thing that was discussed at the January 5th meeting is that some developers would come
216 in for a Conditional District and not know the specific site plan for the five pods of development that are there. They might know
217 one so it would be impossible for them to know how to build out their business park or their office park with a specific site plan
218 which comes with the SUP on those four pods. Conditional Districts allow this in one case, this master plan program to find out
219 where the road are, where the utilities are, where you want to preserve the stream buffers, and the adjacent buffers, and allows
220 them to come back at a later date consistent with that master concept plan and they get a site plan approved. That was the
221 other reason why given the toolkit of choices of how to develop property, you have roughly three categories to go with, General
222 Use Rezoning, Conditional Use Rezoning that includes an SUP and site specific plan when somebody knows exactly what they
223 want to do, and this third category that is Conditional Districts where they know the constraints of their site in the master plan and
224 then do not have a site specific plan at that time. It was thought by the Board during this explanation that having these tools
225 available would give opportunity for different choices of economic development and residential development opportunities in the
226 county.
227
228 May Becker: My recollection of the discussion before that in the email that Judith had sent out was that there were difference
229 between Condition Use and Conditional Zoning Districts and there were some targeted areas. She pointed out it would be useful
230 to have these particular zoning districts for targeted areas and she pointed out there was some concern about the conditional
231 zoning being in a sense too broad and the compromise might be, for example, to use it in certain targeted areas. My
232 understanding was that we were going to discuss that further, in other words once we understood the differences between the
233 two which was more clearly presented at the meeting, not this last meeting were we talked about the stream buffers, but the one
234 before that, but then we would be able to understand which targeted areas would benefit from that type of zoning. In other words
235 1 guess to summarize, it's not clear to me why the Conditional Zoning District is necessary. I know you pointed out that it leaves
236 it more open -ended for developers or that they might not have a specific site plan but at the same time I think there is some
237 potential problems that were suggested in the emails and I think those were the types of issues I was wanting to talk about or at
238 least be able to address in terms of what target areas and what problems could occur and why we specifically need both.
239
240 Perdita Holtz: At the current time Planned Development, which these replace, is allowed potentially anywhere.
241
242 May Becker: Right but that's still different in certain ways from the Conditional Use versus the Conditional Zoning, right?
243
4
201
DRAFT
244 Perdita Holtz: Conditional Use District is completely like Planned Development. The only difference is the MPDCZ is replacing
245 the Planned Development Mixed Use classification and the difference is that it would not require an SUP because an SUP
246 requires a site plan plus we now have this tool of Conditional Zoning Districts where you can place the conditions on the rezoning
247 instead of on the SUP. When PD was developed back in 1988 or 89, conditional zoning was not an option in North Carolina. It
248 did not become an option in North Carolina until 2005.
249
250 May Becker: I'm still not clear on why you need the Conditional Zoning District. In other words, you have Planned Development,
251 you have Conditional Use which you say is a replacement of Planned Development using an SUP for that from what 1
252 summarized two meetings ago, and then we go on to this other Conditional Zoning District which was not under Planned
253 Development, correct?
254
255 Perdita Holtz: There are components of Planned Development in it but it's not a complete replacement.
256
257 May Becker: Right, it's broader, it's more open- ended, its allowing development.
258
259 Perdits Holtz: It's really not more open- ended. It is just a different process of almost getting to the same place in that you place
260 conditions on the rezoning instead of requiring a Special Use Permit that you place conditions on.
261
262 Craig Benedict: Let me talk about targeted areas and answer that question about targeted sites. (using a flap of the Land Use
263 Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan) This map is backed up by the Comprehensive Plan and with every
264 rezoning process that we go through, through those three that we spoke about, General Use, Conditional Zoning, and
265 Conditional Use Rezoning, that is a legislative decision and the Commissioners, during that decision process, looked to the Land
266 Use Element to find out if its in a targeted area and whether what's being asked for makes sense with the map and also makes
267 sense with the text in the Comprehensive Plan and the Goals, Objections, and Policies. Are we targeting areas for certain types
268 of growth? Yes, those targeted areas are noted as Economic Development Districts, Commercial Industrial Nodes, some of the
269 higher density residential potential in and around Hillsborough and Efland. There is some targeted focus that the Commissioners
270 will take into consideration when they make a legislative decision. This is the targeted industry, targeted areas. As Perdita said,
271 Planned Developments married up with Conditional Use could have been requested in some other areas and the Commissioners
272 can say legislatively, yes we like it or we don't like it and whatever other conditions they want to make. There is some criteria for
273 the rezoning process. Another reason not to have an SUP with some projects is because once you agree on fifty conditions with
274 a rezoning, if you take those same fifty conditions with an SUP, the rulings on the Special Use Permit conditions are with findings
275 of fact and that is done in a quasi - judicial proceeding versus the legislative decision. They can make agreed upon conditions
276 with the developer and if you agree to 50, after that if you say you need 100 parking spots and they give you 100 parking spots,
277 you can't turn them down, that's quasi - judicial that's the evidence that they proved there is 100 parking spots there. In a lot of
278 thoughts, this is where Judith was going with her redundancy, its very difficult to deny with a quasi - judicial process 50 conditions
279 that you agreed to. They could very easily prove that they met all the standards, that's why you don't need an SUP process
280 because you have it completely covered. The other reason is people do not know exactly what, in some cases, their site plans
281 are going to be if you encourage office park development. We want to encourage office park development in Orange County
282 because if we get a five acre site for one project and next door is another five acre site plan, another five acre site plan at
283 different times they don't jive together because we don't know what's happening. If we encourage some sort of master plan
284 development, with that master concept plan, we can have somebody look at twenty acres and say how it all works together,
285 where the roads go, where the roads stub out for connectivity, make sure there is a big enough water line to serve other
286 undeveloped properties. It makes sense to develop comprehensively with larger parcels than a piecemeal, unconnected
287 patchwork of small site plans. If we only have that SUP site plan tool, people are not going to buy bigger properties and we get
288 the patchwork approach, that's why wisdom across the United States and in North Carolina put that in the toolkit of options that
289 people can decide if they want to do a more of an office park or business park project or even a retail project with multiple
290 buildings.
291
292 May Becker: I guess it raises more questions really to me. The idea of having a master plan with big parcels of office parks
293 where it's one big development or a number of developers who develop large areas of office parks as opposed to, as you say, a
294 patchwork of an individual who wants have a small office park and another individual and to me its sounds as if, as you point out,
295 if you compare it to other areas in the country and you see what's going on with these huge office parks and you have empty
296 spaces and a homogenous layout of the office park but you just don't have offices coming there and you've got marked vacancy
297 rates so it opens all kinds of questions and thoughts. I wondering about what direction that would take in the future.
298
299 Mark Marcoplos: Its pretty clear to me that which ever way you go, you're not going to meet all the same regulations. I can't
300 think of a loophole. I can't think of how somebody could sneak in through one process something that they can get denied in the
301 other. From that standpoint, add that perspective to the fact that it is more orderly if you can lay out 20 acres versus 3 and 4
302 acres and then try to match the roads and then come up with this hodgepodge design, it is more practical and less time
303 consuming for staff...
304
5
202
DRAFT
305 May Becker: It's also more targeted toward the bigger...
306
307 Mark Marcoplos: But that doesn't cut nut smaller ventures at all. I think if you're worried about vacant lots and possibly vacant
308 office space that is not something we can really control. If somebody makes that decision and they get caught in the
309 circumstance of not being able to rent that office space, the County really can't control that and shouldn't be trying to control that.
310 If you start out with a piece of land and you look at the water features and the land and you protect those that you decide need
311 protection and you provide infrastructure and then you make people meet all the regulations, I think we've done what we can do.
312
313 May Becker: I think that's reasonable to say as you point out that it's not the responsibility of the government or the county to
314 see to that somebody occupies the office buildings that are built. On the other hand, these are targeted areas and it seems that
315 the County and the government and the decisions that we make here are that you encourage one type versus another type of
316 development or you encourage something. If you zone something to encourage large parcels of offices to be developed, I think
317 its a reasonable question to ask, do we think that there is a demand for that? In other words, yo►i do go to other parts of the
318 country and you see large office parks and they look really nice and then years later they're empty. Since we are talking about
319 targeted areas, since we are talking about development and what type is healthy for the ....
320
321 Mark Marcoplos: Isn't it true that you could specify several conditional uses. You can specify different uses, you don't have to
322 say I am going to build a homogenous office here and an homogenous office there, you can say I am going to build this here, I'm
323 going to build a daycare here or whatever. You have options. If you are smart about it, you would be diverse in your approach.
324 They can always sell the land, right? They're not bound to this decision in perpetuity.
325
326 Craig Benedict: One additional concept that you're talking about is one small five acre developer can usually not afford the
327 offsite costs to connect their site to offsite utilities. So that small entrepreneur that wants to come in and he has an idea of what
328 he wants to put on three or four acres, its difficult for them but if somebody prepares an office park and handles some of those
329 master plan offsite turn lanes, traffic signals, and things like that then the smaller business entrepreneur has the opportunity to
330 move into that site on somewhat of a pre - organized and almost prepaid site. They may have to pay a premium but they don't
331 have to pay the entire premium that would be shared among multiple parcels. Again, that's a development pattern that we think
332 will encourage small business as well as the flexibility to have a large business. This definitely helps the smaller business
333 entrepreneur because its shared costs with some larger projects.
334
335 Mark Marcoplos: I believe it's also true that the Commissioners can make a legislative decision outside of the parameters of this
336 and have some input beyond the actual UDO, they can add....
337
338 Craig Benedict: Yes, during the rezoning process they can listen to the public, and it doesn't have to be with a super strong
339 evidentiary standard when they're making a legislative decision. They can listen to the neighborhood and things like that.
340
341 Pete Hallenbeck: In general I'm comfortable with the process that has been outlined as far as leaving certain parts of a
342 development open -ended for later. I think flexibility is good. I agree with a lot of what Craig just said. A bigger developer can
343 come in and actually put roads that are better. There's a risk there that you lose control of the development. It shouldn't be too
344 surprising that anywhere you have risk you have a benefit and the benefit is that you can get somebody that can do an office
345 park right which a smaller developer might not be able to do. Whenever you do the next step or the next phase of the office park
346 is done it is still subject to the same regulations and still subject to influence from the master plan. As far as empty office space
347 goes, I think when that happens its a matter of the economy a lot of the time. I think sometimes you also have some bad
348 building design that happens. Somebody throws up some office space, it is done poorly, so when people are looking at where
349 they want to go they don't want to stay in it. Its a buyer's market. If you're careful when you are approving the process and do
350 things like make the parking lot look nice and the building look nice, there are things you can do to keep an office park from
351 looking like a clunker. Finally, I also think a lot of time you get empty office space because the development is not diverse
352 enough. I know I looked for office space once in Chapel Hill and it was all Class A, I would love to be able to make enough
353 money to sit in a Class A office but Class B is where you're going to have the start up businesses where things are going to
354 happen. Again, that is something that could be controlled during this zoning process to keep someone from coming in and trying
355 to go in, for example, Efland and build 20 acres of Class A office space only to find that things change and it's overbuilt. The
356 other reason I think that's important is a topic I will touch on when we get to phase two but I am always struck by how much
357 attention is being paid to water quality, infrastructure for businesses, and then in Northern Orange County its a bit of a digital
358 ghetto. There are just no bits there and if you put a big office space in Efland somebody is going to have to bring in some very
359 high speed data to get the kind of businesses you want. It's more likely to happen if you can entice a larger developer to come
360 in, let him work in stages, to adapt to the economy but still have control of that process through these regulations. I think
361 everything we're talking about in all these zoning issues, has a Board of County Commissioners approval so it's not like once you
362 give approval for something, it's out of your control forever. Each stage will still have to get approved, the overall plan will have
363 to be approved.
364
365 Larry Wright: Any other comments? Ok, what I'd like to do is go around to each of the Board members and have you state your
6
203
DRAFT
366 overall opinion of this section, which would be from the January 5 meeting, the topics we discussed, and what you would like to
367 state to the Commissioners on your opinion of review of the Conditional District, Conditional Zoning, General Use, Amended
368 Uses, and General Use Zoning. We'll start with Mark. I'll go after Alan because I do not want mine at the beginning or the end.
369
370 Mark Marroplos: So I have maximum influence. I am good with it. We've been around the track several times and it's as good
371 as it can be right now. The UDO process right now in regard to Conditional Zoning has improved the Ordinances.
372
373 Andrea Rohrbacher: I would say that I feel good about it. Being new to the Board what strikes me is that these changes allowed
374 for flexibility and based on the economy gives developers the chance to move forward with an idea but without a time stamp on
375 that idea which is associated with the Special Use Permit and the start date for it. I think it is a good tool to communicate what is
376 anticipated for property but without binding the developer to do specific things within a specific timeframe.
377
378 Pete Hallenbeck: I'm comfortable with things as they stand. I like the clarifications that have been made. I take some comfort
379 knowing that both the County Commissioners and the master plan have an influence on the process that can help take care of
380 any details that may have been missed.
381
382 Alan Campbell: I'm comfortable with these particular changes. I agree with what Andrea said and in addition, my general view of
383 the Conditional Zoning, Conditional Use additions is that to me its primarily giving the County Commissioners a lot more
384 influence in development. That's the way I see it and I like that because legally speaking they couldn't do a lot of these things
385 before and now we're getting a new tool to do that because the statutes allow them to make additions so I see it as a good thing.
386
387 Larry Wright: I was one that raised issues, especially with this section, and there were a number of things that were very helpful.
388 1 had very polarized views of this section to start out and one of the things that helped was to hear Craig's presentation with that
389 overview. I had some dialogue with Perdita but I just didn't understand it. I went through this section many times and Judith's
390 email, and this is one of the reasons I asked to have those two items included formally in the minutes, because that clarified my
391 mind tremendously, I went through this. I am not happy with this word for word, I do not understand and see some problems with
392 2.9.1. The Commissioners said this is not going to be a perfect document and I worked on and I've been on this Board a number
393 of times and I worked on a number of projects and going through all the various zoning ordinance and all these books that these
394 people have compiled together is an enormous task. They were conflicting it was just a real hard thing as a Board member to
395 puff together when some of these applications come before us. I am comfortable with this as it is. I am not 100% happy, again
396 the Commissioners said that they don't want a perfect document, that we are not going for a perfect document. There is going to
397 be another phase where each of these sections will be handled separately or in some way. That said, I feel that I can pass this
398 on and if the Commissioners are not happy then I feel that they can come back and state at what level of perfection they want
399 this. That's my opinion.
400
401 May Becker: I feel that I understand or it seems like the Board understands a lot more about what these mean since we had our
402 meeting especially, not this last one but the before that. I agree that its not going to be a perfect document. On the other hand, l
403 can't say that I am really comfortable to the point of really feeling that I understand the motivation for the Conditional Zoning
404 Districts. I understand the general motivation, I understand what was presented here but I think there are a lot of possible
405 implications and those came out in Judith's email and we discussed some of those but there are still some things that were
406 specifically brought up that to me its not clear to me how that is going to effect the ordinance or the potential development and
407 so I would have liked to have more discussion because I think that its true you're not going to have a perfect document but on
408 the other hand if there's some issues that you feel are really fairly big issues in terms of where things are headed, and you're not
409 sure that those issues will be addressed at a particular meeting or they're kind of thrown in a bucket so to speak, its so open -
410 ended that you know there's a big issue that is in your mind of concern and my opinion is that if you know that concern is going
411 to come up then start with a foundation that feels solid or you feel comfortable with. I am not clear that has been outlined to the
412 point where I am comfortable with that. That's my feeling, I feel that I understand a lot more out in the field a lot more
413 comfortable about certain things, a lot more comfortable than when this was first presented but what I think is really important to
414 know when these changes, which changes potentially would be made, when are we going to visit again to make sure we are
415 comfortable with it. I guess also another plan I would make is that if you have a ordinance or you have a development plan that
416 simply isn't working, a system that is so broken where you say you have to change something, you have to move forward, you
417 have to do something, that's one situation but I don't think thats the situation where we're in. I think Orange County is a nice
418 place to live, it generally functions well and now we're moving on to a Unified Development Ordinance which partly is a
419 compilation of other documents but is partly also something new and if we're at a point where we're happy with what we have
420 and we're moving forward, I think it makes sense to take the extra time to say well is this really what we want in terms of a
421 general main foundation. If we understand the main foundation then we go into the details after that and say ok it's not a perfect
422 document we've got this subset of this and subset of that and need of some details then I would be comfortable with that but at
423 this point I feel not comfortable with that.
424
425 Larry Wright: You may want to mention some of those reservations when we go through the overview, when we discuss the
426 overall UDO in part three.
7
204
DRAFT
427
428 Tommy McNeill: I am comfortable with the UDO as it stands today. What fascinates me is the assistance that the planning
429 department agreed to provide for the citizens of Orange County who have questions about the document and the process.
430
431 Rachel Hawkins: I'm comfortable with it, I agree with Tommy, I think it will become a very uniform manual when all the changes
432 are incorporated. I like it, I especially like what you can and can't do in the districts.
433
434 Larry Wright: I do want the staff to give a brief response to the overall comments here before we bring this to a vote.
435
436 Craig Benedict: I think that the major effort was that organizational project. I think we have tools in the previous code that were
437 unclear. I think this rendition of Conditional Use, Conditional Zoning and our explanation of General Use, I think offers the
438 County some different rules to handle and condition growth for the future. We're not going to necessarily choose, this will be an
439 opportunity for the property owners to request a lot of these Conditional Zoning Districts. I think it is a good tool that hasn't been
440 used much in the past and could offer the Commissioners another mechanism to guide growth with agreed upon conditions. I do
441 see a lot of work in phase two but before you can ever get to phase two, you've got to finish phase one. My staff understands
442 very clearly this isn't a perfect document, that this is an honorable document that was put together and 9 out of 10 times they got
443 rid of the vagueness, the ambiguities, and conflicting areas.
444
445 Larry Wright: I would like to entertain a motion and in that motion you may want to consider wording that our understanding as
446 we know this section and these sections that under which this topic throughout this whole UDO is covered, our understanding
447 and with the presentations and documentations that were presented to us. You may want a condition or you may want to word
448 your motion in that measure because we have 842 pages here and a lot of it references these sections. I think that in
449 formulating a motion you may want to incorporate some of those caveats.
450
451 Mark Marcoplos: I'm ready to make a motion.
452
453 Larry Wright: Ok, go ahead.
454
455 MOTIONS: Mark Marcoplos made a motion that the Planning Board believes the UDO has reached a reasonable level of
456 perfection at this time and the Board is comfortable with the state of the UDO as it pertains to the zoning issues.
457
458 Pete Hallenbeck: I'm thinking you say at this time, I'd be a little more comfortable if you referenced the one and two phase. Say
459 comfortable with the document as it relates to phase one. Part of why I want to do that is to make it very clear that we do look
460 forward to coming back later in phase two and adjusting things. Instead of at this time, I'd say for phase one.
461
462 Larry Wright: I would like to make a friendly amendment to this motion. To add that we're comfortable with it, I think that you
463 used those words, as presented to us within the time limit we've had to study it.
464
465 Mark Marcoplos: I take a leave on that, it's all implied.
466
467 Larry Wright: I'm going to vote against it if it's not in there.
468
469 Mark Marcoplos: That's fine too, I'm okay with that, we're basically saying that.
470
471 Larry Wright: I want that in there.
472
473 Mark Marcoplos: Its in a pretty good state, we're at the end of phase one, were comfortable with moving it on down the line.
474
475 Alan Campbell: Are we just voting on the part that deals with conditional use, is there another vote later on for the whole thing?
476
477 Larry Wright: This is the January 5 meeting, its all that was in the January 5 meeting. Thank you for clarifying that.
478
479 MOTION: Mark Marcoplos made a motion to affirm that the zoning section of the LIDO as discussed is at a reasonable level of
480 perfection in phase one and the Board is comfortable with the state of that section of the UDO. Seconded Alan Campbell.
481 VOTE: 6 -2 (Wright, Becker opposed)
482
483 May Becker: I would like to voice my concerns regarding the Conditional Zoning as I talked about earlier in the meeting and also
484 concerns about not having as Larry pointed out, spent the time on some of these larger issues to really understand what the
485 effects are. I don't know if it's the appropriate time to bring this up but in terms of storm water and that whole section, I feel that
486 we haven't really addressed that and it's related to zoning, its also related to stream buffers, it's related to the whole thing and to
487 pass something quickly when I feel when we look at how much more we know now about Conditional Use and Conditional
L
205
DRAFT
488 Zoning just based on the meeting that we had two meeting ago and then consider all that other stuff that's in here that we haven't
489 really looked at, I can't say I'm comfortable with that. Therefore I think it's irresponsible to just say well lets move on lets just deal
490 with it later. We also brought up a couple of points about vegetative buffers and landscape buffers, we didn't get a chance to
491 really go into those. That's where I stand.
492
493 Larry Wright: My dissenting opinion is this, had the motion been worded differently I probably would have approved it. I do feel
494 that we were not given adequate time,1 do feel staff has made a good presentation and this is what we know. We do know the
495 documents that were presented to us. What we do not know and what was in this vote is we have not had the time to go through
496 the 842 pages and look at the references. Had the motion been made that was more conditional on what was presented to us,
497 and our knowledge of what was given to us, I would have said yes, I endorse it and we move forward and the rest goes on phase
498 two. That's it.
499
500 Rachel Hawkins: 1 would like to say I resent the remark that we were irresponsible in passing the motion.
501
502 May Becker: I didn't mean that it was irresponsible of us, I meant that I would feel its irresponsible of myself to pass something
503 that I don't feel comfortable with, that I don't feel I have understood fully to the point where I'm comfortable with it. I feel
504 personally that I should have a certain level of understanding of what is in the document and I have brought up concerns in the
505 past about particular areas that I feel that we didn't really discuss in detail. I think that what I was trying to point out is that a few
506 meetings ago I really got a much better understanding of these zoning districts and therefore I feel that it's my own view of
507 responsibility is to understand something before I feel comfortable in saying I'm comfortable with it.
508
509
510 AGENDA ITEM 9: COMMITTEE/ADVIsORy BOARD REPORTS
511 c) Orange Unified Transportation
512
513 Tommy McNeill: Karen Lincoln does a superb job with the OUTBoard. I want to touch on a couple of quick things, we invited the
514 Department of Transportation to come and speak to the group and they did a great job on presenting the area roads which will be
515 paved. She also emailed describing and listing the area in Orange County that will be paved which I can forward to Tina to send
516 out to the group. Its very interesting to see what they are doing. The second thing of course that you have already seen tonight
517 is the meeting that will take place on February 7th, I plan to attend, at the library here to discuss more about the plan, it is an input
518 meeting for the public and I think it behooves us all to take an interest in this and I will attend and gather more information. That
519 is just two areas the OUTBoard has been discussing. That is what I can share with you tonight.
520
521 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) CONTINUED:
522
523 Larry Wright: Ok, let's move on to stream buffers.
524
525 Perdita Holtz: The pages of the stream buffer sections that have modifications from the comments that were made at the
526 January 19th meeting are on page 41 through 44 of your packet. The blue text is the indicated changes from the November 2010
527 draft which is the draft you have now in your notebooks. As part of the discussion last time, we made several modifications, A.1
528 and A.2 on page 41 makes it clear that the approval of activities in the stream buffers is required prior to the activity taking place.
529 Throughout this section we replaced the term 'permitted' with the term 'allowable'. On page 42, we removed number 13 from the
530 uses allowable and added it to a similar provision that already existed in D which is uses allowable with mitigation so if you take a
531 look at number 9, you'll see that now new storm water ponds with or without a riparian buffer established adjacent to the pond is
532 a use allowable with mitigation. Those were what we understood the Planning Board requested as a result of the January 19th
533 meeting.
534
535 Craig Benedict: Larry, something that you brought up at the previous meeting, what's the purpose and intent of almost every
536 section of our code, how to you balance those interests, we noticed that what's allowed without mitigation is primarily
537 maintenance of these stream buffers and some passive enjoyment of it whether it is archeological dig or using a trail and we
538 thought that instead of adding an elaborate purpose and intent in section, was there a section of UDO that seems to cover that
539 balance of interest. Perdita did find a section of it that which is kind of in the preamble of the whole book about the balancing of
540 the public interest to enjoy the environment.
541
542 Perdita Holtz: Section 1.1.4, if you look on page 1 -2 of your book, part b of that. The purpose of the regulations set out in this
543 Ordinance shall be to accomplish compatible development of the land within Orange County in a manner which will best promote
544 the health, safety, and general welfare, as well as to, you will notice there are twelve things listed.
545
546 Craig Benedict: That was something like the example we showed on the board, everything in this code is a balance of interest.
547 Any one year or any one decade the pendulum may swing one way or the other so this is a balance for 2010 and 2011, we think
548 it's a good preamble.
9
206
DRAFT
549
550 May Becker: On number 13 on page 42 you took out that number and you put it into section d on page 43, number 9 is that
551 correct?
552
553 Perdita Holtz: There was already a number nine that allowed storm water management ponds with mitigation that did not have
554 a riparian buffer and the Board may or may not been aware of that. Now we took storm water management ponds that have a
555 riparian buffer that you were allowed to do as a right, it was an allowable use, and we've now moved it to, you have to mitigate.
556 It's a little bit odd that whether or not you have the riparian buffer around your new storm water management pond that you have
557 to provide mitigation but it works. We can enforce that.
558
559 Tommy McNeill: Can you take it one step further and define mitigate.
560
561 Perdita Holtz: Generally, it means establishing a vegetative buffer somewhere else. Mitigate means compensate.
562
563 Mark Marcoplos: That was the conclusion after a pretty long discussion at the last meeting. We wrestled to try to make sure it
564 was the best way to make sure that it was acceptable.
565
566 May Becker: I am just trying to be clear on this, so number 13, it said before you changed it, new storm water management
567 ponds provided by riparian buffer that meets the requirements of this section is established adjacent to the pond and then now
568 you have replaced it with, new storm water management ponds with or without a riparian buffer established adjacent to the pond.
569 Essentially, you could have a pond without a riparian buffer but you require mitigation.
570
571 Craig Benedict: If you didn't have one you'd have to build one. Mitigation process is reparation is a repair or creation of a buffer.
572
573 Shannon Berry: There are many things that could be for mitigation but you have to do something to compensate.
574
575 Perdita Holtz: I want to be clear that previously new storm water management ponds without a riparian buffer was allowed with
576 mitigation. That is not new, it is new in red, but we didn't change that since the last meeting.
577
578 Alan Campbell: I think I was probably one of the ones that suggested moving this and I was aware that was already there. 1
579 frankly felt like it didn't make a lot of sense to move it but my goal was to try to address the issue of having some process which
580 moving it over here makes it much more clear that there is a process because of mitigation required, it would subject it to some
581 type of approval. To me that was the main focus of moving it over. My recollection is that there was something already there, 1
582 think it makes sense to put it together basically just saying that 13 now have to go through extra hoops but otherwise it doesn't
583 change.
584
585 Perdita Holtz: Correct.
586
587 May Becker: My understanding of our discussion is just when I read the text it reads as if you used to have something that says
588 provided a riparian buffer that meets the requirements is established and now it reads as if you can have it with or without a
589 riparian buffer.
590
591 Perdita Holtz: With mitigation, the requirements of the section was establishing the riparian buffer width.
592
593 May Becker: I just want to be clear. The text reads to me as if you had something with the riparian buffer and now you going to
594 saying with or without a riparian buffer even though you're saying with mitigation but it sounds confusing to me on one hand to
595 say that without a riparian buffer is a possibility but then on the other hand you're saying but it's with mitigation so it's not a
596 possibility any more.
597
598 Shannon Berry: Mitigation isn't going to necessarily going to be the same riparian buffer that you would have had without
599 mitigation. There could be other things you do for mitigation other than creating this giant buffer around the pond.
600
601 May Becker: Which is, from what I understand, also a possibility before this new language but it didn't sound like it based on
602 how it was written here before on page 42 in my understanding. It makes sense to me what you're explaining, is it necessary to
603 say with or without a riparian buffer?
604
605 Shannon Berry: No, it would basically be all new storm water management ponds, that's all it needs to say because its under
606 the allowable mitigation section. Would you rather have us change the with or without and basically make it say new storm water
607 management ponds?
608
609 May Becker: I would prefer if you said something provided about riparian buffer meets the requirements of this section. I realize
10
207
DRAFT
610 - that sounds a bit redundant but it sounds ......
611
612 Perdita Holtz: So, you want to have a riparian buffer that meets the requirements of the section and require mitigation?
613
614 May Becker: I am saying that's similar to, that's what ynu're requiring basically, in mitigation you're...
615
616 Perdita Holtz: Not necessarily.
617
618 May Becker: Ok, well my concerns are that the nutrients be protected, that the water be protected from excess nutrients and
619 from potential problems with storm water management ponds. At our last meeting we talked about is it possible to have a pond
620 that does not have a buffer, in other words, can you put a pond practically next to the stream and I think the answer was yes you
621 can based on Orange County regulations and somebody pointed out that there are still state regulations but I would feel more
622 comfortable knowing that there's somebody looking out there to make sure that these nutrients aren't getting into these limited
623 water bodies that we have. So, yeah, I would be more comfortable knowing what means in terms of mitigation and having a
624 buffer.
625
626 Shannon Berry: Mitigation is determined on a case by case basis so it's not going to be spelled out.
627
628 May Becker: That's why I pointed out that yes, I would be more comfortable saying provided a riparian buffer that meets the
629 requirements of this section as established.
630
631 Alan Campbell: So, May what you're saying is you would like to have stricken the old number nine in d? On the old one if you
632 didn't have a riparian buffer you had to have mitigation. You're saying you don't want that option at all, you want to always
633 require a riparian buffer for any storm water pond?
634
635 May Becker: I would like to have, yeah, I would like to have....
636
637 Alan Campbell: That's different than what we talked about last time.
638
639 May Becker: Well, I guess my understanding is that was in there before, new storm water ponds provided a riparian buffer that
640 meets the requirements of this sections as established and now we're taking that out and saying they're allowed with mitigation
641 but we're not clear on what the mitigation is, it's on a case by case basis. So, we're going from having a pond that needs to have
642 a buffer to a pond that might not need a buffer.
643
644 Larry Wright: I would like to have you make these comments and we have already had a meeting on this and I don't want to
645 have another meeting on this. So, what I'd like to do is move forward and there are other people to make their comments and
646 you can formulate this in your opinion.
647
648 May Becker: At the last meeting we said that the staff was going to change the language and email it and then we'd have a
649 chance to look at it before this meeting and I'd didn't get any of that so that's why it's coming up now. I'm not trying to move
650 backwards on what we were doing, on the other hand, I didn't have a chance to get why we're....
651
652 Craig Benedict: Were you given the agenda? Did you get the agenda?
653
654 May Becker: In the mail? In the mail, yes, I got the agenda in the mail but I thought we were... we talked about having some
655 emails about the specific language and that we were going to go over that ......
656
657 Craig Benedict: We thought we'd give you the context of the entire section in our agenda packet so you didn't see things in
658 isolation. We though that the time between getting the agenda and tonight's meeting would be enough time for you to formulate
659 your thought process.
660
661 Mark Marcoplos: I am not adding anything, I'm not starting a new topic. I just want to say that I am totally comfortable with how
662 we ended this discussion at the last meeting. We could have left it where it was in my opinion. We moved it and it is just as
663 good because it still refers to 6.13.6.a over here which says, you have this land disturbing activity and then the owner has to
664 mitigate in so many words, that the use shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimum soil disturbance and to
665 provide the maximum value water quality protection practicable. On a case by case basis there is no way you can write a
666 mitigation plan for every bit of geography that you might have to deal with. I think that is as close as you can get to saying that
667 you're going to do what is best in that situation. Somewhere along the line somebody is not going to do as good of a job as they
668 should just because it's possible that could happen with under any ordinance and it's going to be up to somebody else that
669 knows that to point that out and hopefully there are people checking behind on this stuff. I just don't see how it can be improved.
670 1 don't see how we can find language that it is going to ensure that everything will, as humanly possible, will be done in every
11
208
DRAFT
671 instance but it does say, provide the maximum water quality protection practicable and that mitigation will be provided. I am a
672 strong believer in water quality.
673
674 Pete Hallenbeck: I'd like staff to see I'm thinking correctly, or what but when I think mitigation, I don't think we're going to pollute
675 the stream here but we're going to plant this beautiful growth of trees here. I think mitigation will end up with a system that
676 protects the water as well as what it specifically outlines here. I think that I heard this in that storm management pond could
677 have a much bigger buffer around it if it had to be thirty feet away from the stream that we're talking about at the last meeting.
678 That concept of mitigation....
679
680 Craig Benedict: Yes, there are many ways to achieve suitable mitigation, in some cases they have to plant more than what was
681 disturbed.
682
683 Pete Hallenbeck: So mitigation notes the goals of mitigation is no change of protection, the term refers to a way to come up with
684 a specific plan site by site that achieves the same results?
685
686 Craig Benedict: I'd say that's fair.
687
688 May Becker: I do want to ask one question just to be clear. We're taking the ordinance from allowing a pond if you establish a
689 riparian buffer around it to allowing a pond with mitigation which may be a riparian buffer or it may be some other form or
690 mitigation? Is that correct?
691
692 Perdita Holtz: Yes.
693
694 Andrea Rohrbacher: On page 43, d, uses allowable with mitigation and then the sentence below it says the following uses are
695 permitted. I thought we were changing the 'permitted to'allowable'.
696
697 Perdita Holtz: Sorry, we missed that one.
698
699 Larry Wright: Staff do you have any brief comments on what has been discussed.
700
701 Craig Benedict: No, we're in line with what you suggested as changes and we're comfortable.
702
703 Larry Wright: I'd like to go around to each member now and we are discussing stream buffers. Could you make your comments
704 brief please and express your opinion that you would like to convey to the Board:
705
706 Mark Marcoplos: I comfortable with the state of the UDO on the stream buffer issue and look forward to learning as we go in
707 phase two and as we continue to protect the water.
708
709 Andrea Rohrbacher: I am comfortable with it. I think it addresses, to the best of our knowledge, the concerns that we're aware
710 of to this point and we can in phase two make additional changes.
711
712 Pete Hallenbeck: I have read every page of this 800 pages, I think I've got about 40 hours in this thing. I think the changes
713 we've made regarding the stream buffers have clarified some of the points that were brought up and further restricted some of
714 these. We still have some overriding concerns in the document such as goals, purpose, and intent for the County Commissioner
715 approvals and using the Comprehensive Plan for guidance while making decisions. I like that because that means when there's
716 a problem with details there's guidance on how to deal with that and my last general comment is that something that we keep
717 wrestling with here is the sum of these parts, the outcome that we want. I am noticing that every time we have a discussion
718 about something. Can you guarantee that by having all these little specific rules that when all those are applied you get what you
719 want. I have been trying in these discussions to figure out are we hung up on that or are we hung up on specific language. I am
720 happy with the state of the stream buffers for phase one at this time.
721
722 Alan Campbell: I will be very brief. I am comfortable with the stream buffers section of the UDO.
723
724 Larry Wright: With respect to stream buffers, I'm comfortable with it as it was presented and from what I do understand I do not
725 have the expertise in this area of either Mark or May and I have to go with what was presented and what I understand. To this
726 point I am comfortable with it.
727
728 May Becker: I feel better about a lot of what we talked about toward the end of the last meeting. I feel its closely related to the
729 storm water section and we haven't spent time on that and I think that's why some of these questions have come up in terms of
730 ponds near streams and storm water and driveways which we talked about at the last meeting. You get a brief description of
731 something that is potentially going to be developed for example a pond near a stream and how that works with storm water but
12
1'
DRAFT
732 as far as having been able to really see what the changes are related to how storm water and stream buffers work together 1
733 don't feel that we've really spent time on that.
734
735 Tommy McNeill: I am comfortable with the stream buffers at this time and look forward to learning more about it in the future.
736
737 Rachel Hawkins: I am comfortable with the stream buffers as they are presented to us. I didn't come to the last meeting but 1
738 have complete confidence that Orange County will protect stream buffers.
739
740 Larry Wright: Ok, do we have a motion please.
741
742 Mark Marcoplos: I can make a motion. I'll use the exact same wording as the last one but insert stream buffers.
743
744 Larry Wright: Please don't. Pete do we have a motion, you can do one.
745
746 Mark Marcoplos: Oh, come on you can't deny my motion.
747
748 MOTION: Pete Hallenbeck made a motion that the Planning Board accepts the language on the stream buffers in the UDO as
749 they apply to phase one given the time that we have had to review all the information. Seconded by Tommy McNeill.
750 VOTE: 7 -1 (Becker opposed)
751
752 May Becker: I feel that we should have the opportunity to spend some time at least on storm water and how it relates to stream
753 buffers and link the important parts, the main parts of the document. Not necessarily the details at this point but at least have a
754 fundamental understanding of the main components of this document and I don't think we've had a chance to do that.
755
756 Larry Wright: Thank you very much and we move on to the last portion of this and the reason why I have this, this was not in the
757 minutes but I do feel that going into February 28th meeting that it would be good for the Board to give some sense, all this is just
758 reeling around and we have all these pages. I've gone through a lot of them. I would like to be able to capture a sense from
759 where the Planning Board feels about this document as a whole relative to the time that you've had to the amount that you have
760 been able to discuss the whole thing and these are all the sections and the time that is available to us. Remember the calendar
761 that we do have. We have an April 5 deadline and that was given to us by the Board, we have a Quarterly Public Hearing on the
762 28th which means we have March and Perdita has said that in order to prepare for that you need to have things in by the 11 th.
763 Right?
764
765 Perdita Holtz: We looked at the calendar and we might be able to go as late as the 15th but that really is the deadline to have the
766 Planning Board's recommendation.
767
768 Alan Campbell: I thought at our last meeting we were going to vote officially on this at this meeting, am I correct in that?
769
770 Larry Wright: Pending the February 28th meeting, we may get all together a whole other set of charges so our work is not done
771 on this. We are going to have public input and then the Commissioners have an opportunity to say we want the Planning Board
772 to do this ... and that. Pending all that and setting that aside, I would like to get some sort of handle on where we as members
773 feel about what we have done thus far with this document. Do we feel that we can support the document as a whole, do we feel
774 that it needs further study, but we have these time constraints, can we support this document with reservation, or can we flatly
775 say, we can't support it at all. As we have worked with it thus far. Note we haven't done telecommunications, signs, whatever is
776 in here. I think that we really need to give them a sense that we haven't really dealt with this whole document.
777
778 MOTION: Alan Campbell made a motion to approve the UDO with all the changes presented to the Planning Board through
779 tonight's meeting as is to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners as an official approval from the Planning Board.
780 Seconded by Tommy McNeill.
781
782 Mark Marcoplos: When we picked out these two items to further discuss, the stream buffer and the Conditional Zoning and the
783 rest of the zoning, we said that we were comfortable with the rest of it. We had that discussion that night and that's what we
784 decided. We said we understood the time constraints, that it wasn't a perfect world, if we're going to make this happen it has to
785 happen within the parameters the County Commissioners laid out to us in terms of their budget process and it was going to be a
786 train wreck if we tried to extend the process out to the summer. We actually had this discussion and we concluded that we were
787 comfortable with the state of the other portions of the UDO and we pulled these out and set a time table for that. I am little bit
788 surprised that we're even discussing other parts of it at this point. I am happy to vote right now to move it on because we've
789 already had this discussion.
790
791 May Becker: I don't think I said I was comfortable with everything else, I think I brought up some other issues and then other
792 members of the Board made a motion to say let's focus on these two issues and then that motion passed and that's how we
13
210
DRAFT
793 ended up focusing on these issues. I just want to point out there were other issues and that's how the Board decided to proceed.
794
795 Craig Benedict: I'll go back to August 24, 2009. The Commissioners told us to not open up every chapter of this book. There
796 are sections in here that we know need work but that wasn't our charge so we've limited this charge over the last 15 months or
797 so to handle some of these organizational issues. Maybe we do need to look at storm water but we didn't change one part of
798 storm water from the previous code. There are other areas we did not change at all as well, so had a focused effort here. I would
799 say out of my staff, I'm not the best expert on this and I don't know 100% of this. I don't expect the Planning Board to know
800 100% either. That is not your complete role. I'd like the Board to feel comfortable with it but knowing that they're probably not
801 the practitioner of it in their entirety as we implement this one as a development issue comes forward that's when we get your
802 read on specific issues and things like that. I think the Board has done a excellent job trying to get their arms around this but if
803 Board members sleep on this, that's probably more than you have to do. You have to feel comfortable with it.
804
805 Larry Wright: I would like to move this document forward right in the hands of the Commissioners. There are problems with this
806 that I can see. For example, 2.8.6 to me reads like it removes the Board of County Commissioners from the process before the
807 Quarterly Public Hearing, 2.9.1 to me ambiguous from reading through the telecommunications towers sections, it looks like
808 public notice putting up the balloon and notification of neighborhoods seems to be diminished or decreased. This is the way 1
809 read it. I have sign ordinances, I really would have to have a lot of study on the previous, l just don't know what has changed in
810 sign ordinances. Ok, so the Commissioner have said and mandated to us that we are to push forward and we're not to look for a
811 perfect document. I say then they can have it in its imperfections we have three to five meetings to hand them the best that we
812 can give it with our time. I think we have spent ample time and energy and anxiety over this. I say I am willing to move this
813 forward back to the hands of the Commissioners and if they don't like the job that we have done then they can give us some
814 more consul and advice and tell us what they want with the document that they have. They are the ones that ultimately have to
815 answer to the public we are an advisory board. That the discussion, does staff have anything else to say?
816
817 Perdita Holtz: I have something that I need to say because you are about to vote on the full document with the revisions that are
818 in attachment two and I want to fully disclose that there are some minor things that have happened that is in your attachment two
819 that we did not talk about and I want to take five minutes and go through this so you are fully aware. In trying to make a perfect
820 document we did a recheck and if you look on page 45 of your packet, we discovered that there were seven definitions in the
821 body of the Zoning Ordinance that need to be added to the definitions section. Those are existing definitions. On the EDD
822 Permitted Use table which is on page 57 to 65 we made a modification to make it clear that projects that had needed a PD
823 designation would now require a Conditional Use designation. That is just a clarifying thing we wanted to make it clear. The
824 UDO graphics on page 67 through 77 in this packet are graphics that were noted in the November 2010 draft as being subject to
825 revision or are suggested by staff for minor revisions and these graphics that are on 67 to 77 will replace the graphics in the
826 printed UDO document. The last thing on page 79, there are seven minor text modifications that there is an explanation for each
827 of those text modifications to make it clear on why we were suggesting these modifications. We believe that all these
828 modifications make it more clear on what is expected as people would read and go what about this and we want to be clear on
829 what is expected in the Economic Development District there are specific uses that require a Conditional Use Permit for instance.
830 There is now text to say that so it is very clear that it is required. I just wanted to bring this to your attention that there are some
831 staff recommended clarifying text amendments that are not in the November 2010 draft that were going to bring forward at public
832 hearing and you should be aware.
833
834 Alan Campbell: Let the record reflect that my motion was intended to cover everything that was presented in our packet which 1
835 did review before the meeting.
836
837 MOTION: Alan Campbell made a motion to approve the UDO with all the changes presented to the Planning Board through
838 tonight meeting as is to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners as an official approval from the Planning Board.
839 Seconded by Tommy McNeill.
840 VOTE: 7 -1 (Becker opposed)
841
842 May Becker: I feel there are fundamental sections that we haven't had a chance to discuss and I would feel more comfortable
843 knowing what is in them. Again, if there are minor details that need to be moved and clarified down the line that seems like
844 something reasonable but if fundamental sections that we haven't looked at and discussed and talked about, I don't want to vote
845 for something when I don't know what s in it.
846
847 Larry Wright: I really would like to thank staff. This has not been easy. I really have learned a lot in this process by staff and
848 members here. Thank you very much each of you.
849
850 Tommy McNeill: I would like to address one concern. I've asked several citizens of Orange County to serve on some of the
851 vacant seats that we have here in the County on the service or advisory boards. One of the concerns, the overwhelming
852 concern that I keep hearing, is that they'd love to serve, they're professionals like we are, but the meetings tend to not end on
853 time. They don't handle the time management component of it very well. I love service, I think its a noble thing to do for the
14
211
DRAFT
854 County. One of the specifics that I try to adhere to in my professional life is that meeting should start on time and end on time.
855 The Vice -Chair has done a wonderful job tonight but we're looking at 9:30 and the agenda shows adjournment at 8:45. 1 know
856 there's been a lot of discussion on the UDO, I respect my colleagues opinions but I would for the future if we can try to meet with
857 in the agenda and get out in a timely manner. Thank you.
858
859 Larry Wright: I'd like to say that I changed the agenda. I have been here when we have met until 12:45 and although the
860 agenda does say 8:45, anybody is welcome to leave just like I did last time because I had to catch a flight. Anybody can leave
861 but we do have business to transact. I tried to move the meeting the best I could.
862
863 Tommy McNeill: This is not a personal concern, but if the meeting plan is intended to go to midnight it needs to be reflected on
864 the agenda.
865
866 Larry Wright: I changed the agenda, I have the prerogative to do that.
867
868 Rachel Hawkins: I would like to say that I liked what Craig said about us being an advisory board and some of us are not as well
869 versed in some of these things as others and I think that our planning department staff does an excellent job. I've never seen
870 anybody work any harder than these people. They know what they are doing and I trust that their guidelines are from a state
871 document or the Commissioner and I don't have any doubt in passing this on to the County Commissioners.
872
873 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT
874
875 MOTION: Alan Campbell made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mark Marcoplos.
876 VOTE: Unanimous
15
Attachment 7
213
APPROVED 1/20/2011
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
Dinner Meeting
November 22, 2010
5:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a dinner meeting on Monday, November 22, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the Link Government
Services Center in Hillsborough, NC
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the
Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, May Becker, Pete
Hallenbeck, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Tommy McNeill, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Judith
Wegner, and Larry Wright
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe
New Planning Board members (yet to be sworn in) were present: Andrea Rohrbacher
and Alan Campbell
Commissioner Foushee called the meeting to order at 5:45 PM. Introductions were
made.
Planning Director Craig Benedict said that each year the Planning Board looks at the
previous year and the upcoming year. He said that the County is into the formal process of the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and this is a very important framework for the future.
Tentative 2011 -12 Planning / Planning Board Work Plan Discussion
1) Completion of Initial Unified Development Ordinance
• Public hearing on November 22, 2010
• Forward to the Planning Board for a recommendation (December and January)
• UDO is to be adopted by the BOCC February 15, 2011?
• UDO creates framework
o Regulations related to economic development, permitted uses, and process
standards to be refined as noted in item 3 below
Larry Wright said that he was on the Planning Board when it worked on the
Comprehensive Plan. He has concerns about conditional zoning and could not resolve the
question about spot zoning. He is also on the Board of Adjustment, and when there is a
submission before it, the submission must conform and be justified in terms of the
Comprehensive Plan. He asked why the UDO is not being looked at to see if it conforms with
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He wants to know what the rush is because the UDO is a very
214
important document. He asked if the terms within the Comprehensive Plan are the terms that
should be used in the UDO also.
May Becker said that she agreed with Larry Wright. She feels like the Planning Board
has not spent sufficient time on this version of the UDO to figure out if this is really what is best.
In particular, she has concerns about several items, including stream buffers, protecting the
limited water supplies, and the tree protection ordinance.
Commissioner Gordon said that she also has concerns about this most recent version of
the UDO document. She made reference to her handouts for the public hearing in which she
summarized some sections of the UDO she believed were important, but said that she had not
even begun to go through this document. She is particularly concerned about conditional
zoning. She is also concerned that this is the only public hearing on this UDO. She said it is a
very large document, and it is not easy to understand. It is also more than a consolidation of
existing ordinances, and has new sections in it. For example, there is a new section on tree
protection. She said when the Chapel Hill Town Council considered its own tree protection
ordinance, it took extra time to consider just that one ordinance. She said there needs to be
more clarity in the document. She would like the Planning Board to have time to read it and go
through it more thoroughly.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he has pretty much the same background as
Commissioner Gordon in that he has been a Commissioner for awhile and he has been on the
Planning Board. He has a lot of respect for the Planning Board and the process. He said that
he also came tonight aware of the fact that last week the County got an odd, but respectable
request from the Town of Chapel Hill to please provide a copy of the UDO. He said that there
should be presentations at all four Towns. He said that staff needs to come up with a schedule
to inform the towns about this. He would like a recommendation from the Planning Board after
the public hearings. He thinks that there are some complicated issues and some departures
from what has been done before. He said that it is reasonable to give more time to make sure
that everyone understands the changes.
Judith Wegner said that there are a lot of areas to be decided. She said that the
Planning Board understands that the goal is to have a single document for county ordinances.
Brian Crawford said that there are a lot of development ordinance documents and there
are also a lot of things in the UDO that the Planning Board does not like. The goal is for the
developer to go to one document and figure out how to get things done in Orange County. The
goal is to have a unified document. He wants the Commissioners to understand that the
Planning Board is aware that there are things in the UDO that are not perfect.
Commissioner Jacobs asked Craig Benedict if he envisioned a way that the County
could adopt the UDO and flag sections that have to be refined.
Craig Benedict said that there is a bridge document that notes everything mentioned by
the County Commissioners, Planning Board, and the public. These things are flagged. In the
existing ordinance, it would be problematic to pull things out.
Lary Wright pointed out that there are a lot of cross references from chapter to chapter.
Steve Yuhasz said that this is just the first phase. He said that if the UDO is not put in
place fairly quickly, then the County will never get to the second phase. He said that it would be
a huge step backwards to delay.
May Becker said that for the parts that are new, the Planning Board has not had enough
time to go through it. The board needs more time to sit down and make an informed
recommendation.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she has never been on a Planning Board, so it is
hard for her to digest. She thinks that there is time to spend on making this a document that
works. She would like to hear what the public has to say.
215
Judith Wegner thanked the staff for all of the work. She said that 80% of it is very
positive. She would like to firm the substantial parts that are acceptable and then zero in on the
parts that need more time.
Frank Clifton said that he has never been anywhere that has the perfect document. If
the staff goes to the towns, there should be a timeline. He cautioned the Board not to leave it
an open -ended process. He said that nobody is banging on the door because of the economy.
If the economy does tum around in the near future, then there should be something in place.
Commissioner Gordon said that the County should err on the side of caution because
there is a lot in here that is new. The Planning Board and the County Commissioners need to
have the time to get through the document. She agreed that there needs to be a timeline. She
respects the Planning Board and wants it to get through this document.
Craig Benedict said that the County did receive a letter from Mayor Kleinschmidt asking
for additional information. Staff has been working on trying to explain the differences and
nuances of conditional zoning districts. He said that there have been outreach meetings, but
they have been sparsely attended. He said that the conversation can continue with the
Planning Board and the timeframe does not have to be December 1" to have comments come
back. In order to proceed with the next phase, it is hard to make revisions when it has not been
adopted yet.
Commissioner Jacobs said that, in the interest of moving the conversation forward, he
suggested that the staff and Planning Board come back with a proposed timeline to make
presentations to the Towns on the UDO, and also that the Planning Board consider this
document and come back to the County Commissioners with a recommended timeline for
review and adoption this fiscal year. There should also be a deadline for getting the Planning
Board recommendation on the timeline to the Board of County Commissioners before the Board
adjourns this calendar year on December 14th. The Board agreed.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would not like to see consideration of the UDO to get
mixed up with the budget considerations. He urged that the timeline has this coming back
before serious budget considerations.
Brian Crawford said that the Planning Board will hear the public comments and then will
deliberate and come up with a compromise.
2) Land Use Plan Text and Map and UDO Text and Zoning Atlas Amendments
• Several Small Area Plans (SAP) with economic development focus
o See maps and charts
• These amendments are to be completed through two public hearings:
• February 2011?
o Land Use Plan text amendments (a prerequisite for the following
amendments)
• May 2011?
o Land Use Plan map amendments
o UDO text amendments
o Zoning map amendments
Craig Benedict said that there is a land use document with text amendments and then a
UDO with text in the document. There are also small area plans and the rural economic
development district. He said that they are anxious to put this together.
3) Economic Development/ Planning Board Workgroup (Spring/Summer 2011 ?)
• Expediting Approval
216
• Targeted Industries
• Permitted Uses
• Specialized zoning district by SAP subarea
• Standards
The meeting was adjoumed at 6.•36 p.m.
David Hunt
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Valerie Foushee, Chair
217
APPROVED 1/2012011
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
November 22, 2010
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing meeting on Monday, November 22, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the
DSS Building, Hillsborough Commons, in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson and Bernadette Pelissier
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board
Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford and members May
Becker, Pete Hallenbeck, Earl McKee, Larry Wright, Mark Marcoplos, Judith Wegner, Rachel
Phelps Hawkins, Andrea Rohrbacher and Alan Campbell
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe and Tommy McNeill
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Foushee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and asked everyone to observe
the public charge. She turned the meeting over to Planning Director Craig Benedict and
Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - To receive public comments on the proposed
Unified Development Ordinance.
Craig Benedict said that in August 2009 the Planning staff met with the Board of County
Commissioners to see how much time it would take to put together a Unified Development
Ordinance. Tonight's presentation is the first formal public hearing for this process.
ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
Quarterly Public Hearing
November 22, 2010
Quick Presentation Overview:
- Project scope
- UDO in Phases
218
- Public Participation During this Process
- Comments Received on First Draft
- Proposed UDO
- Implementation Bridge
- Additional Information and Recommendation
- Public Comments
Project Scope
- Combine multiple County land use related ordinances into one cohesive document (6
into 1)
- Reorganize into a new format
- Eliminate existing contradictions and inconsistencies
- I 1pdate specific regulations
• Signage
• Landscaping, buffers, and tree protection
• Parking and loading
• Stream buffers
• Lighting (not completed in this phase)
- Develop Conditional Use and Conditional Zoning processes to replace existing Planning
Development districts
- Update graphics and tables
- Recommendations for next phases
UDO in Phases
- Staff authorized by BOCC to pursue specific items
o Goal: create a UDO format using existing standards and language to the
greatest extent possible
- Implementation Bridge
• Consultant preparing
• Recommend subsequent UDO amendments
- Adoption of this "framework" phase permits County to prioritize and focus on
amendments to sections in future phases
What This Phase Doesn't Do
- Does not change approval processes
- Does not change standards, performance levels, or dimensions
- Does not drastically streamline sections
• Contentlintent is often changed by abridgement
• Philosophical changes could lead to lengthy debate
Public Participation During This Process
- Public Meetings to receive public input held on:
• October 19, 2009
• October 22, 2009
• November 2, 2009 — (Joint Advisory Boards)
• June 14, 2010
• June 16, 2010
• September 8, 2010
• November 17, 2010
First Draft and BOCC /Planning Board Review
219
First Draft was released on August 9, 2010.
Public comments were accepted until September 20, 2010.
- Two BOCC work sessions to review /comment on First Draft
Two Planning Board meetings to review /comment on first Draft
Joint Planning Area (JPA) partners were notified in August, pursuant to JPA Agreement
First Draft Comments
- Comments are documented in Attachment 2
- Notations of how the comment was treated by staff
o Many were incorporated into the Public Hearing Draft (denoted by `1')
- Comments denoted by '2' could be incorporated but direction from the BOCC is
necessary
o Comment potentially exceeds scope of this phase
Proposed UDO
- Uses existing language and standards
• Zoning ordinance
• Subdivision regulations
• Environmental impact ordinance
• Economic development design manual
• Soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance
• Stormwater ordinance
- Footnotes used throughout to document where language is from or other pertinent
information
- First Draft proposed deletions in strike- through font
- First Draft proposed additions in red
- Public Hearing Draft proposed deletions in green strikethrough
- Public Hearing Draft proposed additions in green
- Proposed text changes to existing text where the text was inadvertently omitted from the
First Draft in orange
- "Notes" page
- Comparative table lists all existing ordinances and sections along with where they can
be found in the UDO or whether suggested for deletion
- PDF available on CD or online
o Table of Contents hyperlinked in electronic versions
- Questions and Answers document was developed — Attachment 1
Articles
1.
Administration
2.
Procedures
3.
Base Zoning Districts
4.
Overlay Zoning Districts
5.
Uses
6.
Development Standards
7.
Subdivisions
8.
Nonconformities
9.
Enforcement
10.
Definitions
Appendices
Regulation Amendments
220
- Conditional districts
o Replace existing Planning Development Districts
- Signage
o More clearly articulate requirements
o Addition of numerous definitions to more clearly define and illustrate signs
- Landscaping, Buffers, and Tree Protection
• Rewritten and reorganized to be more user - friendly
• Better graphics to illustrate concepts
• Clearer language to articulate requirements
• Ability to receive credit for existing vegetation preserved within buffer areas
• Permits flexibility in timing and placement of plant materials
- Parking and Loading
• More clearly articulate. requirements
• Better graphics to illustrate concepts
• Allowances for reduced parking for shared parking areas
• Criteria for flexible parking requirements for renovations and adaptive reuse
projects
- Stream Buffers
o Additions to the uses permitted within designated stream buffers
■ Examples: driveways, hiking trails, public water, and sewer lines
o New category of "uses permitted with mitigation"
■ Examples: docks, piers, boat ramps, trail crossing with bridges, new
stormwater ponds
o Consistent with State regulations
Outdoor Lighting
o (not completed in this phase)
Conditional Zoning Districts and Conditional Use
- These districts replace the existing Planned Development (PD) districts
- The difference between these proposed districts and PD is that Conditional Districts
allow the County and the applicant to mutually agree to conditions that address off -site
impacts of development
o PD mutually agreed upon conditions can address only on -site impacts
- The Applicability and Review /Approval process for Conditional Use is the same as the
existing PD districts.
o Much of the language in Section 3.7 (Conditional Districts) and the district charts
comes from the existing Planned Development article.
- The Approval Process for Conditional Zoning Districts (CZD) differs from the existing
process for PD in that a Class A Special Use Permit is not required for CZDs.
o A concurrent Class A Special Use Permit is required for Conditional Use
Conditional Use
- Any use listed on the Table of Permitted Uses
• Except uses specifically excluded from consideration (Section 5.1.4)
• Any variations to linked general zoning district standards much be approved by
the BOCC.
• Any conditions and /or site - specific standards imposed are limited to those that
address:
■ The conformance of the development and use of the site to County
ordinances and officially adopted comprehensive or other plan, and
221
■ The impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development or
use of the site.
o The applicant must agree to all conditions.
Conditional Zoning Districts
- Specific zoning district with a specific list of permitted uses
- Three conditional zoning districts in this first phase of the UDO
• MHP -CA
■ (Mobile Home Park district; replaces PD -MHP but does not require Class
A SUP approval)
• PID -CZ
■ (Public Interest district; replaces existing PD general zoning district)
• MPD-CZ
■ (Master Plan Development; replaces many of the components of the
existing PD -MU)
- Potential future phase conditional zoning districts noted in Section 3.7 footnote
• Agricultural Support Enterprises
• Rural Economic Development Area (REDA)
• Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
• Airport
Economic Development Districts — Name Changes and Zoning District Name Changes
Attachment 5 contains the proposed name changes and zoning district name changes
Proposed Name
Buckhom Economic Development District
Hillsborough Economic Development District
Eno Economic Development District
Current Name
1 -85 /Buckhom Road District
1 -40 /Old NC 86 District (but the Appendix
to the EDD Design Manual refers
to it as "Hillsborough Area)
1 -85/U. S. Highway 70 District
Modifications to be Incorporated into UDO
- Several graphics are noted to be subject to change /modification — Consultant is working
on changes
- Section 4.4.4 (B) — language will be changed to be consistent with the language used in
the UDO
- Definitions — Offices and Personal Services, Class 1, 2, and 3.
o Staff had reviewed the traffic volume information and recommends the volumes
stated in the draft UDO
IMPLEMENTATION BRIDGE
(A Consultant Product)
- What will it include?
- Why is it important?
- When will County receive?
What will it include?
- Summary of issues, comments, suggestions, concerns raised tonight and previously
- Summary of key themes in 2030 Comprehensive Plan
- Description of how key themes are addressed in UDO
- List of issues, suggestions, not yet addressed
222
Recommended strategies for addressing
- List of potential future UDO amendments
What is it important?
- Purposeful incremental steps
- Get the UDO framework in place
- Continue implementation of Comprehensive Plan
- Help set context and priorities for future amendments
- Potential blueprint for next steps
When will County receive?
- To coincide with BOCC receipt of Planning Board recommendation on draft UDO
- Target: February 15, 2011 BOCC meeting
- Present Implementation Bridge to Planning Board at its March meeting
Additional Information
- Received letter from Town of Chapel Hill late Friday (11/19) regarding the UDO
o Petition submitted by a Town of Chapel Hill Council member at the Town's
November 15, 2010 meeting.
- Letter requests information from the County's Planning Department
- Planning staff is working with Town staff on this issue as the normal JPA Agreement
Process has been followed
Recommendation for BOCC
- Receive the proposed Unified Development Ordinance
- Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
the proposed Unified Development Ordinance.
- Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 15, 2011 BOCC
regular meeting
- Request that our JPA partners provide any written comments by January 24, 2011
- Adjourn the public hearing until February 15, 2011 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any written public comments submitted to the
Planning Board at or prior to its December 1 meeting.
Brian Crawford asked if the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners had any
questions about the presentation.
Commissioner Gordon pointed out the emails from the public and read them into the record.
These emails will be included in the record of this hearing. Basically, the emails are asking for more
time to learn more about the implementation of the UDO and to delay the UDO decision until the
public has had more time to review it.
223
Commissioner Gordon said that the staff said that Conditional Use Districts do conform to the
Planned Development process and she gave the citation 3.7.3 (b)(2). She said that what this actually
says is, "shall conform to the applicable development regulations for the corresponding general use
district." She wants to know if this means the same thing as what is stated for Planned
Developments in Section 7.2.5 of the current ordinance, which says, 'Within the Planned
Development District, only those uses authorized by Article 4, as permitted in the zoning district with
which the PD corresponds shall be permitted and all other requirements of the corresponding district
shall be met." She said that "all other requirements" sounds like standards, not uses. She wants to
know if there are differences in what uses are allowed.
Perdita Holtz said that "regulations" can include "uses" because the permitted use tables
technically are regulations. She said that she could add the word to Section 3.7.3 to make it clear
that it does mean "uses" as well.
Commissioner Gordon said that this clarification about uses should also be included in the
section that is right before the permitted use table. That section on conditional uses states that any
use on the Table of Permitted Uses is allowed except uses specifically excluded from consideration.
Commissioner Jacobs said that since staff has referred to what was discussed at the dinner
meeting as far as the schedule and since some people may be here to ask for more time, he
suggested that one of the Chairs outline what was suggested about more time for people to review
and comment on the document.
Chair Foushee said that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board had a
dinner meeting earlier and the Planning Board had concerns about having more time to review this
document. There was agreement that the timeline proposed be modified to give the Planning Board,
the Towns, and the public more time to review this information or to receive a presentation from the
planning staff without taking an excessive amount of time in getting back to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Brian Crawford said that at the next Planning Board meeting, they will review the comments
raised tonight and will propose a new timeline in which to address further comments and to give the
public more time to express their concerns, etc. This proposed timeline would be back to the Board
of County Commissioners by its last meeting on December le.
Chair Foushee said that the County Commissioners do not want to rush this process, but
they do want to do it as soon as possible so that it does not conflict with the budget negotiations.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Kathleen Ferguson works with Quintiles in contracting and she is also Chair of the
Orange County Economic Development Commission (EDC). She said that earlier this year, the
EDC made a recommendation that Orange County complete all phases of the LIDO within a
timeframe that establishes confidence with investors and business owners. This is in the
context of commercial development. Phase II has an end result of Orange County being
comparable with the outside areas. She said that $1.9 billion of investment occurred in this
region at the height of the great recession. In 2009, Orange County received nothing. Part of it
is that Orange County needs to have a competitive permitting process that is streamlined and
reduces cost and time that is 90 days or less, preferably 60 days or less. She also represents
the 48% of Orange County residents who commute outside the County to work. She said that
there are no opportunities within the County in the private sector for jobs. She would hate to
see Orange County send a message that citizens must leave the County for work. She said
that having a LIDO that is user - friendly for business investors will help achieve economic
development. She urged the Planning Board and the County Commissioners to look at what
224
would encourage this type of commercial development. She said that in Site Selection
Magazine, North Carolina is nine times out of ten the top placement in the country for business.
Ben Lloyd agreed with Kathleen Ferguson. He said that what is in the current rules is
what bothers him, which are over - stringent regulations that have prevented any economic
growth in Orange County. This has resulted in a property tax that is unbearable. Only 13 -14%
of the revenue comes from commercial or industrial development. There are lifetime residents
leaving Orange County because they cannot afford to live here. There are three economic
development districts that have been here for 19 years. He said that Orange County has
created an anti - business image. He suggested that the boards scrutinize the document
carefully, make any necessary changes, and then pass it.
Desiree Goldman was speaking for two organizations. She spoke on behalf of Aaron
Nelson with the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. She said that the Chapel Hill -
Carrboro Chamber of Commerce urges the County to move fonAard on the UDO as soon as
possible. They see it as very important to economic development. As the Legislative Affairs
Director for the Greater Chapel Hill Association of Realtors, she urged the County
Commissioners to pass the UDO as soon as possible and to immediately initiate Phase 11. She
sees this as a way to creatively find ways to build in incentives for economic development. The
process needs to be streamlined for economic development (reducing fees, etc.). Also the
process needs to be clear and predictable.
Dolly Hunter said that she hat been an Orange County resident for the past 30 years
and she has participated in the following: planning, Farmland Preservation Board, Rural
Character Study, Cane Creek Reservoir Study, Economic Development Infrastructure
Committee, and the design of the EDDs. For many years, she has done voluntary farmland
preservation work for farmers. Recently, she was on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan
Coalition following the Comprehensive Plan 2030 creation. Concerning this UDO, she knows of
which she speaks and she said that it is good that the UDO combines the existing land use
regulations and asks that the new revisions are flagged for more review. Secondly, the County
needs to initiate Phase II. The existing land use regulations need to be redesigned to be fair,
clear, and predictable. Concerning Phase 11 and the Comprehensive Plan, no part of small area
plans should supersede what should be designed for the benefit of the entire County. She said
that the Orange County UDO website states that, "Future UDO phases are expected to consist
of additional changes to regulations and that the consultant will produce a list of potential phase
work." She asked that the County Commissioners initiate a Phase II, but that it will strive to
simplify the development regulations in order to encourage the creation of economic
development with greater coherency in land policy.
Pat Karom spoke for Darrell Chandler.
Darrell Chandler
9925 NC Hwy 57
Rougemont, NC 27572
I have been working on trying to have some type of commercial zoning for almost 7
years. The County put together a small area task force that I was a part of. We went over
many issues and I thought we had come to a conclusion that the area around Orange County
Speedway, Go -Kart track, Concrete Company, and the Quarry should be allowed to have some
type of commercial use. Its gone on for weeks, months, and years and there has not been one
thing done as far as getting something finalized. The County has spent a lot of taxpayer's
money looking into this area and it is time to sign some conditional use into law. The parcel of
land I own is 37 acres. My land is at the intersection of Mile Branch Rd. and NC Hwy. 57.
Approximately 4 acres is adjacent to the concrete company with loud trucks coming and going
all day. On the other side of the concrete company is the quarry with trucks coming and going
225
all day. Directly across the street is the Go -Kart track and all the noise it makes. Just to the
south of the property is Orange County Speedway. These 4 acres are not suitable for any type
of residential use. I built a 4,000 square foot home on the site across the road from the
concrete plant and I live there full -time, so I'm not going to do anything that's going to hurt the
value. i want to put some mini - storage units on the 4 acre site beside the concrete company.
I'm asking that the elected officials (Commissioners) sign into law the conditional use and the
ordinance so residents like myself and others with property in the middle of the commercial area
are allowed to do some type of commercial use. I remind the Commissioners that this is
conditional use, not an outright commercial zone. So we will have to get permission before we
do anything. As it stands now, we can't do anything, so please make this issue a priority, it's
been long enough.
Sincerely, Darrell W. Chandler"
Allan Rosen said that he has been a County resident for 18 years and he has served on
the Economic Development Commission. He said that there is no doubt that existing
regulations have impeded commercial development, but they have also increased the cost of
land, which has had an adverse affect on the cost of housing. He said that if the UDO is done
well, it can improve both commercial development outcomes and hopefully residential
development outcomes. He said that the Comprehensive Plan has never truly been
implemented. He thinks that the County will be served well when it is implemented fully. He
said that it is also critical that it be done as thoroughly as possible. He considers Phase II as
more important. He said that the UDO is the one policy instrument that is substantially or wholly
in control of the Board of County Commissioners. The County Commissioners can make its
mark here and send a signal to the business community that Orange County is serious about
welcoming business.
Ben Haven from the Village Project read a prepared statement.
"Since 2005, the Village Project has actively participated in Orange County's efforts to
create the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and we've continued to pay attention to related issues on
the Commissioners' agenda. One of our foremost desires is that the Plan will clearly delineate
where growth, redevelopment, and reinvestment can occur, especially those projects necessary
to build and maintain a resilient, high - functioning business sector. The rules and regulations
governing the development process in Orange County have as much influence on our built
environment as any other factor controlled by County government. Hence, it is essential that
the County's development regulations promote the development outcomes that are in the
County's best interest, including economic development.
The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) currently under consideration presents the
County Commissioners with an opportunity to create a tool which can foster the economic
development activity desired by the Commissioners and County citizens alike. Additionally, the
UDO will be the central instrument for shaping the direction of all development for many years to
come. As such, the Commissioners can use the UDO to not only achieve these outcomes, but
also to affirm the County's desire for more vibrant economic activity. Perhaps most importantly,
the UDO is one of the few policy tools regarding land use planning — and therefore economic
development —that is nearly 100% at the discretion of the Commissioners.
The Village Project agrees with the County Economic Development Commission which
advised the Commissioners to "complete all phases of the Unified Development Ordinance
effort within a timeframe that establishes confidence with developers, investors, and business
owners and also results in a reduction in the time needed for a project to go from application to
permit issuance and into construction."
The Village Project especially recommends that the Commissioners task the planning
department, in Phase Il, to modify the existing rules and regulations such that the regulatory
environment — at a minimum — compares favorably to neighboring jurisdictions. In other words,
226
we support having a "level playing field" in which development approval timelines and developer
costs in Orange County are no longer significantly more expensive and /or time - consuming than
those found elsewhere in the Research Triangle and eastern Triad regions."
Mark O'Neal said that he has been a resident of Orange County most of his life and he
thanked the staff and Planning Board for completing this task. He said that the County needs to
set a tone for Phase II implementation. The property owners need to have a predictable, more
streamlined process, which constantly supports economic development. He said that when
Durham County passed its UDO a few years back they had to stop and review their land use
policies. He said that the business community has the same problem. Whenever they consider
Orange County, they first have to look at the timelines, investment, and the risk. Orange County
needs available property.
Jeremy Browner is an attorney in Chapel Hill and he said that he disagreed with the
emails that have been submitted by the public in that the County reeds to stay on its current
timeline and should not be pushed back because it is of absolute importance. A delay of six
months would be very detrimental to the County in terms of trying to develop businesses. He
said that the UDO is very complex, but he believes that it should not be extended.
Carolyn Crissman lives in Cheeks Township. She said that she works for a small
business and she is a 30 -year resident of the County. She said that they all share one goal to
increase the County's prosperity to maintain the quality of life. To meet this goal, the County
must be transformed into something more resilient. The current regulations discourage
innovation. The UDO will be more clear, fair, and progressive and could be the foundation of
making Orange County resilient instead of brittle.
Written comments ( emails. etc.)
From: Betsy Smith <betsys @nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:27:57 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance: please slow down!
To: bjacobs @co. orange. nc.us, bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us, gordon.alice @gmail.com,
mikenelsonnc@aol.com, Vfoushee @co.orange.nc.us, phemminger @bellsouth.net,
syuhasz@co.orange.nc.us
Dear Board members - I just recently learned of the proposed Unified Development Ordinance
at a recent CH Town Council meeting and I am very concerned. This proposed effort to simplify
the development process for the sake of improving economic development on first glance
appears to favor developers over the concerns of residents and the ordinance itself appears to
be fast - tracked with little opportunity for public input or even any attempt to make the proposed
changes clear to those who would be most affected by it. Thus I would urge you to postpone
the vote on the UDO, extend the timeline to something that is more reasonable given the scope
of the changes (and the size of the document!), and make a sincere effort to engage the public
in discussions of how development should proceed within Orange County and if we should use
this new proposed process.
We all know that development simply for the sake of economic reasons is unsustainable and
often leads to unintended consequences with associated unplanned for costs.
thank you,
Betsy Smith
1412 US Hwy 15/501
Orange County
227
To the Orange County Commissioners,
With regard to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to be reviewed at tonight's Board of
County Commissioners quarterly meeting, Preserve Rural Orange requests that you extend the
UDO decision - making process to ensure that citizens understand the proposed changes and
have opportunities to respond after the meeting and before changes are adopted. In particular,
we are concerned with new language on conditional zoning which appears to allow for
increased development without the protection of the special use permit application process used
previously for planned developments.
The UDO is a very large document, requiring considerable time for non - experts to navigate. We
ask you to seek feedback from the public following the quarterly meeting, in order to give
citizens a chance to respond to specific issues raised by BOCC and Planning Board members
and to understand fully the potential impacts of proposed changes.
Thank you,
-Laura Streitfeld
Laura Streitfeld
Chair, Board of Directors, Preserve Rural Orange
Email info -preserveruralorange.org
Phone (919) 801 -7294
Preserve Rural Orange
P.O. Box 1314
Carrboro, NC 27510
From: gkneeb @aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:04:19 -0500
Subject: UDO proposal needs further consideration and input
To: bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us, bpelissier@co. orange. nc. us, gordon.alice @gmail.com,
mikenelsonnc@aol.com, phemminger @bellsouth.net, syuhasz @co.orange.nc.us,
vfoushee@co.orange.nc.us
Cc: pennyrich.ch @gmail.com, randee.haven- odonnell @da.org
November 21,2010
Dear Members of the County Board Of Commissioners:
During the November 15, 2010 meeting of the Chapel Hill Town Council, I noted Penny
Rich's request for further information regarding the Unified Development Ordinance which is
being discussed during your November 22 meeting.
As the organizer for a group of citizens who are concerned about the proposed Obey
Creek project in Southern Chapel Hill, I am curious as to the impact this new process will have
on the rural buffer and extraterritorial districts in Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
A search on the Chapel Hill News and Carrboro Citizen websites show only one
reference to this major endeavor — an
announcement of a public hearing in August. The article announced
228
that the UDO would provide " a more user - friendly, understandable document by incorporating
all land use development regulations into a central document andeliminate inconsistencies
among ordinances."
For most, this seems like a housekeeping item, not a major change in policy and would not have
solicited public interest.
The article makes no mention of changes in the zoning process through the introduction
of "conditional zoning districts" and
"conditional uses ". There is no mention of the Board's intention to
eliminate the Special Use Permit which provides protection for the residents of Orange County .
Given that the 800 page, updated document was only posted on the website in mid -
November and that there has been very little notice or explanation given to the public through
the newspapers, it seems that the County Commissioners should revise the current time line
and offer the appropriate public hearings and opportunities for public input based on a more
accurate description of the process that is unfolding.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Brown
104 Beechridge Court
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
From: Julie McClintock [ mailto :mcclintock.julie @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:58 PM
To: Valerie Foushee
Subject: Land Use Ordinance
Dear Valerie
I understand that you will be discussing the Unified Development Ordinance tonight, November
22.
With this document, the County is contemplating large changes in the zoning process and a
scheduled vote in early December.
I am involved in a group that encourages managed growth in Chapel Hill and we would be
interested in providing comment to you after we have a chance to fully analyze the document.
I request that you reconsider your schedule and provide more opportunities for public input.
This input could take the form of several presentations in January with opportunities for
questions and answer sessions in various parts of the County, as well as a public hearing at a
time when people are not involved in celebrating a major holiday.
One particular concern is the new conditional use zoning which can allow large development
projects to pop us in areas that would be expensive to serve with urban services such as water
and sewer. This type of zoning would be similar to a "floating zone" which could change
precipitously well - established land use policies in disregard of the careful planning that the
County has pursued for many years.
Please alter your review schedule and allow maximum opportunities for public input
Thank you for considering this important issue.
229
- -Julie
Julie McClintock
614 Beech Tree Ct
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919 - 967 -3661
mcclintock.iulieO- gmail.com
From: Lorraine McBride [mailto:lbmcbride @aol.com)
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:58 PM
To: Barry Jacobs; Bernadette Pelissier; gordon.alice @gmail.com; Mike Nelson (External); Nam
Hemminger ( Extemal); Steve Yuhasz; Valerie Foushee
Subject: Request to slow down UDO proposal
The UDO proposal process is moving too quickly. Please slow it down! The onerously long
document includes some significant changes in the County zoning process that merit more
opportunities for citizen education and input. Of particular concern to me are changes to the
Rural Buffer Zone and extraterritorial districts since I live in an unincorporated part of the county.
Thanks for your consideration.
Regards,
Lorraine Belden McBride
1418 Gray Bluff Trail
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
From: Linda Finch <fotofdeze @nc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:40:47 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
To: Barry Jacobs <bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us >, Bernadette Pelissier
<bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us >, Alice Gordon <gordon.alice @gmail.com >, Mike Nelson
<mikenelsonnc@aol.com >, Pam Hemminger <phemminger @bellsouth.net >, Steve Yuhasz
<syuhasz @co.orange.nc.us >, Valerie Foushee <Vfoushee @co.orange.nc.us>
Cc: Haw River Assembly <info @hawriver.org >, info @preserveruralorange.org
Dear Members of the County Board of Commissioners:
Only this evening have I become aware of some of the content of the proposed Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO), that you will be discussing during your meeting tomorrow,
November 22, 2010. As a member of Preserve Rural Orange, Citizens for Responsible Growth
and the Haw River Assembly, I am extremely concerned that this document is not just
"organizing" land use development regulations but could be fundamentally changing the way
development is conducted in this County.
I don't believe the general public nor architects like myself, have been made aware that this
document introduces "conditional zoning districts" and "conditional uses." There is no public
understanding that the Planning Board intends to eliminate the Special Use Permit which
230
provides the residents of Orange County special protections. There has been no discussion as
to the impact this new process will have on the rural buffer and extraterritorial districts in Chapel
Hifl and Carrboro.
Given that the 800 page, updated document was only posted on the website in mid - November
and that there has been very little notice or explanation given to the public through the
newspapers, it seems that the County Commissioners should revise the current time line and
offer the appropriate public hearings and opportunities for public input based on a more
accurate description of the process that is unfolding.
Sincerely,
Linda Finch; Architect
1438 Gray Bluff Trail
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
From: Kurt Riitters <kriitters @nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 06:29:18 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance
To: Barry Jacobs <bjacobs@co. orange. nc. us>, Bernadette Pelissier
<bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us >, gordon.alice @gmail.com, Mike Nelson
<mikenelsonnc@aol.com >, Pam Hemminger <phemminger@bellsouth.net >, Steve Yuhasz
<syuhasz@co. orange. nc. us>, Valerie Foushee <Vfoushee @co.orange.nc.us>
Dear Board Members,
As a resident of Orange County I request that you (a) postpone the vote on the UDO, (b)
extend the timeline for this process, and (c) make a sincere effort to educate the public about
the purpose and consequences of the 800 -page document which was released only 11 days
ago.
Thank you,
Kurt Riitters
1412 US Highway 15 -501 South
Chapel Hill
From: John or Yvonne Schmidt <schmidj @nc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:24:57 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance
To: bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us, bpelissier@co. orange. nc. us, gordon.alice @gmail.com,
mikenelsonnc @aol.com, phemminger @bellsouth.net, syuhasz@co.orange.nc.us,
Vfoushee @co. orange. nc. us
Dear Commissioners,
I urge you to postpone the vote scheduled for the Unified Development Ordinance, and to slow
things down. This is a long and very complex ordinance and more time needs to be available to
provide for information to and input from the public. I don't think it can be properly addressed
without advance notice and public hearings. I don't think most of the citizens in Orange County
know about it or understand it.
231
Sincerely,
John E. Schmidt
1417 Gray Bluff Trail
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Commissioner Gordon said that since the boards have agreed to propose a new
timeline, she thinks that there is a way to get a balance between the understanding of the
process and still move expeditiously. She said that all of the emails are addressed to all of the
County Commissioners. She submitted two documents (blue sheet and lavender sheet) that
she had prepared and commended them to the Planning Board for review. These include a
UDO overview document and a document that includes key articles and sections, with
comments.
First Document:
CONSIDERATION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
A. CONDITIONAL DISTRICTS
Conditional Districts (floating zoning districts) can have a significant effect on development in
Orange County. Therefore it is important that citizens are not only aware that this new type of
zoning district is being proposed, but that they also have time to understand the implications of
the two new conditional districts.
1. Conditional Use District (CUD). Except for certain exclusions, it appears that for a
Conditional Use District, any use permitted in the Table of Permitted Uses can potentially go
almost anywhere in Orange County's planning jurisdiction. Whether that is true or not needs to
clarified, and the ambiguity eliminated. If it is true, here is a list of some of the uses that could
be permitted almost anywhere:
Banks & financial institutions; kennels; laundry & dry cleaning services; massage (business);
night clubs, bars, pubs; offices & personal services; restaurants; retail; storage or warehousing;
assembly & packaging operations; animal hospitals, veterinarians; health services (under
10,000 square feet); rehabilitative care facility; rooming house; motor vehicle sales & rental;
motor vehicle services stations; parking as a principal use (surface or structure); assembly
facility (i.e. place for people to meet?); research lands and installations; special events.
2. Conditional Zoning Districts (CZDs). It appears that these floating zoning districts can be
placed in any of the general zoning districts, as long as the regulations associated with each
specific district are followed. Also, in contrast to the current zoning ordinance (for Planned
Developments), no Special Use Permit (SUP) is required for CZDs. Thus the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) has more discretion over whether to approve a rezoning request for a
CZD than it would in approving a SUP which requires making a quasi-judicial decision that must
be based on competent, substantial evidence presented at a public hearing.
B. UDO CHANGES
232
There have been many changes between the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) discussed
earlier this fall and the final document brought to the November 22 Quarterly Public Hearing. In
addition, this document was not available to the public until less thar two weeks before the
hearing. Furthermore, the Chapel Hill Town Council and Carrboro Board of Aldermen need a
chance to review the UDO to ascertain how it applies to the areas covered by the Joint Planning
Agreement.
C. ADDITIONAL TIME FOR REVIEW
Because of the proposed addition of floating zoning districts (Conditional Districts) which is a
significant change to Orange County's current zoning ordinance, and the number of changes
that were incorporated into the extremely large UDO document brought to this public hearing,
the Commissioners should allow more time for the public, the towns, the Planning Board, and
the BOCC itself to assess how the changes will impact all of us.
AMG 11/22/2010
Second document:
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - KEY ARTICLES AND SECTIONS
The Planning Board should review all articles in the UDO, and then vote on whether or not they
recommend approval.
I. KEY ARTICLES
The following articles should be reviewed with special care.
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and related definitions in Article 10.
II. KEY SECTIONS
In addition, there are some key sections to be reviewed. They include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following sections.
A. CONDITIONAL DISTRICTS
Here are the sections (that I have identified so far) that cover Conditional Districts. There are
also definitions in Article 10.
Conditional Districts, Sec 2.9, pp. 2 -38 through 2-46
Conditional Districts, Sec. 3.7, pp. 3 -62 through 3 -72
Conditional Uses, Sec. 5.1.4, pp. 5 -3 through 5 -5
Table of Permitted Uses, Sec. 5.2, beginning on p. 5 -6
Additional Standards for MPD -CZD, Sec. 6.7. pp. 6 -54 through 6 -63
233
B. RURAL BUFFER AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT
Here are the sections (that I have identified so far) that are related to the Rural Buffer and Joint
Planning Agreement. Also related are the sections listed above for Conditional Districts.
Applications for Amendment - Joint Planning Area - Sec. 2.8.4 - pp.
2 -35 and 2 -36
Residential Districts, Rural Buffer, pp. 3 -2 and 3 -3
Conditional Uses, Sec. 5.1.4, pp. 5 -3 through 5 -5
Table of Permitted Uses, Sec. 5.2, beginning on p. 5 -6
Additional Standards for MPD -CZD, Sec. 6.7. pp. 6 -54 through 6 -63
Cluster Developments, Application Criteria for the Rural Buffer Zoning
District, Sec. 7.12, pp. 7 -48 and 7 -49
C. OTHER COMMENTS
Here are other sections that need review. Note that there is some overlap with sections
described above.
Review all sections shown in green type. Also, all sections that are new, and not simply related
to consolidation of the county's ordinances, should be reviewed.
Review all sections and definitions related to Site Plan, Site Specific Development Plan, and
Plot Plan. (For example, look at Sec. 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, pp. 2 -10 through 2 -12). Also note that
there is no definition of "Plot Plan" in Article 10.
Review the changes related to Special Use Permits. For example, look at Sec. 2.7, starting on
p. 2 -24.
Review the requirements for public hearings. For example, Sec. 2.8.6, p. 3 -36 deletes the dates
for the quarterly public hearings (February, May, August, November). These dates were
specified so the public would be able to keep track of when these important hearings were to be
held.
Clarify where "institutional uses" and "professional services" can be found in the Table of
Permitted Uses. It appears that there are no categories (e.g. "commercial uses ") corresponding
to these uses.
Review the significance of the requirements and changes related to "wastewater treatment
facility." For example, see page 3 -3, bullet 6. Also note that in this bullet "Conditional Use
(CU) District" is not in red type, even though these words are new.
Review the significance of the requirements related to "minimum usable area for lots that utilize
ground absorption wastewater systems." For example, see page 3 -7, bullet 5.
There are surely other sections that need further review, but these are the ones I have identified
234
so far.
AMG 11/22/2010
Brian Crawford said that the Planning Board has heard that there is still some work to
do. He said that he would take time with the staff before the next Planning Board meeting to
structure these comments in a productive way for the next meeting. He has heard that there
needs to be a balance between Phase I and Phase II.
Craig Benedict said that the recommendation is to keep the public hearing open. He
suggested keeping it open. until December 14th (last Ccuntl; Commissioners' meeting) and the
recommendation will be brought back with the new date for decision.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
receive the proposed Unified Development Ordinance, accept public, BOCC, and Planning
Board comments, refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that by the BOCC
meeting on December 14, 2010 the Planning Board will recommend a revised timeline for the
adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance to give more time for review and comment, and
that the timeline will not exceed this fiscal year.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to adjourn the public hearing at 8 :26 PM.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board
Valerie Foushee, Chair
Attachment 8 235
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Question & Answer Document
2. Comments on First Draft UDO
3_ Future Phase Suggestions Received to Date
4. Comparative Table
5. Tables and Maps of Economic Development
Districts Showing Name and Zoning District
Name Changes
6. Issue Papers on Topics Raised at BOCC work
sessions
7. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) —
hardcopy and on CD
[Under Separate Coverl
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Director, 245 -2592
Shannon Berry, Planner II, 245 -2589
Perdita Holtz, Planner III, 245 -2578
Tom Altieri, Planner III, 245 -2579
Michael D. Harvey, Planner lll, 245 -2597
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing to receive comment on the proposed Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO).
BACKGROUND: At the August 24, 2009 BOCC meeting, staff was authorized to:
• Develop a UDO that combines all existing land development regulations into one
document, using the existing language wherever possible;
• Correct any identified inconsistencies that exist within the individual regulatory standards;
• Update the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance: Article 9 - Signage, Article 10 -
Parking, Article 12 - Landscaping, and Article 6 — Dimensional Requirements including,
but not limited to: Section 6.31 Lighting and Section 6.27.11 Stream Buffers;
• Revise existing subdivision regulations to incorporate recent changes to State law and
eliminate identified inconsistencies;
Develop a Conditional Use /Conditional Zoning District process;
• Update existing graphics and tables detailing development standards; and
236
Attachment 8
Provide recommendations for subsequent phases of UDO amendments and 2030
Comprehensive Plan implementation.
Attachment 1 is a "question & answer" document about the UDO. The Planning Board
suggested most of the questions and Planning staff provided responses.
First Draft
The first draft of the UDO was released on August 9, 2010 and comments were accepted until
September 20, 2010. During those six weeks, the BOCC held two work sessions on the UDO
(August 23 and September 17). The Planning Board also reviewed the UDO at two of its
meetings during this time period (August 18 and September 1). Minutes for all of these
meetings are available on the Planning Department's UDO website:
http: / /www.co.orange.nc.us /planning /UDO.asp. Attachment 2 is a document containing
comments received on the first draft of the UDO, including public comments, and includes
notations of how the comment was treated by staff.
Staff has prepared an Issue Paper for topics raised at the BOCC work sessions (see
Attachment 6). The topics of the Issue Paper are:
• Modification of Planning Board duties
• Processing Letters of Map Revision (LOMR)
• Regulations governing the vacation of subdivision plats
• Time line for the re- submittal of withdrawn development proposals
Public Input Opportunities
Several public meetings were held during the UDO development process as follows:
• October 19, 2009 • June 14, 2010
• October 22, 2009 • June 16, 2010
• November 2, 2009 • September 8, 2010
(Joint Advisory Board meeting)
Additionally, a public information meeting will be held on November 17, 2010. Further
information on all of these meetings is available on the UDO website.
Subsequent Phases
Naturally, during development and review of the initial UDO there were and will be tendencies to
provide comments and ideas in areas where changes are not being made during this project
phase. In these cases, comments and ideas have been documented for consideration in future
phases of UDO amendments. A list of ideas suggested to date is compiled in Attachment 3.
It is a primary task of the County's Consultant, Clarion Associates, to document comments and
provide formal recommendations to the County on subsequent phases of UDO amendments.
These recommendations will be forthcoming after the public hearing.
Proposed Unified Development Ordinance
The proposed UDO is approximately 800 pages in length and combines all existing land
development regulations under one cover. Although a sizeable document, staff has "tracked"
changes to enable the reader to identify new text from existing as quickly and easily as possible.
Furthermore, a comparative table (Attachment 4) has been prepared as a tool for anyone
237
interested in knowing where existing regulations are located within the new UDO format. Upon
adoption, all text currently shown as proposed for deletion will be removed, thereby shortening
the length of the document. More importantly, staff will develop user friendly brochures of
different development processes so our customer interaction can be focused on their specific
interest. Therefore, the customer will likely be relating to only a small section of the overall
document.
The UDO is available to the public on the Planning Department's UDO website and upon
request, can be provided on CD.
Implementation Bridge and Improvements to Adopted UDO
The Consultant working with staff on this project will produce an "Implementation Bridge"
document which will provide recommendations for future phase work. Additionally, once all of
the text proposed for deletion is removed from the draft document by staff, the Consultant will
produce an Index for the UDO. Staff is also discussing with the consultant the possibility of
providing a variety of hyperlinks in the electronic version of the adopted document and an
estimate of the cost for the next budget cycle.
Economic Development Districts — Name Changes and Zoning District Name Changes
The existing Economic Development District (EDD) Design Manual (which has been
incorporated into the UDO) lists names that are no longer used for the EDDs. The table in
Attachment 5 shows the name in the EDD Design Manual along with the proposed name.
Additionally, the existing zoning district classifications are inconsistent with the numbering
scheme used for other zoning districts and are proposed to be changed for consistency. These
proposed changes are also shown in Attachment 5 along with maps depicting where these
zoning districts are located. More specific work in these areas is proposed by staff for the next
phase.
FINANCIAL_ IMPACT: The BOCC provided $32,600 in the 2009 -2010 budget, Departmental
Contract Services Account, to complete this BOCC priority. The costs of consulting services, as
outlined in the executed contract, are not to exceed $30,000. The additional $2,600 was
budgeted for advertising, copying and printing expenses. Monies were not carried forward from
the previous budget, so staff is working with Financial Services to accommodate this multi -year
BOCC priority. Advertising, copying and printing expenses have exceeded $2,600 but in the
interim have been paid using general Planning Department budgeted funds for these types of
activities. Additionally, Planning staff time on the project has been significant.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Receive the proposed Unified Development Ordinance.
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
the proposed Unified Development Ordinance.
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 15, 2011 BOCC regular
meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until February 15, 2011 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any written public comments submitted to the
Planning Board at or prior to its December meeting.
Attachment 1 239
Unified Development Ordinance Questions & Answers
1. What is the Unified Development Ordinance?
The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is a document that combines all regulations
pertaining to land development into one integrated document. The following existing
Orange County Ordinances are included in the UDO and will be repealed as part of the
LIDO adoption process: Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Environmental
Impact Ordinance, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control ordinance, Stormwater
Ordinance, and Economic Development Districts Design Manual (technically part of the
Zoning Ordinance but available as a separate document).
The UDO primarily incorporates existing text from the existing regulations. Changes
from existing text are noted via 5tr ikathr ougi i text, color coded text, and foots iate3.
Additionally, a Comparative Table that lists the sections of all existing incorporated
regulations and in which section of the UDO the text can be found is available.
2. Are there changes from existing regulations in the UDO?
Yes, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) authorized specific changes to
existing regulation as part of this phase of the UDO. The authorized changes are to
Landscaping, Buffers, and Tree Protection; Signage; Parking, Loading, and Circulation;
and Stream Buffers. Additionally, the BOCC authorized creation of Conditional Zoning
Districts and a Conditional Use District.
Staff is also suggesting that the provisions of the existing Stormwater Ordinance apply
county -wide. Currently, the Stormwater Ordinance applies only in the Neuse River
Basin. However, because of upcoming changes to the Jordan Lake Rules (Jordan Lake
is located in the Cape Fear River Basin), staff has written the UDO's Stormwater
provisions to apply county -wide so that an additional text revision should not be
necessary to accommodate the anticipated outcome of the Jordan Lake Rules.
3. What are some of the more significant changes in the regulations?
A procedure for the vacation of recorded plats and road abandonment has been
added to the UDO (Section 2.17). There is not a process in the existing regulations and
this has caused issues in the past with neither staff nor applicants knowing what should
be done to vacate a plat or abandon a road.
The Landscaping, Buffers, and Tree Protection regulations (Section 6.8) have been
re- written and re- organized to be more user - friendly. As proposed, the new standards
are more clearly articulated and will include better graphics for ease of use. Changes
from the existing regulations include, but are not limited to, specific planting
requirements for each buffer type and the ability to receive credit for existing vegetation
preserved within designated buffer areas. In addition, the regulations incorporate the
landscape and tree preservation requirements from the existing Economic Development
Design Manual, currently a separate document. As the proposed section is a complete
re -work of the existing landscaping, buffers and tree preservation regulations currently
found in the Zoning Ordinance (Article 12) and Subdivision Regulations (Section IV -13-8
and Appendix C) the section is not shown in strike - through format in the UDO (i.e., the
entire section is shown as new text, changes from existing regulations are not shown).
240
Signs (Section 6.12) is a complete overhaul of the existing regulations currently included
in the Zoning Ordinance (Article 9). Over the years, as the current regulations have
been administered, staff has come to realize that the existing sign regulations could be
clearer. As proposed in the UDO, the standards for each type of sign are clearly
specified, including area, location and number of signs permitted for each site. In
addition, the regulations incorporate the sign standards from the existing Economic
Development District Design Manual. Moreover, numerous definitions pertaining to
signs have been added to Article 10 (Definitions) of the UDO for further clarity and to
limit issues experienced currently with the existing regulations.
Parking, Loading, and Circulation (Section 6.9) is a re -work of the existing Off - Street
Parking and Loading standards currently contained in Article 10 of the Zoning
vrdiriance. Changes to existing regulations iriCiiade Specific Uesiyri reituirer�ierits for ori-
site parking and loading areas complete with graphics, allowances for reduced parking
for approved shared parking areas, and criteria for flexible parking requirements for
renovations and adaptive re -use projects. Overall, the proposed regulations are easier
to understand and provide opportunity for more flexibility for some new and
redevelopment projects.
The UDO includes limited modifications to the existing Stream Buffer regulations with
proposed additions to the uses permitted within designated stream buffers, such as
driveways, hiking trails, and utilities, as well as the addition of a new category of uses -
'uses permitted with mitigation' (see Section 6.13.6). The regulations remain consistent
with State stream buffer requirements. No other changes to the current steam buffer
regulations are proposed.
The existing Planned Development zoning districts are proposed to be replaced with
Conditional Zoning districts and a Conditional Use district. (See related
questions /answers about these districts).
4. Can you give some examples of inconsistencies in existing regulations that are
being fixed by the UDO?
Following are examples of inconsistencies in existing regulations that are being fixed in
the UDO. Please note that all changes from existing text are "tracked" in the LIDO so
readers can easily distinguish changes in text.
• Deletion of the term "Zoning Officer" and using "Planning Director" instead.
There is not a staff person with the job title of "Zoning Officer," nor has there
been one.
• The definition for "Subdivision" contained language that was inconsistent with
State Statutes.
• Phasing of Subdivisions — the existing Subdivision Regulations do not contain
definitive language concerning the ability to phase subdivisions and the
requirements to do so. The existing language is somewhat conflicting and
requirements are scattered throughout the text. Section 7.3 of the UDO places
the requirements in one location and more clearly states the requirements.
241
• The definition for "Lot of Record" did not contain enough information for staff to
effectively and consistently interpret and enforce regulations.
• The existing "Applicability" section of the Zoning Ordinance did not make
reference to the Joint Planning Area (JPA) or other similar agreements
recognized and enforced by the County. This created an inherent conflict and
has been fixed in the UDO.
• There is conflict in the existing language regarding Notification of Board of
Adjustment decisions. These conflicts have been fixed in the LIDO.
• The existing regulations pertaining to Signs contained contradictions regarding
the maximum size of freestanding signs. The contradictory language has been
resolved in the UDO. In regards to Permitted or Prohibited Signs, the existing
regulations contained language spread throughout the Article making it difficult to
determine if a sign is allowed. The LIDO groups all permitted signs into one
section and ail prohibited signs into a separate section. T here is also now a
section on Exempt Signs to make it clear that some types of signs are not subject
to the regulations.
• Existing language in the Zoning Ordinance referred to child care facilities in
Commercial and Industrial Districts but these types of facilities were not allowed
in Industrial districts, per the Permitted Use Table.
• in regards to Rural Guest Establishments, parking standards in Article 8 of the
Zoning Ordinance conflicted with parking standards contained in Article 10.
Additionally, standards for Bed & Breakfast (B &B) facilities were included in the
section regarding Special Use Permits which was not applicable since a Special
Use Permit is not required for a B &B.
S. What happened to the Planned Development zoning districts?
The Planned Development Districts are to be replaced with Conditional Zoning Districts
and the Conditional Use District. The review /approval process for these new zoning
districts is very similar to the existing Planned Development District process. The most
salient difference between these new districts and the current Planned Development
districts is that conditions can now be agreed to by the County and Applicant to address
off -site impacts of development. This is a result of changes in State Statutes in 2005
that specifically allowed local governments to adopt Conditional Zoning and specifically
addressed the origin and nature of conditions that may be imposed. Prior to 2005,
applying conditions to address off -site impacts was not allowed. An example of
addressing an off -site impact is having the Developer provide a turn -lane into the
development to ease traffic congestion concerns.
6. Please explain the Conditional Zoning Districts.
Conditional Zoning Districts are specific individual districts with a specific set of
permitted uses for each district, as depicted on the Permitted Use Table. The difference
between the conditional zoning districts and the "general' zoning districts listed in the
Ordinance is that with a conditional zoning district, the applicant is requesting a rezoning
for a specific use or range of uses and mutually agreed upon conditions can be placed
on the rezoning approval. State Statutes require that conditions or site specific
standards imposed be limited to those that address the conformance of the development
and use of the site to adopted ordinances and plans and those that address the impacts
reasonably expected to be generated from the development or use of the site.
242
Prior to 2005, which is when State Statutes pertaining to conditional zoning districts were
changed, this zoning technique was available only to two local governments in the State
because they had received local legislation approval to use it. One of the advantages of
conditional zoning districts is that the process provides reasonable certainty as to what
will be developed on a site. Because conditions cannot be attached to "general' district
rezoning, there is the possibility that any use allowed in the general district could be built
on the site.
The decision to rezone a property to a conditional zoning district is legislative which
means that the final decision- making board (i.e., the Board of County Commissioners)
has more discretion over whether to approve a rezoning request than a quasi - judicial
decision which must be based upon competent, substantial evidence presented at public
nearing.
Three conditional zoning districts are proposed in this phase of the UDO:
• MHP -CZ (Mobile Home Park district, which replaces the Planned
Development Mobile Home Park District)
• PID -CZ (Public Interest District, which replaces the existing PID general
zoning district)
• MPD -CZ (Master Plan Development district, which replaces many
components of the existing PD -MU (Planned Development Mixed Use]
district)
While the Conditional Zoning District process uses many of the components of the
existing Planned Development (PD) process, an exception is that a Special Use Permit
(SUP) is also required under the existing PD process but a SUP would not be required
under the conditional zoning district process.
7. Please explain the Conditional Use District.
The Conditional Use district and corresponding review /approval process is very similar
to the existing Planned Development process. Landowners can apply for a rezoning to a
Conditional Use district for any use contained in the Permitted Use Table, except for
those uses specifically excluded from consideration as a Conditional Use, and the
application must state the specific use(s) being requested. In addition to the rezoning, a
Class A Special Use Permit (SUP), which is processed concurrently, is also required.
Because the rezoning decision is legislative and the SUP decision is quasi-judicial, the
decision process for a Conditional Use district is more complicated than a Conditional
Zoning district, but it is the same process as the existing Planned Development
review /approval process.
The Conditional Use district is linked to a general zoning district, which is how the
existing Planned Development process works, and any deviation from the linked general
zoning district standards must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as
part of the reviewlapproval process.
Like Conditional Zoning districts, mutually agreed upon conditions can be placed on the
rezoning approval. State Statutes require that conditions or site specific standards
imposed be limited to those that address the conformance of the development and use
243
of the site to adopted ordinances and plans and those that address the impacts
reasonably expected to be generated from the development or use of the site.
Some of the positives of the Conditional Use technique is that it permits some
development flexibility while limiting impacts to surrounding properties and the process
allows all interested people to know what uses(s) are permitted on a site and generally
what the development will look like.
8. Please explain the MPD -CZ (Master Plan bevelopment Conditional Zoning
District).
The MPD -CZ is a proposed conditional zoning district that replaces many of the
components of the existing PD -MU (Planned Development Mixed Use) district. This
district is i ^tended primarily for mixed use developments although single Lose
developments may also be considered. The MPD -CZ rezoning process requires a
detailed Master Plan rather than a site plan. The Master Plan would be approved by the
Board of County Commissioners (following the normal rezoning process) and future site
plans for each development area within the overall development would be reviewed and
approved by staff. Site plans have to be consistent with the approved Master Plan but
certain adjustments are permitted (see Section 6.7.2 of the UDO for the list of permitted
adjustments).
One of the positives of this conditional zoning district is that it provides reasonable
certainty regarding uses on the site but permits some flexibility to address changing
market conditions.
9. Is the existing development review process being changed?
No. The existing processes are substantially intact. The changes that are demarcated
in Article 2 (Procedures) are primarily to be clearer about existing processes and
requirements because some of the existing regulations were not as detailed or clear as
they could be. This has been especially true of Board of Adjustment proceedings and
the applications upon which the Board of Adjustment acts (Class B Special Use Permits
and Variances); therefore, there is quite a bit of added text regarding these procedures.
In one case, the review process is becoming simpler. Zoning Compliance Permits for
single - family residential uses outside of the University Lake Watershed would now be
required to submit only a Plot Plan rather than a more detailed Site Plan.
10.1 want to subdivide my land to allow my children to build homes here in Orange
County. How does the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) affect my plans?
The LIDO does not change the existing subdivision processes. In the case of Minor
subdivisions (those creating five or fewer lots), language has been added to the UDO to
be clearer about the application requirements and the review process (Section 2.14).
In regards to Exempt subdivisions (those creating lots greater than 10 acres in size),
language has been added to the UDO to more clearly articulate the procedure (Section
2.13).
244
The Major subdivision process also has not changed. Small changes have been
suggested to the existing text to be clearer about actual practices.
11. There has been talk lately about making Orange County more "business- friendly"
in these difficult economic times. Are there any changes or additions to previous
ordinances in the UDO that compromise a citizen's or a community's right to
participate in development issues or lessen their right to understand and affect
development in their neighborhoods?
No. Review /approval processes have not been suggested for changes. Citizens will
have the same level of participation as they currently have.
12. Will the UDO result in changes in the location of residential, commercial,
industrial, and agricultural areas?
Changes in these areas would not be a result of the UDO. The County's Land Use Plan,
contained in the Comprehensive Plan, designates areas of the county for broad
categories of uses. The Land Use Plan is not being amended as part of the UDO
process. The Conditional Zoning Districts and Conditional Use District could allow
changes but this is no different than could now potentially be allowed under the Planned
Development Districts.
13. Will the UDO allow industries or developments to be located in areas where they
are not currently permitted?
No. As stated in #12, the County's Land Use Plan designates areas of the county for
categories of uses. The existing Planned Development districts, which are to be
replaced with Conditional Zoning and Conditional Use Districts, can allow for a variety of
developments that are not permitted -by -right in a specific zoning district and /or land use
plan category, subject to the review and approval processes contained in the Ordinance.
14. I'm committed to protecting the environment and wetlands in Orange County.
How does the UDO affect these issues?
The only changes being contemplated in the UDO that affect these issues are the
proposed changes to stream buffer regulations. As stated in #3, some uses not
currently permitted in stream buffers would be allowed or would be allowed with
mitigation. Examples of the uses proposed to be allowed include greenways and /or
hiking trails, wetland restoration projects, and public water and sewer lines (with
limitations). Examples of uses proposed to be allowed with mitigation include docks,
piers, and boat ramps; trail crossings with bridges; and new storm water ponds. These
uses are in conformance with State regulations pertaining to stream buffers and the
proposed County regulations are still more restrictive than the State's regulations.
15. Is the County imposing additional costs on property owners who want to
subdivide or develop their properties through the LIDO?
The expected costs for subdividing and /or developing property would not change as a
result of the UDO. In the case of Minor Subdivisions (those creating five or fewer lots), a
Concept Plan will now be required (it is "advisable" in the current Subdivision
Regulations). Over the years, Staff has found that some applicants who chose not to
245
submit Concept Plans have incurred significant expenses (which could have been
avoided by submitting a simple Concept Plan) when the submitted Final Plat did not
conform to requirements.
16. How can citizens express their views on the benefits or downsides of the
proposed UDO?
Citizens can attend the Public Hearing on Monday, November 22, 2010 to express their
views on the proposed UDO. The Public Hearing begins at 7:00 p.m. and will be held at
the Department of Social Services, Hillsborough Commons, 113 Mayo St., Hillsborough,
North Carolina.
Citizens not able to attend the public hearing can submit written comments to the Planning
Depa1 tm,ent jar for to the public hearing ar ld th.^+se comments wi be entered info the fnrmal
record.
Additionally, an open -house style public information meeting will be held on Wednesday,
November 17, 2010 to provide citizens with the opportunity to speak with Planning staff
members one -on -one about the UDO. The meeting will be held from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. in
the County Office Building at 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC in the Lower
Level Conference Room.
17. How can citizens suggest topics areas for consideration for future changes to the
UDO?
County staff has been taking note over the years, especially during the development of
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in November 2008), of topic areas which should
be considered for changes. A list of topic areas for potential future changes will be
available as part of the Public Hearing materials for the UDO. Citizens are encouraged
to provide additional topic areas for future changes in writing to the Planning Department
at or prior to the November 22, 2010 public hearing. Part of the County's consultant's
work is to make recommendations on future changes to the UDO and the general
cadence of such changes.
Planning Staff Notes of Board of County Commissioners Comments -- First Draft UDO, Aug. 11, 2010
1. 8/23/2010 11.1.2
2. 8/23/2010 11.1.4 (B)
What are the designated portions of Orange County? Define.
Add "protect the natural environment". No mention of farm activities
or agriculture?
3.
8/23/2010
1.1.9
No mention of Town of Hillsborough interlocal agreement here. Add a
footnote or a new section, "F "?
4.
8/23/2010
1.1.9 B
Subject to the approval by the County Attorney? Do we want to cede
authority to the County Attorney?
5.
8/23/2010
1.1.9 C
Change "consistent with" to "imposed by" this Ordinance.
6.
8/23/2010
1.1.9 (D) & (E)
Not clearly written.
7.
8/23/2010
1.1.14
How far along in process does developer need to be in order to be
"grand- fathered "? Consider liberalizing. A chart may be helpful.
8.
8/23/2010
1.1.17
Re -word and specify all previous "land use" regulations... are hereby
repealed.
9.
8/23/2010
1.4.1 B
Change "physically" to "actually".
10.
8/23/2010
1.6.1 C
Unclear. Re -write for clarity.
111. 18123/2010 11.6.2 (A) I Is a 1 -year hiatus long enough? An item for the BOCC to discuss.
12. 8/23/2010 1.6.2 (E) Doesn't speak to number of absences. Include reference to By -Laws.
f 13. 18/23/2010 1.6.3 (J -T) I What is the rationale for suggesting deletion? This may require a
closer look.
14. 18/23/2010 1.7.2 "Agriculture" should be mentioned somewhere within the discussion of
elements.
15. 8/23/2010 11.8.3 B "Class" B Special Use permit.
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action
4
2
3, add when
1
1
4, JPA
language
4
4
1
1
2, See Issue
Paper - Att.
6
1
2, See Issue
Paper - Att.
6
2
1
1
D
v
s
B
cn
M
1018/2010 �v
J
N
Planning Staff Notes of Board of County Commissioners Comments -- First Draft UDO, Aug. 11, 2010 2 ccoo
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010
Received
Section
Comment Received
Staff Note
16.
8/23/2010
1.8.4 (A)
Change "Chairperson" and "Vice Chairperson" to Chair and Vice-
Chair here and throughout.
1
17.
8/23/2010
1.10.2 (F )
Change to "...as required by this Ordinance ".
1
18.
8/23/2010
1.10.2 (M)
How are floodplain regulations addressed within the new UDO? What
does the LOMA process require? Should this type of map
amendment be treated like others?
4, See Issue
Paper - Att.
6
19.
8/23/2010
2.2.1 (A)
Submitted by the landowner "as identified by the Orange County Tax
Office "...
1
20.
8/23/2010
2.2.4 (A)
Remove one of the references to "specific" there is redundancy. How
many copies of the application are required by Ordinance? If not here,
reference where standards can be found elsewhere in the UDO.
1
21.
8/23/2010
2.2.5 A
Delete the word "through".
1
22.
8/23/2010
2.2.5 C) 8
Add Oran e- Alamance Water System OAWS
1
23.
8/23/2010
2.2.6 C
If the application is not acted "upon" within this time frame,...
1
24.
8/2312010
2.2.7 C
Why treat withdrawal of an application as denial? 2
25.
8123/2010
2.2.8 (A)
Shouldn't have to wait a year if withdrawn. 6- months for withdrawal 2
and 1 -year for denial? Can staff provide two options here for the
BOCC to select one?
26.
8/23/2010
2.3.5
Change "Public Hearing" to "Quarterly Public Hearing" here and
throw hout.
1
27.
8/23/2010
2.3.6
Where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should add.
3
28.
8/23/2010
2.3.8 B 1
Define "fully dimensioned ".
4
29.
8/23/2010
2.4.1
Consider "deconstruction" vs. demolition
1
30.
8/23/2010
2.4.3 (A) (4 -6)
Add "proposed" driveway, "proposed" septic, and "proposed" well.
1
31.
8/23/2010
2.5.1
"DAC" should be spelled out.
1
32.
8/23/2010
2.5.2
Should be an "appropriately licensed professional ". It's not up to the
County to determine who is appropriate.
1
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010
Planning Staff Notes of Board of County Commissioners Comments -- First Draft UDO, Aug. 11, 2010 3
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010 n�
m
Received
Section
Comment Received
Staff Note
33.
8/23/2010
2.5.3
No mention of lighting, natural areas inventory, solid waste, or
centralized recycling? 2
34.
8/23/2010
2.5.3 H
Differentiate between urban and rural character.
3
35.
8/23/2010
2.7.6
Add general procedure of Board of Adjustment.
4
36.
8/23/2010
2.7.11
No procedure listed for how the public gains access too documents on
file.
4
37.
8/23/2010
2.7.12 B
Change to 3- months?
4
38.
8/23/2010
2.8.3 A 1
Define "full dimensioned" or use "at an appropriate scale ".
1
39.
8/23/2010
2.8.10 and .11
Recommendations should go to the BOCC prior to the State.
4, Contrary
to model
ordinances
40.
8/23/2010
2.9.1 C 1 a (iii)
Add name of Section 6.16.
1
41.
8/23/2010
2.10.3 B
Add "reasonable use ".
1
42.
8/23/2010
2.12.1 B
"or at a special meeting called for that purpose".
1
43.
8/23/2010
2.12.6
References expedited appeal but there are no provisions for such.
1
44.
8/23/2010
2.13
Contains erroneous language. Others sections of UUO apply.
Reword for clarity.
1
45.
8/23/2010
2.13.2 (B 2
Don't need "control corners ".
1
46.
8/23/2010
2.13.2 (C)
Likes reference to "professional authorized by the NC General
Statutes" and should use throughout.
1
47.
8/23/2010
2.14.2 B) 4) & 5)
"seven" days and then "five business days", change for consistency.
1
48.
8/23/2010
2.14.3 A 2 b
Delete "Original".
1
49.
8/23/2010
2.14.3 A 2
Not necessary for Erosion Control Officer to sign Plait.
4
50.
8/23/2010
2.14.3 (C) (4)
Formalize staff process of ensuring approved plat and associated
documents are recorded.
1
51.
8/23/2010
2.15.2 C 2 a
"Tax Map" no longer a applicable.
1
52.
8/23/2010
2.15.2 C 5
Not applicable if flexible development option
3
53.
8/23/2010
2.15.3 C 4
There is no deadline foragencies to respond.
2
54.
8/23/2010
2.15.3 D 7
What does "Methods of certification" mean?
1
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010 n�
m
used.
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010 n�
m
Planning Staff Notes of Board of County Commissioners Comments -- First Draft UDO, Aug. 11, 2010 4 0
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010
Received
Section
Comment Received
Staff Note
55.
8/23/2010
2.15.3 (F) (7)
Installation of utilities requirement basically says, "that's tough" to the
developer. Attempt to clarify this section with current edits doesn't
work.
1
56.
8/23/2010
2.17
Need a process other than that of a major subdivision for recombining 2, See Issue
existing lots. Paper - Att.
6
57.
8/23/2010
3
Charts in this Article need to reference where Floor Area Ratio
4
requirements can be found.
58.
8/23/2010
3.3
Need language that will differentiate between the different types of
3
residential zoning districts.
59.
8/23/2010
3.4
For EC -5 (p.3 -28) and El (p.3 -40) Districts, if businesses were
4, Handled
"missed" when these Districts were applied in the County and they
on case -by-
continue to operate as commercial or industrial non - conforming uses,
case basis
said properties should be re- zoned.
60.
8/23/2010
Livability is spelled wrong.
1
61.
8/23/2010
3.7.1
Prefer use of term "General Standards" over "Generally, here and
throughout.
4
62.
8/2312010
4.2.3
Change "residual (sludge)" to "biosolid ".
1
63.
8/23/2010
4.2.5
Regarding Impervious Surface Ratios and Sliding Scales, the two
tables should be combined into one. Need to understand
ramifications of any proposed changes.
3
64.
8/23/2010
4.2.7 (B) (2) (d)
"attorney -at -law, licensed to practice law in the State of NC" should be
sufficient.
1
65.
8/2312010
5.1.4 (E)
Could (1) -(30) be reordered? Are research facilities excluded? "Land
Fills" should be one word. Spelling of theatres?
1
66.
8/23/2010
5.4.3
"site Ian" or "plot plan", need consistency.
1
67.
8/23/2010
5.4.5
Request for an example of a Building for Temporary Ilse.
NIA
68.
8/23/2010
5.5.3
Some home occupations are permitted but not associated storage?
This needs clarification. 1
3
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010
Planning Staff Notes of Board of County Commissioners Comments -- First Draft UDO, Aug. 11, 2010
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010 ro
Cn
j
Received
Section
Comment Received
Staff Note
69.
8/2312010
5.5.4 (12) (a)
If the Planning Department doesn't enforce the required tenancy rules
and regulations, they should not be required. Need tea research
minutes for history of this requirement because and the specific need
it was designed to address.
4
70.
8/23/2010
5.5.4 (4) (b)
Need to be able to define Right -of -Way and measure set - backs.
Need mechanism to remove abandoned mobile homos.
1,3
71.
8/23/2010
5.6.5
Kennels and Riding Stables should be addressed separately. Should
they require a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit?
3
72.
8/23/2010
5.7
How are open space areas of golf courses counted towards meeting
ordinance requirements?
3
73.
8/23/2010
5.7.1 A 1 a
Move "such as" to preceding line.
1
74.
8/23/2010
5.9.5
Change to Class "A" Special Use Permit, which would require BOCC
approval rather than Board of Adjustment.
3
75.
8/23/2010
5.14.2 A (1)—
Include hours of operation. Lighting comes to mind.
3
76.
8/2312010
5.12.2 A 1) c
Add no fault well repair to requirements.
3
77.
8/23/2010
5.14.6 A 2 c
Check format of headings in this section for consistency.
1
78.
8/23/2010
5.14.6 A 2 d
Traffic impact based on rural versus urban character could fit here.
3
79.
9/17/2010
6.2.1
Correct typos: No portion of of a lot, used in connection....
1
80.
9/17/2010
6.2.2 A 1
Is there any limit to building height? Flag for future.
3
81.
Add rear setback.
1
82.
9/1712010
6.2.6 A 1 b
Need a definition of "custodial care ".
?
83.
9/17/2010
6.2.5 C
Change unmanned to unstaffed. Gender neutral throughout doc.
1
84.
9/17/2010
6.3.1 (A)
Should there be references to where the Land Use Intensity system
applies?
4, explained on
subsequent pages
of'JDO.
85.
9/17/2010
6.3.1 D
Ensure terms used here are in glossary.
1
86.
9/17/2010
6.3.8 B 1 b
At what stage of maturity is Tree Volume calculated?
4
87.
9/17/2010
6.4.3 C 2 a (i)
"landscaped" misspelled.
1
88.
9/17/2010
16.6.1 B 3 (a )
Delete revised text. Specifically, "New or"
1
89.
9/17/2010
6.7.1 (B)
Rather than list the people who can prepare plans, replace consistent
with language used in Section 2.13.2 (C)
1
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010 ro
Cn
j
ro
Planning Staff Notes of Board of County Commissioners Comments -- First Draft UDO, Aug. 11, 2010 6 N
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010
Received
Section
Comment Received
Staff Note
90.
9/1712010
6.8.4 B 2
May be too broad. Definition of Primary Tree Protection Area.
4
91.
9/17/2010
6.8.4 B 4
Heritage tree? Delete.
1
92.
9/17/2010
6.8.4 (B) 11
How about gravel within the drip line?
1
93.
9/17/2010
6.8.5
Different standards may be needed for EDDs.
3
94.
9/17/2010
6.8.5 A 3
Incomplete sentence. To provide a look?
1
95.
9/17/2010
6.8.5 A 7
Where can CPTED standards be found?
1
96.
9/17/2010
6.8.5 (C) (3) (e)
Mixing of "Shrub" Species? Why would we want to prohibit a hedge?
Consult the County's Open Space Design Specialist in this area.
1
97.
9/17/2010
6.8.5E 2
Regarding "at any time ", time should be limited.
1
98.
9/17/2010
6.8.6E 2
Need definition of Critical Root System.
1
99.
9/17/2010
6.8.6 F 1
Enforceability of five year enforcement questioned.
1
100.
9/17/2010
6.8.7 D 2 a i
This conflicts with section dealing with pa vin within a root zone.
1
101.
9/17/2010
6.8.10 (C) (1)
If proposing a subdivision, one may not know the location of the
things re quested here.
1
102.
9/17/2010
6.8.10 C) 5
Four inches is not appropriate.
1
103.
9117/2010
6.8.12 C 8
Check tree caliper for consistency throughout.
1
104.
9/1712010
6.9.10 D 4
Check for consistency with ADA requirements.
1
105.
9/17/2010
6.12.5 (N) (4) & (5)
Can't limit political signs more than other signs. County attorney to
review.
1
106.
9117/2010
6.12.5 N 7
"seven" days not constitutional. Attorney recommends 21 days
1
107.
9/17/2010
6.12.6 G
Do we want to prohibit all three - dimensional signs?
1
108.
9117/2010
6.12.11
Formatting issue. Item (A) (6) should become "(B)" and item (B)
should become "(C)".
1
109.
9/17/2010
May need sign standards that are different between urban and rural
areas.
3
110.
9/17/2010
6.13.3 A
500 -year flood elevation could be less than the Count, 's buffer
requirements in some cases. The greater of the two may be more
pRpropriate.
1
111.
9/17/2010
6.13.6 (C)
Consider allowing natural materials or recyclables such as crushed
lass. 1
4
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010
Planning Staff Notes of Board of County Commissioners Comments -- First Draft UD®, Aug. 11, 2010
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 1018/2010
Cn
to
Received
Section
Comment Received
Staff Note
112.
9/17/2010
6.16.2E
Add except "approved" as MPD -CZ.
1
113.
9/17/2010
6.16.3 (B)
Add a description of what would be covered in an Environmental
Assessment.
1
114.
9/17/2010
6.19.5 (B )
Unclear and preference for original language.
1
115.
9/17/2010
7.1.1 A 6
Correct typos: "Ensure" and "are" safe.
1
116.
9/17/2010
7.2.2
If an existing subdivision were expanded, would the first four lots
count towards the threshold?
4
117.
9/17/2010
7.4.2 (A) (7)
Praised use of "low- impact" terminology. Check throughout doc for
consistency.
1
118.
9/17/2010
7.4.6
Check use of apostrophes and consistency.
1
119.
9/17/2010
7.5
Need process to amend a development agreement.
4, Now
called
"Subdivision
Agreement"
120.
9/17/2010
7.5 (C) (3)
Rather than provide examples, list the specific environmental features
that should be required. Add "cultural features" to the list.
1
121.
9/17/2010
7.6.3 F (2 ) (a
Delete "man- made" and replace with "cultural ".
1
122.
9/17/2010
7.8.2
Public roads need to be laid out in a manner that avoids significant
natural and cultural features.
2
123.
9/1712010
7.8.4
Need to revisit private road standards.
3
124.
9/1712010
7.1
There's a lack of land use criteria for reserving school sites. Need
some general guidelines (i.e. not in wetlands or on slopes greater
than X). Consult County School Joint Construction Standards.
3
125.
9/17/2010
7.11.5
How is open space counted in a subdivision? How about one that
includes a golf course?
4
126.
9/17/2010
7.12.1
Is "Generally" the best word to use?
4
127.
9/17/2010
7.13.3 B 2
Add "connectivity".
1
128.
9/17/2010
7.13.3 C 1
Relation to adjacent properties is not addressed.
3
129.
9/17/2010
7.13.3 (C) (2) (g)
50 -feet is mentioned here but thought 30 -feet was mentioned
elsewhere. Check for any discrepancy.
4, None
found
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 1018/2010
Cn
to
N
Planning Staff Notes of Board of County Commissioners Comments -- First Draft UDO, Aug. 11, 2010 8 44b
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010
Received
Section
Comment Received
Staff Note
130.
9/17/2010
7.13.4 (C) (1) (b)
Mention Water and Sewer Management and Planning Boundary
Agreement. Any system should be designed, planned, constructed
and maintained by the responsible entity as assigned through the
Agreement.
3
131.
9/17/2010
7.13.4 C 3
Correct font size, "Lots & Buildings"
1
132.
9/17/2010
7.13.7 (B) (3)
Are there provisions for shared driveways? It may be useful in certain
cases i.e. along highways/major roadways).
3
133.
9/17/2010
7.13.8 (C)
Need to minimize the number of edges and encourage contiguous
open s ace. Concept could be inserted somewhere within doc.
1, See (B)
1 e
134.
9/17/2010
7.15.1 A 2
Does owner-agent or name of preparer need to be added?
4
135.
9/1712010
7.15.1 A 2 d
Delete TMBL
1
136.
9/17/2010
7.15.1 (A ) (2
"All other required relevant information" is too ambiguous.
1
137.
9/17/2010
8.8 B
"90-days" needs clarification.
1
138.
9/17/2010
8.10 C
Unclear, need to reword.
1
139.
9/17/2010
8.13
Unclear, need to reword.
1
140.
9/17/2010
10
Add the following definitions: Floating Zone; Conditional Use District;
Conditional Zoning District; Conditional District; General Zoning
District; and Residential, Institutional, Retail, Professional Services,
Commercial and Office land uses.
1
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 10/8/2010
Planning Staff Notes of Board of County Commissioners Comments -- First Draft UDO, Aug. 11, 2010
Coding Defined:
— Consistent with project scope and addressed through changes reflected in public hearing draft UDO.
", For further BOCC discussion — Consistent with project scope but requires further BOCC discussion and direction to staff
ensure revisions are proposed that are likely to be accepted by the Board.
"T', Implementation Bridge /Possible future phases — Beyond project scope and to be prioritized for potential future UDO
amendment phases. These items are all documented as part of public hearing materials and will be forwarded to the
County's consultant for consideration in their final "implementation Bridge" report that is to include recommendations on
future UDO amendment phases.
"4 ", Suggesting no action — Staff is recommending no action at this time because of the complex interrelationships among
UDO sections and to avoid any internal inconsistencies that could be created if not addressed in a thorough and compreh
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action 90/8/2010 n�
W
cn
Comments submitted by:
"010 0
General Comments
General Topic
Comment
Height Restrictions
Many places in the LIDO have a restriction on the height of a building. While residential structures tend to have 9 to 12
feet per floor, commercial structures can have as much as 15 feet per floor. As the structure covers more area, the roof
can have a substantial amount of height to it if it is not a flat roof. Architectural details such as facades and cupolas can
affect the height.
My comment is this: Would it make more sense to specify the number of occupied stories as a limit on the structure? An
occupied story would not include attic space or utility rooms- it would be space occupied by people working in the
structure. Page 3-44 and page 4 -18 are examples of where this specification occurs. Note that the height limitations that
change with additional setback could be used as a maximum height such that either a (for example) 3 story limit —OR—
the maximum height based on setback would be the height limit for the building. An example of this setback based
number is found at the top of page 6 -2.
1 would also add in (not sure where) than any building whose height exceeds the apparatus or ladder height restrictions
of the fire departments which would respond to a structure fire would be required to be sprinklered.
3
Electronic formatting
The .pdf file shows absolute page number, is there some way it can so pages as they are marked on the documents
themselves (such as Page 5 -10)?
In the final document, it would be very nice if there was hyperlinking when other sections are referenced, and a special
font with hyperlinks to the definitions section when definitions are used.
1
Mercury Vapor
There are various metal vapor lights, the most common being Mercury and Sodium vapor. It would be nice to know why
Luminaries
Mercury is being singled out. In particular, is it the presence of Mercury (i.e. environmental) or is it the use of a specific
type of fixture such as the yard lights utilities sell that is the concern. If the concern is environmental, then would it not
also apply to all fluorescent lights which use mercury?
3
Wafts vs. Lumens
We have incandescent, metal vapor, fluorescent (which is mercury and a phosphorous), and LED. Each has a different
lumens per watt rating. If light is being regulated, lumens should be the standard. Also, be aware that any light with a
reflector will put out more light in a certain direction than a light with no reflector. As such, lumens is still a weak measure
of light output but it is what is on the packaging for all lights and is easier to work with than getting into the amount of light
energy per unit area type measurements (candles). As a rule of thumb, incandescent runs 5 to 30 lumens /watt, and
LEDs run 60 to 110 lumens /watt.
3
Signs
In general, this whole section seems to be overly restrictive.
Stream buffers
On page 6 -121 the graphic for calculating the slope value will be great. A statement such as "The higher the slope value,
the steep or more rise per run the slope has" would also help when peWle look at the tables that follow.
1
N
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action Cn
N
C37
OD
Article, Section,
or Page Number
Page 5 -15, section
It would be good to allow people to live in a residential mobile home or camper when they are construction a new house
5.4.4 (A) (1) (e)
on the same lot. The 1 year limit seems too tight for this type of use. Perhaps this case can be called out and a time
period of 2 years can be allowed if an active building permit for a residential structure is in force for the lot. This would be
a big financial relief to people building their homes.
1
Pages 5 -17 to 5 -19
The limits under section (c) "General Operations" and (e) "Use of Accessory Structures" severely limit what a home
occupation can do. Section by Section:
5.5.3 (2) (c) (iii) on page 5 -18 would mean that a home occupation can only provide a service. This precludes an home
occupation that might involve the design and sales of any kind. Examples that bring this to mind are contract
manufacturing of small electronic goods sold via web sites, any business that sells software, any business that wishes to
sell other goods that are ancillary to the main product but purchased from other suppliers.
Moving on just below this to (iv), the limit of 2 individuals not living in the residence also causes problems for home
occupations involved in white collar activities such as design, products, software, or any contract engineering where it
might be necessary to work with other contractors on occasion. It might make more sense to limit the number of people
as a function of the square footage used for the business.
Which brings me to section (v) which has limits on how much floor area can be used for the home occupation. I currently
have 1440 sq feet above the garage, and about 700 square feet in an unfinished basement for my contract electronics
design home business. So even if its just me, I'm in trouble with this ordinance. I could add 5 or 6 people given the
room I am using. So I think there is a relationship between sections (iv) and (v) that link the number of people and the
square footage used. I would limit the space used to 35% of the floor area, and not have the 500 square foot cap.
Section 5.5.3 (A) 2 (d) which is on page 5 -19 has limits on traffic generation. Section (i) is too restrictive. Many houses
have more than two deliveries of products per week between Fed -Ex, UPS, other carriers and the USPS. A limit based
on the number of individuals working at the home which limits them to arriving, going to lunch, leaving, and one more trip
per day plus some number (perhaps 5 ?) visitors a day makes sense. The five visitors allows for clients using
professional businesses such as tax preparation, legal services, design services and the like while ruling out high traffic
volume activities associated with general commercial activities.. Limits on deliveries makes no sense, since the various
carriers tend to not make large number of visits per day. The number is easy to figure out, and it will be easy to verify if
anyone trying to run a retail business from a home is in violation.
Section 5.5.3 (A) 2 (e) "Use of Accessory Structures" limits the outbuilding area used for the business to 1000 square
feet. I would suggest a limit based on the size of the lot, with an upper limit in the 2500 square foot range (around a 40 x
60 building). Perhaps allowing an additional 100 square feet per acre of lot size would make sure the building was
appropriately sized for the lot size.
page 5-45, (o)
Here or somewhere else it would be good to state that all routes of travel that would be used by fire apparatus must be at
least 14 feet wide by 14 feet tall, and allow for apparatuses as long as 45 feet to pass through the space and make all
turns.
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action
Section 5.5 or
Somewhere in the Standards for Residential Uses or Development Standards there should be a section that specifies
section 6
minimum residential driveway sizes of 12 feet wide by 14 feet vertical clearance (already stated in 7.8.5 (B) (15) on page
7 -32 for fire apparatus. This is the cleared width of the driveway, not the width of gravel or paving.
3
Page 7 -25
The travel -way width for Class B with 2 lots should be specified as 12 feet of cleared space, no standard for width of
ravel or hard surface.
3
Page 7 -28
Under (5) (b): 16 feet should be 18 feet so that a passenger car can be passed by fire apparatus. For Class B roads
with 3 or more lots, there should be an area 20 feet wide by 50 feet long every 1500 feed to that fire apparatus can pass
each other.
Page 6 -105
6.12.11 (A) (6) should be "Signs for Non - profit or Not for profit organizations. Under the tax codes, I think these are two
separate designations and both should be allowed to have a sign.
Page 6 -106, (c)
Back in section 6.12.6 (a) (1) Portable signs are prohibited. On page 6 -106, special event signs are allowed. Can
portable signs be used here? I am thinking of things like a Fire Department fund raising event that would be displayed on
a portable sign that sits on the ground at the fire station.
1
Page 6 -103 (K)
A restriction on single poll or mast signs seems overly restrictive.
Also in the section, can we make signs stapled to utility poles prohibited? I think they are by state law, but putting that in
these ordinances would give the county the ability to take action or just remove the sign).
1
.11.3 page 6 -91
On (1), remove the word "incandescent" since LED lights are now often used for holiday decorations. Low wattage is not
defined, but a typical nightlight(big Christmas tree bulb is 7 watts so you could say any wattage under 10 watts. It would
make more sense to use a lumen rating, such as less than 150 lumens.
On (J), first off this should be a lumen limit, not watts. As the limit reads, this looks like a total lumens for any given
motion activated switch. The lumens looks like it was derived from two incandescent 75 watt bulbs, probably flood
lights. Note that if this is the case, the maxim lumens should be 2400. There are many motion activated systems where
a sensor can turn on multiple light fixtures. so I would re -word this to have a 2400 lurnen limit per light fixture controlled
by the sensor.
Finally, on this max lumens per fixture, there are standard outdoor floodlight fixtures that take 3 bulbs. For those fixtures,
a reasonable max lumens would be around 3600. You could also add a limit of no one bulb can exceed a rating of 2100
lumens a 120 watt equivalent) if the intent is to avoid the larger single bulb fixtures.
3
6.11.4 page 6 -92
(A) This is where a definition of "mercury vapor luminaries" is needed. As written, this could mean that any standard
fluorescent or compact fluorescent light could not be used, since they are a mercury-phosphorous based light.
3
6.11.6 page 6 -95
(C) (1) Some floodlight fixtures do not cover the bulb, the stop just after the threaded base. I'd just stick with the 45
degree from vertical.
(c) (2) the "it will shine" is vague. Perhaps something like "no more than 5% of the luminous energy shall shine towards
roadways, onto adjacent residential property or into the night sky ".
(C) (3) Same vagueness- what is the "main beam "? Do you really want to say that no portion of the bulb shall be visible
from adjacent properties or the public street right -of -way? From an enforcement point of view, a "Can't see the bulb" is
easy to verify for both the owner and the inspector. Note that this is the approach taken on page 6 -97, 6.117 (3).
3
6.11.6 page 6 -96
(K) Back on page 6 -91, the time limit for motion controlled lights was 12 minutes, here it is 15. It would be cleaner if
there was one maximum timeout time for all motion controlled lights.
N
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action
N
CD
6.12.6 page 6 -103
C) I hope that if a restaurant or other business wanted to have some fancy moving sign that fit the theme of the
General Topic
Comment
restaurant that there could be a variance process for getting it.
2.6.5 Page iii, TOC
Why only (E) when similar subsections are listed elsewhere (i.e. 2.9.1 (A) -(K)
Cl) D) This restriction makes no sense. Electronically configurable signs can be of benefit to businesses. There is no
Legends citing
deleted text
34 pg 1 -16; 39 pg 1 -17; 126 pg 2 -57; 398 pg 5 -26; 399 pg 5 -27; 401 pg 5 -29; 414 pg 5 -37; 432 pg 5-44; 436 pg 5-45; 458
pg 5 -66; 489 pg 5 -100; 492 pg 5 -101; 493 pg 5 -103; 495 -498 pg 5 -104; 509 pg 5 -109; 513 pg 5 -122; 514 pg 5 -114; 610
pg 6-44; 611 pg 645; 614 pg 6-46; 677 pg 6 -129; 720 pg 6 -185; 736 pg 7 -3; 769 & 770 pg 7 -77
intent given here. Perhaps what really wants to be prohibited are electronic signs that change their content more
Citing 6 -8
When citing 6 -8 (pg 5 -27 & elsewhere), it would help to offer granularity, like 6.8.6 in this case.
often than (say) once every 5 minutes or so? Note that under the ordinance, a gas station could not have an
electronic display of their cost per gallon.
Article, Section,
or Page
Number
(1) Would this prohibit the signs that are used in front of churches and fire departments when they have various events? I
11, 3 (2) pg 2 -55
Cross out "from its" to read: "appealed is transitory"
think it makes more sense to ban portable signs that are used at a site for more than 30 days.
5.3.2 (A) (1) pg 5 -5
"models, plans and the like" ...and the like should be changed to more professional language.
J Again, can someone get a permit for a special event that would allow this?
1
6.12.12 page 6 -110
(6) Should this be one wall sign per business establishment? If you had multiple businesses in a single building, as
2.1 pg 6 -1
Previously discuss LDS in Chapel Hill & Carrboro. In 6.2.1 "with the dimensional regulations of this Ordinance.....:
Which ordinance? Isn't clear. Perhaps it could read "... regulations of this [County] Ordinance......"
written this would be a problem.
1
6.12.12 page 6 -111
(2) This makes no sense. Why is the planning director involved? How about "Only businesses with drive through
services are allowed to have drive through signs". And yes, that is silly enough that this entire entry should be removed.
1
6.12.13 page 6 -114
(3) (a) (i) How about one free standing ID sign per road frontage? If the facility was on a corner, you'd want to be able to
see the sign from either road. Similar idea to 6.12.14 page 6 -118 B 1 (a).
Comments submitted by:
General Comments
General Topic
Comment
2.6.5 Page iii, TOC
Why only (E) when similar subsections are listed elsewhere (i.e. 2.9.1 (A) -(K)
1
Legends citing
deleted text
34 pg 1 -16; 39 pg 1 -17; 126 pg 2 -57; 398 pg 5 -26; 399 pg 5 -27; 401 pg 5 -29; 414 pg 5 -37; 432 pg 5-44; 436 pg 5-45; 458
pg 5 -66; 489 pg 5 -100; 492 pg 5 -101; 493 pg 5 -103; 495 -498 pg 5 -104; 509 pg 5 -109; 513 pg 5 -122; 514 pg 5 -114; 610
pg 6-44; 611 pg 645; 614 pg 6-46; 677 pg 6 -129; 720 pg 6 -185; 736 pg 7 -3; 769 & 770 pg 7 -77
Citing 6 -8
When citing 6 -8 (pg 5 -27 & elsewhere), it would help to offer granularity, like 6.8.6 in this case.
1
Article, Section,
or Page
Number
11, 3 (2) pg 2 -55
Cross out "from its" to read: "appealed is transitory"
5.3.2 (A) (1) pg 5 -5
"models, plans and the like" ...and the like should be changed to more professional language.
1
5.8.1(5) pg 5 -63
Can we site 6.8.6 here?
1
2.1 pg 6 -1
Previously discuss LDS in Chapel Hill & Carrboro. In 6.2.1 "with the dimensional regulations of this Ordinance.....:
Which ordinance? Isn't clear. Perhaps it could read "... regulations of this [County] Ordinance......"
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action
3.8 (B)(b)(iv) pg 6-
Not a complete sentence. Needs a verb.
General Topic
13
Terminology and
Acronyms
.4.4(B) pgs 6 -22 to
1
To assist readers, now about a legend citing the text or within "Notes" on the table (6 -23) defining acronyms.
3
Article, Section, or
Page Number
.6.1 (E)(3)(b) pg6-
Can this read: "If FEMA has approved a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), then an official and final Letter of
6.17(B) #(4)
Transportation Facilities
Description
6
1 Map Revision, from FEMA, must also........
6.17(B) #1(c)
Comments submitted by:
General Comments
General Topic
Comment
Terminology and
Acronyms
If there is a table for these items, it is not included in the Index. I am assuming that acronyms such as MPD -CZ, and
terminology such as "Level of Service D" will be explained in this index.
Article, Section, or
Page Number
6.17(B) #(4)
Transportation Facilities
Description
All existing and proposed public transportation services and facilities within A RADIUS of one mile of the site shall
be documented( leave out "also ")
3
6.17(B) #1(c)
I don't know what is meant by "Major locations"
1
6.17(B)(5)
The transportation system must be in compliance with the most current NC Transportation Improvement Program
6.17.6 Submission.....
(A) (2) (b) You inserted "County ". This needs to be inserted in (A)(2)(c), and in (B)(2)(c),I also think that you should
always say "Orange" county board of commissioners. Sometimes you do such as the next section,(C)(2)(b), but
sometimes you don't like the whole section above and the very next sentence below
1
7.8.1 Streets - General
Standards (A) (2)
I don't know what "Reservation" means. At the very least it needs to be in the index of definitions. Once again, for
consistency, it should be "Orange County" Comprehensive Plan. The word "adopted" should be replaced with "most
current a roved" or something akin to that).
7.8.1 (13)(1)(b)
The subdivider....access management, shall "consider"(strike "use ")
7.8.1
The Access Management Awareness Project... needs a footnote to inform the reader as to what it is, and where this
report can be accessed.
7.8.2 Public Streets
Are "streets" different than "roads" and if so, will the precise definitions be in the index?
7.8.2(A)(2)
The last line of this: The State's criteria and standards..... simply needs to be footnote.
7.8 (12)(b)
This sentence is confusing, and could be interpreted as right of ways LESS than 25' wide don't have to be
approved. Why not just state that right of was must be 50' in width.
1
N
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action °_'
N
01
N
Comments submitted by:
General Comments
General
Comment
Topic
The format and clarity of this first draft UDO is a remarkable improvement over the current set of
SECTION
I realize the term "VACATE" applied to plats is a correct term in planning and legal jargon, but I find it very confusing. Is this not
N/
2.17
the same as "re- platting" a subdivision? My first impression in reading the first part of this section is that the original plat would be
voided and the previous lot of record, minus sold lots, public improvements, etc, would remain. Then the last portion regarding
recording makes the process a little more clear. I think the section would be better if the wording mentioned vacating a recorded
plat by recording a new one that makes some changes in the plat element configurations. See Issue Paper - Aft. 6)*
SECTION
This whole section should be looked at with respect to goals and objectives in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
3
7.8
Plan and Commissioners' goals and objectives. County policies do not always support the land development ordinances,
particularly with transportation issues. This is too vast a task to address at this time, but I wanted to "tag" this Section for future
N/
Consistent use of punctuation for
study.
he many lists of standards
periods or commas or semi - colons). For example, on Page 6 -63 the some of listed items under (B) Basic
Comments submitted by: Environment, Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation Staff on behalf of the
General Comments
General Topic
Comment
Overall document/format
The format and clarity of this first draft UDO is a remarkable improvement over the current set of
documents /ordinances. It's evident that a lot of hard work has gone into this ro'ect.
N/
Access to different sections
As people become accustomed to this new document it will be important to provide different kinds of helpful
guidance for users to find the sections of the document that are pertinent to their needs. The "Comparative
Table" is quite helpful, and is an example of the guidance that will be needed during the transition. Having
some kind of on -line search mechanism would be helpful. Perhaps that is already under development.
3
Previous comments
Thank you for addressing CFE comments on the preliminary draft UDO that were submitted April 2010. In
some cases we could not find the applicable section so those comments may be repeated herein.
N/
Consistent use of punctuation for
Please check the many lists of standards to make sure there is consistency in the use of punctuation (e.g.,
he many lists of standards
periods or commas or semi - colons). For example, on Page 6 -63 the some of listed items under (B) Basic
throughout the document
Plant Types (1) thru (5) end with a period and some have no period. On Page 6 -73 some of the listed items
under (C) Fences and Walls end with a comma and some end with a period. On the bottom of that same
page, one item has no punctuation, while another ends in a semi - colon.
1
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge - Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action
rticle, Section, or Page
umber
action 6.8 Landscaping, ...[etc.]
Perhaps there should be some introductory sentence to indicate that (A) (1) and (2) are definitions, rather
1. Page 6 -60 and 6 -61
than standing alone as incomplete sentences. You could employ the approach used on Page 6 -63 Basic
Plant Types where there is an introductory sentence, before stating the different trees are "defined as
follows:" Be consistent with whichever approach is chosen.
Under (B) Protective Measures, consider switching the order of (1) and (2). The measures required in (2)
2. Page 6 -61
seem to be overarching and take precedent over what is required in (1).
Under (B) Protective Measures, (1) and (2) appear to contradict one another. While (2) prohibits the cutting
3. Page 6-61
of trees any in the primary tree protection area, (1) allows certain existing trees (< V dbh) to be cut if they
are shown in an approved plan. One way to remedy the contradiction would be to deleting the word
"primary" from 1 if that meets the intent.
Under (B) Protection Measures, (4) states ;,Iftat all "Heritage" trees shall be surveyed and protected, but
4. Page 6-61
there is no definition of "Heritage Trees" in'.the Definitions Section 10.1. Please add definition.
5. Page 6 -61
Under (B) Protection Measures, (5) the second word "Tree" should be spelled in lower case.
Under (B) Protection Measures, there are a number of tree protection measures that are intended to protect
6. Page 6 -61
"critical root zones." We are supportive of those measures. Please note, however, that (6) references
"areas where critical root zones may be disturbed during construction. ", but does not define or describe
where those areas are located. On the other hand, (8) and (11) describe those areas (critical root zones)
being within the drip line of trees. For clarity and consistency, we recommend adding a brief description
to (6), such as "within the drip line of trees," and including a definition of "critical root zones" in Section 10.1.
7. Page 6-62
Consider including a diagram.
Under (C) Mitigation, we recommend the same thing for (2), (5) and (6). Maybe (2) could be changed as
follows: "Root prune a tree several months prior to any cuts within the critical root zone (within the drip
line of a tree);" On the other hand, (4) describes the critical root zone by referring to "the drip line of the
tree." Again, we are supportive of these important measures, but perhaps some better consistency would
8. Page 6 -62
be helpful.
Under (C) Mitigation, we recommend clarifying what is intended by (6). Is it better to bore than to trench,
but if you trench it should be shared? It may be helpful to include a diagram.
Under (A) General Design Guidelines, (1) there is a recommendation to use gray water collection systems.
9. Page 6 -62
Is the use of gray water allowed by the State and local/county health department? Check that.
Under (A) General Design Guidelines, (3) we recommend clarifying what is intended by "...should be
10. Page 6 -62
clustered to provide a look."
Under (A) General Design Guidelines, (4) the word "mono- cultures" should be monocultures (No hyphen)
11. Page 6 -62
N
Q"
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action w
N
4.16
12. Page 6 -62
Under (3) (b) Mixing of Shrubs the second sentence introduces a table with the "maximum percentage
shrubs of the same genus and species that may be planted." We recommend deleting the word "genus"
because a plant's species name is inclusive of it genus. Better to say the shrubs of the same species.
1
13. Page 6 -65
(4) and (5) indicate that the Planning Director, or designee, shall maintain lists of plant types that are
preferred and not permitted, respectively. The CFE recommends referencing specific lists maintained by a
reputable organization, such as the North Carolina Native Plant Society [See http: / /www.ncwildflower,org /].
If it is preferable for the Planning Director to keep the list, it could still indicate the source(s) of that list (such
as the NC Native Plant Society). The CFE would be happy to provide further guidance/comment.
14. Page 6 -66
Under (E) Maintenance, (1) and (3) appear to contradict one another. Whereas (3) states that required
landscaping must be replaced "any time" it is no longer living or existing on a site, (1) states that vegetation
needs replacement if it dies within a year of planting. Please clarify,
Also, in (2) we recommend changing "The Planning Department can conduct inspections at any time..." to
"The Planning Department may conduct inspections at any time..." Correct grammar]
1
15. Page 6 -67
Under (E) Natural Buffers, recommend clarifying what is meant by the "critical root zones of trees." As
noted in Comment #6 (above) we cannot assume that people agree on the meaning of this term. Provide
definition, or add some notation that you mean within the drip line of the tree, or include a diagram.
1
16. Page 6 -67
The term "opacity" is used in (E) (3) and (F) (1). We recommend defining the term or using a more
descriptive term unless the Planning staff considers it common knowledge among typical users of the UDO.
1
17. Page 6 -69
Under (B) the requirements for Between Lot Plantings should take into considerations the desire of some
homeowners to use solar panels that require openings in their southern exposure. This will become more
desirable as more and more people install solar panels as a source of energy for residential use.
18. Page 6 -76
Under (C) Buffering Neighborhood Uses, (3) "West Ten" should be West Ten Road; and in (5) "interstate
buffers" should be interstate highway buffers; and also in (5) "interstate frontage" should be interstate
highway frontage.
1
19. Page 6 -77
The meaning of (8) is confusing. What about trees greater than 12" dbh? Should it say "Trees with a
caliper of at least 6 " -12" should be considered for reservation. "? Or greater than 6-12" ??
1
20. Page 6 -80
Under (E) Plant Materials, please clarify what is intended by (8) "Plant material must be used to provide
microclimate modification and energy conservation." This statement leaves too much for interpretation.
Section 6.13 Stream Buffers
21. Page 6 -126
Under (D) Uses Permitted With Mitigation, please fix two typos in (10) as follows: "Vegetation Management
whi ;h -that includes the installation of new vegetation in accordance with an approved mitigation plan, and
a one -time application of fertilizer to re- establisht the vegetation."
1
22. Page 6 -126
Under (D) Uses Permitted With Mitigation, (11) allows Vegetation Management / Replanting without an
approved mitigation plan, which seems inconsistent with (10) where such a plan is required. Perhaps it
would be better to combine 10 and (11).
1
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action
Comments submitted by: Environment, Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation _
Article, Section,
Comment
or Page
Number
Section 5.5
Page 5 -28
(b) I don't believe there is a NC dept of Human Resources anymore as listed- perhaps this is now DHHS?
(c) Likewise, the NC Div of Environmental Management is now NCDENR
Might want to search the document for these terms to see if they exist elsewhere?
1
In the section concerning gold courses, Pollutant Monitoring Program, I would suggest some thought be given to the
locations of the sampling stations for surface water, groundwater and sediment. Perhaps the intent is to establish
upgradient sampling locations as well as sampling locations down - gradient of some potentially contaminating source or
specific location ?? I think this section needs a bit of discussion as to what the objective is. In addition, under (3)
Parameters for Sample Testing- I think that some description of approved analytical methods and minimum detection
limits would be helpful. I am not familiar with the EPA HAL thresholds described in this section but I would be willing to
look into this. There are various NC soil, water and groundwater limits that may be worth considering for this section.
3
5(b) of this section- Management Response to Pollutant Monitoring- I would recommend that the responsible party also
be required to contact appropriate state regulatory officials if thresholds are exceeded, not just OC do so. I also
recommend that the phrase "for thresholds" be removed from this sentence.
3
Likewise, in section 2 (c) Operations Monitoring - NCDEHNR is now NCDENR- no more health in that dept. Also in 6.16.3
Environmental management - refers to NC dept of Human resources again
5 (b) under this refers to DEM again
1
6.16.4- is a mining permit now supplied by NC Div of Land Resources, not Div of Natural Resources as listed?
1
Under the stream buffer section- uses allowed with mitigation- Should temporary roads and the like be required to be re-
vegetated after the temporary use is completed- such that they are not maintained but are truly "temporary"?
14 1
N
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action Cn
N
Cn
a)
13.8 (B) Existing forested areas or any other healthy vegetation cannot may not be removed from a stream buffer, except where
f replaced with vegetation resulting in comparable stormwater runoff velocity and quantity one year after planting.
How would one go about demonstrating "comparable stormwater runoff velocity "? Is some documentation required?
Why is an EIS limited to 50 pages?
Comments submitted by:
A General Comments
General
Comment
Topic
Kennel
As I suspect you know, the County's Animal Control Ordinance includes kennel definitions and a permitting process for Class I
Standards
and Class Il Kennels. The County's Zoning Ordinance also includes kennel definitions and process fora kennel (or stable) to
obtain a special use permit (which requires one or possibly both of the permits issued Animal Control).
There is a need to better coordinate (and dare I say, unify) these ordinances. Some of the issues in regard to kennels include:
• Different definitions of Class I and Class II permits
• A lack of clarity as to whether a special use permit is required for Class I as well as Class II kennel
• A lack of clarity as to whether a special use permit is required for Class I under the Animal Control as well as the Zoning
Ordinance
• Possible process improvements in the permitting process for kennels requiring a special use permit.
Also, I think we should consider whether site plans for "riding stables /academies" should be subject to review by Animal Control.
One concern is the availability of staff expertise in this area. Another concern is that there are no specific stable standards in the
County's Animal Control Ordinances. By contrast, there are such standards for kennels which require permitting.
3
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action
Coding Defined:
"1", Incorporated — Consistent with project scope and addressed through changes reflected in public hearing draft UDO.
"2 ", For further BOCC discussion — Requires further BOCC discussion and direction to staff to ensure revisions are proposed that are
likely to be accepted by the Board.
443 ", Implementation Bridge/Possible future phases — Beyond project scope and to be prioritized for potential future UDO amendment
phases. These items are all documented as part of public hearing materials and will be forwarded to the County's consultant for
consideration in their final "Implementation Bridge" report that is to include recommendations on future UDO amendment phases.
'W', Suggesting; no action — Staff is recommending no action at this time because of the complex interrelationships among UDO
sections and to avoid any internal inconsistencies that could be created if not addressed in a thorough and comprehensive manner.
Comments submitted by: Economic Development Commission Member
Comment re: Proposed Unified Development Ordinance for Orange County, NC
September 20, 2010
The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) will be one of the most powerful tools available to Orange County in charting its future. If the County
is able to adopt an effective and purposeful Ordinance, the County Commissioners will have taken an important step forward.
The value of a strong UDO has been recognized by our county attorney, who recommended in January 2009 that all planning ordinances be put
into a single unified document before initiating implementation of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which is the primary policy document for shaping
future land use. .
Similarly, the Economic Development Commission's identified the centrality of the UDO by including it as one of eleven strategic
recommendations presented to the BOCC in May 2010. The Commission advised: "to complete all phases of the Unified Development Ordinance
effort within a timeframe that establishes confidence with developers, investors, and business owners and also results in an reduction in the time
needed for a project to go from application to permit issuance and into construction."
While the economic downturn is causing much hardship, a majority of County leaders now recognize the urgent need for policies that proactively
encourage economic development and the growth of the county's commercial tax base and sales tax revenues. As such, the commissioners
N
°
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action J
N
Q►
OD
should act promptly to adopt the proposed Unified Development Ordinance, subject to the following conditions which would make the process
more clear and user - friendly for citizen participation.
1. The (limited number of) new regulations proposed in the UDO must not increase expected approval timelines nor place unjustified costs and
burdens on development applicants; (STAFF NOTE: It Doesn't)
2. The explanatory materials made available to the public in advance of the November 22 Public Hearing must promote transparency, identify
intent and be clear about expected outcomes. Specifically,
2a. Transparency should be promoted by making available on the planning department's website the minutes from planning board meetings,
as well as commissioners' work sessions and regular meetings where the UDO was discussed. This will enable the public to become familiar
with the underlying discussion points and debates. (STAFF NOTE: Done)
2b. Transparency should also be promoted by compiling an appendix that identifies all resolutions of existing contradictory regulations. The
appendix should include not only the contradictory regulations but also the recommended resolution. (STAFF NOTE: Done through "Tracking"
of changes, footnotes, and Q&A document)
2c. Each and every proposed new regulation, including those resulting from the resolution of contradictory regulations, should include
background material explaining the rationale for the new regulations as well as a declaration of expected outcomes. Where possible, the
explanatory materials should include scenarios or examples meant to illustrate the effect of the regulation. (STAFF NOTE: Not done,
schedule and resources)
We look forward to continued progress regarding the UDO and for opportunities to encourage County leaders to take actions that will create a
more resilient and sustainable Orange County.
1) Incorporated; 2) For further BOCC discussion; 3) Implementation Bridge — Possible future phases; 4) Suggesting no action
Attachment 3 269
FUTURE PHASE SUGGESTIONS RECEIVED TO DATE
September 20, 2010
The list below are ideas Planning staff received as part of the UDO review process or is
aware of because the idea was raised during the 2030 Comprehensive Plan process. At
this time, these ideas are not being incorporated into the LIDO as they exceed the scope
of work with which staff was approved to proceed.
1. No mention of Town of Hillsborough interlocal agreement. Add a footnote or a new
section. [Staff note: references to the Orange County - Hillsborough Interlocal
Agreement should be added when Zoning /UDO- related items are formally adopted.
At this point, a neither a joint land use plan nor joint development regulations have
been adopted].
2. Where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should add.
3. Differentiate between urban and rural character -- applicable to signage and
subdivision impacts on transportation.
4. Not applicable if flexible development option used -- Section 2.15.2 (C) (5)
5. Need language that will differentiate between the different types of residential zoning
districts.
6. Regarding Impervious Surface Ratios and Sliding Scales, the two tables should be
combined into one. Need to understand ramifications of any proposed changes --
Section 4.2.5.
7. Some home occupations are permitted but not associated storage? This needs
clarification.
8. Kennels and Riding Stables should be addressed separately. Should they require a
Class A or Class B Special Use Permit?
9. How open space areas of golf courses are counted towards meeting ordinance
requirements.
10. Change to Class "A" Special Use Permit, which would require BOCC approval rather
than Board of Adjustment -- Section 5.9.5
11. Include hours of operation. Lighting comes to mind -- Section 5.14.2 (A) (1)
12. Add no fault well repair to requirements.
13. Is there any limit to building height? Flag for future.
14. Different landscaping standards may be needed for EDDs.
15. Need to revisit private road standards.
16. There's a lack of land use criteria for reserving school sites. Need some general
guidelines (i.e. not in wetlands or on slopes greater than X). Consult County School
Joint Construction Standards.
17. Relation to adjacent properties is not addressed -- Section 7.13.3 (C) (1)
18. Mention Water and Sewer Management and Planning Boundary Agreement. Any
system should be designed, planned, constructed and maintained by the responsible
entity as assigned through the Agreement -- Section 7.13.4 (C) (1) (b)
19. Are there provisions for shared driveways? It may be useful in certain cases (i.e.
along highways /major roadways).
20. Many places in the UDO have a restriction on the height of a building. While
residential structures tend to have 9 to 12 feet per floor, commercial structures can
have as much as 15 feet per floor. As the structure covers more area, the roof can
have a substantial amount of height to it if it is not a flat roof. Architectural details
such as facades and cupolas can affect the height.
21. My comment is this: Would it make more sense to specify the number of occupied
stories as a limit on the structure? An occupied story would not include attic space
270
or utility rooms- it would be space occupied by people working in the structure. Page
3 -44 and page 4 -18 are examples of where this specification occurs. Note that the
height limitations that change with additional setback could be used as a maximum
height such that either a (for example) 3 story limit _OR_ the maximum height based
on setback would be the height limit for the building. An the
of this setback
based number is found at the top of page 6 -2. 1 would also add in (not sure where)
than any building whose height exceeds the apparatus or ladder height restrictions of
the fire departments which would respond to a structure fire would be required to be
sprinklered.
22. There are various metal vapor lights, the most common being Mercury and Sodium
vapor. It would be nice to know why Mercury is being singled out. In particular, is it
the presence of Mercury (i.e. environmental) or is it the use of a specific type of
fixture such as the yard lights utilities sell that is the concern. If the concern is
environmental, then would it not also apply to ail fluorescent lights which use
mercury?
23. We have incandescent, metal vapor, fluorescent (which is mercury and a
phosphorous), and LED. Each has a different lumens per watt rating. If light is being
regulated, lumens should be the standard. Also, be aware that any light with a
reflector will put out more light in a certain direction than a light with no reflector. As
such, lumens is still a weak measure of light output but it is what is on the packaging
for all lights and is easier to work with than getting into the amount of light energy per
unit area type measurements (candies). As a rule of thumb, incandescent runs 5 to
30 lumens /watt, and LEDs run 60 to 110 lumens /watt.
24. The limits under section (c) "General Operations" and (e) "Use of Accessory
Structures" severely limit what a home
25. Somewhere in the Standards for Residential Uses or Development Standards there
should be a section that specifies minimum residential driveway sizes of 12 feet wide
by 14 feet vertical clearance (already stated in 7.8.5 (B) (15) on page 7 -32) for fire
apparatus. This is the cleared width of the driveway, not the width of gravel or
paving.
26. The travel -way width for Class B with 2 lots should be specified as 12 feet of cleared
space, no standard for width of gravel or hard surface.
27. Under (5) (b): 16 feet should be 18 feet so that a passenger car can be passed by
fire apparatus. For Class B roads with 3 or more lots, there should be an area 20
feet wide by 50 feet long every 1500 feed to that fire apparatus can pass each other.
28. On (1), remove the word "incandescent" since LED lights are now often used for
holiday decorations. Low wattage is not defined, but a typical nightlight/big
Christmas tree bulb is 7 watts so you could say any wattage under 10 watts. It would
make more sense to use a lumen rating, such as less than 150 lumens. On (J), first
off this should be a lumen limit, not watts. As the limit reads, this looks like a total
lumens for any given motion activated switch. The lumens looks like it was derived
from two incandescent 75 watt bulbs, probably flood lights. Note that if this is the
case, the maxim lumens should be 2400. There are many motion activated systems
where a sensor can turn on multiple light fixtures. So I would re -word this to have a
2400 lumen limit per light fixture controlled by the sensor. Finally, on this max lumens
per fixture, there are standard outdoor floodlight fixtures that take 3 bulbs. For those
fixtures, a reasonable max lumens would be around 3600. You could also add a limit
of no one bulb can exceed a rating of 2100 lumens (a 120 watt equivalent) if the
intent is to avoid the larger single bulb fixtures -- Section 6.11.3.
29. (A) This is where a definition of "mercury vapor luminaries" is needed. As written,
this could mean that any standard fluorescent or compact fluorescent light could not
271
be used, since they are a mercury- phosphorous based light.
30. (C) (1) Some floodlight fixtures do not cover the bulb, the stop just after the threaded
base. I'd just stick with the 45 degree from vertical. (c) (2) the "it will shine" is vague.
Perhaps something like "no more than 5% of the luminous energy shall shine
towards roadways, onto adjacent residential property or into the night sky ". (C) (3)
Same vagueness- what is the "main beam "? Do you really want to say that no
portion of the bulb shall be visible from adjacent properties or the public street right -
of -way? From an enforcement point of view, a "Can't see the bulb" is easy to verify
for both the owner and the inspector. Note that this is the approach taken on page 6-
97, 6.117 (3).
31. All existing and proposed public transportation services and facilities within A
RADIUS of one mile of the site shall be documented( leave out "also ") -- Section
6.17(6) #(4).
32. This whole section should be looked at with respect to goals and objectives. in the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and Commissioners' goals and
objectives. County policies do not always support the land development ordinances,
particularly with transportation issues. This is too vast a task to address at this time,
but I wanted to "tag" this Section for future study -- Section 7.8
33. As people become accustomed to this new document it will be important to provide
different kinds of helpful guidance for users to find the sections of the document that
are pertinent to their needs. The "Comparative Table" is quite helpful, and is an
example of the guidance that will be needed during the transition. Having some kind
of on -line search mechanism would be helpful. Perhaps that is already under
development.
34. In the section concerning gold courses, Pollutant Monitoring Program, I would
suggest some thought be given to the locations of the sampling stations for surface
water, groundwater and sediment. Perhaps the intent is to establish upgradient
sampling locations as well as sampling locations down - gradient of some potentially
contaminating source or specific location ?? I think this section needs a bit of
discussion as to what the objective is. In addition, under (3) Parameters for Sample
Testing- I think that some description of approved analytical methods and minimum
detection limits would be helpful. I am not familiar with the EPA HAL thresholds
described in this section but I would be willing to look into this. There are various NC
soil, water and groundwater limits that may be worth considering for this section.
35.5(b) of this section- Management Response to Pollutant Monitoring- I would
recommend that the responsible party also be required to contact appropriate state
regulatory officials if thresholds are exceeded, not just OC do so. I also
recommend that the phrase "for thresholds" be removed from this sentence --
Section 5.5.
36. As I suspect you know, the County's Animal Control Ordinance includes kennel
definitions and a permitting process for Class I and Class li Kennels. The County's
Zoning Ordinance also includes kennel definitions and process for a kennel (or
stable) to obtain a special use permit (which requires one or possibly both of the
permits issued Animal Control).
There is a need to better coordinate (and dare I say, unify) these ordinances. Some of
the issues in regard to kennels include:
Different definitions of Class I and Class II permits
A lack of clarity as to whether a special use permit is required for Class I as well
as Class 11 kennel
272
A lack of clarity as to whether a special use permit is required for Class I under
the Animal Control as well as the Zoning Ordinance
Possible process improvements in the permitting process for kennels requiring a
special use permit.
Also, I think we should consider whether site plans for "riding stables /academies" should
be subject to review by Animal Control. One concern is the availability of staff expertise
in this area. Another concern is that there are no specific stable standards in the
County's Animal Control Ordinances. By contrast, there are such standards for kennels
which require permitting.
37. At what point in time will we define metrics of whether the LIDO is succeeding?
38. Will staff be making recommendations to shorten any of the processes?
39. There is an unusual thresh oid requirement in the Subdivision Regulations — the 21 si
lot of a subdivision kicks you into an Special Use Permit (SUP) process. Needs to
be looked at again — make part of future changes. Planning Board should be able to
approve 20 lots or less (without BOCC involvement).
40. Are there metrics and stats for approval time for each approval process?
41. After staff and advisory board review, project went through County Attorney review.
Lengthened the process. Why didn't County Attorney review occur concurrent with
staff review? Streamline.
42. Move towards intense use of sites to save more of the site in open space - cluster
subdivisions. Cluster subdivisions require community wastewater systems. Falls
apart on political side. Commissioners very wary due to system failures 20 years
ago. Is there away to put this in the Ordinance 'by right" if designed to specific
criteria? Take political part out.
43. The size of a farm should be considered. Organic farmers, which seem to be the
trend, 10 acres in order to be called a farm is a bit large for an organic farm.
Considering farm income as a requirement to be a farm is difficult because prices
can vary so much from year to year that one year a farmer can produce 300 bushels
of corn and hardly break even because prices are low and the next year the same
farmer can produce 120 bushels and make a lot because prices have gone up
substantially.
44. It would be really nice if the final document could be accessed and indexed
electronically rather than printed, a hyperlink format. For instance, clicking on a term
and the definition pops up.
45. Compare Durham's ordinance requirements for environmental review of subdivisions
with Orange County's environmental review process.
46. Nutrient trading
47. Low Impact Design (LID)
48. Outdoor events /activities, festivals, etc.
49. Need updated Airport Regulations
50. Agricultural Support Enterprises regulations need to be written
51. Rural Economic Development Area (REDA) regulations need to be written
52. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) regulations need to be written
53. Regulating adult entertainment uses and nuisance related events at these uses
54. Airport zoning, possibly as conditional zoning district
55. Incentives for commercial development (expedited processes, etc.)
56. Public notification requirements for public hearings and other procedures that are more
appropriate rural versus suburban uses/districts (i.e., rural rezonings may require larger
area of notification)
4
273
57. Cluster development standards for suburban versus rural developments
58. Identifying Comprehensive Plan policies that relate to UDO updates
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located)
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1
1.1
Long Title and Authority1.1.2
1.2
Short Title
1.3
Intent
1.1.4
1.4
Applicability
1.1.6
1.5
Farm Exemption
1.1.8
1.6
Applications to be Processed Expeditiously
2.2.2
1.7
Flood Damage Prevention Authority1.1.3
11
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS
(title only)
2.1
The Board of County Commissioners
1.3
2.1.1
Board of County Commissioners Responsibilities
1.3
2.1.2
Procedure of Amendments to this Ordinance
1.3
2.1.3
Procedure on Application for Approval of Special Uses
1.3
2.1.4
Appeal of Board of County Commissioners Action
2.24.5
2.2
Planning Board
1.6
2.2.1
Intent
1.6.1
2.2.2
Establishment
1.6.1
2.2.3
Qualifications
1.6.1
2.2.4
Tenure
1.6.2
2.2.5
Reserved
7r. w
2.2.6
Rules of Procedure
1.6.5
2.2.7
Meetings
1.6.6
2.2.8
Meeting Minutes
1.6.7
2.2.9
Annual Report
1.6.8
recommended for deletion
2.2.10
General Powers and Duties
1.6.3
2.2.11
Specific Powers and Duties
1.6.3
2.2.12
Comprehensive Plan, Intent
1.7
2.2.13
Comprehensive Plan Adoption
2.3.2
2.2.14
Amendment of Adopted Comprehensive Plan
2.3.2
2.2.14.1
Initiation of Amendments
2.3.3
2.2.14.2
Classification of Amendments
2.3.4
2.2.14.3 lConsideration
of Amendments
2.3.7
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the LIDO
D
0
3
CD
z
csi
N
v
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the LIDO document existing ordinance text is located] rn
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
2.2.14.4
Application for Amendment to Adopted Comprehensive Plan
2.3.8
2.2.14.5
Public Hearings and Notice Thereof
2.3.5
2.2.14.6
Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing
2.3.10
2.2.14.7
Withdrawal of Application
2.2.7
2.2.14.8
Effect of Denial
2.2.8
2.2.14.9
Fees
2.2.4
2.2.15
Planning Department to Act as Staff to Planning Board
1.6.4
2.3
Board of Adjustment
1.8
2.3.1
Board of Adjustment, Establishment of
1.8.1
2.3.1.1
1.8.1
2.3.1.2
1.8.2
2.3.1.3
1.8.2
2.3.1.4
1.8.1
2.3.1.5
1.8.2
2.3.2
Powers of Board
1.8.3
2.3.3
Board of Adjustment Administration
1.8.4
2.3.3.1
1.8.4
2.3.3.2
1.8.5
2.3.3.3
1.8.6
2.3.3.4
2.7.6, 2.10.11, 2.12.6
2.3.3.5
2.12.2
2.3.3.6
2.7.3, 2.10.2, 2.24.1
2.3.3.7
2.12.1, 2.12.5
2.3.3.8
2.7.11, 2.2.15
2.3.3.9
1.4
encompassed in duties of Planning Director
2.3.4
Quorum and Vote Required
2.12.4
2.3.4.1
2.12.4
2.3.4.2
2.12.4
2.3.4.3
2.12.4
recommended for deletion
2.3.5
Application of the Special Use Power
2.7
2.3.6
Application of the Variance Power
2.10
2.3.6.1
2.10.3
2.3.6.2
2.10.4
2.3.6.3
2.10.9
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the LIDO
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
2.3.6.4
2.10.10
2.3.6.5
2.10.7
2.3.7
Application of Interpretation Power
2.11
2.3.7.1
2.11.1
2.3.7.2
2.11.2
2.3.8
Appeal Stays Further Proceedings
2.11.3, 2.24.4
2.3.9
Exceptions to Stay of Action
2.11.3, 2.24.4
2.3.9.1
2.11.3
2.3.9.2
2.11.3
2.3.10
Appeals of Board of Adjustment Actions
2.24.4
2.4
Planning Department
1.5
_
2.4.1
Duties and Responsibilities
1.5.1
2.4.2
Development Advisory Committee Established
1.9.1, 1.9.3
2.4.2.1
Duties and Responsibilities
1.9.2
2.4.2.2
Development Advisory Committee Meetings
1.9.4
2.4.2.3
Reports
1.9.5
III
ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS AND ATLAS
(title only)
3.1
Division into Zoning Districts
1.2.1
3.2
Zoning District Boundaries Shown on Official Zoning Atlas
1.2.1
3.3
Official Zoning Atlas and Amendments - Authentication
1.2.1
3.4
Copies of Zoning Atlas, Status
1.2.1
3.5
Maintenance Responsibility
1.2.1
3.6
Authentication: Record of Nature and Date of Amendments
1.2.1
3.7
Unauthorized Changes Prohibited
1.2.1
3.8
Effective Date of Amendments
1.2.1
3.9
Official Zoning Atlas Replacement
1.2.1
3.10
Interpretation of District Boundaries
1.2.2
3.11
Required Conformance to District Regulations
3.2
3.12
Prohibited Uses
5.1.1
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 3
N
Comparative Table (This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located] 0J0
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article / Section
NOTES
IV
ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED USE TABLE AND
SCHEDULE
w `
(title only)
4.1
Establishment of Use Regulations
5.1,5-1.2
4.1.1
Town of Chapel Hill Land Development Standards
1.1.9
4.1.2
Town of Carrboro Land Development Standards
1.1.9
4.2
District Statements of Intent and Application Criteria
Article 3
in each zoning district chart
4.2.1
Rural Buffer R13 District
3.3
4.2.2
Agricultural Residential AR District
3.3
4.2.3
Rural Residential R -1 District
3.3
4.2.4
Low and Medium Intensity Residential R -2, R -3, R -4 Districts
3.3
4.2.5
High Intensity Residential R -5, R -8, R -13 Districts
3.3
4.2.6
Reserved
a4
4.2.7
Reserved`
4.2.8
Local Commercial -1 LC -1 District
3.4
4.2.9
Neighborhood Commercial -II NC -2 District
3.4
4.2.10
Community Commercial -III CC -3 District
3.4
4.2.11
General Commercial -IV GC -4 District
3.4
4.2.12
Existing Commercial -V EC -5 District
3.4
4.2.13
Reserved
Kam.
4.2.14
Reserved
, .: 7, 7
4.2.15
Reserved
7'7 ° ' '
4.2.16
Office /Institutional O/I District
3.4
4.2.17
Reserved
4.2.18
Reserved
4.2.19
Economic Develo ment ED District
3.6
4.2.20
Existing Industrial (EI) District
3.5
4.2.21
Li ht Industrial -1 L -1 District
3.5
4.2.22
Medium Industrial -11 1 -2 District
3.5
4.2.23
Heavy Industrial -III 1 -3 District
3.5
4.2.24
Agricultural Services AS District
3.4
4.2.25
Public Interest (PID) District
3.7
4.2.26
Reservedtim�
4.2.27
Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
4.2
4.2.28
Reserved
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located)
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
4.2.29
Reserved
4.2.30
Reserved
4.2.31
Major Trans ortation Corridor MTC District
4.5
4.2.32
Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District
4.6
4.2.33
Efiand- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD)
4.4
4.2.34
Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District (SFHA) Statement of
Purpose
4.3
4.2.35
Objective
4.3
4.2.36
Statutory Authorization
4.3
4.2.37
Findings of Fact
4.3
4.2.38
Applicability
4.3
4.2.39
Basis for Establishing the Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay
District (SFHA)
4.3
4.2.40
Compliance
4.3
4.3
Permitted Use Table
5.2
V
ESTABLISHMENT OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
(title only)
5.1
Establishment of Dimensional Requirements
6.1.1
5.1.1
Town of Chapel Hill Land Development Standards
6.1.2
5.1.2
Town of Carrboro Land Development Standards
6.1.3
5.1.1
Schedule or Residential Development: Single and Two ami y,
Multi-Family, Residential Hotels Rooming Houses, Etc.
Article 3
in each zoning district chart
5.1.2
Schedule for Non - Residential Development: Lot by Lot, Planned
Development
Article 3
in each zoning district chart
VI
APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
(title only)
6.1
Regulations Encumbering Land Required to Satisfy Regulations
6.2.1
6.2
Modification of Dimensional Requirements
6.2.2
6.2.1
Height Limitations
6.2.2 & Art. 3
"Dimensional Standards Note" in all
applicable zoning districts in Article 3
6.2.2
Flexible Developments
6.2.2
6.2.3
1 Flag Lots
6.2.2
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 5 ro
v
cc
N
Comparative Table [This Table shows wherein the LIDO document existing ordinance text is located] p
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
6.3
Regulation of Principal Uses and Structures
_�� `7 . .� �.
title onl
6.3.1
Principal Uses
6.2.5 & Art. 3
Listed as a Development Standard in all
applicable zoning districts in Article 3
6.3.2
Principal Structures
6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.2.6, &
Art. 3
Listed as a Development Standard in all
applicable zoning districts in Article 3
6.4
Corner Lot Setback on the Side Street
6.2.7 & Art. 3
"Dimensional Standards Note" in all
applicable zoning districts in Article 3
6.5
Additional Setbacks Required in Non - Residential Lots Abutting
Residential Districts
6.2.8
"Dimensional Standards Note" in all
applicable zoning districts in Article 3
6.5.1
6.2.8
"Dimensional Standards Note" in all
applicable zoning districts in Article 3
6.6
Permitted Projections into Required Open Space
6.2.9
6.6.1
6.2.9
6.6.2
6.2.9
6.7
Accessory Structures in Residential Districts
5.5.1 & Art. 3
"Dimensional Standards Note" in all
applicable zoning districts in Article 3
6.7.1
5.5.1
6.7.2
5.5.1
6.8
Visibility at Intersections
6.2.1
6.9
Reserved
6.1
Reserved
IM `M,
6.11
Irregular Lots - Further Subdivision or Creation
6.2.4
6.12
Supplemental Regulations for Group Developments, PD Districts,
and Other Developments Controlled by the Land Use Intensity
System
6.3.1
6.12.1
Adoption of Volume 2: Minimum Property Standards for Multi -
Family Housing and Volume 4: Manual of Acceptable Practices, as
6.3.1
6.12.2
Definitions and Methods of Measurement Relating to Standard LUI
Ratio; Requirements and Limitations
6.3.1
6.12.2.1
Gross Land Area
6.3.1
6.12.2.2
Residential Land Area
6.3.1
6.12.2.3
Residential Floor Area
6.3.2
6.12.2.4
Open Space
6.3.3
6.12.2.5
Livability Space
6.3.4
6.12.2.6
Recreation Space
6.3.5
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
6.12.3
Open Space and Building Spacing in Residential Districts and
Other Districts in which Similar Attached and Multi- Family Uses
are Permitted
6.2.11
6.12.4
Definitions and Methods of Measurement Relating to Non -
Residential Intensity Ratios: Requirements and Limitations
6.3.1
6.12.5
Reserved
6.12.6
Reserved
6.13
Application of Performance Standards
6.4
6.13.1
General Applicability
6.4.1
6.13.2
Application to Extensions, Enlargements, Etc.
6.4.1
6.13.3
Required Compliance by Non-Conforming Situations
6.4.1
6.14
Supplementary Performance Standards
6.4.1
6.14.1
Electrical Disturbance or Interference
6.4.2
6.14.2
Noise
6.4.3
6.14.3
Reserved
6.14.4
Reserved
6.14.5
Reserved
6.14.6
Reserved
6.14.7
Vibration
6.4.4
6.14.8
Reserved
6.14.9
Air Pollution
6.4.5
6.14.10
Disposal of Liquid Wastes
6.4.6
6.15
Interim Development Standards
1.1.22
6.15.1
Form and Content - Interim Development Standards
1.1.22
6.15.2
Interim Development Standards Approved
no longer a licable - expired in 1991
6.16
Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses
title only)
6.16.1
Unit Ownership Condominium Development
recommended for deletion; not necessary
land use regulation
6.16.2
Churches
5.14.1
6.16.3
Nightclubs, Bars, and Pubs
5.6.1
6.16.4
Day Care, Day Nurseries and Private Kindergartens in Commercial
and Industrial Districts
5.8.2
6.16.5
Commercial Feeder Operation
5.13.1
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 7
N
CD
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located] N
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
6.16.6
Re ulations Concerning Home Occupations, as an Accessory Use
5.5.3
6.16.6.1
Home Occupations in all Residential Districts Except RB, AR and R-
1
5.5.3
6.16.6.2
Home Occupations in the RB, AR and R -1 Districts
5.5.3
6.16.6.3
Home Occupations in the RB, AR & R1 Districts
5.5.3
6.16.6.4
Home Occupation Permit - Application Procedure
2.21, 5.5.3
6.16.7
Storage of Junked or Wrecked Motor Vehicles
Article 3
Listed as a Development Standard in all
applicable zoning districts in Article 3
6.16.8
Temporary Yard Sale
5.4.1
6.16.9
Temporary Fund Raising Activity
5.4.2
6.16-10
eserve
µ.
6.16.11
Recreational Facilities Profit
5.7.1
6.16.12
Telephone Exchanges (without business offices), Subscriber Loop
Huts, Pressure Regulator Stations, Water and Sanitary Sewer
Pumping Stations
5.9.1
6.16.13
Massage Business as Permitted Use in CC -III and GC -4 Districts
5.6.2
6.16.14
Electrical Substations, Switching and Metering Stations, and
Associated Transmission Lines, Where Incoming Voltage does not
exceed 100 Kilovolts
5.9.2
6.16.15
Solid Waste Collection
5.11.1
6.16.16
Borrow Pits for Federal and State Highway Projects
5.12.1
6.16.17
Special Events
5.4.3
6.16.18
Garden Center
5.6.3
6.17
Traffic Impact Study Required
6.17.2
6.18
Telecommunications Towers and Equipment
5.10.1
6.18.1
Administrative Approval of Certain Telecommunications Facilities
5.10.6
6.18.2
Telecommunications support structures and equipment as principal
or accessory uses
5.10.4, 5.10.5
6.18.3
Antennas not located on telecommunications wireless support
structures
5.10.7
6.18.4
Minimum Standards for Telecommunications Wireless Support
Structures Only Requiring Building Permit
5.10.8
6.18.5
Master Telecommunications Plan "Plan"
5.10.2
6.19
Federal Wetlands Permits
2.18.1
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO
Existing
Article/
Section
6.20
6.20.1
6.21
6.21.1
6.21.2
6.21.3
6.22
6.22.1
6.22.2
6.23
6.23.1
6.23.2
6.23.3
6.23.4
6.23.5
6.23.6
6.23.7
6.23.8
6.23.9
6.23.10
6.23.11
6.24
6.24.1
6.24.2
6.24.3
Comparative Table [This Table shows wherein the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
TITLE
Large Ground Absorption Systems (3,000 gals. per day) and
Package Sewage Treatment Plats Prohibited in AR Districts and
Rural Buffer Districts
Mobile Home Standards
Existing or New Mobile Home Parks
Mobile Homes in Individual Lots
Exceptions
Bonus Intensities for Lower Income Housing
Intent
Applicability
Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection
Land Use Restrictions
Residential Density
Stormwater Infiltration and Detention
Operation and Maintenance of Structural BMPs
Placement of Streets, Driveways and Buildings
Undisturbed Area _
Stream Buffers
Water Supply /Sewage Disposal Facilities
Administration
Additional Requirements
Minimum Usable Lot Area
Wastewater Systems
Districts
Ponds
Outside of Watershed Protectio
s that Utilize Ground Absorption
New Article/ Section NOTES
Listed as a Development Standard in RB and
AR zoning districts in Article 3. Also in Table
Art. 3 & 5.2 of Permitted Uses.
Listed as a Development Standard in RB and
AR zoning districts in Article 3. Also in Table
Art. 3 & 5.2 of Permitted Uses.
Listed as a Development Standard in all
5.5.5 & Art. 3 applicable zoning districts in Article 3
5.5.5
5.5.6
5.5.6
6.18
6.18.1
?,"`. "-� no longer applicable
4.1, 4.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.2.8,
2.10.5, 6.14.1, 6.14.4
6.14.10, 6.14.11
4.2.7
6.15.6
6.13.3, 6.13.4, 6.13.6,
6.13.8 —
4.2.9
6.2.3
4.2.2
2.10.5
6.13.2, 6.13.5
6.13.2, 6.13.5
In each "Specific Development Standards"
Article 3 section of the Zoning District charts
. •.; " not necessary for UDO
9 N
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO w
ro
Comparative Table [This Table shows wherein the LIDO document existing ordinance text is located] �
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
6.25
Extra Requirements for the Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor
Overla District ECOD
� %A
V
title only)
6.25.1
Permitted Uses
4.4.4
6.25.2
Approval Requirements
2.5.6
6.25.3
Site Plan Requirements
2.5.6
6.25.4
Non - Residential Development Standards
4.4.5, 6.6.2
6.26
Extra Requirements for the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC)
District
r< Y ..n• .w , . ,
title onl
6.26.1
Permitted Uses
4.5.3
6.26.3
Approval Requirements
2.5.6
6.26.4
Site Plan Requirements
2.5.6
6.26.5
Landscaping and Buffers
6.6.3
6.26.6
Yard Requirements
4.5.4
6.26.7
Off- Street Parkin
"F- 140,
not necessary
6.26.8
Sign Regulations
:, :_- ITZA
not necessary
6.27
Center in a Residence for 3 to 12 Children
5.8.1
6.27.1
Site Plan Requirements
5.8.1
6.27.2
Standards for Evaluation
5.8.1
6.27.3
Application Procedure
2.22, 5.8.1
6.28
Affordable Housing
6.18
6.28.1
Density Increase Permitted
6.18.1
6.28.2
Applicability
6.18.3
6.28.3
Contract for sale of Single-Famfly Single-Family Residences
6.18.4
6.28.4
Contract for Rental of Duplex or Multi-Family Units
6.18.5
6.28.5
Disclosure of Contract Terms to Potential Home-Buyers
6.18.6
6.28.6
Conveyance of Property to Orange County
6.18.7
6.29
Development Standards for Economic Development ED Districts
3.6
6.2E2dDesign
Purpose
unnecessary statement
6.2
Review Process
2.5
6.29.3
Design Standards
6.3, 6.4
Requirements contained in the EDD Design
Manual have been placed predominantly in
Article 6
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the LIDO 10
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
6.29.4
Additional Requirement for Certain Subdivisions
Mg �;
M t , �
. ; "r
not necessary - this is the same process all
Subdivisions in any Zoning District must
follow
6.3
Extra Requirements for the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District
4.6
6.30.1
Purpose
4.6.1
6.30.2
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations Generally
Applicable
4.6.2
6.30.3
Land Use Intensities
4.6.3
6.30.3a
Lower Intensity Development Area
4.6.3
6.30.3b
Intermediate Intensity Development Area
4.6.3
6.30.3c
Higher Intensity Development Area
4.6.3
6.30.4
Applicable Regulations Pertaining to Flexible Developments
4.6.4
6.31
Outdoor Lighting Standards
6.11
6.31.1
Purpose and Intent
6.11.1
6.31.2
Definitions
Article 10
6.31.3
Applicability
6.11.2
6.31.4
Exemptions
6.11.3
6.31.5
Submittal Requirements
6.11.5
6.31.6
General Standards For All Areas
6.11.6
6.31.7
Liqhting in Parking Lots and Outdoor Areas
6.11.7
6.31.8
Lighting for Vehicular Canopies
6.11.7
6.31.9
Outdoor Sports Field /Outdoor Performance Area
6.11.7
6.31.10
Lighting of Outdoor Display Areas
6.11.7
6.31.11
Liqhting of Buildings and Landscaping
6.11.7
6.31.12
Prohibitions
6.11.4
6.32
Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District (SFHA) Overlay District
..
title only)
6.32.1
Additional Requirements for the Special Flood Hazard Overly y (SFHA) District
6.6.1
6.32.2
Specific Standards
6.6.1
6.32.3
Specific Standards for Flood lain Without Established Base Flow Elevations
6.6.1
6.32.4
Subdivisions, Manufactured Home Parks, and Major Developments,
6.6.1
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO I 1 ry
co
Cn
N
Comparative Table [This Table shows wherein the UDO document existing ordinance text is located] rn
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
Standards for Floodplains with BFE but Without Established Floodways or
6.32.5
Non - encroachment Areas
6.6.1
6.32.6
Floodway and Non - encroachment Areas
6.6.1
Standards for Floodplains without Established Base Flood
6.32.7
Elevations
6.6.1
6.32.8
Effect Upon Outstanding Flood lain Development Permits
6.6.1
6.32.9
Enforcement
6.6.1
^°
The Planned Development construct has
been re- worked into the proposed
Conditional Use and MPD -CZ constructs.
Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance is not being
carried forward into the UDO although some
r ,F.
requirements and ideas are in the new
VII
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
�y�:�„
proposed text.
7.1
Planned Development Districts Generally
7.2
Planned Development Defined
7.2.1
Establishment of the Planned Development Districts
7.2.2
Property Owner Must Apply for Planned Development District
.= ' Wit
7.2.3
Allowed Uses Must Be Shown On The Plan
7.2.4
Imposed Conditions
7.2.5
Special Use Required for Each Planned Development
7.2,6
Standards for Evaluation
7.2.7
Changes in Conditions or Use for Planned Development Permit
A
7.2.8
Time Limit on Start of Construction of Planned Development
Relation of PD Regulations to General Zoning, Subdivision or other
Regulations; Modifications on Equal Satisfaction of Public
7.3
Purposes
7.4
PD Districts -Where and How Permitted
7.4.1
Relation to Major Transportation Facilities
7.4.2
Relation to Public Utilities, Facilities and Services
7.4.3
Physical Character of the Site; Relation to Surrounding Property
+ �' J,
7.4.4
Required
ww':
�,._,
Additions to PD Districts not Subject to Minimum Area��'
""
7.4.5
Requirements
7.5
Procedures on PD Amendments
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 12
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
7.5.1
Applications: Materials to be Submitted
7.5.2
Preliminary Review of Application as Submitted`
1 *
7.5.3
Preliminary Conferences with Applicant
..
7.5.4
Zoning Officer's Recommendation
F�07.,
7.5.5
Actions by Planning Board; Board of County Commissioners
;
7.5.6
Development to be in Accord with Approved Concept Plan and
Related Regulations
f �i" ' ; 4 m
7.6
Zoning Administrator's Action on Approval of Final Plans
7.7
Approval of Detailed Plan, Etc. is an Administrative Action
°a. y,�� , 1..
7.8
Changes in Approved Final Plans
17 .. .,
7.9
Expiration of Time Limits on PD Amendments
""
7.10
Restrictions on Permitted Uses
.• A .,
7.11
Reserved
7.12
Reserved
7.13
Reserved,
7.14
Planned Development Housing PD -H) Districts
7.14.1
PD -H Districts: Where Permitted; Intent Concerning Timin:'.er
7.14.2
Permitted Principal and Accessory Uses and Structures
7.14.3
Site Planning
7.15
Planned Development Commercial (PD-C) Districts
IN,,,>
7.15.1
PD -C; Where Permitted: Intent3
>..
7.15.2
Reserved
' b
7.15.3
Reserved';'
<„
7.15.4
Permitted Principal and Accessory Uses and Structures°
7.15.5
Height Limitation"
7.15.6
Pedestrian and Landscaped Common Area Requirements
7.15.7
Off - Street Parking: Loading Requirements
7.15.8
Underground Electrical and Telephone Utilities
rc ,e v,r^��
7.15.9
Si n LimitationsN
=t
7.15.10
Site Planning
7.16
PD -01: Planned Development-Office and Institutional Districts,
~�:$
7.16.1
PD -01 Districts: Defined, Intent Where Permitted
t ;
7.16.2
Permitted Principal Uses and Structures'''`u,
` ° <a
7.16.3
Height Limitations
�,, "
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the LIDO 13
OD
ro
Comparative Table (This Table shows where in the LIDO document existing ordinance text is located) 00
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section NOTES
7.16.4
Permitted Intensity of Development
7.16.5
Setbacks Required Adjacent to Residential Districts
7.16.6
Site Planning
7.16.7
Sign Limitations
7.17
Planned Development - Industrial Districts
7.17.1
PD -1 Districts: Defined, Intent, Where Permitted
7.18
PD -MU: Planned Development - Mixed Use Districts
7.18.1
PD -MU Districts: Defined Intent, Where Permitted
7.19
PD -PWI: Planned Development - Protected Watershed Industrial
Districts
This,district was no longer applicable with the
=adoption of the Watersupply Watershed
Overlay Districts in 1994 so staff did not
include in'UDO
7.19 .1
PD -PWI District: Defined, Intent, Where Permitted
7.20
PD -MHP Planned Development - Mobile Home Park District
7.20.1
PD -MHR District: Defined, Intent, Where Permitted
3.7
MHP -CZ chart
7.20,E
Minimum and Maximum Area Required for Establishment of District
3.7
MHP -CZ chart
7.20.3
Permitted Principal Uses and Structures
5.5.4
7.20.4
Development Requirements for Mobile Home Parks
5.5.4
7.20.4a
Mobile Home Space Requirements
5.5.4
7.20.4b
Mobile Home Stand Requirements
5.5.4
7.20.4c
Separation Requirements
5.5.4
7.20.4d
Installation of Individual Mobile Homes
5.5.4
7.20.4e
Vehicular Access
5.5.4
7.20.4f
Identification Signs/Street Numbering
5.5.4
7.20.4
Grounds and Buildings
5.5.4
7.20.4h
Erosion and Stormwater Control Requirements
5.5.4
recommended for deletion - see footnote in
UDO section
7.20.41
Recreation Areas and Facilities
5.5.4
7.20.4'
Landscaping and Screening
5.5.4
7.20.4k
Utilities
5.5.4
7.21
PD -ED Planned Development-Economic Development District
.
not inolud '
Planned- Development has been re- worked
into Conditional Use (CU) and MPD -CZ
'
7.21.1
PD -ED District: Definition and Intent
rnqt� adikir
VIII
ISPECIAL USES
(title only)
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the LIDO 14
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
8.1
Intent
5.1.3
8.2.1
5.3.2
8.2.2
2.7.7
8.2.3
2.7.11
8.2.3
2.7.11
8.2.4
5.3.2
8.2.5
2.7.11
8.3
Establishment of Classes of Special Uses; Authority to Approve or
Disapprove
5.1.3
8.4
Procedure for Submission and Consideration of Applications of
Approval of Special Uses
2.2.5
8.4.1
Pre-Application Conference
2.2.5, 5.10.3
8.4.2
Application Submitted to Zoning Officer
2.2.6, 2.7.3
8.4.3
Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and Recommendations
2.7.4
8.4.4
Recommendation Submitted to Planning Board or Board of
2.7.4
8.4.5
Public Hearing Required, Notice Specified
2.7.5, 2.7.6
8.4.6
Planning Board Action on Class A Special Use
2.7.8
8.4.7
Action on the Application
2.7.8
8.4.8
Imposed Conditions
2.7.11
8.4.9
Withdrawal of Application
2.2.7
8.4.10
Effect of Denial on Subsequent Petitions
2.2.7
8.4.11
Time Limits on Special Uses
2.7.11, 2.7.13
8.5
Action Subsequent to the Board Action
2.7.12
8.6
Contents of Application for Approval of a Special Use
2.7.3
8.6.1
Additional Standards for Development of Uses Within Special Flood
Hazard Area Overlay District SFHA
6.6.1
8.7
Minor Changes to be Approved by Zoning Officer; Modifications
Require Action by Approving Board
2.7.14
8.7.1
Criteria to be Used in Determination
2.7.14
8.7.2
Review of Record Required
2.7.14
8.7.3
Action Required on Proposed Minor Changes or Modifications
2.7.14
8.8
Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses
2.7.14
8.8.1
Extraction of Earth Products Class A Special Use
5.12.2
8.8.1.1
Additional Information
5.12.2
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 15
co
N
Comparative Table [This Table shows wherein the UDO document existing ordinance text is located] o
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article! Section
NOTES
8.8.1.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.12.2
8.8.2
Landfills Class A or Class B Special Use
5.11
8.8.2.1
Additional Information
5.11.2
8.8.2.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.11.2
8.8.3
Public Utility Stations and Substations, Water Treatment, Sewage
Treatment Plant, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges
5.9.3
8.8.3.1
Additional Information
5.9.3
8.8.3.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.9.3
8.8.4
Group Care Facility Class B Special Use
5.5.7
8.8.4.1
Additional Information
5.5.7
8.8.4.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.5.7
8.8.5
Cam /Retreat Center Class B Special Use
5.7.4
8.8.5.1
5.7.4
8.8.5.2
5.7.4
8.8.6
Golf Driving and Practice Ranges Class B Special Use
5.7.2
8.8.6.1
Additional Information
5.7.2
8.8.6.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.7.2
8.8.7
Golf Courses
5.7.3
8.8.7.1
Intent
5.7.3
8.8.7.2
Submittal Requirements
5.7.3
8.8.7.3
Standards for Golf Courses
5.7.3
8.8.7.4
Construction
5.7.3
8.8.7.5
Operation and Maintenance
5.7.3
8.8.7.6
Pollutant Monitoring Program
5.7.3
8.8.8
General Aviation Airports, STOL and Heliports (Class A Special
Use )
5.14.5
8.8.8.1
Additional Information
5.14.5
8.8.8.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.14.5
8.8.9
Reserved
8.8.10
Junkyards Class A Special Use
5.6.4
8.8.10.1
Additional Information
5.6.4
8.8.10.2
IStandards of Evaluation
5.6.4
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 16
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
8.8.11
Kennels or Riding Stables /Academies (Class B Class If Special
Use )
5.6.5
8.8.11.1
Additional Information
5.6.5
_
8.8.11.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.6.5
8.8.11.3
Other Requirements
5.6.5
8.8.12
Temporary Use of a Residential Mobile Home (Class B- Special
Use )
5.4.4
8.8.12.1
Additional Information
5.4.4
8.8.12.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.4.4
8.8.13
Community Center Class B Special Use
5.14.2
8.8.13.1
Additional Information
5.14.2
8.8.13.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.14.2
8.8.14
Special Events
5.4.3
8.8.14.1
Additional Information
5.4.3
8.8.14.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.4.3
8.8.15
Commercial Cemeteries Class B Special Use
5.14.3
8.8.15.1
Additional Information
5.14.3
8.8.15.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.14.3
8.8.16
Child Care Facility
5.8.2
8.8.16.1
Additional Information
5.8.2
8.8.16.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.8.2
8.8.17
Elevated Water Storage Tanks Class B Special Use
5.9.4
8.8.17.1
Additional Information
5.9.4
8.8.17.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.9.4
8.8.17a
Telecommunication Wireless Support Structures
5.10.8
8.8.17a.1
Definitions
5.10.8
8.8.17a.1 a
Additional Information
5.10.8
8.8.17a.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.10.8
8.8.17a.3
Removal of Wireless Support Structures and Facilities
5.10.9
8.8.17a.4
Bond Security
5.10.8
8.8.17a.5
Liability Insurance
5.10.8
8.8.18
Buildings for Temporary Use Class B Special Use
5.4.5
8.8.18.1
Additional Information
5.4.5
8.8.18.2
IStandards of Evaluation
5.4.5
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 17 N
m
N
Comparative Table [This Table shows wherein the UDO document existing ordinance text is located) CO
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
8.8.1 g
Electric, Gas and Liquid Fuel Transmission Lines (Class B Special
5.9.5
8.8.19.1
Additional Information
5.9.5
8.8.19.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.9.5
8.8.20
Residential Hotel, Dormitory, Fraternity, Sorority, Religious
Quarters
5.5.8
8.8.20.1
Additional Information
5.5.8
8.8.20.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.5.8
8.8.21
Recreational Facilities Class B Special Use
5.7
8.8.21.1
Additional Information
5.7.1
8.8.21.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.7.1
8.8.22
Waste Management Facility, Hazardous and Toxic
5.11.3
8.8.22.1
Additional Information
5.11.3
8.8.22.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.11.3
8.8.23
Planned Developments
deleted
Planned Development has been re- worked
into Conditional Use (CU) and MPD -CZ
8.8.23.1
Additional Information
delete4i
8.8.23.2
Standards of Evaluation
deleted
8.8.24
Historic Sites Non - Residential Reuse /Mixed Use
5.14.4
8.8.24.1
Additional Information
5.14.4
8.8.24.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.14.4
8.8.25
Non - Profit Educational Cooperative
5.8.3
8.8.25.1
Additional Information
5.8.3
8.8.25.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.8.3
8.8.26
Modification of Impervious Surface Limitations
deleted
Recommended for deletion; procedures for
modification of. impervious limits established
in Article 2; does not include SUP
8.8.26.1
Additional Information
deleted
8.8.26.2
Standards of Evaluation
deleted
8.8.27
Site Specific Development Plans
title only)
8.8.27.1
Additional Information
2.7.3
8.8.27.2
Standards of Evaluation
2.7.9
8.8.28 1
Rural Guest Establishments
5.6.6
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 18
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
8.8.28.1
Intent
k
�....,`< ',`structures
recommended for deletion; not necessary as
regulations address historical sites and
8.8.28.2
Additional Information
5.6.6, 5.6.7, 5.6.8
8.8.28.3
Standards of Evaluation
5.6.6, 5.6.7, 5.6.8
8.8.28.4
Other Requirements
5.6.6, 5.6.7, 5.6.8
8.8.29
Major Subdivision Class A Special Use (Rural Designated or Urban
Designated)
5.14.6
8.8.29.1 a
Additional Information to be submitted for all applications)
5.14.6
8.8.29.1 b
Additional Information for all applications of over 40 lots
5.14.6
8.8.29.2
Standards of Evaluation
5.14.6
8.8.30
Schools: Elementary, Middle and Secondary Class A Special Use
5.8.4
IX
SIGNS
6.12
This section was authorized for a major
overhaul. Please see Section 6.12 of the
UDO for proposed regulations.
9.1
Intent;
< -wr
9.2
Traffic Safety Precautions
9.3
Prohibited Locations for Signs
�, 7,131 "<
9.4
Restrictions on Illumination, etc.
, 77 _
9.5
Signs Subject to Control
W &,
9.6
Signs Not Subject to Permit Requirements
sfi `
9.7
Zoning Compliance Permit Required
< ; • "1 ," je
9.8
Reserved
£ °4
9.9
Determining the Number of Signs
9.10
Computation of Sign Area�q�z
9.11
Permitted Signs: Size, Number, Height and Location of°"
9.12
Miscellaneous Requirements
9.13
Sign Survey Required and Compliance Deadlines Set
X
OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING
6.9
Substantial changes to this Article were
authorized - please see LIDO Section 6.9
10.1
Off - Street Parking and Loading Required
6.9.2
10.2
Prohibited within Special Flood Hazard Areas
6.9.3
10.3
Off - Street Parking Design Standards
6.9.10
10.4
Off - Street Parking Requirements
6.9.7
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 19 N
cm
CIO
N
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located] co
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
10.5
Determination for Unlisted Uses and Fractional Results
6.9.8, 6.9.9
10.6
Joint Parkino Facilities
6.9.11
10.7
Satellite Parking
6.9.12
10.8
Handicapped Parking Facilities
6.9.10
10.9
Off- Street Loading Space Requirements
6.9.13
10.10
Off - Street Loading Space in Addition to Off- Street Parking Space
6.9.13
10.11
Off - Street Loading Space Defined
6.9.14
10.12
Access to Off - Street Loading Spaces
6.9.14
10.13
Minimum Off - Street Loading Space Requirements
6.9.13
XI
NON - CONFORMITIES
Article 8
11.1
Classification of Non - Conformities
8.2
11.2
Intent Concerning Non - conformities Generally
8.1
11.3
Intent Concerning Completion of Non-Conforming Projects
8.3
11.3.1
8.3
11.3.2
8.3
11.4
Intent Concerning Non - Conforming Uses: Specifically Declared to
be Incompatible with Permitted Uses
8.4
11.5
Intent Concerning Non-Conforming Signs
8.5
11.6
Special Permit Uses not to be Considered Non-Conforming
8.6
11.7
Non-Conforming Lots
8.7
11.7.1
Use of Single Non - Conforming Lots for One - Family Detached
Dwellings
8.7
11.8
Non - Conforming Uses of Land Without Structures or with Minor
Structures
8.8
11.9
Non - Conforming Uses of Major Structures, or Structures and
Premises in Combination
8.9
11.10
Non-Conforming Structures Other than Signs
8.10
11.11
Reserved
77777 ;
11.12
Non-Conforming Characteristics of Use
8.11
11.13
Repairs and Maintenance
8.12
11.14
Non - Conforming Structures Unsafe for Reasons other than Lack of
Maintenance
8.13
XII
LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS
6.8
Substantial changes to this Article were
authorized - please see UDO Section 6.8
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 20
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located)
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
12.1
Intent
75 Tow J
12.2
General Requirements
12.2.1
Protection of Existing Vegetation
12.2.2
Designation of Tree Protection Areas
12.2.3
Exceptions
12.2.4
Protective Measures
:° P , -
12.3
Plan Review and Approval
12.4
Landscaping Standards
' Weil;
12.5
Land Use Buffer Requirements
P.
12.6
Standards for Required Land Use Buffers
12.7
Requirements for Special Use Permits
: '0 �
12.8
Waiver of Land Use Buffer Requirements
12.9
Installation and Maintenance,
XIII
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
6.17
13.1
Purpose
6.17.1
13.2
Conduct
6.17.4, 6.17.5
13.3
Applicability
6.17.2, 6.17.3
13.4
General Requirements and Standards
6.17.5
13.5
Submission and Implementation
6.17.6
XIV
SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCEDURES
(title only)
14.1
Intent
2.4
14.2
Application Requirements
2.5.2
14.2.1
Professional Design and Certification
2.5.2
14.2.2
Submittal Requirements
2.5.2, 2.6.1
14.2.3
Specification for Plan Preparation
2.5.3
14.3
Site Plan Review
2.5.4
14.3.1
2.5.4
14.3.2
2.5.4
14.3.3
2.5.4
14.4
Appeal Procedures
2.24.2
14.5
Improvements
2.5.5
14.6
Floodplain Development Permit and Certificate Requirements for
1 Properties Within the Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District
2.6
14.6.1
1 Plans and Application Requirements
2.6.2
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 21 N
W
CA
N
CO
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located] rn
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
14.6.2
Flood lain Development Permit Data Requirement
2.6.3
14.6.3
Certification Requirements
2.6.4
XV
SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
6.19
XVI
RESERVED
XVII
RESERVED
XVIII
RESERVED
XIX
RESERVED
XX
AMENDMENTS
s, : R "`.� . ,'
(title only)
20.1
Statement of Intent
20.2
Amendment Initiation
2.8.2
20.3
Procedure for Submission and Consideration of Applications for
Amendment
2.8
20.3.1
A lication Submitted to Zoning Officer
2.2.6
20.3.2
Contents of Application
2.8.3
20.3.3
Zoning_ Officer Prepares Analysis and Recommendation
2.8.5
20.3.4
Applications for Amendments -Joint Planning Area
2.8.4
20.4
Referral of Amendment Application to Planning Board
2.8.8
20.5
Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board Shall
Hold A Public Hearing
2.8.6
20.6
Public Hearing and Notice Thereof
2.3.5, 2.8.6, 2.8.7
20.6.1
2.3.5
20.6.2
2.3.5
20.6.3
2.3.5
20.7
Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearin
2.3.9, 2.8.8
20.7.1
2.3.9
20.7.2
2.3.10, 2.8.9
20.8
Withdrawal of Application
2.2.7
20.9
Effect of Denial on Subsequent Petitions
2.2.8
20.10
Fees
2.2.4
20.11
Comprehensive Review of Chapter
1.6.3
XXI
ADMINISTRATION
(title only)
21.1
Establishment of Position of Zoning Officer
1.4
21.2
Duties of the Zoning Officer
1.4
21.3
Powers and Limitations of Zoning Officer
1.4, 1.4.2
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 22
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article / Section
NOTES
21.4
Zoning Compliance Permit Required
2.4
21.5
Certificates of Occupancy
2.4
21.6
Health Department Approval Prior to Issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy
2.4
21.7
Fees
2.2.4
21.8
Administrative Regulations
1.1.21
21.9
Additional Administrative Provisions for the Special Flood Hazard
Area Overlay District
1.10
21.9.1
Administration
1.10.1
21.9.2
Duties and Responsibilities of the Flood lain Administrator
1.10.2
21.9.3
Establishment of Flood lain Development Permit
-<
"
not necessary in new format - intent of this
section is now in 2.6.1
21.10
Reserved
= 7
21.11
Reserved
21.12
Administration and Enforcement of Performance Standards
°" xx..R
this is a title only)
21.12.1
Intent Concerning Determinations Involved in Administration and
Enforcement of Performance Standards
9.4
21.12.2
Procedure where Zoning Officer can Make Determination
9.5.8
21.12.3
Procedure Where Zoning Officer Cannot Make Final Determination
9.5.8
XXII
DEFINITIONS
1.1.3 & Article 10
XXIII
ENFORCEMENT
Article 9
23.1
Purpose and Intent
9.1
23.1.1
Violations; Violators
9.2
23.1.2
Violation
9.2
23.1.3
Violators
9.3
23.1.4
Responsibility
9.5.1
23.2
Enforcement Procedures
9.5
23.2.1
Inspections and Investigations
9.5.2
23.2.2
Initial Notice of Violation
9.5.3
23.2.3
Final Notice of Violation; Correction Order
9.5.3, 9.5.6, 9.5.7
23.2.4
Appeal to Board of Adjustment
9.5.4
23.2.5
Failure to Comply with Notice or Board of Adjustment Decision
9.5.9
23.2.6
Extension of Time Limit to Correct Violation
9.5.5
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 23 iv
CID
J
N
Comparative Table (This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
co
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
23.2.7
Enforcement Action After Time Limit to Correct Violation
9.5.5
23.2.8
Emergency Enforcement Without Notice
9.5.5
23.3
Remedies; Penalties; Enforcement Action
9.6
23.3.1
General
9.6
23.4
Civil Penalty
9.6.7
23.4.1
General
9.6.7
23.4.2
Notice
9.6.7
23.4.3
Amount
9.6.7
23.4.4
Settlement of Claims
9.6.7
23.4.5
Continuing Violations
9.6.7
23.5
Corrective Procedures - Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District
Standards
9.7
23.5.1
Action in Event of a Violation
9.7.1
23.5.2
Order to Take Corrective Action
9.7.2
23.5.3
Appeal
2.24.7
23.5.4
Failure to Comply with Order
9.7.3
XXIV
LEGAL STATUS PROVISIONS AND EFFECTIVE DATE
(title only)
24.1
Severabilit
1.1.16
24.2
Conflict with Other Laws
1.1.9
24.3
Repeal of Existing Zoning Regulations
1.1.17
24.4
Interpretation
1.1.18
24.5
Effect on Rights and Liabilities Under the Existing Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance
" .
redundant with 1.1.17
24.6
Disclaimer of Liability — Flood Regulations
1.1.19
24.5
Effective Date
_ , , .° °= °
not necessary
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
I
Purpose, Authority, Jurisdiction, Private Property Rights and
Applications to be Processed Expeditiously
7.1
I -A
7.1.1
_Purpose
I -B
Authority
7.1.2
I -C
Jurisdiction
Article 1
1 -D
Private Property Rights
iApplications
Article 1
I -E
to be Processed Expeditiously
1.6
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 24
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
I -F
Special Flood Hazard Area Standards
1.7
II
Definitions
Article 10
III
Application and Approval Procedures'`
,',`' ;
(title only)
III -A
General Provisions
7.1.2
III -B
Classification of Subdivisions
7.2
III -B -1
Determination of Classification
11 &,
recommend for deletion -see footnote in 7.2
III -C
Approval Procedures for Minor Subdivision
2.14.2
III -C -1
Concept Plan Submission
2,14.2
111 -C -2
Application Requirements
2.14.3
III -C -3
Review and Approval Procedures
2.14.3
III -C -4
Action Subsequent to Approval
2.14.3
III -C -5
Appeal Procedures
2.24.2
III -D
Approval Procedures for Major Subdivisions
2.15.2
III -D -1
Concept Plan Approval
2.15.2
III -D -1 -a
Pre-Application Review
2.15.2
III -D -1 -b
On -Site Visit
2.15.2
III -D -1 -c
Application Requirements
2.15.2
III -D -1 -d
Neighborhood Information Meeting
2.15.2
III -D -1 -e
Planning Department Review Procedures
2.15.2
III -D -1 -f
Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures
2.15.2
III-D-1 -g
Action Subsequent to Approval
2.15.2
III-D-1 -h
Appeal Procedures
2.24.3
III -D -1 -j
Approval Procedures of Subdivisions in Economic Development
Commercial and Industrial Nodes as identified in the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan
2.16
III -D -2
Reserved
III -D -3
Preliminary Plat Approval
2.15.3
III -D -3 -a
Application Requirements
2.15.3
III -D -3 -b
Planning Department Review Procedures
2.15.3
III -D -3 -c
Planning Board Review Procedures
2.15.3
III -D -3 -d
Board of Commissioners Review and Approval Procedures
2.15.3
III -D -3 -e
Action Subsequent to Approval
2.15.3
III -D -3 -f
Administrative Re-Approval
2.15.3
1III-D-3-g
Further Time Extensions
2.15.3
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 25 N
CD
tc
w
0
Comparative Table (This Table shows wherein the UDO document existing ordinance text is located] o
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
I11-d -4
Final Plat Approval
2.15.4
III -D -4 -a
Application Requirements
2.15.4
III -D -4 -b
Review and Approval Procedures
2.15.4
III -D -4 -c
Action Subsequent to Approval
2.15.4
III -D -5
Appeal Procedures
2.24.2
Ill -E
Improvements
7.4
III -E -1
Financial Guarantee
7.4.4
III -E -2
Construction Cost Estimate
7.4.4
III -E -3
Maintenance of Improvements
7.4.6
IV
Required Minimum Design Standards
7.6
IV -A
7.6
IV -B
7.6
IV -B -1
Minimum Lot Size
7.6.1
IV -B -2
Land Suitability
7.6.3
IV -B -2 -a
Flood -Prone Areas
7.6.3
IV -B -2 -b
Suitability for Septic Disposal
7.6.3
IV -13-2 -c
Drainage
7.6.3
IV -B -2 -d
Resource Protection
7.6:
IV -B -3
Streets
7.8
IV -B -3 -a
7.8.1
IV- B -3 -a -1
7.8.1
IV -B -3 -b
7.8.1
--
IV-B-3-c
7.8.1
IV- B -3 -c -1
Widths
$f.r
see footnote in 7.8.3
IV- 13-3 -c -2
Partial Widths
f°
see footnote in 7.8.3
IV- B -3 -c -3
Grades
a } %4'
��r ,h ° =
see footnote in 7.8.3
IV- B -3 -c -4
Intersections
Fm
� � � ,,:; ,� , .
see footnote in 7.8.3
IV- 13-3 -c -5
Deleted
see footnote in 7.8.3
IV- B -3 -c -6
Curves
see footnote in 7.8.3
IV- 13-3 -c -7
Cul- de- sac
.; `I �.,�.` 44 Ys
see footnote in 7.8.3
IV- B -3 -c -8
Access Restrictions
see footnote in 7.8.3
IV- 13-3 -c -9
Reverse Frontage
see footnote in 7.8.3
IV- B- 3 -c -10
Lot Boundaries�
<,.r " '
see footnote in 7.8.3
IV- B- 3 -c -11
Street Names
see footnote in 7.8.3
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 26
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
IV- B- 3 -c -12
Street Name Signs
' "
., , ,,� � era
see footnote in 7.8.3
IV- B -3 -d -1
Roads
7.8.2, 7.8.4
IV- B -3 -d -2
7.8.4
IV- B -3 -d -3
7.8.4
IV-B -3 -e
Traffic Impact Study
6.17
IV-B-3-e-1
Conduct
6.17.4, 6.17.5
IV- B -3 -e -2
Applicability
6.17.2, 6.17.3
IV- b -3 -e -3
General Requirements and Standards
6.17.1, 6.17.5
IV- B -3 -e -4
Submission and Implementation
6.17.6
IV -B -4
Alleys
7.8.6
IV -B -4 -a
7.8.6
IV -B -4 -b
7.8.6
IV -B -4 -c
7.8.6
IV -B -5
Lot Layout
7.7
IV -B -S -a
7.7
IV -B -S -b
7.7
IV -B -S -c
7.7
IV -B -S -d
Flag Lots
7.7.4
IV -B -S -e
7.7.4
IV -B -6
Reservation of Space for Utilities
7.9
IV -B -6 -a
7.9
1V -B -6 -b
7.9
IV -B -7
Sites for Public Use
7.10, 7.11
IV -B -7 -a
School Sites
7.1
IV- B -7 -a -1
Applicability
7.10.1
IV- B -7 -a -2
Method of Reservation
7.10.2, 7.10.3
IV -B -7 -b
Recreation Sites
7.11
IV- B -7 -b -1
Applicability
7.11.1
IV- B -7 -b -2
Dimensional Requirements
7.11.2
IV- B -7 -b -3
Site Suitability
7.11.3
IV- B -7 -b -4
Site Improvement
7.11.4
IV- B -7 -b -5
Method of Provision or Dedication
7.11.5
IV- B -7 -b -6
Payments in Lieu of Dedication
7.11.6
IV -B -8
Landscape & Buffer Requirements
6.8
Substantial changes to this Article were
authorized - please see UDO Section 6.8
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 27 to
0
C.0
0
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located] ro
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
IV -13-8 -a
Applicability
IV -13-8 -b
Landscape Plan Review and Approval
"�i'
IV -13-8 -c
Protection of Existing Vegetation
a
�'
IV- B -8 -c -1
Designation of Tree Protection Areas,
IV- 13-8 -c -2
Exceptions
IV- 13-8 -c -3
Protective Measures
IV -13-8 -d
Landscaping Standards
IV- B -8 -d -1
Required Landscaping
IV -13-8 -e
Land Use Buffer Requirements
rw�k., L
IV- B -8 -e -1
Location and Utilization of Land Use Buffers
MOW x�
IV- 13-8 -e -2
Designation of Land Use Buffers,
IV- B -8 -e -3
Schedule of Re uired Land Use Buffers
m? W00
IV- 13-8 -e -4
Standards for Required Land Use Buffers
IV- 13-8 -e -f
Recommended Standards for Installation and Maintenance..
•� °�,.,:
IV B-8-g
Waiver of Landscaping and Buffer Requirements
IV -13-9
Cluster Developments
7.12
IV -13-9 -a
Intent
7.12.1
IV -13-9 -b
Application Criteria
7.12.2
IV -13-9 -c
Reductions in Lot and Setback Requirements
7.12.3
IV -13-9 -d
Ownership of and Conveyance of Cluster Recreation /Open Space
7.12.4
IV -13-9 -e
Approval of Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan or Minor Subdivision
Final Plat For Cluster Subdivision)
7.12.5
IV -13-9 -f
Application Requirements For Cluster Subdivision
7.12.6
IV -B -10
Flexible Development
7.13
Section A
Purpose
7.13.1
Section B
Applicability
7.13.2
Section C
Open Space Standards
7.13.3
Section D
Development Standards
7.13.4
D.1
Estate Lot Option
7.13.4
D.2
Conservation - Cluster Option
7.13.4
D.3
Village Option
7.13.4
D.4
Street Standards
7.13.5
D.51
Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities
7.13.6
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 28
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Article/
Section TITLE
Section E Design Standards
Section F Evaluation Criteria
Section G Density Bonuses
Section H Annual Report
IV -B -11 Wetlands
New Article/ Section NOTES
7.13.7
7.13.8
7.13.9
7.13.101 recommended for dele-
2.18.1
29 w
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the LIDO c
to
CA)
CD
Comparative Table [This Table shows wherein the UDO document existing ordinance text is located] -N
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
IV -B -12
School Adequate Public Facilities
2.515
-;
Se6tion:2.15.5 directs the user to
SeCtf4i.1.$ fa[ specific standards.
IV-13-1 2-a
Purpose
2.15:5
IV-13-1 2-b
Applicability
IV-13-1 2-c
Administration
IV- B- 12 -c -1
Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities
IV- B- 12 -c -2
Service Levels
7�.15s
IV- B- 12 -c -3
Expiration of Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities
21
IV- B- 12 -c -4
Exemption from Certification Requirement for Development with
Negligible Student Generation Rates
-2:15
IV- B- 12 -c -5
Applicability to Previously Approved Projects and Projects Pending
Approval
1V- B- 12 -c -6
Appeal of School District Denial of a CAPS
21
IV- B- 12 -c -7
Information Required from Applicants
2.15.5'
IV -C
Interim Development Standards
1.1.22
IV -C -1
Form and Content - Interim Development Standards
1.1.22
IV -C -2
Interim Development Standards Approved
no longer a licable - expired in 1991
V
S ecifications for Plat Drawings
7.15
V -A
Reserved
V -B
Reserved
V -13-1
General Information
7.15.2 A
V -13-2
Site Analysis KA.r,
7.15.2 A
V -13-2 -a
Primary Conservation Areas
7.15.2 A
V -13-2 -b
Secondary Conservation Areas
7.15.2 A
V -13-2 -c
Transportation and Utility Systems
7.15.2 A
V -13-3
Conventional Subdivision Option
7.15.2 A
V -13-4
Flexible Development Option
7.15.2 A
V -C
Preliminary Plat
7.15.2 B
V -C -1
Title Block
7.15.2 B
V -C -2
Vicinity Map
7.15.2 B
V -C -3
Existing Site Data
7.15.2 B
V -C -3 -a
Boundary Lines
7.15.2 B
V -C -3 -b
Streets and Transportation Systems
7.15.2 B
V -C -3 -c
Utility Systems
7.15.2 B
V -C -3 -d
Contour Information
7.15.2 B
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 30
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
V -C -3 -e
Other Conditions
7.15.2 B
V -C -4
Subdivision Layout Data
7.15.2 B
V -C -4 -a
Site Calculations
7.15.2 B
V -C -4 -b
Lot Arrangement
7.15.2 B
V -C -4 -c
Streets and Transportation Systems
7.15.2 B
V -C -5
Utility and Drainage Data
7.15.2 B
V -C -6
Preliminary Plat - Floodway and Watershed Standards
7.15.2 B
V -C -7
Landscaping and Buffer Data
7.15.2 B
V -D
Final Plat
7.15.3
V -D -1
Plat Preparation
7.15.3
V -D -2
Title Block
7.15.3
V -D -3
Vicinit y Map
7.15.3
V -D -4
Existing Site Data
7.15.3
V -D -4 -a
Boundary Lines
7.15.3
V -D -4 -b
Other Conditions
7.15.3
V -D -5
Subdivision Layout Data
7.15.3
V -D -5 -a
Lot Arrangement and Development Potential
7.15.3
V -D -5 -b
Streets and Transportation Systems
7.15.3
V -D -5 -c
Utility and Drainage Data
7.15.3
V -D -5 -d
Final Plat - Floodway and Watershed Data
7.15.3
V -D -5 -e
Landscaping and Buffer Data
7.15.3
V -D -5 -f
Protection of Natural and Cultural Resources
7.15.3
V -D -6
Certificates and Endorsements to Appear on Final Plat
7.15.3
V -D -6 -a
Certificates of Dedication and Maintenance
7.15.3
V -D -6 -b
Certificates of Dedication and Maintenance
7.15.3
V -D -6 -c
Certificates of Approval
7.15.3
V -D -7
Certificate of Improvements
7.15.3
VI
Group Development
7.14
recommended for deletion - see footnote
in section
VI-A
7.14
recommended for deletion - see footnote
in section
VI -B
7.14
recommended for deletion - see footnote
in section
VII
Legal Status Provisions
1.1
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 31 w
0
W
CA)
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located) rn
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
VII -A
Interpretation, Application and Conflict
1.1.4, 1.1.9
VII -8
Separability
1.1.16
VII-C,
Re- Enactment and Repeal of Existing Subdivision Regulations
1.1.17
VII -D
Amendment Procedures
2.8
inc ampAsscd_by section 2.8 which
is he U;DO text amendment
:provisions
VII-D-1
Action by the Applicant
2.8
VII -D -2
Prelimina Review of Proposed Amendment
9-A
VII -D -3
Public Hearing Procedures
g8
VII -D -4
Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearin
2:8
VII -D -5
Reconsideration of Petition.
VII -E
Enforcement
Article 9
encompassed by Article 9 - used existing
Zoning Ordinance text as the base which
was consistent with the text contained
in the Subdivision Regulations
-
VII -E -1
Purpose and Intent
Article 9
VII -E -1.1
Violations; Violators
Article 9
VII -E -1.2
Violation
Article 9
VII -E -1.3
Responsibility
Article 9
VII -E -1.4
Planning Director
Article 9
VII -E -2
Enforcement Procedures
Article 9
VII -E -2.1
Inspections and Investigations
Article 9
VII-E-2.2
Initial Notice of Violation
Article 9
VII -E -2.3
Final Notice of Violation; Correction Order
Article 9
VII -E -2.4
Extension of Time Limit to Correct Violation
Article 9
VII -E -2.5
Failure to Comply with Notice
Article 9
VII -E -2.6
Enforcement Action After Time Limit to Correct Violation
Article 9
VII -E -3
Remedies; Penalties; Enforcement Action
Article 9
VII -E -3.1
General
Article 9
VII -E -4
Civil Penalty
Article 9
VII-E-4.1
General
Article 9
VII -E -4.2
Notice
Article '9
VII -E -4.3
Amount
Article 9
VII -E-4.4
Settlement of Claims
Article
VII -E -4.5
Continuing Violations
_Article 9
VII -F
Effective Date
nnecessary
Appendix
A
Private Road Standards
7.8.5
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the LIDO 32
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
B
Watersheds of Local /Regional Importance
no longer relevant, now contained in
Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
Section 4.2
6.8 graphics to be added later by Consultant
6,g
C
Recommended Landscaping Standards
D
Recommended Buffer Standards
E
Recreation Service Area Boundaries
map is referenced as being available in the
Planning Department
ORANGE COUNTY EDD DESIGN MANUAL (Article
6.29.3 of the Zoning Ordinance
title only
not included; narrative only
1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Intent
Using the Manual
not included; narrative only
A Case Study Approach
not included; narrative only
2
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Title only
2.1
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
3.6
Introduction
3.6
Schematic Plans
not included; narrative only
2.2
PERMITTED USES
5.2, noted
Tables will be combined in Section 5.2-
ITable of Permitted Uses
2.3
LAND USE INTENSITY
6.3.7
Introduction
not included; narrative only
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR)
6.3.7
Building Volume Ratio BVR
6.3.8
Landscape Volume Ratio LVR
6.3.8
Site Volume Ration SVR
6.3.8
2.4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
title only
Introduction
not included; narrative only
Noise
6.4.3
Vibration
6.4.4
Air Pollution
6.4.5
Electromagnetic Interference
6.4.2
Hazardous Materials
1 6.4.7
Solid Waste
6.4.9
Gradinq & Erosion Control
6.15.7
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 33 w
0
CO
Comparative Table [This Table shows wherein the UDO document existing ordinance text is located] OOo
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
Stormwater Management
x
i4ipt t k. Lc s ?
N k *:
not included; overall stormwater
requirements consistent with or more
strin ent than those in EDD Manual
Water Supply & Sewage Disposal
6.4.8
Construction & Maintenance
6.4.11
3
DESIGN CRITERIA,
¢' ,
title only
3.1
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
3- ;r >o. P;
title only
Introduction
6.5.1
Site Considerations
6.5.1
Compatibility with Neighbors
6.5.1
3.2
LANDSCAPE DESIGN
title only
Introduction
not included; narrative only
Criteria
6.8.12
3.3
CIRCULATION &PARKING
=. a
title only
Introduction
not included; narrative only
Parking Lot Design
6.9.10
Thoroughfare Planning
6.10
Transit Access
not included; narrative only
Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities
6.10
3.4
SERVICE & STORAGE
6.4.10
Introduction
Fk't
not included; narrative only
Location & Accessibility
6.4.10
Screening
6.4.10 & 6.8
3.5
SIGNS & LIGHTING
'`M a 'u.." `
title only
Introductions
.': ` '
not included; narrative only
Signs
6.12.14
Lighting
6.11.8
4
APPENDICES.
A
Applicable Codes &Technical Reports
"' ' 411*1�1 11
not included; does not include regulations
B
Approval Procedures & Site Plan Requirements
2.2, 2.5
C
Wet Detention Basin Standards
x
a r V
not applicable; all stormwater design &
construction to comply with NC DWQ
standards
D
Illustration Credits
No longer valid
HILLSBOROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the LIDO 34
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
1.0
GENERAL OVERVIEW
not included; narrative only
Land Use Pattern and Transportation Capacity Guidelines
°y F "? ,. ' . ,, ., ;'
not included; narrative only
Transportation Access
114 ' * „ k . WR
not included; narrative only
Hillsborough Area EDD General Description and Adjacent Properties
" w ,. fir.,: x
not included; narrative only
Hillsborough Area EDD Specific Description
r"' #,
not included; narrative only
Timing and Sequencing of Development
not included; narrative only
2.0
Economic Development Districts - Purpose Statements and Regulation
3.6
ED -1-0-1 Limited Office -1
3.6
ED -1-0-2 Limited Office -2
3.6
ED -FLX Office /Flex District
3.6
ED -LNR Linear Office District
3.6
ED-0 Office District
3.6
PD -ED -MU Planned Development Mixed Use)_
3.7 & 6.7.5
Hillsborough EDD Subdivision Requirements
2.16
Permitted Use Table
5.2
Land Use Intensity Standards for Hillsborough EDD
6.3.7
Environmental Factors for Hillsborough EDD
6.4
Architectural Design Standards for Hillsborough EDD
6.5.1
Landscape Design Standards ofr Hillsborough EDD
6.8.12
Circulation and Parking Standards for Hillsborough EDD
6.9.10 G
Service and Storage Standards for Hillsborough EDD
6.4.10
Signs Standards for Hillsborough EDD
6.12.14
Lighting Standards for Hillsborough EDD
6.11.8
STORMWATER ORDINANCE
Section 1 ISTORMWATER
PROTECTION WITHIN THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN
y
°' ' °
title only
A
Purpose and Intent
6.14.2
Section 2
DEFINITIONS
Article 10
Section 3
RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION WITHIN THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN
title only
A
Applicability
not included; stream buffer regulations from
ZO more stringent
B
Zones within the Riparian Buffer
included; stream buffer regulations from
ZO more stringent
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the LIDO 35 w
0
CID
_W
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the LIDO document existing ordinance text is located] o
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
C
Diffuse Flow Requirement
6.13.7
Section 4
TABLE OF USES
6.13.6
limited number of uses from SW Ordinance
added to permitted uses lists; OC UDO more
stringent than State re s.
A
Requirements for Categories of Usesr.:
"not
necessary; provisions from ZO added
B
of "No Practical Alternatives"
�. `� „.
not necessary; provisions from ZO added
C
ests for an Authorization Certificate
2.20.1
D
tes
2.20.1
E
arances
2.10.6
F
Mitigation
6.13.6
G
Requirements Specific to Forest Harvesting
” , r
`` "' a
not included;County does not regulate
bonafide timber operations
Section 5
NEW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
6.14.6
Section 6
NUTRIENT LOAD CALCULATIONS
6.14.5, 6.14.7
A
6.14.7
B
Nutrient Export Figures
6.14.7
C
Nutrient Export Reduction Options
6.14.7
D
Calculating Peak Runoff Volume
6.14.8
E
Exemptions to Peak Flow Requirements
6.14.8
Section 7
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2.20.2
A
Plan Requirements
2.20.2, 6.14.9
B
Plan Approval
2.20.2, 6.14.9
C
Approved Plan a Prerequisite
2.20.2, 6.14.9
D
Design of Permanent Nitrogen Export Reduction BMPs
2.20.2, 6.14.9
E
Fees
2.20.2
F
Appeals
2.24.9
Section 8
PERMANENT NITROGEN EXPORT REDUCTION BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
;
f[
title only
A
Permanent On -site Nitrogen Export Reduction BMPs
6.14.7
Section 9
BMP CONSTRUCTION
>m �"i 49"', :title
only
A
Total Nitrogen Removal Rates
6.14.7
B
Surety
=;" t
.x��. '.
not included;financial security section from
ZO added instead
Section 10
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
"` ' °
title only
A
6.14.10
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the LIDO 36
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
B
Fee
6.14.10
Section 11
LAND USE PLANNING PROVISIONS
not included; does not include regulations
Section 12
JURISDICTION -WIDE AND INTER -LOCAL APPROACHES
6.14.3
Section 13
JURISDICTION -WIDE AND INTER -LOCAL COLLECTION OF
ILLEGAL DISCHARGE INFORMATION
6.14.12
Section 14
ILLEGAL DISCHARGES
6.14.12
A
Discharge Prohibitions
6.14.12
B
Allowable Discharges
6.14.12
C
Prohibited Discharges
6.14.12
D
Prohibition of Illegal Connections
6.14.12
E
Spills
6.14.12
Section 15
INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
9.9.1
A
Site Inspections
9.9.1
B
Notice of Right to Inspect Shall ........
9.9.1
C
Authority to Enter Property and Conduct Investigations and
Inspections
9.9.1
D
Notice of Violation
9.9.1
E
Power to Require Statements
9.9.1
F
Stop Work Orders
9.9.1
G
Appeal of Stop Work Order
2.24.10
Section 16
PENALTIES
9.9.2
A
Civil Penalties
9.9.2
Section 17
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
9.9.3
Section 18
COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
6.14.9
Section 19
SEVERABILITY
1,1,16
Section 20
EFFECTIVE DATE
qnnecessary
Section 21
REVISIONS TO THIS ORDINANCE
2.8.11
,
Appendix 1
6,; 14.7
proposed for deletion ;calculations must be
done in accordance with methodologies
roved by NO DWQ
Appendix 2
6.14.E
SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
ORDINANCE
'
1
TITLE
6, "
2
PURPOSES
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 37 ca
CA)
Comparative Table [This Table shows wherein the UDO document existing ordinance text is :ocated] N
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
2.1
Findings of Fact Relating to Sedimentation and Erosion in University
Lake, Cane Creek, and Upper Eno Watersheds
6.15.1
2.2
Objections of Regulations Applicable to University Lake, Cane Creek,
and Upper Eno Watersheds
6.15.1
3
DEFINITIONS
Article 10
4
JURISDICTION AND EFFECT
6.15.2
5
SCOPE AND EXCLUSIONS COUNTY WIDE
6.15.4
6
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AREAS OTHER THAN
UNIVERSITY LAKE, CANE CREEK, AND UPPER ENO
WATERSHEDS
6.15.5
A
Protection of Property
6.15.5
B
Erosion Control Plan Requirement
6.15.5
6.1
General Requirements for University Lake, Cane Creek, and Upper
Eno Watersheds
6.15.6
A
Plan Requirement
6.15.6
B
Plan Waiver
6.15.6
C
Protection of Property
6.15.6
7
BASIC CONTROL OBJECTIVES
6.15.7
A
Identify Critical Areas
6.15.7
B
Plan for Erosion Control
6.15.7
C
Limit Exposed Areas
6.15.7
D
Limit Time of Exposure
6.15.7
E
Control Surface Water
6. 15.7
F
Control Sedimentation
6.15.7
G
Manage Stormwater Runoff
6.15.7
8
MANDATORY DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
LAND- DISTURBING ACTIVITY
6.15.7
A
Buffer Zone
6.15.7
B
Graded Slopes and Fills
6.15.7
C
Ground Cover
6.15.7
D
Desi n and Performance of Control Measures
6.15.7
E
Prior Plan Approval
6.15.7
8.1
Additional Standards for Land - Disturbing Activity in University Lake,
Cane Creek, and Upper Eno Watersheds
6.15.7
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 38
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
9
STORMWATER OUTLET PROTECTION
6.15.8
A
Control of Discharge in University Lake, Cane Creek, and Upper Eno
Watersheds
6.15.8
B
Control of Velocity
6.15.8
C
Standards
6.15.8
10
BORROW AND WASTE AREAS
6.15.7
11
ACCESS AND HAUL ROADS
6.15.7
12
OPERATIONS IN LAKES OR OTHER NATURAL WATERCOURSES
6.15.7
13
RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE
6.15.9
13.1
Off -site Facilities
6.15.9
14
ADDITIONAL MEASURES
6.15.9
15
EXISTING UNCOVERED AREAS
6.15.10
A
Existing Sites
6.15.10
B
Notice of Violation
6.15.10
C
Plan Requirements
6.15.10
D
Reservoir Sites
6.15.10
16
EROSION CONTROL OFFICER
1.11
17
PERMITS
2.18
—
A
When Required
2.18
B
Erosion Control Plan Approvals
2.18
C
Land Disturbing Permits
2.18
D
Expiration of Permits
2.18
E
Fees
2.2
F
Building Permits
2.18
G
Revocation of Land Disturbing Permit
2.18
18
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLANS
2.19
A
Plan Requirement
2.19
B
Review by the Soil & Water Conservation District
2.19
C
Review and Response to Plans
2.19
D
Plan Content
2.19
E
Plan Amendments
2.19
F
Statement of Ownership and Financial Responsibility
2.19
G
IReview of Other Environmental Documents
2.19, 9.8.5
39
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO j
w
_w
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located] 4�b
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
H
Consideration of Applicants Past Performance
2.19
1
Erosion Control Plan Available on Site
2.19
18.1
Erosion Control Standards
6.15.3
A
Orange County Standards
6.15.3
B
Revisions to the Standards
6.15.3
C
Consistency Between Ordinance and Standards
6.15.3
19
APPEALS
2.24.8
A
Appeal Process
2.24.8
B
Appeal of Erosion Control Plan
2.19.11
20
COMPLIANCE WITH PLAN REQUIREMENTS
6.15.2
21
INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATION
9.8
A
Site Inspections
9.8.1
B
Authority to Enter Property and Conduct Investigations and
Inspections
9.8.1
C
Notice of Violation
9.8.1
D
Power to Require Statements
9.8.1
E
Power to Revoke Land Disturbing Permits
9.8.1
F
Stop Work Orders
9.8.1
G
Appeal of Stop Work Order
2.24.8 E
22
PENALTIES
9.8.2
A
Civil Penalties
9.8.2
B
Criminal Penalties
9.8.2
23
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
9.8.3
A
Civil Action in Superior Court
9.8.3
B
Order to Cease Violation
9.8.3
24
RESTORATION OF AREAS AFFECTED BY FAILURE TO COMPLY
9.8.4
25
SEVERABILITY
1.1.16
26
EFFECTIVE DATE
unnecessary
27
REVISION TO THIS ORDINANCE
2.8.10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE
y x.
1
PURPOSE
6.16.1
2
APPLICABILITY
(title only)
2.1
Exemptions
6.16.2
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 40
Comparative Table [This Table shows where in the UDO document existing ordinance text is located]
Existing
Article/
Section
TITLE
New Article/ Section
NOTES
2.2
Environmental Assessment
6.16.3
2.3
Environmental Impact Statement
6.16.4
3
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
2.23
3.1
Review of Environmental Assessment
2.23.1
3.2
Review of Environmental Impact Statements
2.23.2
4
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EIS
6.16.4
4.1
Purpose
6.16.4
4.2
Requirements
6.16.4
4.2.1
Format and Content
6.16.4
5
ENFORCEMENT
Article 9
general text for all enforcement of the UDO
5.1
Injunctions and Equitable Relief
Article 9
5.2
Effect on Other Permits and Actions
2.23.2(B), 2.23.2(F)
6
DEFINITIONS
Article 10
7
EFFECTIVE DATE
Unnqcessary
9
Grey shading in a cell means the section is not included in the UDO 41 w
A
Cn
Attachment 5
317
Economic Development Districts
Name Changes and Zoning District Name Changes
Economic Development Districts - Proposed Name Changes
Proposed Name
Current Name
Buckhorn Economic Development District
1 -85 /Buckhorn Road District
Hillsborough Economic Development District
1 -40 /Old NC 86 District (but the
Appendix to the EDD Design Manual
refers to it as "Hillsborough Area"
Eno Economic Development District
1- 85 /U.S. Highway 70 District
Economic Development Zoning Districts
— Proposed Name Changes
Proposed Name
Current Name
EDBA (Economic Development Buckhorn
1 -85 /Buckhorn Road District "Secondary
Lower Intensity)
Develo ment Area"
EDB -2 (Economic Development Buckhorn
1 -85 /Buckhorn Road District "Primary
Higher Intensity)
Development Area" — depicted as "EDD" on the
Zoning Atlas
EDE -1 (Economic Development Eno Lower
1- 85 /U.S. Highway 70 District "Secondary
Intensity)
Development Area" — depicted as EDD -S on the
Zoning Atlas
EDE -2 (Economic Development Eno Higher
1- 85 /U.S. Highway 70 District "Primary
Intensity)
Development Area" — depicted as EDD -P on the
Zoning Atlas
EDHA (Economic Development Hillsborough
ED -LNR (Economic Development — Linear
Linear Office )
Office
EDH -2 (Economic Development Hillsborough
ED -LO -1 (Economic Development —Limited
Limited Office )
Office no residential
EDH -3 (Economic Development Hillsborough
ED -LO -2 (Economic Development — Limited
Linear Office with Residential )
Office with residential 1 -8 units density])
EDH -4 (Economic Development Hillsborough
ED-0 (Economic Development — Office)
Office
EDH -5 (Economic Development Hillsborough
ED -FLX (Economic Development — Office /Flex)
Office /Flex
The creation of these unique zoning districts by area will allow, in future phases, specific
analysis of land use mixes and associated processes and standards. This zoning
district labeling system will permit the BOCC to tailor certain areas for targeted
businesses and /or unique conditions of the area.
'Note: No land is currently zoned in this classification
In Is t"URMI
,. 1 v
Dranae Countv Zoning - Buckhorn EDD
ow
—mmm w 0
own SM",
RON AN
+'� a `
JAW"
1411lip
Dranae Countv Zoning -Eno EDD
It1 =1.
iffl-al I
Attachment 6 325
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Planning Board
FROM: Orange County Planning Staff
DATE: November 8, 2010
RE: ISSUE PAPER Explanation of specific revisions /policy statements
contained within the proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
The following document outlines the rationale for modification(s) or explanations of existing
regulations for placement within the proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
specifically:
I. Modification of Planning Board duties
II. Processing Letters of Map Revision (LOMB)
Ill. Regulations governing the vacation of subdivision plats
IV. Time line for the re- submittal of withdrawn development proposals
I. MODIFICATION OF PLANNING BOARD DUTIES:
The responsibilities of the Planning Board are articulated within North Carolina General
Statutes (NCGS) 153A -321, which reads as follows:
A county may by ordinance create or designate one or more boards or
commissions to perform the following duties:
(1) Make studies of the county and surrounding areas,
(2) Determine objectives to be sought in the development of the
study area;
(3) Prepare and adopt plans for achieving these objectives,
(4) Develop and recommend policies, ordinances, administrative
procedures, and other means for carrying out plans in a
coordinated and efficient manner;
(5) Advise the board of commissioners conceming the use and
amendment of means for carrying out plans,
(6) Exercise any functions in the administration and enforcement of
various means for carrying out plans that the board of
commissioners may direct;
(7) Perform any other related duties that the board of
commissioners may direct.
The current Orange County Zoning Ordinance lists the duties of the Planning Board in
two separate sections, Sections 2.2.10 and 2.2.11. Existing language within Section
2.2.10 mirrors State Statute language while Section 2.2.11 appears to redefine and
reshape the various duties. Staff and at times the Planning Board have expressed that
326
the more the language is consistent with the language contained within NCGS the
better. It is unnecessary to continuously redefine the duties of the Planning Board to fit
particular situations when the existing statutory language provides the flexibility for the
Board of County Commissioners to assign additional duties to the Planning Board to
address specific issues as they arise.
Staff has determined that the language contained within Section 2.2.11 is unnecessary.
Sections 2.2.10 and 2.2.11 have been revised and combined in Section 1.6.3 of the
proposed LIDO. Additional language requested by the Planning Board pertaining to its work
on the Comprehensive Plan was also added. The revised language eliminates the
duplication currently within the Zoning Ordinance and is more consistent with NCGS 153A-
321.
II. PROCESSING LETTERS OF MAP REVISION (LOMB)
On the advice of the former County Attorney, the existing Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance was incorporated into the Orange County Zoning Ordinance in 2009. This
amendment also involved the incorporation of data from the Federal Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM) onto the official Zoning Atlas as an overlay district, specifically the Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay District. While the FIRM maps still exist as the chief source of
flood mapping data, the Planning Department refers to the SFHA on the Zoning Atlas as the
definitive regulatory location of protected flood areas for County residents.
As defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) there are two
processes for modifying existing flood mapping data:
1. Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA): LOMA is a process that allows a
property owner to submit details certifying that a structure, such as a house,
barn, or accessory structure, is not located within an identified floodplain due
to inaccurate mapping or the presence of fill material on -site that sufficiently
elevates a structure out of the floodplain. A LOMA does not involve a
modification to a FIRM map (i.e. altering floodplain data) as it focuses only on
the physical characteristics of a given structure within the floodplain.
2. Letter of Map Revision (LOMR): LOMR is a process that allows a property
owner to challenge the viability of floodplain data as shown on a FIRM based
on additional study and /or examination of a given area. This type of study
can entail the review of proposed land development activities (i.e. road beds
and bridges) or a comprehensive re- assessment of hydrologic data utilized in
completing a FIRM. A LOMR does involve the modification to a FIRM map.
Both processes require the services of a licensed land surveyor to prepare all required
documentation necessary to complete the application, including elevation certificates,
hydrologic studies, verification of base flood elevations, and identification of 'true'
ground elevations.
As the FIRM's have now been incorporated onto the official Zoning Atlas as an overlay
district, a question has arisen about how map revision requests would be processed as part
of the UDO. For a LOMA, as there is no modification to existing floodplain data, there is no
additional review process necessary under the County's current Zoning Ordinance or
proposed LIDO. With a LOMR, as there is a physical modification to existing floodplain data,
327
a property owner must apply for a Zoning Atlas amendment to formally amend the existing
SFHA overlay District as shown of the Official Zoning Atlas. The process to revise the
Zoning Atlas, to recognize a LOMB approved by FEMA, is as follows:
1. A 'no impact' analysis must be completed in accordance with FEMA policies,
including the public notification of affected property owners
2. The applicant shall submit to the County documentation from FEMA stating that a
LOMR had been approved and shall include the actual modification of the floodplain
data authorized for the property /area
3. The applicant shall submit an application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment to modify
the SFHA Overlay District
4. The Zoning Atlas amendment application shall be heard by the Board of County
Commissioners and the Planning Board at a Quarterly Public Hearing
5. The application shall be forwarded to the Planning Board for review and
recommendation
6. Recommendations shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for
consideration. The Board of County Commissioners shall approve or deny the
Zoning Atlas amendment.
The process would take approximately four to six months to complete and is consistent for
all Zoning Atlas amendments.
It should be noted that even without the development of the UDO, the process would be the
same, as the County elected to incorporate the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and
FIRM data into the Zoning Ordinance /Atlas as recommended by the former County
Attorney. The proposed UDO does not include modifications to the existing Zoning Atlas
petition process detailed within the Zoning Ordinance.
III. REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE VACATION OF SUBDIVISION PLATS
There are currently no regulations or specific standards governing the modification or
vacation of a previously approved and recorded plat in the Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision
Regulations. Staff has made the interpretation that an applicant must go back through the
normal review and approval process to revise a recorded plat. While effective, staff has
developed concerns over how proposals are processed, what information is required, and
the impacts proposed revisions may have on the dedication of property (i.e. future school
locations, roadways, etc). A more formal process was deemed necessary to safeguard the
County and applicants from haphazard and inconsistent requirements or interpretations on
what would be necessary to complete a request.
New regulations have been proposed within Section 2.17 of the UDO to address these
concerns. This section establishes a formal submittal and review process that accomplishes
the following:
1. Requires a narrative of the application request and legal description of the area
sought for alteration,
2. Formalizes current interpretations regarding the abandonment of dedicated areas
(i.e. public streets, property, open space, etc) and establishes formal approval criteria
328
3. Establishes language intended to protect the rights of non - consenting property
owners while at the same time allowing for reasonable modifications to existing,
approved /recorded, plats, and
4. Provides a notification procedure where all parties to the project are informed and
involved with the process.
With the proposed additional language in the UDO the intent is to avoid future conflicts by
formalizing a process that has been established by general interpretation of existing
regulations.
IV. TIME LINE FOR THE RE- SUBMITTAL OF WITHDRAWN DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSALS
Current regulations, specifically Section 20.9 of the Zoning Ordinance, establish a minimum
period of one year from the date an application is withdrawn to the date is may be
resubmitted for consideration.
Discussion amongst members of the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Board
have led staff to believe there may be an interest in revising the regulations to require a
shorter waiting period before a withdrawn application can be re- submitted for consideration
by the County. BOCC members indicated existing regulations needed some flexibility to
address the County's desire to be proactive in working with developers who choose to
withdraw a development application in an effort to address deficiencies or concerns
expressed by staff or the public and not establish arbitrary impediments to the development
review process.
The existing standard, to be located within Section 2.2.8 of the proposed UDO, does not
include any proposed revisions at this time. However, distinctions on the established time
limit for the re- submittal of a withdrawn application based on when the application is
withdrawn could be considered. For example, an application withdrawn prior to the
advertising of the Quarterly Public Hearing to revise the item could be re- submitted within six
months for scheduling at a future hearing while an application withdrawn after the holding of
a public hearing could only be submitted after one year has passed.
Another option to consider would be to permit a developer to revise a development
application to address comments received during a public hearing if the following process
were adhered to:
1. During the public hearing an applicant requests the withdrawal of the application to
address concerns identified by BOCC, the Planning Board, and /or the general public,
2. The BOCC authorizes the withdrawal of the application,
3. The revised application is scheduled for a future public hearing, within a specified
timeframe, and
4. The applicant shall pay for the re- advertising of the public hearing, including any
required mailings, and the appropriate staff review fee.
Modifications to the existing time limits could be incorporated in the UDO at the direction of
the Board of County Commissioners.