The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutORD-2003-143 a. Text amendments to require a subdivision located in more than one zoning district, including a subdivision located in more than one overlay district or a subdivision located in a non-overlay district and an overlay district, to go throu081 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD 3 - �- PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 24, 2003 Action Agenda Item No. a: . SUBJECT: Text Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance — Proposed Subdivisions Within Multiple Zoning Districts DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Craig Benedict, Planning Director Ext 2592 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Durham 688 -7331 Mebane 336- 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To hear citizen and public comments regarding the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance requiring planned development review processes in certain multi- zoning district cases. BACKGROUND: During discussions involving the Growth Management System, adopted November 5, 2003, there was a request made by the BOCC to consider requiring subdivisions located in multiple zoning districts, including a subdivision located in more than one overlay district or a subdivision located in a non- overlay district and an overlay district, to go through the planned development rezoning process. The proposed planned development rezoning requirement in these cases would promote consistency in the design of subdivisions that may be located in multiple zoning districts. Often different districts have varying impervious area and /or density requirements and occasionally different land use restrictions. The rezoning process permits a comprehensive review of an area. If the entire area of the subdivision uses the more restrictive zoning requirements, then the need for the planned development process is unnecessary to resolve varying and inconsistent zoning regulations. The subdivision, depending on the number of lots and location within the County (rural or urban), would still be subject to those Planned Development/Special Use review thresholds. GAComprehensive Planning Div \GENEg003 Public Hearings\Nov 24\Subdivs Multiple Zoning Dists\Abstract 111203.doc 0 S 2 2' Process 1) Public Hearing to be held on November 24, 2003. 2) Planning Board to make recommendation to BOCC. 3) BOCC makes final decision FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no public financial impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning Staff recommends Approval of the amendments. Administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation retumed to the BOCC no sooner than January 26, 2004. GACornprehensive Planning Div \GENE\2003 Public Hearings\Nov 24\Subdivs Multiple Zoning Dists\Abstract 111203.doc Ordinance to Public Hearing Sold = Proposed Language Sb*ethmugh = Deleted Language An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of Orange County Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. ZONING ORDINANCE. Amend Article 4.1 by inserting the following after the last paragraph of Article 4.1: ** Within all districts certain subdivisions of land must meet additional requirements and be approved either as a Class A Special Use or as a Planned Development, Class A Special Use as follows: 4) Major Subdivisions which lie in more than one zoning district, including a subdivision located in more than one overlay district or a subdivision located in a non - overlay district and an overlay district are required to be processed as a planned development and special use application. The subdivision meeting the above conditions shall be classified as a Major Subdivision, Planned Development/Class A Special Use Rural Designated or Major Subdivision, Planned Development/Class A Special Use Urban Designated depending on location. If the subdivision application submittal proposes a design employing the more restrictive of the multi- district zoning regulations, then the subdivision proposal is excluded from this specific provision. Other processes and requirements of the zoning and subdivision regulations remain in full force and effect irrespective of this exclusion if used. Section 2. ZONING ORDINANCE Amend Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table, by amending the following notes on each page of the permitted use table: Major Subdivisions which lie in more than one zoning district, including a subdivision located in more than one overlay district or a subdivision located in a non - overlay district and an overlay district are required to be processed as a planned development and special use application. The subdivision meeting the above conditions shall be classified as a Major Subdivision, Planned Development/Class A Special Use Rural Designated or Major Subdivision, Planned Development/Class A Special Use Urban Designated depending on location. (.;:, ('cmtptChensite i lamting I)ia`-.GE=NFii2QU3 N(tblic ticaritigs,Nk) v 24` tibdivs Muliiple /A>niiin I ?ists`,Subdivisiklm Multi le lovin Dis Oa'din:�itcc^.clnC O 3 034. Ordinance to Public Hearing If the subdivision application submittal proposes a design employing the more restrictive of the multi - district zoning regulations, then the subdivision proposal is excluded from this specific provision. Other processes and requirements of the zoning and subdivision regulations remain in full force and effect irrespective of this exclusion if used. Section 3. This ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Section 4. That this ordinance be place in the file of published ordinances. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that this ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of Orange County' be adopted. Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this the day of , 2003. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said, Board at a meeting held on , 2003 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2003. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners <.:`Campeeh�nsi�c Planning DivinGEN11 "4043 Public ltearings'Aov 24,Subclivs Midliple Zoning Dists'4Sutiiivisinni Multiple zoning f)isi thdnuance.dnc oA0,aoeJ --eI�3 /l- �-, 4 r -/1 3 Sam Lasris: Was this their only chance to respond ?; C , �'Z, a-� Robert Davis: No, they get to go to the Planning Board. There was a public ad and also a sign posted on the property. They can still come to the Planning Board, provided" all comments are in writing after this meeting. Hunter Schofield: I think we're ready to proceed. Commissioner Gordon. Commissioner Gordon: I'm ready for a motion to accept the Planning Staff's recommendation to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment and proposed Class A Special Use Permit to the Planning Board for recommendation to be returned to the Commissioners no sooner than January 261h, 2044. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the Planning Staff's recommendation to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment and proposed Class A Special Use Permit to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than January 26, 2004. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Concurrent Text Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Orange County Subdivision Regulations a. Craig; Benedict said that this item has more specific language to clarify requirements and identify thresholds. The item is on a 'blue handout. This item came up with the discussions of the new growth management standards, which set thresholds based on location and amount of lots. There was a question when there are subdivisions that may intersect two watersheds, there are some inconsistencies between the land uses that can occur between the two overlay districts, impervious area requirements, or density changes. He pointed out a map with all of the watersheds. The hope is to have less inconsistencies among the borders and to have better transitions. This amendment is an attempt to bring forward for subdivisions that are over six lots in the major subdivision process (rezoning or special use permit process). Also, if an applicant that spans the two districts uses the lower density or the more restrictive land use regulations (impervious or land use) then they would not have to go through a rezoning process. Hunter Schofield clarified that we have now given landowners who happen to reside on a piece of property that share joint zoning jurisdictions the option of selecting a more restrictive zoning jurisdiction and developing under the rules and regulations set forth under that more restrictive zoning district. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to consider a motion to accept the Administration's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a+ recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no later than January 26, 2004,:. VOTE: UNANIMOUS