HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2011-013 Unified Development Ordinance and Repeal All Existing Ordinances See ON line VersionRES-2011-032
ORD-2011-013
~'-~5~-~~/J
~ ~-
RESOLUTION
OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TO ADOPT A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND REPEAL ALL EXISTING
ORDINANCES NOW INCORPORATED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, pursuant to the statutory authorities provided in the North Carolina Generai
Statutes, specifically, Chapter 153A, Article 18; Chapter 4; Chapter 160A, Article 19;
Chapter 39, Articles 5 and 5(a); and Chapter 47, Article 2, Section 30; Orange County
may establish comprehensive development regulations for designated portions of
Orange County and provide for administration, enforcement, and amendment thereof;
and
WHEREAS, under the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, Orange County
staff, with the assistance of a consultant, has been working since August 2009 on
consolidating existing County land development ordinances into a UDO with specific
changes authorized by the Board ~f County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, numerous public input meetings were held to provide information to the
public and the opportunity to comment; and
WHEREAS, staff produced a draft UDO in August 2010 upon which the public, Board of
Commissioners, and Planning Board commented; and
WHEREAS, staff produced a Public Hearing Draft UDO in November 2010 which
incorporated many of the comments made on the August 2010 draft; and
WHEREAS, two public hearings have been held whereby the Board of County
Commissioners and Planning Board heard formal public comment; and
WHEREAS, after significant review work by the Planning Board, the Planning Board has
recommended that the Board of Commissioners adopt the November 2010 Public
Hearing Draft with the revisions contained in Attachment 2 of this agenda item abstract
to be incorporated into the UDO; and
WHEREAS, the UDO is consistent with the goals and objectives of the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners that the November 2010 Public Hearing Draft of the UDO, with staff to
incorporate the revisions contained in Attachments 2, 3, and 3A of this agenda item
abstract, is hereby adopted and the following existing Orange County ordinances are
hereby repealed: Zoning Ordinance, including the Economic Development Districts
Design Manual; Subdivision Regulations; Environmental Impact Ordinance; Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; and Stormwater Ordinance.
RES-2011-032
ORD-2011-013
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foilowing text is to be added to Section 1.6.2 as
subsection (G):
The Board of County Commissioners may by resolution establish rules
related to tenure and membership expectations. If the terms of such
resolution, or policy created thereby, conflict with the terms of this section
1.6.1 or 1.6.2 the terms of the resolution or policy shall control.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is directed to produce the final version of the
UDO with all "track changes" components (strikethrough text, color coded text) shown in
final form (i.e., removed if noted with strikethrough or normalized text color if color
coded) and with all footnoted explanations/references to prior ordinances removed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is authorized to correct any typographical
errors, section reference errors, or spelling errors found during final production of the
UDO.
The Unified Development Ordinance and repeal of the existing ordinances shall become
effective upon approval of this Resolution.
Ad ted y the Orange County Board of Commissioners this ~ day of
, 2011.
~
Ayes: ~
Noes: ~ ~ ~'~n~~ . ~J'~-''/~~,
e= ~
~;a~~~ °~frp~°.
.e..~- _~'~
~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ;
~ 17 ~ ~; _.a 52
F'^ ~ ~
~
' ~~
onna Baker, Clerk to BOCC ~~
~th ~* a'~'~`~
Q~~.~~,#~c~/.3
b. Appointments - None !~.-~ ~Q' l ~
7 ~
c. Motor Vehicle Propertv Tax Release/Refunds
The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 70
requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with NCGS.
d. UNC - Chapel Hill Landfill Gas Proiect Pipeline Easement Aqreement
The Board approved easements as requested by the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
(UNC) for a gas line to be installed between the Orange County Landfill and the engine
generator to be constructed at the southeast corner of the parking lot of UNC's Printing
Services Building located at the northwest corner of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and
Homestead Road intersection in Chapel Hill and authorize the Chair to sign.
e. Communitv Development Block Grant Proqram - Adoption of Section 3 Plan and
Epual Emplovment and Procurement Plan
The Board adopted the Section 3 Plan and Equal Employment and Procurement Plan for the
FY 2010 Community Development Block Grant Award and authorized the Chair to sign.
f. Requests for Road Additions to the State Maintained Secondarv Road Svstem
The Board approved forwarding a recommendation to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) concerning petitions to add subdivision roads in Efland Estates
Section 2 Subdivision (Cain Drive) and High Rock Village Subdivision (Virginia Lee Lane,
Sunglow Court, Stacy Court) to the State Maintained Secondary Road System.
g, Memorandum of Aqreement (MOA) between the Town of Hillsborouqh and Oranqe
Countv for the Hillsborouph Circulator Transit Service
The Board approved a Memorandum of Agreement between the Town of Hillsborough and
Orange County for Orange Public Transportation service for a Hillsborough Circulator bus and
authorized the Manager to sign.
h. Schools Adeauate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFOI - Receipt and Transmittal of
2011 Annual Technical Advisorv Committee Report
The Board received the 2011 Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee and
transmitted it to the SAPFO partners for comments before certification in June 2011 and
authorized the Chair to sign the transmittal letter.
i. Central Efland - Phase 2/Northern Buckhorn Easements
The Board authorized County Staff to negotiate for the private easements required to construct
and maintain the Central Efland and Northern Buckhorn sewer extensions.
6. Items Removed From Consent Aqenda
None
7. Public Hearinqs
a. Adoption of Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
The Board considered receiving the Planning Board's recommendation regarding
adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance and to take action on the UDO, closing the
public hearing, and adopting the Resolution of Approval.
Planning Director Craig Benedict said that this is the night where the Board of County
Commissioners will be accepting the Planning Board's recommendation. This is a culmination
of 20 months worth of work that was initialized in August 2009. He made reference to the
documents for this item - a modified resolution and a sketch (Attachment 3-a). He gave a
chronology of events with the UDO. There were two suggestions made in response to public
and County Commissioner input. One was linking the UDO and its new regulations more
closely to the Comprehensive Plan. There was some language taken from the previous zoning
ordinance and the Planning Board thought that the language in the UDO was adequate as it
~
stands tonight. Attachment 3 includes suggestions from the County Attorney regarding
evaluating the members of advisory boards. Also, on page 190, there is a response document
to Commissioner Gordon's concerns.
Chair Pelissier said that there are also items from the County Attorney.
John Roberts said that this is on page 76. This is regarding the advisory board policy.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Jeremy Browner is a resident of Carrboro. He offered his support and said that he
hoped the Board of County Commissioners would pass this document tonight. The County
sorely needs this document to be passed to help with economic development.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
approve the Manager's recommendation, with the inclusion of the additional Article 1.6.2 and
the addition of Attachment 3-a.
1) Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval of the November 2010
Public Hearing Draft of the UDO with the revisions contained in Attachment 2(pp 6-
72).
2) Receive the staff and attorney-recommended revisions contained in Attachment 3
(Pp 74-79).
3) Close the public hearing.
4) Adopt the Resolution of Approval provided at Attachment 1.
PUBLIC COMMENT AGAIN:
Marilee McTique said that she is a 20-year resident of rural Orange County. She said
that she made comments at the QPH and she did read this entire document. She supports the
UDO adoption.
Commissioner Jacobs asked some clarifying questions. On page 10 at the top, #2, and
the criteria for reviewing conditional use development application. He asked about "substantial
justice" and said that he does not know how he would interpret this. Craig Benedict said that
this was some suggested language and it is not substantive.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that, since right after that it says, "ensure equitable
treatment," then this language should be used instead of "substantial justice" because it is less
confusing.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 12, item d-2, and said that there have
been discussions about how in a rural area a 500-foot notice is not adequate. He asked when
this will be addressed.
Craig Benedict said that this will be addressed subsequently.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 13, PID District Specific Development
Standards, #3, and he read, "residential uses are not permitted in this district." He said that he
is involved in a foundation that exists around the residential use in a public interest district. He
asked if this would apply to this foundation.
Craig Benedict said that if it does exist it would be grandfathered in.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 198, Zoning Ordinance Section 7.4.1
where it says, "conditional districts shall be located in proximity to interstate highways, arterial
and collector streets or mass transit facilities, and shall be designed to provide direct access to
such facilities." He said that you cannot have direct access to an interstate. He asked what
was meant by "direct access."
~
Craig Benedict said that it is access through those other arterial and collector streets.
This wording can be taken out.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 197 regarding conditional districts in the
University Lake Watershed Overlay District, Cane Creek and Upper Eno Proteced and Critical
Areas, and the Rural Buffer, is that they are already allowed.
Craig Benedict said that Conditional Districts are not allowed in the critical area
overlays.
Perdita Holtz said that it has to do with the fact that the subdivision regulations require
that subdivisions of a certain threshold be approved through a planned development process,
which is now becoming a conditional use process. It would be problematic to say that you
cannot do conditional use in these areas because it would be a big change to the subdivision
process as it currently exists.
Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff and the Planning Board for their work.
Commissioner Jacobs made a friendly amendment to the motion to delete the words,
"ensure that substantial justice is done."
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he does not want to wordsmith this document and he
cannot be in favor of not ensuring substantial justice. He said that this can be addressed in
Phase 2.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would be satisfied if someone made a note about
this for Phase 2.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1(Commissioner Gordon)
Chair Pelissier echoed what Commissioner Jacobs said to the Planning Board and she
suggested that, on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, she write a letter to the Chair
of the Planning Board thanking them for their work on the UDO. Commissioner Hemminger
seconded this.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
RESOLUTION
OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TD ADOPT A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND REPEAL ALL EXISTING
ORDINANCES NOW /NCORPORATED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORD/NANCE
WHEREAS, pursuant to the statutory authorities provided in the North Carolina General
Statutes, specifically, Chapter 153A; Article 18; Chapter 4; Chapter 160A, Article 19; Chapter
39, Articles 5 and 5(a); and Chapter 47, Article 2, Section 30; Orange County may establish
comprehensive development regulations for designated portions of Orange County and provide
for administration, enforcement, and amendment thereof; and
WHEREAS, under the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, Orange County staff,
with the assistance of a consultant, has been working since August 2009 on consolidating
existing County land development ordinances into a UDO with specific changes authorized by
the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, numerous public input meetings were held to provide information to the public and
the opportunity to comment; and
WHEREAS, staff produced a draft UDO in August 2010 upon which the public, Board of
Commissioners, and Planning Board commented; and
WHEREAS, staff produced a Public Hearing Draft UDO in November 2010 which incorporated
many of the comments made on the August 2010 draft; and
WHEREAS, two public hearings have been held whereby the Board of County Commissioners
and Planning Board heard formal public comment; and
WHEREAS, after significant review work by the Planning Board, the Planning Board has
recommended that the Board of Commissioners adopt the November 2010 Public Hearing Draft
with the revisions contained in Attachment 2 of this agenda item abstract to be incorporated into
the UDO; and
WHEREAS, the UDO is consistent with the goals and objectives of the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
the November 2010 Public Hearing Draft of the UDO, with staff to incorporate the revisions
contained in Attachments 2, 3, and 3A of this agenda item abstract, is hereby adopted and the
following existing Orange County ordinances are hereby repealed: Zoning Ordinance, including
the Economic Development Districts Design Manual; Subdivision Regulations; Environmental
Impact Ordinance; Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; and Stormwater
Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following text is to be added to Section 1.6.2 as
subsection (G):
The Board of County Commissioners may by resolution establish rules related to
tenure and membership expectations. If the terms of such resolution, or policy
created thereby, conflict with the terms of this section 1.6.1 or 1.6.2 the terms of
the resolution or policy shall control.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is directed to produce the final version of the UDO with
all "track changes" components (strikethrough text, color coded text) shown in final form (i.e.,
removed if noted with strikethrough or normalized text color if color coded) and with all
footnoted explanations/references to prior ordinances removed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is authorized to correct any typographical errors,
section reference errors, or spelling errors found during final production of the UDO.
The Unified Development Ordinance and repeal of the existing ordinances shall become
effective upon approval of this Resolution.
b. Public Hearinq to Consider Proposed Uses of Possible Funds from a
November 8, 2011 Special Advisorv Referendum Concerninp the Lew of a One-Quarter
Cent (1/4~) Countv Sales and Use Tax
The Board held a public hearing on potential uses for a One-Quarter Cent (1/4¢) County
additional Sales and Use Tax.
~~-i3-~o i/
D,~,~ ~o~~ -oy~ ~e.
e. Study/Assessment for Emerqencv Medical Services and E911
Communications Center and Aaproval of Budqet Amendment #5-B
The Board considered a recommendation regarding the County's Emergency Medical
Services System and E911 Communications Center by contracting with Solutions for the Local
Government, Inc., for $26,400 to assist the department in developing a multiyear strategic plan
addressing Emergency Medical Service System and E911 Communication Center needs;
approving Budget Amendment #5-Bto appropriate $26, 400 of Emergency Telephone System
Fund Balance for professional services to compete the proposed scope of services; and
authorizing the Manager to sign the sign the contract with Solutions for Local Government, Inc.
Michael Talbert said that when they met on November 17th there were discussions about
the E911 system and the Emergency Medical system. The EMS system is averaging 14,000
calls annually. There are several phases and one of the goals is to decrease response times,
enhance the first responders' safety, and ensure system backup. The County has asked a
local company in Charlotte, North Carolina called Solutions for Government. Steve Allen is the
President of this company. The work would involve two studies - one for Emergency Medical
and one for the 911 Center. There would be a thorough evaluation of what currently exists.
The total cost for both plans would be $26,400.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Bill Waddell was speaking as a long time Paramedic that serves on the South Orange
Rescue Squad and speaking for the rural fire departments.
"We do not support a third consultant study and ask that you please not approve the
project.
"Please give the workgroup a chance to discuss the issues and agree on the
improvements that are needed. We do not believe that we need the help of a consultant at this
time. As you mentioned in November, we need real solutions now.
"For starters, the workgroup can quickly figure out where to site an ambulance in the
northern part of the county. There aren't that many options. In addition, given the contacts
that the fire chiefs and SORS have with medical directors all over the state, we should quickly
be able to get good benchmarks comparing Orange County to other emergency medical fleets
in North Carolina.
"We also believe that we need to take a hard look at the call center CAD system and
radios to understand the impact of replacing them - sooner than 2013/14 as the county
suggested and possibly as soon as next year.
"Please let us work on all of this before you consider engaging a consultant.
We'd like to invite you all to join us to visit the call center in Alamance County where they are
handling double the call volume (360,000 calls per year) with the same size staff as Orange
County. We suspect that their technology investment is contributing favorably to their low cost
operation and average response time of 9 minutes. They replaced their CAD system in 2009.
Compared to other counties, we expect to find that our call center problems and ambulance
fleet problems are routine. Rather than pay a consultant, we'd prefer to work with our
neighbors and learn from their experiences. IYs a win for everyone.
"Please let us get to work and come back to you with recommendations that make
sense and work for Orange County. Please don't ask us to wait for another consulting study.
There is too much to do and there is much at stake. Thank you."
Commissioner Jacobs asked to hear from Emergency Services Director Frank Montes
de Oca about his opinion on Mr. Waddell's comments.
Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca said that the County does need to
engage with its users - both the volunteer groups and the professional groups. There needs to
be some focused gathering of data and a consultant would have a third-party perspective. He
said that a lot of the equipment is aging and it is expensive to replace these.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she liked the idea of data gathering from a third
party.
Commissioner McKee asked Frank Montes de Oca if a delay of six weeks or two
months was going to be a problem while the work group looks at this. His inclination is to delay
this until after the work group reviews this and makes a recommendation.
Frank Montes de Oca said that a two-month delay would not be good. A two to four
week delay would be ok.
Commissioner Yuhasz echoed Commissioner McKee's comments and said that he
appreciated the value of a third party to review this, but the work group could define a scope.
He suggested having a report by the second meeting in February.
Frank Clifton said that Orange County previously hired a consultant that had no
experience in N.C. and no one was happy with the outcome of this study. All this study did was
to provide to the County an inventory.
Commissioner Gordon said that it is important to define the parameters of the study.
She said that it is important to be organized in how the data are analyzed. She said that she is
convinced that they should wait to get some outside perspective.
Michael Talbert said that the budget and capital investment plan will be presented to the
Board as a first draft in early March. In reality, the group will not start with any data collection
until early March. The capital investment plan may have some guesses incorporated.
Chair Pelissier said that she would like to suggest proceeding with this and having the
consultant to work with the work group. She said that it is really the consultant defining the
scope of work and planning details and not so much the County.
Commissioner Jacobs asked the Sheriff if he had any comments. Sheriff Pendergrass
said that he fully supported the Manager and Michael Talbert.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he wants to make sure that the consultant is looking for
the right things.
Commissioner McKee said that the County Commissioners has delegated a great deal
of responsibility to this work group. He thinks that the County Commissioners can delegate a
quick review of this study to the work group as one of its first priorities. His concern is that this
group is responsible from the beginning of being involved in defining parameters and solutions.
Commissioner Jacobs asked Commissioner McKee if his vision of the work group
participation relates to whether or not the County should do this study or to help guide the
parameters of the study. Commissioner McKee said that his vision is for the work group to help
guide the parameters of the study.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would rather the County Commissioners direct it to
the group to review the charge and not whether the County would need a consultant.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
delay implementation of the study and direct it to the work group to review the parameters and
come back with a recommendation by February 7tn
Frank Clifton asked Steve Allen if he would be available to do this project in six weeks.
Steve Allen said that the 8-10 week time frame was based on an early January start and
it would depend on when Orange County was able to proceed. He already has other offers. He
said that citizen involvement is very important.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
f. Creation of a Non-Profit Corporation to Manaqe the Oqerations of the
Piedmont Food and Aariculture Processina Center