HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport - Report and Action on Growth Controls in Large Residential ProjectsORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 3, 2002
SUBJECT: Report and Action on Growth Controls in Large Residential Projects
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S):
1 June 18, 2002 BOCC Report and Action
2. Planning Board Letter of May 6, 2002.
3. Planning Staff Report — Growth Control Issues
4. Outline of Growth Control Recommendations from
County Manager, County Attorney, Planning
Director
5. Chart of Upcoming Growth Control Activities
Action Agenda
Item No. 9-6.---a
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig N. Benedict, ext. 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Chapel Hill 968 -4501
Durham 688 -7331
Mebane (336)- 227 -2031
Mebane (336)- 227 -2031
PURPOSE: To provide a report on various elements associated with the implementation growth
controls in large residential projects and provide direction to the County Attorney and Planning
Director to prepare a Special Use Process outline for major subdivisions.
BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2002, the Orange County Planning Board forwarded a letter to the
Board of County Commissioners regarding the need for growth controls (...which might include a
moratorium...) in large residential developments. This topic was also broached at a joint Board of
Commissioners / Planning Board meeting on June 6, 2002. On June 18, the Board of County
Commissioners passed a resolution (see attached) regarding what actions and issues need to be
researched prior to further deliberation. The Planning Board discussed these issues within their
purview on August 7, 2002.
The attached report outlines the preliminary findings.
Since that meeting, the County Manager, County Attorney and Planning Director have met and
formulated some recommendations for short-term actions. Long -term actions noted on the chart
include proceeding with the Unified Development Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A brief
discussion was held at the August 29, 2002 Work Session regarding this topic, but a more thorough
explanation will be forthcoming at this meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact at this time.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the information
presented and provide direction to the County Attorney and Planning Director to prepare a Special
Use Process outline for major subdivisions for the September 17, BOCC meeting.
2
REPORT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF JUNE 18, 2002, IN RESPONSE
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
'GROWTH CONTROL' LETTER OF MAY 6, 2002
PURPOSE: To direct administration to research the elements to consider while
evaluating interim growth controls on larger scale residential developments within
Orange County's planning jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2002 the Orange County Planning Board forwarded a
letter to the Board of County Commissioners regarding options to invoke [growth]
controls in large residential developments.
The Board of County Commissioners and Orange County Planning Board have
discussed in joint meeting on June 6, 2002, the need to examine the impact of large
development on the county while many comprehensive planning and regulatory
initiatives are in progress.
Important initiatives including, but not limited to, the comprehensive plan update,
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, water resource limitations, and
transportation planning are in deliberate progress.
ACTION: The County Manager, County Attorney, County Planning Director and
Planning Board are directed to:
• identify the many facets of such a proposal such as defining the size and scale of a
'large' residential project
• determine and define what'pipeline' proposals would be affected
• formulate the steps necessary (including public hearings) to pursue as an option a
limited moratorium or other growth controls,
• explore legal consideration
• research what other jurisdictions have employed in other cases
• research through Institute of Government and other government and land use
authorities the use of moratoriums to accomplish short term goals
• Planning Board and staff to research special use process for large projects and
other strategies and options
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
t,ontr
Of ®'
Administration * 306F Revere Road
(919) 245 -2575 u P O Box 8181
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX) Hillsborough,
www.co.orange.nc.us °<<6 eat" ��ps North Carolina, 27278
May 6, 2002
To the Board of Orange County Commissioners (Distribution):
Re: Orange County Planning Board
Recommendations for Controls in Large Residential Development
Dear Sir or Madam:
At the May 1, 2002 meeting for the Planning Board of Orange County, the Board put forth the following
statement to be placed before you for consideration:
In light of a forthcoming revision of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan, and
additional concerns including:
❑ Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance adoption
❑ Water resources
❑ Transportation issues
❑ High density development in the rural area
The Planning Board recommends that the Board of County Commissioners take
appropriate steps (which might include a moratorium in large residential development) to address
these concerns in a timeframe that the Board deems appropriate.
Very truly yours,
Nicole Gooding -Ray, Chair
Page 11
May 6, 2002
Distribution:
Moses Carey, Jr.
County Commissioner
901 Lystra Lane
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Margaret W. Brown
County Commissioner
1509 Smith Level Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Dr. Alice Gordon
County Commissioner
282 Edgewood Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Stephen Halkiotis
County Commissioner
2930 Franklin Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Barry Jacobs
County Commissioner
2201 Moorefields Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
ccs: John Link, County Manager Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney Planning
Board File (May 1, 2002)
5
Planning Staff Report for August 29, 2002
Board of County Commissioners Work Session
Growth Control Issues
ISSUE 1: Identify the details of a proposed moratoria including: size and scale of a large
residential project.
RESPONSE: August 7h, 2002, the Planning Board agreed to define large development
as any subdivision with 20 or more lots.
ISSUE 2: Determine what "pipeline" proposals would be affected.
RESPONSE: The Planning Board discussed three "pipeline" options at which to stop an
existing project:
1.) A subdivision that has been submitted to staff;
2.) The project's concept plan has been approved by the Planning Board;
3.) A project that has been issued a formal preliminary approval by the BOCC.
ISSUE 3: List the steps necessary to produce /implement a limited growth moratorium or
other growth control.
RESPONSE: 1. Report to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners of June
183 2002, in response to the Orange County Planning Board "Growth Control Letter of
May 6, 2002. A moratorium could be enacted in the following time frame. The length of
the moratorium would be coordinated with the completion of a unified development
ordinance which would create a special use process for major subdivisions. The Planning
Board has asked for additional time to process subdivision applications. The
comprehensive plan land use element, adequate public facilities ordinance, and ordinance
revisions regarding water resource issues would be concurrently researched and
implemented to some degree.
The shortest regular timeframe for the enactment of a moratorium would be as follows:
Request for Legal Ad November 6, 2002
Quarterly Public Hearing November 25, 2002
Planning Board Action December 4, 2002
BOCC Action December 10, 2002
A shorter timeframe if requested could be accomplished by creating a special public
hearing at a regular BOCC date.
RESPONSE: 2. Unified Development Ordinance Definition
A Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is a combined land development code that
integrates the present planning regulatory system of "free standing" codes of subdivision, zoning,
environmental impacts, erosion control, flood management and economic development.
The Unified Development Ordinance creates a comprehensive and cross - referenced
document, combines various land use controls in a different procedural context. For example,
0
the legislative review of special use zoning can be integrated with the typical administrative
context of subdivision review. Special conditions, therefore, can be put forth on subdivisions of
relatively high impact.
General and specific parameters of interest such as traffic, property values, affordable
housing, phasing, open space, dedications, etc. can be addressed through the Unified
Development Ordinance development approval process.
The creation of a Unified Development Ordinance is time consuming and complex
because all existing freestanding code must be collapsed and reorganized into one document.
Some existing code areas will be deleted in their present form and replaced with a non-
conflicted, non - repetitive and all - inclusive system of review.
A consultant is suggested for this type of work, with a close overview by the Planning
Director and eventual legal procedural review by the County Attorney. The document would
also be reformatted to the prototypical indexing used by the municipal code corporation, which
can then be codified and available on the internet.
The time frame for Unified Development Ordinance development is about 8 — 9 months,
and public hearing processing including final recommendations and adoption depending on the
extent of outreach, can be an additional 3 — 6 months.
Staff could first proceed with a request for qualifications (RFQ), and then proceed with a
request for services. The cost of this type of Unified Development Ordinance development for a
County is in the investigation stage. The Town of Chapel Hill is presently in the Unified
Development Ordinance process and information regarding their experience can be given at the
work - session.
ISSUE 4: Explore legal consideration.
RESPONSE: Legal report to be provided by County Attorney.
ISSUE 5: Research what other jurisdictions have employed in other cases.
RESPONSE: In 1995 Huntersville, NC placed a 12 -month moratorium on all
development in order to study traditional town planning methods and rewrite their existing
zoning ordinance. Warwick, New York implemented a development moratorium while updating
their comprehensive land use plan.
ISSUE 6: Research through Institute of Government and other government and land use
authorities the use of moratoriums to accomplish short-term goals.
RESPONSE: Ongoing
7
BOCC Work Session
8/29/02
Growth Control Recommendations
I. Develop an outline for a special use permit (SUP) process for the subdivision of land
creating 20 or more lots to be presented at 9/17/2002 BOCC meeting
II. Notify every applicant for residential subdivision approval:
(1) whose application or proposed application is not also for a planned development
special use permit; or
(2) whose application or planned application involves the subdivision of land into
20 or more lots
that the Board of Commissioners will consider amending the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance, on or before December 2, 2002, to provide. that any subdivision of land
creating 20 or more lots is a special use requiring a special use permit.
• The amendments that will be considered may include other procedural and
substantive requirements. These requirements may include:
(a) greater detail, coverage and confirmation of the "yield plan" required in
the evaluation of whether the project may be approved as a conventional plan or a
flexible plan;
(b) professionally prepared groundwater analysis if the residential lots are
proposed to be served by wells;
(c) public water supply availability if the residential lots are proposed to be
served by a public water system.
• The notification shall advise the applicant that the applicant will not be considered to
have acted in good faith if the applicant proceeds, after the notification, with an
application while the amendments are under consideration.
• An application that has received special use permit approval, preliminary plan
approval or that has been scheduled for Board of Commissioner preliminary plan
action', will not be so notified and may proceed according to its special use permit or
preliminary plan approval and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations in effect on the date of approval.
• Begin the notification process as soon as possible.
' Only one residential subdivision that has not received either a special use permit or preliminary
plan approval would likely qualify for consideration by the Board of Commissioners under the
zoning and subdivision rules in place now. That subdivision is Eno Ridge which is scheduled for
Board consideration on September 17, 2002.
8
III. Hold a special public hearing on October 15, 2002 for creating a special use permit
(SUP) process with decision by BOCC at either 11/19/2002 or 12/02/2002 Board
meeting.
IV. Advertise a request for qualifications (RFQ) to identify consultants with unified
development ordinance (UDO) experience as soon as possible.
V. Thereafter release a request for proposals (RFP) or a request for services for a
consultant to help with unified development ordinance development and preparation.
VI. • Develop a unified development ordinance (UDO) that correlates with the
comprehensive land use plan update.
• Estimated Completion of UDO and comprehensive land use plan update: 6 -12
months
0
W
F�
a
H
H
U
►� O bA y cn U O f� ,>
to
rA
�A
U N 0
* y C A
Cam/] O V c
b
a� o
.o „b
E
sEL
Z� oA ��
w
to
+- at Ed
O pip �w
r c -IU�AA
C o, U a.
U °° O o
bo o
A C
c
W 0 ►�i U tv S3,"
O �+
60) .a y } , cd
n w �. o
W CA
CN
U °` M U
¢.
�, cd bo
K�>ZWa cd cH con x�pq
Om H u U r. O
NV� �ID
0
A c
ti
2
� W W M O °• � �
N
� � W W t� U . •�•
x $14