HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-18-2012 - 6a ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 18, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit Modification — Spence Dickinson
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. July 11, 2012 Planning Board Abstract Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, 245-
2. Excerpt of Approved May 29, 2012 Quarterly 2597
Public Hearing Minutes Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2575
3. Excerpt of Approved July 11, 2012 Planning
Board Regular Meeting Minutes
4. Response from Applicant Regarding
Conditions
5. Planning Board Recommended Findings of
Fact
6. An Ordinance Amending the Orange County
Zoning Atlas
7. An Ordinance Denying an Amendment to the
Orange County Zoning Atlas
8. Resolution of Consistency with the 2030
Comprehensive Plan
9. Resolution of Inconsistency with the 2030
Comprehensive Plan
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on a request submitted by Mr. Spence Dickinson to rezone a 4.003 acre parcel
of property to Rural Buffer and modify an existing Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP')
for the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development by removing the subject
property from its provisions.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. A
summary of comments received during the hearing are contained within Attachment 1, the
abstract from the July 11, 2012 Planning Board regular meeting. Staff will be introducing this
document, and all attachments, into the record at the re-convened public hearing for the BOCC
to consider as part of its deliberations.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its July 11, 2012 regular meeting, the Planning Board voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the project finding that:
1. The application was complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.7 and 2.8
of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
2. The property is of sufficient size to be rezoned RB,
2
3. The request will not invalidate existing conditions imposed as part of the original
Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Class A Special Use Permit Planned Development
approval,
4. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR,
Orange County Health) indicate there are no concerns associated with the request,
5. The proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan
concerning development, including:
a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and
designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities
sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy
consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives.
b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program
and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes
land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.
6. Based on staff's determination the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment, and SUP
modification, are consistent with the provisions and goals of the Joint Planning Land Use
Plan and Joint Planning Agreement,
7. The submission of evidence demonstrating compliance with the provisions of Section
5.3.2 (A) Special Uses— General Standards of the UDO, and
8. A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record
demonstrating the request was not incompliance with the various provisions of the UDO.
Please refer to Attachment 5 for additional detail. It should be noted that in rendering its
decision, the Planning Board recommended the imposition of four (4) conditions. The applicant
has agreed to the imposition of these conditions in writing with the exception for condition 4
(Note: The applicant inadvertently notes condition 5 in Attachment 4 rather than condition 4).
Please refer to Attachment 4 for additional detail.
Planning Director's Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 and
2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the rezoning request and
SUP modification with all recommended conditions, subject to the following:
• Approval of the recommended findings of fact associated with the approval of the Class A
Special Use Permit modification as detailed within Attachment 5,
• Approval of a Resolution of Rezoning Approval authorizing the change in zoning of the
property (Attachment 6),
• Approval of a Resolution of Consistency with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as detailed
within Attachment 8,
• The imposition of the recommended conditions (Attachment 5),
• Based on the BOCC's ability to make an affirmative finding on the general and specific
standards outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) and (B) of the UDO.
3
Joint Planning Area (JPA) Review: In accordance with the Joint Planning Area Agreement, this
project was sent to the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro for review and comment
on April 18, 2012. To date no comments have been received.
Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) and 2.8.8 (B) of
the UDO, the BOCC has requested that the Planning Board recommendation be made available
in time for the September 18, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional
comments on the application should be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board meeting
in order to become part of the official record of these proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who
have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for
additional funding for the provision of County services.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation;
2. If necessary, deliberate further on the application;
3. Close the public hearing; and
4. Take action on the request by:
a. Review and approval of the Special Use Permit Findings of Fact Sheet contained
within Attachment 5 of this abstract and make the appropriate findings that the
application complies with the various sections of the UDO, including the general
findings as denoted within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
b. Approving the Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas as contained
within Attachment 6 of the abstract; and
c. Approving the Resolution Concerning Statement of Consistency as contained
within Attachment 8 of the abstract certifying that the approved zoning atlas
amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment 1 4
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: July 11, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 8
SUBJECT: Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit Modification — Spence Dickinson
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Property and Vicinity Map Michael D. Harvey, Planner III 245-2597
2. Resolution of Rezoning Approval Craig Benedict, Director 245-2575
3. Resolution of Rezoning Denial
4. Special Use Permit Findings of Fact
5. Draft May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing Minutes
6. Ratio Explanations
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a general use rezoning petition and
Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') modification submitted by Mr. Spence Dickinson in
accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter `UDO').
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing where
staff indicated the purpose of the request was to rezone a 4.003 acre parcel of property (PIN
9871-54-9182):
From: Rural Buffer(RB) and Planned Development Housing Rural Residential (PD-H-R1)
To: Rural Buffer(RB)
and remove the property from the provisions of a previously recorded SUP. The property in
question is north of intersection of Blackwood Mountain Road (SR 2258) and Pathway Court, a
private road maintained by the local homeowners association (please refer to Attachment 1).
During the hearing, Mr. Dickinson indicated he was requesting the rezoning and SUP
modification to remove the subject parcel from the development and zoning restrictions of the
Heartwood SUP in an effort to address existing septic issues on an adjacent parcel of property.
Public Hearing: During the hearing, the following comments/questions were posed concerning the
application:
• An adjacent property owner, Mr. Charles Lamb, indicated he had no problem with the
request but wanted assurances that once the subject parcel was recombined with the
adjacent property (i.e. the camp) there would be no vehicular access from that property
onto Pathway Court and that the property would remain in a vegetated, undeveloped,
state.
STAFF COMMENT: Vehicular access would not be allowed as Pathway Court is
a private road subject to the provisions of the Heartwood SUP. Only property
encumbered by the Heartwood SUP can access the roadway.
5
Mr. Dickinson has indicated a desire to erect additional structures on this property
to support the camp/retreat center. Mr. Dickinson will have to go before the
Orange County Board of Adjustment to seek a modification of the existing Class B
Special Use Permit to allow for the re-development of this lot.
• A BOCC member requested that Mr. Lamb be notified of the Board of Adjustment hearing
where any modification to the camp involving this property would be reviewed.
• A BOCC commented with the submittal of the request, the applicant appeared to be
trying to address a long-standing septic issue on an adjacent property.
Within the public hearing abstract, staff identified the various dimensional ratios governing the
development of the Heartwood subdivision (i.e. floor area ratio, minimum recreation space, etc.).
Staff indicated the proposal would not create a conflict.
As the result of additional review, however, staff has determined that an error occurred during the
original review of the development, specifically concerning the minimum required recreation space.
The approved SUP and site plan erroneously referenced a minimum recreation space ratio of 0.019.
The correct ratio was, and still is, 0.031. The corrected information is as follows:
ORIGINAL REQUIRED REVISED REQUIRED PROPOSED
MINIMUM STANDARDS: MINIMUM STANDARDS: STANDARDS FOR
(Per Orange County PROJECT:
Regulations) (Removing the 2 acre lot from (As proposed by the
the Planned Development) applicant)
Minimum Required Recreation Minimum Required Recreation Required Recreation
Space — 0.031 or 47,546 sq. ft Space — 0.031 or 44,845 sq. ft. Space for project - 96,000
sq. ft (2.2 acres)
The request will still not invalidate required ratios for the Heartwood development but staff will have
to correct the error as we move forward with the review of Mr. Dickinson's request.
Staff Analysis: At the public hearing, staff indicated the project complied with the various provisions
of the UDO, including:
1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of
Section 2.7 and 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
2. Staff has determined that the property is of sufficient size to be rezoned to the RB zoning
designation.
3. The request will not invalidate existing conditions imposed as part of the Heartwood at
Blackwood Mountain approval.
4. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR,
Orange County Health) indicate there are no concerns associated with the request.
5. The proposal appeared consistent with the various goals outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including:
a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and
designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities
sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy
consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives.
6
b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program
and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes
land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.
6. Staff has determined that the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment, and SUP modification,
are consistent with the provisions and goals of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and
Joint Planning Agreement.
JPA Review: In accordance with the Joint Planning Area Agreement, this project was sent to
the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro for review and comment on April 18, 2012.
To date no comments have been received.
Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) and 2.8.8 (B) of
the UDO, the BOCC has requested that the Planning Board recommendation be made available
in time for the September 18, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional
comments on the application should be submitted in writing to the Planning Board in order to
become part of the official record of these proceedings.
Planning Director's Recommendation: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.7.4 and
2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director recommends approval of the rezoning request and
SUP modification, subject to the following:
• Approval of a Resolution of Rezoning approval authorizing the change in zoning of the
property (Attachment 2),
• The recommended findings of fact associated with the approval of the Class A Special
Use Permit modification as detailed within Attachment 4,
• The imposition of the recommended conditions (Attachment 4),
• Based on the BOCC's ability to make an affirmative finding on the general and specific
standards outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) and (B) of the UDO.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who
have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for
additional funding for the provision of County services.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends that the Board:
1. Deliberate on the petition,
2. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation to:
a. Approve the Resolution of Rezoning Approval contained within Attachment 2, and
b. Make the necessary findings relating to the approval of the SUP modification as
detailed within Attachment 4.
3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the General Use Rezoning petition and SUP
modification in time for the September 18, 2012 BOCC regular meeting.
Planning Board July 11 , 2012 regular meeting
Attachment 1
t 1� 'M ``2 I.v 1
k y ERR►�` � i's" `� 4 T h ,�r� r„ �,'.'9.�6 — — , �,
j
r `•� fib., a' 1'L t C 4` A , 4 /1 I 1
•
e I
8fi 011
�Y\
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �,(* k 6i \\,\ ; gT
■ ' ■4 fp RB 86 ®S V
■
■' MO ■•
` ■ ■ , a . : .■ . ■ F ; Jordan
•` , ■ Unprotected
•
•
• eta '` \.; Watershed•
■ 987'I1549�1 �' `
— — — _ IN
\
■
A ,,,
• I I Spence Dickinson's
■ !� ' H Camp/Retreat Center
iaa i ,, PATH,WAYICT " *
II. r • ; I � e■
fi
:..a.�=0 •/ SIC.,�� e' ' , Z"'1 f ..
F . it
'.`PDHR1 -4 �. 4
,4 t . ....A.'. ' -" . 1 4.. ' 411*Zt. ' ' ' ''''' FIWPWINI'_ _ _ _ \
t'. t is 'i1
I I,' � R } +
* .
' 1 � iiki ..,' ,A KWOOD MOUNTAIN RD a ,• '''
Ili0 '-vs. ‘k- ‘ s ' - A - s ',-,
■� �Area of Interest Water Bodies N 1 in=150 ft
(rilill 00.5� 0 50 100 Feet
Parcels Streams OF W
Zoning — J ` Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson.4/16/2012
Planning Board July 11 , 2012 regular meeting
Attachment 2
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Spence Dickinson has initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as
established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), to rezone a
parcel of undeveloped real property, approximately 4 acres in area, located north of intersection of
Blackwood Mountain Road (SR 2258) and Pathway Court:
From: Rural Buffer(RB) and Planned Development Housing Rural Residential (PD-H-R1)
To: Rural Buffer(RB)
and,
WHEREAS, the parcels are further identified through the following legal description:
BEGINNING:
at an iron pipe, the north west corner of the Common Land, Heartwood at Blackwood Mtn.,Phase
I as recorded in Plat Book 58 Page 151, Orange County Registry, said point being also in the
center line of Pathway Court, a 50' private road right-of-way as recorded in Plat Book 53 Page
172, OCR; thence with the center line of Pathway Court, a curve to the left with a radius of
192.00', a length of 132.14' to an iron pipe; thence a curve to the left with a radius of 125.00', a
length of 71.99' to a point; thence North 74 degrees, 01 minutes, 56 seconds West 53.29' to an
iron pipe in the center line of Pathway Court and in the center line of a 20' septic easement as
shown on a plat recorded in Plat Book 90 Page 181, OCR; thence with the center line of said
easement,North 08 degrees, 38 minutes, 57 seconds East 147.30' to an iron pipe; thence North 23
degrees, 01 minutes, 18 seconds West 107.40' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 01
minutes, 27 seconds East 219.70' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 00 minutes, 32
seconds West 89.00' to an iron pipe in the east right-of-way of the aforementioned Pathway
Court; thence North 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34 seconds East 160.00' to an iron pipe; thence
South 78 degrees, 00 minutes, 56 seconds East 157.88' to an iron pipe; thence North 06 degrees,
48 minutes, 34 seconds East 241.88' to an iron pipe in the line of the Waldorf Educational
Association of North Carolina; thence with the Waldorf property South 83 degrees, 11 minutes,
31 seconds East 200.00' to an iron pipe; thence with Waldorf property South 06 degrees, 48
minutes, 34 seconds West 419.97' to an iron pipe; thence South 83 degrees, 11 minutes, 26
seconds East 116.40' to an iron pipe; thence North 69 degrees 38 minutes 10 seconds East
102.48' to an iron pipe in the Waldorf line, the north west corner of the Spence Dickinson
property as recorded in Plat Book 61 Page 123, OCR; thence with the Dickinson property South
05 degrees, 02 minutes, 44 seconds West 440.11' to an iron pipe in the north line of the
aforementioned Common Land, Heartwood at Blackwood Mtn., Phase I; thence North 78
degrees, 11 minutes, 22 seconds West 44.45' to the point and place of beginning and being all of
Lot 31, Heartwood at Blackwood Mtn., Phase II as recorded in Plat Book 90 Page 181, and
containing 4.003 Acres,more or less.
and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (U DO) have been
deemed complete, and
1
9
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the
North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has submitted sufficient
documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the
adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following:
a. The Land Use Element Map.
b. Chapter 5 — Land Use Element, including:
1. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and
designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities
sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy
consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives.
2. Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth,
consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality
of life.
3. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources,
and community character.
4. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program
and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character,
minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced
transportation system.
and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning
Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the aforementioned parcel to RURAL BUFFER (RB) consistent
with the applicant's request.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and
that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner
, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of
, 2012.
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 , 2012 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and
that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
Planning Board July 11 , 2012 regular meeting
Attachment 3
AN ORDINANCE DENYING AN AMENDMENT REQUEST TO
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Spence Dickinson has initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), to rezone a parcel of undeveloped real property, approximately 4 acres in area, located
north of intersection of Blackwood Mountain Road (SR 2258) and Pathway Court:
From: Rural Buffer(RB) and Planned Development Housing Rural Residential (PD-H-R1)
To: Rural Buffer(RB)
and,
WHEREAS, the parcels are further identified through the following legal description:
BEGINNING
at an iron pipe, the north west corner of the Common Land, Heartwood at Blackwood
Mtn., Phase I as recorded in Plat Book 58 Page 151, Orange County Registry, said point
being also in the center line of Pathway Court, a 50' private road right-of-way as
recorded in Plat Book 53 Page 172, OCR; thence with the center line of Pathway Court, a
curve to the left with a radius of 192.00', a length of 132.14' to an iron pipe; thence a
curve to the left with a radius of 125.00', a length of 71.99' to a point; thence North 74
degrees, 01 minutes, 56 seconds West 53.29' to an iron pipe in the center line of Pathway
Court and in the center line of a 20' septic easement as shown on a plat recorded in Plat
Book 90 Page 181, OCR; thence with the center line of said easement, North 08 degrees,
38 minutes, 57 seconds East 147.30' to an iron pipe; thence North 23 degrees, 01
minutes, 18 seconds West 107.40' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 01 minutes,
27 seconds East 219.70' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 00 minutes, 32 seconds
West 89.00' to an iron pipe in the east right-of-way of the aforementioned Pathway
Court; thence North 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34 seconds East 160.00' to an iron pipe;
thence South 78 degrees, 00 minutes, 56 seconds East 157.88' to an iron pipe; thence
North 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34 seconds East 241.88' to an iron pipe in the line of the
Waldorf Educational Association of North Carolina; thence with the Waldorf property
South 83 degrees, 11 minutes, 31 seconds East 200.00' to an iron pipe; thence with
Waldorf property South 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34 seconds West 419.97' to an iron pipe;
thence South 83 degrees, 11 minutes, 26 seconds East 116.40' to an iron pipe; thence
North 69 degrees 38 minutes 10 seconds East 102.48' to an iron pipe in the Waldorf line,
the north west corner of the Spence Dickinson property as recorded in Plat Book 61 Page
123, OCR; thence with the Dickinson property South 05 degrees, 02 minutes, 44 seconds
West 440.11' to an iron pipe in the north line of the aforementioned Common Land,
Heartwood at Blackwood Mtn., Phase I; thence North 78 degrees, 11 minutes, 22 seconds
West 44.45' to the point and place of beginning and being all of Lot 31, Heartwood at
Blackwood Mtn., Phase II as recorded in Plat Book 90 Page 181, and containing 4.003
Acres, more or less.
1
11
and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
have not been adhered to, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1 .1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and to Section 153A-
341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has submitted
insufficient documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent
and purpose of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment will not promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby denies the
applicants request to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone the aforementioned
parcels to RURAL BUFFER (RB).
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
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 , 2012 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of ,
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
Planning Board July 11 , 2012 regular meeting
19
Attachment 4
CASE NUMBER: SU-A-1-12
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
SPENCE DICINSON
REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION
TO REMOVE A 4 ACRE PARCEL (PIN 9871-54-9182)
FROM THE HEARTWOOD AND BLACKWOOD MOUNTAIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
As required under Section 2.7.14 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
modifications to previously approved Class A Special Use Permits are processed in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2.7 of the UDO.
This request must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section 5.3.2 (A) and (B) of
the UDO.
The Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following specific
standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(2) Dimensional requirements as detailed within Section(s) 3.3 and 6.3 of the UDO including
dimensional requirements approved as part of the original Heartwood at Blackwood
Mountain Class A Special Use Permit,
(3) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in
question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist in deliberations.
13
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION COMPONENTS("Yes"
indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED PLANNING
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOARD
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 2.2 X Yes No Attachment 1 of the May Yes No
29, 2012 Quarterly
The application for a Public Hearing packet
Class A Special Use contained the completed
Permit shall be on forms application for the
provided by the Planning request.
Department.
2.2.4 (D) X Yes No Staff indicated during the Yes No
Quarterly Public Hearing
Applications must be that the applicant had
accompanied by the fee paid all applicable fees
amount that has been as required by the
established by Board of adopted fee schedule.
County Commissioners.
Application fees are
nonrefundable.
2.7.3 (B) (1) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the May Yes No
29, 2012 Quarterly
A full and accurate Public Hearing packet
description of the contained a detailed
proposed use, including narrative outlining the
its location, appearance, nature of the request.
and operational
characteristics.
2.7.3 (B) (2) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the May Yes No
29, 2012 Quarterly
The names and Public Hearing packet
addresses of the owners contained the required
of the property information
14
PLANNING
STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED PLANNING
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOARD
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (3) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the May Yes No
29, 2012 Quarterly
Relevant information Public Hearing packet
needed to show contained the required
compliance with the detail including a site
general and specific plan denoting the
standards governing the boundary of the property.
Special Use
Public Hearing abstract
contained a breakdown
of the minimum
dimensional
requirements for the
Heartwood subdivision
demonstrating that the
proposed revision will not
invalidate the previous
approval.
2.7.3 (B) (4) X Yes No Required copies of the Yes No
site plan, prepared by
Twenty-six (26) copies of Holland Surveying were
the site plan prepared by submitted and part of the
a registered N.C. land May 29, 2012 Quarterly
surveyor, architect, or Public Hearing abstract
engineer. for this item
2.7.3 (B) (5) _X_ Not The Project does not _ Not applicable
applicable involve a preliminary
If the application involves subdivision application.
a Preliminary Subdivision
Plat, 26 copies of the Plat
prepared in accordance
with Section 7.14 shall be
provided.
2.7.3 (B) (6) X Yes No The applicant provided Yes No
staff with the required list
A list of all parcels located of adjacent property
within 500 feet of the owners
subject parcel and the
name and address of
each property owner, as
currently listed in the
Orange County tax
records.
15
PLANNING
STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED PLANNING
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOARD
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (7) _X_ Not The Project does not _ Not applicable
applicable involve the development
Elevations of all structures of any structures. As
proposed to be used in such this requirement is
the development. not applicable.
2.7.3 (B) (8) _X_ Not The Project will not result _ Not applicable
26 copies of an applicable in any disturbance
Environmental requiring the submission
Assessment or of an Environmental
Environmental Impact Assessment per Section
Statement as required by 6.18 of the UDO. As
Section 6.16 of the UDO such this requirement is
not applicable.
2.7.3 (B) (9) _X_ Not The proposal will not _ Not applicable
Method of disposal of applicable involve the development
trees, limbs, stumps and of the subject property.
construction debris As such this requirement
associated with the is not applicable.
permitted activity, which
shall be by some method
other than open burning.
2.7.3 (B) (10) _X_ Not The proposal will not _ Not applicable
Statement from the applicable involve the development
applicant indicating the of the subject property.
anticipated development As such this requirement
schedule for the build-out is not applicable.
of the project.
2.7.3 (B) (11) X Not applicable The applicant is not Not applicable
Statement from the requesting vesting of the
applicant in justification of project.
any request for vesting for
a period of more than two
years (five years
maximum)
16
SECTION 2.7.5 CLASS A SPECIAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS("Yes" indicates
compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED PLANNING
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOARD
Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
A. The Planning Director X Yes No Public Notice was sent Yes No
shall give public notice certified mail on May 14,
of the date, time and 2012 fora May 29, 2012
place of the public Public Hearing.
hearing
B. Such notice shall be X Yes No The legal ad was _Yes No
published in a published in the News of
newspaper of general Orange and the Chapel
circulation in Orange Hill Herald on May 16,
County once a week for 2012 and again on May
two successive weeks, 23, 2012.
with the first notice to be
published not less than
ten days not more than
we days prior to the date
of the hearing.
C. The Planning Director X Yes No The property was posted Yes No
shall post on the on May 18, 2012.
affected property a
notice of the public
hearing at lest ten days
prior to the date of said
hearing.
D. Written notice shall be X Yes No As previously indicated Yes No
sent by certified mail to public notice was sent via
all adjacent property certified mail on May 14,
owners not less than 15 2012.
days before the hearing
date. Adjacent property Attachment 6 of the May
owners are those whose 29, 2012 Quarterly Public
property lies within five Hearing abstract
hundred feet of the contained staff's mail out
affected property and certification, a copy of the
whose manes and notification letter, and the
addresses are currently mailing labels as provided
listed in the Orange by the applicant for all
County tax records. property owners within
500 feet
17
Section 3.3 Base Zoning Districts— Rural Buffer; Section 6.3 Land Use Intensity Measures ;
Dimensional standards approved as part of the original Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Class
A Special Use Permit ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED PLANNING
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOARD
FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 3.3 and Section 6.3
establishes land use intensity
measures.
The approved Class A
Special Use Permit for the
Heartwood project
established minimum
dimensional standards for
the project as a whole.
Total area of the original
project, as defined within the
application was 1,533,747
sq. ft. (35.21 acres)
Per previously approved X Yes No The May 29, 2012 _Yes No
SUP, site plan and Quarterly Public Hearing
Section 3.3 Base Zoning abstract provided the
Districts—Rural Buffer required breakdown.
Conditional Use district
The narrative and site
(staff note—this is what plan for the Heartwood
was required for the project proposed a total
project when it was floor area of 82,000 sq.
classified as a Planned ft. (1.88 acres).
Development) Removal of the 2 acre
portion of the parcel
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) zoned PD-H-R1 will
Maximum allowed — 0.058 reduce the allowable
of the total project area or floor area ratio to 83,905
88,957 sq.ft. sq. ft.
Applicant was still
proposing less overall
floor area for the project.
A condition of approval
for this request is that a
revised plat be prepared
denoting the revised
boundary of the Special
Use Permit along with
the revised dimensional
standards impacting
development for the
project as a whole.
18
Per previously approved X Yes No The May 29, 2012 Yes No
SUP and site plan and Quarterly Public Hearing
Section 3.3 Base Zoning abstract provided the
Districts—Rural Buffer required breakdown.
Conditional Use district
The narrative and site
(staff note—this is what plan for the Heartwood
was required for the project proposed a total
project when it was minimum open space
classified as a Planned area of 1,451,747 sq. ft.
Development) (33.32 acres) for the
entire development.
Minimum Required Open
Space Ratio - 0.84 of the Removal of the 2 acre
total project area or portion of the parcel
1,288,348 sq.ft (29.5 zoned PD-H-R1 will
acres) reduce the minimum
open space requirement
for the project to
approximately 1,215,166
sq.ft. (27.8 acres).
The original application
proposed more open
space than originally
required for the approval
of the Special Use
Permit. This lot was not
part of the required open
space area. Its removal
from the project will not
impact available open
space.
Proposed modification
will not reduce required
open space ratio below
the required ratio for the
project as defined on the
plat and within the UDO.
A condition of approval
for this request is that a
revised plat be prepared
denoting the revised
boundary of the Special
Use Permit along with
the revised dimensional
standards impacting
development for the
project as a whole
19
Per previously approved X Yes No The May 29, 2012
SUP and site plan and Quarterly Public Hearing
Section 3.3 Base Zoning abstract provided a
Districts—Rural Buffer breakdown of the
Conditional Use district dimensional standards
for the project.
(staff note—this is what
was required for the The narrative and site
project when it was plan for the Heartwood
classified as a Planned project proposed a total
Development) minimum livability space
of 1,280,147 sq.ft (29.3
Minimum Required acres)for the entire
Livability Space Ratio — development.
0.75 of the total project
area or 1,150,310 sq.ft. Removal of the 2 acre
(26.4 acres) portion of the parcel
zoned PD-H-R1 will
reduce the minimum
required livability space
to approximately
1,084,970 sq.ft. (24.9
acres)
The applicant has not
proposed modifying the
anticipated livability
space ratio for the
project.
Proposed modification
will not invalidate or alter
previous approvals.
A condition of approval
for this request is that a
revised plat be prepared
denoting the revised
boundary of the Special
Use Permit along with
the revised dimensional
standards impacting
development for the
project as a whole
20
Per previously approved X Yes No The May 29, 2012
SUP and site plan and Quarterly Public Hearing
Section 3.3 Base Zoning abstract provided the
Districts—Rural Buffer required breakdown,
Conditional Use district which has since been
revised within this
(staff note—this is what document to reflect the
was required for the actual required ratio (i.e.
project when it was .031 rather than .019)
classified as a Planned
Development) The narrative and site
plan for the Heartwood
Minimum Required project proposed a total
Recreation Space Ratio — minimum recreation
0.019 or 29,141 sq.ft. space of 96,000 sq.ft
(2.2 acres) for the entire
(staff note—the required development.
minimum recreation space
ratio enforced at the time Removal of the 2 acre
this project was adopted portion of the parcel
was, in fact, 0.031 or zoned PD-H-R1 will
47,546 sq. ft,. not the reduce the minimum
.019 referenced in required recreation
staff's findings from space to approximately
1986) 44,845 sq.ft.
This lot was not
proposed for recreational
use so it removal does
not eliminate identified
recreation area.
A condition of approval
for this request is that a
revised plat be prepared
denoting the revised
boundary of the Special
Use Permit along with
the revised dimensional
standards impacting
development for the
project as a whole
21
Section 5.3.2 (B) Special Use —Specific Standards CLASS A SPECIAL ("Yes" indicates
compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED PLANNING
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOARD
FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (B)
In addition to the general
standards the following
specific standards shall be
addressed by the
applicant before the
issuance of a Special Use
Permit
X Yes No Sewage is disposed of Yes No
Section 5.3.2 (B) (1) via private septic
systems on individual
Method and adequacy of lots. Water is provided
provision for sewage through a community
disposal facilities, solid well maintained by a 3rd
waste and water service. party.
The removal of this lot
from the Heartwood
subdivision will not
create septic or well
issues for the remaining
lots in the development
as this lot was slated for
development as part of
the creative learning
center and duplex
residences.
Attachment 3 of the May
29, 2012 Quarterly
Public Hearing abstract
contained a memo from
Orange County Health
indicating they had no
problem with the
proposal as submitted or
the removal of the lot
from the provisions of
the previously approved
Special Use Permit.
22
Section 5.3.2 (B) (2) X Yes No Fire protection will be Yes No
provided by the New
Method and adequacy of Hope Fire Department,
police, fire and rescue rescue service by the
squad protection. Orange County
Emergency
Management, and police
protection by the Orange
County Sheriff's
Department.
Attachment 3 of the May
29, 2012 Quarterly
Public Hearing abstract
contain memos from the
EMS Director and the
Fire Marshal indicating
they had no problem with
the proposal as
submitted.
No concerns have been
expressed by the
Sheriff's office.
Section 5.3.2 (B) (3) X Yes No The removal of this lot Yes No
will not impact traffic use
Method and adequacy of on Pathway Court.
vehicle access to the site
and traffic conditions The removal of this lot
around the site. does not impact the
original traffic impact
analysis completed by
Phil Post and Associates
and submitted as part of
the project's original
approval. The removal
of this lot, in fact, will
reduce traffic along
Pathway Court.
A drive cut from the farm
will not be allowed as
testified by staff at the
May 29, 2012 Quarterly
Public Hearing.
23
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) Special Use —General Standards CLASS A SPECIAL ("Yes" indicates
compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED PLANNING
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOARD
FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
In accordance with Section ** NOTE— staff
5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of does not make
Commissioners shall also specific
consider the following recommendations
general conditions before with respect to
the application for a these findings **
Special Use can be
approved:
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) Based on evidence Will Will
presented at the hearing. Not
The use will maintain or
promote the public health,
safety and general welfare,
if located where proposed
and developed and
operated according to the
plan as submitted.
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) Based on evidence Will Will
presented at the hearing. Not
The use will maintain or
enhance the value of
contiguous property (unless
the use is a public
necessity, in which case
the use need not maintain
or enhance the value of
contiguous property).
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) Based on evidence Is _ Is
presented at the hearing. Not
The location and character
of the use, if developed
according to the plan
submitted, will be in
harmony with the area in
which it is to be located and
the use is in compliance
with the plan for the
physical development of
the County as embodied in
these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or
portion thereof, adopted by
the Board of County
Commissioners.
24
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not received any information that would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the general
standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare,
maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with the general plan
for the physical development of the County.
Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the
applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO.
Provided the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners finds in the affirmative on the specific and
general standards, the Board could make a positive finding on this application. In the event that the Board of
County Commissioners makes the determination that the permit can be issued, Planning Staff recommends the
attachment of the following conditions to the Special Use Permit:
1. That an Ordinance approving the rezoning of the subject parcels as requested by the applicant as
part of the application submittal process be approved by the Board of County Commissioners;
2. Condition 17 of the Original Special Use Permit, approved on September 2, 1986 and recorded
within the Registrar of Deeds office within Book 725 at Page 306, required that the developer
produce: `a final boundary survey of the Planned Development (i.e. Heartwood)'. As part of this
revision the applicant shall, within 180 days from the approval of this modification, cause the
production of a revised boundary survey for the Heartwood and Blackwood Mountain Planned
Development denoting the new boundary line and submit it to the Orange County Planning
Department for approval. This survey, prepared and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, shall also
denote the revised dimensional standards for the project as follows:
ORIGINAL REQUIRED REVISED REQUIRED PROPOSED
MINIMUM STANDARDS: MINIMUM STANDARDS: STANDARDS FOR
(Per Orange County PROJECT:
Regulations) (Removing the 2 acre lot (As proposed by the
from the Planned applicant)
Development)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum Allowable Floor
Maximum allowed — 0.058 or Maximum allowed — 0.058 or Area Ratio for project -
88,957 sq.ft. 83,905 sq. ft. 82,000 sq. ft. (1.88 acres)
Minimum Required Open Minimum Required Open Minimum Proposed Open
Space — 0.84 or 1,288,348 Space —0.84 or 1,215,166 Space for project -
sq.ft (29.5 acres) sq.ft. (27.8 acres) 1,445,147 sq. ft. (33.17
acres)
Minimum Required Livability Minimum Required Livability Proposed Livability Space
Space — 0.75 or 1,150,310 Space —0.75 or 1,084,970 for project - 1,280,147
sq.ft. (26.4 acres) sq.ft. (24.9 acres) sq.ft (29.3 acres)
Minimum Required Recreation Minimum Required Recreation Required Recreation
Space —0.031 or 47,546 sq. ft Space —0.031 or 44,845 sq. ft. Space for project - 96,000
sq. ft (2.2 acres)
25
The boundary survey shall be recorded within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds
within 30 days of being approved by the County Planning Department.
3. The applicant shall, within 180 days from the approval of this modification, cause the production
of a recombination plat legally recombining the subject property with an adjacent parcel,
identified with the Parcel Identification Number of 9871-63-4523, consistent with the submitted
application and the applicant's testimony.
4. Vehicular and/or pedestrian access from this property, or the adjacent camp/retreat center
identified with the Parcel Identification Number of 9871-63-4523, onto Pathway Court shall be
prohibited.
Planning Board July 11 , 2012 regular meeting
Attachment 5
1 Excerpt of Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes
2
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
7 May 29, 2012
8 7:00 P.M.
9
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
12 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices,
13 Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Alice
16 Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
18 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
20 Michael Talbert, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be
21 identified appropriately below)
22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:, Vice Chair Larry Wright, Pete Hallenbeck, Mark
23 Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Andrea Rohrbacher, Lisa Stuckey, Maxecine Mitchell, and
24 Tony Blake
25
26 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Rachel Phelps Hawkins,
27 Alan Campbell, and Johnny Randall
28
29 Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:04:05 PM.
30
31 ****************************************************
32
33 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
34
35 Planning Board Vice Chair Larry Wright introduced this item.
36
37 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment and Class A Special Use Permit Modification -To review
38 an application to modify an existing Class A Special Use Permit governing the
39 development of the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development by
40 removing a parcel from the project and rezoning it from PD-H-R1 (Planned Development
41 Housing Rural Residential) and RB (Rural Buffer) to RB (Rural Buffer). The property is
42 located off of Pathway Court, a private road.
43
44 Michael Harvey: This is a special use permit. At this time, all individuals that are seeking to
45 provide testimony have to be sworn.
46
47 Those who were speaking to this item were then sworn in.
48
49 Michael Harvey: I have been sworn. This item involves a request to review a modification to
50 an existing special use permit and the review of a general use rezoning application for lot 31 R in
51 the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development. As you will note, in attachment 2
27
1 in your packets, Mr. Spence Dickinson is the owner of this property property that is currently
2 split-zoned Rural Buffer and Planned Development Housing rural Residential. I would like to
3 remind the Board that you have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation at your places for your
4 review. As indicated in the abstract, the property is currently split zoned and approximately two
5 acres is located within the boundary of the special use permit. The Heartwood at Blackwood
6 Mountain project is zoned Planned Development Housing Rural Residential and is directly
7 adjacent to existing camp/retreat center, also owned and operated by Mr. Dickenson. The other
8 portion of this property, which is two acres in area is to the north zoned Rural Buffer. It is not
9 and was not part of the original Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development. As
10 you will note from the abstract provided to you, at some point, Mr. Dickenson recombined this
11 tract of land (staff identified the portion of property zoned Planned Development) with this tract
12 of land (staff identified the portion of property zoned Rural Buffer), which technically constituted
13 a special use permit modification and should have been approved by the County at the time the
14 recombination occurred. This was done in the mid-90's. This proposal will correct that problem.
15 Ultimately, what Mr. Dickenson is requesting is lot 31 R in its entirety, this two-acre portion
16 currently zoned Rural Buffer, and this two-acre portion currently zoned PD-H-R1, be rezoned
17 totally to Rural Buffer and removed from the provisions of the Heartwood special use permit.
18 You will find a copy of the application in Attachment 1 of your abstract packet. As we indicated
19 in our abstract, as Mr. Dickenson argues the request is an attempt to address existing and long-
20 standing septic and development issues at the creative learning center, specifically the camp
21 retreat center operating to the east. Mr. Dickenson has been working with the current Planning
22 staff for several years to bring this particular parcel of property into compliance with the
23 provisions of the code. He is currently operating the retreat center on the property in
24 accordance with a previously issued Class B special use permit, issued by the Board of
25 Adjustment in 2008.
26
27 As indicated in the application and in this PowerPoint, the applicant only intends to recombine
28 the separate parcel with the adjacent camp property and construct the required septic system
29 and repair area for compliance not only with the special use permit, but the Orange County
30 Health Department.
31
32 This is a two-tiered process. The application involves a rezoning request changing the property
33 from PD-H-R1 and Rural Buffer to just Rural Buffer. That is a legislative decision. I will call the
34 Board's attention to Attachment 4 of your packet where staff has provided a chart outlining the
35 differences between legislative and a quasi-judicial, which is a special use permit process. We
36 also are looking at a modification of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with Section
37 2.7 inclusive of the Unified Development Ordinance. What Mr. Dickenson is modifying would be
38 to remove lot 31 R as it's currently shown on this map (staff identified the property on a map)
39 from the provisions and requirements of the special use permit. The decision on this
40 modification is rendered and based on the sworn testimony from the applicant, any supporters,
41 any detractors. The applicant still bears the burden of proof in order to determine whether or
42 not the request complies with the provisions of the code, the previously approved special use
43 permit and the required findings of fact. You will note from the abstract that staff's initial findings
44 are that the applicant has submitted all required documentation with this proposal, the request
45 does not appear to invalidate previously issued conditions or dimensional standards associated
46 with the Heartwood subdivision.
47
48 I will call your attention specifically to pages 2, 3 and 4 of your abstract where staff breaks down
49 the various provisions associated with the Heartwood special use permit. The removal of this
50 tract does not invalidate existing ratio standards or proposals for land use that Mr. Dickenson
51 had originally proposed for the Heartwoods project as approved by the County in the mid to late
28
1 80's. Finally, I will say that there are policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence
2 to the viability of this proposal.
3
4 What you are being asked to do tonight is receive the application, conduct the public hearing,
5 accept County Commissioner and Planning Board comments, refer the matter to the Planning
6 Board with a request that a recommendation be referred to the County Board of Commissioners
7 in time for your September 18th meeting, and that you adjourn the public hearing until this date
8 and time certain in order to receive the Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Dickenson, the
9 applicant is here this evening. If you have any other questions, I'd be more than happy to
10 answer them.
11
12 There were no questions from the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners.
13
14 Spence Dickenson: I have been sworn in. I have owned Spence's Farm since 1984, and I've
15 worked with over 10,000 children at the farm. I've made a significant difference in the people
16 that have been there for 15 years and even worked for me at this point. At some point we
17 looked at what to do to have the farm be legal, in compliance with everything. As a farm, it was
18 exempt from the Planning zoning. We have been trying to bring it all into compliance. The only
19 thing left at this point is the septic system. I have been turned down by the Health Department
20 as far as being able to find any septic system on Spence's Farm proper. I own the adjacent
21 land. Michael Harvey is of the mind that we couldn't go across the PDD to put it where we were
22 going to put it on the upper piece until we took it out of the special use.
23
24 Chris Lamb: My name is Chris Lamb, and I have been duly sworn in. I live in the Heartwood
25 community and know Spence well and drive by his farm every day. I do support resolving the
26 issue around the septic system. It's been going on for too long, it needs to be resolved. My
27 main concern with this change this piece of property will no longer be subject to our existing
28 covenants as well as the provisions of the special use permit. In the plans I see here and
29 potential interpretations of the special use permit and whoever may own that piece of property in
30 the future, I do not see enough protections of my property value rights. This property will now
31 extend that farm/camp/retreat into the Heartwood community. And while Spence has done a lot
32 to improve appearances of the farm with Heartwood, recently that's not been the history and it
33 might not be the history of future owners of that property. So I would like to see some sort of
34 protection where this piece of property can only be used for that septic field and no other
35 activities or services or hindrances into the farm so that we could still have this border that
36 protects the Heartwood community and the value of our properties for the many activities on the
37 farm. I think this plan really opens up a whole host of interpretations of what could be run on
38 that piece of property right next to our Heartwood homeowners and our pond. I would like to
39 see some type of extra specification be put in that it could be only be used for that septic system
40 and no other services or buildings or structures.
41
42 Michael Harvey: I will speak the best that I can to that. What the Board is essentially being
43 asked to do this evening is allow lot 31 R to be removed from the existing special use permit and
44 have it rezoned to Rural Buffer. Mr. Dickenson is not going to be able to develop the septic
45 system on the property until it goes back to the Orange County Board of Adjustment and
46 combines this parcel with the existing special use permit, where it will have to be reviewed and
47 approved at a public hearing. Mr. Dickenson will have to allow the Board of Adjustment to
48 develop findings of fact making the determination that the request is consistent with the various
49 general standards detailed within Section 2.7 as well as 5.3.2 of the Unified Development
50 Ordinance. He will also be required to maintain buffers as required by the ordinance in terms of
51 separation, the natural buffer separating this particular parcel of property from the Heartwood
29
1 development. There will be limitations imposed by the Board of Adjustment through that
2 process relating to the developability and use of the property consistent with existing standards
3 within the Ordinance. I think the concerns expressed this evening are more appropriately
4 addressed through the Class B Special Use Permitting review process, as Mr. Dickenson will
5 have to prove compliance with the various applicable standards including the required
6 landscaping separation buffers at that time. I will also state for the record here this evening,
7 Planning staff would not allow for a connector onto Pathway Court from the campy property.
8 The reason being is that this is a private road governed by a special use permit for the
9 Heartwood planned development. There is no guarantee of access from the farm because it is
10 not governed by the Heartwood special use permit and such an action would invalidate a
11 required buffer.
12
13 Commissioner Jacobs: I just want to ask Mr. Harvey if he could please make sure that Mr.
14 Lamb gets a notification of the Board of Adjustment meeting.
15
16 Michael Harvey: He will certainly, because he is within the 500 feet of the property boundary,
17 and as you know, we are required and obligated to send letters to everyone within 500 feet, so
18 he will be notified.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
21 to receive the application, refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a
22 recommendation be returned to the Board of Commissioners for the September 18th regular
23 meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until September 18th in order to receive and accept the
24 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27
28 ****************************************************
29
30
Planning Board July 11 , 2012 regular meeting
Attachment 6
RATIO EXPLANATIONS:
• Floor Area Ratio:
o Definition (Article 10 UDO): The maximum floor area permitted for each square
foot of land area.
o Includes allowable floor area for single and multiple story buildings
o Permits are reviewed for compliance with the overall floor area ratio limit for the
specific zoning district or as part of an overall project.
• Open Space Ratio:
o Definition (Article 10 UDO): The minimum square footage of open space
required for each square foot of gross land area. This area includes parking and
vehicular access areas and it can also include balconies, and roofs improved for
recreation
o Open space, from a land use intensity standpoint, includes the total horizontal area
of uncovered open space plus half the total horizontal area of covered open space
subject to specific limitations detailed within the UDO.
• Livability Space Ratio:
o Definition (Article 10 UDO): The minimum square footage of non-vehicular
outdoor space required for each square foot of land area in residential
development.
o Livability space is intended to be open space used for people, planting and visual
appeal and does not include vehicular parking and access areas.
o The ratio identifies areas on a parcel of property or within a development project
that are part of total open space improved for residents use and for aesthetic
appeal. This would include lawns/landscaped areas, walkways, paved terraces and
sitting areas, outdoor recreational areas, and landscaped portions of street rights-
of-way.
• Recreation Space Ratio:
o Definition (Article 10 UDO): Minimum square footage of open space in
residential areas, suitable by location, size, shape, access and improvements,
required for each square foot of gross land area. This area is a public or private
exterior area improved for recreation of all residents, having a least dimension of
50 feet, and average dimension of 100 feet and a minimum area of 10,000 square
feet.
o The ratio identifies exterior area on a parcel of property or within a development
project improved for common recreational use.
o This ratio identifies property that is a portion of the total Livability Space Ratio
calculation.
31
Attachment 2
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
APPROVED 8/21/2012
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
May 29, 2012
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices,
Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Alice
Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
Michael Talbert, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be
identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:, Vice Chair Larry Wright, Pete Hallenbeck, Mark
Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Andrea Rohrbacher, Lisa Stuckey, Maxecine Mitchell, and
Tony Blake
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Rachel Phelps Hawkins,
Alan Campbell, and Johnny Randall
Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:04:05 PM.
A. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Board Vice Chair Larry Wright introduced this item.
1. Zoning Atlas Amendment and Class A Special Use Permit Modification -To review
an application to modify an existing Class A Special Use Permit governing the
development of the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development by
removing a parcel from the project and rezoning it from PD-H-R1 (Planned Development
Housing Rural Residential) and RB (Rural Buffer) to RB (Rural Buffer). The property is
located off of Pathway Court, a private road.
Michael Harvey: This is a special use permit. At this time, all individuals that are seeking to
provide testimony have to be sworn.
Those who were speaking to this item were then sworn in.
32
Michael Harvey: I have been sworn. This item involves a request to review a modification to
an existing special use permit and the review of a general use rezoning application for lot 31 R in
the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development. As you will note, in attachment 2
in your packets, Mr. Spence Dickinson is the owner of this property property that is currently
split-zoned Rural Buffer and Planned Development Housing rural Residential. I would like to
remind the Board that you have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation at your places for your
review. As indicated in the abstract, the property is currently split zoned and approximately two
acres is located within the boundary of the special use permit. The Heartwood at Blackwood
Mountain project is zoned Planned Development Housing Rural Residential and is directly
adjacent to existing camp/retreat center, also owned and operated by Mr. Dickenson. The other
portion of this property, which is two acres in area is to the north zoned Rural Buffer. It is not
and was not part of the original Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development. As
you will note from the abstract provided to you, at some point, Mr. Dickenson recombined this
tract of land (staff identified the portion of property zoned Planned Development) with this tract
of land (staff identified the portion of property zoned Rural Buffer), which technically constituted
a special use permit modification and should have been approved by the County at the time the
recombination occurred. This was done in the mid-90's. This proposal will correct that problem.
Ultimately, what Mr. Dickenson is requesting is lot 31 R in its entirety, this two-acre portion
currently zoned Rural Buffer, and this two-acre portion currently zoned PD-H-R1, be rezoned
totally to Rural Buffer and removed from the provisions of the Heartwood special use permit.
You will find a copy of the application in Attachment 1 of your abstract packet. As we indicated
in our abstract, as Mr. Dickenson argues the request is an attempt to address existing and long-
standing septic and development issues at the creative learning center, specifically the camp
retreat center operating to the east. Mr. Dickenson has been working with the current Planning
staff for several years to bring this particular parcel of property into compliance with the
provisions of the code. He is currently operating the retreat center on the property in
accordance with a previously issued Class B special use permit, issued by the Board of
Adjustment in 2008.
As indicated in the application and in this PowerPoint, the applicant only intends to recombine
the separate parcel with the adjacent camp property and construct the required septic system
and repair area for compliance not only with the special use permit, but the Orange County
Health Department.
This is a two-tiered process. The application involves a rezoning request changing the property
from PD-H-R1 and Rural Buffer to just Rural Buffer. That is a legislative decision. I will call the
Board's attention to Attachment 4 of your packet where staff has provided a chart outlining the
differences between legislative and a quasi-judicial, which is a special use permit process. We
also are looking at a modification of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with Section
2.7 inclusive of the Unified Development Ordinance. What Mr. Dickenson is modifying would be
to remove lot 31 R as it's currently shown on this map (staff identified the property on a map)
from the provisions and requirements of the special use permit. The decision on this
modification is rendered and based on the sworn testimony from the applicant, any supporters,
any detractors. The applicant still bears the burden of proof in order to determine whether or
not the request complies with the provisions of the code, the previously approved special use
permit and the required findings of fact. You will note from the abstract that staff's initial findings
are that the applicant has submitted all required documentation with this proposal, the request
does not appear to invalidate previously issued conditions or dimensional standards associated
with the Heartwood subdivision.
33
I will call your attention specifically to pages 2, 3 and 4 of your abstract where staff breaks down
the various provisions associated with the Heartwood special use permit. The removal of this
tract does not invalidate existing ratio standards or proposals for land use that Mr. Dickenson
had originally proposed for the Heartwoods project as approved by the County in the mid to late
80's. Finally, I will say that there are policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence
to the viability of this proposal.
What you are being asked to do tonight is receive the application, conduct the public hearing,
accept County Commissioner and Planning Board comments, refer the matter to the Planning
Board with a request that a recommendation be referred to the County Board of Commissioners
in time for your September 18th meeting, and that you adjourn the public hearing until this date
and time certain in order to receive the Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Dickenson, the
applicant is here this evening. If you have any other questions, I'd be more than happy to
answer them.
There were no questions from the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners.
Spence Dickenson: I have been sworn in. I have owned Spence's Farm since 1984, and I've
worked with over 10,000 children at the farm. I've made a significant difference in the people
that have been there for 15 years and even worked for me at this point. At some point we
looked at what to do to have the farm be legal, in compliance with everything. As a farm, it was
exempt from the Planning zoning. We have been trying to bring it all into compliance. The only
thing left at this point is the septic system. I have been turned down by the Health Department
as far as being able to find any septic system on Spence's Farm proper. I own the adjacent
land. Michael Harvey is of the mind that we couldn't go across the PDD to put it where we were
going to put it on the upper piece until we took it out of the special use.
Chris Lamb: My name is Chris Lamb, and I have been duly sworn in. I live in the Heartwood
community and know Spence well and drive by his farm every day. I do support resolving the
issue around the septic system. It's been going on for too long, it needs to be resolved. My
main concern with this change this piece of property will no longer be subject to our existing
covenants as well as the provisions of the special use permit. In the plans I see here and
potential interpretations of the special use permit and whoever may own that piece of property in
the future, I do not see enough protections of my property value rights. This property will now
extend that farm/camp/retreat into the Heartwood community. And while Spence has done a lot
to improve appearances of the farm with Heartwood, recently that's not been the history and it
might not be the history of future owners of that property. So I would like to see some sort of
protection where this piece of property can only be used for that septic field and no other
activities or services or hindrances into the farm so that we could still have this border that
protects the Heartwood community and the value of our properties for the many activities on the
farm. I think this plan really opens up a whole host of interpretations of what could be run on
that piece of property right next to our Heartwood homeowners and our pond. I would like to
see some type of extra specification be put in that it could be only be used for that septic system
and no other services or buildings or structures.
Michael Harvey: I will speak the best that I can to that. What the Board is essentially being
asked to do this evening is allow lot 31 R to be removed from the existing special use permit and
have it rezoned to Rural Buffer. Mr. Dickenson is not going to be able to develop the septic
system on the property until it goes back to the Orange County Board of Adjustment and
combines this parcel with the existing special use permit, where it will have to be reviewed and
approved at a public hearing. Mr. Dickenson will have to allow the Board of Adjustment to
34
develop findings of fact making the determination that the request is consistent with the various
general standards detailed within Section 2.7 as well as 5.3.2 of the Unified Development
Ordinance. He will also be required to maintain buffers as required by the ordinance in terms of
separation, the natural buffer separating this particular parcel of property from the Heartwood
development. There will be limitations imposed by the Board of Adjustment through that
process relating to the developability and use of the property consistent with existing standards
within the Ordinance. I think the concerns expressed this evening are more appropriately
addressed through the Class B Special Use Permitting review process, as Mr. Dickenson will
have to prove compliance with the various applicable standards including the required
landscaping separation buffers at that time. I will also state for the record here this evening,
Planning staff would not allow for a connector onto Pathway Court from the campy property.
The reason being is that this is a private road governed by a special use permit for the
Heartwood planned development. There is no guarantee of access from the farm because it is
not governed by the Heartwood special use permit and such an action would invalidate a
required buffer.
Commissioner Jacobs: I just want to ask Mr. Harvey if he could please make sure that Mr.
Lamb gets a notification of the Board of Adjustment meeting.
Michael Harvey: He will certainly, because he is within the 500 feet of the property boundary,
and as you know, we are required and obligated to send letters to everyone within 500 feet, so
he will be notified.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to receive the application, refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a
recommendation be returned to the Board of Commissioners for the September 18th regular
meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until September 18th in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
Attachment 3
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
APPROVED AUGUST 1, 2012
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JULY 11,2012
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck (Vice-chair), Cheeks
Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township
Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township
Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township
Representative;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Brezina, Eno Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
Mark Marcoplos,At-Large, Bingham Township;Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tina
Love,Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Beth Trahos, Richard Kirkland, Lance Williams, Tim Smith, John McGuire, Joe Griffin
Items handed out to the Planning Board Members at meeting: Purchased Power Agreement between Duke Energy
Carolinas and White Cross Farm, LLC;Duke Energy Purchase Agreement Rate Structure
AGENDA ITEM 8: Zoning Atlas Amendment and Class A Special Use Permit Modification - To make a
recommendation to the BOCC on an application to modify an existing Class A Special Use
Permit governing the development of the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned
Development by removing a parcel from the project and rezoning it from PD-H-R1 (Planned
Development Housing Rural Residential) and RB (Rural Buffer) to RB (Rural Buffer). The
property is located off of Pathway Court, a private road. This item was heard at the May 29,
2012 quarterly public hearing.
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Larry Wright: I am on the Board of Adjustment and this ultimately can go to the Board of Adjustment which is quasi-
judicial. I ask Michael heretofore if I should recuse myself. Should I recuse myself from item 8?
Michael Harvey: You do not need to recuse yourself. Reviewed abstract and staff findings/recommendations.
Larry Wright: Any questions from members of the Board.
Lisa Stuckey: Will there be vegetation between that property and Pathway Court?
1
36
Michael Harvey: There is a requirement that all camp retreat centers have to observe a buffer along properties
including their perimeter. Also as this lot is now being removed from the confines of the Heartwood Special Use
Permit there is no longer any legal right of access to Pathway Court from the property.
Motion made by Lisa Stuckey to approve Sections 2.2 and Section 2.7.3 and accept staffs recommendation.
Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion made by Tony Blake to accept staffs recommendation for Section 2.7.5 Class A Special Notification
Requirement. Seconded by Buddy Hartley.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion made by Lisa Stuckey to approve Sections 2.2 and Section 2.7.3 and accept staffs recommendation.
Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion made by Rachel Hawkins to approve Section 3.3 Base Zoning Districts and Section 6.3 Land Use Intensity
Measures: Dimensional standards approved as part of the original Heartwood and Blackwood Mountain Class A
Special Use Permit and take staff's recommendation. Seconded by Tony Blake.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion made by Lisa Stuckey to approve Section 5.3.2(B) Special Use — Specific Standards Class A Special Use
and accept staff's recommendation. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion made by Alan Campbell to approve Sections 5.3.2(A)(2)(a) that the use will maintain or promote the public
health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as
submitted based on correspondence from staff that there are no problems along these lines and evidence presented
at other hearings and also entered into the record from the applicant as summarized earlier in our hearing by Mr.
Harvey. Seconded by Tony Blake.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion made by Alan Campbell to approve Section 5.3.2(A)(2)(b) that the use of the project will maintain and
enhance the value of the contiguous property which is based on the applicant's testimony at the public hearing and
materials submitted in the record. Seconded Buddy Hartley.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion made by Alan Campbell to approve Section 5.3.2(A)(2)(c) that for this project, the location and character of
the use, if developed according to the plan submitted,will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and
the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations
or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the BOCC all pursuant to the testimony presented by
the applicant at the hearing or otherwise submitted. Seconded Tony Blake.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion made by Alan Campbell to approve the recommendations of staff for this entire project as outlined on page
50 and page 51. Seconded Buddy Hartley.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion made by Alan Campbell to approve the resolution of the rezoning. Seconded Lisa Stuckey.
Vote: Unanimous
2
37
a ch
Michael Harvey
u���M,ir7i " �
From: Spence Dickinson <spencetm @aol.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 1:22 PM
To: Michael Harvey
Cc: Spence's Farm
Subject: Acceptance of Conditions on permit
I am sending this email per conversation with Michael Harvey on the application I submitted to remove lot 32
Heartwood for the PUD.
I understand there will be some conditions. I have read them and accept them, except condition 5. After I developed
Heartwood I developed the subdivision of DeerRidge which Lot 8 DeerRidge is accessed by Pathway Court. I request
that the requirement to deny access to Lot 32 from Pathway Court would create a undue hardship and the limited use
would not impact the remaining uses and owners of land on Pathway Court.
I hope this is sufficient for what is needed and my request to maintain access to Pathway Court would not be denied.
Thank You Michael Harvey and the commissioners for your help in settling this matter.
Spence Dickinson
spencetm@aol.com
1
38
Attachment 5
CASE NUMBER: SU-A-1-12
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF
PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
SPENCE DICINSON
REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION
TO REMOVE A 4 ACRE PARCEL (PIN 9871-54-9182)
FROM THE HEARTWOOD AND BLACKWOOD MOUNTAIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
As required under Section 2.7.14 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
modifications to previously approved Class A Special Use Permits are processed in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2.7 of the UDO.
This request must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Section 5.3.2 (A) and (B) of
the UDO.
The Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following specific
standards:
(1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined
within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO,
(2) Dimensional requirements as detailed within Section(s) 3.3 and 6.3 of the UDO including
dimensional requirements approved as part of the original Heartwood at Blackwood
Mountain Class A Special Use Permit,
(3) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of:
a. Sewage disposal facilities,
b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and
c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site
(4) The general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in
question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist in deliberations.
39
SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION COMPONENTS("Yes"
indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 2.2 X Yes No Attachment 1 of the May Yes No
29, 2012 Quarterly
The application for a Public Hearing packet
Class A Special Use contained the completed
Permit shall be on forms application for the
provided by the Planning request.
Department.
2.2.4 (D) X Yes No Staff testimony during Yes No
the Quarterly Public
Applications must be Hearing that the
accompanied by the fee applicant had paid all
amount that has been applicable fees as
established by Board of required by the adopted
County Commissioners. fee schedule.
Application fees are
nonrefundable.
2.7.3 (B) (1) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the May Yes No
29, 2012 Quarterly
A full and accurate Public Hearing packet
description of the contained a detailed
proposed use, including narrative outlining the
its location, appearance, nature of the request.
and operational
characteristics.
2.7.3 (B) (2) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the May Yes No
29, 2012 Quarterly
The names and Public Hearing packet
addresses of the owners contained the required
of the property information
40
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (3) X Yes No Attachment 1 of the May Yes No
29, 2012 Quarterly
Relevant information Public Hearing packet
needed to show contained the required
compliance with the detail including a site
general and specific plan denoting the
standards governing the boundary of the property.
Special Use
The Public Hearing
abstract, as entered into
the record by staff,
contained a breakdown
of the minimum
dimensional
requirements for the
Heartwood subdivision
demonstrating that the
proposed revision will not
invalidate the previous
approval.
2.7.3 (B) (4) X Yes No Required copies of the Yes No
site plan, prepared by
Twenty-six (26) copies of Holland Surveying were
the site plan prepared by submitted and part of the
a registered N.C. land May 29, 2012 Quarterly
surveyor, architect, or Public Hearing abstract
engineer. for this item
2.7.3 (B) (5) _X_ Not The Project does not _ Not applicable
applicable involve a preliminary
If the application involves subdivision application.
a Preliminary Subdivision
Plat, 26 copies of the Plat
prepared in accordance
with Section 7.14 shall be
provided.
2.7.3 (B) (6) X Yes No The applicant provided Yes No
staff with the required list
A list of all parcels located of adjacent property
within 500 feet of the owners
subject parcel and the
name and address of
each property owner, as
currently listed in the
Orange County tax
records.
41
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Ordinance RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
2.7.3 (B) (7) _X_ Not The Project does not _ Not applicable
applicable involve the development
Elevations of all structures of any structures. As
proposed to be used in such this requirement is
the development. not applicable.
2.7.3 (B) (8) _X_ Not The Project will not result _ Not applicable
26 copies of an applicable in any disturbance
Environmental requiring the submission
Assessment or of an Environmental
Environmental Impact Assessment per Section
Statement as required by 6.18 of the UDO. As
Section 6.16 of the UDO such this requirement is
not applicable.
2.7.3 (B) (9) _X_ Not The proposal will not _ Not applicable
Method of disposal of applicable involve the development
trees, limbs, stumps and of the subject property.
construction debris As such this requirement
associated with the is not applicable.
permitted activity, which
shall be by some method
other than open burning.
2.7.3 (B) (10) _X_ Not The proposal will not _ Not applicable
Statement from the applicable involve the development
applicant indicating the of the subject property.
anticipated development As such this requirement
schedule for the build-out is not applicable.
of the project.
2.7.3 (B) (11) X Not applicable The applicant is not Not applicable
Statement from the requesting vesting of the
applicant in justification of project.
any request for vesting for
a period of more than two
years (five years
maximum)
42
SECTION 2.7.5 CLASS A SPECIAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS("Yes" indicates
compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
A. The Planning Director X Yes No As detailed within the Yes No
shall give public notice Public Hearing package,
of the date, time and notice was sent certified
place of the public mail on May 14, 2012 for
hearing a May 29, 2012 Public
Hearing.
B. Such notice shall be _Yes No
published in a X Yes No The legal ad was
newspaper of general published in the News of
circulation in Orange Orange and the Chapel
County once a week for Hill Herald on May 16,
two successive weeks, 2012 and again on May
with the first notice to be 23, 2012.
published not less than
ten days not more than
we days prior to the date
of the hearing.
C. The Planning Director Yes No
shall post on the X Yes No The property was posted
affected property a on May 18, 2012.
notice of the public
hearing at lest ten days
prior to the date of said
hearing.
D. Written notice shall be Yes No
sent by certified mail to X Yes No As previously indicated
all adjacent property public notice was sent via
owners not less than 15 certified mail on May 14,
days before the hearing 2012.
date. Adjacent property
owners are those whose Attachment 6 of the May
property lies within five 29, 2012 Quarterly Public
hundred feet of the Hearing abstract
affected property and contained staff's mail out
whose manes and certification, a copy of the
addresses are currently notification letter, and the
listed in the Orange mailing labels as provided
County tax records. by the applicant for all
property owners within
500 feet
43
Section 3.3 Base Zoning Districts— Rural Buffer; Section 6.3 Land Use Intensity Measures ;
Dimensional standards approved as part of the original Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Class
A Special Use Permit ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 3.3 and Section 6.3
establishes land use intensity
measures. The approved
Class A Special Use Permit
for the Heartwood project
established minimum
dimensional standards for
the project as a whole.
Total area of the original
project, as defined within the
application was 1,533,747
sq. ft. (35.21 acres)
Per previously approved X Yes No The May 29, 2012 _Yes No
SUP, site plan and Quarterly Public Hearing
Section 3.3 Base Zoning abstract and the July 11,
Districts—Rural Buffer 2012 Planning Board
Conditional Use district packet provided the
required breakdown.
(staff note—this is what
was required for the The narrative and site
project when it was plan for the Heartwood
classified as a Planned project proposed a total
Development) floor area of 82,000 sq.
ft. (1.88 acres).
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Removal of the 2 acre
Maximum allowed — 0.058 portion of the parcel
of the total project area or zoned PD-H-R1 will
88,957 sq.ft. reduce the allowable
floor area ratio to 83,905
sq. ft.
Applicant was still
proposing less overall
floor area for the project.
A condition of approval
for this request is that a
revised plat be prepared
denoting the revised
boundary of the Special
Use Permit along with
the revised dimensional
standards impacting
development for the
project as a whole.
44
Per previously approved X Yes No The May 29, 2012 Yes No
SUP and site plan and Quarterly Public Hearing
Section 3.3 Base Zoning abstract provided the
Districts—Rural Buffer required breakdown.
Conditional Use district
The narrative and site
(staff note—this is what plan for the Heartwood
was required for the project proposed a total
project when it was minimum open space
classified as a Planned area of 1,451,747 sq. ft.
Development) (33.32 acres) for the
entire development.
Minimum Required Open
Space Ratio - 0.84 of the Removal of the 2 acre
total project area or portion of the parcel
1,288,348 sq.ft (29.5 zoned PD-H-R1 will
acres) reduce the minimum
open space requirement
for the project to
approximately 1,215,166
sq.ft. (27.8 acres).
The original application
proposed more open
space than originally
required for the approval
of the Special Use
Permit. This lot was not
part of the required open
space area. Its removal
from the project will not
impact available open
space.
Proposed modification
will not reduce required
open space ratio below
the required ratio for the
project as defined on the
plat and within the UDO.
A condition of approval
for this request is that a
revised plat be prepared
denoting the revised
boundary of the Special
Use Permit along with
the revised dimensional
standards impacting
development for the
project as a whole
45
Per previously approved X Yes No The May 29, 2012
SUP and site plan and Quarterly Public Hearing
Section 3.3 Base Zoning abstract provided a
Districts—Rural Buffer breakdown of the
Conditional Use district dimensional standards
for the project.
(staff note—this is what
was required for the The narrative and site
project when it was plan for the Heartwood
classified as a Planned project proposed a total
Development) minimum livability space
of 1,280,147 sq.ft (29.3
Minimum Required acres)for the entire
Livability Space Ratio — development.
0.75 of the total project
area or 1,150,310 sq.ft. Removal of the 2 acre
(26.4 acres) portion of the parcel
zoned PD-H-R1 will
reduce the minimum
required livability space
to approximately
1,084,970 sq.ft. (24.9
acres)
The applicant has not
proposed modifying the
anticipated livability
space ratio for the
project.
Proposed modification
will not invalidate or alter
previous approvals.
A condition of approval
for this request is that a
revised plat be prepared
denoting the revised
boundary of the Special
Use Permit along with
the revised dimensional
standards impacting
development for the
project as a whole
46
Per previously approved X Yes No The May 29, 2012
SUP and site plan and Quarterly Public Hearing
Section 3.3 Base Zoning abstract provided the
Districts—Rural Buffer required breakdown,
Conditional Use district which has since been
revised within this
(staff note—this is what document to reflect the
was required for the actual required ratio (i.e.
project when it was .031 rather than .019)
classified as a Planned
Development) The narrative and site
plan for the Heartwood
Minimum Required project proposed a total
Recreation Space Ratio — minimum recreation
0.019 or 29,141 sq.ft. space of 96,000 sq.ft
(2.2 acres) for the entire
(staff note—the required development.
minimum recreation space
ratio enforced at the time Removal of the 2 acre
this project was adopted portion of the parcel
was, in fact, 0.031 or zoned PD-H-R1 will
47,546 sq. ft,. not the reduce the minimum
.019 referenced in required recreation
staff's findings from space to approximately
1986) 44,845 sq.ft.
This lot was not
proposed for recreational
use so it removal does
not eliminate identified
recreation area.
A condition of approval
for this request is that a
revised plat be prepared
denoting the revised
boundary of the Special
Use Permit along with
the revised dimensional
standards impacting
development for the
project as a whole
47
Section 5.3.2 (B) Special Use —Specific Standards CLASS A SPECIAL ("Yes" indicates
compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
Section 5.3.2 (B)
In addition to the general
standards the following
specific standards shall be
addressed by the
applicant before the
issuance of a Special Use
Permit
X Yes No Sewage is disposed of Yes No
Section 5.3.2 (B) (1) via private septic
systems on individual
Method and adequacy of lots. Water is provided
provision for sewage through a community
disposal facilities, solid well maintained by a 3rd
waste and water service. party.
The removal of this lot
from the Heartwood
subdivision will not
create septic or well
issues for the remaining
lots in the development
as this lot was slated for
development as part of
the creative learning
center and duplex
residences.
Attachment 3 of the May
29, 2012 Quarterly
Public Hearing abstract
contained a memo from
Orange County Health
indicating they had no
problem with the
proposal as submitted or
the removal of the lot
from the provisions of
the previously approved
Special Use Permit.
48
Section 5.3.2 (B) (2) X Yes No Fire protection will be Yes No
provided by the New
Method and adequacy of Hope Fire Department,
police, fire and rescue rescue service by the
squad protection. Orange County
Emergency
Management, and police
protection by the Orange
County Sheriff's
Department.
Attachment 3 of the May
29, 2012 Quarterly
Public Hearing abstract
contain memos from the
EMS Director and the
Fire Marshal indicating
they had no problem with
the proposal as
submitted.
No concerns have been
expressed by the
Sheriff's office.
Section 5.3.2 (B) (3) X Yes No The removal of this lot Yes No
will not impact traffic use
Method and adequacy of on Pathway Court.
vehicle access to the site
and traffic conditions The removal of this lot
around the site. does not impact the
original traffic impact
analysis completed by
Phil Post and Associates
and submitted as part of
the project's original
approval. The removal
of this lot, in fact, will
reduce traffic along
Pathway Court.
A drive cut from the farm
will not be allowed as
testified by staff at the
May 29, 2012 Quarterly
Public Hearing and the
July 11, 2012 Planning
Board meeting.
49
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) Special Use —General Standards CLASS A SPECIAL ("Yes" indicates
compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
RECOMMENDED TO SUPPORT BOCC
FINDINGS FINDINGS FINDINGS
In accordance with Section
5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of
Commissioners shall also
consider the following
general conditions before
the application for a
Special Use can be
approved:
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) Attachment 1, the Will _Will
X Will _Will application, of the public Not
The use will maintain or not hearing abstract,
promote the public health,
safety and general welfare, Staff and applicant
if located where proposed testimony from the Public
and developed and Hearing,
operated according to the
plan as submitted. Abstracts from the May
29, 2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing and July 11, 2012
Planning Board,
Staff findings as
discussed during the July
11, 2012 Planning Board
regular meeting, and
A lack of competent
material and substantial
evidence in the form of
testimony, exhibits,
documents, plans, or
other materials entered
into the record indicating
the applicant had not met
their burden in
accordance with Section
5.3.2 (A) of the UDO.
50
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) Applicant testimony from Will Will
X Will _Will the Public Hearing, Not
The use will maintain or not
enhance the value of Abstracts from the May
contiguous property (unless 29, 2012 Quarterly Public
the use is a public Hearing and July 11, 2012
necessity, in which case Planning Board, and
the use need not maintain
or enhance the value of A lack of competent
contiguous property). material and substantial
evidence in the form of
testimony, exhibits,
documents, plans, or
other materials entered
into the record indicating
the applicant had not met
their burden in
accordance with Section
5.3.2 (A) of the UDO.
Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) Attachment 1, the Is _ Is
X Is _ Is application, of the public Not
The location and character Not hearing abstract,
of the use, if developed
according to the plan Staff and applicant
submitted, will be in testimony from the Public
harmony with the area in Hearing,
which it is to be located and
the use is in compliance Abstracts from the May
with the plan for the 29, 2012 Quarterly Public
physical development of Hearing and July 11, 2012
the County as embodied in Planning Board,
these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or Staff findings as
portion thereof, adopted by discussed during the July
the Board of County 11, 2012 Planning Board
Commissioners. regular meeting, and
A lack of competent
material and substantial
evidence in the form of
testimony, exhibits,
documents, plans, or
other materials entered
into the record indicating
the applicant had not met
their burden in
accordance with Section
5.3.2 (A) of the UDO.
51
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Board have not received any information that would establish grounds for making a
negative finding on the general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health,
safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in
compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County.
The Planning Board has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found
that the applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO.
Provided the Board of County Commissioners finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards, the
Board could make a positive finding on this application. In the event that the Board of County Commissioners
makes the determination that the permit can be issued, the Planning Board recommends the attachment of the
following conditions to the Special Use Permit:
1. An Ordinance approving the rezoning of the subject parcels as requested by the applicant as part
of the application submittal process be approved by the Board of County Commissioners;
2. Condition 17 of the Original Special Use Permit, approved on September 2, 1986 and recorded
within the Registrar of Deeds office within Book 725 at Page 306, required that the developer
produce: `a final boundary survey of the Planned Development (i.e. Heartwood)'. As part of this
revision the applicant shall, within 180 days from the approval of this modification, cause the
production of a revised boundary survey for the Heartwood and Blackwood Mountain Planned
Development denoting the new boundary line and submit it to the Orange County Planning
Department for approval. This survey, prepared and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, shall also
denote the revised dimensional standards for the project as follows:
ORIGINAL REQUIRED REVISED REQUIRED PROPOSED
MINIMUM STANDARDS: MINIMUM STANDARDS: STANDARDS FOR
(Per Orange County PROJECT:
Regulations) (Removing the 2 acre lot (As proposed by the
from the Planned applicant)
Development)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum Allowable Floor
Maximum allowed — 0.058 or Maximum allowed —0.058 or Area Ratio for project -
88,957 sq.ft. 83,905 sq. ft. 82,000 sq. ft. (1.88 acres)
Minimum Required Open Minimum Required Open Minimum Proposed Open
Space — 0.84 or 1,288,348 Space —0.84 or 1,215,166 Space for project -
sq.ft (29.5 acres) sq.ft. (27.8 acres) 1,445,147 sq. ft. (33.17
acres)
Minimum Required Livability Minimum Required Livability Proposed Livability Space
Space — 0.75 or 1,150,310 Space —0.75 or 1,084,970 for project - 1,280,147
sq.ft. (26.4 acres) sq.ft. (24.9 acres) sq.ft (29.3 acres)
Minimum Required Recreation Minimum Required Recreation Required Recreation
Space —0.031 or 47,546 sq. ft Space —0.031 or 44,845 sq. ft. Space for project - 96,000
sq. ft (2.2 acres)
52
The boundary survey shall be recorded within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds
within 30 days of being approved by the County Planning Department.
3. The applicant shall, within 180 days from the approval of this modification, cause the production
of a recombination plat legally recombining the subject property with an adjacent parcel,
identified with the Parcel Identification Number of 9871-63-4523, consistent with the submitted
application and the applicant's testimony.
4. A note shall be placed on this recombination plan indicating vehicular and/or pedestrian access
from this property, or the adjacent camp/retreat center identified with the Parcel Identification
Number of 9871-63-4523, onto Pathway Court shall be prohibited.
53
Ordinance#: ORD-2012-039 Attachment 6
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Spence Dickinson has initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), to rezone a parcel of undeveloped real property, approximately 4 acres in area, located
north of intersection of Blackwood Mountain Road (SR 2258) and Pathway Court:
From: Rural Buffer(RB) and Planned Development Housing Rural Residential (PD-H-R1)
To: Rural Buffer(RB)
and,
WHEREAS, the parcels are further identified through the following legal description:
BEGINNING:
at an iron pipe, the north west corner of the Common Land, Heartwood at
Blackwood Mtn., Phase I as recorded in Plat Book 58 Page 151, Orange County
Registry, said point being also in the center line of Pathway Court, a 50' private
road right-of-way as recorded in Plat Book 53 Page 172, OCR; thence with the
center line of Pathway Court, a curve to the left with a radius of 192.00', a length
of 132.14' to an iron pipe; thence a curve to the left with a radius of 125.00', a
length of 71.99' to a point; thence North 74 degrees, 01 minutes, 56 seconds
West 53.29' to an iron pipe in the center line of Pathway Court and in the center
line of a 20' septic easement as shown on a plat recorded in Plat Book 90 Page
181, OCR; thence with the center line of said easement, North 08 degrees, 38
minutes, 57 seconds East 147.30' to an iron pipe; thence North 23 degrees, 01
minutes, 18 seconds West 107.40' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 01
minutes, 27 seconds East 219.70' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 00
minutes, 32 seconds West 89.00' to an iron pipe in the east right-of-way of the
aforementioned Pathway Court; thence North 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34
seconds East 160.00' to an iron pipe; thence South 78 degrees, 00 minutes, 56
seconds East 157.88' to an iron pipe; thence North 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34
seconds East 241.88' to an iron pipe in the line of the Waldorf Educational
Association of North Carolina; thence with the Waldorf property South 83
degrees, 11 minutes, 31 seconds East 200.00' to an iron pipe; thence with
Waldorf property South 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34 seconds West 419.97' to an
iron pipe; thence South 83 degrees, 11 minutes, 26 seconds East 116.40' to an
iron pipe; thence North 69 degrees 38 minutes 10 seconds East 102.48' to an
iron pipe in the Waldorf line, the north west corner of the Spence Dickinson
property as recorded in Plat Book 61 Page 123, OCR; thence with the Dickinson
property South 05 degrees, 02 minutes, 44 seconds West 440.11' to an iron pipe
in the north line of the aforementioned Common Land, Heartwood at Blackwood
Mtn., Phase I; thence North 78 degrees, 11 minutes, 22 seconds West 44.45' to
the point and place of beginning and being all of Lot 31, Heartwood at Blackwood
1
54
Mtn., Phase I I as recorded in Plat Book 90 Page 181, and containing 4.003
Acres, more or less.
and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
have been deemed complete, and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably
necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County
Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the aforementioned parcel to Rural Buffer (RB)
consistent with the applicant's request.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
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 , 2012 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of ,
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
55
Ordinance#: ORD-2012-040
Attachment 7
AN ORDINANCE DENYING AN AMENDMENT REQUEST TO
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Spence Dickinson has initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), to rezone a parcel of undeveloped real property, approximately 4 acres in area, located
north of intersection of Blackwood Mountain Road (SR 2258) and Pathway Court:
From: Rural Buffer(RB) and Planned Development Housing Rural Residential (PD-H-R1)
To: Rural Buffer(RB)
and,
WHEREAS, the parcels are further identified through the following legal description:
BEGINNING:
at an iron pipe, the north west corner of the Common Land, Heartwood at
Blackwood Mtn., Phase I as recorded in Plat Book 58 Page 151, Orange County
Registry, said point being also in the center line of Pathway Court, a 50' private
road right-of-way as recorded in Plat Book 53 Page 172, OCR; thence with the
center line of Pathway Court, a curve to the left with a radius of 192.00', a length
of 132.14' to an iron pipe; thence a curve to the left with a radius of 125.00', a
length of 71.99' to a point; thence North 74 degrees, 01 minutes, 56 seconds
West 53.29' to an iron pipe in the center line of Pathway Court and in the center
line of a 20' septic easement as shown on a plat recorded in Plat Book 90 Page
181, OCR; thence with the center line of said easement, North 08 degrees, 38
minutes, 57 seconds East 147.30' to an iron pipe; thence North 23 degrees, 01
minutes, 18 seconds West 107.40' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 01
minutes, 27 seconds East 219.70' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 00
minutes, 32 seconds West 89.00' to an iron pipe in the east right-of-way of the
aforementioned Pathway Court; thence North 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34
seconds East 160.00' to an iron pipe; thence South 78 degrees, 00 minutes, 56
seconds East 157.88' to an iron pipe; thence North 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34
seconds East 241.88' to an iron pipe in the line of the Waldorf Educational
Association of North Carolina; thence with the Waldorf property South 83
degrees, 11 minutes, 31 seconds East 200.00' to an iron pipe; thence with
Waldorf property South 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34 seconds West 419.97' to an
iron pipe; thence South 83 degrees, 11 minutes, 26 seconds East 116.40' to an
iron pipe; thence North 69 degrees 38 minutes 10 seconds East 102.48' to an
iron pipe in the Waldorf line, the north west corner of the Spence Dickinson
property as recorded in Plat Book 61 Page 123, OCR; thence with the Dickinson
property South 05 degrees, 02 minutes, 44 seconds West 440.11' to an iron pipe
in the north line of the aforementioned Common Land, Heartwood at Blackwood
1
56
Mtn., Phase I; thence North 78 degrees, 11 minutes, 22 seconds West 44.45' to
the point and place of beginning and being all of Lot 31, Heartwood at Blackwood
Mtn., Phase I I as recorded in Plat Book 90 Page 181, and containing 4.003
Acres, more or less.
and;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.8 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of
the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has submitted
insufficient documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent
and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereo,. and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment will not promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby denies the
applicant's request to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone the aforementioned
parcels to Rural Buffer (RB).
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
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 , 2012 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of ,
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
57
Attachment 8
RES-2012-082
RESOLUTION CONCERNING STATEMENT OF
CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED
ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, Spence Dickinson has initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), to rezone a parcel of undeveloped real property, approximately 4 acres in area, located
north of intersection of Blackwood Mountain Road (SR 2258) and Pathway Court:
From: Rural Buffer(RB) and Planned Development Housing Rural Residential (PD-H-R1)
To: Rural Buffer(RB)
and,
WHEREAS, the parcels are further identified through the following legal description:
BEGINNING:
at an iron pipe, the north west corner of the Common Land, Heartwood at
Blackwood Mtn., Phase I as recorded in Plat Book 58 Page 151, Orange County
Registry, said point being also in the center line of Pathway Court, a 50' private
road right-of-way as recorded in Plat Book 53 Page 172, OCR; thence with the
center line of Pathway Court, a curve to the left with a radius of 192.00', a length
of 132.14' to an iron pipe; thence a curve to the left with a radius of 125.00', a
length of 71.99' to a point; thence North 74 degrees, 01 minutes, 56 seconds
West 53.29' to an iron pipe in the center line of Pathway Court and in the center
line of a 20' septic easement as shown on a plat recorded in Plat Book 90 Page
181, OCR; thence with the center line of said easement, North 08 degrees, 38
minutes, 57 seconds East 147.30' to an iron pipe; thence North 23 degrees, 01
minutes, 18 seconds West 107.40' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 01
minutes, 27 seconds East 219.70' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 00
minutes, 32 seconds West 89.00' to an iron pipe in the east right-of-way of the
aforementioned Pathway Court; thence North 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34
seconds East 160.00' to an iron pipe; thence South 78 degrees, 00 minutes, 56
seconds East 157.88' to an iron pipe; thence North 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34
seconds East 241.88' to an iron pipe in the line of the Waldorf Educational
Association of North Carolina; thence with the Waldorf property South 83
degrees, 11 minutes, 31 seconds East 200.00' to an iron pipe; thence with
Waldorf property South 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34 seconds West 419.97' to an
iron pipe; thence South 83 degrees, 11 minutes, 26 seconds East 116.40' to an
iron pipe; thence North 69 degrees 38 minutes 10 seconds East 102.48' to an
iron pipe in the Waldorf line, the north west corner of the Spence Dickinson
property as recorded in Plat Book 61 Page 123, OCR; thence with the Dickinson
1
58
property South 05 degrees, 02 minutes, 44 seconds West 440.11' to an iron pipe
in the north line of the aforementioned Common Land, Heartwood at Blackwood
Mtn., Phase I; thence North 78 degrees, 11 minutes, 22 seconds West 44.45' to
the point and place of beginning and being all of Lot 31, Heartwood at Blackwood
Mtn., Phase I I as recorded in Plat Book 90 Page 181, and containing 4.003
Acres, more or less.
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and to Section 153A-
341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has submitted
sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent
and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited
to, the following:
a. The Future Land Use Map.
b. Chapter 5 — Land Use Element, including:
1. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location,
pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of County
services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's
population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan
element goals and objectives.
2. Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable
growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities
and a high quality of life.
3. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural
resources, and community character.
4. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a
program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural
character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and
balanced transportation system.
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonable and
in the public interest as it promotes public health, safety, and general welfare by adopting the
goals and purposes of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed zoning
atlas amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the BOCC hereby
adopts this statement of consistency signifying same.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
59
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 , 2012 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of ,
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
60
Attachment 9
RES-2012-083
RESOLUTION CONCERNING STATEMENT OF
INCONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED
ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, Spence Dickinson has initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), to rezone a parcel of undeveloped real property, approximately 4 acres in area, located
north of intersection of Blackwood Mountain Road (SR 2258) and Pathway Court:
From: Rural Buffer(RB) and Planned Development Housing Rural Residential (PD-H-R1)
To: Rural Buffer(RB)
and,
WHEREAS, the parcels are further identified through the following legal description:
BEGINNING:
at an iron pipe, the north west corner of the Common Land, Heartwood at
Blackwood Mtn., Phase I as recorded in Plat Book 58 Page 151, Orange County
Registry, said point being also in the center line of Pathway Court, a 50' private
road right-of-way as recorded in Plat Book 53 Page 172, OCR; thence with the
center line of Pathway Court, a curve to the left with a radius of 192.00', a length
of 132.14' to an iron pipe; thence a curve to the left with a radius of 125.00', a
length of 71.99' to a point; thence North 74 degrees, 01 minutes, 56 seconds
West 53.29' to an iron pipe in the center line of Pathway Court and in the center
line of a 20' septic easement as shown on a plat recorded in Plat Book 90 Page
181, OCR; thence with the center line of said easement, North 08 degrees, 38
minutes, 57 seconds East 147.30' to an iron pipe; thence North 23 degrees, 01
minutes, 18 seconds West 107.40' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 01
minutes, 27 seconds East 219.70' to an iron pipe; thence North 78 degrees, 00
minutes, 32 seconds West 89.00' to an iron pipe in the east right-of-way of the
aforementioned Pathway Court; thence North 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34
seconds East 160.00' to an iron pipe; thence South 78 degrees, 00 minutes, 56
seconds East 157.88' to an iron pipe; thence North 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34
seconds East 241.88' to an iron pipe in the line of the Waldorf Educational
Association of North Carolina; thence with the Waldorf property South 83
degrees, 11 minutes, 31 seconds East 200.00' to an iron pipe; thence with
Waldorf property South 06 degrees, 48 minutes, 34 seconds West 419.97' to an
iron pipe; thence South 83 degrees, 11 minutes, 26 seconds East 116.40' to an
iron pipe; thence North 69 degrees 38 minutes 10 seconds East 102.48' to an
iron pipe in the Waldorf line, the north west corner of the Spence Dickinson
property as recorded in Plat Book 61 Page 123, OCR; thence with the Dickinson
1
61
property South 05 degrees, 02 minutes, 44 seconds West 440.11' to an iron pipe
in the north line of the aforementioned Common Land, Heartwood at Blackwood
Mtn., Phase I; thence North 78 degrees, 11 minutes, 22 seconds West 44.45' to
the point and place of beginning and being all of Lot 31, Heartwood at Blackwood
Mtn., Phase I I as recorded in Plat Book 90 Page 181, and containing 4.003
Acres, more or less.
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and to Section 153A-
341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has not
submitted sufficient documentation denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent and
purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof, and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment is not reasonable and
is not in the public interest as it will not promote public health, safety, and general welfare,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed zoning
atlas amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be inconsistent with the goals and
policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is not in the public interest,
and will not promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, the BOCC hereby adopts
this statement of inconsistency signifying same.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
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 , 2012 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of ,
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners