Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2000-005 Text Amendments to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision 07 Regulations of Orange County Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, that the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended as follows: Section 1: (page 7—Subdivision Regulations) Classification of Subdivisions All subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions except those defined as minor subdivision in this Section. A"minor subdivision" is defined as the division of a tract of land that does not: (1) Create more than five (5) lots, including the residual acreage, from any one- (1) tract of land in any tweRty feUF (24) FaeFith ton (10) year pedod. Section 2: (page 14—Subdivision Regs) Planning Department Review and Approval Procedures Section 111-13-1-6 WithiFi thiFty (30) daye, ef the date ef the NeighbeFheed WeRnaties Meeting OF WithiR ir 1..TW sweh fwtheF time eenseRted te iA WFitiR@ by the applieant, the TJnm Planning DepaFtffieRt shall submit te the PlanRing BeaFd its FeeemmeRdatiei:i, inraludiRg a WFitten aRalysir, 9 the Geneept Plan; its geneFal semplianee with the MqUiFeFnents ef this OFElinanee, the GeFnpFehe,iqaiye PlaFi, and etheF applieable sedes and ei:diRanees, and the e9FAFAe1;t8 neighbe ewner-s eMPFessed at the NeighbWheed WeRnatien MeethV-. the Planning PepaFtmeRt faile te prepaFe a FepeFt te the PlanniRg Beard within the spesified time peFied, eF wdensieR theFeef-, the Geneept Plan is eenditie After receiving an application, complete in all respects, the Planning Staff shall consider the Concept Plan, including both the Conventional Development Option and the Flexible Development Option, and take action on the proposals. The Planning Staff shall either: 1)Approve one option, 2)Approve one option subject to conditions, or 3) Deny both options. The Planning Staff shall inform the applicant of the recommended development option (either flexible or conventional). The applicant shall have two years in which to submit the approved Development Option as a Preliminary Plan to the Planning Board or else the Concept Plan approval shall be null and void. If the Planning Staff approves a specific Development Option either with or without conditions, its reasons for approval shall be based on the characteristics of the site,- its suitability for development, and the intent of the Flexible Development standards as specified in Section IV.B.10.A. If the Planning Staff approves the Development Option subject to conditions, such conditions shall be reasonable and shall seek to insure compliance with applicable regulations. If the Planning Staff denies both Development Options the reasons for such decision shall be stated in writing to the applicant. Section 3: (page 14 & 14-a Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures Delete Section III-D-1-f. G:robert11ega1ads/feb28amd/rpd 08 Section 4: (page 14-a—Subdivision Regulations) Action Subsequent to Approval Section III-D-1-g If a Concept Plan is approved or approved with conditions, the Planning Director shall endorse his/her approval on twe-(2) three (3) copies of the specific Development Option. The Planning Department for its files shall retain two copies and one copy shall be returned to the subdivider or his/her authorized agent. The Planning Department for its files shall retain at least one copy of the denied option(s). Upon approval of the Concept Plan Development Options by the Planning Director, the subdivider may proceed with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat. . Frgm the date of approval of the specific Concept Plan Development Option by Planning Director,the applicant shall have two (2) years in which to prepare and submit the approved Concept Plan to the Planning Board along with an application for the Preliminary Plat approval. If a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the specific Concept Plan Development Option shall become null and void. Section 5: (page 14-a & 14-b—.Subdivision Regulations) Appeal Procedures Section III-D-1-h The decision of the Planning Director regarding the Concept Plan Development Options may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. Any notice of appeal shall be filed, in writing, with the Planning Director within 15 days after the date of the Planning Director's decision. If the appeal involves a plan/map approval, twelve. (12) copies of the plan/maps shall be submitted along with the written appeal. The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and where applicable, all Concept Plan Development.Options shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. Section 6: (page 14-c—Subdivision Regs) Planning Department Review and Approval Procedures Section III-D-2-b 2"d paragraph. After receiving an application, complete in all respects, the Planning Staff shall consider the Concept Plan and take action on the proposal. The Planning Staff shall either: 1) Approve the Concept Plan, 2)Approve the Concept Plan subject to conditions, or 3) Deny the Concept Plan. The Planning Staff shall inform the applicant of its decision. The applicant shall have two (2) years in which to submit the approved Concept Plan and a completed application for Preliminary Plat approval to the Planning Board or else the Concept Plan approval shall be null and void. If the Planning Staff approves the Concept Plan subject to conditions, such conditions shall be reasonable and shall seek to insure compliance with applicable regulations. If the Planning Staff denies the Concept Plan, the reasons for such decision shall be stated in writing to the applicant. Section 7: (page 14-c and 14-d —Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures Delete Section 111-D-2-c. G:robert11ega1ads/feb28amd/rpd 09 Section 8: (page 14d—Subdivision Regulations)Action Subsequent to Approval Section III-D-2-d If the Concept Plan is approved or approved with conditions, the PlanAiRg BeaFd Ghai Planning Director shall endorse his/her approval on twe (2) three (3) copies of the specific Development Option. The Planning Department for its files shall retain two copies and one copy shall be returned to the subdivider or his/her authorized agent. The Planning Department for its files shall retain at least one copy of the denied concept plan. Upon approval of the Concept Plan by the Planning Director, the subdivider may proceed with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat. From the date of approval of the Concept Plan by Planning Director, the applicant shall have two (2) years in which to prepare and file an application for the Preliminary Plat approval. If a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan approval shall become null and void. Section 9: (page 14d—Subdivision Regulations)Appeal Procedures Section III-D-2-e The decision of the Planning Director regarding the Concept Plan Development Options may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. Any notice of appeal shall be filed, in writing,with the Planning Director within 15 days after the date of the Planning Director's decision. If the appeal involves a plan/map approval, twelve (12) copies of the plan/maps shall be submitted along with the written appeal. The Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and where applicable, all Concept Plan Development Options shall contain information and/or conditions approved by the Board of Commissioners. Section 10: (page 6 &6-a) DEFINITIONS SUBDIVISION —Subdivision means all divisions of a tract or parcel of land into two or more lots, building sites, or other divisions for the purpose of sale or building development (whether immediate or future) and includes all division of land involving the dedication of a new street or a change in existing streets, provided, however, the following are not included Within the definition and are not subject to any regulations pursuant to this part: (1) The combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and recorded lots if the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards.of the County as shown in its Subdivision Regulations. Resultant lots, as referred to herein shall be deemed to equal standards of the Orange County/Subdivision Regulation if the following standards are met: a. No conforming lot standard.becomes non-conforming as a result of the recombination; and b. Any applicable impervious surface standards are met; and c. Access is provided to a public road, either direct, or by recorded easement; and G:robert11ega1ads/feb28aMd/rpd - !. A site suitable for sewage disposal is approved by the Orange County Health Department. Where soil is unsuitable for sewage disposal, or soil suitability is undetermined, a notice of restricted development potential shall be submitted and the lot)s) in question shall be so noted on the plat; and e. No increase in the number of access points to a public street over the number currently existing; and f. Access shall not be shifted from a lower classified/volume street to a higher classified/volume street. G:robert/legalads/feb28amd/rpd O ,r{ A -� csoo -od$ Approved May 3. 2000 C r MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD February 28,2000 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met on Monday, February 28, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge Gordon F. Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis,and Barry Jacobs PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows and members Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Theresa Nicole Gooding-Ray, Onie Lea, Lynne Holtkamp, Runyon Woods, Rachel Preston, Leo Allison, James Selkirk, and Robert Strayhorn COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planning Director Craig Benedict and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (all other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting. He said that Planning Board Chair Karen Barrows would be introducing each item on the agenda. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Orange Countv Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments Planning Director Craig Benedict said that these items have been proposed by the staff based on Board of County Commissioners'goals and Planning Board discussions over the last six months. He said that at every quarterly public hearing additional steps would be taken for the preparation of the County's comprehensive plan by bringing forth regulations that go with the comprehensive plan. He said that tonight's public hearing would address two general areas: subdivision regulations and transportation issues of the comprehensive plan. He said that the staff is in the process of creating a unified land development code so that all of the information about zoning, subdivisions, and economic development districts will be in one book. a. Section III-B Classification of Subdivisions Presently, there is a 24-month period where an applicant can submit an application for a minor subdivision of four lots, and then after two years,the applicant can submit an application for an additional four lots. In each case,the applicant can submit an application for an additional four lots after two years. What is being proposed tonight is that the two-year time period would be extended ten years. If an applicant submits an application for any additional lots before the ten-year period,the subdivision will be considered as a major subdivision. This regulation change would give the staff a better ability to evaluate a larger scale project. b. Section III-D-1 Concept Plan Approval in all Zoning Districts Except the Rural Buffer Presently, a concept plan can be submitted for a flexible plan and a conventional plan. The Planning Board has the option of approving or denying the flexible and conventional plans. These plans do not go any further until the applicant brings forth a preliminary plan. About 75-80% of the time,the applicant chooses the conventional plan. What is being proposed tonight is that the Planning staff would recommend which plan would fulfill the goals of the County Commissioners and the comprehensive plan. If the applicant does not choose to go with the staff recommendation, he or she can make an appeal to the County Commissioners. c. Section III-D-2 Concept Plan Approval in the Rural Buffer This is the same process as for the non-rural buffer areas. The rural buffer section of the code was amended to reflect the changes as described above. d. (non-Vehicular Access) This item has to do with a non-vehicular access line. This also can be used in residential and non-residential subdivisions so that when the subdivisions are prepared the approved access points can be put on the subdivision plat. e. Section II DEFINITIONS When lots are subdivided, very often the access points are changed to a road that should not have additional traffic. The amendment would not allow someone to shift the access point to burden the roads that are not scheduled for a higher capacity system. Appendix A Orange County Private Road Standards Craig Benedict made reference to private road standards and said that the staff is suggesting a decrease in the amount of lots that are allowed on a private road from a 25-lot maximum to a 10-lot maximum. He described the negative things that have occurred as a result of the 25-lot maximum regulation for private roads. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the Orange County private road standards and asked what would happen to existing private roads if someone wanted to put a house on an existing lot or split the lot into two lots. Craig Benedict said that each of the subdivisions that have private road standards has something in their homeowner's association documents that address additional lots being subdivided on the road. In some cases,the cost is borne by the subdivision. Geoffrey Gledhill said that the upgrade of the road is required to service the new subdivided lots. Once the upgrade is done, then all of the lots in the subdivision are jointly responsible for maintaining the road to the upgraded standard. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the 18-foot travel way and asked if that included the swells or if it was just the actual road surface. Craig Benedict said that 18 feet was just the actual road surface and that the impermeability that comes forward from both public and private roads still is counted as the entire roadway. After the swell goes up to the 50-foot area,then there is a certain amount of impervious that would be counted in the remaining 50 feet. Commissioner Jacobs asked if it was the same amount of shoulder that must be cleared regardless of whether it is a public or private road. Craig Benedict said that typically there is the surface course, a four-foot swell down and a four- foot swell up and then whatever can be preserved after that. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 13 and read the first paragraph which says, "Private roads serving more than 10 lots or dwelling units may be permitted only if constructed to NCDOT public road standards,"and said that this contradicts everything which has gone before it. Craig Benedict said that this statement could be deleted. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Class A versus Class B private roads and asked if the staff has looked into the cost of hiring a professional engineer. Craig Benedict said that the staff has checked into the costs for engineers and the determination of one road over the other is negligible in cost because it is the engineer's time to go out and see if the road meets the standards. He said that one of the most important things is if the County is going to continue to have private roadways, the hazards of living on a private road should be reduced as much as possible by having the road certified to the standards. He said that drainage is the key for private roads, and that is where the biggest failing is. Commissioner Jacobs said that DOT had set up a committee to work on subdivision standards and he is concerned that the County is locking themselves in and not allowing any flexibility. He is concerned that there would be no allowance if there were some significant natural resource or rural characteristic of the property that might be enhanced by having a private road as opposed to a public road. He questions eliminating flexibility in the concept plan amendments. He would prefer that the plan be presented for comment to the Planning Board and the County Commissioners before the staff makes a ruling. Craig Benedict said that some of the language could be changed to allow for some flexibility. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to have incentives for people to do things the way the County would want them to, not making it as a right, but a privilege. Commissioner Brown asked if the Planning staff could specify the reasons for modifications of the regulations. Craig Benedict said that a checklist could be implemented and reviewed to be sure the private road standards meet the goals of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Brown said that she would like the consumer,the one buying the lots,to be protected by the quality of road that is being constructed. She asked for more information on the process of getting an engineer to evaluate the road standards and Craig Benedict described this process. Chair Carey asked if there were some procedural problems if the process for the concept plan is changed and the County Commissioners approve the concept plan. Geoffrey Gledhill said that it is not uncommon in administrative law to do this kind of process. He thinks the objective of the Planning staff is to move non-advisory functions of the Planning Board to the County Commissioners. Chair Carey said that he feels that the Planning Board staff should review the project and not the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the private road justification and asked if there is something along that line for existing roads. She said that this regulation could result in a loss of trees which would not be the best thing for the County. Craig Benedict said that he would work with the Attorney on language to address the issue for existing roads. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he fails to see anything wonderful about roads that are gravel where everything is covered with dust. He asked if there was any County staff that could certify the roads as meeting state standards. Craig Benedict said that for private roads,there is not any qualified staff to certify the roads. He said that DOT is now coming to the Development Review Committee on a biweekly basis to discuss the road standards. Chair Barrows made reference to the subdivision approval and said that it sounds like the Planning Board is being eliminated at the concept stage, but would be brought in at the preliminary stage. Craig Benedict said that the Planning Board would definitely be brought in at the preliminary stage. Chair Barrows said that it seems like the Planning staff is taking charge of the plans and that it is a big change from the current process. Commissioner Gordon said that if the intent is to make the standards so precise that it is a matter of determination only, it could be a good thing. Commissioner Jacobs said that if something is missed in the concept plan stage and the first time that any policy maker sees it is at the preliminary level, it is too late. He would like to see a policy- minded body review the plan, either the Planning Board or Board of County Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENTS Scott Radway said that he strongly supports going from two years to ten years for the minor subdivisions. He made reference to the 50-foot right of way and said that right now with any roadway width, if no curbs are used, 42 to 47 feet have already been used when everything is counted. He said that the 50- foot envelope is pushed with the swell system. He made reference to the process of the plan approval and said that the County should be really careful in the language for this process. He explained the buy right process. Geoffrey Gledhill said that he did not know whether this proposal would eliminate the buy right. He said that right now the developer has the option of choosing either the flexible or the conventional plan. Commissioner Brown said that it was her perspective that the hope was to go more and more toward flexible design standards. Bob Strayhorn said that he is concerned about the process of waiting another ten years to subdivide. He asked if there was a list of people who have benefited from minor subdivisions and not abused them. Craig Benedict said that the minor subdivision process would still be available as long as it did not exceed five lots in a ten-year period. He said that about 38%of the lots that are subdivided in Orange County are minor subdivisions. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 3, 2000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS IN ORANGE COUNTY Craig Benedict said that the County is in the process of developing a Comprehensive Plan, and transportation is a very important basis of that plan.