Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2012-036 Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas - Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Land Use Ordinance 9: 0 °2 01 ;2- 6-3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments, and impacted properties, are identified as follows: I. The following Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), comprising approximately 159 acres or property, changed from R1 (Rural Residential) to EDE-1 (Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity) and as further denoted on maps labeled `Area A' within the Orange County Board of County Commissioners September 6, 2012 agenda packet: R1 to EDE-1 Pin Acres Pin Acres Pin Acres 0802090955 1.33 0803102261 0.67 9892894495 6.42 0802092905 2.29 0803104242 1.01 9892895043 0.8 0802093923 1.37 0803107244 1.37 9892990026 1.82 0802094831 1.16 0803109390 0.92 9892991685 20.48 0802394949 6.48 0803202254 7.18 9892996872 2.38 0803001017 0.23 0803207282 5.87 9892998862 3.52 0803002614 2.44 0803300153 2.13 9893602164 5 0803003547 1.26 0803307352 0.17 9893603521 4.99 0803004553 1.13 0803307443 0.22 9893604939 4.67 0803006178 1.33 9892698891 0.03 9893608242 3.22 0803007438 4.29 9892699764 2.13 9893608557 3.16 0803100055 5.85 9892790923 2.17 9893618051 7.21 0803100109 0.37 9892798476 9.9 9893909606 2.73 0803101210 0.4 9892892121 0.41 ROW 28.74 TOTAL 159.25 II. The following 20.9 acres or right-of-way, changed from R-1 (Rural Residential) to EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity) and denoted on maps labeled `Area B' within the Orange County Board of County Commissioners September 6, 2012 agenda packet: R1 to EDE-2 PIN Acres ROW 20.98 20.98 and, 1 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 parcels to consistent with the information contained herein. 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. 1, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the fore ing 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 2013. CO& (ixj 17 52 A---" Clerk" o t-e7board of Commissioners 9- Z- 6. Public Hearings a. Eno Economic Development District(EDD) Area Land Use and Zoning Amendments The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and considered a decision on County-initiated amendments to the Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas. Chair Pelissier said that this public hearing is only open to receive the Planning Board recommendation and written comments. She asked the County Attorney to explain why oral comments are not being considered at this time. John Roberts said that the reason this Board cannot hear oral comments at this meeting is because the UDO requires both legislative and quasi-judicial hearings conducted during the QPH and reconvene the public hearings for the purpose of receiving the Planning Board's recommendation and to receive any written comments. He has previously verbally informed the BOCC that in his opinion, once the public hearing is adjourned for that purpose further oral testimony/comment should not be accepted at the reconvened public hearing and once the original hearing takes place, it is referred to the Planning Board. By ordinance the County Commissioners cannot receive any more oral comments and secondly, important legal reason to avoid accepting further oral testimony/comment once a motion is made and passed wherein the sole stated purpose of adjourning and reconvening the public hearing is to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and to receive written comments. If an individual attends the QPH and offers testimony or comments but does not attend the reconvened hearing because the individual reasonably expects no further oral testimony/comment will be accepted and oral testimony/comment is then accepted to which the individual cannot respond, that individual may then have grounds to appeal whatever decision or policy the BOCC enters. Chair Pelissier said that although people have signed up to speak, some have sent written comments already. Written comments are shown below: From: Chris Kelsey fmailto:kelsey chrisehotmaii.coml Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 2:30 PM To: Craig Benedict; Bernadette Pelissier; Pam Hemminger (External); Vaorie Foushee; Alice Gordon (External); Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Steve Yuhasz Subject: BOCC Agenda Item- Eno Economic Development District Dear Orange County Commissioners, As a citizen of Orange County who lives along Old NC-10, 1 would implore you NOT to accept the current Eno Economic Development District zoning and land use proposals which will be discussed tomorrow night. You have heard from numerous residents who live along Old NC-10, which is a beautiful rural residential road, protest against the possibility of non-residential entities tainting our neighborhood. The current Land Use Classification AND Zoning is "Rural Residential". Based on negative public input, the planning board proposes to retain rural residential zoning, but still desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which allows a number of non-residential entities. This would negatively impact our neighborhood in many ways (increased traffic on two-lane road, dangerous underpasses, depress home values, etc). Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would not be consistent, which will create conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban growth plan. Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will not be consistent. I would strongly urge the board not to approve this proposal. The land use classification should either remain residential or the region around Old NC-10 should be removed from this economic development district. Sincerely, Chris Kelsey 208 Weldon Ridge Court Durham, NC 27705 Letter from Phillip Gunter Dear Commissioner Pelissier: Thank you for your service to the citizens of Orange County. As I have noted in previous letters, because of the diversity of land use and interests among your constituents, your job must often be a daunting task. Regarding the rezoning issue in the Eno District, I remain concerned about the proposed changes. I attended the last meeting of the Planning Board (August 1, 2012). The revised proposal was approved, but not unanimously. Two board members in attendance voted against the proposal. They asked some good questions. At that meeting, I heard no good answers to those questions and concerns. My original concerns that I expressed to you in my letters of February 19, 2012; May 11, 2012; and May 21, 2012 remain: 1) storm water runoff; 2) noise pollution; and 3) air pollution. Since then, a letter written to you by Dr. Jon Arvik addressed in detail the well-defined and scientifically documented health dangers and risks caused by open-air grinding, crushing, and shredding of trash and construction debris. This activity is already "permitted" by Orange County on Mount Hermon Church road. My first two concerns, storm water runoff and noise pollution, still exist, but for the time being are dwarfed by the obvious immediate health-threatening particulate pollution of the air we breathe. We can filter the water we drink. We can wear noise suppressing ear plugs; however, we must breathe the air. Since the onset of open-air grinding, crushing and shredding on Mt. Hermon Church Road, my daughter has been diagnosed with asthma. She has been prescribed a medication for that serious condition. To protect the health of the citizens of Orange County, your help is requested in two ways: 1. Issue no more permits for businesses that might add to the particulate air pollution problem. This includes already existing business that might wish to expand. 2. Seek ways to cause existing business to take all necessary steps to eliminate any sources of particulate air pollution that existing in their business operations. To do anything less is to further endorse what has already been permitted and will likely encourage and attract to the Eno District other businesses which may create additional air pollution. I feel certain that most Orange County citizens would agree that subordinating the protection of the health and welfare of citizens and the protection of the environment to the desires for economic development and attempting to increase the tax base is always a mistake. At the August 1, 2012 meeting of the Planning Board, in response to Dr. Arvik's letter, Mr. Craig Benedict, Director of Planning Department, reported that his department is beginning a process to evaluate the particulate air pollution problems in the Eno District. Because this is a matter of public health, I request that you urge him and his staff to expedite this process and to cease issuing permits to businesses whose activities might further deteriorate the quality of the air we breathe. Thank you for your careful consideration of the proposals before you. I encourage you to delay consideration of this rezoning proposal until adequate air pollution monitoring and control procedures are in place. Sincerely, C. Phillip Gunter 4411 Hwy 70 E P. O. Box 507 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Cc: Commission for the Environment Planning Board Planning Department County Manager From: Sarah Glass [mailto:sarahmplasso_gmail.coml Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 2:54 PM To: Bernadette Pelissier Subject: Re: Opposition of Eno Economic Development District zoning and land use proposals Dear Orange County Commissioners, My name is Sarah Glass and my husband and I live in Weldon Ridge neighborhood along old NC 10. As you may recall we both spoke in opposition to the EDD plan at the last BOCC meeting (I'm the pregnant one). Unfortunately we are personally unable to attend the meeting tomorrow night, but would like to express our continued opposition to the current Eno Economic Development District zoning and land use proposals which will be discussed at that time. You heard significant opposition to ANY changes to the current land use classification and zoning of the area along Old NC10 at the last meeting. The current Land Use Classification AND Zoning is "Rural Residential". Based on negative public input, the planning board proposes to retain rural residential zoning, but still desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which allows a number of non-residential entities. Although we appreciate the planning board's attention to the public opinion as represented by maintaining the rural residential zoning, we also think the land use classification should STAY as RURAL RESIDENTIAL. Any change otherwise would negatively impact our neighborhood in many ways (increased traffic on two-lane road, dangerous underpasses, depress home values, etc). Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would not be consistent, which will create conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban growth plan. Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will not be consistent. *As one of you mentioned at the last meeting, NO PROPOSAL regarding zoning and land use has been passed without the approval of the residents that are affected.* Clearly the residents do NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL UNDER DISCUSSION. I urge you to oppose this proposal-and that the land use classification should either*remain residential or the region around Old NC-10 should be removed from this economic development district. Sincerely, Sarah and Oliver Glass From: Jennifer Sharpe Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 5:08 PM To: Bernadette Pelissier; Pam Hemminger(External); Valerie Foushee; Alice Gordon (External); Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Steve Yuhasz Subject: zoning of Old NC 10 Dear County Commissioners: My name is Jennifer Sharpe and I live on Old NC 10 Hwy. I have been to all the meetings having to do with the zoning of land on Old NC and will be attending on 9/6 to again strongly protest any land along Old NC 10 being zoned anything but"Rural Residential". I was troubled by an email sent by our unofficial "organizer", Chris Kelsey, reminding us of the date of the next meeting. He indicated that the Planning Department was retaining rural residential zoning, but still wants to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which allows a number of non-residential entities. I research land use classification and zoning and the difference between the two. I found that a Land Use Map is a graphic representation of physical uses of land. These land use maps are highly visible within most community plans, often showing both current land use and plans for future land use. Land Use Maps identify land uses by category. These typically include Residential, Industrial, Commercial, Natural Areas, Agricultural, and Civic uses. Land Use maps can be either very broad or very detailed depending on the context or reasoning behind creating the map. The land use map is an important tool for identifying existing conditions and for working toward a vision for the community. On the other hand, a Zoning Map is a graphic depiction of the boundaries for which a certain set of standards or regulations have been adopted by a governmental entity. The zoning map typically provides predictability for the residents and development community as to what type of land uses may be expected and allowed within each zone district. Land is divided into zone districts from the zoning code which describes the intent and regulations of each particular zone category. A typical zone district will set forth regulations for permitted land uses, building height, density, setbacks, minimum lot sizes, etc. So, to summarize, a Future Land Use Map generally reflects the pattern of development that the community desires to see in specific areas, whereas the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map establish the actual use of land including the density, intensity, height, and form of development. I also found out that if a property owner wants to develop or use their property in ways that do not conform to their current zoning regulation, they must apply for a change in their zoning classification, also referred to as a rezoning. Zoning regulations, and the rezoning process, are often a key part of implementing area plans. All this research led me to one scary conclusion: that if you all approve the land use classification to be changed to EDE-1, you are making a decision that would go against the vision and desires of the community regarding future land use. Furthermore, you are making it that much easier for an individual land owner who may want to have their land rezoned in the future to suit their own needs without regard to the vision and desires of the community. The rezoning is more likely to be approved if the land use is already classified non-residential. Finally, this is what Wikipedia says about Land Use: "The major effect of land use on land cover since 1750 has been deforestation of temperate regions. More recent significant effects of land use include urban sprawl, soil erosion, soil degradation, salinization, and desertification. Land-use change, together with use of fossil fuels, are the major sources of carbon dioxide, a dominant greenhouse gas. According to a report by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, land degradation has been exacerbated where there has been an absence of any land use planning, or of its orderly execution, or the existence of financial or legal incentives that have led to the wrong land use decisions, or one-sided central planning leading to over-utilization of the land resources -for instance for immediate production at all costs." Sound familiar? "As a consequence the result has often been misery for large segments of the local population and destruction of valuable ecosystems. Such narrow approaches should be replaced by a technique for the planning and management of land resources that is integrated and holistic and where land users are central. This will ensure the long-term quality of the land for human use, the prevention or resolution of social conflicts related to land use, and the conservation of ecosystems of high biodiversity value." That's how it should be done. Like my neighbor Barbara said in her earlier letter to you: Sustainability is sometimes better than growth. I think she speaks for everyone who lives on Old NC 10 Hwy and it's surrounding community. Sincerely, Jennifer Sharpe, MSW, LCSW Orange County Health Department From: Tonya Lamm f mailto:tonva.lam m(a-g mail.coml Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 8:49 PM To: Bernadette Pelissier Subject: Dont EDE-1 old NC-10 The land use classification around Old NC-10 should be removed from the economic development district, and not be classified EDE-1. Old NC-10 is a beautiful rural residential road. The current Land Use Classification*AND *Zoning is "Rural Residential". Based on negative public input, the planning board proposes to retain its rural residential zoning, but desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDEA which allows for non-residential entities. This would *negatively Impact our neighborhood in many ways (increased traffic on two-lane road, dangerous underpasses, depress home values, etc). Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would *not be consistent*, which will create conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban growth plan. Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will *not be consistent.* I would strongly urge the board not to approve this proposal. The land use classification should either remain residential or the region around Old NC-10 should be removed from this economic development district. Sincerely, Tonya Lamm 6408 Mt Hermon Church Road Durham From: Marjorie Scheer)mailto:mar*orie.scheera-qmail.comI Sent: Wed 9/5/2012 9:18 PM To: Bernadette Pelissier; Valerie Foushee; Alice Gordon (External); Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Steve Yuhasz; Pam Hemminger(External) Subject: Maintain our rural neighborhood please! Dear Orange County Commissioners, As a citizen of Orange County who lives along Old NC-10, 1 would implore you *NOT*to accept the current Eno Economic Development District zoning and land use proposals which will be discussed tomorrow night. You have heard from numerous residents who live along Old NC-10, which is a beautiful rural residential road, protest against the possibility of non-residential entities tainting our neighborhood. The current Land Use Classification *AND *Zoning is "Rural Residential". Based on negative public input, the planning board proposes to retain rural residential zoning, but still desires to change the Land Use Classification from rural residential to EDE-1, which allows a number of non-residential entities. This would *negatively*impact our neighborhood in many ways (increased traffic on two-lane road, dangerous underpasses, depress home values, etc). Further, the Zoning and Land use classification would *not be consistent*, which will create conflicts later. Finally, the Durham plan keeps this entire area as residential in their urban growth plan. Thus, the Orange County and Durham plans will *not be consistent.* We would strongly urge the board not to approve this proposal. The land use classification should either remain residential or the region around Old NC-10 should be removed from this economic development district. Thank you for reading this. Most sincerely, Marjorie Scheer and Maximino Vargas 3726 Jackson Road Durham, NC, 27705 Planning Director Craig Benedict presented this item. These amendments have been on the public hearing in February and May. These amendments are related to the area in the County near the intersection of 1-85 and US 70 along the eastern border of Orange County next to the City of Durham and Durham County. He showed this area on a map. He said that this section of the County has some potential for growth. He said that 84% of the total County is intended for low-density and agricultural use. This area is designated for focused growth with an urban intensity. The land use amendments include three areas: Area I is Whisper Pines development as a residential node, Area 11 is an economic development category (low-intensity business or residential), and Area III will go from rural-residential to economic development. There is no rezoning recommended to an EDD 11 category except for the right-of-way by 1-85. They are suggesting leaving the zoning in place by the Whisper Pines development. There is a change from the original land use and zoning submittals based on community input. The entire zoning of the land south of the railroad tracks and north of Old NC 10 is being deleted. The zoning of the mobile home park is also being deleted and the mobile home park is being left as is. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to receive the Planning Board recommendation and close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 67 and the minutes from the last public hearing where the County Commissioners asked for more information. He said that he does not see this information in the packet. One of the items is more information regarding the City of Durham's Urban Growth Boundary where it goes into Orange County. Craig Benedict said that there are links to the small area plan on the website. Commissioner Jacobs said that Commissioner McKee also asked about links to railroad crossings so that the Planning Board could see them and also the public. Craig Benedict said that he believes there are links to these. He apologized if they were not there. Commissioner Gordon said that some areas are changed for land use regulations but not for zoning and she questioned that. Craig Benedict said that the land use changes just involve area 2 and 3 and the resolutions refer to those areas. The first one is from a commercial node. The second one is a land use change of 130 acres from commercial node to economic development. The third area is 181 acres. These are noted on pages 74 and 75. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the Resolution Amending the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as contained within Attachment 14 (pages 74-77). Commissioner Jacobs said that this is inconsistent with Commissioner Gordon's comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to amend Commissioner Yuhasz's motion to delete the area south of the railroad and north of NC 10, which is 95.72 acres. A question was raised concerning which motion should be voted on first. John Roberts said that this is not a friendly amendment. The motion to amend the first motion takes precedence. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Planning Board has reviewed this and the County Commissioners originally suggested trying to conform the economic development district to the Durham Urban Services Boundary as much as possible. He thinks that the Planning Board recommendation is consistent with what the County Commissioners asked it to do. Commissioner McKee concurred with Commissioner Yuhasz. Commissioner Gordon said that the reason she made the motion is that the County needs to plan this area as it wants it to be used. She said that the land use should not be changed. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Eno EDD was done in a collaborative nature with the citizens over a period of time. He said that public hearings are not a good way to have communication with the public because there is no great interchange. He wants to make sure that the public feels like they have had an adequate say. It has been pretty clear from the comments that people are not comfortable with this. He is in favor of the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Yuhasz said that Orange County is about to make a substantial investment on behalf of all citizens in Orange County in engineering water and sewer into this economic development district. Without an appropriate land use plan in place, the decisions made with regard to how to install this infrastructure will be constraining as a result of an inadequate land use plan. Chair Pelissier called the question. Vote on motion to amend. VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs); Nays, 5 MOTION FAILED Vote on original motion: VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Jacobs) Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks that there is no hurry for this, but once again, this Board has hurried to a decision and he thinks the people that live in this area will regret this. Commissioner Gordon said that the County Commissioners need to respect the citizens' wishes. Commissioner Foushee said that the system is what it is and she does take exception that this Board rushed to a decision. She said that the County spent a large amount of time with this plan. She said that the County Commissioners make decisions with the thinking in mind that is best for Orange County. Chair Pelissier concurred with Commissioner Foushee's comments and said that she understands when there are concerns when the County does land use changes. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas as contained within Attachment 15 (page 78): VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs) A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hernminger to approve the Resolution Concerning Statement Consistency with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as contained within Attachment 17 (page 82). VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Regular Agenda a. Review of the Interim Report from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force The Board reviewed the interim Report from the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force dated August 22, 2012. Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert reviewed this item. The task force has been meeting since April and will be back to the Board at the Assembly of Governments meeting in December for a full and final report. The only immediate impact is that the Board of County Commissioners in the FY 2011-12 appropriated $120,000 for a reserve for the Rogers Road community. The report is shown below. The major sections are Introduction, Sewer Service, Neighborhood Community Center, and Potential Next Steps. The maps and appendices reference in the report can be found in permanent agenda files in the Clerk to the Board's office as well as part of the agenda abstract on the county website: www.orangecounty.nc.-gov INTRODUCTION In 1972, the north side of Eubanks Road became the site of a solid waste landfill operated by the Town of Chapel Hill. Orange County assumed operational control of the landfill as the result of an August 17, 1999 agreement between the Towns (Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough) and the County. The Historic Rogers Road Community has lived with this landfill for 40 years. Over many years, residents representing the Rogers Road area have voiced concerns about various operational elements associated with the landfill and the impact on the Rogers Road Neighborhood. The Neighborhood is geographically split by the Town of Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area and Town of Carrboro. Orange County, as the current owner/operator of the landfill, is taking the lead to make remediation improvement to the Historic Rogers Road Community.