HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2000-131 Stream Buffer Zoning Ordinance Amendments ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 28, 2000
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Stream Buffer Zoning Ordinance Amendments
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YiN) YES
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Ordinance Robert P. Davis, Planner III Ext. 2580
—Craig Benedict, Director Ext 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive public comment on the proposed Stream Buffer Amendments in the
Zoning Ordinance
BACKGROUND:
Rogues
• Amend the Stream Buffer and related sections in the Zoning Ordinance
* Provides clearer and language to users to help calculate stream buffers consistently
* Adds new definition in Zoning Ordinance for Usable Lot Area
. � Limits portions of lots that can be encumbered by stream buffers,easements,water bodies,etc.
dds a new provision for stream buffers outside Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
* .Establishes minimum 30-foot(each side)stream buffers for perennial(blue line)and intermittent(dashed
blue line)streams
Location
Amendments will apply to the entirety of Orange County lying outside'the municipalities and
their extraterritorial jurisdictions, if any.
Development Proces% Schedule and Action
- Public Hearing On August 28,2000
• Refer amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation back to the Board of County
Commissioners no sooner than October 3,2000
RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning §taff Recommendation: Approval of the proposed
amendments as given in the attached documents.
Administration Recommendation: Refer proposed amendments
to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the
Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 3, 2000.
f ,
003
Public Hearing Ordinance
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of Orange County
Section 1: Amend Article 22 DEFINITIONS by creating a new definition as follows:
Lot, Usable-- The portion of a zoning lot unencumbered by stream
buffers, conservation easements, drainage easements, public and
private rights-of-way, access easements, utility easements. This
definition also includes areas in lots affected by steep slopes, (i.e.
greater than 16%),wildlife corridors, ponds, lakes and streams.
Section 2. Amend Section 6.23.7a and Article 22 DEFINITIONS of Stream Buffer to
clarify that the stream buffer is not to be included within the floodplain.
Stream Buffer—a stream buffer is an area of land adjacent to perennial
and intermittent streams, or identified floodplains,which, except as
permitted in Article 6.23.7 of this Ordinance, must remain undisturbed in
its natural state. Perennial streams are shown as solid blue lines and
intermittent streams as broken lines on the USGS Quadrangle maps.
5qMi6n 3• (page 6-41 —Zoning Ordinance)6.23.7d. Calculating the Width of Stream
Buffer
d. Calculating Width of Stream Buffer
Those streams identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) maps to have floodplains shall have stream buffers calculated from
the outside edges of the floodplain.
1) How to Calculate Sloge
a. Draw a-11%250' length perpendicular lines, at 100-foot horizontal
intervals along the entire length of the outside edges of the stream,
te-the 13#8 IR, or the outer edge of the FEMA floodplain,whichever Is
greater.
b. Determine the elevation at either the stream Itself(1) or the outer edge
of the FEMA floodplain,whichever is highest, and at the point 250'
from the stream or FEMA floodplain,whichever Is applicable, along the
perpendicular line (2).
c. Subtract (1)from (2).
d. Divide c. by 250.
e. Multiply d. by 100.
L Perform this calculation for both sides of the stream or floodplain.
Hereafter, the number derived in e. will be referred to as"slope value".
.L V4.
Public Hearing Ordinance
Ssgctio '4:. . Amend Detailed Table of Contents Section 6.24 to read as follows:
Stream Buffers Outside of Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
}gc io 5: Amend new.Section 6.24-to include a minimum stream buffer for areas
outside of Orange County Watershed Protection Overlay Districts to read
as foilows
In areas not identified on the Official Zoning Atlas as Watershed
Protection Overlay Districts, a'stream buffer a minimum of 30 feet In
width shall be established along both sides,of perennial streams and
Intermittent streams, or along the FEMA identified floodplains,
whichever is greater. Perennial streams are those streams shown as
solid blue lines, and Intermittent streams are those streams shown
as broken blue lines.on the USGS Quadrangle maps for Orange
County.
Section 6:- Amend Detailed Table of Contents Section 6.25 to read as follows:
Minimum Usable Lot Area for Lots on Ground Absorption
Wastewater Systems
Section 7: Amend the new Section 6.25 to set minimum usable lot area when Ground
Absorption Wastewater Systems are used to read as.follows:
The usable lot for parcels between 40,000 square feet Arid
1.99 acres in size shall be either 30,000 square feet or 40% of the
total zoning lot,whichever Is greater. Zoning tots two acres and
greater shall have a minimum usable lot area of at least 40,000
square feet.
ction 8: This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.
(Signature) (Signature)
Clerk,.Board of County Commissioners Chair, Orange County Commissioners
Date and Seal
APPROVED 4/17/2001
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
August 28, 2000
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met on Monday,
August 28, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge Gordon F. Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis and Commissioners
Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon, and Barry Jacobs
COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Leo Allison, Chair and members Runyon Woods, Bob
Strayhorn, Crauford Goodwin, Karen Barrows, Howard McAdams, Barry Katz, and Rachel Preston
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 VICE-CHAIR
He announced that Chair Carey was out of town and that he, Commissioner Halkiotis, would
be chairing this meeting along with Leo Allison, Chair of the Orange County Planning Board. The
Board of Commissioners agreed to address item C5 first- Shaping Orange County's Future
Report.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Commissioner Halkiotis read the public charge.
NOTE: Planning Board Chair Leo Allison chaired items C1 and 4
Commissioners' Vice-Chair Stephen Halkiotis chaired items 2, 3, and 5
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
a. Article 22 Definitions for Lot, Usable
b. Article 22 Definitions of Stream Buffer
c. Section 6.23.7 Stream Buffers
d. Detailed Table of Contents
e. Section 6.24 Stream Buffers Outside of Watershed Protection Overlay
Districts
f. Section 6.25 Usable lot areas when using Ground Absorption Septic Systems
Planner Robert Davis summarized this item. He said that these text amendments were
coming forward to clean up a section of the ordinance for better interpretation and to consistently
interpret what the stream buffer section means. He said that right now there was not a stream
buffer requirement unless the land was in a watershed. He explained a map showing the stream
buffers and the edge of the flood plain. On the calculation of the width, the ordinance indicates that
only a perpendicular line across the stream should be drawn, but it does not say how many times
this should be done along the stream. He said that the minimum feet that the staff is
recommending is 100 feet along the horizontal area. Also, the definition of a Usable Lot has been
clarified as, "the portion of a zoning lot unencumbered by stream buffers, conservation easements,
drainage easements, public and private right-of-ways, access easements, and utility easements."
The definition also includes areas affected by steep slopes, which are slopes greater than 15%,
wildlife corridors, ponds, lakes, and streams. This item will be going back to the Planning Board
with a recommendation back to the Commissioners no earlier than October 3rd. The Ordinance
Review Committee will also review these amendments.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the statement on page four, Section 7,
"Usable lots for parcels between 40,000 square feet and 1.99 acres in size shall be either 30,000
square feet or 40% of the total zoning lot, whichever is greater. Zoning lots two acres and greater
shall have a minimum usable lot area of at least 40,000 square feet." She asked if some kind of
usable lot area could be settled on and required for everybody instead of stepping it up. Robert
Davis said that the 40% was added because there was quite a gap between 40,000 and two acres.
Commissioner Gordon said that her point was that the amount of square footage should
be justified. Her question is why more should be added to the justified amount.
Craig Benedict said that 30,000 square feet was the definite minimum because it would
accommodate the house site, driveway, septic area, and repair area with a margin for some
accessory structures. With zoning lots of two acres or more, the people who are going to have a
two-acre lot would most likely have other accessory structures that would need additional usable
area. He agrees that the 40% is not critical on the smaller lot size.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that it would be nice to include an illustration on the
definition of a steep slope. He asked about Section one and the Usable Lot. He asked about
conservation easements. Craig Benedict said that they were definitely not trying to discourage
conservation, but that stream buffers or conservation easements should not be included in the
accomplishment of the minimum lot size.
Rachel Preston asked if there was any verbiage on what a homeowner could do to
streams and vegetation. Craig Benedict said that it was handled by the Erosion Control and
Sedimentation Ordinance, which says that natural water courses are not supposed to be diverted.
There is encroachment to some degree but changing water courses is limited in the majority of
cases. If there is any disturbance of this nature, there has to be some kind of mitigation.
Commissioner Brown asked if this establishes a 30-foot buffer and Craig Benedict said
that it did establish a 30-foot buffer in areas that are not part of the protected watershed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Joe Phelps said that he did not know that his subdivision request would cause so
much work and so many drastic changes in the rules and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. He
feels that the changes in the rules and regulations are very drastic. He feels that most of these
amendments are not necessary. He questioned why the County Commissioners would want to put
stream buffers in areas that are in the non-protected watershed. He supports affordable housing
and thinks that with these new rules on development, no one could afford to buy land in Orange
County. His main concern is what is being taken away from present landowners with regard to the
33% of required open space with no compensation. He said that these new regulations would
greatly reduce the number of people coming into Orange County in the next 30 years.
Scott Radway had some questions on what was meant by the proposals.
Section 1 - Usable Lot Area -steep slopes (i.e., greater than 15%). He prefers a 25%
grade.
Wildlife Corridors - as identified by whom, when, where, and for what purpose
Section 2 -Stream Buffer-who identifies the floodplains
Minimum buffers that are not in protected watersheds -why 30 feet and not more
Section 6 - Minimum Usable Lot Areas - should say minimum usable lot area for lots
that utilize ground absorption
30,000 or 40,000 square feet lot- much easier to say 30,000 or 40,000 and not 40%
Bobby Nichols said that he has stream buffers on his land that he is concerned about.
He made reference to page three, section two, which says, "must remain undisturbed in its natural
state," and asked for a definition. Craig Benedict said that if someone owned land that was within
the floodplain and wants to have any type of agricultural production or forestry, they are exempted
by the majority of state laws.
With no further public comment, Chair Allison closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
refer the proposed zoning text amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be
returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than October 3, 2000.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. 'ORANGE COUNTY TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER APPROVAL
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESS
Craig Benedict made a correction to the agenda abstract that this item was a public
hearing. The abstract indicated that it was not a public hearing.
Craig Benedict made this presentation. He said that it had been four years since the
inception of the telecommunication rules in Orange County. A lot of improvements have been
made since that time. He explained in detail the following issues and suggestions. A section of
definitions could be added that describes the different types of antennae arrays that can be on the
towers. He explained the possibility of puffing towers on existing structures such as hotels, etc.
One of the suggestions is for the County to put together a master plan where the County has more
involvement in the placement of telecommunications towers. Another suggestion is allowing
telecommunication facilities to be in electrical transmission lines. Another suggestion is the
development of utility corridors across the County. There are minimum standards that can be
augmented within the County's code to promote more co-location and multi-use. At this time, the
standards for telecommunications towers is that anything 200 feet and above is a Class A Special
Use and it goes to both the Planning Board and County Commissioners. If it is 199 feet, it is a
Class B and just goes to the Board of Adjustment. The staff provided the County Commissioners
with a report over the last year, and all of the towers were Class B with a height of 195 feet and
above. He said that the County Commissioners could change the height at which the tower would
require a Class A Special Use Permit. He said that there were other counties and towns that were
putting together master telecommunication plans. The reaction to these plans has been favorable
so far. He said that the Commissioners did not have to make any decisions tonight.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 7, Telecommunications Facilities, and
asked Craig Benedict why the facilities would be permitted as an accessory use in parks and
recreation greater than 1.25 acres and in community facilities. Also, at the top of page 9, Section
C, it says"it shall not be permitted within 200 feet of any residential district or residential portion of
a PUD unless a property is designated as part of the special utility overlay district. She asked if
that could sometimes negate the placement in parks, recreation areas, and community facilities.
Craig Benedict said that, in regards to the parks and community facilities, they were zoning
designations that may or may not be on the zoning map at this time. He said that there was
enough latitude in the regulations so that there were no conflicting provisions.
Commissioner Gordon said that community facility needed to be defined. Craig
Benedict said that in his previous experience, towers were located in parks where there were
lights. He said that towers could be incorporated in parks and could sometimes reduce the cost of
sports lighting poles.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested having a differential fee structure, which would
encourage people to do the things that the County prefers, such as co-location. Also, regarding
the issue of the height of the poles, he would like for the County Commissioners to review all of the
applications. He said that if the requests for towers were going to the Board of Adjustment, then
the County Attorney should be present at the meetings. Craig Benedict will do some research with
the present ordinance and look at the rationale for the height number, which causes the application
to go to the Board of Adjustment instead of to the County Commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs
made reference to the$4,000 application fee and asked if the County's legal representation was
included in that. Craig Benedict will take a look at the fee structure, County staff time, attorney
time, etc.
Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to co-location and said that it seemed like the
only people interested in co-location are government agencies, school systems, emergency
services, fire departments, etc. He said that some of the tower companies were very prejudiced