Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2000-136 Amendments to Orange County Private Road Standards Subdivision Regulations ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSISONERS AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date; October 3, 2000 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Amendment to Orange County Private Road Standards DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Proposed Amendments to the Orange County Karen Lincoln Ext. 2594 Subdh sbn Regulations Craig Benedict Ext. 2592 2. Draft February 28, 2000 Public Hearing Minutes. TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 3. April 5, 2000 Planning Board Minutes. 4. May 4, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Hillsborough 732-8181 5. Ordinance Amending Subdivision Regulations Chapel Hill 968-4501 6. Proposed Policy for Implementing Amendments Durham 688-7331 7. List of Minor Subdivisions Affected by Amendments Mebane (336)227-2031 PURPOSE: To decide on proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, regarding private roads(Section IV B 3-d—1 and APPENDIX A.ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS). BACKGROUND: Request Orange County Administration and Planning staff propose changes to Section IV-B-U-1 and Appendix A. ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS to: • clarify criteria for private road justification; • reduce to 10 (from 25) the maximum number of lots allowed on a private road; • delete the provision for a Class C Private Road; and • require that a NC Professional. Engineer approve the construction of the private road in accordance with sound engineering practices (delete provision allowing a Professional Surveyor to certify private road construction). Location The amendments, if adopted, will apply to the entirety of Orange County lying outside the municipalities and their extra-territorial jurisdictions and the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Joint Planning Transition Areas. Existing and Proposed Conditions Existing: Section IV$3-d-1 • Seven criteria "considered" for justification of private roads; among,those criteria, • provision of"significantly greater" (than required by ordinance): o lot sizes and building setbacks; o dedication or preservation of recreation, open space containing significant sites; o in a protected watershed, increased stream buffers & reduced impervious surface. 2 Existing and Proposed Conditions (cont Existing: Appendix A. Private Road Standards • 1 to 3 lots or du allowed on a Class C Private Road (8 ft. travelway). • 4 to 9 lots or du allowed on a Class B Private Road (12 ft. travelway). • 10 to 25 lots or du allowed on a Class A Private Road (18 ft. travelway). • > 25. lots allowed on private road if road is built to NCDOT standards. • Professional engineer or surveyor certification of road construction. Proposed: Section IV-B 3-d-1. • Criterion 1.a (increased lot size) and at least two other criteria must be met to justify a private road; no private road justification needed for minor subdivisions of 3 lots or less; • minimum lot size: zoning district min. lot size for min. lot size private road 40,000 s . ft. or less 80,000 s . ft. 87,120 s . ft. 2 ac. 130,680 s . ft. 3 ac. >_87,120 sq. ft. —flexible development 87,120 sq. ft. (2 acres) All other cases 5 acres • building setbacks (all districts) at least twice those required by Zoning Ordinance. • 50% dedication of land if containing sites referenced in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural. Historic, Recreational. Biological. and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County". • within protected watersheds: stream buffers increased 25%. Impervious surface decreased by 15%. Proposed: Appendix A. Private Road Standards • Class B Private Road (12 ft. travelway) required for 1 to 5 lots (Minor Subdivisions) or dwelling units. • Class A Private Road (18 ft. travelway) required for 6- to 10-lot Major Subdivisions (or dwelling units). • No exception for>10 lots on private road. • Professional engineer certification of road construction. Implications Pros: • Long-term reduced maintenance costs for citizens; • Better planning for long-term development of property (discourages "piece-meal" development); • Investment in better infrastructure for future subdivision; • Better response time for emergency access. Cons: • Minor increases in costs for minor subdivision development; Development Process. Schedule. and Action • Public Hearing February 28, 2000: Major comments: o No flexibility for private roads to protect natural resources or rural character; and o Cost of private road certification will increase for small subdividers. The Board of County Commissioners referred the proposed amendments to the Planning Board to return a recommendation no sooner than May 3, 2000. 3 • First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board considered amendments and revisions based on comment from the February 28, 2000, Public Hearing and recommended further revisions be made and brought back to the May 4, 2000, Planning Board meeting: o Delete provision allowing exceptions for more than 10 lots on a private road; o Firm language dealing with private road justification to more specific criteria; and o Delete provision requiring paved private roads to meet NCDOT standards for paving. May 4, 2000, the Planning Board voted five (5) to three (3) to approve the amendments. Board members voting against the amendments cited their disapproval of the provision requiring greater building setbacks in order to justify having a private road. • Final Action: Board of Commissioners to consider amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Proposed Policy Regarding In-Process Subdivision Applications Proposing Private Roads • Minor Subdivisions: Not required to comply with amendments if conditionally approved by staff prior to June 6, 2000, (first date amendments could have been approved by the BOCC) provided final plat complying with conditions of approval is submitted for recordation within one year of conditional approval. • 33 (out of 60 in-process applications) not affected by amendments (no change in requirements). • 7 (out of 27 in-process minor subdivisions affected by amendments) allowed to develop as approved with "old" regulations. • Major Subdivisions: Must comply with amendments if preliminary plat approval was not obtained prior to February 28, 2000 (date of public hearing). • No in-process major subdivisions affected by proposed amendments. Please review attachment starting on page 24, "Proposed Policy for Implementing Amendments" and the attachment beginning on page 28 that lists in-process minor subdivisions. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION(S) Planning Board Recommendation: Approval of the proposed amendments as given in the attached document. Administration Recommendation: Approval of the proposed amendments as given in the attached document. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (Text proposed to be deleted is printed in bold 4 format; text proposed to be inserted is printed in bold underlined Amend Orange County Subdivision Regulations, Section IV-B-3-d-1 — format AMEND THE PRIVATE ROAD JUSTIFICATION SECTION Roads as follows: TO READ AS FOLLOWS: However, private roads may be allowed in a subdivision where in Of County Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location the judgment of the Planning Board and with the approval of the Board of the subdivision with respect to other development and the A rivate road shall be deemed 'ustified for a minor subdivision more than three lots. (n such subdivisions, a rivate access easement ranted to allow an ad'acent lot to access a resultin in no Staff comment: This provision would number of access oints on a ubtic road. The intent nt ma be provide for the use of private roads for: s the rivate road In order to reduce the 1) subdivision subdivision of arcels of sufFcient acrea a to of this rovision is to allow of small lots (less than 7 re uirements for minimum lot size or area Per dwe– unit where a acres) into 3 tots of minimum lot size would not otherwise be ermitted be meet zonin ordinance allowed in district; and 2) subdivision of rivate road re uirement 1. a, as follows and whores th he subdivision cannot com t with 2 lots of minimum lot size allowed in densi re uirement fora .....ublic road to be a ce tedsion would not meet the district for large parcels (for example, for I ZIT stem. For an other use of this rovision family members of farm owners). document to be recorded with the final plat the state maintained the final lat and a se crate Comment. Provisions for justifying further d.e elo ment of an resultin lots incl all contain a statement that an fY g rocessed as a ma'or subdivision udin the arent tract, shall be private roads are not specific enough. The ordinance does not give standards . that can be measured which leaves d! dele compliance to the subjective judgement of staff and decision-makers. Board and the Board of Coun For all other subdivisions the Plannin Rdsponse: Staff proposes to clarify and subdivisions and Plannin staff in the case ners in the case of ma'or reinforce private road justification consider the followin desi n features when determinin requirements as follows. of minor subdivisions shall private roads in subdivisions. At a minimum, a rivate road ma whether #o ermlt subdivision meets standards of 1.a and at least two other des! be 'ustified if the below. n features listed PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. 5 1. The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural character of the County through: a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines significantly greater than required by the underlying zoning district, including any overlay district requirements, according to the following standards: • For zoning districts having a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet or less, all lots in the subdivision must be at least 80,000 square feet; • For zoning districts having a minimum lot size or per dwelling unit area requirement of 87,120 square feet (two acres), all lots must be at least 130,680 square feet (three acres) except for subdivisions developed as flexible development subdivisions; • For clustered subdivisions developed as flexible development subdivisions preserving at least 33% of the land in open space, in a zoning district having a minimum lot size or per dwelling unit area requirement of 87,120 square feet (two acres) or greater, all lots must be at least 87,120 square feet (two acres) and the overall density of the subdivision must not exceed one dwelling unit per 130,680 square feet (three acres); • For all other cases, all lots must be at least five acres: . Gemplianee with this minimum Fequir-ed lot size of five aerery. Where the minimum r-equir-ed lot size is less than fi eemplianee 86 assured when eash lot in the subdivision GORtaiRS at least tw"Ge the minimu let size. FGF example, of the mi I U*Fed lat size jS two affes, and eaeh lot eentains at least fGUF aere . eemplianrae ins aC.sWed; and/oF • Building setbacks in all districts must be at least twice those required by Orange County Zoning Ordinance. b. The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of dwelling units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads, maintain a wooded or forested character, maintain scenic views, or preserve wildlife, botanical, historic, archaeological and/or recreation sites; and/or C. The preservation of site features which directly enhance the special or unique cultural, historical, archaeological. or biological characteristics of the immediate area as referenced in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unicorporated Portions of Orange County" or , for historic sites, if the site is deemed eligible by the State Historic Preservation Office for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 2. The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirements. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 6 3. At least fifty percent (50%) of the site is to be dedicated ands preserved through restrictive covenants and contains Rrecreation and/or open space areas; ineluding Iand6 Gentain of significant botanical, wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites as referenced in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" , 4. , part of a In_sSubdivisions to be located in a Protected Watershed as designated eff in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, stream buffers are increased by twenty-five percent (25%) above those required by Article 6.23 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the impervious surface allowed is decreased by fifteen percent (15%) to FeduGe the aMOUAt Gf IMPWieus suFfare and eause allow greater infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs. 5. The site contains Ttopographic and environmental features, such as streams, steep slopes, or watersheds, that would be adversely affected by the use of roads constructed to State standards because of factors such as significant amounts of earthwork (cut and fill)that would contribute to increased run-off of stormwater and siltation. 6. The site is already developed to 100% of the capacity which could be achieved after approval of the subdivision and some or all of the non-conforming aspects of existing development on the site will be made more conforming as a result of the proposed subdivision, and all conforming aspects of the development will remain conforming. 7. There is only one subdivision road proposed. Its length does not exceed 350', it serves no more than five (5) lots, its grade does not exceed 9%, and the land being subdivided is not connected to or part of another subdivision required to be served by public roads. . PROPOSED AMENDME (7-e�. r NTS TO SUBDIVISION Proposed to be delete REGV LATIONS 'Amend d is printed in or Count Y Subdivision Re format, text AMEND 9uiations, APp proposed to be► THE Fouany ENDIX q ORgNOE COl1 inserted is 7 The standards AI41D F1FTy pq NTy P printed in bold subdivisions ins and ---- underlined for PRIVATE required de Orange ca cations for Pnva'rHE General Re ATE ROAD STAND mat.) A Rends On the number and the Roads apply to urrements ARDS as follows tuber class of SECTION TO C►ass B road se °f lots sery road COmn1ent: The READAS FOLLO a Class A ro ryes ed by the Property nifrcant Hat gulations do of a ��, road. ad serve 1 tO 8 slots th al res allow f 10 � lots dwelling units. ' road, at ►night b ource or °r flexibility or dwelling and PH regulations a or b rural character sY, Protect ma o• emo ted 261,ei. 9 units, ate road. should allow r having a r. more a a for ►va#e vs• r ( more than All Response: than lots public approval of the Boarder lot Private Ro ds roads Rural c on a Plat of the subdivision c bdivision re �n a Private haracter must be °f COmmissio quire the attractive roads are built and Hers, Befor stand rs not preserve security approve be reCOrded a the final coop arils as often not Maintai through privy would Y instrume approved or the , the Private pro n of all l Mainte ned to covet the nt with the applicant d Reify. The la using nanCe to safe an must Roa is d Private Roads � County in post a kept clear concern is that t g the dependent not require intended to serve the road.n amount that distance of obstacles i he public ad for access °n or to 0 to be - erne 2 lots Class area 1 and that (ncludin right-of- tO their constructed to °r dwellin C B Of ►and to public road g vegetation th'Of-Way must be However �eSpeCted before rec Orange Count g units are minimum fift . be cleared construction at blocks . B r er, Orange Co Ordation y Stand private Y foot 50. , than private n requireS a sigh# roads be ty reco of the aids roads ( ft) ri road greater adequate built to these final plat. adequate and local ght`of- cOnstr re access, es standards ends these Class the right d carnage and subdivision aY is required uction• A s quire the clears especially for e►ner Order to Srof Way for both rad e' the amours ads. To Provide both specifications. nceS and to 9ency vehicles wh h nt: tYpes of roads •t°f land cleared for rn areas shown on the exPe ati De e b all t d Within rs asic e on that p rs of existin Y he same• the ecta more lots ma g sub substantially cost y be s divisions ntiall to upgrade a ro bdivided without have Y in ad for an Res crease the cost to the smal►d one °r two lots Pposse: These eveto ma lace.quacY of exist n endnrents are per. y 9 roads .when future ded to correct subdivision takes V PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 8 Private road construction must be inspected and the Comment: The cost for professional engineer construction certified in writing to the Orange County Planning certification of private road construction may create a Department by a North Carolina Professional Engineer GF a—NeFth hardship to the small (family) subdivider. Also, the location of the travelway must be certified to be within the platted private road Response: A surveyor's professional certification is right-of-way ,•.,* Fight ef way must be eeFtified by a North required to determine the location of the road, but.that Carolina Registered Land Surveyor. to be withiR the platted pFivate certification does not require knowledge of engineering fead-Fight ef way. The road must be inspected during construction so standards for roads. A Professional Engineer can that any changes or improvements necessary to insure approval can certify road construction using recycled roadbed be made before the stone is placed and the shoulders and ditches are materials. If engineering certification is not required, then seeded and mulched. In order for this to happen, the subdivider or the Board should amend the ordinance to limit private representative must inform the professional making the certification road standards to only those standards that can be prior to the start of construction and at intervals during construction certified by the certifying agency. when inspections are needed so that they can be scheduled. NOTE: The cost of the professional engineer certification depends more on how well the road has been constructed and the quality of the road plans than on the length or type of road that is being built. The cost is related to the number of times that an engineer must inspect the road; therefore, if the road does not meet standards, the engineer must inspect the road a second (or third) time to see that the deficiency lies has/have been corrected. Road inspection fees range from $500 to $1,500 for most minor subdivisions. Road inspections for larger projects (10 lot subdivisions) may run from $1,000 (with good design specifications) to $2,000. If the same firm designs and constructs the road, the firm will certify its work, and the road inspection certification would be included in the construction costs. co PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMEND ITEM 9 UNDER T IONS ! HE GENEi�AL SUBDIVISION AP � GENERAL SUBDiVISI p PROV N APPROVAL AL AND PRIVATE ROgp C 9. Have AND.PRIVgTE ROAD ONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE a professional CONSTRUCTIpN QUE►yCE A res ectivei , rovide engineer and a re SEQUENCE s FoLLOws. and fns ections pe wntte registered standards n Certification land surveyor and that the t a�velwat that �' to the NOTE: q re Y is within thetion piannin registered land surveyor meets AMEND 37- light-of-way. the required surveyors is within ryeyOr ►r►ust certify ANDARDS FOR P knowledrs Professional Ce the right-of-wa that RIVA7-F knowledge o f e rtifcation does Y, but a STANDARDS FOR PRIV R�gpS Certification of Co ngjneering standards for not require ATE ROAD nstruction To roads. S READ AS The standards responsible for described meet NCp determining herein are the OT criteria. g that these standards mmjmurn set No road will be accepted are adequate forth by the I Certification p ed for County. Orange County has Y NCDOT unless all uses by landowners not A re L--e d land or until NCDOT a' The stands d determined, and existin u serve standards are Is not raded or or must certi met. Iso may not new► constructed , in writin to the A Professional , is within the ia�e�Fannin existing, engineer Da •artment that the traveiw g, upgraded r ht�of-H, and certified: '°r newly construct of the nlcted, meets the must certify in Private Road, either 4 standards Of the re writing to the Planning partment t T. quired class for the subdiviisfpa hat a Private the proper material has The follow' Road • , either � ? the shoulders s been used in the tra following must be ins 3. the road is are the correct width velwa inspected 6' 4• ditches °n the and the typical and It is built to the r are in Proper grade YPical cross section is in la �' S• needed storm place where required width and thickne with sou Pipes of necessary to provide adequate P Cep ss' 6 sound en Proper size, materials and all disturbed jnare P ractice; drainage, in accordance areas are construction are in properly stabilized; Place and th sound en energy dissi pate ineerin dissipaters ractice, Installed, in accordance �o PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS the—9: g required road sign is in an adequate place; A: quate tum_around is in 10 9U. required vertical and horizontal at the end of the Sight distance al clearance is road; and construction at the me se'ton Wi AMEND STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE a public road has RIVATE ROADS been a roved b NCDpT Surface Materials Surtace Materials$Y DELETING THE FIRST PARAG ►KPH• AMEND STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE ROADS Minim A curve radius of less than 125 fee um Curve Radius (SECOND PARAGRAP t ma H, ITEM 4 1. Y be approved if all of the followin TO READ AS FOLLOWS: The road existed prior to the adoption g conditions are 2, p on of subdivision re met: Reconstmction of the existing road gulations or required and/or the inability ad to was approved as part of an earlier sub meet a 125 curve radius is not feasible structures, wells or Se Y to reconfigure the dlv►s►on; septic systems; existing right-of-way as►ble due to the e 3, Standards Y location due to extent of earthwork which would Pertaining to road width and °Wnership or the location be 4. grade will be of existing to subdivision can be approved 5• pproved with a Documentation is received Class B Private vehicular a ce►ved from the a road; cress and circulation; Erosion Control Division that the 6. from is received curve radius would provide for adequate Provide mess for the laced from the D Best emer apartment of Emer emergency vehicle, which Would use Services r statin i d g that the proposed curve radius would 0 11 Approved May 3, 2000 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 County 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 b. Section III-D-1 Concept Plan Approval in all Zoning Districts Except the Rural Buffer. c. Section III-D-2 Concept Plan Approval in the Rural Buffer. d. (non-Vehicular Access). e. Section II DEFINITIONS. f. 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. 12 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. 13 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 14 I ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD. 2 MINUTES 3 APRIL.5,2000 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Leo Allison(Chair),Karen Barrows,Nicole Gooding-Ray,Crauford 6 Goodwin,Barry Katz,Howard McAdams,Jr.,Rachel Preston,James 7 Selkirk,Bob Strayhorn,and Runyon Woods 8 9 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Holtkamp,Onie Lea(excused) 10 11 STAFF PRESENT: Craig N. Benedict(Planning Director),Planners Robert Davis and Eddie 12 Kirk,Christina Moon,Karen Lincoln,and Administrative Assistant 13 Joanna Bradshaw 14 15 AGENDA ITEM#1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 16 17 Chair Allison called the meeting to order. 18 19 AGENDA ITEM#2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 20 21 There were no additions to the agenda. 22 23 AGENDA ITEM#3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES-March 1,2000 24 25 MOTION: Strayhorn moved approval of the March 1,2000 Orange County Planning Board 26 minutes. Seconded by Barrows. 27 28 29 30 a. Orange County Private Road Standards 31 32 Lincoln made the presentation. The proposal is to reduce the maximum number of lots allowed on private 33 roads. Currently,the maximum number of lots allowed on a private road is 25, and the staff would like to 34 reduce it to ten. There are three classifications of private roads-C has one to three lots,B has four to 35 nine lots,and anything over ten is A. The staff is doing away with class C,and is proposing that class B 36 have one to five lots. The staff is also proposing to lower the travel way width from 12 feet to ten feet. 37 Class A would have six to ten lots and would be an 18-foot travel way. More than ten lots would be 38 allowed on the private road if some natural resource or rural characteristic was enhanced. 39 40 Barrows asked whom the developer would go to in order to contest the ruling. Lincoln said that the 41 developer would go to the boards. 42 43 Benedict said that the maximum number of lots on a private road has been addressed clearly in the rural 44 preservation standards. The approval process would be the same as it is currently. He said that after ten 45 lots on a private road,there would have to be some significant natural feature enhanced by the private 46 road to allow any additional lots. 47 48 Strayhorn said that he does not totally agree with making exceptions. 49 50 Lincoln read the list of exceptions for justifying a private road with more than 10 lots. 51 52 Allison also has a problem with making exceptions and reducing the travel way for a class B road. 15 1 2 Barrows made reference to page 110 and the surface materials on a private road and asked why the paving 3 would make a difference if it was a private road. 4 5 The Board agreed that the portion about surface materials of private roads would be deleted. 6 7 MOTION: Strayhorn moved to extend the meeting past 10:30. Seconded by Katz. 8 9 VOTE: Unanimous. 10 11 The Board agreed to leave the class B private roads at 12 feet. 12 13 Gooding-Ray clarified that the right-of-way of the class B private roads would remain the same. 14 15 Barrows noted that the document had "significantly greater",and suggested that the document list 16 amounts. Benedict suggested having a sliding scale for these amounts. 17 18 Gooding-Ray suggested asking the Planning staff to come back with all of the changes for the next 19 meeting. 20 21 The Board agreed to receive the changes from the Planning staff at the next meeting. 16 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 MINUTES 3 MAY 4,2000 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Leo Allison(Chair),Rachel Preston, Bob Strayhorn,Crauford 7 Goodwin,Karen Barrows,Howard McAdams,James Selkirk, 8 Nicole Gooding-Ray 9 10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Runyon Woods,Barry Katz,Lynne Holtkamp, Onie Lee- all 11 excused 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Craig Benedict, Planners Robert Davis, Eddie 14 Kirk, and Jane Garrett,Tina Moon, and Administrative Assistant 15 Joanna Bradshaw 16 17 AGENDA ITEM#1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 18 Chair Allison called the meeting to order. 19 20 AGENDA ITEM#2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 21 None. 22 23 AGENDA ITEM#3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -April 5,2000 24 25 Barrows said that Lynne Holtkamp was absent from this meeting. The minutes indicated that she 26 was present. The correction was made. 27 28 Barrows clarified what she was trying to say on page 12, line 44 noting that she was asking who 29 the developers would go to if they wanted to contest the ruling by staff. 30 31 MOTION: Selkirk moved approval of the minutes for April 5,2000 with the 32 corrections as stated above. Seconded by Strayhom. 33 34 VOTE: Unanimous. 35 36 (These corrections have been made.) 37 38 .. 39 4o AGENDA ITEM#9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING(FEBRUARY 28, 41 2000) 42 y a. Orange County Private Road Standards 43 44 Karen Lincoln made the presentation. She said that the purpose of this item was for the board to 45 make its recommendations to the County Commissioners regarding proposed amendments to the 46 Orange County Subdivision Regulations concerning private roads. The amendments were 47 presented at public hearing in February and forwarded to the board. The Planning Board 48 reviewed them at its April meeting and made several comments and requested revisions. These 17 1 revisions have been made and incorporated into the proposed amendments. One of the changes 2 presented at the Board's April meeting-was that there must be increased lot size and at least two 3 of the criteria must be met in order to justify a private road. The Board had asked staff to revise 4 language in the ordinance provisions concerning private road justification by making the criteria 5 more specific. Criteria La,which requires significantly greater lot sizes and building setback 6 lines,now specifies minimum lot sizes of 80,000 square feet,three acres or five acres depending 7 on the minimum lot size of the zoning district with.setbacks twice those required in each zoning 8 district. 9 to Regarding the criteria that deals with significantly greater amounts of land of historical or 11 environmental significance, the language would be tightened to say, "At least fifty percent of the 12 site is to be dedicated and preserved through restrictive covenants as referenced in'An Inventory 13 of sites of Cultural,Historic,Recreational,Biological, and Geological Significance in the 14 Unincorporated Portions of Orange County"' 15 16 Regarding criteria that deals with significantly greater stream buffers and reduced impervious 17 surface for private road subdivisions located in a protected watershed,the amendments propose 18 the stream buffers to be increased by 25%and impervious surface decreased by 15%. Another 19 revision that has not been previously presented is that no private road justification would be 20 required for minor subdivisions with three or less lots. 21 22 Discussion ensued about the person who wants to subdivide on Lebanon Church Road. 23 24 Benedict said that a private access easement is acceptable to access the adjacent lot, and this 25 language could be added in the ordinance. 26 27 The board agreed to put the language about the private access easement into the ordinance. 28 29 Strayhorn would prefer that the setback requirements not be increased. Chair Allison agrees that 30 the setbacks should not be increased. 31 32 Barrows said that she hopes these proposed amendments make things clearer in regards to 33 private roads. 34 35 MOTION: Gooding-Ray to accept the proposed amendments with the change 36 to the private road justification, and to add the language about 37 allowing the private access easement to access the adjacent lot. 38 Seconded by Selkirk. 39 The setback is still as recommended by the staff. 40 41 VOTE: Ayes, 5;Noes, 3 (McAdams, Selkirk, and Strayhorn-disagree 42 with setback increase) 43 44 Adjournment time being reached,the Chair asked for a motion to 45 extend the meeting to complete the agenda. 46 18 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION IV-B-3-d-1. ROADS AND APPENDIX A. ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS: ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, SECTION IV-B-3-D-1. ROADS, BEGINNING THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 30-a REGARDING JUSTIFICTION OF PRIVATE ROADS, IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: A private road shall be deemed justified for a minor subdivision resulting in no more than three lots. In such subdivisions, a private access easement may be granted to allow an adjacent lot to access the private road in order to reduce the number of access points on a public road. The intent of this provision is to allow subdivision of parcels of sufficient acreage to meet zoning ordinance requirements for minimum lot size or area per dwelling unit where a private road would not otherwise be permitted because the subdivision cannot comply with requirement 1.a. as follows and where the subdivision would not meet the density requirement for a public road to be accepted into the state maintained system. For any other use of this provision, the final plat and a separate document to be recorded with the final plat shall contain a statement that any further development of any resulting lots, including the parent tract, shall be processed as a major subdivision For all other subdivisions the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners (in the case of major subdivisions) and Planning staff(in the case of minor subdivisions) shall consider the following design features when determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions. At a minimum, a private road may be justified if the subdivision meets standards of 1.a and at least two other design features listed below. 1. The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural character of the County through: a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines significantly greater than required by the underlying zoning district, including any overlay district requirements, according to the following standards: 1) For zoning districts having a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet or less, all lots in the subdivision must be at least 80,000 square feet. 2) For zoning districts having a minimum lot size or per dwelling unit area requirement of 87,120 square feet (two acres), all lots must be at least 130,680 square feet (three acres) except for subdivisions developed as flexible development subdivisions. 3) For clustered subdivisions developed as flexible development subdivisions preserving at least 33% of the land in open space, in a zoning district having a minimum lot size or per dwelling unit area requirement of 87,120 square feet (two acres) or greater, all lots must be at least 87,120 square feet (two acres) and the overall density of the subdivision must not exceed one dwelling unit per 130,680 square feet (three acres). 19 4) For all other cases, all lots must be at least five acres. 5) Building setbacks in all districts must be at least twice those required by Orange County Zoning Ordinance. b. The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of dwelling units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads, maintain a wooded or forested character, maintain scenic views, or preserve wildlife, botanical, historic, archaeological and/or recreation sites; and/or C. The preservation of site features which directly enhance the special or unique cultural, historical, archaeological or biological characteristics of the immediate area as referenced in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic,, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County"or, for historic sites, if the site is deemed eligible by the State Historic Preservation Office for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 2. The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are .such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirements. 3. At least fifty percent (50%) of the site is to be dedicated and preserved through restrictive covenants and contains recreation and/or open space areas of significant botanical, wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites as referenced in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" 4. In subdivisions to be located in a Protected Watershed as designated in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, stream buffers are increased by twenty-five percent (25%) above those required by Article 6.23 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the impervious surface allowed is decreased by fifteen percent (15%) to allow greater infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs. 5. The site contains topographic and environmental features, such as streams, steep slopes, or watersheds, that would be adversely affected by the use of roads constructed to State standards because of factors such as significant amounts of earthwork (cut and fill) that would contribute to increased run-off of stormwater and siltation. 6. The site is already developed to 100% of the capacity which could be achieved after approval of the subdivision and some or all of the non- conforming aspects of existing development on the site will be made more conforming as a result of the proposed subdivision, and all conforming aspects of the development will remain conforming. 20 7. There is only one subdivision road proposed. Its length does not exceed 350', it serves no more than five (5) lots, its grade does not exceed 9%, and the land being subdivided is not connected to or.part of another subdivision .required to be served by public roads. 21 ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, APPENDIX A ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS, IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LOTS ALLOWED ON A PRIVATE ROAD FROM 25 TO 10; TO DELETE THE PROVISION FOR A CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD; AND TO DELETE THE PROVISION FOR PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR TO CERTIFY ROAD CONSTRUCTION. THE FOURTH AND FIFTH PARAGRAPHS IN THE SECTION TITLED GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ARE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: The standards and specifications for Private Roads apply to subdivisions in Orange County and the class of road required depends on the number of lots served by the road. A Class B road serves 1 to 5 lots or dwelling units, and a Class A road serves 6 to 10 lots or dwelling units. All Private Roads in a major (more than five lots) subdivision require the approval of the Board of Commissioners. Before the final plat of the subdivision can be recorded, the Private Road must be built and approved, or the applicant must post a security instrument with the County in an amount that would cover the cost of constructing the road. Class B Private Roads intended to serve 2 lots or dwelling units are not required to be constructed to Orange County Standards or to be inspected before recordation of the final plat. However, Orange County recommends that these Class B roads be built to these standards in order-to provide adequate access, especially for emergency vehicles which require the clearances and turn areas shown on the specifications. Private road construction must be inspected and the construction certified .in writing to the Orange County Planning Department by a North Carolina Professional Engineer. Also, the location of the travelway must be certified to be within the platted private road right-of-way by a North Carolina Registered Land Surveyor. The road must be inspected during construction so that any changes or improvements necessary to insure approval can be made before the stone is placed and the shoulders and ditches are seeded and mulched. In order for this to happen, the subdivider or representative must inform the professional making the certification prior to the start of construction and at intervals during construction when inspections are needed so that they can be scheduled. ITEM 9 UNDER THE GENERAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND PRIVATE ROAD CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: GENERAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND PRIVATE ROAD CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE. 9. Have a professional engineer and a registered land surveyor, respectively, provide written certification to the Planning and Inspections Department that construction meets the required standards and that the travelway is within the right-of-way. 22 STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE ROADS, Certification of Construction SECTION IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE ROADS The standards described herein are the minimum set forth by the County. Orange County has not determined, and is not responsible for determining that these standards are adequate or appropriate for all uses by landowners. The standards also may not meet NCDOT criteria. No road will be accepted for maintenance by NCDOT unless or until NCDOT standards are met. Certification of Construction A registered land surveyor must certify in writing to the Planning Department that the travelway of the Private Road, either existing upgraded or newly constructed, is within the platted right-of-way . A professional engineer must certify in writing to the Planning Department that a Private Road, either existing, upgraded, or newly constructed, meets the standards of the required class for the subdivision. The following must be inspected and certified: 1. the proper material has been used in the travelway and it is built to the required width and thickness; 2. the shoulders are the correct width and the typical cross section is in place; 3. the road is on the proper grade; 4. ditches are in place where necessary to provide adequate drainage, in accordance with sound engineering practice; 5. needed storm pipes of proper size, materials and construction are in place and energy dissipaters installed, in accordance with sound engineering practice; 6. all disturbed areas are properly stabilized; 7. the required road sign is in place; 8. an adequate turn-around is in place at the end of the road; 9. required vertical and horizontal clearance is provided; and 10. sight distance and construction at the intersection with a public road has been approved by NCDOT. 'THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE ROADS, Surface Materials, REQUIRING THAT PAVED PRIVATE ROADS MEET NCDOT PAVING STANDARDS, IS DELETED. STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE ROADS, Minimum Curve Radius (SECOND PARAGRAPH, ITEM 4) IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: A curve radius of less than 125 feet may be approved if all of the following conditions are met: 1. The road existed prior to the adoption of subdivision regulations or was approved as part of an earlier subdivision; 23 2. Reconstruction of the existing road to meet a 125' curve radius is not feasible due to the extent of earthwork which would be required and/or the inability to reconfigure the existing right-of-way location due to ownership or the location of existing structures, wells or septic systems; 3. Standards pertaining to road width and grade will be met; 4. The subdivision can be approved with a Class B private road; 5. Documentation is received from the Erosion Control Division that the proposed curve radius would provide for adequate vehicular access and circulation; 6. Documentation is received from the Department of Emergency Services stating that the proposed curve radius would provide access for the largest emergency vehicle, which would use the road. AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD ON OCTOBER 3, 2000, UPON MOTION BY AND SECONDED BY a THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED. AYES: NAYS: Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Date 24 Proposed Policy for Implementing Amendments ("Grandfathering" Affected Subdivision Applications) The policy for determining which in-process applications are affected by the proposed amendments can be as strict as requiring compliance with the amendments for all subdivisions that have not yet received preliminary plat approval from the Board of Commissioners (for major subdivisions) or the applicant has not yet submitted a final plat for recordation that incorporates all conditions placed on approval of a minor subdivision. Because of the different procedures and time frames for approving minor and major subdivisions, staff recommends different policy for dealing with each type of subdivision. Major Subdivisions Staff recommends that compliance with the amendments be mandatory for all major subdivisions in which private roads are proposed that have not yet received preliminary plat approval by the Board of Commissioners. This recommendation is based on policy that approval of a preliminary plat by the governing body establishes a vested right to develop accordingly. The proposed amendments do not affect any in-process major subdivisions (there are no in-process concept plans nor preliminary plats for a major subdivision in which private roads are proposed). All applicants proposing a major subdivision with private roads will be advised of the proposed amendments at the concept plan stage. Minor Subdivisions For in-process minor subdivision applications, staff recommends a policy based on "options" 1b, 1c, Id and 2a in the tables on the following pages. The tables exhibit strategies for determining whether a current application for development in which a private road is proposed must comply with the proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Using this policy, • in-process applications would not be required to comply with the proposed amendments provided those applications were approved prior to June 6, 2000; (first possible date for adoption of the. amendments by the BOCC) and the final plat complying with all conditions of approval is submitted for recordation within one year of the conditional approval letter issued by staff, with the exception that • a new application must be submitted for minor subdivision applications conditionally approved prior to September 5, 1999, for which a final plat complying with conditions for approval has not yet been submitted. Any such new applications must comply with the amendments. This policy is based on the shorter time frame in which minor subdivisions can be approved with consideration to the following observations. Although staff apprised applicants of the proposed amendments, staff was unclear about when the county could,require compliance with regulations that had not yet been adopted, and several minor subdivision applications were conditionally approved with current (`bid") regulatory provisions after the public hearing. Therefore, staff recommends the first possible date the amendments could have been adopted (June 6, 2000) as a "fair" cut off date of conditional approval provided the final plats are submitted in a timely manner. Regulatory provisions for major subdivisions limit the effective time period of an approved preliminary plat to one year. Similarly, staff recommends that the 25 applicant be required to submit a new application for a minor subdivision when the applicant fails to submit a final plat that complies with all conditions of approval within one year of receiving the staff letter of conditional approval. There are 60 in-process minor subdivision applications. Thirty-three (33) of those applications would not be affected by the proposed amendments since the required type of road would remain the same. Out of the 27 applications that would be affected by the proposed amendments, the above recommended policy would allow seven (7) of those in-process minor subdivisions to be completed using the current subdivision provisions and standards for private roads. (All.of those subdivisions were approved with conditions by staff prior to June 6, 2000, the first date the amendments could have been adopted by the BOCC.) The seven minor subdivision applications allowed to proceed as conditionally approved under the proposed policy are noted in the tables on pp 28 — 30 with.a "✓" beside the staff approval date. Four (4) of those applications propose one or two new lots on an existing class B private road. The resulting total number of lots accessing those class B roads varies from 6 to 7. If required to comply with the new amendments, applicants must upgrade the roads to class A private road standards. The other three (3) subdivision applications each propose to create a total of three lots using a class C private road (two subdivisions propose new class C private roads, one proposes to add one lot to an existing class C private road). If required to comply with the new amendments, applicants must upgrade the roads to class B private road standards. Policy for Application Approval in Future Cases In future situations where amendments are proposed that affect in-process minor subdivision applications, staff recommends that in-process applications not be required to comply with the proposed amendments if the application received approval, or conditional approval, prior to the public hearing at which proposed amendments are presented.' Applicants who submit proposals after the public hearing will be advised that staff will consider the proposed amendments during review of those applications. Staff recommends the above outlined policy for dealing with major subdivision applications. Applicants have much pre-application interaction with planning staff, and staff apprises such applicants of any known proposed amendments being developed as well as any consequences of not incorporating proposed amendments into plans that may not receive "vested" preliminary plat approval prior to adoption of any such amendments. ' Staff also recommends that the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, Section III-3, Approval Procedures for Minor Subdivision, be amended to limit to one year the time allowed from the conditional approval of a final plat application to the endorsement of the final plat approval by the Planning Director. The amendment should also include an exception in cases where.the applicant can demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the deadline, but for reasons beyond his/her control, fails to meet the requirements within that period. 26 i (Gray shading indicates recommended options.) OPTION 1 STAFF APPROVAL # MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS APPLICATION DATE DATE AFFECTED REQUIREMENT EXISTING PRIVATE NEW PRIVATE ROAD ROAD 1 Prior to public 8 8 Subdivison may be approved with `bid" regs hearing (2/28/00) and standards. New application required; subdivision must la Prior to 9/5/99 6 6 comply with new amendments. 1b Prior to 9/5/99 6 6 New application required; subdivision must (STAFF KNOWS comply with new amendments. An exception OF NO CASE THAT may be allowed for cases where the applicant WOULD MEET can show that work has been :continuously THIS carried,out to upgrade the existing road where REQUIREMENT.) the road upgrade was a condition-of approval. Subdivison may be approved with `old" regs. 1C After 9/5/99; NONE AFFECTED NONE AFFECTED and standards provided the final plat is Prior to 2/28/00 BY AMENDMENTS ' BY AMENDMENTS recorded within 1 year of Staff approval date. After 2/28/00; Subdivison may be approved with 'old" regs 1 d Prior to 6/6/00 2 0 and standards provided the final plat is recorded within 1 year of approval date. 1e Prior to adoption 8 8 Subdivison may be approved with `bid" regs of new regs by and standards.. BOCC Total # minor subdivisions affected: 16 N o� 27 (Gray shading indicates recommended options.) OPTION 2 STAFF APPROVAL # MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS APPLICATION DATE DATE AFFECTED REQUIREMENT EXISTING PRIVATE NEW PRIVATE ROAD ROAD 2 After public 9 2 Subdivision must comply with new hearing (2/28/00) amendments. 2a Prior to 6/6/00 4 1 Subdivison may be approved with 'old" regs and standards provided final plat is recorded within 1 year of approval date. 2b After 6/6/00 5 1 Subdivision must comply with new amendments. 2c Prior to adoption UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Subdivison may be approved with `old" regs of new regs by and standards provided final plat is recorded BOCC within 1 year of approval date.. Total #minor subdivisions affected: UNKNOWN AT LEAST 11 OPTION 3 STAFF APPROVAL # MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS APPLICATION DATE DATE AFFECTED REQUIREMENT EXISTING PRIVATE NEW PRIVATE ROAD ROAD 3 Prior to adoption UNKNOWN UNKNOWN . Subdivison may be approved with 'old" regs of new regs by and standards. BOCC Total # minor subdivisions affected: UNKNOWN AT LEAST 27 � N 28 MNOR SUBDIVISIONS IN PROCESS AS OF AUGUST 4, 2000 (Gray shading shows applications approved prior to public hearing) #LOTS IN #LOTS TYPE APPLICA- SUB- USING ROAD TYPE ROAD- TION STAFF NAME TMBL DIVISION ROAD OLD REGS NEW REGS WATERSHED DATE APPROVAL Alan W. Biermann 7.130.C.3C 2 5 B B no change) Jordan-PW 4-28-00 06-15-00 Daniel M. Bledsoe 1.1..17B 2 3 C B* Flat-PW 2-23-99 03-04-99 W.B.Clark et ux S. Clark 5.21.21 1 2 C N/A** L-Eno-PW 7-1-99 07-15-99 Steven & Isabell Coombs 6.10..7 1 4 B B no change) Cane-PW 2-10-00 02-17-00 Crawford Family Trust 5.8..41 C 2 2 n/a N/A** Little-PW 3-30-00 04-06-00 Jack Dezern 1.27..15B 4 3/4 C B* Little-PW 9-4-98 09-23-98 Deborah Bernice Evans 2.18.7A 2 2 C N/A** U-Eno-PW 4-28-00 05-04-00 Steven Garland 6.6.15 2 2 joint N/A** Cane-PW 3-7-00 03-16-00 driveway Gregory Gunter 1.18..18 4 4 B B no change) Little-PW 6-25-99 07-01-99 Wilson & Howard Hackney 6.36..23 2 6 B A* Haw-PW 3-20-00 05-18-00 ✓ Lisa Hamill 7.118..2A 2 2 C N/A** Univ-PW/Haw- 5-5-99 05-06-99 PW Robert Haynie 3.15..9H 2 ' 15 ? PUBLIC* U-Eno-PW 5-13-99 05-20-99 High Point Woods Lot 6 7.1..21 P 2 10 A A no change) n/a 2-1-99 Kenion &Poole 2.40:.6 5 9&2 A&C PUBLIC*&NIA** U-Eno-CA 10-12-95 02-06-96 Kathryn A. Larson 7.15.113 3 6 B A* n/a 6-27-00 07-20-00 Little Creek Farm Lot 1 6.21.1 2 20 A PUBLIC* Uni'V-PW 6-23-99 07-01-99 Cynthia McKee 1.10..lD 3 2 C N/A** Little-PW 7-28-99 08-05-99 &Carol Knight Pearly/Hester 2.45..27 2 1 C N/A** U-Eno-PW 6-14-99 03-02-00 Brian & Bruce Ramsey 1.9..13 2 5&2 B&C A*&N/A** Little-PW 5-25-00 06-01-00 ✓ Riley's Ride 6.12..21 4 4 B B no change) n/a 10-30-98 11-05-98 Jolene Schira 7.1A..6 2 14&9 A&B PUBLIC*&A* U-Eno-PW 7-18-00 07-20-00 Paul G. Scurlock 5.21..66 2 3 C B* L-Eno-PW 6-8-00 06-15-00 Alfreddie Smith 3.1,.15 3 3 C B* Back-PW 10-13-98 10-21-98 Bobby Smith 7.115..31 13 13 C B* Univ-PW 9-9-97 09-15-97 * Road must be upgraded ** Roads serving only 2 lots do not have to be constructed to Class B standards. ✓ Recommended policy would allow subdivision to be developed using"old"regulations. N 00 29 MNOR SUBDIVISIONS IN PROCESS AS OF AUGUST 4,2000(CONT.) (Gray shading shows applications approved prior to public hearing) #LOTS IN #LOTS TYPE APPLICA SUB- USING ROAD TYPE ROAD-NEW -TION STAFF NAME TMBL DIVISION ROAD OLD REGS REGS WATERSHED DATE APPROVAL Beverly A. Blythe 2.31.396 5 5 B B no chap a U-Eno-CA 5-1-00 05-04-00 Peter Bochenek 7.1..21 M 2 2 C N/A** U-Eno-PW 4-16-99 09-02-99 Larry&Rebecca Carter 321.A.2 2 9 B A* U-Eno-PW 6-30-00 08-03-00 Nell W. Cates 7.12..15F 3 3 C B* n/a 7-27-00 08-03-00 Kristal Cloer 1.24..7B 3 3 C B* Little-PW 8-12-99 06-13-00 Bruce W. Curtis 3.6..8A 5 3 C B* Back-PW 2-29-00 03-02-00 ✓ Homer Davis 7.1..10B 2 3 C B* n/a 10-29-99 06-01-00 ✓ Ernest& Rita'Edenfield 5.8..48 2 2 C N/A** Little-PW/L- 2-25-99 03-16-99 Eno-PW Wilson Efland 3.40.A.7 2 7 B A* U-Eno-PW 4-13-00 04-20-00 ✓ Emerald Forest 7.6..46 3 3 C B* n/a 3-30-00 04-06-00 ✓ Connie B. Fergus 6.6..30A&37 3 3 C B* Cane=PW 8-4-99 08-19-99 &Virginia A.Gibbons Bertha Foust Heirs 3.28..13&13B 4 2 C N/A** n/a 3-24-00 04-06-00 Foxwood Farm 6.20..6B 2 4 B B no change) Un1v-PW 10-7-99 12-02-99 Howard &Jean Jeffreys 1.5..7C 2 2 Joint N/A Little-PW 4-14-00 04-20-00 driveway Vannie C. Kenion Lot 2 2.46..41 4 7 Public PUBLIC no change) U-Eno-PW 9-8-99 Paul Cheek Lloyd 6.36..39 3 3 C B* Univ-PW 9-24-99 07-20-00 Meadow Vista 7.117..2S 2 2 C N/A** Univ-PW 9-10-99 04-06-00 Clyde W. Miller 3.6..22 2 2 C N/A** Back-PW 1-20-00 04-06-00 Roger&Eleanor Moore 2.34..19W 2 10 A A no change) Little-PW 10-12-99 10-21-99 Morgan Ride 7.112..11 4 4 B B no change) Univ-PW 11-12-99 12-02-99 Carl &Priscilla Moraven 4.1.6.28 1 25 FA PUBLIC* n/a 6-2-95 06-06-95 Judy Parker 1.17..1 2 2 Joint N/A Little-PW 5-13-99. 05-18-99 driveway Josephine Pa for 2.46..4A 2 2 C N/A** U-Eno-CA 5-5-99 05-05-99 * Road must be upgraded ** Roads serving only 2 lots do not have to be constructed to Class B standards. ✓ Recommended policy would allow subdivision to be developed using'old"regulations. ry �o 30 MNOR SUBDIVISIONS IN PROCESS AS OF AUGUST 4, 2000(CONT.) (Gray shading shows applications approved prior to public hearing) #LOTS IN #LOTS TYPE APPLICA- SUB- USING ROAD OLD TYPE ROAD- TION STAFF NAME TMBL DIVISION ROAD REGS NEW REGS WATERSHED DATE APPROVAL Penrose Run Phase Two 3.4..13 3 3 C B* U-Eno-PW&CA 7-20-99 08-05-99 Walker Pruitt 5.14..22A 2 2 C N/A** n/a 5-13-99 08-19-99 Lance Richardson& 6.17..26 3 3 C B* Cane-CA 8-13-99 08-19-99 Rebecca Ann Gwinn Gilbert&Jerrie Sides Lot B 5.16..15 3 6 B A* L-Eno-PW 6-28-00 07-20-00 Maggie Ann Stevens 3.51..8 2 4 B B no chap a U-Eno-CA 12-9-99 04-20-00 Robert D. Stone 2.43..5 1 1 Joint N/A Back-PW 2-25-00 04-20-00 driveway Larry D.Tabor 2.43..5F 2 2 C N/A** Back-PW 3-26-99 04-01-99 John& Deborah Taylor 4.6A.A.1 2 2 Joint N/A n/a 4-13-00 04-20-00 driveway Rebecca Torain 32.1 5 8&1 B&C A*&N/A** Back-PW 11-25-98 12-03-98 Larry&Deborah Walker 5.12..5E 1 2 C N/A** L-Eno-PW 12-15-98 01-07-99 Lynn Wilson 2.36..17 1 6 B A* Little-PW 2-28-00 03-02-00 ✓ Mrs. F.W.Winn Heirs . 6.17..10A 2 2 C N/A** Cane-PW 9-30-99 08-05-99 Nia A.Woods 3.12..28 2 2 C N/A** U-Eno-PW 8.3-99 10-07-99 TOTAL#APPLICATIONS 60 TOTAL#APPLICATIONS NOT AFFECTED NO CHANGE 33 TOTAL#APPLICATIONS. AFFECTED BY NEW REGS. 27 * Road must be upgraded ** Roads serving only 2 lots do not have to be constructed to Class B standards. ✓ Recommended policy would allow subdivision to be developed using`old"regulations. ' w o /o-3' adc� v 9 h In answer to a question from Commissioner Brown, Mr. Stewart explained that when the source of the noise is 100-400 feet away, the atmospheric effects are quite strong. He explained how the sound goes up and back down at different times during the day. Anything that is done on the property would only have benefit during limited periods of time when the sound is angled a certain way. He does not think that anything can be done to make a major reduction or increase in the noise in the subdivision. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to table this item to receive further information. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The issues to be addressed for this item are noise abatement, private vs. public roads, the septic system, the perennial stream that runs through the property, and whether there are any restrictive covenants. Commissioner Halkiotis would like information on a possible penalty package that can be put on this project. Norl Stewart said that he made some measurements tonight at 7:30 in his development area at various locations and on Pine Tree Lane near the intersection of Sunrise Road and it measured 52-54 decibels. Chandlers Green measured 49 decibels and Cheaslee measured 46 decibels. He said that these levels were not considered noisy. He said that noise in his own community in Raleigh was at these same levels. e. Govinda Hills Minor Subdivision/Pasley Appeal of Private Road Standards The Board was to consider an appeal by Mr. Scott Pasley regarding a staff technical decision to deny Govinda Hills, Phase 3 minor subdivision. However, this item was postponed to October 10tH f. North Field at Creek Wood — Preliminary Plan The Board was to consider a preliminary plan for North Field at Creek Wood Subdivision located on the south side of Mt. Sinai Road in Chapel Hill Township. However, this item was postponed to October 10tH g Section Two— Beaver Valley— Preliminary Plan The Board was to consider a preliminary plan for Beaver Valley Subdivision Section Two located west of Mace Road and Beaver Valley Section One in Cheeks Township. However, this item was postponed to October 10tH h. Amendments to Orange County Private Road Standards The Board was to consider proposed amendments to the Orange County subdivision regulations regarding private roads. However, this item was postponed to October 10tH i. Proposed 2000-2001 Board of County Commissioners' Goals The Board was to discuss and consider adopting goals for fiscal year 2000-2001. However, this item was postponed to October 10tH 10. REPORTS - NONE 11. APPOINTMENTS- NONE 12. MINUTES- NONE 13. CLOSED SESSION - NONE 14. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for the County Commissioners to consider a motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to continue this meeting to October 10 at 7:30 at the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom. VOTE: UNANIMOUS