HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-07-2013 - 6dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 7, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 6 -d
1
SUBJECT: Review of Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments — Modification of
Site Plan Submittal Requirements - Public Hearing Closure and Action (No
Additional Comments Accepted)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Approved February 25, 2013 Quarterly
Public Hearing Legal Ad
2. Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendment
Outline Form (UDO /Zoning 2012 -016)
3. UDO Amendment Package
4. OWASA Response to Proposed
Amendment
5. Excerpt of Approved Minutes from
February 25, 2013 Quarterly Public
Hearing
6. Excerpt of Approved Minutes from
March 6, 2013 Planning Board Meeting
7. Draft Minutes from April 3, 2013
Planning Board Meeting
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, (919) 245 -2597
Reynolds Ivins, Erosion Control, (919) 245 -2586
Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245 -2575
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board's recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on Planning Director initiated text amendments to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) in regards to the submission of formal, professionally prepared, site plans.
As a reminder, the reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board
recommendation and any additional written evidence submitted since the February 25, 2013
Quarterly Public Hearing. This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input from the public
or the applicant. While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item,
comments from the public shall not be solicited.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 25, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing
where staff indicated the amendment was intended to clarify existing language denoting when a
formal, professionally prepared, site plan is required for submittal. As proposed the amendment
would require a professionally prepared site plan when land disturbance activity exceeds
established stormwater management thresholds. The amendment also adds language requiring
formal stormwater management plan submittal for subdivisions as well.
Please refer to Section C.1(b) of Attachment 2 for a synopsis of comments made during the
public hearing as well as Attachment 5. Agenda packet materials from the public hearing can
be accessed via the following link: http:// orangecountync .gov /occlerks /130225.pdf.
2
It should be noted this amendment does not alter existing development standards associated
with the Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (i.e. impervious surface limits). Further work
may be authorized by the BOCC to complete a comprehensive review of existing limits in the
future.
Please refer to Section(s) B.1 and 2 of Attachment 2 for additional information
Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the Unified Development
Ordinance, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior
to the Planning Board's recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the
Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing.
The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
The only written comments received were from the Orange Water & Sewer Authority (OWASA)
and are contained within Attachment 4.
Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
proposed UDO amendments based on the following:
The UDO amendments are reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety,
and general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive
Plan or part thereof; and,
ii. The UDO amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its April 3, 2013 regular meeting, the Board voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment package as contained within
Attachment 3. Minutes from the April 3, 2013 meeting are contained within Attachment 7.
For additional information please refer to Section C.2 (a) in Attachment 2.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 in Attachment 2.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Decide accordingly and /or adopt the ordinance contained in Attachment 3 which
authorizes the text amendments.
Attachment 1
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A joint public hearing will be held at the Department of Social Services, Hillsborough
Commons, 113 Mayo St., Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, February 25, 2013
at 7:00 PM for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or
against the following items:
1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment: In accordance with
the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has
initiated an amendment to the text of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Text amendments are proposed to Section(s) 2.4.1 Zoning Compliance Permits -
Applicability, 2.5.2 Application Requirements, and 7.6.3 Land Suitability.
In April of 2012 the County modified the UDO to adopt State required stormwater
management standards. This included adoption of land disturbance thresholds
requiring the submittal of formal, professionally prepared, stormwater
management and erosion control plans.
The purpose of this amendment is to modify existing language to provide
additional reference to these thresholds in an effort to avoid requiring project
applicants to submit multiple, professionally prepared, plans for a single
development project.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed
amendment.
2. Vnified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment: In accordance ith
the pr ions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development inance
Amendmen f the Unified Development Ordinance the Plann irector has
initiated an amen nt to the text of the Unified Developm rdinance (UDO).
Text amendments are pro-pbsed to Section ,s .14.1 Review and Decision
Process Flow Chart - Minor Su sio 2.15.5 Certificate of Adequacy of
Public School Facilities, 6.19 Ade e lic Facilities: Schools, and Section
7.14.3 (F) (3) (g) Final Plat Sp ' nations.
The purpose of th endments is to ensure County regu i ns and procedures
are complian i h recent North Carolina case law. Specifically, amendment
will re e the Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) dens ovision
rt of the development approval process when school capacity is excee
3
0
ose: To review the item and receive public comment on the oposed
amen nt.
3. Unified Develop t Ordinance (UDO) Text Amend t: In accordance with
the provisions of Secti .8 Zoning Atlas and Unifi
eve In
Ordinance
Amendments of the Unified elopment Ordi ce, the Planning Director has
initiated an amendment to the tex the U ed Development Ordinance (UDO).
Text amendments are proposed ection Planning Board] Rules of
Procedure. The purpose o? a amendment is to ct the general advisory
board policy document the specific Planning Board cies and procedures
recently adopted b e Board of County Commissioners.
Purpose�6review the item and receive public comment on the propose
ameaelfnent.
Substantial changes in items presented at the public hearing may be made following the
receipt of comments made at the public hearing. Accommodations for individuals with
physical disabilities can be provided if the request is made to the Planning Director at
least 48 hours prior to the Public Hearing by calling the one of the phone numbers
below. The full text of the public hearing items may be obtained no later than February
15, 2013 at the County website www.co.orange.nc.us at the Meeting Agendas link.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning
Department located on the second floor of the County Office Building at 131 West
Margaret Lane, Suite 201, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8 :00 a.m.
to 5 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call (919) 245 -2575 or 245 -2585 and
you will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions.
PUBLISH: The Herald Sun News of Orange
February 13, 2013 February 13, 2013
February 20, 2013 February 20, 2013
Attachment 2 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENTOUTLINE
UDO / Zoning- 2012 -016
Amendment(s) requiring submittal of formal site plans and stormwater management
plans for residential and non - residential projects
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
❑ Land Use Element Map:
From: - --
To: - --
❑ Zoning Map-
From-
To----
F-1 Other:
Text Amendments
❑ Comprehensive Plan Text-
Section(s):
❑ UDO Text:
❑UDO General Text Changes
❑UDO Development Standards
❑UDO Development Approval Processes
Section(s): 1. Section 2.4.1 Zoning Compliance Permits - Applicability
2. Section 2.5.2 Application Requirements
3. Section 7.6.3 Land Suitability
❑ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
Other :
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose /Mission
In accordance with the rovisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified
p g
Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has
initiated a text amendment to modify existing language requiring the submittal of
formal stormwater plans as part of subdivision and development applications.
1
0
The State recently implemented stormwater management and nutrient reduction
strategies. As part of these strategies, the County recently modified existing regulations
mandating the preparation and submittal of formal, engineered, stormwater management
plans as part of any development project where proposed land disturbance reached the
following thresholds-
Watershed/River Basin
Stormwater — Non-
Stormwater — Residential
residential
Cape Fear (includes the
Projects proposing over
Projects proposing over
Back Creek, Haw River,
21,780 square feet of
43,560 square feet of
Cane Creek, Jordan Lake,
disturbance are required
disturbance are required to
and University Lake
to submit a stormwater
submit a stormwater
protected and critical
management plan.
management plan.
watershed overlay districts as
well as those properties
within the basin not located in
a watershed overlay district).
Neuse (includes Flat River,
Projects proposing over
Projects proposing over
Little River, Upper and Lower
12,000 square feet of
21,780 square feet of
Eno protected and critical
disturbance are required
disturbance are required to
watershed overlay districts as
to submit a stormwater
submit a stormwater
well as those properties
management plan.
management plan.
within the basin not located in
a watershed overlay district).
Roanoke (includes South
Projects proposing over
Projects proposing over
Hyco Creek protected
20,000 square feet of
43,560 square feet of
watershed overlay district).
disturbance are required
disturbance are required to
to submit a stormwater
submit a stormwater
management plan.
management plan.
These changes were incorporated into the UDO on April 17, 2012. The agenda packet
for this meeting can be found utilizing the following
link: http:// orangecountync .gov /OCCLERKS /120417.htm
Currently there are conflicting requirements within the UDO detailing when a formal,
professionally prepared, site plan is required.
For example Section 2.4.1 requires a professionally prepared site plan for single - family
developments on property located within the University Lake Protected and Critical
Watershed Overlay Districts. Section 2.5.2, the section of the UDO addressing site plan
application requirements, specifically exempt single - family development projects from
submitting a professionally prepared site plan.
Problems also arise in those instances where a project's proposed overall land
disturbance requires submission of a formal stormwater management plan. Staff does
not want there to be conflicting information provided to the public as to when a formal site
plan is required nor do we want the staff of Current Planning and Erosion Control to
potentially be looking at 2 different sets of plans proposing the development of a given
2
7
property.
This proposed amendment is designed to-
1 . Require formally prepared site plans for those projects exceeding established
stormwater disturbance thresholds for residential projects.
Submittal of formal site plans is already required for all non - residential projects
regardless of the proposed land disturbance activity.
2. Incorporate references within various locations of the UDO identifying which
land development projects need to comply with these standards in an effort to
eliminate confusion and provide definitive application submittal standards.
3. Add language requiring stormwater management plans for minor and major
subdivisions where anticipated land disturbance activities would exceed
established thresholds.
Both Planning and Erosion Control staff agree potential problems can be
eliminated if there is a formal stormwater management plan approved during
the subdivision review and approval process.
Staff identified 3 options with respect to addressing existing language in Section 2.4.1
requiring a professionally prepared site plan for any project within the University Lake
Watershed Protection Overlay District-
- Option A: Leave as is — no change. (i.e. only properties in the University
Lake Watershed impacted).
— Option B: Amend section requiring all watershed overlay districts with a
6% impervious surface limit be treated the same (i.e. professional site
plan).
— Option C: Eliminate requirement all together and require professionally
prepared site plans only when stormwater thresholds are exceeded.
After reviewing comments from OWASA (refer to Attachment 4) and after discussing
the issue with the Planning Board, staff supports Option C as detailed above.
2. Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance, the Planning Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of
the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for
consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners'.
The proposed amendment is designed to incorporate established stormwater
management land disturbance thresholds into existing language within the UDO
requiring formal site plan preparation and submittal by an applicant when said
thresholds are exceeded.
By modifying existing language we hope to eliminate unnecessary cost for the
applicant, with respect to the completion of multiple site plans, and provide sufficient
detail to residents, property owners, and developers on when formal site plan
preparation is necessary.
The amendment is also designed to provide a `central site plan' for review to ensure
staff is reviewing and taking action on the same document to avoid confusion and
3
8
unnecessary duplication of effort.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
This amendment is designed to provide additional references to existing
development standards already contained within the UDO.
4. New Statutes and Rules
This amendment is designed to reference compliance with recently adopted
modifications to the UDO related to stormwater management and nutrient reduction
standards consistent with the following State regulations:
• 15A NCAC 2B. 0277 Falls Lake Stormwater New Development Rule
• 15A NCAC 2B. 0265 and Session Law 2009 -484 Jordan Lake Stormwater
New Development Rules
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME /MILESTONES /DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
November 8, 2012. The BOCC voted unanimously to authorize staff to proceed
with the amendment. Board members also requested staff present the proposed
amendment to the Commission for the Environment (CFE) for its input. Staff
presented this item to the CFE at its January 14, 2013 regular meeting. The CFE
had no comments or concerns related to the proposal.
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
February 25, 2013. During the hearing the following comments were made-
............
1. A BOCC member asked staff to clarify the difference between impervious
surface and land disturbance limits.
STAFF COMMENT: Land disturbance limits identify the total
amount of land area that can be disturbed /cleared without the
benefit of a formal erosion control or stormwater management plan
being approved by the County.
Impervious surface limits establish the overall limit of `development'
that can occur on a given parcel (i.e. driveway, house, shed, etc.)
based on its designated Watershed Protection Overlay District.
You can disturb more land area than you can actually develop.
Ultimately both regulations are an attempt by the County to address
water quality issues through limiting the overall amount of
`impervious' surface placed on a parcel and requiring stormwater
management devices in those cases where they are necessary.
2. A BOCC member expressed concern over the potential for increased costs
to be incurred by property owners seeking to develop single - family
residences with the submittal of a professionally prepared site plan.
F.
0
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed amendment would only require
a professionally prepared site plan in those instances where land
disturbance activity would require the submittal of a professionally
prepared stormwater management plan. There is no additional
costs imposed on local residents /property owners if the amendment
is approved.
3. A BOCC member indicated she did not want existing regulations,
specifically the requirement of a professionally prepared site plan for
development within the University Lake Protected and Critical Watershed
Overlay districts, to change.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff reiterated the amendment would not alter
development limitations (i.e. impervious surface limits) within
Watershed Protection Overlay Districts.
The only potential impact of the proposed amendment would be an
expansion, or elimination, of the requirement for a professionally
prepared site plan in watershed areas within an impervious surface
limit of 6% depending on which course of action if chosen.
As written, the amendment package would still require a
professionally prepared site plan if established stormwater
management land disturbance thresholds were exceeded.
There is existing language within the UDO allowing staff to require a
professionally prepared site plan in those instances where a plot
plan fails to demonstrate a proposed development project is
compliance with applicable regulations.
4. There was a general concern the proposal would allow for an increase in
development opportunity within the various watershed districts.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposal would not impact existing
impervious surface limits in any Watershed Protection Overlay
District.
The text amendment only seeks to clarify when a professionally
prepared site plan is required and does not increase allowable
impervious surface area throughout the County.
5. There was a general comment made over the need to have uniformity
within the UDO with respect to when a professionally prepared site plan
would be required.
A BOCC member felt requiring a professionally prepared site plan when
land disturbance thresholds, consistent with existing stormwater
management standards, were exceeded was a reasonable standard
versus basing the submission on impervious surface limits.
6. A Planning Board member asked why the Haw River Protected Watershed
Overlay District was not included within staff's recommendation for the
submission of a professionally prepared site plan.
STAFF COMMENT: The Haw River Protected Watershed Overlay
District has an impervious surface limit of 24 %.
5
10
Staff's proposal seeks to amend the UDO to require overlay districts
with a 6% impervious surface limit to submit a professionally
prepared site plan.
7. A BOCC member indicated he felt there ought to be a reevaluation of
impervious surface limits within respect to any watershed feeding into a
public water intake for local residents.
The concern was the County was treating certain water supply watersheds
differently from others, specifically focusing on the Haw River Protected
Watershed Overlay District which serves as a public water source for
Chatham County residents.
STAFF COMMENT. This can be undertaken at some point in the
future if the BOCC directs staff to do so. It should be noted any
such review will need to take existing State requirements into
account.
8. A BOCC member asked staff to consider modifying provisions of Section
2.4.1 to include additional rationale for the submission of a universal site
plan into the proposed text. This BOCC member indicated she felt
language within a footnote ought to be incorporated to provide additional
`explanation' on the need for the amendment.
STAFF COMMENT. Staff does not recommend additional
modification.
When the UDO was developed there was a conscious effort to
eliminate explanatory language in an effort to streamline existing
regulations and condense existing land use regulations.
The UDO is not intended to serve as a technical manual providing
detailed insight into every `standard' associated with a given
development. It is, ultimately, staff's responsibility to educate local
residents and developers with respect to the rationale behind a
given regulation.
Unless specifically directed by the BOCC to begin re- inserting
explanatory language, staff recommends keeping the language
regulatory in nature.
9. While there was no formal consensus, a few BOCC members favored
leaving language within the UDO requiring submission of a professionally
prepared site plan for property located only within the University Lake
Watershed Protection Overlay District.
Other BOCC members expressed support for eliminating the requirement
altogether and basing the need for a formal site plan on established land
disturbance thresholds for stormwater management plans.
10.Staff was directed to solicit comments on the proposal from OWASA to
ascertain if they have any concerns.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has contacted OWASA, which expressed
no concern over the proposal. For more information please refer
to Attachment 4.
11
c. BOCC Updates /Checkpoints
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
January 9, 2013 - BOCC members can view materials to be reviewed by the
Planning Board's Ordinance Advisory Committee (ORC) as part of the
Planning Board materials posted on -line each month. Packet materials
can be viewed utilizing the following
link: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /documents /PBPacketJan2013.p
df
February 5, 2013 — BOCC members approved the legal advertisement for the
February 25, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing with this item on the agenda.
May 7, 2013 - Receive Planning Board recommendation.
d. Other
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission /Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements.
a. Planning Board Review:
January 9, 2013 — Ordinance Review Committee (ORC).
A Planning Board member identified a punctuation error in Section 2.4.1 of the
proposed amendment. An error was also identified within the site plan flow chart
contained in Section 2.5.2. Staff has modified the proposal accordingly.
There was also a general discussion over staff's recommendation to modify Section
2.4.1 expanding the list of Watershed Protection Overlay Districts requiring a
professionally prepared site plan allowing for development. Staff agreed to solicit
guidance from the BOCC at the public hearing.
March 6, 2013 - Planning Board regular meeting.
There was unanimous consensus for `Option C' (i.e. eliminate existing requirement
for a professionally prepared site plan in the University Lake Protected Watershed
Overlay Districts and base submittal of site plan on land disturbance activities
consistent with established stormwater thresholds). The Board deferred making a
recommendation until a response from OWASA was received.
Agenda materials from this meeting can be accessed via the following
link: http:Horangecountync.gov /planning /documents /3.6.13PBPacket.pdf
April 3, 2013 — Planning Board regular meeting.
The Board reviewed and discussed OWASA's comments with respect to the
amendment package. It was determined OWASA has no concerns with the
proposed amendment so long as existing impervious surface limits were not
impacted. The Board then voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
amendment package as presented by staff and detailed within Attachment 3.
nda material from this meeting can be accessed via the followin
VA
12
link: htt : / /oran ecount nc. ov/ lannin /documents /PBA endaPacketA ril20l3. df.
p g Y g p g g p p
b. Advisory Boards:
Commission for the Environment
(CFE) — January 14, 2013. The CFE
had no comments related to the
proposed amendment.
c. Local Government Review:
Courtesy Review — Town(s) of Chapel
Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, City of
Mebane in November of 2012. As of
this date no comments have been
received.
At the February 25, 2013 Quarterly
Public Hearing staff was directed to
solicit input from OWASA on the
proposed text amendment.
OWASA responded on March 21,
2013 they have no concerns over the
proposed amendment package.
This response in contained
within Attachment 4. OWASA has no
comment on the proposal.
d. Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement was published on February 13 and 20, 2013.
e. Outreach:
❑ General Public:
❑ Small Area Plan Workgroup:
❑ Other:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
While these proposed amendments are merely designed to incorporate necessary
references with respect to complying with established thresholds, and requiring the
submission of formal site plans in the event a stormwater management plan is
required, staff had previously identified compliance with these new State required
standards will impose additional costs for development projects and require
additional staff resources.
Workload for Current Planning and Erosion Control staff to review and approve
stormwater management plans required by the rules is expected to increase.
Workload for staff with respect to the inspection of stormwater management
I
13
features is also expected to increase. This may necessitate an increase in fees
charged to developers.
As reported at the February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing, it is expected that
enforcement of the new regulations will require, at a minimum, up to one additional
full time employee for Erosion Control with an approximate cost of $65,000 in
salary plus benefits.
Staff is continuing to evaluate workload and needs as the process moves forward.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
The amendments are in response to recent modifications to the UDO relating to
compliance with stormwater and nutrient management requirements and staff's desire
to ensure proper reference for compliance with these aforementioned new standards.
As previously indicated by staff, compliance with these required standards is expected
to increase the cost of develoament and increase staff workload.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Please refer to Attachment 3.
Primary Staff Contact:
Michael D. Harvey
Planning
(919) 245 -2597
mharveyp_orangecountync.gov
C
ent 3
Ordinance #: ORD- 2013 -016 Attachm 14
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY
WHEREAS, in April of 2012 the County adopted stormwater management standards
consistent with the requirements of State law, and
WHEREAS, the County has determined there are existing inconsistencies within the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) with respect to when a professionally prepared site
plan is required as well as a lack of reference to adopted stormwater regulations, and
WHEREAS, the County has determined these modifications to existing regulations
establishing a universal standard governing the submittal of a professionally prepared site
plan based on adopted stormwater management standards are now timely, and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance
have been deemed complete, and
WHEREAS, the County has found the proposed text amendments to be reasonably
necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare and to achieve the
purposes of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A -341 and Section 1.1.7
of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County
has found the proposed text amendments to be consistent with the goals and policies of
the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified
Development Ordinance of Orange County is hereby amended as depicted in the attached
pages.
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 , 2013.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on 7 2013 as relates in any way to
15
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.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
16
UDO AMENDMENT PACKET NOTES:
The following packet details staff's proposed modifications to existing regulations governing the
submittal of professionally prepared site plans.
These amendments are based on comments /direction received by BOCC, Planning Board, and
OWASA since the February 25, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing.
As the number of affected pages associated with this proposal is extensive, and substantial text is
being modified, staff has divided the proposed amendments into the following color coded
classifications:
• Red Underlined Text: Denotes new, proposed text, that staff is suggesting be added to
the UDO
• Red Stfikethfettgh Text: Denotes existing text that staff is proposing to delete
• Red Underlined Bold Text: Denotes new, proposed text, that staff is suggesting be
added to the UDO based on BOCC and Planning Board member recommendations
arising out the February 25, 2013 quarterly public hearing and the March 6, 2013
Planning Board meeting.
Only those pages of the UDO impacted by the proposed modification(s) have been included
within this packet.
Staff has included footnotes within the amendment package to provide additional
information /rationale concerning the proposed amendments to aid in your review.
Please note that the page numbers in this amendment packet may or may not necessarily
correspond to the page numbers in the adopted UDO because adding text may shift all of
the text /sections downward.
Article 2: Procedures 17
Section 2.4: Zoning Compliance Permits
Amendments initiated by Orange County shall not be subject to time limitatio other
than those specified by the Board of County Commissioners during the geblic hearing
(E) Eviden of presented at the public hearing may be submi in writing to the Planning
Board for co eration prior to the Planning Board's r mmendation to the Board of
County Commissi rs. The Planning Board ma nsider additional oral evidence only
if it is for the purpose o esenting informati Iso submitted in writing.
2.3.11 Action by Board of County Commissii
(A) The Board of County Com K sinners sha-THkot consider enactment of the proposed
amendment until the P ning Board either MAON,Iiis recommendation or takes no action
on the applicatio s prescribed in this section.
(B) In makinRKdecision, the Board of Commissioners shall c6iider all relevant evidence
pres ed at the public hearing and any submitted written evide that was considered
the Planning Board in making its recommendation.
The Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensi Ian or
portion thereof from the Planning Board, shall consider such recommendations an do
them by resolution, either unchanged or with modifications.
2.4.1 Applicability
(A) As required by this Ordinance, a Zoning Compliance Permit must be issued before any
new site development, building, structure, or vehicular use area may be erected,
constructed or used.
(B) Submittal and approval of a site plan (see Section 2.5) is required for issuance of a
Zoning Compliance Permit except for:
(1) Single- family detached dwellings and duplexes, and accessory structures to
those residential uses shall require a plot plan as detailed within Section 2.4.3 of
this Ordinance.
Lake WaateFshed i8GtinYed DiStFint cite plan appFeval shall he rerrirert
■
i
In those instances. however. where the proposed level of land disturbance
exceeds established thresholds as detailed within Section 6.14.5 of the
Ordinance a formal site plan, prepared in accordance with Section 2.5, shall be
required for submittal and approval.2 This site plan shall contain all required
elements associated with obtaininq a Zoning Compliance, Erosion Control,
and Stormwater permit as detailed herein,"
The existing wording of the UDO has created confusion in the past over when a site plan is required. We have
streamlined existing language in an attempt to eliminate confusion and specifically spell out when a plot plan versus
a site plan is actually required..
2 This paragraph has been modified based on the Planning Board recommendation made during the March 6, 2013
regular meeting.
3 The red bold text was added to address comments from the January 9, 2013 ORC meeting where members wanted
some language encouraging the submittal of a single site plan complying with all zoning and erosion
control /stonmwater permit requirements.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -7
2.4.2
Article 2: Procedures 18
Section 2.4: Zoning Compliance Permits
(2) Interior renovation or repair of an existing structure, provided the use of the lot
and /or structure has not changed.
(C) Issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit is required prior to beginning the excavation for
the construction, moving, alteration, or repair, except ordinary repairs, of any building or
other structure, including an accessory structure. The Zoning Compliance Permit shall
include a determination that plans, specifications and the intended use of the structure
conforms to the provisions of this Ordinance.
(D) Issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit is required to change the type of use or type of
occupancy of any building, or to expand any use on any lot on which there is a non-
conforming use. The Zoning Compliance Permit shall include a determination that the
proposed use conforms to the provisions of this Ordinance.
Requirements and Conditions
(A) In cases where the development and /or commencement of a land use requires the
issuance of a Special Use or a Conditional Use Permit, a Zoning Compliance Per shall
not be issued until the aforementioned permit has been issued by the responsib board
in accordance with the review and approval procedures detailed herein.
(B) Issuance of a Special Use or Conditional Use Permit /nete egate the quirement for
\Applicatior Compliance Permit.
(C) of a Zoning Compliance Permit does not eseste fight to begin and
construction or change the use /occupancy bui ing should
ns change subsequent to issuan ce of said pe(D) io or Zoning Compliance Permit shall specifod of disposal of trees,
ump and construction debris associated wititted activity. Open
of tree , limbs, stumps, and /or construction dciated with the permitted
s express prohibited.
(E) No building, structure, c r zoning lot for which a Zo ng Compliance Permit has been
issued shall be used or ccupied until the Buildi Inspector has, after final inspection,
issued a Certificate of Oc ancy indicating c pliance with all the provisions of this
Ordinance.
(F) No building, structure, or zoning t for ich a Zoning Compliance Permit has been
issued shall be used or occupied til e Orange County Health Department has
approved the water supply and sew e disposal systems serving that use.
(G) Issuance of a Certificate of Occ ancy b the Building Official or the approval of a water
supply and sewage disposal stem by the ealth Department shall in no case be
construed as waiving any p vision of this Or ' nance.
(H) Zoning Compliance Per its shall become null a void after 18 months from the date of
issuance if a building ermit is not applied for or la disturbing activities are not
commenced in acc dance with the provisions of this rdinance.
2.4.3 Plot Plan S
(A) For develoythent types requiring a plot plan rather than a site an, the plot plan shall
contain t following:
(1) A scaled drawing denoting the length of all property lines,
( A north arrow denoting the orientation of the lot and all propose \on
(3) The location of the proposed structure(s) and distances from all
(4) The location of the proposed driveway,
(5) The location of the proposed septic system and proposed drain
property,
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -8
(B)
SECTION
Article 2: Procedures 19
Section 2.5: Site Plan Review
(6) The location of the proposed well, and
(7) The location of any protected features on the property (i.e. stream buffers, flood
plain, wetlands, etc).
Base plot plans are available from the Planning Department and can be printed for a fee
in accordance with the established fee schedule. Applicants may also use other sources
of base plot plans provided the requirements of this Section are met.
(1) Planning staff is available to
discuss compliance matters but
shall not complete plot plans.
2.5.1 Review and Approval Flow Chart
The review and approval process for a Site Plan is
shown in the procedure's flowchart. 4
2.5.2 Application Requirements
(A)
(B)
Each site plan shall be prepared and
sealed by an appropriately licensed
professional with the following exceptions:
(1) Proposed additions to existing
permitted non - residential
structures where the use of the
structure and lot has not changed
and the floor area is not increased
more than 25 %.
(2) Accessory structures to existing
permitted non - residential
structures where vehicular use
area is not extended and changes
to existing grade are not more
than one foot in elevation.
Site Plan
Application
Submittal
Determination of Completeness
By Planning Director
Completed Application
Distributed to Applicable
Agencies, Development Advisory
Committee, and Other
Departments for Review
Planning Director Review and Final
Decision: Approval, Approval with
Conditions, or Denial [1]
[I I If Plan is approved with conditions, no
zoning permit authorization or building
permit issued until conditions satisfied
{4 J2L Large day care homes, as defined in Article 10, Definitions.
{5)LIL Rural Guest Establishments with three guestrooms or less - Bed & Breakfasts.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning and Inspections Department:
(1) Three copies of the site plan prepared in accordance with the provisions detailed
in this Section. Additional copies may be required depending on the nature and
location of the proposed development);.
(2) The completed site plan application form;
(3) A copy of the Orange County tax map with the subject property identified;
4 At the January 9, 2013 ORC meeting Planning Board members expressed concern over duplication of language
within the flow chart. The language is being deleted.
s Staff is eliminating contradictory language within this section of the UDO.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -9
Article 2: Procedures 20
Section 2.5: Site Plan Review
(4) Legal documentation, to be approved by the County Attorney, establishing
entities responsible for control over common areas and facilities.
(5) Three copies of the Environmental Assessment and /or Environmental Impact
Statement, if required under Section 6.16 of this Ordinance.
(6) A statement regarding the method of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps and
construction debris associated with the permitted activity. Open burning of trees,
limbs, stumps, and /or construction debris associated with the permitted activity is
expressly prohibited.
(C) Other items which should be submitted simultaneously, but are not required as part of the
site plan application are:
(1) Erosion control and grading plans as necessary to be approved by the Erosion
Control Officer for a grading permit,
{4)(2) Stormwater management plans as necessary to be approved by the Erosion
Control Officer prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and
{23(3) Building construction plans to be approved by the Building Official prior to
issuance of a building permit.
5.3 Plan Specifications
Each site plan shall be drawn at a scale adequate to show required detail and shall contain e
following information:
( The boundary of the lot(s) to be developed labeled with bearings /disnr (B) \Ne me, address, and phone number of the applicant and the ;
(C) of project, vicinity map, north arrow, scale, tax map referente of plan
ation, and s ubsequent revision dates;
(D) Zoning o he property to be developed and all adjacent zonin and existing adjacent land
uses;
(E) Adjacent right -o ay widths with road names and nu rs;
(F) A development sum ary including total acres, pro sed use(s), total building square
footage, required and posed parking spaces.
(G) Demonstrated compliance 'th all applicabl erformance standards contained in Articles
3, 4, 5, and 6 of this Ordinanc
(H) Maximum and proposed impervio s face and required stream buffers as detailed in
Sections 4.2 and 6.12 of this Ordin e;
(1) Estimated traffic generated by e propo d development in trips per day. If the estimate
exceeds 800 trips per day, a affic impact s dy must be submitted in accordance with
Section 6.17;
(J) Front, side, and rear ilding setbacks as required Articles 3 and 5 of this Ordinance;
(K) Location of all pro osed buildings and structures labele with floor area, building height
and function, a proposed finished floor elevation;
(L) Vehicular a areas including existing and proposed streets a access drives, off street
parking d loading to comply with Section 6.9 of this Ordinance, nd entry/exit points of
adjac it parcels;
(M) O rhead and underground utilities with accompanying easements and orm drainage
acilities /easements (including septic tanks and wastewater disposal fields, ells, fire
hydrants, irrigation, and security lights);
Solid waste disposal facilities;
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -10
Article 7: Subdivisions 21
Section 7.5: Subdivision Agreements
(2) The estimated cost of the required improvements must be itemized and certi ed
by the applicant's licensed professional engineer or licensed professional
surveyor, if the surveyor was the original preparer of the plans for the
subdivision.
(3) In the case of minor subdivisions, the subdivider's licensed professi al engineer
or licensed professional surveyor may provide the itemized cost a innate.
(4) Cost estimates must be based on industry norms within Orang County.
The Planning Director or Planning Board may require a high guarantee amount
when deemed necessary to address higher potential corre ion costs due to the
subdivision's size and site characteristics, but in no eve may the amount
exceed 25% of estimated construction costs.
(E) The guar tee shall have a term of two years and /sh e an option for annual
renewal if t subdivider /developer has: (1) Arran d for County inspection of the imp(2) Submitte to the County an acceptable ese costs necessary to correct
any deterio tion or defects discovered by ion, and
(3) Increased the ount of the security b he amount of said estimate.
(F) The subdivider /developer hall pay a fee in cordance with the Fee Schedule adopted
by the Board of County Co issioners at e time of the initial posting of the guarantee
and for each subsequent ren al or exte sion to cover the County's administrative costs.
• SUBDIVISION
(A) The subdivider of all minor and m o ubdivisions shall record a subdivision agreement
outlining the limitations associat wit he development of created lots at the Orange
County Register of Deeds at t same ti e the Final Plat is recorded.
(B) The purpose of the subdivi n agreement i to provide detail on various development
limitations that will regula the overall develo ent of property consistent with the
approval of the subdivisi n.
(C) This subdivision agr ment shall, at a minimum, o line the following development
criteria for property ithin the subdivision:
/(4)The e development setbacks for lots within t project.
ious surface limits for the lots within the dev opment.
sence of identified environmental features (i.e. tream buffers, flood plain,
s, etc) and an explanation on how development f the lot(s) is impacted.
sence of identified cultural features listed by the No h Carolina Heritage
m, or identified in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Hi toric, Recreational,
cal, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated rtions of Orange
" or "Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats Orange
County, North Carolina ".
(5) Identification of soil and septic limitations, if any, for each lot.
(6) Access restrictions for the project and individual lots.
(7) Limitations on land uses.
(8) Maintenance requirements for all roadways as well as references to the projec
road maintenance agreement, if required.
The avoidance of congestion and overcrowding and the creation of conditions essential to public health,
safety and the general welfare may be best accomplished through the application of design standards
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 7 -7
Article 7: Subdivisions 22
Section 7.6: General Design Standards
providing for the distribution of population and traffic, safe and coordinated street systems, approved
water supply and sewage disposal systems, usable lots and conformance to plans for Orange County as
recommended by the Planning Board and adopted by the Board of Commissioners. The following
general requirements and principles of land subdivision shall be observed:
7.6.1 Minimum Lot Size
(A) All lots shall contain the minimum lot area required by Article 3 of this Ordinance and
shall comply with all applicable development standards.
(B) Any lot which provides an easement for individual septic disposal for use by a separate
lot shall contain an additional 20,000 square feet to accommodate the septic easement.
7.6.2 Residential Density
The allowable density on a given parcel of property proposed for subdivision shall comply with the
residential maximum density requirements in Section 4.2.4.
7.6.3 Land Suitabili
(A) In reviewing subdivision proposals, the Planning Department and Planning Board shall
consider the overall design of the subdivision with the suitability of the land for
development to insure that the platting and development of the subdivision will not create
a danger to the health, safety, and welfare of Orange County residents.
(B) Land suitability shall be determined by an investigation of conditions including but not
limited to flood prone areas, soil drainage, drainage patterns, slope, historic sites,
maximum anticipated levels of land disturbance for the project and all proposed individual
lots, and unique natural areas. The investigations shall be carried out by the Planning
Board, the Planning Department, or other agencies or individuals having the appropriate
technical expertise.
(C) Special Flood Hazard Areas shall be considered during the review process.
(D) Soils shall be evaluated for suitability or provisional suitability for septic tanks according
to guidelines established in the Laws and Rules for Ground Absorption Sewage Disposal
Systems, incorporated herein by reference.
(1) Each lot that does not contain a suitable building site shall be designated on the
plat as being of restricted development potential and by instrument recorded in
the Orange County registry as specifically prescribed by Section 7.14.3(E)(1) of
this Ordinance.
(E) Drainage
(1) Soil suitability, including slope and drainage, shall also be evaluated according to
soil characteristics indicated by the Orange County Soil Survey and topography
indicated by the U.S. Geological Topographic Maps.
(2) Each lot shall contain a suitable building area safe from inundation and erosion.
(3) Sanitary sewer systems, septic tank drainfields, water systems, wells, and
adjacent properties shall be protected from inundation by surface water.
(4) Roads, driveways and utilities shall be protected from damage caused by
improper stormwater management.
(5) Mechanical devices, drainage easements, natural buffers, large lots, and /or other
technical means may be used to achieve these drainage objectives. Natural
drainageways are a preferred means of stormwater run -off removal. The
characteristics (including capacity) of natural drainageways shall be protected.
(6) Runoff levels from the 25 -year storm after the site is developed shall not be
greater than the rate of runoff on the same site in its natural state.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 7 -8
Article 7: Subdivisions 23
Section 7.7: Lots
(7) In cases where anticipated land disturbance for the subdivision and the proposed
lots will cumulatively exceed established thresholds denoted within Section
6.14.5 of this Ordinance, a formal stormwater management plan shall be required
as part of the application submittal.
(F) Resource Protection
(1) Applications for subdivision shall be evaluated by the Planning Departm t and
Planning Board for potential impairment of habitat of rar/ted
ed
species or unique natural areas.
(2) A strategy shall be developed to protect resources listed arolina
Heritage Program, or identified in "An Inventory of Sites toric,
Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in tated
Portions of Orange County" or "Inventory of the Natural life
Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina ".
a) The strategy shall provide protection of identi d natural and cultural
resources from impacts which could result f m development of the
subdivision, and shall include one or mor of the following:
(i) Dedication of conservation ea ements,
(ii Restrictive covenants proh' iting clearing or disturbance of the
resource areas,
(iii) edication of resourc areas to Orange County,
(iv) C stering of lots t minimize land disturbance and preserve the
spe i I features f the property,
(v) Other r tric ' ns or development options which provide an
adequate el of protection.
(3) The Planning Departme sh review available documentation of the particular
site and determine if t propos d strategy adequately protects the identified
resources.
(4) Maps, studies, a d reports which are elevant to this section shall be maintained
by the Plannin Department.
7.7.1 Generall
All lots shall conforXto all of the requirements of this Ordinance foT he zoning district and any
overlay district iny(hich they are located.
7.7.2 Shaoe and Ofientation
(A) Tp6 shape and orientation of lots shall be appropriate to the location f the subdivision
nd the development intended.
(B Interior lot lines extending from a street should be approximately perpendi or radial
) to Y the street right of way line. lar
Lot lines shall be located to permit efficient installation and maintenance of utilit Ines on
utility easements, to maximize buildable area, and, where applicable, to provide a
suitable area for septic systems.
6 Staff would prefer comprehensive stormwater management plans rather than multiple plans, multiple systems, on
individual lots that all have to be inspected by Erosion Control on a semi annual basis and maintained by individual
property owners. Through this process staff is hoping to encourage neighborhood wide stormwater management
plans to avoid unnecessary development and maintenance costs on individual property owners and encourage a
comprehensive approach to stormwater and nutrient management.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 7 -9
Attachment 4
JOWASAI ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
A public, non-profit agency providing water, sewer and reclaimed water services
to the Carrboro- Chapel Hill community.
March 21, 2013
Michael D. Harvey, AICP, CFO, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor
Orange County Planning Department
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Subject: Comments on Orange County's Proposed Modifications to Site Plan Submittal
Requirements
Dear Mr. Harvey:
24
I am writing in response to your letter of March 12, 2013 in which you requested OWASA comments on
proposed modifications to Orange County's site plan submittal requirements. OWASA understands the
County's desire to have consistent requirements among the water supply watersheds with similar
impervious surface requirements. It is also our understanding that no changes are being proposed to
Orange County's impervious surface limitations applicable to development within the University Lake
or Cane Creek watersheds. The respective watershed studies for those two drinking water supply
sources highlighted the importance of impervious surface limits. OWASA staff would not support any
future proposals for relaxation of the impervious surface limits.
Since stormwater management activities will be required in accordance with current regulations and plot
plans are required for any development within a water supply watershed, we do not anticipate any
impacts to our water supply in University Lake under the proposal to remove the site plan requirement
for projects that do not disturb more than the established thresholds. Thus, OWASA staff does not have
any concerns over proposed plans to eliminate the requirement for site plans for any development in the
University Lake watershed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed modification to the County's requirements
for site plans. If you have any questions, please contact me at 919 -537 -4214 or at rrouse(,owasa.org.
Sincerely,
Ruth C. Rouse, AICP
Planning and Development Manager
cc: Ed Kerwin
400 Jones Ferry Road Equal Opportunity Employer Voice (919) 968 -4421
Carrboro, NC 27510 -2001 Printed on Recycled Paper www.owa.va.org
25
Attachment 5
Excerpt of approved February 25,
2013 Quarterly Public Hearing
Minutes
APPROVED 4/9/2013
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 25, 2013
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the
Department of Social Services, 113 Mayo Street, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
Dorosin, Alice Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board
David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, and Planning Board
members Tony Blake, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Alan Campbell, Maxecine Mitchell,
Johnny Randall, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, and Herman Staats
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Brezina, Larry Wright, Andrea Rohrbacher
and Lisa Stuckey
A. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment —To review government -
initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify existing language to provide additional
reference to land disturbance thresholds related to stormwater management standards. The
purpose of this amendment is to avoid requiring project applicants to submit multiple,
professionally prepared plans for a single development project.
Staff presented a Powerpoint below:
AGENDA ITEM:C -1
UDO TEXT AMENDMENT — SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS
BACKGROUND:
On April 17, 2012 the BOCC approved mandated State stormwater management and
nutrient reduction rules /strategies.
• Need clearer standards in our site plan review /approval procedures section.
Correct inconsistencies regarding when formal, professionally prepared, site plan is
required versus a plot plan prepared by applicant.
26
WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES:
1. Eliminate existing conflicts.
2. Require professionally prepared site plans for projects exceeding established
stormwater land disturbance thresholds.
3. Incorporate appropriate references to these land disturbance thresholds.
4. Add language requiring stormwater management plans for minor and major
subdivisions.
WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES:
• Changes to Section 2.4.1:
— UDO requires a `professionally prepared site plan' in the University Lake
Watershed Overlay District.
— As proposed all watersheds with a 6% impervious surface limit have same
standard (i.e. Upper Eno Critical, Cane Creek Protected and Critical, Little River
Protected).
— If approved, projects in these watershed overlay districts will require professional
site plan
SITE PLAN VERSUS PLOT PLAN:
What is the difference between a professionally prepared site plan and a plot plan?
Site Plan
• Completed by a surveyor (i.e. professional)
• Based on actual legal description of property (plat, deed, etc.)
• More detailed information provided (i.e. structure location, impervious surface, etc.)
Plot Plan
• Scaled drawing done by property owner /contractor
• Typically based on Orange County GIS Map data
• Relies on applicant /contractor to provide detail on proposal
IMPACTS:
Pros
• More accurate depiction of property including environmental features (i.e. streams for
stream buffers).
• More accurate drawing of property and proposed development.
27
Cons
• Added cost.
• Added time for permit submittal.
ORC COMMENTS:
• Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) met to review this item on January 9, 2013.
• Made several recommendations to address identified concerns.
• Modifications incorporated by staff.
• ORC expressed need for guidance from BOCC on proposed modifications to Section
2.4.1.
OPTIONS — Section 2.4.1:
— Option A: Leave as is — no change. (i.e. Only properties in the University Lake
Watershed impacted).
— Option B: Amend section as suggested requiring all watershed overlay districts
with a 6% impervious surface limit be treated the same (i.e. professional site
plan).
— Option C: Eliminate requirement all together and require professionally prepared
site plans only when stormwater thresholds are exceeded.
STAFF COMMENTS:
• Proposed amendments make existing regulations easier to follow /understand what is
required.
• Proposal provides appropriate references to stormwater standards.
• Contradictions are eliminated.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive the proposed amendments.
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
the proposed amendments.
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the BOCC in time for the May 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until May 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning
Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
W
Commissioner McKee asked about a possible scenario. He said that if a four -lot
subdivision was approved this past year and two of the lots were built upon and did not have to
meet this requirement, then next year the other two lots were built upon, he asked if the other
two lots would have to absorb the entire disturbed area or just for their lots and Michael Harvey
said that it would be just for their lot. This is handled on a lot -by -lot basis.
Commissioner Rich asked about the additional cost for surveying and Michael Harvey
said $500- 1,000.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 12 and Section 2.4.1 and said that she
would not consider option `c' because she would not wish to change the protection for University
Lake Watershed.
Michael Harvey indicated the proposed amendment would not impact existing
development regulations enforced in the University Lake Watershed Overlay district. The
proposal would only potentially eliminate the requirement for the submittal of a professionally
prepared site plan based solely on a parcels location within the district and link its submittal to
existing stormwater management thresholds instead. Michal Harvey asked if there was any
preference for option `a' or `b'.
Chair Jacobs said that he was deferring his opinion until he heard the questions from the
Planning Board.
Maxine Mitchell said that she would reserve her comments until this came back to the
Planning Board.
Commissioner McKee said that his preference would be option `a'. He is concerned
about people that would be trying to build homes for family members, etc. He also does not
want to increase costs to landowners.
Chair Jacobs made reference to the Haw River watershed and said that this has been
identified as something that the County needs to address. He said that he would like for the
Planning Board to consider options `a' and `c'. He would also like to solicit options from
OWASA, Hillsborough, and Mebane.
Commissioner Pelissier said that she prefers option `c'.
Commissioner Gordon said that she would not want to change the University Lake
Watershed Overlay District.
Commissioner Dorosin said that it seems that this proposal is about creating consistency
within the ordinance.
Commissioner Rich asked that the Planning Board get feedback from OWASA. She is
leaning toward option `c'.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to close
the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer
the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
BOCC in time for the May 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing until
May 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Attachment 6
Excerpt of approved Planning
Board March 6, 2013 meeting
minutes
Approved 4/3/13
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 6, 2013
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright, At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township
Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At -Large Chapel Hill
Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa
Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-
Large, Cedar Grove Township; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township Representative;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks
Township Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz;
Special Projects Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Heffner, Phil Koch, Pat & Ed Yahner
Agenda Item 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a recommendation
to the BOCC on government- initiated amendments to the text of the LIDO to modify existing
language to provide additional reference to land disturbance thresholds related to stormwater
management standards. This item was heard at the February 25, 2013 quarterly public
hearing.
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Michael Harvey: This item begins on page 51 of the abstract. I would like to review what occurred at the Quarterly
Public Hearing and get feedback. This item will come back at the April regular meeting once the comments from
OWASA are obtained.
Larry Wright: On the BOA, we heard an application where they were dealing with impervious surfaces.. They
couldn't get the driveway to the house. I would like to know, translating it to this, this 6% is not 6% when someone
buys a parcel and it is on a corner lot. The 6% is not their land.
Michael Harvey: I will respectively disagree. In the instance you are referring to, it is a 10 acre exempt subdivision,
meaning it did not go through the formal staff review and approval process. They had easements for the various
roadways placed on this property without thought of impacts associated with impervious surface limits. Roadway it
does contribute to the 6% impervious surface limit but the problem was created through the process they went
through in that the developer did not allocate impervious surface area from all of the lots to address roadway
construction.
Larry Wright: Are there parcels that were purchased like that application for the BOA that would be in the same
scenario?
Michael Harvey: I am sure there are.
29
30
Approved 4/3/13
Larry Wright: What would happen?
Michael Harvey: They apply for variances or make do with what they have.
Alan Campbell: I would like to get a sense of the current requirement is 6% and University Lake requires a
professionally prepared site plan. What is the benefit having that versus a plot plan? Does it help you understand
they are meeting that 6 %?
Michael Harvey: We get with a certain level of specificity with a professionally prepared site plan versus a plot plan.
Detailed are breakdowns of the impervious surface is just a prime example.
Alan Campbell: It sounds like you are proposing an automatic burden on a lot of people when there is no need for it
when you always have the option of requirement and storm water to back you up.
Michael Harvey: That is not a wrong argument.
Lisa Stuckey: Is there a consensus among the group that "c" is the feedback we want to give.
Herman Staats: I understand based on that map that you have the 6% zones and they would have to have a
professionally prepared plan. How does the storm water runoff criterion compare or what does that mean?
Michael Harvey: Basically, we wanted to avoid county planning staff looking at one set of drawings and Orange
County Erosion Control looking at a totally different set. On page 54 for example, you can have 1/2 to one acre of
disturbance. If "c" were the option, regardless of the watershed you are in, if you exceed these thresholds; we need
a professionally prepared site plan.
Herman Staats: If we used "c" these people in the 6% zones would not have to do it unless they met the storm
water criteria.
Michael Harvey: Or we make the formal determination we cannot make an affirmative finding a permit can be
issued unless we have more detail.
Tony Blake: I am trying to understand the historical context here. I realize that was the only water supply when
that was put in effect. I don't understand why around Little River is 6% and others are not.
Craig Benedict: Part of University Lake is to ask OWASA what they know from history. That goes back before the
watershed rules were put in effect in 1994. Little River was in protection for a Durham water supply and that is not
a requirement of the state just Orange County protecting water supply. In Cane Creek, it is a very small watershed
and we are going to see what the differences or state mandates are in excess of that.
Herman Staats: The only other issue is the interaction with the public so if you use the storm water guidelines but
then you have the discretion of the requiring a professional plan, what will be the most public friendly.
Michael Harvey: There is language in the code that gives us discretion of requiring a professionally prepared site
plan if we can't make a decision with respect to the issuance of permit and what is proposed complies with County
regulations. The typical cadence for a permit review now is that local residents, developers, etc. come to the
planning department and we do a site assessment. That provides a brief explanation, examination of the natural
features on a property. We have been directed by the BOCC to provide you with OWASA feedback in response to
the change in the ordinance and they will be giving you some history.
2
31
Approved 4/3/13
Lisa Stuckey: At this point, we are waiting for OWASA?
Michael Harvey: We are looking to answer your questions tonight and give us feedback on the option preference.
What I have heard here is that there is a consensus for pursuing Option "d' while awaiting a response from
OWASA.
Attachment 7 32
Draft Minutes from the April 3,
2012 Planning Board meeting
DRAFT
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 APRIL 3,2013
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill
7 Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township
8 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell,At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats,At-Large, Cedar Grove Township;
9
10
11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township
12 Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township
13 Representative;Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative
14
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love,Administrative Assistant II
17
18
19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
20
21
22 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
23 a) Planning Calendar for March and April
24 b) Interest Areas Raised by Planning Board Members at January 9, 2013 Meeting
25
26
27 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
28 MARCH 6,2013
29
30 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the March 6, 2013 Planning Board minutes. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey.
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33
34 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS To AGENDA
35
36
37 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE
38
39 Introduction to the Public Charge
40 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
41 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development
42 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
43 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
44 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
45 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
46 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
47 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
48
49 PUBLIC CHARGE
50 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its
51 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with
1
33
DRAFT
52 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this
53 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual
54 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting
55 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
56
57
58 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS
59
60 Pete Hallenbeck: In your packet we had the summary of things people had talked about regarding directions to go
61 for the LIDO and the Planning Board and I also enclosed 3 pages on what I have been thinking about with regard to
62 emergency services and home occupations. I don't really want to discuss those tonight. I put those in there so
63 you could see an example of what I'd like to see from members. We have the first step, things we're interested in,
64 I'd like as a second step to get more specific things. What I am purposing is that I'll take all that and condense it in
65 and then we can all read it and when it's time to discuss it, we have input from everyone and we've read it in
66 advance. It should be a wonderful discussion.
67
68 Lisa Stuckey: Are you going to send an email asking for us to submit it.
69
70 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, I'll do that.
71
72
73 Agenda Item 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a recommendation to
74 the BOCC on government- initiated amendments to the text of the LIDO to modify existing
75 language to provide additional reference to land disturbance thresholds related to stormwater
76 management standards. This item was heard at the February 25, 2013 quarterly public
77 hearing and was discussed by the Planning Board at its March 6 meeting.
78 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
79
80
81 Michael Harvey: As you will recall last month we began looking at a purposed LIDO text amendment where we
82 were wrestling with the notion of providing appropriate reference to recently approved stormwater management
83 guidelines. In doing this we identified several options and we were directed by the elected officials to get input from
84 OWASA. At last month's meeting there was a unanimous consensus amongst the Planning Board that option C
85 was the preferred method. This option has been incorporated into the proposed amendment package you are
86 reviewing this evening and has staff approval as well. What will happen now when you develop your property for a
87 residential use, the way this now reads, is if you reach the stormwater land disturbance thresholds that we have
88 provided on page 18 of your packet, you will have to produce a site specific development plan. The Ordinance also
89 now contains language indicating you are going to show us everything on that one site specific development plan
90 so that erosion control and current planning are looking at the same document. What we're hoping also is that
91 health is going to be looking at that same document so the three agencies that are clearly concerned about land
92 development and environmental protection are all going to be working from the same central document. We have
93 eliminated the 6% requirement, with respect to serving as a trigger for the submission of a professionally prepared
94 site plan, all together. Our opinion on the validity of this recommendation is bolstered by the fact that in attachment
95 3 of your packet, we have a letter from OWASA basically saying we don't care.
96
97 Michael Harvey: A couple of clarifying points, as you will recall this doesn't change impervious surface limits. One
98 of the concerns expressed by Commissioner Gordon at the quarterly public hearing is that we are going to be
99 lessening the protections for the University Lake both Critical and Protected overlay districts. This is simply not
100 true. 6% is still the impervious surface limit for this area of the County. There was a question at the last Planning
101 Board Meeting, what happens if you get your plot plan from an applicant and you think it's over its impervious
102 surface allotment. Staff can still require, per the UDO, a formally prepared site plan. We have done that on a few
K
34
DRAFT
103 occasions in Orange County even in the less protected watersheds. From our standpoint this is a reasonable
104 compromise, it provides the link we were looking for in terms of referring people to the stormwater thresholds. We
105 are asking the Board to complete its review, you have OWASA's statement and the ordinance amendment has
106 been rewritten to incorporate option c as suggested by the Board.
107
108
109 Maxecine Mitchell: So you're saying that the cutting of trees is part of the impervious surface?
110
111 Michael Harvey: That would be part of land disturbance, as we discussed at the quarterly public hearing when
112 Commissioner Dorosin asked the same question but the simple act of cutting a tree does not mean you are adding
113 impervious surface area to your property. Once you built a house, you build a driveway (gravel), these actions
114 represent the placement of impervious surface area on your property which for the majority of the County is limited
115 based on your location within a Watershed Protection Overlay District. Say you have a wooded area and you clear
116 that for your septic field, you clear additional area for view shed, to support the development of your house, that is
117 land disturbance activities. What this ordinance amendment does is make reference to existing standards that if
118 you exceed this level of land disturbance, you have to do the formal stormwater plan and we will require the site
119 specific development plan with it.
120
121 Pete Hallenbeck: So what we're looking at here is these disturbance limits that we're reviewing on page 18 is that
122 disturbance defined as both the impervious surface and ground that you tear up for some reason.
123
124 Herman Staats: So that I understand, cutting timber is not land disturbance if you don't dig up the roots or bulldoze?
125
126 Michael Harvey: Cutting timber can be in certain circumstances, as defined by erosion control, can be land
127 disturbance. There are situations where it is exempt because it is either a bona fide farm or if you're not disturbing
128 the ground cover. In theory yes, that is true but once you disturb the ground cover then it becomes land
129 disturbance.
130
131 Pete Hallenbeck: Commissioner McKee was curious how this would impact someone who wanted to build a house
132 for parents or children on their land and I've had some emails and worked through some examples. My take is that
133 there is no simple way to sum up the impact of this and say as long as it's only this size house, you're good
134 because the process requires all these different aspects. What does house disturbance footprint, which is going to
135 be an impervious surface plus some area of around it, the driveway footprint, the septic tank, other areas. Also
136 having gone through the process of having built a house in the county, there is a bunch of stuff going on, and my
137 experience was that the sooner you engage the planning department with what you're doing the better because
138 they can walk you through the rules and this is all part of the process of designing what you're doing. I think the
139 best you can do to explain it to people is just make them aware of this process.
140
141 Herman Staats: I remember Commissioner McKee was asking about what someone could do if they got a piece of
142 land, the recommendation that we're making is based on the state law, is that right?
143
144 Michael Harvey: The recommendation you're making is, instead of having the existing standard which says
145 everybody in University Lake has to give you a professionally prepared site plan no matter what, we are basically
146 linking the submission of that site plan to the stormwater land disturbance thresholds we adopted last year. That to
147 us is a universal standard. No matter what we do this is here. It's our position, and you have agreed with it, there's
148 no need to have multiple caveats in the code which is what we have now.
149
150 Tony Blake: The County always has the sufficient cause to ask for one (site plan).
151
152 Michael Harvey: Yes, we do what is called a site assessment now for every project typically before they even apply
153 for a building permit. Site assessment is designed to identify all environmental factors and issues on any given
35
DRAFT
154 parcel of property. Its main purpose is to identify for health, in advance of their applying for a septic permit, what
155 areas can and cannot support a septic system. We use that process, that document that we produce using aerial
156 photography to identify these types of issues.
157
158 Pete Hallenbeck: My experience has been that if you can get the idea across to people to go talk to the County first
159 you can avoid a lot of headaches and they will help you understand these Ordinances and help you work through
160 the numbers and look at the options.
161
162 Michael Harvey: We've had a lot of success with the site assessment. People don't like to do it but when they find
163 that its free and find that we identify issues before they go spending money, they seem to be somewhat happier but
164 they still don't like the notion, it ultimately down to `it's my property, I'll do what I want' and unfortunately that's not
165 viable opinion to have in an age when zoning and land use issues are at the forefront of regulation.
166
167 Lisa Stuckey: I can envision a person who is under the limits and goes forward and then slowly but surely they
168 landscape more and more over years.
169
170 Michael Harvey: It's not a cumulative issue. Impervious surface is a cumulative issue but land disturbance is not.
171 Having said that if you are required to adhere to an approved stormwater management plan and disturb property
172 invalidating that plan, you will have to take appropriate measures to address compliance with our regulations.
173
174 Pete Hallenbeck: There's the incremental project where you add impervious surface and there's the incremental
175 project where all the disturbed area from your previous project is grown over, has grass, is good and you're
176 disturbing a new area and those are different things.
177
178 Michael Harvey: Right, you may recall when Terry Hackett appeared before you last April, different types of land
179 cover have different levels of credit for stormwater. A forest has the best and grass is not bad but it is the worst you
180 can have because it is just grassy field. As we continue to move forward, these regulations are going to become
181 somewhat more cumbersome. There are going to be more impacts on property owners and ability to develop
182 property and unfortunately this is the direction we are headed.
183
184 MOTION: made by Tony Blake to accept the Planning Department's recommendation for Option C. Seconded by
185 Buddy Hartley.
186 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
187
188
189 AGENDA ITEM 8: COMMITTEEIADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
190
191 a) Board of Adjustment
192 b) Orange Unified Transportation
193
194 Members and staff had some general discussion regarding cell towers.
195
196
197 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT
198
199 MOTION: made by Lisa Stuckey to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake.
200 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
rd