HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-1999-010 Text Amendments - Flexible Development Provisions Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Proposed Amendments
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
SECTION 11 DEFINITIONS
SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
(Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed deletions are
shown in-s#fikethFe #print.)
g:l txtamendV texdevladminrec.docl8-17-99Ud
6
AMENDMENT 1 AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN SECTION II
DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-B-10.
A. CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND ADD LANGUAGE TO DEFINITION OF THE ESTATE LOT APPROACH
THAT CLARIFIES PROVISIONS FOR OPEN SPACE AND BUILDABLE LOT AREA.
B. DELETE THE DEFINITION FOR THE.CONSERVATION APPROACH AND ADJUST.
C. MODIFY THE NAME OF THE CLUSTER APPROACH TO PRESERVE THE CONNOTATION OF
"CONSERVATION" AND ADD LANGUAGE TO THE DEFINITION TO SPECIFY THE CONFIGURATION
AND OWNERSHIP OF THE OPEN SPACE.
SECTION 11. DEFINITIONS
Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT -A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and
forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community
character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
preserved through:
(A) (a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots f8aF-(4)
three 3 acres of and greater in size, building lot area
including setbacks are established on 50% fef of each lot, and the
land area outside such I R*G area is preserved as open space
provided that front and side yard setback areas shall not be
counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement
except as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10. Section D.1;
or
/� oeR ^. ati •.h all land is subdivided in lets nrl
B � 1"7—VVT7�CT�G�T��'a�'�fe'a��TTT � 7TQGQ�I7TLl7-R7STG7'7R
. often e•neee . . nren Bwed th Feugh the use of ee Rsewatien easemeRts
-(- .. vl,....vv . _ Le..r..v..v.. ....vwaJ..r-c,--.tea
(C) (e h) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and
the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space
on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners
association, a non-profit land conservancy _or unit of state of
local government; or
(d c) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are
clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the
village is surrounded by open space; or
(e d) Some combination of the above.
g:\txtamend lflexdev\adminrec.docl8-17-99Ud
7
PAMENDMENT 2 AMEND SECTION IV-13-10, SECTION C.3 (OPEN SPACE STANDARDS)
OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND TO MAKE LANGUAGE CONSISTENT
WITH OTHER CHANGES THROUGHOUT BY A) SPECIFYING THAT OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
RESTRICTIONS CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BY THE LANDOWNERS
AND B) CLARIFYING THAT THE ESTATE OPTION IS THE ONLY OPTION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
WHICH ALLOWS THE INDIVIDUAL.OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE (AND INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY
OWNER RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING AND PRESERVING OPEN SPACE.)
SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
C.3 Ownership of Open Space
Open space within a Flexible Development may be owned and/or administered by any
of the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shall-be
permanently restricted from further subdivision.
* Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local government, the
State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
Dedication of conservation easements to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a homeowners
association and/or to all or portions.of individual lots owned by one or more
property owners.
.+ Ownership by a homeowners association where specific development
restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of its bylaws and
as irrevocable articles of restrictive covenants.
• Ownership by individual property owners,espesially of estate lots ewneFe only,
where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are
included as part of restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation
easements applicable to such lots.
Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of
a Flexible Development proposal, the land subject to the easement may be counted
toward satisfying the thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement provided it is a
portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided.
g:l txtamend lflexdevladminrec.dacl8-17-99Ud
8
a?AMENDMENT 3 AMEND SECTION D.1 ESTATE LOT OPTION TO A) REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE FROM 4 ACRES TO 3 ACRES WITH AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 3.5 ACRES; B) CLARIFY WHAT
MAY BE COUNTED AS OPEN SPACE; C) REDUCE THE ALLOWABLE AREA IN THE OPEN SPACE
THAT MAY BE USED FOR SEPTIC EASEMENTS FROM 50% OF THE AREA IN OPEN SPACE TO 25%
WITH AND ADDITIONAL 25% FOR REPAIR AREA ONLY, IF NEEDED; D) INCREASE SPACING
REQUIREMENTS TO ENHANCE RURAL CHARACTER; E) DELETE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; F)
PROVIDE INTERNAL ACCESS TO ALL LOTS; AND G) PROVIDE A 150 FT. BUFFER ALONG
FRONTAGE OF EXISTING STATE ROADS ADJACENT TO THE SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY.
SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or
more of the following development options. --
D.1 Estate Lot Option
For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards apply:
(A)
Each estate lot shall have a minimum lot size of at least feu(4) three 3 acres
with an average lot size of three and one-half(3.5) acres for all lots.
• For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area) shall be defined of
sufficient size to accommodate a single-family detached dwelling and customary
accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages,
patios and decks, lawns, and driveways.
• The building envelope of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
total lot area and shall not include designated Primary and/or Secondary
Conservation Areas.
(B)
• Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted
toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. The open space area
shall be contiguous to open space designated on the adjacent lot(s) and
shall not include required front yard and side yard setbacks unless the
front or side yard contains significant primary or secondary conservation
areas.
(c)
• A septic system and/or well site may can only be located eutside of a building
enyelepe within the secondary conservation area provided it deer the land
designated for the septic system and/or well site is not eeeapy more than 0A#
one ug arter of the secondary conservation area
of the lot. A repair area may be located outside of a
building lot area provided it does not occupy more than one quarter of the
conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area. No septic
system, repair area and/or well site can be located in the primary
conservation area of a lot.
g:\txtamend\flexdev\adminrec.doc\8-17-99\kI
9
AMENDMENT 3(CONT.)
(D)
• Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing
standards:
Building Envelope Spacing Standards for Estate Lots
Minimum spacing between building envelopes on adjacent lots 80 100 feet
Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision 74 150 feet
boundary or off-site public street right-of-way
Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public 4& 50 feet
or private street right-of-way
Minimum spacing between building envelope and any other lot 28 30 feet
line -
Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands or 100 feet
water bodies (lakes, ponds, streams, etc.)
(E)
• Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary and/or .Secondary Conservation Areas;
provide convenient access for emergency service vehicles; and satisfy all
building envelope spacing standards, estate lets may platted in ariSeFdanee with
0 The minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20 feet
for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T' turnarounds.
• Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted
against further development through conservation easements and/or deed
restrictions.
(F)
• Estate lot subdivision road(s) shall be designed to provide internal access
to all lots in the subdivision. Private driveways shall access existing state
maintained roads only via subdivision roads providing internal access to
lots in the subdivision.
(G)
• A 150 foot Type F buffer_ meeting the requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall
be provided along the frontage of all existing state maintained roads
adjacent to the subdivision boundaries. In areas of dense mature forest,
existing vegetation may be used to fulfill the buffer requirements. If
additional planting is required, new plant materials that satisfy the buffer
requirements of. Article IV-B-8-e shall be installed and maintained in
accordance with provisions of Article IV-13-84.
g:tdamend\lexdev\adminrec.doc\8-17-99Vd
10
.21AMENDMENT 4 DELETE SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D.2 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
CONSERVATION OPTION.
SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D.2 DELETE ENTIRE SECTION
r f !
l buildable and semsewatien aFeas must be defined. The
uses, maA
buildable aFea must be ef suffisient size te-aaessee.m....-date a single family detaGhed
dwelling and sustem f f
buildings and f f lawns, '
r
t f r and
steep slopes •f r r
r t shall inelude
6- PFOvided the f design, ai;d shape ef eaeAsewe&A lets is rush that.
building;
r and
sat-* all buildingleensewatien aFea r eeRsewatieA lets may platted ',R
f9F flag
tt 1 and lets ffenting en aul de saes and f
g:\bdamend lflexdevladminrec.dncl8-17-991k1
11
g:\bctamend\flexdev\adminrec.doc\8-17-99Ud
12
LIAMENDMENT 5 AMEND SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D.3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
CLUSTER OPTION BY A) CHANGING THE NAME TO "CONSERVATION-CLUSTER"; B) CLARIFYING
CONFIGURATION AND PLACEMENT OF OPEN SPACE; C) REDUCING ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF
OPEN SPACE THAT CAN BE USED FOR SEPTIC OR WELL EASEMENTS FROM 60% To 25%;
D) CLARIFYING MINIMUM LOT SIZE ALLOWED IN WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS;
E) REDUCING MINIMUM LOT WIDTH TO ENCOURAGE CLUSTERING; F) CLARIFYING LANGUAGE
REGARDING REDUCTION OF MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE; G) PROVIDING FOR A 100 FT. SETBACK
ALONG SUBDIVISION BOUNDARIES; AND H) RENUMBERING SUBSECTIONS D.4, D.5, AND D.6.
SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(A)
D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option
A {conservation-cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together
through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract provided the
transfer of density within the subdivision does not increase the average density
in any overlay zoning district. In a 'conservation-cluster subdivision designed
with density transfer. lots 9smaller lets than
the minimum lot size permitted in the zoning district are allowed
provided such lots and subdivisions are developed in accordance with the following
standards:
• Land saved through lot size reductions shall consist of designated Primary
and/or Secondary Conservation Areas.
• The total amount of land set aside as Primary and Secondary Conservation
Areas shall equal the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall
comprise at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the
subdivision.
(B)
• Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be placed in undivided
preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more compactly
to create larger conservation units thap that may be enjoyed by all residents of
the subdivision and, if possible, enjoyed visually by the general public.. Such
undivided open space shall be accessible to the largest number of lots within the
development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should abut undivided
open space to provide residents with direct views and access. Safe and
convenient pedestrian access to the open space from all adjoining houselots
shall be provided, except in the case of farmland or other resource areas
vulnerable to human disturbance. The design must meet Section F
Evaluation Criteria which sets forth conservation area design
characteristics.
• Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous parcels,
no parcel shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have a length-to-
a:l txtamend lflexdevladminree.doct8-17-99Ud
13
AMENDMENT 6(CONT.)
width ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for
neighborhood commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands,
watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife corridors; or trail links.
(c)
• Each lot must contain a buildable area of sufficient size to accommodate a
single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but
not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and
driveways. A septic system and/or well site may be located in an open space
area provided it does not occupy more than half one quarter of the
conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area.
• Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of cluster lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirabI6 sites for building, and contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas,
minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article
4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as set forth
below.
(D)
0 Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%)
of the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district including any
overlay district requirements but shall be Re smalleF thaR 5909 squaFe feet;
however, minimum lot area may,not be smaller than 40,000 square feet
within a watershed protection overlay district where lots are served by
Individual septic systems.
(E)
0 Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by tWeRty PeFeent (29%) but
shall be Re_ lese than fifty (59) feet to 100 feet in the AR and RI Districts.
Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by 30% in all other
zoning districts.
0 Minimum front, rear, and side setback requirements may be reduced by
twenty-five percent (25%) but shall be no less than ten (10)feet.
(F)
0 Minimum lot frontage requirements may be reduced to twenty (20) feet for
lots fronting on cull-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds.
(G)
0 Minimum spacing between building envelopes and the subdivision
boundary or off-site public street right-of-way shall be 100 feet and may
be counted as open space.
• Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy or
a homeowners association.
g:tdamendftxdev\adminrec.doc\8-17-99\kI
14
AMENDMENT 5(CONT.)
(H)
9:4 D.3 Village Option
H)
"D.4 Street Standards
H)
l�D.5 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities
9:l t xtamendlflexdevladminrec.doc\8-1 T-99W
15
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Proposed Amendments with Staff Notes to the
ZONING ORDINANCE, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
(Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed deletions are
shown in StFikethFeugh print.)
g:\txtamend\flexdevladminree.doc\8-17-99dd
16
AMENDMENT 'I A}AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN ARTICLE 22
DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-13-10 OF THE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; e) To DEFINE OPEN SPACE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITION OF "OPEN SPACE" IN THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS; AND C) TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DEFININTION OF OPEN SPACE USED FOR
LAND USE INTENSITY CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS AND OPEN SPACE
APPLICABLE TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISIONS.
ARTICLE 22
DEFINITIONS
Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT-A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and
forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community
character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots feuF (4)
three 3 acres of and greater in size, building limits(6994) lot area
including setbacks are established on 50% feF of each lot, and the
land area outside such limits area is preserved as open space
provided that front and side yard setback areas shall not be
counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement
except as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10, Section DA:
or
of iRdividual lets, 9F
(e A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and
the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space
on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners
association, a non-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local
government; Or
(d c) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are
clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the
village is surrounded by open space; or
(e 4) Some combination of the above
g:kbdamend lfiexdevladminrec.docl8-17-99W
17
AMENDMENT 1 (CONT.)
(B)
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
Open Space — (flexible development) "Primary Conservation Areas" and
"Secondary Conservation Areas". as defined in Section IV-13-10. C.2 of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations, which are preserved through
conservation easements or other restrictions in a flexible development
subdivision.
(c)
Open Space — (land use intensity) 1) Open space is the total horizontal area of
uncovered open space plus half the total horizontal area of covered open space subject
to limitations set forth below. 2) Uncovered open__space is total gross residential land
area not covered by buildings, plus open exterior balconies and roof areas improved as
recreation space. 3) Covered open space is usable open space closed to the sky, but
having two clear unobstructed open or partially open sides. Partially open sides is to-be
construed as fifty percent or more. Examples of covered space are covered balconies,
covered portions of improved roof areas, or space under buildings supported on
columns or posts or cantilevered. The square footage countable as covered open
space shall not exceed the square footage of the open space sides.
g:l txtamend lflexdev\adminrec.docl8-17-99Ud
19
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
Proposed Amendments
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
SECTION II DEFINITIONS
SECTION III-D-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
(Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed deletions are
shown in-s #Feugh print.)
g:l txtamendlflexdev\pbrec.doc\&17-99Ud
20
AMENDMENT 1 AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN SECTION 11
DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-B-10.
A. CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND ADD LANGUAGE TO DEFINITION OF THE ESTATE LOT APPROACH
THAT CLARIFIES PROVISIONS FOR OPEN SPACE AND BUILDABLE LOT AREA.
B. DELETE THE DEFINITION FOR THE CONSERVATION APPROACH AND ADJUST.
C. MODIFY THE NAME OF THE CLUSTER APPROACH TO PRESERVE THE CONNOTATION OF
"CONSERVATION" AND ADD LANGUAGE TO THE DEFINITION TO SPECIFY THE CONFIGURATION
AND OWNERSHIP OF THE OPEN SPACE.
SECTION 11. DEFINITIONS
Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT-A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and
forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community
character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot' approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4)
acres or greater in size, building limits(50%) lot area Including
setbacks are established on 50% €ef of each lot, and the land
area outside such limits area is preserved as open space provided'
that front and side yard setback areas shall not be counted
toward meeting the minimum open space requirement except
as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10, Section D.1: or
(e b) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced
and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open
space on separate lots owned and maintained through a
homeowners association, a non-profit land conservancy or
unit of state of local government; or -
(4!q) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are
clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the
village is surrounded by open space; or
(e d) Some combination of the above.
g:l txtamend lflexdevtpbree.docl8-17-99Ud
21
AMENDMENT 2: AMEND A) SECTION III-D-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL; B) SECTION IV-
B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT, SECTION B APPLICABILITY; AND C) SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION
D.1 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) ESTATE LOT OPTION TO MODIFY MAJOR SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL PROCEDURES FOR THE ESTATE OPTION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT BY PROVIDING
FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BY THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD (NO
APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS)— THIS WOOD SHORTEN THE TIME
REQUIRED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION.
(A)
SECTION III-D-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
*111-D-3-c. Planning Board Review Procedures
*Amended
1/8190 The Planning Board shall review the application and the Planning
Department's report and shall prepare a written recommendation to
the Board of Commissioners. All interested persons shall be given
the opportunity to speak and ask questions regarding the application.
The Planning Board may place reasonable and fair limitations on
comments, arguments and questions to avoid undue delay.
The Planning Board shall take action on the application solely on its
findings as to compliance with applicable regulations and conditions
and shall:
(1) Recommend approval of the application;
(2) Recommend approval subject to conditions; or
(3) Recommend denial,of the application.
Preliminary Plat applications using the estate lot option of
flexible development shall be approved by the Planning Board
and do not require approval by the Board of County
Commissioners. The Planning Board shall take action on an
application using the estate lot option of flexible development
(reference Section IV-13-10. Section D.1)solely on its findings as
to compliance with applicable regulations and conditions and
shall:
(11 Recommend approval of the application;
Recommend approval subject to conditions: or
j3) Recommend denial of the application.
g:\bdamend lflexdevlpbrec.docl8-17-89Ud
22
AMENDMENT 2: (cont.)
The Planning Board shall prepare its recommendations within
forty-five (45) days of the meeting at which the Planning Department's
report is submitted to it or within such further time consented to in
writing by the applicant. If the Planning Board fails to prepare its•
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners within the specified
time period, or extensions thereof, the Planning Board shall be
deemed to have advanced the application without recommendation.
If the Planning Board approves the application subject to conditions,
such conditions shall be reasonable and shall seek to insure
compliance with applicable regulations and the provision of utilities
and/or other facilities needed to serve the proposed development. If
the Planning Board recommends approval of the application with
conditions, the applicant may amend his/her application to conform to
all or some of the conditions, provided the Planning Department
reviews the amended application for compliance with applicable
regulations and certifies that the amendments conform to the
conditions of the Planning Board recommendation. In such cases,
the Planning Department may amend its report to conform to any or
all of the Planning Board's recommendations. The Planning
Department shall then forward its report and the Planning Board's
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners at its next available
regularly scheduled meeting.
(B)
SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section B APPLICABILITY
Amended
6/2/97
Flexible Development is permitted in all residential zoning districts except the Rural
Buffer (RB) zoning district, but only upon approval of a Major Subdivision Preliminary
Plat by the Board of County Commissioners or approval by the Planning Board for
subdivisions developed using the estate lot option. All Flexible Development
subdivision plats shall comply with the requirements and standards specified herein and
in all respects with other applicable codes and ordinances to the extent that they are
not in conflict with these provisions, provided, however, that Flexible Developments
located within the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District shall comply with provisions of
Article 6.30 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Applicants seeking approval of a
Minor Subdivision Final Plat by.the Planning Department are encouraged to work with
the Planning Department staff in identifying and preserving open space areas as part of
such developments.
g:\txtamend\flexdev\pbrec.doc\8-17-99Ud
23
'QAMENDMENT 3 AMEND SECTION IV-13-10, SECTION C.3 (OPEN SPACE STANDARDS)
OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND TO MAKE LANGUAGE CONSISTENT
WITH OTHER CHANGES THROUGHOUT BY A) SPECIFYING THAT OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
RESTRICTIONS CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BY THE LANDOWNERS
AND B) CLARIFYING THAT THE ESTATE OPTION IS THE ONLY OPTION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
WHICH ALLOWS THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE (AND INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY
OWNER RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING AND PRESERVING OPEN SPACE.)
SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
C.3 Ownership of Open Space
Open space within a Flexible Development may be owned and/or administered by any
of the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shall be
permanently restricted from further subdivision.
• Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local government, the
State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
• Dedication of conservation easements to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a homeowners
association and/or to all or portions of individual lots owned by one or more
property owners.
• Ownership by a homeowners association where specific development
restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of its bylaws and
as irrevocable articles of restrictive covenants.
• Ownership by individual property owners;espeeially of estate lots ewflefs only,
where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are
included as part of restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation
easements applicable to such lots.
Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of
a Flexible Development proposal, the land subject to the easemQnt may be counted
toward satisfying the thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement provided it is a
portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided.
g:l txtamend\flexdev\pbrec.doc\8-17-99Ud
24
1 AMENDMENT 4 AMEND SECTION DA ESTATE LOT OPTION TO A) REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE FROM 4 ACRES TO 3 ACRES WITH AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 3.5 ACRES; B) CLARIFY WHAT
MAY BE COUNTED AS OPEN SPACE; C) ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO OPEN SPACE FOR REPAIR
AREA FOR SETIC SYSTEM IF THE BUILDING LOT AREA DOES NOT CONTAIN A SUFFICIENT AREA OF
SUTIABLE SOILS FOR BOTH SEPTIC DRAINFIELD AND REPAIR AREA. D) INCREASE SPACING
REQUIREMENTS TO ENHANCE RURAL CHARACTER; E) DELETE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; F)
PROVIDE INTERNAL ACCESS TO ALL LOTS; AND G) PROVIDE A 100 FT. BUFFER ALONG
FRONTAGE OF EXISTING STATE ROADS HAVING A 50 FT. RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT ARE ADJACENT TO
THE SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY; PROVIDE A 125 FT. BUFFER ALONG FRONTAGE OF EXISTING
STATE ROADS HAVING A 60 FT. OR GREATER RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE
SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY.
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or
more of the following development options.
DA Estate Lot Option
For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards apply:
(A)
• Each estate lot shall have a minimum lot size of at least#8UF (4) three 3 acres
with an average lot size of three and one-half(3.5) acres for all lots.
• For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area) shall be defined of
sufficient size to accommodate a single-family detached dwelling and customary
accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages,
patios and decks, lawns, and driveways.
• The building envelope Of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
total lot area and shall not include designated Primary and/or Secondary
Conservation Areas.
(B)
• Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted
toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. The open space area
shall be contiguous to open space designated on the adjacent lot(s) and
shall not include required front yard and side yard setbacks unless the
front or side yard contains significant primary or secondary conservation
areas.
(C)
• A repair area for a septic system and/or well site may be located outside of a
building envetepe-lot area provided it does not occupy FteFe tla half e€the
any part of a Primary Conservation Area.
g:%damend lflexdevlpbrec.docl8-17-991k1
25
AMENDMENT 4(cONT.)
(D)
• Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing
standards:
Building Envelope Spacing Standards for Estate Lots
Minimum spacing between building envelopes on adjacent lots 89 100 feet
Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision 74 150 feet
boundary or off-site public street right-of-way
Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public 449-- 50 feet
or private street right-of-way
Minimum spacing between building envelope and any other lot 2G 30 feet
line
Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands or 100 feet
water bodies (lakes, ponds, streams, etc.)
(E)
Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas;
provide convenient access for emergency service vehicles; and satisfy all
building envelope spacing standards, estate lets Fnay platted in aeeeFdaRee with
0 The minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20 feet
for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T' turnarounds.
• Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted
against further development through conservation easements and/or deed
restrictions.
(F)
• Estate lot subdivision road(s) shall be designed to provide internal access
to all lots in the subdivision. Private driveways shall not have access to
existing state maintained roads.
(G)
• A 100 foot buffer shall be provided along the frontage of all existing state
maintained roads having a 50 foot right-of-way that are adjacent to the
subdivision boundaries. A 125 foot buffer shall be provided along the
frontage of all existing state maintained roads having a 60 foot or greater
right-of-way that are adjacent to the subdivision boundaries In areas of
dense mature forest, existing vegetation may be used to fulfill the buffer
requirements. If additional planting is required, new plant materials that
g:Wamend\flexdev\pbrec.docl8-17-99\ld
26
satisfy the buffer requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with provisions of Article IV-B-8-f. -
g:\bdamend\flexdev\pbrec.d00%B-17-991k1
27
AMENDMENT 5 DELETE SECTION IV-13-10, SECTION D.2 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
CONSERVATION OPTION.
SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
f FWRiffluffl let aFea, f
f buildable and eensewatien aFear, must be defined. The
buildable aFea must be ef suffleient size te aeeemmedate a sangle family detashed
dwelling and sustemwy assess f f limited te, stwage
garages,bu*!diR@s and patie f f
f
dispesal
� sites, f f
steep._Cla g•�4 9F gFeateo. As sue h, ewatiAM /1Fea Af eash IAt'
•of -_O_ T G-GiTI_uT_ie __S-afar 1 shall iRelude
� PFevided the affaRgemwit, desip,-wind shape ef�me radon lets its s rsh that
f
f
f eeASeWatieR lets May platt
0 The mi 4ed let width may be Fed used to 100 feet.
0 T149 fflifflffiUffi FeqW 9 Fed let ftentage may be Fedused te net less than 20 feet
feF flag
11 1
lets,
g:\bdamend\flexdev\pbrec.doc\8-17-99\kI
28
AMENDMENTS (CONT.)
g:\bdamend iflexdevipbrec.docl8-17-981k1
29
b AMENDMENT 6 AMEND SECTION IV-13-10, SECTION D.3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
CLUSTER OPTION BY A) CHANGING THE NAME TO "CONSERVATION-CLUSTER"; B) CLARIFYING
CONFIGURATION AND PLACEMENT OF OPEN SPACE; C) REDUCING ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF
OPEN SPACE THAT CAN BE USED FOR SEPTIC OR WELL EASEMENTS FROM 50% To 25%;
D) CLARIFYING MINIMUM LOT SIZE ALLOWED IN WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS;
E) REDUCING MINIMUM LOT WIDTH TO ENCOURAGE CLUSTERING; F) CLARIFYING LANGUAGE
REGARDING REDUCTION OF MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE; G) PROVIDING FOR A 100 FT. BUFFER
ALONG SUBDIVISION BOUNDARIES; AND H) RENUMBERING SUBSECTIONS D.4, D.5, AND D.6.
SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(A)
D.3 ClustOF Opt, D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option
A (conservation)-cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together
through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract provided the
transfer of density within the subdivision does not increase the average density
in any zoning district including overlay districts. Smaller lots than those required in
conventional subdivisions are permitted, provided such lots and subdivisions are
developed in accordance with the following standards:
• Land saved through lot size reductions shall consist of designated Primary
and/or Secondary Conservation Areas.
• The total amount of land set aside as Primary and Secondary Conservation
Areas shall equal the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall
comprise at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the
subdivision.
(B)
Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be placed in undivided
preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more compactly
to create larger conservation units thaff that may be enjoyed by all residents of
the subdivision and, if possible, enjoyed visually by the general public.. Such
undivided open space shall be accessible to the largest number of lots within the
development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should abut undivided
open space to provide residents with direct views and access. Safe and
convenient pedestrian access to the open space from all adjoining houselots
shall be provided, except in the case of farmland or other resource areas
vulnerable to human disturbance. The design must meet Section F
Evaluation Criteria which sets forth conservation area _design
characteristics.
Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous parcels,
no parcel shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have a length-to-
width ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for
g:\bdamend\flexdevlpbrec.docl8-17-991k1
30
neighborhood commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands,
watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife.corridors; or trail links.
(C)
• Each lot must contain a buildable area of sufficient size to accommodate a
single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but
not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and
driveways. A septic system and/or well site may be located in an open space
area provided it does not occupy more than half one quarter of the
conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area.
• Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of cluster lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building, and contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary and/or-- Secondary Conservation Areas,
minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article
4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as set forth
below.
(D)
0 Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%)
of the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district including any
overlay district requirements but she!! be ne smalle!F than 69900 squaFe feet;
however, minimum lot area may not be smaller than 40,000 square fee
within a watershed protection overlay district where lots are served by
individual septic systems.
(E)
0 Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by twenty peFeeRt (200%) but
shall be ne less thaR Afty (60) feet to 100 feet in the AR and RI Districts.
Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by 30% In all other
zoning districts.
0 Minimum front, rear, and side setback requirements may be reduced by
twenty-five percent (25%) but shall be no less than ten (10) feet.
(F)
0 Minimum lot frontage requirements may be reduced to twenty. (20) feet for
lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and 'IT" turnarounds.
(G)
0 Minimum spacing between building envelopes and the subdivision
boundary or off-site public street right-of-way shall be 100 feet and may
be counted as open space.
• Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy or
a homeowners association.
g:\txtamend\flexdev\pbrec.doc\8-17-99\kI
31
AMENDMENT 6 (CONT.)
(H)
&.4 D.3 Village Option
H)
8.4 DA Street Standards
H)
&.6 D.5 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities
g:\bc tamend\flexdev 1pbrec.doc�B-17-99Ud
32
t -
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
Proposed Amendments
ZONING ORDINANCE, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
(Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed deletions are
shown in-s#Fiket4eag# print.)
gA bdamend\flexdev\pbrec.doc\8-17-99Ud1
33
AMENDMENT 1 A)AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN ARTICLE 22
DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-13-10 OF THE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; B) TO DEFINE OPEN SPACE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITION OF "OPEN SPACE" IN THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS; AND C) TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DEFININTION OF OPEN SPACE USED FOR
LAND USE INTENSITY CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS AND OPEN SPACE
APPLICABLE TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISIONS.
ARTICLE 22
DEFINITIONS
Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT-A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and
forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community
character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development "
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4)
acres or greater in size, building knits(696) lot area including
setbacks are established on 60% fef of each lot, and the land
area outside such 4R*e area is preserved as open space provided
that front and side yard setback areas shall not be counted
toward meeting the minimum open space requirement except
as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10, Section DA: or
„ „
(e b) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced
and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open
space on separate lots owned and maintained through a
homeowners association, a non-profit land conservancy or unit of
state of local government; or
(d c) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are
clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the
village is surrounded by open space; or
(e 4) Some combination of the above
g:\bctamend lflexdevlpbrec.doc\B-17-99*1
34
AMENDMENT 1 (CONT.)
(E)
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
Open Space — (flexible development) "Primary Conservation Areas" and
"Secondary Conservation Areas", as defined in Section IV-13-10, C.2 of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations, which are preserved through
conservation easements or other restrictions in a flexible development
subdivision.
(G)
Open Space — Land use intensity) 1) Open space is the total horizontal area of
uncovered open space plus half the total horizontal area of covered open space subject
to limitations set forth below. 2) Uncovered open space is total gross residential land
area not'covered by buildings, plus open exterior balconies and roof areas improved as
recreation space. 3) Covered open space is usable open space closed to the sky, but
having two clear unobstructed open or partially open sides. Partially open sides is to be
construed as fifty percent or more. Examples of covered space are covered balconies,
covered portions of improved roof areas, or space under buildings supported on
columns or posts or cantilevered. The square footage countable as covered open
space shall not exceed the square footage of the open space sides.
9:\bdamend lflexdev\pbrec.docl8-17-99Ud
35
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the New
Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday,
May 24, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak
for or against the following items:
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
1: Z-02-99 Johnny Cates
Johnny C. Cates requests that a 2.8 acre (121,968 SF) portion of his 5.1 acre property at 3102
West Ten Road, Cheeks Township, be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS
Agricultural Service. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in
the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the
horticultural, silvicultural,. and agricultural uses of the AR districts. The property is
approximately 2,200 feet east of Mt. Willing Road interchange with 1-40/85 and is referenced in
the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification number 9854-14-8385.
2. Z-03-99 Ernie McBroom
Ernie McBroom requests that his 10.01 acre (436,036 SF) parcel in Cedar Grove Township be
rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the
Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural
non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural
uses of the AR districts. The property is located on the south side of Sawmill Road West (SR
1545) approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road, SR
1507) and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification
number 9868-43-4251.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 40 .
1. The Orange County Planning Board proposes an amendment to Article 22, Definitions, to
modify the definition of Flexible Development to maintain consistency with proposed
amendments to Section IV-13-10 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The
amendment proposes to delete (b) a "conservation" approach for-preservation of open space
from the definition of Flexible Development and to rename (c) a "cluster approach" to a
"conservation-cluster" approach which will include certain conservation approaches for open
space.
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. The Orange County Planning Board, in addition to planning staff, proposes amendments to
Section IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT to allow open space within a flexible
development to be held by individual property owners only within developments using the
36
estate option whereby lot size must be a minimum of 4 acres. The proposed amendments will
amend Section C.3 Ownership of Open Space and will combine development standards under
Section D.2 Conservation Option and Section D.3 Cluster Option into one section as the
Conservation-Cluster Option. Proposed amendments to several sections of Section IV-13-10
will clarify provisions of open space and buildable lot area. Proposed amendments to Section
D Development Standards will increase building envelope spacing standards for estate lots,
reduce the amount of conservation area that may be used for septic systems, and provide for
minimum spacing of 100 feet between building envelopes and the subdivision boundary and/or
off-site public street right-of-way for cluster developments.
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment Will be
received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence
received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be
considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and
discussion at the hearing.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department
located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181
(Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031
(Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff
member who will answer your questions.
PUBLISH: News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald
May 12, 1999 May 13, 1999
May 19, 1999 May 20, 1999
37
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the New
Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday,
August 23, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to
speak for or against the following items:
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
1. Z-02-99 Johnny Cates
Johnny C. Cates requests that a 2.8 acre (121,968 SF) portion of his 5.1 acre property at 3102,
West Ten Road, Cheeks Township, be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS
Agricultural Service. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the
rural portion of the County for rural non farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural,
silvicultural, and agricultural 'uses of the AR districts. . Permitted uses within the AS District that
are not permitted in the AR District are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales);
Agricultural Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians, Farm Equipment Sales, Feed, Seed,
Storage& Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is approximately 2,200 feet east Of Mt.
Willing Road interchange with 1-40/85 and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records
Office by parcel identification number 9854-14-8385.
2. Z-03-99 Ernie McBroorn
Ernie McBroom requests that his 10.01 acre (436,036 SF) parcel in Cedar Grove Township be
rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the
Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural
non-farm, non-residential 'uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural
uses of the AR districts. Permitted uses within the AS District that are not permitted in the AR
District are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural Services Uses;
Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians, Farm Equipment Sales, Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing;
Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is located on the south side of Sawmill Road West (SR
1545) approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road, SR
1507) and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification
number 9868-43-4251.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Orange County Planning Staff and NC Child Care Commission propose amendments to
Article 4, Section 4.3 (Permitted Use Table), Article 6, Section 6.27 (Large Day Care Homes),
Article 8, Section 8.8.16 (Day Care Facility), and Article 22 (Definitions) that change language
in ordinance provisions for child care facilities to conform with language in North Carolina
General Statutes regarding licensing provisions for child care facilities.
g:\klincoln\0899phad.doc18-4-99\kI
38
2. Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to revise the
time constraints in Article. 2 (The Board of County Commissioners and its Administrative
Mechanisms), Article 3 (Establishment of. Zoning Districts and Atlas), Article 6.29.3
(Development Standards for Economic Development Districts), Article 8 (Special Uses), and
Article 20 (Amendments). Proposed amendments will:
• Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review from all applicable
agencies prior to completing reports to boards;
• Provide adequate time for board review of projects; and
• Delete provision that allows approval of applications that do not meet ordinance regulations
if processing time cannot be met.
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 40
1. Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to
revise the time constraints in Section III (Application and Approval Procedures), Section IV-13-7
(Sites for Public Use), and Section VII-D-4 (Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing).
Proposed amendments will:
0 Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review from all applicable
agencies prior to completing reports to boards;
• Provide adequate time for board review of projects; and
• Delete provision that allows approval of applications that do not meet ordinance regulations
if processing time cannot be met.
9 Revise process for appeal of staff decisions concerning subdivision classification (minor vs
major) and approval of minor subdivisions.
2. Orange County Planning Board and planning staff propose amendments to the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations Section IV-13-10 Flexible Development: a. to amend D-1
Estate Lot Option to 1. reduce minimum lot size from 4.0 acres to 3.0 acres with average lot
size of 3.5 acres; 2. provide a 150 ft. buffer along state maintained roads adjacent to
subdivision boundaries; 3. restrict lot access to internal subdivision roads, and b. to amend
D.3 Cluster Option to clarify that any transfer of density within a cluster development will not
result in a greater density within any specific zoning district than the average density allowed
by zoning restrictions within that specific district including overlay districts (eg. flexible
development proposals spanning the critical area (CA) and the balance (PIN) of a protected
watershed cannot shift density from a higher density zoning (PVV) to a lower density zoning
(CA)).
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard: Public comment will be
received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence
received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be
considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and
discussion at the heating.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department
located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
g:\klincoln10899phad.doc\8-4-99\kI
39
Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181
(Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031
(Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff
member who will answer your questions.
PUBLISH: News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald
August 11 1999 August 12, 1999
August 18, 1999 August 19, 1999
g:Udincoln10899phad.doc184-991k1
I DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 40
2 AND
3 ORANGE COUNTY'PLANNING BOARD
4 MAY 24, 1999
6 MINUTES
6
7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
8 met in joint session on Monday, May 24, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge F. Gordon Battle
9 Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina,
10 for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing.
I1
12 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Alice M. Gordon, and
13 Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Stephen H. Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs.
14
is ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows
16 and members Leo Allison, Nell Andrews. Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., Robert Strayhom
17 and Runyon Woods
18
19 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: S.A.M. Brooks, James
!0 Selkirk, , and Elizabeth Walters
!2 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill.
!3
!4 STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planning Director Craig Benedict,
.6 Planners Robert Davis and Karen Lincoln and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. Other
.6 staff members present will be identified in the minutes as appropriate.
!7
!8 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
!9 . Chair Gordon convened the meeting. She indicated that both of the items on the
;0 agenda would be chaired by Planning Board Chair Karen Barrows.
1
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Gordon dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
4
.6 Ms. Barrows indicated that a letter of support for both the proposed Subdivision
,6 Regulation Text Amendments and the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments was received from
7 Dan VanderMeer, Chair of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. Mr.
8 VanderMeer stated that "Orange Water and Sewer Authority recognizes that the County's
9 Flexible Development provisions are an important component of the Creative Open Space
0 Design—or Clustering —approach that we have recommended as a development option in the
11 Cane Creek Watershed. Orange Water and Sewer Authority believes that the proposed
2 amendments would appropriately strengthen some of the current open space requirements for
3 cluster developments in ways that will more adequately protect the Cane Creek water supply.
4 Although our Board of Directors has not had sufficient opportunity to review the proposed
5 amendments in detail, we generally support their adoption and look forward to providing
41
1 additional written comments before the hearing record is closed." A copy of this letter , in its
2 entirety, is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office.
3
4 Ms. Barrows introduced Planning Director Craig Benedict and asked him to present Items
5 C1 and C2. Mr. Benedict introduced the newest member of the Planning Department's staff,
6 Robert Davis of Kernersville, North Carolina. Mr. Davis has ten years of experience in
7 municipal engineering.
8
9 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
10 1. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
11 (a) SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
12 (1) Section C.3 Ownership of Open Space
13 (2) Section D.1 Estate Lot Option
14 (3) Section D.2 Conservation_Option
15 (4) Section D.3 Cluster Option
16 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
17 AMENDMENTS
18 (1) Flexible Development
19 (2) Open Space
20 Planning Director Benedict indicated that the Flexible
21 Development Standard regulations are in two sections of the Code. One has to do with
22 subdivision regulations and the other has to do with zoning regulations. The Flexible
23 Development Standards have been reviewed since December of 1998 and the Ordinance
24 Review Committee (ORC) of the Planning Board has discussed the pros and cons of these
25 regulations in depth. For example, the intent of the Flexible Development Standards is to
26 preserve open space and to orient open space in certain locations. However, when the
27 developers use the regulations they sometimes use them in a way that does not align itself with
28 that vision. The objective over the next year is to look at the regulations and make sure that
29 they are used as guidelines for implementation in a way that does align with the vision of the
30 Board of Commissioners. He said that he intends to present the regulations as they currently
31 exist and explain the suggested changes. There are four issues that are being reviewed.
32
33 The first issue is the four different approaches for flexible development. They are 1)
34 conventional, 2) conservation, 3) cluster and 4) estate. Beginning with the estate approach he
35 stated that this is a four acre lot minimum which would cause a subdivision to be divided into
36 lots four acres in size. For example, a 100 acre subdivision would be divided into twenty-five
37 4-acre lots. There have been no estate requests in the time that Flexible Development
38 Standards have been in existence. A modification is being suggested to this option. However, it
39 is obviously not the most critical area to address due to lack of interest in this type of
40 development. He stated that, at this meeting, the conservation and cluster approaches would be
41 focused upon. The problematic point concerning the conservation approach is that the area
42 being designated for the conservation area was included on the buyer's deed in fee simple.
43 Property owners then felt that they could build as they wished on the entire lot, when in fact,
44 part of that land was in a conservation area. That is the biggest undesirable effect of the
45 conservation approach. In order to monitor the use of the conservation areas it would require
46 an extraordinary amount of independent work on the part of county staff. Because of this
47 concern the Planning Board and Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) have recommended that
42
I the provision be removed. Homeowners would no longer have on-site conservation land
2 included on their deed in fee simple. A new approach, called the conservation cluster
3 approach, would replace the current conservation designation. He presented a visual example
4 of the conservation cluster option which has smaller lots with the land to be preserved being
5 , clustered in one area. This approach leaves significant amounts of land undeveloped and
6 available for the community to enjoy for recreation and for its visual effect. The conservation
7 land would be controlled by a homeowners association, a conservancy or by the county, if the
8 county had a corridor planned in the general area. He indicated that perimeter buffers is a new
9 requirement being suggested in the Flexible Development Standards. This refers to perimeter
10 buffers which would allow more buffer for the adjacent properties. Part of the Flexible
I I Development Standards was an offshoot of the Rural Preservation goals that were completed in
12 1994/1995. Roughly one-half of the property would be in the conservation areas. The
13 committee also considered where the conservation areas should be located and agreed that it
!4 made sense to locate them along stream buffers, wooded areas and/or meadows which would
,5 preserve the general character of the area. The conservation areas need to be contiguous so
6 that they can be enjoyed by the majority of the people. He mentioned that they are now
7 beginning to research the landscape section of the code and will be presenting new landscape
8 requirements to the Board of County Commissioners to help augment the roadside buffers.
9 That section of the code is scheduled to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners
V sometime in the fall.
1
2 Although the estate option has never been used, it states that two acres of each estate
:3 could be placed in a conservation area and two acres of that area could be used for septic
:4 fields. That meant that one acre of the two acre conservation area could be encroached upon
5 for septic fields. It does not seem necessary to encroach upon a conservation area for this
S additional 40,000 square feet given that there are already 80,000 square feet-on the
7 unencumbered part of the lot. The Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) is suggesting that the
8 encroachment of septic fields on conservation areas be decreased to 25% of what would
9 normally be allowed in the lot. That is being suggested in both the estate option and the
0 conservation cluster option. Currently the code allows a 50% encroachment upon all of the
I conservation easements. The Planning Staff will continue to research the question of how
2 much encroachment, if any, is actually necessary within the conservation area. -Depending on
3 what size lot is being considered, it may be possible to scale the encroachment back even
4 further.
6
6 The conservation cluster option is a much smaller lot which results in a high degree of
7 open space. This option would most likely be used in areas where public water and sewer were
8 already available. The lots would be approximately V2acre in size and would not be expected to
9 serve a septic field.
D
I QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
2
3 Commissioner Brown asked if the village cluster approach was going to be discussed.
5 Mr. Benedict stated that they were not suggesting changes to the village cluster
D approach. This is another approach which would require public water and sewer and there
7 have been no applications requesting this approach.
43
2 Commissioner Carey asked what types of uses were being considered for the open
3 space in its new form under the ownership of quasi-public organizations.
4
5 Mr. Benedict stated that if it were controlled by the homeowners association the
6 regulations would be in the covenants which would establish and describe allowable uses, for
7 example, jogging/hiking trails, open playground use, private recreation uses, etc. The
8 enforceability provision between homeowners associations and the county is much stronger
9 than dealing one on one with a private property owner. If the land were transferred to another
10 organization, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, homeowners would be aware of the fact
11 that those portions of the land were not owned by them and their options for using that portion
12 of the land was restricted. Those restrictions could include that the trees could not be cut down
13 and that public use would, or would not, be available. The Triangle Land Conservancy is
14 looking at standardizing agreements. The most important issue is that by having the
15 conservation area as a separate tract the homeowners would be more clear that it is not theirs
16 in fee simple.
17 -
18 Commissioner Jacobs asked if any consideration was given to reviewing the 33% open
19 space that is required in the conservation cluster options to determine if that amount of open
20 space is sufficient.
21
22 Mr. Benedict stated that they did look at that issue. Staff is in the process of
23 developing a model which would show how much open space is necessary for a buildable lot.
24 That is determined by the size of the septic field versus the buildable lot. He commented that he
26 felt we should wait until the soil suitability analysis is completed prior to changing this number.
26 He stated that if the lots were smaller there would be a tighter open space constraint. Staff will
27 be looking at this over the summer and present their findings in the fall.
28
29 Chair Gordon asked Mr. Benedict to compare the cluster option and the conservation
30 cluster option in terms of the number of lots allowed.
31
32 Mr. Benedict indicated that in both the original cluster option and the new conservation
33 cluster option the number of lots allowed is the same. The only change is that the ownership of
34 the conservation areas would not rest with the landowner. However, it is possible that the
36 conservation cluster option would result in a slightly smaller number of lots. He mentioned that
36 the Planning staff will be looking at the minimum lot size standards. Over the course of the
37 summer many standards will be reviewed. These include the Protected Watershed Standards,
38 Critical Area Watershed Standards, and the Cane Creek Reservoir Regulations. They want to
39 make sure that those regulations being implemented on top of the minimum lot size work in the
40 manner in which they are intended. They will present various scenarios to see how the different
41 standards actually impact the different options.
42
43 In response to a question, Mr. Benedict stated that the 5,000 square foot lot option
44 was deleted because in any scenario they came up with, it would not be possible to use.
45
46 Planner Karen Lincoln stated the majority of the county where the subdivisions would be
47 located is zoned either A-R or R-1 and the minimum allowed lot size in both of those districts is
44
1 40,000 square feet. The minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet would be allowed only in f44
2 R-8
3 zoning which is unlikely in eFange the County.. Also, within the protected watersheds, the
4 septic facilities must be on the lot where the residence is located. That requires approximately
5 40,000 square feet for the residence, septic system and repair area. The land would have to be
6 in a transition area or an area that already has water and sewer if the lot size was reduced to
7 5,000 square feet.
8
9 %For developments that are not in a protected watershed, off-site WateF septic
10 easements are permitted. TheFefeFe, The PFOpesal amendment proposes is to reduce the
11 amount of open space FequiFed which can be used for an off-site septic system. Currently,
12 the epeR s. I . ameRWS 50% of the required open space may be used for off-
13 site septic easements, and they We pFepesing the-amendment proposes that the
14 amount of open space allowed for septic easements be reduced to 25%.
16 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD None.
17
18 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 7, #3 and asked if a carport would be
V considered open space. After some discussion it was determined that it could be interpreted to
!0 mean that a carport could be considered open space. There was a consensus that the Board
.1 of Commissioners did not intend for carports to be considered open space.
!2
3 %Planning staff explained that the Zoning Ordinance defines open
A space with respect to calculating land use intensity. The amendment adds a
s definition with respect to open space in flexible development subdivisions.
S
:7 Attorney Gledhill suggested that rather than changing the definition it would work to
,8 have a separate definition of Open Space for Flexible Development purposes. This would
9 protect the land use intensity system by making sure that the overall definition of open space,
0 which does not pertain to Flexible Development issues, is not changed inadvertently.
2 Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Board of County Commissioners look at the
3 overall definition of open space as it is used throughout the ordinance. Some of the original
4 language came from regulations being used in more urban areas and this might be a good time
5 to review that language.
6
7 Mr. Benedict indicated that they will be sure that the definition of open space refers only
8 to Flexible Development Subdivision Open Space. He indicated that they would also review
9 the definition of open space throughout the ordinance.
0
1 Ms. Barrows referred to page 3, bullet 3 and asked if the 100 foot buffer referred only
2 to Flexible Development.
3
4 Mr. Benedict indicated that the 100 foot buffer referred only to Flexible Development,
5 however, in the future the possibility of including this buffer for other areas will be considered.
45
1 This needs to be approached carefully so that a unexpected burden is not created on
2 conventional developments. Also, in the future, the Planning Staff will review roadside buffer
3 requirements in the-future.
4
5 Commissioner Carey referred to page 5, Article 22, Definitions (a) and asked if there
6 had been cases where developers attempted to use front and side yard setbacks as open
7 space.
8
9 Mr. Benedict stated that developers have, in fact, attempted to use those setbacks as
10 open space. He indicated that open space is supposed to be located in contiguous open
11 stretches, however, developers have attempted to use areas not intended to be considered
12 open space. Hopefully, some of those loopholes have been closed.
13
14 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 16, 3rd--bullet"...house lots should abut
15 undivided open space..." and suggested that the phrase "where possible" be included. A
16 significant natural area could exist which would be situated in such a way that it would not be
17 possible to design the subdivision with the majority of the lots abutting it. He also asked--if there
18 is a requirement that utility lines be buried.
19
20 Mr. Benedict indicated that they could reword this section to include Commissioner
21 Jacobs comments. With regard to the utilities, he thought that they are all required to be
22 underground. He indicated that they would double check this and report back to the Board of
23 County Commissioners.
24
25 Chair Gordon referred to page 11, bullet#4 and asked how developers could make
26 sure that their open space is contiguous to that located'on adjacent lots.
27
28 Mr. Benedict stated that this can be accomplished during the lot layout design by
29 making sure that resources are not isolated. He mentioned that they expect the developer to
30 come up with several different options so that they can see which works best for the
31 circumstances. This will not be a mandate. It will be worded so that it is clear that this will be
32 accomplished wherever possible.
33
34 Chair Gordon agreed that the phrase "where possible" should be included in this
35 bullet.
36
37 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
38
39 Mr. Steve Yuhasz spoke in opposition to these amendments. He commented that there
40 was no incentive for a developer to build a Flexible Development. The goals of flexible
41 development are reasonable, however, these amendments are designed to discourage using
42 these standards. He stated that the estate option which requires 50% open space, none of
43 which can be used as side or rear setbacks, actually requires 73% of the lot be open space. He
44 stated that there was no incentive to use this options. He referred to Section C.3 and
45 commented that it was not clear if the intent was to make all restrictive covenants irrevocable or
46 just those parts that refer to the ownership of the common areas.
47
46
I Attorney Gledhill stated that this refers only to the area that the County actually
2 regulates.
3
4 Mr. Yuhasz referred to the conservation cluster option which addresses the length to
5 width ratio of four-to-one. He asked who determines if a specific area is to be designated a
6 wildlife corridor or a neighborhood common? There needs to be guidelines which make this
7 more clear. He mentioned that the issue of using setbacks as open space could be resolved by
8 prohibiting the use of fences. If the land was not subdivided by fences it would then be
9 contiguous open space area.
10
11 Chair Barrows asked Attorney Gledhill if another public hearing would need to be held if
12 the wording in the proposed amendments was changed prior to being returned to the Board of
13 County Commissioners.
14
is Attorney Gledhill felt that would not be necessary, however, he indicated that he would
16 look at that question more specifically prior to the Planning Board's recommendations being
17 returned to the Board of County Commissioners. If, at that time, he determined that another
IS public hearing is necessary, he will advise the Board of County Commissioners.
19
zo Planning Board member Katz stated that the conservation option as it currently exists
Z1 has been a failure. Side yards were used by almost all of the developers as open space. The
Z2 proposal being presented does present clear conservation areas. Developers using this new
23 options would be creating beautiful open space for recreation. Under the plan in place now it
24 was hit or miss as to whether that would happen.
Z5
Z6 Commissioner Jacobs commented that a logical solution to this situation is to decide if
17 Flexible Development should be mandatory. He asked staff and the Planning Board to consider
18 this as an option.
!9
10 Mr. Benedict agreed that the new standards are not going to have developers lining up
;I to use the conservation cluster options, however, it does delete an option that was
12 dysfunctional. He hoped to come forward with a Flexible Development option later in the year
13 after full consideration of the issue. This proposal will be both feasible, from the development
34 standpoint, and attractive with regard to the preservation goals.
16
16 Commissioner Jacobs said that if the proposal being suggested this evening does not
;7 generate, even in the short term, more flexible open space application, he would argue that we
IS have gone in the wrong direction. Possibly requiring flexible development in the short term,
19 while the issue is being further researched and improved, might result in some flexible
40 development.
12 Commissioner Brown commented on Commissioner Jacobs suggestion that the
13 Planning Department staff return with more recommendations on flexible development,
A including making flexible development mandatory. She asked if Mr. Benedict would return with
E6 those suggestions in the fall.
47
1 Mr. Benedict indicated that he would return in the fall with those recommendations. He
2 will research this issue and solicit input from the public and developers. Also, they will take
3 various properties and put them through the processes that they will be suggesting prior to
4 presenting them to the Board of County Commissioners. The soil suitability analysis and
5 minimum lot size will be carefully reviewed. They will hopefully return with standards that would
6 be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in such a way that developers would
7 actually use them.
8
9 Commissioner Brown stated that if Flexible Development is implemented in such a way
10 that it achieves the goal of rural character and preservation of open space, she would want to
11 see it become the development option for the county.
12
13 Chair Gordon referred to Section F, Evaluation Criteria and asked how it would be
14 decided which goal would be pursued. For example, under forestland in Natural Areas, the goal
15 is to preserve forestland and within farmland conservation the goal is to preserve farmland.
16 She pointed out that with forestland preservation the development would be in the open space.
17 However, in farmland preservation, the development would be in the forest area. The question
18 is, does the staff complete an analysis and then steer the developer?
19
20 Mr. Benedict stated that Dave Stancil's area is developing maps will be used by the .
21 planning staff to identify conservation areas. For example, developers will be made aware of
22 where wildlife conservation corridors, etc., are located. When developers initially approach the
23 Planning Department, they will be made aware of all areas of importance which will need to be
24 given consideration. To date, a prioritization for environmentally sensitive areas has been
25 developed. What they have not yet developed is a comparison between the areas and a
26 ranking of what is more important. That comparison will guide the decision when there are
27 conflicting areas to be preserved. That ranking system will include items such as "how rare is
28 the resource in the county, is it in the path of development, and what is the integrity of the
29 resource"
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to
32 refer the proposed amendments to Article 22, Definitions, of the Orange County Zoning
33 Ordinance and to Section IV-B-10, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision
34 Regulations to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County
35 Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 1999.
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 ADJOURNMENT:
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to
40 adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on
41 May 27,1999 in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Old Court House, Hillsborough, North
42 Carolina.
43
44 Alice M. Gordon, Chair
45 Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk
46
48
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JULY 13, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Barrows(Chair),Lynn Holtkamp,Barry Katz,Howard McAdams,
Bob Strayhorn,Runyon Woods.
Leo Allison(arrived at 8:50 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nell Andrews,S.A.M.Brooks,Onie Lea,Jim Selkirk,Elizabeth Walters.
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict,Gene Bell,Karen Lincoln,Robert Davis,Debra Graham.
AGENDA ITEM#1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Barrows called the meeting to order at approximately 7:40 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM#2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM#3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 2,1999
MOTION: Katz moved approval. Seconded by McAdams.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM#4: COMMISSIONERS'BRIEFS-Not available.
AGENDA ITEM#5: PUBLIC CHARGE
AGENDA ITEM#6: CHAIR COMMENTS
AGENDA ITEM#7: CONUdITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment
No meeting.
b. Agricultural Districts Advisory Board
No report available.
c. Historic Preservation Commission
No report available.
d. Ordinance Review Committee
No report available.
e. Shaping Orange County's Future
No report available.
49
AGENDA ITEM#10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING(MAY 24,1999)
a. Subdivision Regulations Teat Amendments
(1) Flexible Development Provisions
PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations provisions for flexible development. These amendments are proposed in conjunction
with companion amendments to the zoning ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Request: Amendments to Section II (Definitions), Section II-D-3 (Preliminary Plat
Approval), and Section IV-B40(Flexible Development)propose changes that will:
• delete undesirable aspects of the conservation approach;
•enhance preservation of rural character in flexible development subdivisions; and
• provide incentives for using the estate lot approach.
The Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee initiated proposed changes to address issues
regarding the conservation approach. Staff proposes additional changes to preserve buffers along
subdivision boundaries and to make the estate lot approach a more viable option for development.
Location: The amendments, if adopted, will apply to the entirety-of Orange County lying
outside of the Rural Buffer and outside the municipalities and their extra territorial jurisdictions, if
any.
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing: Flexible development subdivisions developed using the conservation option have not
demonstrated creativity in design to preserve open space as intended by the flexible development
provisions and do not reservelprotect any natural areas that would not be protected by other
existing provisions in the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations.
Proposed: Staff has expanded the purview of the proposed amendments to clarify other
flexible development provisions including estate lot provisions and to address inadequacies of the
conservation option that are common for other flexible development approaches. An attached
document giving existing ordinance language and proposed amendments contains staff annotation
for each proposed amendment.
Planning staff recommends amendments to Orange County Subdivision Regulations, Section
IV-B-10 Flexible Development that will:
1. Delete undesirable elements of the conservation approach and combine the
desirable elements of that approach with the cluster approach to create the
conservation-cluster(cc)approach;
2. Clarify and define configuration and placement of open. space (i.e. contiguous
stretches);
3. Add provision for a 100' (cc approach) or 150' (estate approach) buffer along
adjacent public roads to enhance preservation of rural character;
4. Modify setbacks and percentage of open space allowed for placement of septic
systems;
5. Provide for Internal access for all lots in the estate approach;
50
6. Reduce the number of estate tots allowed on a private road; and
7. Provide for Planning Board approval of the estate approach.
The proposed changes will necessitate amendments to Section 11, Definitions and Section III-D-
3, Preliminary Plat Approval.
Development Process. Schedule, and Action
0 Public Hearing May 24, 1999: Major comments were that flexible development would not be
used if those options did not offer some incentive to the developer Draft minutes are
attached.
+r First Action: Planning Board to consider amendments:
Option 1. Action to recommend approval of the proposed amendments.
Option: 2. Action to recommend denial of the proposed amendments.
Option: 3. Action to recommend changes to the proposed amendments that is not
significant in nature.
Recommendations to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
August 17, 1999.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommendation: Planning Board to recommend approval of the proposed
amendments to Section 11, Definitions, Section III-D-3, Preliminary Plat Approval, and to Section IV-
13-10, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
(1) Definitions Regarding Flexible Development
PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to Article 22, Definitions, of the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance. These changes to the zoning ordinance are proposed as companion
amendments with proposed amendments to subdivision regulations.
BACKGROUND:
Request Amendments propose changes to the zoning ordinance to define "flexible
development" and "open space" in a manner that is consistent with existing and proposed
provisions of the subdivision regulations. Proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations
(initiated by the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee in December, 1998, to address
issues regarding flexible development) necessitate the amendments to the zoning ordinance.
Location: The amendments, if adopted, will apply to the entirety of Orange County lying
outside of the Rural Buffer and outside the municipalities and their extra-territorial jurisdictions, if
any.
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing: • "Flexible development" is defined according to the definition of flexible
development in the subdivision regulations. The definition includes four
approaches to preserving open space in flexible development subdivisions:
51
an "estate" lot approach; a "conservation" approach; a "cluster" approach;
and a "village" or modified cluster approach.
• "Open space" in the zoning ordinance is defined with respect to calculating
land use intensity ratios for zoning applications and does not include a
definition that compliments required "open space" in a flexible development
subdivision.
Proposed: • Proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations will necessitate changes
to the definition of"flexible development" to eliminate the "conservation" and
"cluster" approaches for preserving open space and to include the
"conservation-cluster"approach.
• Proposed amendment will add a definition of "Open Space - (flexible
development)."
Development Process. Schedule. and Action
• Public Hearing May 24, 1999: Draft minutes of the public hearing are attached.
• First Action: Planning Board to consider Amendments
Option: 1. Action to recommend approval of the proposed amendments.
Option: 2. Action to recommend denial of the proposed amendments.
Option: 3. Action to recommend changes to the proposed amendments that is not significant in
nature.
Recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
August 17, 1999.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommendation: Planning Board to recommend approval of the proposed
amendments to Article 22, Definitions, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
Benedict stated that these items were presented at public hearing a few months ago. He discussed the
different options of development(estate,conservation,cluster and village). He noted that the
amendments should help to clarify the placement of open space. He stated that an increased buffer along
the roads is also suggested to help the rural character of the areas. He noted that the amendments will
also help clarify a lot of regulations and definitions for consistency.
Strayhorn expressed concern with allowing water and sewer into the setbacks.
Allison asked about the septic system being in the open space. Benedict responded that the system will
not be in the stream buffer but in the setback. Woods asked if this would endanger the neighbor's well.
Strayhorn stated that a well could not be put in within 100 feet of the septic system.
Barrows asked about underground utilities. Lincoln responded that there is nothing in the regulations that
require underground utilities. Benedict stated that the Board can make a recommendation to that effect.
Strayhorn noted that it is extremely expensive to maintain power lines with trees there.
52
Lincoln then explained the proposed and existing definition of open space in the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance.
Allison questioned the requirement on page 125 which states: "Estate lot subdivisions of fifteen(15)or
fewer lots may contain private road(s)provided the private road(s)can be justified as provided for in
Section IV-B-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Private road(s)may be justified in
estate lot subdivisions of more than ten(10)lots provided all lots are four(4)acres or larger." Benedict
stated that this section is to be deleted from the recommendation.
Lincoln noted that much of the proposed amendments is just wording changes for clarity and does not
change existing ordinance provisions. Benedict noted that on page 115 of the agenda packet,number 6,
which states: "Reduce the number of estate lots allowed on a private road;and"should be deleted from
staff recommendation. Lincoln continued that the abstract lists how the amendments affect the ordinance
provisions and that the Board does not have to vote on each change.
MOTION: Katz moved to approve the proposed amendments to Section H,Definitions, Section III-
D-3,Preliminary Plat Approval,and to Section IV-B-10,Flexible Development,of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations per the Planning Staffs recommendation with
the exception of#6 as noted above. Seconded by Woods.
VOTE: Unanimous.
MOTION: Katz moved to approve the proposed amendments to Article 22,Definitions,of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance and that the approval process should require approval
by the Planning Board. Seconded by Allison.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM#11: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS
AGENDA ITEM#12: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Monthly Reports
AGENDA ITEM#13: ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Woods moved to adjourn. Seconded by Katz.
VOTE: Unanimous.
53
AN ORDINAINACE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
SECTION 11 AND SECTION IV-B-10
TO CLARIFY AND ENHANCE THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS
TO MEET OBJECTIVES SPECIFIED IN SECTION IV-B-10, SUBSECTION A PURPOSE
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS:
Section 11 Definitions is amended by changing the definition of flexible development to
read as follows.
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT -A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and
forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community
character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots three (3)
acres and greater in size, building lot area including setbacks are
established on 50% of each lot, and the land area outside such area
is preserved as open space provided that front and side yard setback
areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space
requirement except as specified by provisions of Article IV-13-10,
Section D.1; or
(b) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and
the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space
on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners
association, a non-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local
government; or
(c) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are
clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the village
is surrounded by open space; or
(d) Some combination of the above.
54
Section IV-B-10, Subsection C Open Space Standards is rewritten to read as follows.
Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
C.3 Ownership of Open Space
Open space within a Flexible Development may be owned and/or administered by any
of the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shall be
permanently restricted from further subdivision.
Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local government, the
State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
0 Dedication of conservation easements to-Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a homeowners
association and/or to all or portions of individual lots owned by one or more
property owners.
Ownership by a homeowners association where specific development restrictions
and maintenance requirements are included as part of its bylaws and as
irrevocable articles of restrictive covenants.
Ownership by individual property owners, of estate lots only, where specific
development restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of
restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation easements applicable to
such lots.
Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of
a Flexible Development proposal, the land subject to the easement may be counted
toward satisfying the thirty-three percent (33%)open space requirement provided it is a
portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided.
55
Section IV-13-10, Subsection D Development Standards is rewritten to read as follows.
Section D . DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or
more of the following development options.
D.1 Estate Lot Option
For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards apply:
• Each estate lot shall have a minimum lot size of at least three (3) acres with an
average lot size of three and one-half(3.5) acres for all lots.
• For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area) shall be defined of
suffici6nt size to accommodate a single-family detached dwelling and customary
accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages,
patios and decks, lawns, and driveways.
• The building envelope of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
total lot area and shall not include designated Primary and/or Secondary
Conservation Areas.
• Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted
toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. The open space area
shall be contiguous to open space designated on the adjacent lot(s) and shall not
include required front yard and side yard setbacks unless the front or side yard
contains significant primary or secondary conservation areas.
• A septic system and/or well site can only be located within the secondary
conservation area provided the land designated for the septic system and/or well
site is not more than one quarter of the secondary conservation area. A repair
area may be located outside of a building lot area provided it does not occupy
more than one quarter of the conservation area nor any part of a Primary
Conservation Area. No septic system, repair area and/or well site can be located
in the primary conservation area of a lot. No septic system and/or well site can
be located in the primary conservation area.
56
Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing standards:
Building Envelope Spacing Standards for Estate Lots
Minimums acin between buildi!19 envelopes on adjacent lots lob feet
Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision 150 feet
boundary or off-site public street right-of-way
Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public 50 feet
or private street right-of-way
Minimum spacing between building envelope and any other lot 30 feet
line
Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands or 100 feet
water bodies (lakes, ponds, streams, etc.) I I
• Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the preservation
of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas; provide convenient
access for emergency service vehicles; and satisfy all building envelope spacing
standards, the minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20
feet for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T"turnarounds.
• Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions
and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted against
further development through conservation easements and/or deed restrictions.
• Estate lot subdivision road(s) shall be designed to provide internal access to all
lots in the subdivision. Private driveways shall access existing state maintained
roads only via subdivision roads providing internal access to lots in the
subdivision.
• A 150 foot Type F buffer meeting the requirements of Article IV-13-8-e shall be
provided along the frontage of all existing state maintained roads adjacent to the
subdivision boundaries. In areas of dense mature forest, existing vegetation may
be used to fulfill the buffer requirements. If additional planting is required, new
plant materials that satisfy the buffer requirements of Article IV-13-8-e shall be
installed and maintained in accordance with provisions of Article IV-13-8-f.
57
D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option
A conservation-cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together
through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract provided the transfer
of density within the subdivision does not increase the average density in any overlay
zoning district. In a conservation-cluster subdivision designed with density transfer, lots
smaller than the minimum lot size permitted in the zoning district are allowed provided
such lots and subdivisions are developed in accordance with the following standards:
• Land saved through lot size reductions shall consist of designated Primary and/or
Secondary Conservation Areas.
• The total amount of land set aside as Primary and Secondary Conservation
Areas shall equal the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall
comprise at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the
subdivision.
• Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be placed in undivided
preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more compactly
to create larger conservation units that may be enjoyed by all residents of the
subdivision and, if possible, enjoyed visually by the general public.. Such
undivided open space shall be accessible to the largest number of lots within the
development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should abut undivided
open space to provide residents with direct views and access. Safe and
convenient pedestrian access to the open space from all adjoining houselots
shall be provided, except in the case of farmland or other resource areas
vulnerable to human disturbance. The design must meet Section F Evaluation
Criteria which sets forth conservation area design characteristics.
• Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous parcels,
no parcel shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have a length-to-
width ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for
neighborhood commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands,
watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife corridors; or trail links.
• a buildable area of sufficient size to accommodate a single-family detached
dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage
buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. A septic system
and/or well site may be located in an open space area provided it does not
occupy more than one quarter of the conservation area nor any part of a Primary
Conservation Area.
• Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of cluster lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building, and contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas,
minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article
58
4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as set forth
below.
0 Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%) of
the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district including any overlay
district requirements; however, minimum lot area may not be smaller than
40,000 square feet within a watershed protection overlay district where lots
are served by individual septic systems.
0 Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced to 100 feet in the AR and R1
Districts. Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by 30% in all other
zoning districts.
0 Minimum front, rear, and side setback requirements may be reduced by
twenty-five percent (25%) but shall be no less than ten (10)feet.
0 Minimum lot frontage requirements may be reduced to twenty (20) feet for lots
fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds.
0 Minimum spacing between building envelopes and the subdivision boundary
or off-site public street right-of-way shall be 100 feet and may be counted as
open space.
• Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy or
a homeowners association.
59
In accordance with combining subsections D.2 and D.3, subsections DA, D.5 and D.6
are renumbered as follows:
D.3 Village Option
DA Street Standards
D.5 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD
ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1999, UPON MOTION BY AND
SECONDED BY , THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS
ADOPTED.
AYES:
NAYS:
60
61
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
TO DEFINE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND OPEN SPACE
IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION IV-B-10 OF THE SUBDIVISION
AND
TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DEFININTION OF OPEN SPACE USED FOR LAND USE INTENSITY
CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS AND OPEN SPACE APPLICABLE TO
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISIONS.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS:
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS is amended by changing the definitions of flexible
development and open space to read as follows: --
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT -A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and
forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community
character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots three (3)
acres and greater in size, building lot area including setbacks are
established on 50% of each lot, and the land area outside such area
is preserved as open space provided that front and side yard setback
areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space
requirement except as specified by provisions of Article IV-13-10,
Section D.1; or
(b) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and
the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space
on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners
association, a non-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local
government; or
(c) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are
clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the village
is surrounded by open space; or
(d) Some combination of the above
62
Open Space — (flexible development) "Primary Conservation Areas" and "Secondary
Conservation Areas", as defined in Section IV-13-10, C.2 of the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations, which are preserved through conservation easements or other
restrictions in a flexible development subdivision.
Open Space — (land use intensity) 1) Open space is the total horizontal area of
uncovered open space plus half the total horizontal area of covered open space subject
to limitations set forth below. 2) Uncovered open space is total gross residential land
area not covered by buildings, plus open exterior balconies and roof areas improved as
recreation space. 3) Covered open space is usable open space closed to the sky, but
having two clear unobstructed open or partially open sides. Partially open sides is to be
construed as fifty percent or more. Examples of covered space are covered balconies,
covered portions of improved roof areas, or s-pace under buildings supported on
columns or posts or cantilevered. The square footage countable as covered open space
shall not exceed the square footage of the open space sides.
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD
ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1999, UPON MOTION BY AND
SECONDED BY THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED.
AYES:
NAYS: