HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH ORD-1997-003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments - Golf Course Standards i
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 24, 1997
Action Agenda
Item#_C 3b
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments - Golf Course Standards
Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table
Article 6.16.10 Recreational Facilities(Profit/Non-profit)
Article 6.23 Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
Article 6.23.1 Land Use Restrictions
Article 8.8 Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses
Article 8.8.7 Golf Courses (new]
Article 22 Definitions- Golf Course
DEPARTMENT: Planning& Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: !X Yes No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes_X No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron
Golf CART Roster Extension 2580
Proposed Amendments
Agency Comments TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane -227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to
include standards for golf courses.
BACKGROUND: (Please refer to pages 3-5 of the proposed amendmentfor complete background
information. A summary follows.)
On August 20, 1996, the Board of Commissioners adopted a charge and appointed
members to the Golf Course Amendment Review Task Force (Golf CART).
The Golf CART began meeting in September 1996 and continued its work
through February of 1997.
At the end of December, a draft was distributed to 27 agencies and individuals
for review and comment, including the Institute of Government, state agencies
2
involved with water quality and pesticide regulation, the Recreation and Parks
Advisory Council, the US Golf Association, the National Association of Counties,
US Environmental Protection Agency, the Golf Course Superintendents
Association of America, the American Society of Golf Course Architects, and the
Center for Resource Management. Twelve (12) responses were received. Written
comments are attached.
Comments from the County Attorney reference adjustments to be made to other
sections of the Zoning Ordinance if the proposed amendments are adopted.
Specifically, Articles 11.6 and 8.7 should both be amended to refer to the
proposed Section 8.8.7 with regard to enlargement or modification of existing golf
courses.
RECOMMENDATION: Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's
recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of
an application. However, Article 20.4 exempts any application for amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance by either the public or the County from the provisions of
Article 20.3. In either case, though, the public hearing is the time scheduled for
presentation of the Zoning Officer's recommendation.
Zoning Officer Recommendation
Provided that the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners find in the
affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text
amendments.
Administration Recommendation
The Administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the
Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than May S,
1997.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Olt 3
GOLF COURSE AMENDMENT REVIEW TASK FORCE
(GOLF CART)
AUGUST 23,1996
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE REPRESENTING
Karen Barrows 7311 Gates Road Orange County Planning Board,
Hurdle Mills, NC 27705 Ordinance Review Committee
732-4491929-8282
Elizabeth Walters 7119 High Rock Road Orange County Planning Board,
Efland, NC 27243 Ordinance Review Committee
563-3842
John Link P.O. Box 8181 Orange County Manager
Hillsborough, NC 27278
732-8181, ext. 2300
Jim Ray 1500 Lawrence Road, Owner,
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Occoneechee Golf Club
732-3435
Phil Arnold 920 Airport Road, Suite 210 Executive Vice President,
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Golf Course Builders
942-8922 Association of America
Dan Jewell,ASLA 111 W.Main Street Coulter, Hart,Jewell, Thames,
Durham, NC 27701 PA
682-0368
Rick Robbins,ASLA 100 Hardaway Court Designer, Mill Creek Golf
Cary, NC 27513 Course,Mebane, NC
319-1004
Dr.Charles Peacock 4912 Liles Road NC State University
Raleigh, NC 27606
851-5672
Dr.Miles(Bud)Smart P.O. Box 1226 Siena College-Audubon
Cary, NC 27512 International Institute
380-8565
Allen Spalt 300 James Street Sierra Club,Orange County
Carrboro, NC 27510 Chapter
967-3054
Audrey Booth 750 Weaver Dairy Road,#130 Triangle Land Conservancy
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
918-3476
Don Cox 7010 Thunder Mountain Water Resources Committee
z Efland, NC 27243
563-8911
Craig Thompson 103 Lancaster Drive Golf Course Superintendent,
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill Country Club
932-2854
Bob Jones P.O. Box 8181 Director,Orange County
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Recreation and Parks
732-8181, ext. 2661
r -
�' Tc
2111197 Final Draft Page 1
DRAFT OUTLINE
GOLF COURSE STANDARDS
8.8.7 Golf Courses
8.8.7.1 Intent and Applicability
8.8.7.2 Submittal Requirements
a. Site Analysis
b. Biological Inventory
c. Environmental Assessment
d. Grading and Erosion Control Plan
e. Stormwater Management Plan
£ Utilities Plan
g. Landscape Plan
h. Resources Management and Mitigation Plan
i. Integrated Pest Management Program
j. Hazardous Materials Management Plan
8.8.73 Standards for Golf Courses
a. Siting Course Components
b. Access, Circulation, and Parking
C. Maintenance and Storage Areas
d. Habitat Areas
e. Landscaping and Buffers
f. Stormwater Management
g. Mitigation Plan
8.8.7.4 Construction
a. Drainage
b. Grading and Erosion Control
C. Solid Waste Management
8.8.7.5 Operation And Maintenance
a. Integrated Pest Management(IPM)
b. Best Management Practices(BMP's)
C. Irrigation
d. Habitat Maintenance
e. Maintenance of Improvements
+� th
2111197 Final Draft Page 2
f. Solid Waste Management
8.8.7.6 Pollutant Monitoring Program
a. Baseline and Construction Monitoring
b. Operations Monitoring
c. Parameters for Sample Testing
d. Reporting
e. Management Response to Pollutant Monitoring
i
2/11/97 Final Draft Page 3
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance
REFERENCE: Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table
Article 6.16.10 Recreational Facilities(Profit/Non-profit)
Article 6.23 Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
Article 6.23.1 Land Use Restrictions
Article 8.8 Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses
Article 8.8.7 Golf Courses [new]
Article 22 Definitions- Golf Course
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
_N BOCC Public
—X Other: Golf CART
Expected Public Hearing Date: February 24, 1997
Purpose of Amendment: To provide standards for the location, planning, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of golf courses and associated uses.
Background: During discussion of the Rural Character Strategies and the University Station
Project, citizens and advisory board members expressed concern over the potential impacts of golf
courses, particularly when allowed as a use of open space required with residential development.
Currently, a golf course is a permitted use in most zoning districts; however, there are no specific
standards in the ordinance to address impacts to the environment.
In 1995 the Board of County Commissioners adopted Natural Resource Preservation as one of its
Goals for FY 1995-$6. One of the objectives included in the goal was development of standards
and approval procedures for golf courses. This initiative was continued on May 14, 1996, as the
Commissioners adopted Goals for FY 1996-97.
On August 20, 1996, the Board of Commissioners adopted a charge and appointed members to
the Golf Course Amendment Review Task Force (Golf CART). The Golf CART began
meeting in September 1996 and continued its work through February of 1997.
The work of the Golf CART was an attempt to address the design and environmental issues which
are traditionally of greatest concern when a golf course is proposed. The most noticeable impact
from a project the size of a golf course is usually a large area of disturbance (removal of vegetation
�► I S
2111197 Final Draft Page 4
and grading). Other impacts may include pollution of air, water, and soil from long-term use of
fertilizers, pesticides, loss of habitat and displacement of wildlife, erosion and sedimentation,
alteration of the microclimate, changes to the visual environment, and water supply demand for
irrigation. These potential impacts are not associated with every golf course. Research completed to
date is insufficient to identify widespread problems.
The proposed ordinance amendments were not drafted to target a particular problem with
existing golf courses in Orange County, but to prevent possible degradation of the environment
from golf course developments proposed in the future. The text of the amendment reflects the focus
of the task force which was to try to address adverse impacts and safety concerns while leaving
aesthetics and style of play to the discretion of the golf course owner/developer. Similarly, the task
force did not discuss to what extent a golf course could count as required open space in a
subdivision or planned development. This issue is better resolved in the context of reviewing open
space goals or policies,rarher than when developing standards for golf courses.
As part of the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance, in Article 4.3, a golf course would be
allowed as a Class A Special Use rather than a permitted use in AR and residential zoning districts.
It would no longer be permitted in commercial or industrial districts. This approach is consistent
with Article 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which contains statements of intent for each of the zoning
districts or categories. Most of the residential districts (R-2 through R-13) specifically include
recreational uses in the statement of intent as supporting the permitted residential uses. Purpose
statements of the commercial and industrial districts include uses such as office, service,
manufacturing,processing,etc.,but do not mention recreation.
Revisions to Article 6 include deleting the four (4) current "standards" for golf courses (6.16.10),
prohibiting new golf courses in critical areas of protected watersheds (6.23.1), and allowing trees to
be cut in a stream buffer when they block the line of play (6.23.7). The definition of golf course in
Article 22 is also revised to remove minimum acreage requirements.
A new section of Article 8, Special Uses, is proposed to include standards for components of golf
courses such as access, circulation, and parking; landscaping and buffers; habitat areas,
maintenance and storage areas, etc. Provisions for activities such as construction, irrigation,
stormwater management, maintenance, and pollutant monitoring are proposed as well. Minimum
required acreages for courses with nine or eighteen holes were not included because the task force
decided that other standards and dimensional requirements such as setbacks, buffers, and habitat
protection would have more effect on the quality of site design than a minimum lot size for the use.
Furthermore, different styles of course such as regulation, executive, championship, or youth
courses have different acreage requirements based on variations in design.
Points recommended for further discussion: In their deliberations, the Golf CART discussed
(without reaching consensus) other sections of the Zoning Ordinance which may need
reconsideration to effectively address golf courses and possibly other similar large scale land uses.
Some task force members felt that the civil penalties established in Article 23 to remedy a violation
2111197 Final Draft Page 5
of the ordinance would not be large enough in proportion to the size of a golf course development
project to elicit corrective action from a land owner once he or she had failed to respond to a written
notification of violation. Other members suggested that a Stop Work Order (also in Article 23)
would be more effective when a golf course developer is not in compliance with the terms of a
Special Use Permit.
Article 8.7 of the Zoning Ordinance contains provisions for changing a Special Use Permit after
the original approval. Minor changes may be approved by the Zoning Officer, while modifications
that do not meet the ten criteria for minor changes are subject to review at a public hearing before
the Board which approved the original application. The task force was concerned that some of the
criteria used to distinguish a Special Use Permit modification from a minor change would not be
appropriate when applied to a project with the size and complexity of a golf course.
For example, an increase in usable floor area or an increase in the size or number of approved signs
constitutes a modification requiring a public hearing. Given that 1) floor area is not an appropriate
measure of the intensity of a golf course as a land use, and 2)that a golf course typically includes
numerous signs that are not visible from a public road, the current criteria listed in Article 8.7.1
could be re-evaluated so that changes which are small in proportiori to the use are considered minor
and eligible for administrative review.
2/11/97 Final Draft Page 6
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
4.3 Permitted Use Table
[Refer to attachment 6a,page 4-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically use
S35, Recreational Facilities (Profit/Non-profit): Golf Club and Golf Countryclub]
6.16.10 Recreational Facilities (Profit/Non-Profit).
The following restrictions shall be applied to profit or non-profit recreational
facilities such as a golf course or country club with golf course:
a) The minimum lot area shall be 50 acres.
b) No building shall be closer than 20 feet to a property line or the minimum
requirements of the district whichever is greater.
C) No more than 2 identification signs,not to exceed 16 square feet each and
not located closer than 1 foot to the right-of-way.
d) No adverse impacts such as noise or glare shall extend beyond the lot
boundaries.
Article 22 Definitions
Golf Course-A tract of land designed and laid out for the game of golf,including
accessory uses and buildings. The minimum area for a nine hole course shall
be fifty acres. The minimum area for an eighteen hole golf course shall be
one hundred acres.
6.23 Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
6.23.1 Land Use Restrictions
[See attachment 6b]
6.23.7 Stream Buffers
( J2
2111197 Final Draft Page 7
c) Land Disturbance and Planting of Vegetation
1) Area within a stream buffer which is subject to serious erosion may
be disturbed for the purpose of planting and maintaining erosion-
resistant vegetative cover.
2) Existing forested areas or any other healthy vegetation cannot be
removed from a stream buffer, except where replaced with
vegetation resulting in comparable stormwater runoff velocity and
quantity one year after planting.
3) New vegetation shall be planted to capture non-source pollutants
before they reach the perennial stream, as per applicable Orange
County Standards.
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT: [FINAL DRAFT 12/19/961
4.3 Permitted Use Table
[Refer to the attachment of page 4-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically, use
S35, Recreational Facilities(Profit/Non-profit): Golf Club and Golf Countryclub,
proposed as a Class A Special Use instead of a permitted use.]
Article 6.16.10 Reserved
The f lle..4ag« s#irat;efis shell be applied to.refit of non profit« eatie.,el
f e;l;t;es s ,eh as a golf e.u fse ereeuff Fy elub iN tl_golf eaur-se,
a) The ffAPiffwm 1..t area sha4l he 50 se.•en
b) Ne 1...;1, iag shall 1-A-sef dea-20 feet-to a-preppy lie er-tfie
F.E e..tn .)f the .aist..;et wlgehe._rer_is greatvz
the« set;,,,, e;g e__ne�t„ezresoel_1e t se,.h
vacxvrrsi rm,nv to exceed 16 e feet cccczrcanr-
et Ieeete.i slew..than 1 feet to the....,b.+ of way.
Article 6.23 Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
[Refer to attachment indicating proposed language added to the table in Article
6.23.1 to prohibit new golf courses in the critical areas of protected watersheds.
Note that commercial uses are currently prohibited in critical areas; therefore, the
V J .j
2/11/97 Final Draft Page 8
effect of the change would be to prohibit public/non-profit courses. The task force
determined that courses proposed as part of a residential development typically
would be considered commercial uses currently prohibited in critical areas by
6.23.1 J
Article 6.23.7 Stream Buffers (Proposed text is underlined in this section only.)
c) Land Disturbance and Planting of Vegetation
1) Area within a stream buffer which is subject to serious erosion
may be disturbed for the purpose of planting and maintaining
erosion-resistant vegetative cover.
2) Existing forested areas or any other healthy vegetation cannot be
removed from a stream buffer, except where replaced with
vegetation resulting in comparable stormwater runoff velocity
and quantity one year after planting. An exception shall be
allowed for golf courses where the line of play crosses a stream
buffer. Only trees which obstruct the intended line of play may
be cut,provided stumps and root mass are not removed and tree
which are cut can be removed in a sensitive manner which
minimizes additional disturbance to the stream buffer.
3) New vegetation shall be planted to capture non-point source
pollutants before they reach the per-efmiial stream,as per
applicable Orange County standards.
Article 8 Special Uses
8.8 RegMations Governing Individual Special Uses
8.8.7 (New) Golf Courses
8.8.7.1 Intent
2111197 Final Draft Page 9
The purpose of this article is to protect natural, visual, and cultural resources by
regulating the location, planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance
of golf courses and associated uses.
Applicability
The standards contained herein shall apply to all new golf courses, whether
proposed as a principal use or as an accessory use which is part of a residential
subdivision, or included in a Planned Development District. Existing golf courses
shall comply with the requirements of this article when fifty percent or more of the
total playable acreage of golf holes is concurrently reconstructed or altered, or if an
equivalent amount of playable acreage is added to an existing course. Playable
acreage includes all tees, greens, fairways, and roughs.
8.8.7.2 Submittal Requirements
The applicant shall submit the plans and documents specified in Articles 8.2, 8.8,
and 14.2. The site plan prepared in accordance with Article 14 shall also indicate the
routing plan showing the center line of play, the boundaries of fairways, greens,
tees,roughs,hazards, and buffers. In addition the following items are required for a
complete application:
a. A written and graphic site analysis illustrating soils, depth to water table,
slope, hydrology, vegetation, natural areas and habitats of special concern,
infrastructure and other manmade features, historic and archaeological sites,
and a visual analysis of views into and from the site;
b. A biological inventory which identifies habitat diversity, species diversity,
species of special concern such as those designated as threatened or
endangered, last known sighting, candidate species likely to be present
which may warrant protection, specimen trees outstanding in size and/or
species, and the status and source of the information compiled in the
inventory. The biological inventory shall be accompanied by an analysis
describing habitat integrity, relationships between habitats and to ecological
communities off site, any existing threats to flora and fauna, and potential
for habitat enhancement;
C. An Environmental Assessment as required by the Orange County
Environmental Impact Ordinance;
d. Grading and Erosion Control Plan;
e. Stormwater Management Plan;
G55
2/11197 Final Draft Page 10
f. • Utilities Plan, including schematic irrigation plan;
g. Landscape Plan;
h. Resources Management and Mitigation Plan including, but not limited to,
construction policies, methods for protecting water resources and natural
areas, pollutant monitoring program, restoration and mitigation plan for
wetlands and other habitats, federal permits as may be required for alteration
of wetlands, maintenance specifications for on-going site management,
including solid waste, water conservation plan;
i. Integrated Pest Management Program demonstrating a monitoring program
for pest problems as well as biological and chemical methods to control
weeds, insects, and disease; and
j. Hazardous Materials Management Plan, including a description of the
program for application, storage, and handling of pesticides, fertilizers,
swimming pool chemicals, and any other hazardous substances; a Material
Safety Data Sheet listing each substance, its known impacts, physical
properties, and protective measures; a Tier Two form stating the location
and quantity of each substance; and building and site plans showing location
and quantities of hazardous materials.
8.8.7.3 Standards for Golf Courses
The following standards are not intended to address every aspect of golf course
planning, but should communicate a design objective to be applied throughout the
project development. Alternatives to the standards listed may be considered if the
applicant can clearly show that the proposal meets the intent of the ordinance.
a. Siting Course Components 9.
(1) The style and length of the course proposed shall be designed to fit
the existing site conditions with minimal changes. Locations of
structures, parking, tees, fairways, greens, and other site elements
shall be planned to minimize land disturbance and clearing of
existing vegetation;
(2) The minimum setback from street rights-of-way and
property/boundary lines to the center line of play of a hole is 150
feet. The minimum setback from the tee shall be 75 feet;
2111197 Final Draft Page 11
(3) A driving range shall be internally oriented. Tee boxes shall be a
minimum of 75 feet from road rights-of-way and property
boundaries;
(4) No greens or tees shall be located where the depth to the water table
is less than four(4) feet. A minimum depth of four(4) feet shall also
be maintained between subsurface drainage systems under turf areas
and groundwater or bedrock;
(5) Buildings designated for storage and handling of chemicalss and
fertilizers shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from water
sources, wells, ponds, and streams, or outside a stream buffer,
whichever is greater; and
(6) Shelters for inclement weather and permanent rest room facilities
shall be provided near the mid-point of play of each nine holes.
b. Access,Circulation,and Parking
(1) For a golf course proposed as a principal use, access to the site shall
be limited to one (1) main entrance and one (1) service entrance per
existing road frontage. If multiple uses are proposed with the golf
course as part of a Planned Development such as additional
recreational facilities and/or residential development, all such uses
shall share a common interior access road, which may connect to
existing roads more than once;
(2) Parking shall be provided in accordance with Article 10 and
landscaped as per Article 12;
(3) Between all use areas, safe and adequate access for pedestrians
` including the handicapped is required. Conflicts shall be minimized
between pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Caution signs shall be
posted at all intersections of roads, cart paths, and pedestrian
walkways;
(4) Where a stream or other habitat crossing is unavoidable, a boardwalk
or raised bridge with a free-span design shall be used to minimize
adverse impacts. Other design solutions may be considered if
disturbance is minimal and wildlife mobility is maintained;and
2111197 Final Draft Page 12
(5) All vehicular and pedestrian surfaces shall be designed, graded, and
landscaped as required by Article 12 to minimize-visual impact by
blending into the surrounding environment.
C. Maintenance and Storage Areas
(1) Maintenance and storage areas include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• maintenance equipment storage and service areas;
• solid waste collection/recycling sites;
• golf cart parking and service areas;
• chemical storage and handling sites; and
• service areas associated with a clubhouse, swimming pool,
and tennis courts,or other amenities.
(2) All such uses listed above shall be located and landscaped to
minimize visual impact to public roads and adjacent properties;
(3) Runoff from maintenance and storage areas shall be collected and
pollutants filtered before release [See also 8.8.7.5.b(7)]; and
(4) Facilities shall be provided for composting and recycling organic
matter such as branches, clippings, and leaves from course and
landscape maintenance and shall be incorporated into a
comprehensive solid waste management plan.
d. Habitat Areas
Habitats shall be identified and evaluated in the biological inventory
required by Article 8.8.7.2b, and are subject to the following:
(1) An undisturbed buffer is required around the boundary of habitats of
raze, threatened, or endangered species as shown on the biological
inventory. Buffer width shall be determined by site evaluation in
consultation with the applicant's biologist and officials from the NC
Department of Agriculture and/or the NC Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources;
(2) Habitat enhancements as described in the biological inventory shall
be made for a broad range of species to help mitigate the loss of
wildlife habitat during construction. Examples include preserving,
planting, and maintaining a variety of native vegetation (also dead
015 'S
1111197 Final Draft Page 13
trees and snags); installing structures conducive for nesting such as
bird houses or bat boxes designed and located for various species; or
creating wetlands;
(3) Conservation easements are encouraged to protect wetlands and
other habitats while insuring proper long-term maintenance; and
(4) Provide barriers or fencing, and signage at the edge of habitat
buffers to prohibit vehicular and pedestrian access. Limited public
access may be allowed if proposed in a sensitive manner for
environmental education purposes.
e. Landscaping and Buffers
(1) Protection of Existing Vegetation
(a) Existing vegetation shall be preserved as indicated on the
approved landscape plan in accordance with the provisions of
Article 12.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
(b) Tree protection measures shall be installed and maintained
between all areas of disturbance and trees to be retained as
shown on the approved landscape plan. A detail of the tree
protection barrier proposed shall be included as part of the
landscape plan submitted with the application;
(c) Corridors connecting habitats identified in the biological
inventory shall be preserved along fence rows, streams, buffers,
or other wooded areas. If destroyed during construction, such
connections shall be restored using appropriate plant materials;
(d) Stream buffers shall be provided as per Article 6.23 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
(e) In out of play wooded areas, the mulch layer shall be retained;
and
(f) Trees and stumps cleared for the course,roads,and building
construction shall either be used for timber purposes or
shredded for landscape mulch,composted,buried,or burned
after obtaining appropriate permits.
2111197 Final Draft Page 14
(2) Parking lots and outdoor storage areas shall be landscaped and
screened as per the standards set forth in Article 12 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
(3) Berms, fences and walls may be used with plant materials for
screening, provided such features are designed and located in
harmony with other site features and functions;
(4) To minimize visual impact by blending architecture into the
surrounding landscape, foundation plantings are required at all
structures, including free-standing entrance signs; and
(5) Turfgrasses shall be selected using drought, pest, and disease
resistant species and/or cultivars.
f. Stormwater Management
(1) Each golf course shall provide a system of stormwater management
in accordance with the standards contained in Articles 6.23.3 and
6.23.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The stormwater management plan
shall be reviewed by the Orange County Erosion Control Division;
(2) The rate of runoff from the site shall not be increased over pre-
development conditions;
(3) The stormwater management system must respect existing drainage
patterns. Direct runoff away from erosion-prone slopes. Paved paths
may be used to channel runoff;
(4) Energy dissipaters such as rip rap aprons shall be used where runoff
is concentrated and discharged, for example, at downspouts from
rooftops and storm drains at parking areas. Runoff shall not be
discharged directly into surface water or other environmentally
sensitive areas ;and
g. Mitigation Plan
The intent of this Article is preservation and protection of natural habitats.
However, a mitigation plan is required when any wetland or other
environmentally sensitive area identified in the biological inventory will be
altered as a result of construction or operation of the golf course or other
facility (including infrastructure) associated with the golf course
development.The mitigation plan shall include the following:
U6U
2111197 Final Draft Page 15
(1) An assessment of the ecological value of resources that will be lost
and a statement of how that value will be replaced through
mitigation;
(2) A specific statement of the goals and objectives, i.e., exactly what
steps will be taken to compensate for lost habitat, etc.;
(3) Detailed descriptions in the form of grading plans, construction
plans, and planting plans to illustrate how the objectives will be
carried out;
(4) A monitoring and maintenance plan to measure success of the
mitigation based on stated objectives. Include a list of parties
responsible for monitoring and maintenance, a schedule for each,
and how results will be reported at least twice a year to the Planning
and Inspections Department;
(5) A plan showing how the site will be protected from impacts by
human and unwanted animal intrusion, alternate plant species and
construction methods that could be used in the event adjustments or
substitutions are needed until the mitigation area is established; and
(6) A financial guarantee is required for the total cost of the mitigation
project. Once the installation is complete, thirty percent(30%) of the
amount of the bond,letter of credit,or escrow will be held for twelve
(12)months or until the site is established,whichever is greater.
8.8.7.4 Construction
a. Drainage
` (1) All drainage structures shall be installed and maintained according to
the approved Stormwater Management Plan.
(2) Golf courses that include retention/detention ponds shall comply
with the requirements in Article 6.23.4, Operation and Maintenance
of Structural Best Management Practices.
b. Grading and Erosion Control
2111197 Final Draft Page 16
(1) Plans for grading and erosion control must comply with standards
contained in the Orange County Erosion and Sediment Control
Ordinance and Manual;
(2) Whenever practical, construction shall be phased to minimize
disturbance and sedimentation;
(3) Sediment control measures must be properly installed to filter
sediment from runoff during construction and shall be maintained
until grading is complete and a permanent vegetative cover has been
established and all slopes stabilized; and
(4) Permanent landscaping, groundcover, mulch, etc. must be installed
as soon as practical after construction activities for each phase are
completed.
C. Solid Waste Management
The Solid Waste Management Plan submitted as part of the Resources
Management Plan shall include the method(s) of disposal and recycling of
construction debris.
8.8.7.5 Operation and Maintenance
a. Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
An integrated pest management plan(IPM) shall be established based on
site conditions, soils, pesticide properties and management practices. The
plan shall be updated as necessary to incorporate changes in pesticide
choices,applications, etc. Revised plans shall be provided to the Planning
and Inspections Department within ten days of said change(s). The IPM
plan shall include the following:
(1) Monitoring of potential pest populations;
(2)Developing and integrating biological,cultural and chemical
control strategies which shall include educating and training
golf course personnel;
(3) Timing and spot treatment preferences using biological,
cultural and chemical methods;
(4) Evaluating results on an ongoing basis;
2111197 Final Draft Page 17
(S) Scouting by qualified personnel trained to recognize pest
problems at an early stage;
(6) Specifying local problems and treatment methods for disease
control, insect control and weed control;
(7) Identifying the pesticides that will be used at the golf course.
Include protocols used for selection of the pesticides that are
most environmentally sensitive;
(8) A pesticide safety program including storage, handling,
disposal, and application considerations; and
(9)A spill prevention and response plan for containment of
chemicals used to maintain the golf couse, swimming pool, or
other accessory uses.
b. Best Management Practices(BMP'S)for Maintenance
As part of the Resources Management Plan, the applicant shall submit a plan
to establish best management practices (BMP's) for the golf course and
maintenance facilities which shall include the following:
(1) Isolate potential contaminants from the soil and water during
delivery, storage and use of such contaminants at the golf
course;
(2) Fertilizer storage area shall be covered; and
(3) Washing of maintenance equipment shall occur in an area that
is covered from the elements. Grass clippings and debris collected
from washing may be composted. Runoff from the wash pad
area shall be drained to a common point and either
(a)filtered through a grease trap, and recycled;
(b) directed through a filtration pond; or
(c)discharged to a sewage treatment facility other than a ground
absorption system.
C. Irrigation
2111197 Final Draft Page 18
(1) Irrigation systems shall be designed and operated according to a water
conservation plan described in the Resources Management Plan
submitted with the application;
(2) The schematic irrigation plan required by 8.8.7.2f shall identify the
source(s) of water to be used for irrigation,the volume available for that
purpose, and expected consumption rates. The system design and plan
for operation will be evaluated based on efficiency; and
(3) Use water recycled from stormwater retention ponds, or treated
sewage effluent,where it is a safe alternative.
d. Habitat Maintenance
(1) Habitats identified in the biological inventory and habitats created
through mitigation shall be maintained in accordance with the
Resources Management Plan and/or a conservation easement
agreement;and
(2) Maintenance of habitats shall be minimal, consisting primarily of
maintaining buffers and enhancements, removal of exotic (non-
native) plant species, and keeping drainage ways functioning
properly.
e. Maintenance of Improvements
All site improvements such as roads, utilities (including irrigation and
drainage structures), the golf course, habitat enhancements, recreational
amenities, signage, landscaping, etc. shall be maintained in function and
appearance. Maintenance specifications for on-going site management shall
be submitted as part of the Resources Management Plan.
E Solid Waste Management
The Resources Management Plan shall include a program for the on-going
recycling and composting of refuse from course and landscape maintenance,
as well as solid waste from other course facilities such as a clubhouse.
8.8.7.6 Pollutant Monitoring Program
An ongoing environmental monitoring program shall be established as part of the
Resources Management Plan to assess the presence of pollutants in surface water,
2111197 Final Draft Page 19
groundwater, and sediment on site. The monitoring program shall include the
following:
a. Base Line and Construction Monitoring.
(1) Base line monitoring shall be conducted for the three consecutive
months immediately prior to commencement of construction of any
component of the golf course development;
(2) A minimum of three (3) surface water sample stations will be
established. A minimum of three (3) ground water wells will be
installed. A minimum of one (1) sediment sample station will be
established; and
(3) Parameters for sampling shall be as provided in 8.8.7.6c below.
(4) During construction of the golf course, obtain quarterly samples from
the same stations required in 8.8.7.6a(2) above;
b. Operations Monitoring
(1) The same stations required in 8.8.7.6a(2) above shall be used to
monitor operation of the golf course;
(2)A minimum of three(3) samples will be taken at each of the surface
water sample locations, two(2) groundwater samples at each of the
ground water sample locations, and one(1) sediment sample will be
taken;
(3) Monitoring will continue on a quarterly schedule for a period of three
years from the start of golf course operations. After three years,
monitoring may be reduced to two times per year for surface and
i
groundwater. The three-year period may be extended if pollutant levels
exceed thresholds established by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency health advisory limits (HAL) and/or standards set by the North
Carolina Department of Environment,Health and Natural Resources;
and
(4) Parameters for sampling shall be as provided in 8.8.7.6c below.
C. Parameters for Sample Testing
2111197 Final Draft Page 20
(1) Total phosphorous, nitrate-nitrogen, total suspended solids, turbidity
and pesticides will be analyzed for each sample time; and
(2) The Pollutant Monitoring Program submitted with the application as
part of the Resources Management Plan shall list the pesticides that
will be analyzed and the rationale for such selections, which shall be
based on the Tier I risk assessment set forth in Article 8.8.7.5a(8)
above.
d. Reporting
(1) All surface water, ground water and sediment quality monitoring
results will be submitted within 45 days of collection to the Orange
County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health;
(2) Monitoring results shall be retained on site by the golf course
superintendent and shall be available for inspection;and
(3)An annual report will be submitted on a date established by the
Planning and Inspections Department.
e. Management Response to Pollutant Monitoring
(1) If contaminants are found that may reasonably be attributed to the
construction, operation, and/or maintenance of the golf course,
management plans shall be reviewed to assess the problem.
Appropriate adjustments in the resource management and/or integrated
pest management plans shall be made to prevent further
contamination; and
(2)If sampling and analysis indicate a trend toward increased
concentrations of contaminants or if the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency health advisory limits (HAL) or State ground or surface water
standards for thresholds are exceeded, then Orange County will notify
the appropriate authorities.
Article 22 Def nitions
Golf Course - A tract of land designed and laid out for the game of golf. -The
aef
GD1 courses include but are
not limited to courses open to the general public for a daily user fee private courses
U6h
2111197 Final Draft Page 21
available to members and their Quests. courses proposed as a single, independent
Wig, as well as those planned as an accessory use which is part of a residential or
recreational development.
A zolf course development may also include the following accessory uses and
buildings typically associated with such a facility: club house: restaurant/snack bar:
barroom: 12ro shop: billiards: table tennis. spa/health club: racquetball. hand ball,
and tennis courts: swimming pool: locker rooms: and real estate sales office.
Golf CART/Ordinance Review:
Planning Board:
BOCC:
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 67
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
c'
A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Golf Course Amendment Review Task Force(Golf CART) Dr. Kimberly Erusha, USGA
Marvin Collins, Planning Director Dr. Doug Rader, NCEDF
Geof Gledhill, County Attorney Abigail Friedman, NaCo
Paul Thames,County Engineer Dan Maples,ASLA
Mary Bess Willis, Planner III David Bishop, GCSAA
Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor Paul Fullmer,ASGCA
Ted Cashion, NCDEM-Water Quality Paul Parker, Center for Resource Mgt.
}ay Zimmerman, NCDEM-Groundwater J.B.Culpepper,Town of Chapel Hill
Tim Baumgartner, NCDOA-Pesticide Section Keith Lankford,Town of Carrboro
Recreation and Parks Advisory Council David M. Rooks, III
Mike Tapp, Orange County Fire Marshal Dr.Anita Bahe,Front Royal
Ni Rich Ducker, Institute of Government Phil Oshida, USEPA
Ron Holdway, Environmental Health Director eel No(lAv%A, CWA,---4
FROM: Emily Cameron, ASLA, Planner II/Landscape Architect *CC -
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Orange County (NC) Zoning Ordinance to
Include Standards for Golf Courses
DATE: December 31, 1996
COPIES: Gene Bell, Planner III
Attached is the final draft of proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance to include standards for golf courses in the County's planning jurisdiction.
Please refer to the enclosure for background information. The proposed amendments are
scheduled for presentation at a public hearing on February 24, 1997.
Please submit any.+comments you may have to me by Monday, January 27, 1997. The Golf
Course Amendment Review Task Force (Golf CART) will meet again to review comments
and prepare for the public hearing on Thursday, February 6. If you have questions or need
additional information, feel free to call me at (919) 732-8181, extension 2580.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
LAW OFFICES
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
129 E.TRYON STREET
P.O.DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 February 10, 1997
919.732.2196 FROM THE DESK OF
FAX 919.732.7997 GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL
Ms . Emily Cameron, ASLA,
Planner II/Landscape Architect
Orange County Planning Department
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
RE: Proposed Amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance to Include Standards for Golf Courses
Dear Emily:
This letter confirms our telephone conversation on February
7, 1997 . I have reviewed the proposed amendments to the Orange
County Zoning Regulations concerning golf courses . It is
apparent that a lot of thought and work has - gone into creating
standards for new golf courses . My comments will focus on some
of the concerns that I discussed with you during our
conversation.
By way of clarification, the changes to Section 6 .23 .7 (c)
and the definition of "Golf Course" contained in Article 22, I
read to apply to all golf courses, including existing golf
courses . Enclosed is a recommended change to the definition of
Golf Course. All of the rest of the requirements, contained for
the most part in new Section 8 .8 .7, apply to new courses and
existing courses when 50% or more of the golf holes are
concurrently or simultaneously reconstructed or altered.
The standards in new Section 8 . 8 .7 include siting, access,
maintenance and storage areas, habitat areas, landscaping and
buffers, stormwater management and mitigation plan requirements .
There are also requirements covering construction, operation and
maintenance, -and pollutant monitoring. The specific way and the
detail in which each of these areas is dealt with in the
regulations suggests that there is a public policy reason for
dealing with these issues for golf courses that is different
either in quality or quantity from the way in which these issues
are dealt with in other types of development . If this is not so,
then many of these areas of regulation should be applicable in
some way or another to other development of comparable quality
and size. If the regulations are perceived to "pick on" golf
courses, they should be justified on the basis of real
differences between golf courses and other development of similar
size and scope.
Some of the regulations related to pest management may run
afoul of the fact that the State of North Carolina in its
Ms . Emily Cameron
Page 2
February 10 , 1997
Pesticide Control Program, North Carolina General Statutes § 143-
434 et seq. , has very clearly "preempted" regulation. N.C . Gen.
Stat . § 143-465 (d) states "no county . . . shall adopt or continue
in effect any ordinance, rule, regulation, or resolution
regulating the use, sale, distribution, storage, transportation,
disposal, formulation, labeling, registration, manufacture or
application of pesticides in any area subject to regulation by
the [pesticide] Board pursuant to this Article . " That subsection
goes on to make clear that counties are not prohibited from
exercising planning and zoning authority or from exercising fire
prevention or inspection authority. Reconciling the prohibition
and the authorization of this statute is tricky. I think it is
safe to say that some of the provisions in proposed Section
8 . 8 .7 . 5 and 8 . 8 .7 . 6 will not survive a challenge based on
preemption. Particularly, to the extent that those sections
control the selection and use of pesticides, they will be, I
think, preempted by the State Pesticide Control Program.
Specifically, Sections 8 . 8 . 7 . 5 .a (8) , (9) and (10) should be
culled of pesticide use requirements . Subsection "b" of 8 .8 .7 . 5
should likewise be culled of pesticide use requirements . The
management response to pollutant monitoring provisions -in 8 . 8 .7 . 6
to the extent that it must contain pesticide use requirements
should also be culled. It is possible to include monitoring
provisions in this whole area and to also provide, either in the
Zoning Ordinance or otherwise, for reporting the results of that
monitoring to the State for action if appropriate under the State
Pesticide Control Program. Any interest on the part of Orange
County in doing so should probably be initiated at the Board of
County Commissioner level and directed to the Secretary of
Agriculture.
Lastly, I think Sections 8 .7 and 11 . 6 of the Zoning
Ordinance may need to be "cleaned up" if these new regulations
are adopted. Section 11. 6 of the Zoning Ordinance makes an
existing use`which would require a special use permit conforming
with any enlargement, replacement or modification requiring a
special use permit . Section 8 .7 of the Zoning Ordinance relating
to the distinction between minor changes and modifications to
special use permits, should also refer to, in the case of golf
courses, new Section 8 .8 .7 to be sure that the intent of the
applicability section, new Section 8 .8 .7 .1, with respect to
existing golf courses is carried out .
Very truly yours,
COL GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C.
offrey E. Gle hill
GEG/lsg
Enclosure
U �
Article 22 Definitions
Golf Course - A tract of land designed and laid
out for the game of golf, including accessory uses
and buildings. The mi-niffFam -aEea--€eEa- nine-hel-9
eeuEse-shall be fifty aeEes . The fflinj=muin aEea fer
an edghtee-- ele- el€-eeur-se-shall be ene h„ndM��'
aer-es ; t include courses associated
with a golf country club, public and private
courses , courses proposed as a principal use, as
well as those planned as part of a residential or
recreational development.
A� U 7
INSTITUTE Of G0VERN1\lENT
January 25, 1997
Ms. Emily C. Cameron, ASLA
Planner II
Orange County Planning Department
306 F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Emily:
In your memo of December 31, 1996, you invited my comments on the proposed amendments
to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as it concerns golf courses. It appears that the Golf
CART includes a number of individuals with special expertise that can be brought to bear on
this matter and that the work you are doing can break fresh ground and become useful in
planning in jurisdictions all around the state. My only general concern is that the regulations
that you may end up with become too involved, or at least more involved than those that
apply to other important land uses in the county. Make sure that you place the review of golf
courses in a proper context.
Another issue that your committee may wish to address is how a golf course fits into a
planned residential development(or any planned development for that matter). One of the
issues here is whether a golf course should qualify as "open space" for purposes of the
ordinance. Some ordinances limit the extent to which the land in a golf course can count as
required open space; many others fail to clarify whether it does or does not. A related issue is
whether the open space must be or may be private. If the open space is intended to be for the
benefit of the residents of the development, then the question arises as to whether a golf
course must be available only to residents and their guests or whether it may be open to the
general public. One issue that recently arose with respect to a development near Charlotte
was whether the developers could qualify their golf course as required open space if they
provided_pr€ferential tee times and discount greens fees to residents to make up for the fact
that the golf course was being operated as a commercial venture. I mention these issues
simply because you may want to address them in your work so as to eliminate any confusion.
Congratulations on the good work you have done so far. Let me know if I can be of any help.
r—shpcerely,
\N;�,T),�
chard D. Ducker
Assistant Director
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
CB#3330 Knapp Building.Chapel Hill,NC 27599-3330
919 q66-1181 .919 96?-nAi-L iF-1
fj 4 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
306 NORTH COLUMBW STREET
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516
Telephone (919)968-2700
January 13, 1997 ��-� ` "2t' g� =
Ms. Emily Cameron, ASLA
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Re: Draft Golf Course Standards for Orange County Zoning Ordinance
Dear Emily:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed amendments to the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance to include standards for golf courses in the County's planning jurisdiction.
We have no comments to offer at this time.
Please let us know if we may be of further assistance.
Best Regards,
f l per p ent Coordinator
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTS
221 NORTH LA SALLE STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601
312-372-7090
January 22, 1997
Ms. Emily Cameron
ASLA, Planner II/Landscape Architect
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ms. Cameron:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the proposed amendments to the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance and its inclusion of standards for golf courses in the county. We have
forwarded the document to four ASGCA members in North Carolina-- Dan Maples, Tom Fazio,
Michael Gleason, and Tom Marzolf-- who may have comments in addition to what follows.
In some respects, this ordinance codifies existing ordinances and tries to adapt them to golf
courses...in some cases being more stringent, and other cases being more relaxed.
Each site should be evaluated on its own criteria by a qualified golf course architect. The
committee is therefore wise to remove standardized acreage as required in the ordinance, and a
review process of each design is more practical than setting specific standards.
There are a few points where we have particular concern:
1. The document seems to build on the premise that golf courses present a special
environmental chdilenge not associated with other developments. Actually, golf courses that
are designed,constructed and maintained properly provide many environmental benefits. So
the premise might be better understood as providing environmental opportunities, rather than
challenges.
2. We must take exception to the phrase in the background section that reads, "...but to prevent
degradation of the environment from golf course developments proposed in the future."
Again, that wording implies that golf courses are harmful, which they are not.
Ms. Emily Cameron
Page Two
January 22, 1997
3. We question why golf courses within residential developments have to be permitted under a
special use permit. Golf courses enhance the environment as compared to a higher density
residential area. Properly planned together, golf courses are a nice amenity to a housing
development, as evidenced by their popularity in Hilton Head, Myrtle Beach, Pinehurst and
other Carolina resort destinations.
4. Golf courses should not be summarily prohibited from critical areas of protected watersheds.
Properly designed, golf courses can enhance flood protection, water filtration and
purification, etc. We applaud your allowing special clearing of trees and stream buffer areas
where they might block the line of play.
5. In reviewing the specific requirements for a golf course design, including minimum setback
buffers, standards for parking lot, road layout and buffers, it is easy to highlight existing
courses that probably violate the stringent rules, and yet are considered good neighbors. One
is The Quarry Golf Club in San Antonio, which is sunk 100-feet into a vertical wall stone
quarry. Under similar circumstances would the 75-feet from tee, and 100-feet from fairway
centerline still be required under this ordinance?
6. While well-intended, some design requirements are subject to interpretation. For example,
the phrases, "all vehicular and pedestrian surfaces shall be designed and graded to be visually
unobtrusive...";"The course proposed shall be designed to fit the existing site conditions with
minimal changes..."; and"Locations of...site elements shall be planned to minimize land
disturbance and clearing of vegetation, and driving range shall be internally oriented..." all
are well-intended, but would be incorporated by any qualified golf course architect anyway.
Our concern is that, being subject to wide interpretation, these phrases could possibly be used
as "straw men"to question an otherwise qualified design.
7. The issue of increased civil penalties above and beyond what might be required for other
developments in the zoning ordinance should not be based on the presumption that golf
courses are eitlzr particularly complex, or more prone by nature to be subject to violations of
any zoning.ordinance. Although this is an issue that fits the national ongoing debate of
penalties and regulations versus incentive and conservation, more consideration should be
given to this area.
Ms. Emily Cameron
Page Three
January 22, 1997
8. Perhaps the areas of greatest cost, which would affect the feasibility of new golf courses
proposed in Orange County, is the strict requirement for unending pesticide monitoring, as
well as the identification, protection, creation of mitigation plan, and payment of a financial
guarantee for protecting habitats. Habitat corridors can be difficult to incorporate. Similarly,
the integrated pest management plan, properly developed by a qualified consultant, should
identify on a case by case basis whether or not monitoring is required.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these thoughts to the Task Force.
Sincerely,
r
Paul Fullmer
Executive Secretary
PF:di
i.
; ,
la�J_�3�..L
Front Royal
Environmental Senkes, Inc. 2200 Gateway Blvd. • Suite 205 • Morriss isle. NC 2-560
(919)469-9795 • Fax(919)-469-355'
January 27, 1997
Ms. Emily Cameron
Orange County Planning Department
306 F. Revere Road
Hillsborough,NC 27278
RE: Comments on proposed county zoning ordinance draft
Dear Ms. Cameron:
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Orange County Zoning Ordinance draft addressing the
proposed standards for golf course development projects. Thank you for providing me the copies of the
Environmental Assessment requirements and the pertinent sections of the existing ordinance in the county.
Hopefully my enclosed comments will be of assistance in the planning process. My comments are founded
in my scientific and agricultural background as well as previous career experiences in habitat management and
within the pesticide industry.
The comments are my own and do not reflect the position of Front Royal Environmental Services,Inc. Where
necessary I did seek input from other professionals both within our company and from other private and public
institutions. If you have any further questions or needs for which I can be of assistance please give me a call.
Have a good day!
Sincerely,
Anita R. Bahe, Ph.D.
Senior Project Manager
Enclosure
Review comments concerning the final draft of the proposed amendments to the Orange o5 .
County Zoning Ordinance as completed by the Golf Course Amendment Review Task Force
Prepared for: Ms. Emily Cameron, Orange County Planner
Prepared by: Dr. Anita R. Bahe, Front Royal Environmental Services, Inc.
Comment 91 - In order to keep the more detailed contents of the proposed ordinance in proper
context, some clarity is required concerning the purpose of the draft ordinance as it relates to
statements made in the background section contained in the introduction information. In response
to the"most noticeable impact . . . "sentences therein, addressing the size and extent of
disturbance associated with golf courses should perhaps be more distinctly qualified. Though it is
stated that not all golf courses necessarily impart the same impacts, it would be fitting to mention
that the potential impacts are dependent on numerous factors including the specifics of the site; the
type of course being developed(par three, championship, residential component, etc.);the architect
involved in the project; and the financing available. When considering many other land use
alternatives, including but not exclusive to business parks, residential development, waste disposal,
and agricultural expansion, the impacts of a well planned golf course can often be minimal in
comparison. This type of inclusive text helps to keep in perspective the original primary objective
determined in 1995 (Natural Resources Preservation)rather than taking offense, if.you will,to the
golf course development industry.
Revisions to Articles 6 and 22 are positive.
Comment 92- With regards to the establishment of penalties to remedy violations,the type of
golf course project and the ownership will both play a role in the effectiveness of restraints. A
Stop Work Order is apt to be effective in dealing with blatant violations,but the permit
requirements must therefore be very distinctly defined to avoid unnecessary delays to owners,
investors, contractors,etc. on a project that is curtailed due to misinterpretations.
Comment#3- It is good to allow provisions for changing a Special Use Permit(SUP)following
the original approval,but the use of specified criteria may be inappropriate. If the `due diligence'
process reveals acceptable plans are in place and risk has been minimized,then an environmental
summary of the information gathered during this process should be considered. I can not comment
on the ten criteria because they were not included in the draft I received.
Comment#4-II m difficult to make definitive comments about the SUP classifications (no code
definitions included)and the land use restrictions by district due to a lack of familiarity and/or a
lack of descriptive information about the demographics and geographic characterization of each
district. It is advisable to include someplace in the document or in an appendix a thorough
description of each district and each code in order to minimize misinterpretation of the proposed
requirements within the document.
6.16.1 is acceptable
Within 6.23.7 number two, the exception for tree removal in a stream buffer that falls in the line of
play is an acceptable change,but rather than prohibit the removal of stumps or roots,the same
objective could be accomplished with an alterative erosion control, sedimentation prevention,and
1
surface water quality protection plan. It would seem appropriate to require such a plan for the golf
holes where tree removal was necessary. This plan could be included in the site management/BMP
plans that are already required.
It seems that 6.23.7 number three should be included in the plans discussed within number 2. This
helps to avoid redundancy and to encourage comprehensive planning, thus the plan encompasses
the use of new vegetation to prevent erosion, minimize sedimentation, and to maximize the
assimilation of potentially mobile pollutants.
Comment#5-Within the applicability section of 8.8.7.1, the requirement for existing golf courses
should be defined as 50%or more of the total acreage of playable golf holes. Often greens are
reconstructed in order to help with BMP's. Greens constitute less than 5%of the total acreage on
a golf course, but renovation of nine greens would constitute 50%of the holes as the draft
currently states. The total acreage requirement would seem more reasonable.
Within 8.8.7.2 "A categorized biological inventory"may be more appropriate to a given site and
much less subject to misinterpretation, with the exception of species currently protected under the
Endangered Species Act.
Within subpart h., a requirement to submit a comprehensive Strategic Environmental Management
(SEW plan that includes a Resource Management and Mitigation Plan as a part of(or in addition
to)the BMP submitted, once again avoids redundancy and encourages greater integration. The
IPM plan could serve a component of the SEM plan. Suitable IPM program requirements would
include: 1)a summary of the predominant types vegetation and approximate total acreage to be
managed along with, 2)the pest problems associated with each that could occur within the first few
years of operations, and 3) when possible,provide a list of the types of compounds that may be
used(categorized by chemistry rather than trade names)and the biological methods appropriate, in
the event the previously identified pest problems should occur. Within this plan,the proposed
methods of oversight should be summarized as well(scouting,hand sampling,mechanical
monitoring techniques, etc.).
j. -This is already required by law
Within 8.8.7.3 part a, numbers three and four- these requirements may not be unreasonable but
more detail as to the basis or the foundation for the selected parameters should be stated(statistics,
hydrogeological data, insurance requirements, etc.). In number five,a 50'to 75'minimum would
seem adequate Tthe facilities are designed with the appropriate containment and recycling systems
in place. Tire presence of closed loop systems and/or facility design should provide for the option
for lesser distance requirements on a site by site basis.
Within part c-number 2 strike screened(enhanced may be a better term). In number 3, facilities
shall either provide on site composting and recycling. . . or provide a proof of contract with public
or privatized composting and recycling vendors.
Within part e-the requirement in (1)f is unreasonable unless the county is willing to provide
assistance with capital costs for handling the trees for timber purposes. In(2), strike screened,
(enhanced may be a better term). In(5), selection of turfgrasses should be based on local
2
geographic and climatic conditions, maintenance budget restrictions, and availability of quality
seed or sod with the intent of minimizing maintenance requirements and maximizing ecological
integrity of the site.
Within part g, number 6 -this requirement seems a bit to restrictive in that it can be very difficult
to know the total cost of mitigation for new golf development projects that often can take up to
three years of permit processing and other assessment activities to complete. If adequate proof of
compliance and planning is or has been demonstrated along the development pathway,then
financial 'holdings' by the county should be minimal at best. If 30%remains the required
guarantee, then interest on that money should be paid to the financier at the end of the holding
period.
Comment#6- Within 8.8.7.5 a,the requirement in the first paragraph concerning a ten day IPM
revisions turn around is not feasible as new pest problems, drastic climatic changes and effects,
etc. may not be easily addressed. Determination of new IPM strategies within a 10 day period may
often be strategies employed for crisis management, whereas long term management practices may
require several months to identify. A three month time frame for revisions would seem more
reasonable for alternative IPM planning.
Within part a, numbers 1,3, and 6 can be categorized together and the plan should encourage
integration of preventative and curative solutions based on the ecosystem characteristics,
vegetation,methods available, etc. In number 8, pesticide identification categorically is acceptable
(as discussed in comments#5 above). In number 9, notification requirements should remain
consistent with state regulatory requirements and label requirements, realizing that all restricted use
pesticides (RUP)have very strict posting requirements already in place. It would be good to
encourage notification procedures when RUP's are to be applied(newsletters,bulletin boards,etc.)
by club managers in addition to superintendents as well.
In part b number one, rather than isolate it would seem appropriate to require pollution prevention
steps be taken during ...., and in number 2 to require no point source discharges of pollutants onto
the soil surface. Within number 7, "washing of... shall occur in"an approved rinse area
containing a rinse water management system, either for containment and storage of the rinse
water or a rinse water recycling operation. The rinse water shall be filtered using an acceptable
technology and water storage ponds should be properly maintained to prevent surface water and
ground water impacts from occurring.
Within part c number two, "shall identify the primary source(s)and alternative sources"would be
acceptable. In number three simply encourage wastewater reuse where geographically,
geologically,and technically feasible.
Comment#7-Within part a,the monitoring requirements are not going to be feasible in all
instances,nor will the same sampling and monitoring regime be necessary for each operation and
construction project. A comprehensive oversight plan should be required in the BMP and IPM
programs, including a detailed description of how pollution prevention activities and monitoring
will be implemented. Baseline data already available should be used with GIS programs whenever
possible during construction and operation of the course. This comprehensive plan would then
provide the information necessary to identify the acceptable parameters used for testing various
compounds and/or pollutants,thus eliminating the need for part c. The information obtained
3
during the pollution prevention and monitoring activities would then be reported to the appropriate
County agency quarterly the first two years and annually thereafter.
Final Comment- By adding necessary detail to the ordinance and clarifying the requirements as
being consistent with the overall county objective of Natural Resource Preservation,the golf course
industry will be much more receptive, the plans will be reasonable and comprehensive enough to
adequately sustain the environmental integrity of the site, and the overall results can be
economically viable. Some of the requirements the county has proposed are already State and/or
Federal requirements. In the instances where the State already has a sound strategy in place, it
seems unnecessary and risky to tighten the rules even more. This is especially true concerning the
use of pesticides and fertilizers. The registration, labeling, marketing, and application
requirements established for pesticides are in place to minimize the risks associated with their use
and to provide management tools that can prevent catastrophic problems from occurring when
these products are used properly. A comprehensive Strategic Management Plan, containing
mitigation plans, BMP and IPM programs, ecological integration, and provisions for alterations
will allow the County to see economic growth from the golf course industry while owners and
operators utilize sustainable practices.
4
APPROVED APRIL 1 1997
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on
Monday, February 24, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Court Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of
holding a joint public hearing.
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT• Chair William Crowther, and Commissioners Stephen
Halkiotis,Alice M. Gordon, Margaret W. Brown and Moses Carey, Jr.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT• Chair Karen Barrows, and members H. Paul
Hoecke, Nell Andrews, Renee Price, S.A.M. Brooks, Leo Allison, Elizabeth Walters, Joan Jobsis, and Arnie Katz.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Robert Strayhorn
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planners Gene Bell, Mary Willis, Emily Cameron, Eddie
Kirk and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED ME= MTNTTTES ASE IN Fi
PERMANENT AGENDA FILE ZN CIE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDING
TAPP-A 9Z = MEETING W3:LL BE KEPT FOR FIVg _LU YEARS,
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM Ilft CHAIRMAN
Chair Crowther convened the meeting and requested that those who want to speak to sign up on the speakers
list. He stated that the Chair of the Planning Board, Karen Barrows,would chair Items C1 through C3.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Crowther dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS =Planning Board Chair. Karen Barrows. Chaired the following items.
L Comprehensive PJnn Amendment
(MCP-1-97 Stoney Creek Basin Bmap AMR Eim
1) Section 3.3- Land Use Plan Categories
2) Section 3.4-Locational Criteria
3) Section 3.9-Hillsborough Township
4) Section 3.10-Eno Township
5) Section 3.12-Chapel Hill Township
6) Appendix F-Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Map
Gene Bell presented this item for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on the proposed amendments
to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Atlas,Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Those
items in the agenda are numbered as 1a,2.b,3a&4a. He mentioned that a public hearing was held on May 28, 1996 to
present the proposed Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan. The plan emphasized retaining the area's rural character and
protecting landowner's rights and also contained recommendations for implementation. The Board of County
Commissioners adopted the small area plan on August 5, 1996. Following adoption,the 22 member citizen planning group
worked with county staff to develop proposed ordinance amendments for implementation of the plan. The proposed
amendments would:
• Incorporate appropriate references to the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan in the Comprehensive Plan (CP-1-97);
• define the Overlay District boundaries on the Zoning Atlas(Z-2-97)
• create a Stoney Creek Basin Overlay Zoning District;and
2
• modify Flexible Development provisions in the Subdivision Regulations as applied to the District to provide consistency
between the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS:
Lee Rafalow, a member of the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Committee, said that this group's effort could be
used as a model for other Small Area Plans. He complimented Gene Bell on the work that he did with this Committee. He
endorsed the plan in general, but he requested that several areas be reviewed again by the Planning Board along with
several members of the Stoney Creek Committee. He mentioned in particular that there was a concern about the setback
options for the Village Option. Several members felt that the commercial center of the Village Option should be buffered and
set back so as not to be visible from the road. They had come up with recommendations which would encourage that
outcome.
Cheri Rosemond,a resident of the Stoney Creek Basin area,appreciated being notified about this being an agenda
item. She is concerned about the possibility that the Stoney Creek Planning process as well as the regular Flexible
Development Plan process could go forward without notification to the local homeowners. She would very much like to have
homeowners notified when items impacting their neighborhood come before the Planning Board. She also requested
information regarding the 30 acre park that was mentioned as a part of another development. She hoped that if a similar
situation existed in the Stoney Creek Basin the residents would be notified and the County would work with the landowners
about how the park would be developed and used.
County Manger John Link indicated that the Master Plan for Recreation and Parks would be revisited by the Board
of Commissioners in the near future. At that time they will be asked to appoint a committee to review the current plan. A
part of that review would certainly be to include the area residents in discussion and planning.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey,Jr.,seconded by Commissioner Gordon,to refer the proposed
amendments(Cl a, 2b, 3a, &4a)to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
Commissioners no sooner than April 1, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Zoning Aff"Amendments
W) 21-97 Carden's Body and Paint Service
This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a rezoning
proposal of the Planning Staff to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas. The properties are located on the east side of NC 157
between Wagoner Dairy Road and Blalock Road. The rezoning involves two contiguous parcels: Tax Map No.1.10..10G at
7700 NC 157, containing 2.02 acres and owned by Charlie and Jeroline Mangum; and Tax Map No. 1.10..10G at 7709 NC
157, having 10.97 acres and owned by William H.Carden,Jr. (Carden's Paint and Body Service).
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: None.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey,Jr.,to refer the
proposed Zoning Atlas amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
Commissioners no sooner than April 1, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
LW Z2-97 StQngy Creek BAIn Overlay Distri
This item was heard concurrent with Item C1(a).
Zoning Ordinance TW Amendments
l 2 Stoney Creek Basin Bmall Alga Plan
1) Article 4.2.32-Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District
3
2) Article 6.30 Extra Requirements for the Stoney Creek Basin
Overlay District
This item was heard concurrent with Item C1(a).
Courses
1) Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table
2) Article 6.16.10 Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses
Recreational Facilities(Profit/Non-Profit):Golf Club and Golf
Country club.
3) Article 6.23 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
4) Article 22 Definitions-Goff Course
5) Article 8.8.7 Special Uses(Golf Courses)
This item was presented by Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on proposed
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to include standards for golf courses. On August 20, 1996, the Board of
Commissioners adopted a charge and appointed members to the Golf Course Amendment Review Task Force (Golf
CART). The Golf CART began meeting in September 1996 and continued its work through February of 1997. At the end of
December, a draft was distributed to 27 agencies and individuals for review and comment, including the Institute of
Govemment, state agencies involved with water quality and pesticide regulations, the Recreation and Parks Advisory
Council, the US Golf Association, the National Association of Counties, US Environmental Protection Agency, the Golf
Course Superintendents Association of America, the American Society of Golf Course Architects, and the Center for
Resource Management. Twelve responses were received. Written comments were part of the agenda packet.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Gordon mentioned that the Permitted Use Table previously allowed Golf Courses as a matter of right
in more districts than the current table does including commercial districts. She felt that it would make sense to allow golf
courses in some of those districts by Special Use Permit. She requested that the Planning Board discuss this further.
Ms. Cameron mentioned that the debate was lengthy on this issue. The end point of the discussion was that the
CART members were attempting to be consistent with the description of the districts. At the same time, in a practical
sense,the acreage is limited for the commercial uses. The possibility of undeveloped existing commercial land existing
which could be used for a golf course development where it would not already be permitted is very unlikely. She assured
Commissioner Gordon that the Planning Board would revisit this issue.
Commissioner Brown requested clarification on Attomey Gledhill's comments regarding pesticides.
Ms.Cameron mentioned that there is a section in the NC General Statutes that preempts local jurisdictions from
adopting regulations which would address, in any way,the applications to use or store pesticides. It is very specific with
regard to the limit it puts on local jurisdictions.The CART included information in the initial draft regarding pesticide use,
safety, notification, storage areas,etc., primarily for information. Because of the General Statutes they were required to
delete them from the initial draft of this document.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS:
Allen Spalt, a member of the CART Committee,thanked Emily Cameron for the excellent staff support that she
provided to the group. He mentioned that this group was not anti-golf and, in fact,the golf interest was well represented.
The goal of this group was to regulate, not prohibit,golf courses. He requested that the Board of Commissioners seek to
repeal the State's preemption provision regarding pesticides. This group had agreed to several provisions which would have
further protected against the negative effects of pesticides. He felt that this purging was unfortunate and weakened the
proposed Ordinance. He stated that there is a real need for voluntary compliance with higher standards. Finally, he
mentioned that the Audubon Certification known as"Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System" does not actually place any
restrictions on golf course operations. He requested that the Commissioners maintain oversight control. His comments in
their entirety are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
Kent Scott commented that he actually had come prepared to discuss the Audubon International Certification. He
mentioned that he has had several discussions with Ronald Datsun,with Audubon International,who sent him information,
including a video tape. He felt that it was potentially a very good program and requested that the Board of Commissioners
4
read the material and watch the video. The Audobon International actually works with new construction of golf courses for a
substantial fee. They also work with the staff of the courses to assure that they understand how to maintain the courses ,
without damaging the environment. He felt that using this company could be a good way to maintain a high standard without
having to hire an engineer to handle the job.
Rick Robbins, a member of the Golf CART, mentioned that he supported the recommendations of this committee.
He felt that golf courses are a very good use in industrial and commercial areas. They help to buffer other uses. The fact
that Orange County does not have any large, unused commercial areas, is no reason to delete them from the Use Tables.
Zoning does change and they are not a bad use in those areas. Golf Courses are sometimes singled out as a bad use of
land;the science does not back up that concern. He requested that golf courses not be singled out for regulations over and
above other uses.
Dr.Charles Peacock,a member of the Golf CART, mentioned that he has been involved in golf course projects in
many states across the country,teaching turf grass management as well as other areas. He also does work with the
Audubon International program. There are two classifications for this program. The Cooperative Sanctuary System allows
any existing course to enroll and gain certification in six areas-environmental planning,wildlife habitat and management,
public outreach,water quality management,water conservation and integrated pest management. When a course submits
their documentation proving that they have attained the minimum requirements,the course is certified as a Sanctuary. That
designation means that they are taking the environmentally sound approach to golf course management. The Signature
Status is reserved for new courses which have reached stringent requirements from a development viewpoint. This group is
a non-profit,environmental group. It is voluntary, not regulatory. He feels it is an excellent program.
John Hansel spoke in support of the game of golf itself. He mentioned that he appreciated the Task Force's efforts.
He wanted to make sure that we do not discourage golf courses,especially public golf courses.
John Sidorakis commended the work done by the Task Force. He felt that the Special Use Permit issue needs to
be addressed so that there are not undue restrictions placed on the construction of new courses. This is a good source of
revenue as well as being a great source of recreation for many citizens. He also asked who would be responsible for
interpreting these regulations.
Rick Brannon, a golf professional,commended the work of this Task Force. He asked that the Board of
Commissioners keep the cost of building courses in mind when they set regulations. This needs to be a sport for citizens
with average income.
Craig Thompson, a Task Force member,commended the work of this group. He is a golf course superintendent.
He feels that this is a good document. One concern that he has is over regulating golf courses while ignoring other
potentially harmful land uses like Walmart and schools. The other concern he has is how the document will be interpreted
and who will be charged with that task. He asked that the County Attorney look at these issues. He asked that the Special
Use Permit not be used for the golf course process and that the definitions in the document be carefully established.
Ben Lloyd spoke in support of the game of golf as a past time in our county. He mentioned that he has discussed
this document with a builder in another state who felt that our regulations would prohibit him from building a golf course in
our county. He felt that golf courses have many environmental benefits and are not harmful. He felt that this document was
too strict.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey,Jr., seconded by Commissioner Brown,to refer the proposed
amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
May 5, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
LCl Re-approval 4f Special JLao Permits
1) Article 8.8.24 Historic Sites Non-Residential Use/Mixed Use
(Class A Special Use)
This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed
amendment which would allow the Board of Commissioners to re-approve Special Use Permits for non-residential use of
historic sites upon receipt of a report from the Planning Staff that the use has maintained compliance with the provisions of
5
the Special Use Permit. On April 1, 1985,the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow historic structures outside of activity
nodes to be used for non-residential purposes. The use is allowed with approval of a Class A Special Use Permit in the
Agricultural Residential(AR), Rural Residential(R1)and Rural Buffer(RB)zoning districts. A time limit of six years was
included to provide for a periodic review to assure that the integrity of the historic site was maintained. Continuation of the
use beyond six years requires re-approval by the Board of Commissioners. Re-approval under current regulations requires
submittal of a new application and preparation of public hearing agenda materials,as if it were a new use. Special Use
Permits for non-residential use of historic sites have been approved by the Board of Commissioners for the Bingham School
Inn,The Old Place, Green Hill and Reba and Roses. There are no known instances of non-compliance or citizen complaints
concerning any of these uses. The proposed amendment would allow the Board of Commissioners to re-approve Special
Use Permits for non-residential use of historic sites at a regular meeting, upon receiving a compliance report from Planning
Staff. If compliance has been maintained,then the permit could be re-approved. If compliance has not been maintained,
then the permit would expire at the end of its 6-year time limit. In that case,the applicant could submit a new application,as
if it were a new use. Likewise,submittal of a new application would be required if modification of the original permit was
proposed.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: None.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon,seconded by Commissioner Carey,Jr. ,to refer the proposed
amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
April 1, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
& Subdivision Regulations TRa Amendments
(a) Section IV-B-10 Flexible Development. Section la:Applicability
This item was heard concurrent with C1.
Special Un Permit
Chair Crowther Chaired all of fte following items.
Emily Cameron, Eddie Kirk, Inna Deng Johnson, Jerry Lane Craddock and Harold Harris were sworn in
by the Deputy Clerk, Kathy Baker.
JM SUP(A)-1-97-1-97 Jbg IM at Bingham School UM and Breakfast)
The following item was presented by Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comment
on the renewal of the Class A Special Use Permit for the Inn at Bingham School to allow the site to continue as a bed and
breakfast inn in accordance with Article 8.8.24 of the Zoning Ordinance, Historic Sites Non-Residential Reuse/Mixed Use.
The Inn at Bingham School is an existing historic site located in western Bingham Township and listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. On September 30, 1985,the Board of County Commissioners approved a Class A Special Use
Permit for the site to be operated as a bed and breakfast inn. Article 8.8.24.2 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes a six-
year time limit on this type of Special Use Permit. The owners who purchased the property in 1994 are now requesting
renewal of the permit. The property is located at the northeast comer of the intersection of NC Highway 54 West and
Mebane Oaks Road(SR 1007). The current zoning is Agricultural Residential and Cane Creek Protected Watershed. The
parcel contains 9.98 acres and is referenced as lot 19 on Tax Map 17. The Inn remains in compliance with the conditions
of the original Special Use Permit. A draft of the renewed permit is in the attachments and includes language to allow the
owners to host outdoor receptions for guests staying at the Inn. It also would allow an existing smokehouse to be
converted to rest room facilities, pending approval of the Orange County Health Department, Division of Environmental
Health,and the Inspections Division of the Planning Department.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: None
6
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon,seconded by Commissioner Brown,to refer the proposed
amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
May 5, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
W SUP( -2-97 1hg Qjd Place kBed and Breakfaso
This item was presented by Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on the
renewal of a Class A Special Use Permit for The Old Place,a Bed and Breakfast establishment. On October 17, 1989, the
Board of County Commissioners issued a Class A Special Use Permit to Joseph and Avis Rice to operate a Bed and
Breakfast in a historic log cabin. The Table of Permitted Uses identifies this use as"Historic Sites Non-Residential Mixed
Use." Article 8.8.24.2 of the Zoning Ordinance limits this type of permit to a six-year period. The Rices requested renewal of
their permit in December 1996.The property is located in Cheeks Township, on the west side of Saddle Club Road. A log
cabin is located on the property which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the Paisley-Rice Log House.
The house in located on an 11.83 acre parcel. The facility provides food and lodging for up to four guests at any given time.
Site conditions and operation of the bed and breakfast remain the same as when the Special Use Permit was approved in
1989. The property owner has rights to an easement along the southeastern comer of the property to Saddle Club Road.
The easement currently provides access to the log house. The parcel has adequate frontage on Saddle Club Road,so that
a separate driveway could be utilized if any problems with the existing access easement arise in the future.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS:
Mr.Jerry Craddock,an adjacent landowner, mentioned that the map shows a road entering the property on the
back side of the 32 acres. The owner of The Old Place has road frontage and he would very much like for that portion of the
property to be used for entrance and exit to The Old Place. This use of his property causes 1/4 of an acre of his land to be
unusable.
Emily Cameron commented that her understanding was that the road frontage was granted through perpetual
easement.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey,Jr.,seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer the proposed
amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
May 5, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
W. SUP(A)-3-97 Orange Regional Landfill
This item was presented by Eddie Kirk for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a Class A
Special Use Permit for an addition to the Orange Regional Landfill. The Orange Regional Landfill is located on the north and
south side of Eubanks Road(SR 1727)north of Chapel Hill. The subject property(Tax Map Number 7.18..27D)contains
12.76 acres and is located immediately west of the existing landfill on the north side of Eubanks Road. It is zoned Rural
buffer and designated Rural Buffer on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The existing landfill is in the Chapel Hill
Transition Area on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The applicants are requesting a Class A Special Use Permit
under Article 8.8.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to construct a 4000 square foot vehicle maintenance building,to
process yard waste and storm debris on an ongoing basis,and to process recyclable materials which will include white
appliances,tires and scrap metal. Access to the site will be provided through the existing landfill. There will be no direct
access to Eubanks Road. A 100-foot buffer will be provided around the perimeter of the site,except along the eastern
border, next to the existing landfill.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification about storage of scrap metal on the site.
Mr. Kirk stated that the scrape metal would be in roll-off containers. He asked Mr. Harold Hams,who is employed
at the Landfill,to speak to this matter. Mr. Harris was sworn in at this time.
Harold Harris indicated that they are requesting the option to use this land for the purpose of recycling, not only for
white goods,but tires and scrap metal as well. He indicated that at the present time they do not intend to recycle white
goods or any other metals but they would like to have the option. In response to a question,he stated that no one lives next
door to the landfill. Duke University is on the North side and on the west side there are no houses. Across the road about
500 feet down there is a house. He also mentioned that this 4000 sq.ft.facility would be in operation 15 or 20 years at
least Water would be provided by well and sewer by septic system.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS:
Ms. Inna Deng Johnson,a landowner adjacent to this site, requested that the landfill not be expanded. The
landowners in this area are not being compensated for loss of property value which results from living near the landfill. She
felt that the time was wrong to allow this facility to be built. It would be a better idea to have the question of siting the new
landfill answered prior to any additional building on this site.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey.,Jr.,seconded by Commissioner Brown,to refer the proposed
amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
April 1, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
(.d) PD_1_97 Carolina Friends School(Modification)
This item was presented by Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a
proposed modification to the Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School which would allow the school to swap acreage
with Duke University and modify the boundaries of the school site. Carolina Friends school is an existing private school
located on the north side of Mt Sinai Road (SR 1718)and west of Friends School Road (SR 1719). The property contains
33.94 acres and is zoned PD-RB, Planned Development-Rural Buffer. In August of 1990 a Class A Special Use Permit
was issued for Carolina Friends School to allow the use of the school's wastewater disposal system in the Rural Buffer.
Article 6.20.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a package treatment plant with a design capacity over 3000 gallons per
day may be allowed in the RB district only through approval of a planned development. Article 6.3.2.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance also requires a planned development approval where there are multiple principal structures on a non-residential
lot greater than two acres in size. The Board of Directors of Carolina Friends School adopted a five-year master plan in
1991 for development of the school. In 1992 the Special Use Permit was modified to include expansion of buildings and
parking consistent with the school's master plan. In 1996,6,500 square feet of additional floor area was included in the
Special Use Permit for a new library/arts building and expansion of several other existing structures. The changes also
involved a Zoning Atlas amendment to rezone the 16.38 acres being added to the school from Rural Buffer to Planned
Development-Rural Buffer,and to rezone the acreage going to Duke University from PD-RB to RB.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: None.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon,seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer the proposed
amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
May 5, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The public hearing remains open, for written comment only, until the close of the Orange County Planning Board
meeting on April 3rd.
M REPORTS JE21 information oj*_=a pybli hearing)
I Triangle Transit Authority
This item was postponed until a later meeting.
L CLOSED SESSION_Personnel ma ter. Authority: x.143-318.11 (a=
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, Jr., seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to go into
Closed Session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter in accordance with G.S. 143-318.11(a)(6).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Chair Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to return to Open Session.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Chair Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to adjourn the meeting.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Orange County
Board of Commissioners will take place on March 5, 1997 in the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
William L. Crowther, Chair
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk