HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-21-1997 - 9c 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 21, 1997
Action Agenda
Item #_a-C
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: Yes No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes_X—No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron
Extension 2580
Proposed Amendments
Agency Comments TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
NC GS Section 143-465 Hillsborough - 732-8181
2/24/97 Public Hearing Minutes Durham - 688-7331
4/2/97 Draft Planning Board Mebane -227-2031
Minutes Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to
include standards for golf courses.
BACKGROUND: (Please refer to pages 3-5 of the proposed amendment for 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, at draft was distributed to 27 agencies and individuals
for review and comment, including the Institute of Government, state agencies
involved with water quality and pesticide regulation, the Orange County
2
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.
The proposed amendments were presented at the public hearing on February 24.
Minutes are included in the attachments. Nine citizens spoke at the hearing. Their
concerns included golf courses in commercial and industrial districts, the special
use permit process, preemption by State Pesticide regulations, the Audubon
International certification program, overregulation of golf courses, and
interpretation of the proposed standards.
Commissioner Gordon requested that the Planning Board discuss the potential for
allowing golf courses in commercial and industrial zoning districts, perhaps as a
special use. The approach taken by the Golf CART prohibits golf courses in
commercial and industrial districts, which is consistent with Article 4.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance that contains the statements of intent for each zoning district.
Recreational uses are included in most of the residential districts, but are not
included in the description of the purpose of commercial and industrial districts
along with office, service,manufacturing,processing,etc.
Undeveloped land zoned for commercial or industrial uses is extremely limited in
Orange County's jurisdiction (not including Economic Development Districts
where golf courses are not permitted). For a developer to propose a golf course in
one of those districts, a rezoning would be necessary. In all likelihood, land in a
Commercial-Industrial Activity Node being rezoned as described would be
currently zoned residential, where a golf course could be allowed with a Special
Use Permit. Consequently, the Planning Staff has concluded that allowing golf
courses in commercial and industrial districts would serve no useful purpose.
On April 2 the Planning Board reviewed the proposed amendments. The draft
minutes of their discussion are included in the attachments. The Planning Board
voted 9 to 2 to recommend approval of the proposed regulations for golf courses.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the public hearing be closed and that the
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance be approved to include standards and
approval procedures for golf courses.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 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
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
4
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
f. Utilities Plan
g. Landscape Plan
h. Resources Management and Mitigation Plan
i. Integrated Pest Management Program
j. Hazardous Materials Management Plan
8.8.7.3 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
5
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
6
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
_4_BOCC Public
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 1995-96. 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 Goff 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
7
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
8
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 proportion to the use are considered minor
and eligible for administrative review.
9
2111197 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 Countryclubj
6.16.10 Recreational Facilities (1'rofit/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 I 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
iPROPOSED AMENDMENT Final Draft 6a
M H
10
a ..
a
o
a �.
'Zi a
w N
N v
� 4
N • s . a m . rrf
N
w « a a m • N
M M
I �
O �
fs7
r
m m U s « r
k]G7 U
as u
FF U U
4 4 U
.1 0 . « a . N
Z U
Z
N:]w
�5 a m • �
a
C
❑ytaA 0.' m � Q e0
v�
m a
❑I E�C a�G m Q
cn to r
y m Q 6
N N N N
• 4m a m ¢ C4
x a
m m ¢ mm "
z
I
I
0
> m
c 0m
x > e ii e
u
so� ove0i
m•�•H m Ey o w O w .•
d y Z v V
> V O > > O O L m m m C
>. �+ >+ Aj O >� O O O O 41
O w O O V o m > t ..1
y w m y-.1 fa -i a aJ d 41 aJ Q ►r .-�
m -4 ..4
ry c v C Ir 0 4 V O O U V m y w .4 C
O F N7 0 7 .a t O O 4 -^� m w O
a.i d. W W O •� U ❑ C7
0 9►E.I ws E e O
_ a o 0 4 o w
A.
-. o a o o m o o a >
C\j m m m e
y = m o xom -4 a w e c c w 6r u u u
.a m E u O O O o e c e
y 7 O N a% ..1 ..� -.4 y Z O O O
m L O w m iJ O V o m C u 41 IJ U w w w
m 0 0 > O 0 0 >+1 . -4 �4 ..1 O O O w w 7 7
u u w V w O w O iJ O O O . O O O O
C "4 O< C -4 O AC 4J w 4J iJ c w w w O O u u L
w e 7 w e m L m m -y V V V a m m m m
/ E OCO9Zm w o O-. V O w o 0 cog 0 0 0 0
9 O 0 2 0 As 92 a a cc x C w cc x cc
C
r Ln
m F" �f w1 Af Af r r
y N y y y y y y y y y y y
4-17 PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Final Draft 6b
11
*6.23 EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY
DISTRICTS
*Amended
1/1/94
Pursuant to requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-214.5(Chapter 143, Article 21),
thirteen (13) Watershed Protection Overlay Districts, as described in Article 4.2.27,�Vof this
Ordinance, have been established for lands within the watersheds of existing or potential drinking
water rivers and reservoirs. 'These districts overlay other zoning districts established in this
Ordinance and delineated on the Orange County Zoning Atlas. Wherever standards of the
underlying zoning district differ from the watershed overlay standards, the more restrictive
provisions shall apply.
6.23.1 LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
All uses and activities allowed in the underlying zoning district are permitted with the following
exceptions:
DISTRICT LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
UNIV-CA
UNIV-PW No new landfills are permitted.
CANE-CA No commercial or industrial uses are permitted.
' U-ENO-CA No new Qolf courses are permitted.
- UNTV-CA
CANE-CA No sludge application is permitted.
U-ENO-CA
CANE-PW
U-ENO-PW
HYCO-PW No discharging landfills are permitted.
ACK- -PW
B Industrial use is limited to non-hazardous light industrial uses characterized by
ACK-PW low water use (less than 10,000 gpd, excluding domestic water (25 gpd per
HAW-P W W employee) and water used for hearing and air conditioning).
HAW-P
L-ENO-PW
JORDAN-PW
6.26
12
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 ofpage 4-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically, use
S35, Recreational Facilities(Profit/Non-profit): Go f Club and Golf Countryclub,
proposed as a Class A Special Use instead of a permitted use.]
Article 6.16.10 Ree..enation-al F eilities (PFefi.nven FT:q'}'Reserved
The f lle.,4ag restFi.+ions shall be plied re .refit ,-efit atio a
„) :_flea.., let area shall be 50 ae..es
b)—Ne building shall be eleseter"than 20 feet to sa pr-epeFly line-6r-the-mi 41.—
) Tie .-, e than'' den-ti€eatien-signs,not to emeeed 16 square feet each and —
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
13
2111197 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 ]
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 intenders line of play may
be cut provided stumps and root mass are not removers and trees
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-e&aie4 stream, as per
applicable Orange County standards.
Article 8 Special Uses
8.8 Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses
8.8.7 (New) Golf Courses
8.8.7.1 Intent
14
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;
15
2111197 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 tb 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
(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;
16
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
27
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)J; 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
rare, 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
18
2111197 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.
19
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 fimctions;
(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:
20
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
21
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:
i
(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
22
(5) 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 23
(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.
L 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,
24
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
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
25
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 Definitions
Golf Course - A tract of land designed and laid out for the game of golf. The
fer. an—in-te L. 1e a e shall be fifi ., aefes. 'T'L.a ff4aiffium a f
eighteen hole-gel€eeu£re slh- 1 be e"e hiandfed Golf courses include. but are
not limited to courses open to the general public for a daily user fee private courses
26
2111197 Final Draft Page 21
available to members and their guests courses proposed as a single independent
use. as well as those planned as an accessory use which is part of a residential or
recreational development.
A golf course development may also include the following accessory uses and
building Wically associated with such a facility: club house. restaurant/snack bar:
barroom; pro 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
306F REVERE ROAD 27
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
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.
Jay 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
H.lf°"+ tFa�.t►�+ Rich Ducker, Institute of Government Phil Oshida, USEPA
Ron Holdway, Environmental Health Director EA RoUAVIct, OW4`4&
FROM: Emily Cameron, ASLA, Planner II/Landscape Architect lacc
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 28
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
129 E.TRYON STREET
P.O.DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 February 10, 1997
919-732.2196
FAX 919-732.7997 FROM THE DESK OF
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 29
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 EMAD GLEDHILL & HARGPAtTE, P.C.
i
eoffrey E. G1 i11
GEG/lsg
Enclosure
30
Article 22 Definitions
Golf Course - A tract of land designed and laid
out for the game of golf, including accessory uses
and buildings . The mlni=mum area- fe �-
eeeEse shall be-fifty--a rres. The-mom um area €eE
an 7 h�een hole q- be ene-hundred
aer____ Ei include courses associated
with a Qol'f '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.
I 31
INSTITUTE Of GOVERNMENT
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 preferential 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.
cerely,
chard D. Ducker
Assistant Director
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
CB#3330 Knapp Building.Chapel Hill,NC 27599-3330
919 966-5381 .919 962.0654(Pax)
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 32
306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516
'� Telephone(919)968-2700
January 13, 1997
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,
*per
veCoordinator
33
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTS
221 NORTH LA SALLE STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601
312-372-7090 410
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 challenge 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 34
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 either 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.
35
Ms. Emily Cameron
Page Three
January 22, 1997
S. 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,
PQ j Idr
Paul Fullmer
Executive Secretary
PF:di
� �Gspv�^ rte, 36
d 1-30-
Front Royal
Environmental Services, Inc. 2200 Gateway Blvd. • Suite 20-5 • ,NlOrris;lle. NC 2-iOO
(919)469-9795 Fax(919)-169-355-
January 27, 1997
Ms. Emily Cameron
Orange County Planning Department
306 F. Revere Road
Hillsborough,NC 27278
RE: Comments on proposed county zoni>ag 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,
&*'�' R. zoak
Anita R. Bahe, Ph.D.
Senior Project Manager
Enclosure
37
Review comments concerning the final draft of the proposed amendments to the Orange
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#1 -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#2- 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-It is 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 alternative erosion control, sedimentation prevention,and
1
38
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 ofpotentially 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
(SEM)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 if the facilities are designed with the appropriate containment and recycling systems
in place. The 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
39
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 a-.ceptable
(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
40
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
11. 13%?6 11 =51 a 919 695 1222 Turf9rassCouncil P,@3
?96 1E=d'1 PRr.I 70 r.02
41
�1 -465 STATE DEPARTMENTS,ETC. §�43-466
1413-"5. Reciprocity;intergovernmental cooper.
ation.
(a) The Board may issue any license required by this Article on a y _.
reciprocal basis with other states without examination to a nonres-
ident who is licensed in another state substantially is accordance
with any of the ous of the Article, pro�vidgd that financial
samrity as provided for in G.B. 143-457 is met.
(bb) The Board may cooperate or enter into formal agreements
with any other=cy of this State or its subdivisions or with any
agency of any ether state or of the federal governmeut for the
purpose,of enforcing any of the provisions of this Article.
(c In order to avoid confusion resulting from diverse require-
ments and to avoid increased costs to the people of this State due to
the necessity of cosirlying with such diverse requirements in the
manufacture and sale of such pest des,it is desirable that there
should be uniformity between the requirements of the several states
t and the federal government relating to such pesticides.7b this end
the Board is authmized,after public b"ring,to adopt by regulation
such regulations, applicable to and in conformity with the primary
' 253
§143-466 1995 CuMULa3M suPPLEbUM f US-488
standards established by this Article, as have been or may be
�Ax�b',end��respect to Pesticides by departments or agencies of
(d) No co government.
�,city,or other political subdivision of the State sW
adopt or continue = effect any cwt- p rT tics, or
disposal,15* mWation,fabbeeE, distribntzoa,
on,manufacture,or
i Board ttoa of icides in an area gs. 'ect to regulation by the
a county, � or other�ti ll thls section a St prohibit
subdivision of the Btate fi
Cerc��ag rta AI ai and authmity under ArWe 19 of
hanter 16aA of the general Statu orArtide 18 of Chaptar 153A
Of the General Statutes, or from exercising its dre gmintion or
i"Wed a authm' :(1971,c.882,a. 1; 1.995,c. 445,
X8N*or — s99s
■dded ( 18, �
NOV-13-1996 1155 9196951222 98% P.03
11:7Id 8 919 695 1'2'22 Tur£9rassCouncil
P-02
MOV-13-1996 IO:e3 FROM TO 391 06951222 P-04
42
M MX OF LOCAL R1709 AUM OF STi _IDE USE
A 1995 amendment to the North Carolina Pesticide Law clearly proluUs local govenunents
from regulating pesticide use. (See attached)
This cannot be carctmavct tad by including use restrictions as part of a zoning ordinance. Tho
pv-enrpdon amendment does not prohibit a local government from exercising its zoning althority,
but that authority cannot be used to c u=uvent pro-caption. Otherwise,a local govvrnm of could
effectively nullify the obvious intent ofthe General Assembly by adopting pesticide use rc#dctiona
as part of a zoning ordi umm
The o*logial way to interpret the pre-emption statute is that a local government may use
its zoning authority to regulate land use,but arty pesticide use which is incidental to the land use is
not subject to local regulation- Fof exan 4k a local govet=mt could prohibit office bunUd'urga is
certain areas,,but it could not regulate heron pesticides wevaed or stored in those offitce btuMngs.
Even without the specific 1995 pm emptson a,nmeadm«et,local gavermneats would be pre
empted from the We of use restrictions £Quad in the proposed "Standards for Golf Courses."
Section 143-440 of the North Carolina Pesticide Law authorizes the Pesticide Hoard to impose
additional use restrictions if necessary because umzsual harards of a particular pesticide. Otherwise,
the use of the pesticide is subject only to the use restrictions found on the federally-approved label.
Art
NOV-13-1996 1154 9196951222 93'i. ~' A P.02
2/24/9'1 PV 6Lt C �L'—dfLt�lC H l�tl lln°.�
2 43
1 He endorsed the plan in general,but he requested that several areas be reviewed again by the Planning BoaM along
2 with several members of the Stoney Creek Committee. He mentioned in particular that there was a concern about the
3 setback options for the Village Option. Several members felt that the commercial center of the Wlage Option should
4 be buffered and set balk so as not to be visible from the road. They had come up with which would
5 encourage that outcome.
6
7 Cheri Rosernond,a msldeM of the Stoney Creek Basin area, appreciated being notified about this being an
8 agenda item. She is concerned about the possibility that the Stoney Creek Planning process as well as the regular
9 Flexible Development Plan process could go forward without notification to the local homeowners. She would very
10 much like to have homeowners notified when items impacting their neighborhood come before the Planning Board.
11 She also requested information regarding the 30 acre park that was mentioned as a part of another development She
12 hoped that if a similar situation existed in the Stoney Creek Basin the residents would be notified and the County would
13 work with the landowners about how the park would be developed and used.
14
15 County Manger John Link indicated that the Master Plan for Recreation and Parks would be revisited by the
16 Board of Commissioners in the near future. At that time they will be asked to appoint a committee to review the current
17 plan. A part of that review would certainly be to include the area residents in discussion and planning.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey,Jr.,seconded by Commissioner Gordon,to refer the proposed
20 amendments(Cl a,2b,3a,S 4a)to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
21 Commissioners no sooner than April 1. 1897.
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 2. Zonina Atlas Amendments
25 W &j.-87 Garden's_Body and Paint Service
26 This Rem was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a rezoning
27 proposal of the Planning Staff to corned an error in the Zoning Atlas. The properties are located on the east side of NC
28 157 between Wagoner Dairy Road and Blalock Road. The rezoning involves two contiguous parcels: Tax Map
29 No.1.10..10G at 7700 NC 157, containing 2.02 acres and owned by Charlie and Jeroline Mangum: and Tax Map No.
30 1.10-.10G at 7709 NO 157, having 10.87 acres and owned by William H. Carden, Jr. (Carden's Paint and Body
31 Service).
32
33 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None.
34 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None.
35 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: None.
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon,seconded by Commissioner Carey,Jr.,to refer the
38 proposed Zoning Atlas amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
39 Commissioners no sooner than April 1, 1967.
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 j„b 2 2-97 St on Creek Basin Overlay District
43 This item was heard concurrent with Item C1(a).
44
45 Zonirt9 Ordinance Text Amendments
46 u Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
47 1) Adide 4232-Stoney Creek Basin Overlay Distrid
48 2) Article 6.30 Extra Requirements for the Stoney Creek Basin
49 Overlay District
»50 This item was heard concurrent with item C1(a).
51 fla Golf
52 1) Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table
53 2) Article 6.16.10 Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses
54 Reare>idionsl Facilities(ProfiUNNon-Pmfit):Golf Club and Golf
55 Country dub.
56 3) Amick 623 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
57 4) Article 22 Definitions-Golf Course
58 5) Article 8.8.7 Special Uses(Golf Courses)
. . �� aJJ ate+•tea_ LSUI.I.%1'WfaNUCK � _c.c.s _ __ (j
44
3
1 This 2 smerdmertts to the item was Pied by Emily Cameroun for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on proposed
Za*V Ordinance to include standards for golf courses. On August 20. 1446, the Board of
3 Commissioners adopted a dwge and appointed members to the Golf Course Amendment Review Task Fax(Gaff CART).
4 The Golf CART began meeting in September 1498 and caoriWaled Its work through Feixuary of 1447. At the end of
5 December, a draft was debuted to Z7 agencrts and irdividuais.for review and comment, inciixfirg the Institute of
6 Govemment,state agencies involved with water quality and pesticide MpWions.the Recreation and Parks Advisory Ccrexa,
7 the US Golf Association, the National Association of Coixties, US Environmental Protection Agency, the Golf Course
8 SuperintendentO Association of America, the American Sodety.of Goat Course Architects, and the Center far Resource
9 Management Twelve responses were received. Written comments were part of the agenda packet.
10
11 COMMENTS AND10R QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
12 Commissioner Gordon mentioned that the Permitted Use Table previously allowed Golf Courses as a matter of
13 right in more districts than the current table does Including commercial districts. She felt that It would make sense to
14 allow golf courses In some of those dWcts by Special Use Permit. She requested that the Planning Board disarsa this
15 further.
16
17 Ms.Cameron mentioned that the debate was lengthy on this issue. The end point of the discussion was that
18 the CART members were attempting to be consistent with the description of the districts. At the same time,in a
19 practical sense,the acreage is limited for the commercial uses. The possibility of undeveloped existing commercial
20 land existing which could be used for a golf course development where it would not already be permitted Is very
21 unlikely. She assured Commissioner Gordon that the Planning Board would revisit this issue.
22
23 Commissioner Brown requested clarification on Attorney Gledhill's comments mgardug pesticides.
24
25 Ms.Cameron mentioned that there is a section in the NC General Statutes that preempts local jurisdictions
26 from adopting:regulations which-would address,in any way,the applications to use or store pesticides. It Is very
27 specific with regard to the limit it puts on local jurisdictions.The CART included information in the initial draft regarding
28 pesticide use,safety,notification,storage areas,etc.,primarily for Information. Because of the General Statutes they
29 were required to delete them from the initial draft of this document.
30
31 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None.
32
33 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS:
34 Allen Spalt,a member of the CART Committee,thanked Emily Cameron for the excellent staff support that she
35 provided to the group. He mentioned that this group was not anti-golf and.in fad,the golf interest was well
36 represented. The goal of this group was to regulate, not prohibit,golf courses. He requested that the Board of
37 Commissioners seek to repeal the State's preemption provision regarding pesticides. This group had agreed to several
38 provisions which would have further protected against the negative effects of pesticides. He felt VW this purging was
39 unfortunate and weakened the proposed Ordinance. He stated that there is a mean need for voluntary compliance with
40 higher standards. Finally,he mentioned that the Audubon Certification known as*Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary
41 System' does not actually place any restrictions on golf course operations. He requested that the Commissioners
42 maintain oversight control. His comments in their entirety are in the permanent agenda file in the Cleric's office.
43
44 Kent Scott commented that he actually had come prepared to discuss the Audubon International Certification.
45 He mentioned that he has had several discussions with Ronald Datsun,with Audubon International,who sent him
46 information, inducting a video tape. He fen that it was potentially a very good program and requested that the Board of
47 Commissioners read the material and watch the video. The Audobon International actually works with new constnrclion
48 of golf parses for a substantial fee. They also work with the staff of the courses to assure that they understand how to
49 maintain the courses without damaging the environment. He felt that using this company could be a good way to
50 maintain a high standard without having to hire an engineer to handle the job.
51
52 Ride Robbins,a member of the Golf CART,mentioned that he supported the of this
53 committee. He felt that golf courses are a very good use in industrtal and commercial areas. They help to buffer other
54 uses. The fad that Orange County does not have any large.unused commercial areas,Is no reason to delete them
55 from the Use Tables. Zoning does change and they are not a bad use in those areas. Golf Courses am sometimes
S6 singled out as a bad use of land;the science does not back up that concern. He requested that gW courses not be
57 sWgled out for regulations over and above other uses.
58
__ nu�� rwrvHUCr, 9196443004 P.e5/08
45
4
1 EX Chasies Peacock, a member of the Golf CART,mentioned that he has been involved in golf course projects
2 in marry states so the caunhy,tead*)g turf grass management as we*as other areas. He also does work with the
3 Audubon International program. There are two classifications for this program. The Cooperative Sanctuary System
4 allovra any existing course to enroll and gain certification in six areas-envkonrnental planning.wikWe habitat and
5 management, pudic outreach,water quality management,water conservation and integrated pest management. When
6 a course submits their documentation proving that they have attained the minimum requirements,the course is certified
7 as a Sanctuary. That designation means that they are taking the environmentally sound approach to golf course
8 management. The Signature Status is reserved for new courses which have reached stringent requirements from a
9 development viewpoint. This group is a non-profit, environmental group. it is voluntary,not regulatory. He feels It Is an
10 exc nent program.
11
12 John Hansel spoke in support of the game of golf itself. He mentioned that he appreciated the Task Fome's
13 efforts_ He wanted to make sure that we do not discourage golf courses,especially public tN courses.
14
15 John Sidorakis commended the work done by the Task Force. He felt that the Special Use Permit issue needs
16 to be addressed so that there are not undue restrictions placed on the constnxdion of new courses. This is a good
17 source of revenue as well as being a great source of recreation for many citizens. He also asked who would be
18 responsible for interpreting these regulations.
19
20 Ride Brannon, a golf professional,commended the work of this Task Force. He asked that the Board of
21 Commissioners keep the rust of building courses In mind when they set regulations. This needs to be a sport for
22 citizens with average income.
23
24 Craig Thompson,a Task Force member commended the work of this group. He is a golf course
25 superintendent. He tests that this is a good document. One concern that he has is over regulating golf courses while
26 ignoring other potentially harmful land uses like Walmart and schools. The other concern he has Is how the document
27 will be Interpreted and who will be charged with that task. He asked that the County Attorney look at these issues. He
28 asked that the Special Use Permit not be used for the golf course process and that the definitions in the document be
29 carefully established.
30
31 Ben Lloyd spoke in support of the game of golf as a past time in our county. He mentioned that he has
32 discussed this document with a builder In another state who felt that our regulations would proNbit him from building a
33 golf course In our county. He felt that golf courses have many environmental benefits and are not harmful. He felt that
34 this document was too strict.
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey,Jr.,seconded by Commissioner Brown,to refer the proposed
37 amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner
38 than May 5, 1947.
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 jcl Re-aporvval of Special Use Permits
42 1) Article 8.8.24 Historic Sites Non-Residential UseNbced Use
43 (Class A Special Use)
44 This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed
45 amendment which would a ew the Board of Commissloners to re-approve Spedal Use Permits for nom-reslderttlal use
46 of historic sites upon receipt of a report from the Planning Staff that the use has maintained compliance with the
47 provisions of the Special Use Permit. 0n*Apri11, 1985,the Zoning Ordinance was amended to agow historic Wuctures
48 outside of activity nodes to be used for non-residential purposes. The use Is allowed with approval of a Crass A Special
49 Use Permit in the Agricultural Residential(AR),Rural Residential(R1)and Rural Buffer(RB)zoning districts. A time
50 tkmtt of six years was Vx%Wad to provide for a periodic review to assure that the integrity of the historic site was
51 maintained. Continuation of the use beyond six years requires re-approval by the Board of Commissioners. Re-
52 approval under current regulations requires submittal of a new application and preparation of public hearing agenda
53 materials,as it it were a new use_ Special Use Permits for non-residential use of historic sites have been approved by
54 the Board of Commissioners for the Bingham School Inn,The Old Place,Green Hill and Reba and Roses. There are
55 no known Instances of non-compliance or citizen complaints concerning any of these uses. The proposed amendment
56 would allow rile Board of Commissioners to re-approve Special Use Permits for non-residential use of historic sites at a
57 regular meeting,upon receMng a compliance report from Planning Staff.If compliance has been maintained,then the
58 permit could be re-approved. if compliance has not been maintained.then the permit would expire at the end of Its 6-
`-U M L � V 46
4-z-9-7 PC.A MAItAIq 8o4r-D tl(A uMt
AGENDA ITEM#8: ITEMS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING(2/24/97)
a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
(1) Golf Course Standards
Presentation by Emily Cameron.
This item is for consideration of 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
Government,state agencies involved with water quality and pesticide
regulation,the Orange County 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 included as attachments to these minutes
on pages
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.
The proposed amendments were presented.at the public hearing on
February 24. Nine citizens spoke at the hearing.Their concerns included
golf courses in commercial and industrial districts,the special use permit
process,preemption by State pesticide regulations,the Audubon
International certification program,over-regulation of golf courses,and
interpretation of the proposed standards.
Commissioner Gordon requested that the Planning Board discuss the
potential for allowing golf courses in commercial and industrial zoning
districts,perhaps as a special use. The approach taken by the Golf CART
prohibits golf courses in commercial and industrial districts,which is
consistent with Article 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance that contains the
statements of intent for each zoning district. Recreational uses are
included in most of the residential districts,but are not included in the
description of the purpose of commercial and industrial districts along
with office,service,manufacturing,processing,etc.
Undeveloped land zoned for commercial or industrial uses is extremely
limited in Orange County's jurisdiction(not including Economic
Development districts where golf courses are not permitted). For a
developer to propose a golf course in those districts,a rezoning would be
necessary. In all likelihood,land in a Commercial-Industrial Activity
Node being rezoned as described would be currently zoned residential,
where a golf course could be allowed with a Special Use Permit.
Consequently,the Planning Staff has concluded that allowing golf
courses in commercial and industrial districts would serve no useful
purpose.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance to include standards and approval procedures for
golf courses.
Cameron noted that there was some discussion at the public hearing
regarding State law pre-empting the County from adopting additional
regulations regarding pesticides. A copy of the pre-emption from the
General Statutes is an attachment to these minutes on page
Cameron summarized the comments from the public hearing(copy an
attachment to these minutes on pages ).
Cameron noted that Commissioner Gordon had asked that the Planning
Board discuss whether or not golf courses should be allowed in
commercial-industrial zoning districts,perhaps as a special use. The
Golf CART took the approach that they were being consistent
with the description of the zoning districts in Article 4. Recreational uses
are not listed as appropriate uses in commercial and industrial districts
while recreational uses are specifically mentioned as being appropriate in
residential districts. Cameron continued that,in reality,the amount of
undeveloped commercial-industrial land in the County is so limited that
it will not be an obstacle to someone who proposes a golf course.
Cameron noted also that golf courses are not permitted in the Economic
Development Districts.
Allison asked the reason for not permitting golf courses in the EDDs.
Cameron responded that the intent of the EDD is to reserve land for
economic development A golf course takes up considerable acreage and
the EDDs are limited in area,so it was determined when EDDs were
being proposed that a golf course would not be a practical use of land in
an EDD. Since they are not listed in the Permitted Use Table,an
ordinance amendment would be required to allow golf courses in the
EDDs.
Barrows asked how the County could handle violations if it was
determined that a stream had been polluted by pesticides from a golf
course. Cameron responded that the County could not tell the golf course
owner to stop using the pesticides but would notify the appropriate State
agency. The County can ask for copies of the monitoring reports but
cannot carry out enforcement.
Price stated that the North Carolina Pesticide Board would determine the
violation and the amount of any fine.
Strayhorn stated that this would be regulated the same as for farmers.
Those applying the pesticides must be licensed,having taken the
48
appropriate classes as well as passing an exam. If farmers apply
pesticides,they are subject to monitoring.
Brooks noted that there would probably be such an outrage from the
community if the streams became polluted from the golf course that it
would make the golf course owners extremely attentive to the issue.
Strayhorn commented that there would probably be more pollutants from
yards than from a golf course. He noted that it is very easy to check the
streams for pollutants.
Price felt there had been enough discussion about golf courses that the
owners/managers would be very cautious in applying pesticides and the
possibility of pollution. She suggested that the Planning Board
encourage the Board of Commissioners to pass a resolution to go to the
State Legislature requesting local control. She felt this was the safest
way to handle the concerns relating to pesticides. She did not feel that
this should hold up approval of the proposed amendments.
Selkirk asked who would do the monitoring and how often. Cameron
responded that the samples would be sent to a State lab and reports
submittedto the County.
Katz asked if Section 8.8.7.5 is moot since the County cannot regulate
pesticides. How can the County require an integrated pest management
program when it is not allowed the enforcement of the regulations.
Cameron responded that the integrated pest management goes beyond
just the application of pesticides. There is a training process,monitoring,
establishing the thresholds of how much damage is tolerable and when to
take measures for biological control. Katz continued asking if the County
would be requiring a pest management plan that would not have to be
followed. Cameron responded that if the Special Use Permit requires a
pest management plan and it is not followed,then the Special Use Permit
becomes void.
Price expressed concern that the County would be challenged if they
required such a plan.
Brooks asked if the County had been approached by anyone with
preliminary inquiries about a golf course. Cameron responded yes.
Brooks asked how these text amendments compare to those in place in
other counties in the state. Cameron responded that she had not found
any comparable in any county in the state. She had a copy of an
ordinance from a township in Ohio which was a little more detailed than
this one even though it was about the same length. She continued that
there is not much available in the form of regulations. Guidelines have
been established on the national level by golf and environmental
agencies,but they are not in the form of enforceable regulations.
Walters stated that there was a golf course architect and other golf course
representatives on the task force and they were in agreement with the
IPMs proposed.
49
Price expressed concern that the Zoning Ordinance should not cater to
specific situations;but should be in place in the event land should
become available in a commercial industrial district. Cameron referred to
Article 4 noting the intent of the districts. Commissioner Gordon had
commented that perhaps that should be changed as well.
Katz wanted to hear from Walters and Barrows who were on the task
force. He continued that the public concern had seemed to be mostly
about the use of pesticides. He asked if they felt this deals with the
issue in an adequate way. Walters responded that she felt it did address
the issue as far as the County was allowed to by State law. It seemed that
as long as the decision was left up to the Pesticide Board,the monitoring
could be required. Barrows responded that she felt it was important that a
Class A Special Use Permit is required rather than being permitted by
right.
Searles asked if the County Attorney had indicated his concerns with
wording had been addressed. Cameron responded that she had spoken
with the Attorney recently and he had not indicated any more problems
with the wording. Typically,once an ordinance is in place and used,
other changes or amendments must be made.
MOTION: Brooks moved approval of the amendments as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Andrews.
VOTE: 9 in favor.
2 opposed(Allison&Price-felt they should be permitted in commercial
industrial districts. Price also felt the section dealing with pesticides was
moot since the County could not enforce regulations.)
b. Special Use Permits
(1) SUP(A)-3-97 Orange Regional Landfill
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This item is to consider a Class A Special Use Permit application 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.