HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-1999-015 Text Amendments Development Standards in Cane Creek Watershed ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 19, 1999
Action Agenda
Item No, 9-
SUBJECT: Text Amendments: Development Standards In Cane Creek Watershed
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1) Administration Recommendation Karen Lincoln, ext. 2583
2) Ordinance Amending O.C. Zoning Ordinance
3) Ordinance Amending O.C. Subdivision Regulations TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
4) '11-23-98 Public Hearing Minutes Hillsborough 732-8181
5) 9-�-99 Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill 968-4501
6) Executive Summary of Staff Report Durham 688-7331
7) 11-16-98 Staff Recommendation Mebane (336)227-2031
8) 8-26-99 Memorandum to Planning Board
PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations that will implement new development standards for Cane Creek
watershed. Ordinance amendments are legislative zoning decisions.
BACKGROUND:
Request
Amendments, resulting from a three-year study of Cane Creek Watershed conducted by the Orange Water
and Sewer Authority (OWASA), propose changes to Article 22 (Definitions) and Article VI, Section 6.23
(Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance and to Section IV-13-10, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations to implement new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. These
changes incorporate subsequent recommendations made in October, 1997, by the OWASA Board of
Directors.
Location
'The proposed amendments will affect future development within the Cane Creek watershed.
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing: • Maximum density: 1 du/2 acres.
• 33% open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions using the
conservation or cluster option (conservation-cluster).
Proposed: • Maximum density: 1 du/five acres; Lots of record existing on date of adoption may
contain up to, but no.more than, five lots as small as two acres in size.
Flexible development subdivisions allowed with overall density of 1 du/2 acres
provided 50% of total area is reserved as open space.
• 50% open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions within the
Cane Creek watershed.
g:\txtamend\canecrk\boccabs.doc\10-6-99Ud
.2
Development Process, Schedule. and Action
• Public hearing held on November 23,.1998 (minutes are attached beginning on page 27).
• First Action: Planning Board, on September 1, 1999,.voted four (4) to two (2).to approve the
proposed amendments to decrease the maximum density in the watershed and not to approve,
the amendments allowing flexible development within the watershed (at an overall density of
1du12 acres with 50% open space). Minutes of the September 1, 1999, Planning-Board meeting are
attached (beginning on page 34). The attached August 26, 1999, memorandum to.the Planning
Board (pages 43 —45) gives additional information for which the Planning Board had asked for in an
earlier meeting:
• Final Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider proposed amendments.
New evidence which was not presented in writing to the Planning Board may not be considered by the
Board of Commissioners in making a decision unless the joint public hearing is reopened to receive
said evidence, and the .item is readvertised and/or referred back to the .Planning Board for
recommendation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable:
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Planning Board Recommendation: *Approve density of 1 dwelling unit per five acres with lots of
record allowed not more than five lots as small as two (2) acres.
*Do not approve Flexible Development allowing an overall
density of 1 du/2 ac.
Administration Recommendation: Approve amendments. per the attached Administration
Recommendation beginning on page 3. (Proposed amendments to
the Orange County Zoning Ordinance begin on page 5; proposed
amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations begin on
page 12.)
• Maximum density: 2/5 OPTION: 1 du/five acres; Lots of record existing on date of adoption may
contain up to, but no more than, five lots as small as two acres in size.
AND
FLEX OPTION: Overall density of 1 du 13 acres (minimum lot size of 1.5
acres) allowed in subdivisions developed .using flexible development
provisions provided 50% of total area is reserved as open space.
• 50% open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions within the Cane Creek
watershed.
An Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Ordinance is attached on pages 16-23. An Ordinance
Amending the Orange County Subdivision Regulations is attached on pages 24-26.
a-\txtampndlcanPCrk\hnc=2bs.docN0_8_Aq d
3
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Proposed Amendments
ZONING ORDINANCE, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
ARTICLE VI SECTION 6.23 EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR WATERSHED
PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
Proposed Amendments
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ORANGE COUNTY, N.-C
'SECTION IV-13-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
(Proposed . amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed are shown in
StFik9thFeWo print.)
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 4
Proposed Amendments
Orange County.Zoning Ordinance
ARTICLE VI APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
*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 of 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
g:\txtamend\canecrk\zamend n.doc\10-6-99W
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 5
Orange County Zoning Ordinance
6.23.2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
Maximum residential density shall be as indicated in the Table below, or"as required.by*
the underlying zoning district,whichever is less. .
*Amended
1-17-95
DISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY
UNIV-CA. 1 dove acres.
UNIV-PW Lots of record existing on October.2, 1989 may.contain up to, but no more
than, five lots with a density of one dultwo acres. Contiguous lots of record
existing on October 2, 1989 may . be combined. into one parcel for
development. The number of two-acre lots and the total number of lots in
the combined parcel cannot.exceed the sum of the number of lots.which
could be created from each lot of record.
CANE-CA 1 du i 2
CANE-PW 1 du/five acres
Lots of record existing on October 19, 1999, may contain up to, but no
more than, five lots as small as two acres in size. Contiguous lots of
record existing on October 19, 1999, may be combined into one parcel
for development. The number of two-acre lots and the total number of
lots in the combined parcel cannot exceed the sum of the' number of
lots which could be created from each lot of record:
OR.
In Flexible Development subdivisions, an overall density of one
du/three acres is vermitted. provided at least 50% of the land within'the
subdivision is set aside as open space (see Section IV.13:10 of the
Subdivision Regulations)
U-ENO-CA 1 du/2 acres
LITTLE-PW
HYCO-PW 1 du/40,000 square feet(.92 acre)
FLAT-PW
U-ENO-PW Maximum density.is as permitted in the underlying zoning district.
L-ENO-PW
HAW PW Structural BMPs are required in some cases where density. exceeds "
JORDAN-PW dwelling unit per acre. Refer to Article 6.23.3c I..
BACK-OW
g:\txtamend\canecrk\zamend_n.doc\10-&99Ud
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 6
Orange County Zoning Ordinance
6.23.3 STORMWATER INFILTRATION AND DETENTION
2. Non-Residential Development
Amended 1/4/94
DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACEIDETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS
(NON-RESIDENTIAL)
UNIV CA Same as Residential (See previous Table).
UNIV PW
CANE-CA 2 a8Fe FAinimum yet
6-acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to five lots as small
as two acres for lots of record October 19, 1999:
AND
6% impervious surface limit.
BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements.
CANE-PW 2 ar.Fe .,.,;,,;.n m yet
6-acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to five lots as small
as two acres'for lots of record October 19; 1999:
AND : -
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers;
AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential uses;
AND
on-site infiltration of the first inch of storm water runoff;
AND
a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non-residential use (139 acres in
CANE-PW).
BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements.
U-ENO-CA 2-acre minimum lot size
AND
6% impervious surface limit
BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements.
HYCO-PW 50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers;
FLAT-PW AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential uses;
AND
on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff;.
AND
a limit of 1% of the watershed for non-residential use (37 acres in
HYCO-PW, 66 acres in FLAT-PW).
BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements.
HAW PW 24% impervious surface limit.
JORDAN-PW BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements.
g:\bctame6d\canecrk\zamend_n:doc110-6-99Ud
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 7
Orange County Zoning Ordinance
6.23.4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURAL BMPs (DETENTION PONDS)
6.23.6 PLACEMENT OF STREETS, DRIVEWAYS AND BUILDINGS
6:23.6 UNDISTURBED AREA
6.23.7 STREAM BUFFERS
6.23.8 . WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
*Amended
1-17-95
7-1-96
DISTRICT . WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL
UNIV-CA Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall" be limited to -
UNIV-PW. individual wells and on-site septic tanks systems or individual on
GANE FAN
site alternative"disposal systems, PF ,
GAANE GA c.�.r.}ems shall he pe' R:ni}}ed in the /gene GFeek PFeteeterJ 1A/..}ercher)
1111 ENG G.A and GNfleal AFee (�ANS GA), ner_Eno.
GAtisa.1 .4ea'(11 ENQ G A) when lenn}ed in eClevihle Deyelepmei:#
All Watershed Overlay No new treatment system will be permitted where effluent disposal
Districts occurs on a separate lot from the source of wastewater generation;
provided, however, off-site systems shall be permitted in all
Watershed Overlay Districts except the University Lake"Protected_
Watershed (UNIV-PW) and Critical Area (UNIV-CA)when located
in a Flexible Development subdivision.approved in accordance with
Section IV-10-B of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
UNIV-CA New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located
outside of any stream buffers; or 300 feet from.a reservoir or
perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS
Quadrangle maps, whichever is further.
CANE-CA New septic tanks, pump tanks and their appurtenances.shall be
U-ENO-CA located outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a
perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS
Quadrangle maps, and at least 150 feet from a reservoir.
New nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream. .
buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial or,intermittent stream,
as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, and at least 300 feet "
from a reservoir.
g:\txtamend\canecrk\zamend_n.doc\10-&99\k1
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 8
.Orange County Zoning Ordinance
6.23.8 WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL
CANE-PW Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited .
CANE-CA to individual wells and septic tanks or individual on-site
alternative disposal systems; provided however:off-site
U-ENO-CA systems shall be permitted when located in a Flexible
Development subdivision approved in accordance with
Section IV-13-10 of the Orange County Subdivision ..
Regulations.
UNIV-PW New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located
CANE-PW outside of any stream buffers and at least 1.00 feet.from a perennial
U-ENO-PW or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps.
HYCO-PW
LITTLE-PW
BACK-PW
HAW PW
JORDAN-PW
L-ENO-PW
FLAT-PW
6.13.9 CLUSTERING
DISTRICT CLUSTERING REQUIREMENTS
UNIV-CA Clustering of residential lots is permitted in accordance with Section IV-13-9.of
UNIV-PW the Orange County.Subdivision Regulations, with the additional provision that
each lot contains a minimum of one acre.
All Other Clustering of residential lots is permitted in accordance with Section IV-B-10 of
Overlay the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
Districts
g:\bdamend\canecrk\zamend n.doc\10-6-99Ud
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 9
Orange County Zoning Ordinance
6.23.10 . APPLICABILITY -
*Amended
1-17-95.
a). Existing Development
For the purpose of determining compliance with or applicability of Article 6.23 of
this Ordinance, existing development is. defined. as: a residential or non-
residential structure which
1) was constructed prior to January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, in the
CANE-CA and CANE-PW districts); or
2) was constructed in accordance with a valid building permit issued prior to
January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, in the CANE-CA .and CANE-PW
districts); or
3) was.included as part of.a Site Specific Development Plan approved by the
Board of Commissioners prior to January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, in
the-CANE-CA and CANE-PW districts); or
4) had otherwise established a vested;right under North Carolina Zoning law
prior to January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, 1n the CANE-CA and
CANE-PW districts).
Existing .development is hereby deemed to be conforming with respect to
requirements of Article 6.23 of this Ordinance.
b) Redevelopment
The rebuilding or replacement of residential or nonresidential structures which
are defined as existing development according to Article 6.23.11a is. allowed,
provided that the rebuilding or replacement does not result in an increase in the
amount of impervious surface, and does not encroach .any farther into stream
buffers or setbacks from reservoirs than the previous.development. A structure
which is rebuilt or replaced in accordance with these provisions is deemed
conforming with respect to setbacks from streams. and reservoirs required by
Articles 6.23.7 and 6.23.8 if this Ordinance.
c) Existing Lots
An existing lot, for the purpose of determining compliance with Article 6.23, is
defined as a lot which was .created prior to January 1, 19941 a lot within the
Cane Creek watershed (CANE-CA or CANE-PW districts)which was created
prior to October 19, 1999, and nonconforming lots of record.
9:t cWmend\canecrklz2mend_n.doc\1076-99*1
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 10
Orange County Zoning Ordinance
6.23.10 APPLICABILITY
c) Existing Lots
Stream buffers as required by Article 6.23.7, and setbacks for septic systems as'
required by Article 6.23.8 may be reduced to .the extent necessary to allow
development of the lot, provided that all of the following criteria are met:
1. The septic system is sized to serve no more than four bedrooms; and
2. The septic. tank, drainfield and repair area (where required) can. be
accommodated on 20,000 square feet of area or less;..and
3. The Orange County Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange County
Environmental Health and/or the Orange County Engineer has determined
that encroachment of the structure into the: stream buffer and/or
encroachment, of the septic system or repair area into the stream buffer
or reservoir setback is necessary in :order to provide adequate area for
septic disposal and repair while maintaining required separations between
wells, septic systems, structures and property lines; and .
4. The Orange County Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange County
Environmental . Health and/or the Orange County Engineer, has
determined that the relative locations of the well, septic system and
structure maximize the amount of watershed protection that can -be
achieved while allowing development of the lot. Generally, an exception
to setbacks for repair area is preferable to-an exception for the initial
septic system, and encroachment of structures or gravity septic systems
into the_setback is preferable to the installation of a septic system pump.
5. The amount of encroachment into the stream or reservoir buffer is the
minimum amount which can be obtained while meeting the above criteria.
g:W ctamend\canecrklzamend_n.doc110-6-99W
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 11
Orange County Zoning Ordinance
Section 22 Definitions
Amended Flexible Development-A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design
7-1-96 creativity is,encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands,
natural and.cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise
be lost through development approaches. At lease one-third (33%) of the land
within a Flexible Development.subdivision must be set aside. as open space;
whisk . A greater percentage of open space may be required based on the
density requirements, in certain overlay zoning districts, In Cane Creek,
watershed: at least 50% of the land within a Flexible Development
subdivision must be set aside as open space. In order to meet open space
requirements, open space may be preserved. through:
(a) An "estate lot".approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or
greater in size, building limits (50%) are established for each lot, and the land
area outside such limits is preserved as open space; or.
(b) a "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open
space is preserved through the use of conservation easements applied to
portions of individual lots; or .
(c) A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land.saved through
such reductions is preserved as open space; or s
(d) A "village" or. modified cluster approach where dwelling units are clustered
around a village green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded
by open space; or
(e) Some combination of the above.
g:lbdamendlcanecrklzamend n.doc110-6-991k1
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 12
Proposed Amendments
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Section II. DEFINITIONS
Amended Flexible.Development-A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design
7-1-96 creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry .
lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community,character that might_
otherwise be lost through development approaches. At lease one-third(33%)
of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as
open space,— eh A greater percentage of open space may be
required based on the density requirements in certain overlay zoning
districts. In Cane Creek.watershed, at least 50% of the land within a
Flexible Development subdivision must-be set aside as open s- ace. In
order to meet open space requirements, open space may be preserved
through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all .land is subdivided 'into lots four (4)
acres or greater in size, building limits (50%) are established.for each lot,
and the land area outside such limits is preserved as open space; or
(b) a "conservation approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and
open space is preserved through the use of conservation easements
applied to portions of individual lots; or
(c) A "cluster' approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved.
through such reductions is preserved as open space; or
(d) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are.
clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the village.is
surrounded by open space; or
(e) Some combination of the above.
g:\bdamend\canecrk\sramend.doc\10.8-99\kl
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 13
Proposed Amendments
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Section IV-B-10. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section A PURPOSE
Section.B. APPLICABILITY -
Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
CA Minimum Required Open Space
Where a developer elects to seek approval of a Flexible Development as specified herein,
at least thirty-three percent.(33%) of the total land area in the Flexible .Development must
be set aside as protected _open space except in the Cane Creek Watershed where at
least 50% of the'total land area must be set aside as protected open space. .Such
open space shall meet these,standards unless the developer chooses to seek approval of. .
a conventional.subdivision as specified herein.
C.2 Types of Open Space
C.3 Ownership of Open Space
C.4 Maintenance of Open Space
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D.1 Estate Lot Option
D.2 Conservation Option
D.3 Cluster Option
D.4 Village Option
Villages represent a modified form of cluster development intended to serve as physical,.
social, and economic focal points in rural portions of the county. Consequently, villages
are appropriate locations for civic uses, such as'schools and churches, as well as a variety.
of economic functions, including stores and workshops, and residential building .types
designed.to accommodate a range of socio-economic groups...
• The village conservancy is a continuous open space area surrounding the village
proper, representing the land from which dwellings have been transferred to the
village proper. In lieu of a continuous open space area, a village. conservancy may
consist of open space and estate lots, provided all estate lots meet the standards of
Section D.1. .
0 Open space within the village conservancy shall consist of designated Primary
and/or Secondary Conservation Areas.
g:\bdamend\canecrk\sramend.doc\10-8-99*1
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION . 14
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Section IV-13-10. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT.STANDARDS
D.4 Village Option
0 The amount of land set aside as open space in the village conservancy shall
comprise at. least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the
subdivision and shall be no less than 100 feet in width at.any place, except for
short connecting links. In Cane Creek watershed, the village conservancy
shall comprise at least 50% of the total land area in the subdivision and
shall be no less than 100 feet in width at any place, except for short
connecting links:
0 Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas within the village conservancy shall
be restricted from further development.through dedication to Orange County,
another unit.of local government, the State of. North: Carolina, a private non-
profit.land conservancy or a homeowners association,'including the recording of
conservation easements.
The specific standards applicable to the village proper and its component parts are
described on the following pages..:
D.5 Street Standards
D.6 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities
Water supply and sewage disposal facilities to serve Flexible Developments may be
provided. except where prohibited by overlay districts in Section 6.23.8 of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance, through the use of:
• Individual wells and septic tanks provided either on each lot or in off-lot locations
protected through recorded easements; or
• A community water and/or sewage disposal system designed, constructed, and
maintained in conformity with all applicable state, federal, and local rules,
regulations, and policies; or
• Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by.a municipality,
association, or water or sewer authority. System extensions are permitted only in
accordance with- applicable water and sewer, and land use policies and shall be
.sized only to serve the Flexible.Development for which the system.is extended; or
• A combination of the above alternative
g:\txtamend\canecrk\sramend.doc\10-8-99*1
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION . 15
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS -
Section IV-13-10.. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section E DESIGN GUIDELINES
EA Determining Density or Lot Yield
E.2 Design Process
Section F EVALUATION CRITERIA
F.1 General Criteria .
F.2 Forest Land/Natural Areas Conservation
F.3 Farmland Conservation
F-4 Conservation of Scenic Views
F.S Historic and Archaeological Features
F.6 Recreation Provision
Section G DENSITY BONUSES .
The maximum number of building lots or dwelling units in a Flexible Development shall not
exceed the number that could .otherwise be developed by the application of,the minimum
lot size requirement and/or density standard of the zoning district or districts in.which the
parcel is located. However, increases in the number of building lots or dwelling units are
permitted through one or,more of the following options:
GA To Encourage Additional Open Space
A density increase is permitted where more than °
and aFea the required percentage of open space (as defined in CA of this section).in
the Flexible Development is set aside as protected open space. The.amount of the density
increase shall be based on the following standard:
For each additional acre of protected open space provided in. the Flexible Development,
one (1) additional building lot or dwelling unit is permitted...
G.2 To Encourage Affordable Housing
G.3 Location of Open Space Bonus Units.
Section H ANNUAL REPORT
g:\bctamend\canecrk\sramend.doc\10-8-99\kl
16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 6, SECTION 6.23 EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR.WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS
AND
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
TO IMPLEMENT NEW.DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN CANE CREEK WATERSHED
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS:
ARTICLE 6, SECTION 6.23 EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS
IS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING.
g:\bdamend\canecrk\res.doc\10-8-99Ud
17
Orange County Zoning Ordinance
SUBSECTION 6.23.2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
6.23.2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
Maximum residential density shall be as indicated in the Table below, or as required by
the underlying zoning district, whichever is less: .
*Amended
1-17-95
DISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY
UNIV CA 1 du/five acres.
UNIV-PW Lots of record existing on October 2, 1989 may contain up to, but no more
than, five lots with a density of one du/two acres. Contiguous lots of record
existing on October 2, . 1989 may be combined into one. parcel for
development. The.number of two-acre.lots and the.total number of lots in
the. combined parcel cannot exceed the sum of the number of lots which
could be created from each lot of record.
CANE-CA 1 du/five acres
CANE-PW Lots of record existing on October 19; 1999, may contain up to, but no more
than,'five lots as. small as two acres in size. Contiguous lots of record
existing on.,October 19, 1999, may be combined'. into one parcel. for
development. The number of two-acre lots_and.the.total number of lots in,
the combined parcel cannot. exceed the sum of the number of lots which
could be created from each lot of record;.
OR.
In Flexible Development subdivisions, an overall density of one du/three
acres is permitted provided at least 50% of the land within the subdivision is
set aside as open space (see Section IV.13.10 of the Subdivision
Regulations)
U-ENO-CA 1 du 12 acres
LITTLE-PW
HYCO-PW 1 du/40,000 square feet(92 acre)
FLAT-PW
U-ENO-PW Maximum density is as permitted in the underlying zoning district.
L-ENO-PW
HAW-PW Structural BMPs are required in some cases where density exceeds 1
JORDAN-PW dwelling unit per acre. Refer to Article 6.23.3c1.
BACK-PW
gAt xtamendlcanecrk\res.doc\10-8-99*1
18
Orange County Zoning Ordinance
6.23.3 STORMWATER INFILTRATION AND DETENTION
2. Non-Residential Development
Amended 1/4/94
DISTRICT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS
(NON-RESIDENTIAL)
UNIV-CA Same as Residential (See previous Table)
UNIV-PW
CANE-CA. 5-acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to five lots as small as
two acres for lots of record October 19, 1999;
AND
6% impervious surface limit,
BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements.
CANE-PW 5-acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to five.lots as small as
two acres for lots..of record October 19, 1999;.
AND
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers;
AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential uses;
AND
on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff,
AND
a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non-residential use (139 acres in
CANE-PW).
BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements.
U-ENO-CA 2-acre minimum lot size
AND - -
6%. impervious surface limit
BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements.
HYCO-PW 50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers;
FLAT-PW AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential, uses;
AND .
on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff,
AND
a limit of 1% of the watershed for non-residential use (37 acres in.
HYCO-PW, 66 acres in FLAT-PW).
BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements.
HAW PW 24% impervious surface limit.
JORDAN-PW BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements.
gatxtamend\canecrk\res.doc\10-8-99*1
19
SUBSECTION 6..23.8 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
6.23.8 WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
*Amended
1-17-95
7-1-96
DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL
UNIV CA Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to
UNIV-PW individual wells and on-site septic tanks systems or individual on-
site alternative disposal systems.
All Watershed Overlay No new treatment system will be permitted where effluent disposal
Districts- occurs on a separate lot from the source of wastewater generation;
provided, however, off--site systems shall be permitted in all
Watershed Overlay Districts.except the University Lake Protected
Watershed (UNIV-PW) and Critical Area (UNIV-CA) when located. .
in a Flexible Development subdivision approved in accordance with
Section IVA O-B of the Orange County.Subdivision Regulations..
UNIV-CA New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located
outside of any stream buffers, or 300 feet from a reservoir or .
perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS.
Quadrangle maps; whichever is.further.
CANE-CA New septic tanks, pump tanks and their appurtenances shall be
U-ENO-CA located outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a
perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS
Quadrangle maps; and at least 150 feet from a reservoir.
.New nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream
buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream
as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps,and at least 300 feet
from a reservoir.
g:W amend\canecrk\res.d0c\10-8-99*1
20
Orange County Zoning Ordinance
6.23.8 WATER SUPPLYISEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
[FDISTRICT WATER SUPPLYISEWAGE DISPOSAL
CANE-P W Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to
CANE-CA individual wells and septic tanks or individual.on-site alternative
disposal systems; provided however, off-site systems shall be .
U-ENO-CA permitted when.located in a Flexible Development subdivision
approved in accordance with Section IV-B-10 of the Orange County.
Subdivision Regulations.
UN1V-PW New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located
° CANE-PW outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial
U-ENO-PW. or intermittent stream as.shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps..
HYCO-PW
LITTLE-PW
BACK-PW
HAW PW
JORDAN-PW
L-ENO-PW
FLAT-PW
SUBSECTION 6.23.10 IS AMENDED TO READ-AS FOLLOWS:
6.23.10 APPLICABILITY
*Amended
1-17-95
a) Existing Development
For the purpose of determining compliance with or applicability of Article 6.23 of
this Ordinance, existing development is defined as a residential pr non
residential structure which
1) was constructed prior to January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, in the CANE-
CA and CANE-PW districts); or
2) was constructed in accordance with a valid building permit issued prior to
January 1, 1994 (.October 19, 1999, in the CANE-CA and .CANE-PW
districts); or
3). was included as part of a Site Specific Development Plan approved by the
Board of Commissioners prior to January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, in
the CANE-CA and CANE-PW districts); or
g:%damend lcanecrklres.doc110-8-99Ud
. 21 : ..
Orange County Zoning Ordinance
6.23.10 APPLICABILITY
4) had otherwise established a vested right under North Carolina Zoning law'
-prior to January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, in the CANE-CA and CANE-
PW districts).
Existing development is hereby deemed to be conforming with respect to
requirements of Article 6.23 of this Ordinance. .
b). Redevelopment
The rebuilding or replacement of residential or nonresidential.structures which
- are defined as existing development according to Article 6.23.11a is allowed,
provided that the rebuilding or replacement does not result in an increase in the
amount of impervious surface, and does not encroach any farther into stream
buffers or setbacks from-reservoirs than the previous development. A structure
which is'.rebuilt or replaced in accordance.,with these provisions is deemed
conforming with respect to setbacks from streams and reservoirs required by
Articles 6.23.7 and 6.23.8 if this Ordinance.
c) , Existing Lots
An existing lot; for the purpose of determining compliance with Article 6.23, is
defined as a lot which was created prior to January 1,.1994, a lot within the Cane
Creek watershed (CANE-CA or CANE-PW districts) which was created prior to
October 19, 1999,..and nonconforming lots of record.
C) Existing.Lots
Stream buffers as required by Article 6.23.7, and setbacks for septic systems as
required .by:Article 6:23.8 may be. reduced to the extent necessary to allow
development of the lot, provided that all of the following criteria are met:
1. The septic system is sized to serve no more than four bedrooms; and
2. The septic tank, drainfield and repair area (where required) can be
accommodated on 20,000.square feet of area or less; and
3. The Orange County Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange County
Environmental Health and/or the Orange County Engineer has determined
that encroachment of the structure into the. stream buffer , and/or
encroachment, of the septic system or repair area into the stream buffer
or reservoir setback is necessary in order to provide adequate area for .
septic disposal and repair while maintaining required separations between
wells, septic systems, structures and property lines;,and
9a txtamend\canecrk\res.doc\10-8-991k1
22
Orange County.Zoning Ordinance
6.23.10 APPLICABILITY
4. The Orange County Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange County
Environmental Health and/or the Orange County Engineer, has
determined that the relative locations of the well, septic system and
structure maximize. the 'amount. of watershed protection that can be
achieved while allowing development of the lot. Generally, an exception
to setbacks for repair area is preferable to an exception for the .initial
septic system, and encroachment of structures or gravity septic systems
into the setback is preferable to the installation of a septic system pump.
5. The amount of encroachment into the stream or reservoir buffer is the
minimum amount. which can be obtained.while meeting the above criteria.
g:\bdamend\canecrk\res.doc\10-8-99\k1
23
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS IS AMENDED BY CHANGING THE DEFINITIONS OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
AND OPEN SPACE TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
Amended Flexible Development-A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design
7-1-96 creativity is encouraged. and allowed to.preserve agricultural and forestry lands,
natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise
be lost through development approaches. At lease one-third (33%) of the land
within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space. A
greater °percentage of open space may be required. based on the density
.-requirements ;in certain overlay zoning districts. In Cane Creek watershed, at
least 50% of the land within_. a Flexible Development subdivision .must be set
aside as open space. In order to meet open space requirements, open space
may be preserved. through:
(a)An "estate lot".approach where all land is subdivided into lots four(4) acres or
greater in size, building limits(50%) are established for each._lot, and the land
area outside such limits is preserved as open space; or
(b) a "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open
space is preserved through the use of conservation easements applied to
portions of individual lots; or
(c) A "cluster".approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through
such reductions is preserved as open space; or
(d) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units area clustered
around a village green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded
by open space; or
(e) Some combination of the above.
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD ON
OCTOBER 19, 1999, UPON MOTION BY AND SECONDED By
. THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED.
AYES:
NAYS:
g:\bdamend\canecrk\res.doc\10-8-99Ud .
24
AN ORDINAINACE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
SECTION II AND SECTION IV-B-10
TO IMPLEMENT NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN CANE CREEK WATERSHED
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS:
Section.11 Definitions is amended by changing the definition of flexible development to read as
follows.
Amended .. Flexible Development-A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design
7-1-96 . creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands,
natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise
be lost through development approaches. At lease one-third (33%) of the land
..within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set.aside as open space. A.
greater percentage of .open space may be required based on :the density
requirements in certain overlay zoning.districts. .In Cane Creek watershed, at
least .50% of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set
aside as open space. In order to meet open space requirements,. open space
may be preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or
greater in size, building limits (50%) are established for each lot,. and the land
area outside such limits is preserved as open space; or
(b) a "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and:.open
space is preserved through the use of conservation easements applied to
portions of individual lots; or
(c) A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land.saved through
such reductions is preserved as open space; or
(d)A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are clustered
around a village green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded
by open space; or
(e) Some combination of the above.
g:V xtamend\canecrk\res.doc\10-8-99*1
25
SECTION IV-13-10, SUBSECTION C.1 (SECTION.C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS) IS AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:
CA Minimum Required Open Space
Where a developer elects to seek approval of a Flexible Development as.specified herein,.at
least thirty-three percent.(33%) of the total land area in the Flexible Development must be set .
aside as protected open space-except in the Cane Creek Watershed where at least 50% of
the total land area must be set aside as protected open space_ Such open.space shall meet
these standards unless the developer chooses to seek approval of a conventional subdivision
as specified herein.
SECTION.IV-B-10, (SECTION D DEVELOPMENT.STANDARDS) SUBSECTION DA VILLAGE OPTION IS
AMENDED BY CHANGING THE SECOND DIAMOND LISTED IN THE VILLAGE CONSERVANCY DEFINITION (LAST
PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 65—E) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
0 The amount of land set aside as open. space in.the village conservancy shall
comprise at least.thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area.in.the:subdivision
and shall be no less than 100 feet in width at any place, except for short connecting
links. In Cane Creek watershed, the village conservancy shall comprise at least 50%
of the total land area in the subdivision and shall be no less than 100 feet in width at
any place, except for short connecting links.
SECTION IV-13-10 (SECTION D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) IS AMENDED BY ADDING LANGUAGE TO.THE
FIRST SENTENCE OF SUBSECTION D.6 WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:
Water supply and sewage disposal facilities to serve Flexible Developments may be provided.,
except where prohibited by overlay districts in Section 6.23.8 of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance through the use of:
Individual wells and septic tanks provided either on each lot or in off-lot locations protected
through recorded easements; or.
e A community water and/or sewage disposal system designed, constructed, and maintained
in conformity with all.applicable state, federal, and local rules, regulations, and policies; or
Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by a municipality,
association, or water or sewer authority. System extensions are permitted only in
accordance with applicable water and sewer, and land use policies and shall be sized only
to serve the Flexible Development for which the system is extended; or
• A combination of the above alternative.
g:ftamend lcanecrklres.dod10-8-99%k1
. 26
SECTION IV-6-10 (SECTION G DENSITY BONUSES) IS AMENDED BY CHANGING THE FIRST PARAGRAPH
OF SUBSECTION G.1 TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
GA To Encourage Additional Open Space
A density increase is permitted where more than the required percentage of open space. (as
defined in C.1 of this section) in the Flexible Development is set aside as protected open.
space. The amount of the density increase shall be based on the following standard:
For each additional acre of protected open space provided in the Flexible Development, one
(1) additional building lot or dwelling unit is permitted.
AT THE REGULAR MEETING.OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD ON
OCTOBER 19, 1999,UPON MOTION BY AND SECONDED,BY
THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED.
AYES:
NAYS:
g:\txtamend\canecrk\res.doc\10-8-99Ud
27
APPROVED 2/16/99
ORANGE COUNTY.BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 23,_ 1998
MINUTES
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in
joint session on Monday, November 23; 1998 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, new
County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough,-North Carolina for the purpose of holding
a joint Public Hearing..
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret Brown, and_ Commissioners Alice
Gordon, Moses Carey, Jr.,'and Steven Halkiotis:
COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Commissioner William L. Crowther.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows, and
members Nell Andrews,Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., James Selkirk, Robert Strayhorn, and
Elizabeth Walters.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: S.A.M..Brooks, Libby
Searles, and Runyon Woods
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill_
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Jr., and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy
Baker. All other staff will be identified as necessary.' .
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Brown requested that an item be added to the Agenda regarding Carrboro's intent to
repeal the junk car provision in their Ordinance: If this provision is repealed it would.become the
responsibility of Orange County to enforce the County's provision regarding junk automobiles.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to add
this item to the agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS .
Chair Brown indicated.that she would Chair Items C.1 and C.2.b and that Karen Barrows,
Chair of the Planning Board, would Chair the remainder of the items.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge
H:\B0CC\N0V2399.MIN
28 _
North side of this property. She feels that changing the zoning of this property.will affect their land.
They are concerned and opposed to the rezoning of this property.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer
the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned
no sooner than February 2, 1999,
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
a) Cane Creek Watershed Overlay.Districts
4 4. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment
a) Flexible Development in Cane Creek Watershed
These.items were presented together by Planner David Stancil for the purpose of
receiving citizen comment on'proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
and to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to..implement new development.standards for.
Cane Creek Watershed. Changes are proposed to Section 2.2 (Definitions). and Section 6.23.(Extra
Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance to implement
new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. These changes,,along with the
companion amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, result from a three-year study.of Cane
Creek Watershed conducted by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority(OWASA) and subsequent
recommendations by the OWASA Board of Directors in October, 1997. The amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance would offer two sets of development standards for protecting water quality. The
first option would change the minimum lot size for new development in the watershed from two
acres to five acres,with a provision allowing up to five lots as small as two acres in size for all lots of
record: A second option is available for Flexible.Development in Cane Creek watershed.' In this
special option, new major subdivision development could occur at the current two-acre lot density,
but new proposed standards for the County's Subdivision Regulations would change the.amount of
open space from 33% to 50%. Specifically, the'amendments.to the Zoning Ordinance would alter a
definition and change the existing protected watershed (CANE-PW) and critical area (CANE-CA)
overlay districts for Cane.Creek. The changes to the definitions section would reflect the special
50% open space standards for the Flexible Development option within the watershed. The changes
to the overlay districts would apply a minimum lot size of five acres in the watershed,and allow for
up to five lots as small as two acres in size for lots of record as of January 1;,1999. Also, changes
are proposed to the Flexible Development section of the Subdivision Reg.ulations to implement
these new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. Specifically, these
amendments to Section IV.13.10 of the.Subdivision Regulations would amend the open space
standards of Flexible Development to recognize these special standards in Cane Creek Watershed,
and also clarify other subsections which specify the previous open space percentage.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
None:
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD:
None.
H:\BOCC\NOV2399.MIN
29
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM,CITIZENS:
Mr. Bill Strom, a member of the OWASA Board of Directors, spoke on behalf of the OWASA
Board. He stated that forty counties in North Carolina,contain portions of V1/S-II water supply
watersheds.' Of these:forty, Orange County contains almost twice as much:in both absolute area
and percentage.within its jurisdiction as any other county within the State of North Carolina. It is
therefore appropriate that Orange County's watershed protection requirements are the most.
progressive and proactive in the.State of North Carolina. OWASA staff provided him with a map
showing that aside from certain.critical Class I Watersheds, Class 11 are considered the most
important watersheds to protect. .A copy of that map is in the permanent.agenda file in the Clerk's
. office. In Orange County.we are the stewards of 100% more than any other county in North
Carolina. That is the driving force behind this request for rezoning. A copy of his comments. along ,
with the map, in their entirety,. are in'the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
Ms. Marie Albright, a resident of this area, spoke in opposition to this proposal..She felt that
her land would lose a great deal of its value if this were adopted. She could not give her children
anything. She asked the Board of Commissioners to consider her concerns when making their
decision.
Ms. Joyce Stanford, a resident.of Stanford Road, stated that they have been stewards of this
land for over 200 years. They have defended the property against.the British, the carpetbaggers,
and Yankees. For the last 30 years she has been defending this property.against OWASA. They
have taken her.home, dairy business and land. Now they seek to deny her further use of the land
leftin the watershed by asking-for 5-acre zoning. This is a."taking"from her and her descendents.
The 5th amendment of the Constitutions guarantees no private property being taken for public use
without just compensation. The 5th and 14th Amendments uphold the Constitution.core idea that
man's:life, liberty and property not being subject to uncontrolled power of the state. This is not.a
benefit to her or her property. She asked that the two acre minimum be upheld and that the five-
acre minimum be denied.
Mr.Allen.Spalt,' a Carrboro resident and a member of the Cane Creek.Watershed Study
Committee, stated that that Committee.undertook a thorough, balanced and open study of the
watershed water protection situation. It is too much to expect that everyone agree with the results
but it is fair to.say that people went into this with the expectation that measures substantially
different from those required for University Lake would be required to protect Cane Creek. They
learned when the first phase of the consultants report came back, that although Cane Creek is a
high quality water supply, it is not as high as was originally expected nor is it free from substantial
vulnerability from activities in the watershed both natural and from agricultural and development use:.
There is stratification of the water and high manganese content in the lower water that is somewhat
problematic. There is also the potential for and actuality of algae blooms in the water that make it
such that it requires more protection than was anticipated. When the technical work was done they
.were faced with the situation that instead of being substantially different from University Lake it
turned out to be comparable. The recommendations that are before you, which probably seem
familiar, are comparable to those in University Lake. They have attempted to try to provide
H:\§0CC\N0V2399.MIN
30
measures of compensation to deal with issues affecting the community. However, they are faced
with a situation where prevention, through watershed protection, is by far the best measure. It is-the
safest way to protect the water supply. Engineering solutions are used in treating the finished water
but the end of the pipe kinds of solutions are not as good or as reliable. As water standards become
tighter, the prevention strategies are more desirable. The phrase that the "current watershed
protection that is.in place now is insufficient to prevent deterioration of the.water quality" is the key.
The kind of recommendations that are before you are to provide that protection for the water.quality.
In regard to the Flexible Development Plan he asked that they look very carefully at the record of
Community Water Systems and Waste Water Treatments Systems, before approving any kind of,
proposal that would allow that kind'of system. He mentioned the situation in University Lake where.
.a company described as "the Cadillac of private-public utility companies" installed alternative
. systems. In the last ten years,every one of the systems installed by that company has gone bad
and has been bailed out by local governments or residents. The company itself is bankrupt.' These
are problematic systems.
Mr. Carl Shy stated that the issue here is one of"d.isequity" in.the treatment of the people
who are residents in the Cane Creek Watershed. They would lose some of the economic potential
for development of this land. There are no provisions being made for the loss of this economic .
opportunity. The issue is protecting the watershed which is based on the amount of discharge. Two
five-acre properties could have more discharge than five two-acre.properties. The real issue 'is to
protect the watershed from discharge..There must be other options that would limit discharge so that
there is not an excess of discharge from.the two-acre lots. Technology could be used to limit the
discharge. The Air Quality Act is a good example of an emission budget being issued. Then
emissions were considered as a whole in the budgeted area. Something similar could be
established with regard to the discharge within the'entire watershed. People could decide bn their
own if they wanted_to develop at two-acres. People with more land could be compensated if they
did not develop. If this proposal is implemented, there would be.no benefits to the people who live
there now. The benefits are all going to the consumers of the water supply.
Ms. Peggy Ritch, of 4211 Dairyland Road, spoke in opposition to this proposal. She stated
that if it was passed., the average person who-grew up in Orange County would not be able to afford
to live here. This is not fair.
Mr. Barry Jacobs stated that the open space option that does allow two-acre lots seems to be
forgotten in this discussion. He was told that although the Planning Staff has not found other -
jurisdictions who have used open space development for watershed protection, he suggested that
they should look at Howard County, Maryland and places in California. He asked that this be
included in future considerations. He also pointed out that the problems with off-site septic systems
or the County's current flexible development ordinance, can be addressed. Those problems are not
necessarily fatal flaws:
Ms. Lucy Baldwin stated that her mother's estate is near the watershed. She opposes the
five-acre option because it would not be possible to divide for the children.
Mr. Lonnie Kirk stated that the majority of these land owners are farmers or have been
H:\B0CC\N0V2399.MIN
31
farmers in the past. This land is the retirement for these people. OWASA is negatively affecting
their retirement. He stated that this proposal.would take money out of the home owners.pockets.
These landowners are concerned about the quality of the water but they do not want to give up their
retirement income for the OWASA customers. He was opposed to the five-acre minimum lot size.
Mr..Patrick Mulkey,-a resident of the Cane Creek community, spoke in opposition to this
request to rezone this area to a five-acre minimum lot size. He stated that Orange Water & Sewer
Authority requested a five-acre minimum lot size for Cane Creek. TheBoard of County
Commissioners agreed to a two-acre lot minimum for the entire 18,000 acre watershed. In the
meantime, Orange Water& Sewer Authority commissioned another$100,000 study which has
come up with the original recommendation of five-acre lots. He felt that this finding was a foregone
conclusion because it was what Orange Water& Sewer Authority wanted in the first place. He
referred:to a friend of his, Jim Smith, who retired from a career in the water resources field and
recently passed away,who reviewed this study. Mr. Smith stated that each Orange Water&Sewer
Authority.customer could pay$0.10 more each month.and get the same amount of protection
without.changing the.minimum lot size. He felt that.Orange Water&.Sewer Authorityhas pushed
their way into this community and have disrupted the way of life. The farmers are having to get
permits to.shoot deer on their land because of the explosion in the deer population. In spite of this
problem, Orange.Water& Sewer Authority does not allow any hunting on their land. They already
own 3000-plus acres in Bingham Township and now want another 1,200 acres. They pay no taxes.
Although Orange Water& Sewer Authority did offer land to the schools for a park, he felt that they
knew it was a sure bet that the.offer would not be accepted. There is a great need for a park in
Bingham Township; Orange Water& Sewer Authority has land that could be used for a park. He
distributed a copy of a.memo he sent to Orange Water& Sewer Authority addressing this need. A
copy of this memo is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. He asked the Board of
County Commissioners if they were going to become a party to this injustice or stop this injustice
now.
Mr. Edward Mann, of 8525 Stanford Road, stated that his wife is a Stanford, and they own
some property which will be affected by the proposed change in the zoning ordinance. He served for -
8 years on the Orange Water& Sewer Authority Board of Directors. He does understand the need
forwater protection—water quality protection. He served on the Orange Water&.Sewer Authority
Board.when they acquired the property and began construction of the Cane Creek Reservoir and is
very familiar with some of the issues,involved in that acquisition. He has lived on Stanford Road
since 1970. He goes to church in th 'community and has become friends and neighbors with a.
number of farmers who have a lot more at stake in.the proposed rezoning than he does. As he said,
he owns some property that would be affected but he and his wife are not developers and have no
plans to do any developing. Their concern is creating the proper and needed and justified.controls
on water protection. The five-acre standard has become a standard without justification. He and his
wife.attended some of the meetings with the Orange Water& Sewer Authority Board when this
notion was first introduced and a number of possible solutions were suggested.He asked some
questions at that time, that he still has not gotten satisfactory answers to; are there trends, in the
development in the water shed that have lead us to believe that we need to put some controls-in at
this time? Information that was presented at some of those meetings was that there has been some
-accelerated development in the Cane Creek Watershed. Average landmass per-dwelling is about 5
H:\BOCC\NOV2399.MIN
32
acres. That's without putting in any additional components. He felt that our present zoning is
obtaining the desired result, so why change it? Another question is, is there documented
deterioration in water quality that would lead us to believe that we need to,make some changes. He
stated that Mr..Spalt mentioned.that maybe the water quality was not as good as was anticipated
but he did not say that it was a degradation that was caused by the development that is taking
place. He.merely mentioned that there are chemicals in the water, maybe, that were not known to
be there prior to the study. If that is coming from farm runoff then this acreage change is not going to
have an effect on that. You heard earlier tonight some talk about impervious surfaces and runoff.
Dr. Shy talked about discharges. He felt that those are the sort of things that we should be
concemed.with. He did not fee that five-acres is a magic figure. It may be that two-acres is perfectly
satisfactory. He.asked for some sort of scientific justification for five-acres. Its been mentioned that
that is what has been used over at University Lake. University Lake's development pressures are
highly.different than the development pressures around Cane Creek. University Lake is near town,
adjacent to Chapel Hill and Carrboro with a lot of development pressures. We.are a different
community. .We do not have the water and sewer facilities that are.available in town.. So, to try to
justify five-acres for Cane Creek because they,have it at.University Lake- it is not apples and
apples.- It has been mentioned before, but who should properly pay for clearing up the water?
Should it be the people who use it or should it be the people who, by accident, live in the vicinity of
the water supply. That's an equity issue that he wanted the Board of County Commissioners to
think about too.
Mr. Wes Cook indicated.that he did not live in the Cane Creek Reservoir, but that he did
oppose this request. He is a resident of Little River.Township which is presently zoned for
2-acre lots.. The Durham County line is approximately % of a mile from his house. That area is
zoned 1-acre lots and is.in the same watershed as his property. Also, Alamance County is 1-acre
lots as well. He mentioned that there is a nuclear power plant at Lake Norman, which is the drinking
source for Charlotte. That area is zoned for one-acre lots. He mentioned-that New Orleans gets
their water from the Mississippi River.. He strongly recommended that this request be denied and
the lots be left at 2-acres. .
Mr. James Thomas, a farmer residing in the Cane Creek Watershed, spoke in opposition to
this proposal. In 1972 he bought a farm that was split by Tom's Creek. He has farmed on that land
since that time. He, and his neighbors have paid in order to provide this water to Orange Water &
Sewer Authority customers, although they do not receive any of the benefits of this water. He felt
this rezoning would cut the value of his farm in half. He asked the Board of County Commissioners
to deny this request:
Mr. Alton Thomas, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this request. He asked the.
Commissioners not to approve this request. He stated that he, and other family members, would be
losing much of the value and use of their land.
.Planner David Stancil stated that if this land is rezoned, parcels that have less than 12 acres.
in size will not see any change. Owners could have five two- acre lots, assuming that the land
perked. He also mentioned that the five-acre option would be only one of the options; another
would be the cluster option with 50% open space and the same number of lots.
H:\B0CC\N0V2399.MIN
33
A copy of a Resolution was received from the Town of Chapel Hill reiterating the
Council's support for water quality in the Cane Creek watershed and supporting the
proposed zoning changes. This Resolution, in its entirety, is incorporated herein by
reference.
A motion was made.by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer
this item to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner
than February 2, 1998.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ENFORCEMENT OF CARRBORO'S JUNK AUTOMOBILE PROVISION:
Interim Planning Director Gene Bell stated that Town of Carrboro will be holding a Public
Hearing on December 1., 1998. At that hearing they will receive comments regarding their intent to .
repeal the junk.car provision in their Ordinance. If this provision were to be repealed it would then
be the responsibility of Orange County to-deal'with junk automobiles. Although the timeframe is
very short, it would be possible to send Carrboro an official notice of opposition to this action. He
mentioned that this short timeframe was an oversight on Carrboro's part.
Commissioner Halkiotis suggested. that the County object to this.action.
County Attorney Gledhill stated that the objections would have to be on the basis of the 10
day turnaround. He indicated that there is a larger problem involved here in that this is not
compatible with the Land Use Plan. He felt that the County.should object to the larger issue.
County Manager John Link_stated that this is a legal matter and the County needs more than
10 days notice. It should be communicated that we request at least a 30 day notice for this type of.
action.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
approve the County Attorney and Interim Planning Director to draft a letter to the Town of Carrboro
requesting a minimum of 30 days notice before action is taken.
VOTE:. UNANIMOUS
C. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to adjourn the
meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners will be held on Tuesday,
December 1, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, new County Courthouse,
Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Margaret W. Brown, Chair
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk
H:\B0CC\N0V2399..MIN
34
APPROVED 10/6/99
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 1,1999
MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Barrows(Chair),Leo Allison,Barry Katz,Howard
McAdams,Jim Selkirk,Bob Strayhom. .
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynn Holtkamp,.Onie Lea,Runyon Woods.
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict,Karen Lincoln,Robert Davis,Jim Hinkley,Jane
Garrett,Debra Graham.
AGENDA ITEM#1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Barrows called the meeting to order at approximately 7:40 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM#2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM#3: .APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 4,1999
Lincoln added to the August 4, 1999 minutes,page 4,insert after fourth paragraph:
Selkirk asked if there was a problem with steepness of the property so that the proposed property
line(of lot 6A) could not be moved from the(northeast)corner to (some point along)the private
road (so that both lots would be regularly shaped lots having access on Sparrow.Hawk Crest)..
Hines responded that there was not and that the proposed property line could be moved.
Barrows referred to Sketch C on page 25 (sketch submitted by the applicant) and stated that
looking at the anticipated house sites and drives on both lots, it does not appear to be much
farther to extend a driveway to Sparrow Hawk Crest (from Lot 6A to Sparrow Hawk Crest with
respect to extending a driveway to Sparrow Hawk Crest from New Lot 6)so that, if a drive can be
constructed from Sparrow Hawk Crest(to proposed.house site on New Lot 6) for one it could be
done for the other.(proposed_house site on Lot 6A). She stated that, based on staff observation,
the access from Ode Turner is also steep(the topographical conditions along Ode Turner Road to
the house site are similar to the topographical conditions along Sparrow Hawk Crest).
Allison asked.if the terrain were such that you could not get a road in there(from Sparrow Hawk .
Crest to proposed house site on Lot 6A). Lincoln responded that a driveway from Sparrow Hawk.
may cost a little more (than a driveway from Ode Turner Road) because of the terrain,.but it
could be done.
Selkirk reiterated that the distance between the two house sites from Sparrow Hawk Crest is not
that much different so it would seem that the terrain is amenable to constructing a driveway and a
driveway could be done(constructed from Sparrow Hawk Crest to the proposed house site on Lot
6A)without that much of a problem.
Benedict pointed out that the.Subdivision Regulations promote the subdivision of land to be off
access roads so as not to burden the existing public roads. He noted that this is what the Planning
Staff s point of view was in the abstract and they are asking the Board to agree with that point of
view. The regulations use words like`.`promote"and"encourage"because they are not fashioned
on a case by case basis and cannot provide an exact language for each particular situation.
35
.MOTION: Holtkamp stated that promoting subdivision lots to be off access roads(so
as to
b. Text Amendments Related to Watershed Protection Measures in
Cane Creek(November 23,1999 Public Hearing)
(1) Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
(a) Article VI,Section 6.23 Extra Requirements in Cane Creek
Watershed
(b) Article 22 Definitions
(2) Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations
(a) Section IV B-10 Flexible Development
Presented by Craig Benedict.
PURPOSE: To prepare a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners concerning
proposed tent amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new development standards
for Cane Creek watersheds.
BACKGROUND:
Request .
Amendments, resulting from a.three-year study of Cane Creek Watershed conducted by the
Orange Water and Sewer Authority(OWASA), propose changes to Article.22 (Definitions)and
Article VI, Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts)
of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to Section IV-B-10, Flexible Development, of
the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement. new watershed protection
measures for Cane Creek watershed. These changes incorporate subsequent recommendations
made in October, 1997,by the OWASA Board of Directors.
Location
The proposed amendments will affect future development within the Cane Creek watershed.
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing: • Maximum density: 1 du/2 acres.
.• 33%open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions
using the conservation or cluster option(conservation-cluster).
Proposed: • Maximum density: 1 du/five acres;Lots of record existing on date
of adoption may contain up to,but no more than,five lots as small as
two acres in size.
Overall density of 1 du/2 acres allowed in flexible developments using
the conservation or cluster(conservation-cluster) options provided 50%
of total area is reserved as open space.
50%open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions within
the Cane Creek watershed..
Development Process.Schedule,and Action
• Public hearing held on November 23; 1998(draft minutes are attached).
• First Action:Planning Board consideration of proposed amendments.
Option: 1. Action to recommend approval of the proposed amendments.
Option:2. Action to recommend denial of the proposed amendments.
Option:I Action to recommend changes to the proposed amendments that are not
significant in nature.
36
• Final :Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider proposed
amendments.
FINANCIAL IlVII'ACT: Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Staff Recommendation: Planning Board to recommend approval of the proposed amendments
to Article VI, Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts)and
to Article 22(Definitions)of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to Section IV-B-10
(Flexible Development)of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. .
The Planning Board had many questions when that board reviewed the proposed amendments at
its July 13, 1999, meeting. Many of those questions are answered in the attached Memorandum
to the.Orange County Planning Board beginning on page .
The.major concern of Cane Creek. area residents who attended the public hearing was just
compensation for the taking their property.rights in order to protect drinking water to which they
will not have access.. Citizens expressed concern.that they were bearing the cost for development
in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. .
Staff asked OWASA staff to clarify the studies on which they based their recommendation:
• if the study evaluated the impact on watershed quality of development occurring at a'zoned
lot size other than 2 or 5 acres,or combination thereof; and
• what percentage of the watershed could be'developed using the creative open space option
before a tributary sub-impoundment is required for water quality protection.
Response from OWASA states:
• OWASA model evaluated 12 increments of lot sizes between two and six acres and found
that water quality goals are met when build-out occurs with lots of five acres or larger. Thus;
the water quality goals can.be met with the proposed five acre zoning with five two-acre lots
allowed for lots of record if OWASA acquires 1,265 more acres of watershed.
• 10% of the watershed may be developed using the flexible development provisions (1 du/2
acres with 50% of total acreage preserved in open space) without requiring additional water
quality protection. Please refer to the attached letter from OWASA in reply to staff's inquiry.
Benedict discussed the questions that the Board had at the July 13,.1999 Planning Board meeting
and the staff response to those questions. He distributed and.discussed a handout that shows the
rate of growth in each township(copy attached).
Katz asked about transfer of development rights. Benedict responded that programs have been
discussed regarding transfer of development rights. Ed Holland stated that OWASA is currently
purchasing development rights on property. He stated that they are actually buying conservation
easements from willing property owners in the watershed which does not require a transfer of
development procedure. He stated that these are the people that use the water. Strayhorn asked.
how is the fair market value determined. Holland responded that they look at the.development
potential of the property as of right now. Strayhom asked what was the last price that OWASA
paid per acre. Holland responded for a conservation easement,approximately$2,000.00 per acre
which leaves the property in the owners name with restrictions.
McAdams stated that he would be opposed to this item. Selkirk stated that he understands what
the concerns are for clean water in the future. He noted that he is concerned with the 200 or so
large landowners who are going to be very negatively impacted by this. Allison stated that his
preference would be to leave as is. Katz stated that he understands the water quality issue and
what they are trying to preserve but you have to look to the future. He stated that.he is in favor of
the recommendations by staff. Strayhorn stated that he would prefer to leave it as it is. He stated
37
that the water has to be protected,but in the process,opportunities are being eliminated for a
class of people to buy a piece of land to build a house on. Barrows stated that she agrees with
Katz and it does not sound like landowners will be losing very much. ,
MOTION: Katz moved to approve the changes in the maximum density as proposed by staff _
(1 du/five acres)with the exception that flexible development is done away with.
Seconded by Selkirk.
VOTE: 4 in favor(Allison,Barrows,Katz, Selkirk).
2 opposed(McAdams,Strayhorn)
38
��► Orange County
Plar,,;,,g & Inspections De arfiment
P
306F Revere Road Hillsborough,NC 27278
Q Telephone: (919) 732-8181
FAX.(919) 644-3002
CANE CREEK WATERSIYED STAFF REPORT
EXECUTIVE'SUMNARY. October 30,1998
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority(OWASA)report entitled"Final Recommendations for .
Protecting the Cane Creek Water Supply"was referred to Planning staff to 1)evaluate the
watershed study,and 2)prepare a staff report with applicable recommendations,prior to the
development of any proposed ordinance amendments:
Accordingly,this summer,planning staff members formed the Cane Creek Analysis Team
(CCAT)to evaluate the implications of the Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed Study and final
OWASA recommendations.Because of the cost and time required to quantify impacts, and the
unknown cost-effectiveness of such research,assessment of the watershed study and OWASA
recommendations impacts was largely of a qualitative nature.At this point,staff are able to
Provide preliminary recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.Following:additional
input,.staff will-prepare a final recommendation for the November 23, 1998 public hearing.
Staff Analysis.
Preliminary-analysis of the watershed study and OWASA recommendations reveals that.ensuring
adequate and reliable long-term protection of the water quality of Cane Creek Reservoir .
necessitates a reduction in-the pattern,intensity and/or amount of future development activity in
the watershed. Such a reduction can only be accomplished with.certainty through land use
controls that cause development to occur in either large4ot or cluster configurations.Based on
staff's analysis,there appear to be three watershed management options that would accomplish
the needed long-term water quality protection.Each offers potential benefits and drawbacks.
Option 1:Mandatory Flexible Developmentl Large Lot .
Current two-acre zoning along with mandatory flexible development(33%open space)
outside of the watershed critical area.In the critical area;five-acre lot zoning with up to
five lots as small as two acres for lots of record..OWASA 20-year plan for land acquisition
resulting in 1,266 acres.
Option 2: Creative Open-Space Development("Open-Space"or "Cluster')
Current two-acre zoning along with mandatory"Creative Open-Space Design"(50%open
space with one acre minimum lot size). Tributary detention ponds on Caterpillar Creek and
39
Cane Creek Water4ad Staff Repm t
Orange County Pawning and Inspections Deputment
Watery Fork would,be needed. OWASA would acquire 1377 acres of land(413 through
fee-simple and 964 through conservation easements).
Option 3:Large Lot!Creative Open Space Design (OWASA Recommended)
Rezone watershed to.5-acre lot zoning(with up to five two-acre lots for lots of record), or
'Creative Open Space Design'with 50%open-space and current two-acre zoning(1-acre
minimum lot size).Possible construction of tributary detention on Caterpillar or Tom's
Creek,depending on participation rate in cluster development and effective lot size of
developed lots. OWASA acquisition of 1266 acres of land.
All of the options are capable of protecting water quality to the same general level. Differences
lie in the certainty of water quality protection,the substantive variation in the ability of the
options to meet other non-water quality considerations, and perhaps in the economic feasibility
- of each option.The benefits offered under each options are as varied.as the.differences.
Mandatory Flexible Development/Large Lot uses ari existing,known program and may
provide greater developer flexibility in site design,since only 33%of the tract would be required
to remain in open space.Additionally,land acquisition by OWASA and the focus on non-
structural controls in the critical area adds to the certainty of protecting water quality-although
regional-scale structural controls in the rest of the watershed may offset any gain in certainty and
the downzoning in the critical area would affect property owners.
Creative Open Space Design guarantees that 501/6 of all new major subdivisions will be open
space and may minimize land owner costs,since there would be no change in zoning.As a result
it offers significant resource protection benefits that transcend water quality and could also
preserve natural areas and wildlife habitats,flora and fauna and cultural or archaeological
resources.It would,however,result in higher costs to OWASA customers due to needed
structural controls.
The Large Lot/Creative Open Space Design("OWASA Recommended").is a hybrid of two
options recommended by OWASA.It offers the most developer familiarity-using conventional
single-family lots without open space set-asides.The lower residential yield and density should
reduce the level of public services provided by the County to serve development,but also affects
landowner impacts:This option offers the highest certainty of protecting water quality,but the
exact level of certainty may depend on the level of participation in the"clustering"option.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation. .
Having identified three alternatives for consideration, staff plans.to use.further research and
feedback from the Board and stakeholders to make a final recommendation for the November 23,
1998 public hearing: Regardless of the management options ultimately selected,_staff feels that
implementation through amending existing Cane Creek watershed zoning districts and/or a
special section in the Flexible Development provisions for Cane Creek(please see page.31 of
staff report) would be the best approach.Tinally, the OWASA recommendations on potential
"tradeoffs" to the watershed community were not evaluated herein, since they,do not relate to
water quality.
40
Memorandum
To: John Link, County Manager
From: Planning Staff
Date. November 16, 1998
Subject: Cane Creek Watershed Recommendation
On October 20, the Planning.staff presented a staff report on. the Cane
Creek . Watershed Study and subsequent , recommendations for
protecting water quality by the. OWASA Board of.Directors. Staff would
like to take this opportunity to provide a recommended development
management option.for Cane Creek watershed.
The October 20 staff report identified three management options that
were recommended for further evaluation:
1. Mandatory Flexible Development (with Large-Lot Zoning in the
critical areal):
2. Creative Open Space Design, and
3. Large-Lot Zoning/Creative Open Space (the OWASA-
recommended approach).
As mentioned in the staff report, staff indicated that the options would
be discussed at a. community meeting In the watershed. These three
options were presented to 25 citizens' at a community: meeting at
Orange Grove' Volunteer .Fire. Department on October 29, ' 1958. In
addition,,.staff was to complete its research on these options and .make
a single recommendation by the_ time, of the. public hearing on
November,23.
As you may. .recall, the primary downside to the Mandatory Flexible
Development and Creative Open Space - options (#1 .and #2) was
whether these options .could protect water quality given their use of
cluster._ development (and the. apparent requirements for using .
structural impoundments to do Aso):
Staff completed .its research Into this issue- in fate-October. We have
been unable to find any examples of .communitles that have used
cluster development solely for water.quality protection, with or without
relying on structural controls (detention basins) or very large-lot base
41
zoning. As such, we have found no.evidence to counter the.findings of
the Cane Creek Watershed Study - that options #1 and #2 above will
not protect water quality to the same level of certainty as the OWASA-
recommended.approach (#3) of large-lot zoning / creative open space
design.:
In conducting the research, staff contacted planning jurisdictions that
had been"Identified In the American Water Works Association (AWWA)
publication "Effective:. watershed Management for . Surface :water,
Supplies" as currently employing. or considering employment of cluster
development for water quality purposes. Based on I the AWWA 'report..
the foilow.1ng planning departments and agencies were contacted:
Fairfax County : (VA) Planning; Prince William . County (VA) Planning,.
Loudoun -County. (VA) Planning and the Northern Virginia" District
Planning Commission'. Ail of these planning .entities hold responsibility
for protecting the water...quality of the Occcoquan River basin. .
Discussions with the. identified planning'. departments & agencies
revealed that: . 1) Falrfax. and Prince William Counties permit rural.
cluster ,development, but do so for reasons other- than water quality
protection, and 2) both counties have a lower underlying .density than
is currently, or. anticipated to be, in place in. the Cane Creek. .
watershed. As a result of this lower density, the need for alternative, or
off-site wastewater systems necessitated under cluster development
options is eliminated. In addition, staff conducted an Internet-based
literature search to locate other municipalities. or counties. .which
employed cluster development. None were found.
Given this, staff* recommended on' November 4- that, to simplify
matters for the pubtic.hearing, only option #3. (OWASA-recommended)
be taken to the November 23 public hearing.
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations
have been drafted to . implement this management option. The
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will alter the definition of,
Flexible Development to allow for 50% open space in Cane Creek
watershed, and to provide for a: five-acre minimum lot size, with up to
five lots as small as two acres in size. The amendments I to the
Subdivision Regulations would amend the open space standards to
provide for 500/a. open space. in Cane Creek, and to clarify other
sections that specified.: 33% only. The draft amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance recommends one modification to the OWASA package - that
the effective date for lots of record (the "Up.to five tots as small as two
acres" test) be set at January 1.,'19991 rather than the proposed date
42 ,
of June 26, ' 1997. This would be in keeping with the last round of
watershed overlay zoning district changes in 1993-94, which set an
effective date of January 1; 1994.
Recommendation
The Planning staff recommends that the County approve the ordinance
and subdivision regulation text amendments implementing
management .option #3 (the . OWASA-recommended option). Our...
reasons for this recommendation are as follows:
1. Our completed research on the use of cluster for water quality
'protection has not yielded any other.programs that use cluster
development for water quality protection, with or without using.
structural controls -(detention:ponds and basins) or large-lot base .
zoning.
2. In the Cane Creek Watershed. Study, the other two options did not
protect.water.quality to the same.degree of certainty as the,
OWASA-recommended approach. .Staff has not determined any
mitigating.factors that alters this finding.
3. Option #2 (Creative Open Space) is not a true alternative, as it
could be done through the OWASA-recommended approach.
4. In addition to the lack of supporting data, for options #1 and #2 for
water.quality certainty, there was also no support for these two
options at the October 29 community information meeting2.
1.The October 20 staff report failed to note that option#1 (Mandatory Flexible Development)also
included iarge-lot zoning in the critical area.
2.At the community meeting,participants were asked to participate In a straw poll of the three options at
the dose of the meeting. Four persons supported Option #3 (OWASA),while the.remainder supported
none of the above. No one voted for Options#1 and #2.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 43
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278
ff
MEMORANDUM
TO Orange County Planning Board
CC: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
FROM: Karen Lincoln, Planner III
DATE: August 26, 1999
SUBJECT: Ordinance Text Amendments (Cane Creek Watershed).
At the July 13, 1999, meeting the Planning Board had many questions regarding
the proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and
Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new watershed protection
measures within Cane Creek watershed. The following lists questions posed by
the board and staff response to those questions.
1. What is the total acreage that will be affected by the proposed changes to
the zoning.ordinance? ,
Approximately 18,502 acres (90%) of the 20,227 acre watershed. is in
Bingham and Cheeks Townships, Orange County.
2. What is typical acreage of existing properties in Cane Creek watershed?
RANGE NUMBER OF PERCENTAGE TOTAL PERCENTAGE
(ACRES) PROPERTIES OF TOTAL LOTS ACREAGE IN OF TOTAL
WS* ACREAGE
0 - 10 678 64% 2,500 16%
10+ - 20 187 18% 2,503 15%
20+ - 50 103 10°10 3,296 19%
50+ - 100 49 5% 3,422 20%
>100 35 3% 5,163 31%
TOTALS: 1052 100% 16,884 100%
* Represents about 80%of the watershed area and does not include OWASA owned
property,Alamance County.parcels, and a limited number of Bingham Twp.Parcels
located along the northern township border or parcels with significant area outside
the watershed.
Memorandum to Orange County Planning Board 44
August 26, 1999
3. What is typical subdivision lot size in Bingham Township?
1987- 1994 1994-1998
AVG. LOT AVG. LOT
NO: OF LOTS SIZE No. OF LOTS SIZE
Major Subdivisions 229 2.36 45 4.79
Minor Subdivisions 199 4.46 113 3.43
Exempt Plats 163 13.87 104 1 15.14 .
4. What is the value of raw land sales?
RAW LAND COST/ACRE
Location Price Acres Price/Acre
Dairyland St $ 52,000 7.00 $ 7.429
West Ten Road. $ 28,000 3.75 $ 7.467
Yarborough Road $ 32,500 4.12 $ 7.888
} Flora Saline $ 25,000 3.07 $ 8.143
Preston Loop $ 22,500 2.74 $ 8.212
Carowill Cou $ 27,500 3.31 $ 8.308
Hawes Road $ 45,000 5.37 $ 8.380
Flora Saline $ 35,000 4.16 $ 8.413
Forest Knoll $ 65,000 7.66 $ 8.486
5. What is the value of lost units?
Real estate sales indicate that the value of land per acre does. not
appear to deviate significantly based on the amount of units that can
be built per acre. While there is 'a high variability between cost per
acre, the variability does not directly correlate with units per acre.
6. What is the cost of water quality' degradation if proposed zoning
amendments are not.adopted? (What are the estimated costs for structural
measures and water treatment?)
Unknown.
g:\bdamend\caneddpbmem.doc\6-26-99Ud1
Memorandum to Orange County Planning Board 45
August 26, 1999
7. What reduction in impervious area is sought to ensure a certain level of
water quality ("agreed-upon quality targets')?
Allowed impervious surface is currently 6%. That percentage will
remain as the maximum allowable . impervious surface. However,
residential uses on five acre lots may not require 6% (13,068 sq. ft.) of
the five acres in impervious surface whereas "normal" residential
coverage of a two acre lot will require most, if not all, of the 6%
(5,227.2 sq.ft.).
8. Should the standards be different for the critical area and the remainder of
the watershed? (Is- it necessary to implement the same water protection
measures in the remainder of the.watershed as in the critical area?)
Per OWASA, the watershed is so small that all tributaries of the
reservoir's houId have the same protection as the reservoir itself..
9. In other down-zoning projects; what compensation methods, if any,, .were
employed?
The Planning_ Department does not know of any down-zoned areas in
which landowners received compensation for the loss of allowable
density.
10. Did OWASA know of water quality needs during the reservoir siting
proposal?
Per OWASA, during the siting proposal, OWASA was aware that water
quality needs would have to be addressed but those needs could not
be determined until further study.
g:t damend\caneck\pbmem.doc\8-26-99Ud1
� 9 49
0 R� — /17 `1,7 - en e,� Z�) - / -
C. Text Amendments - Development Standards in Cane Creek Watershed 9
The Board considered proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
and Subdivision regulations that will implement new development standards for the Cane Creek
watershed.
Craig Benedict made this presentation. He gave some background on the Cane Creek
watershed studies that were started in 1994. The suggestions of those studies was to determine if a
change in the lot size requirements in the Cane Creek reservoir area, which is presently two acres per
unit, should be decreased to increase water quality. The results of those studies have come forward to
offer two recommendations. The first recommendation is that the first ten acres of a development be split
into two-acre lots, and afterwards, the lots can be five acres. He said that this recommendation allows
that 68% of the property owners within the Cane Creek watershed area would not be affected because
they have ten acres or less. He clarified that this is 68% of the property owners, not 68% of the acreage
in the Cane Creek watershed. With this recommendation, there would be a decrease of 27 lots from the
existing zoning conditions. The second recommendation is that there would be a 50% open space
requirement, and the developer or applicant could still have 50 one-acre lots and 50 acres of open space.
He pointed out that there would still be a lot of density in this area and the water quality could be
jeopardized. He said that the Planning Board approved the first recommendation. The administration
suggested, allowing for some flexible development, retaining 50% open space, but having a minimum lot
size of 1.5 acres. The administration's recommendation is to imply the five-lot, two-acre, five-acre
thereafter option; and also the cluster down provision where there is 50% open space and a 1.5-acre lot
minimum.
Craig Benedict gave some history of lot sizes in Bingham Township since 1980 and said that
there is a lot of large lot development under natural circumstances. He said that this recommendation
would remove the possibility of small lot development in the reservoir area. He said that Bingham
Township has been the fastest growing township in Orange County, second to the Chapel Hill Township.
He said that these zoning changes support other County goals besides water quality. He pointed out that
there was a prime interest for this particular watershed because it lies completely within Orange County.
Bernadette Pelissier clarified OWASA's recommendation. She was not a board member at the
time of the study in 1997. She said that there were two parts to the OWASA recommendation that was
done in 1997. The first part was the large lot zoning of five acres, and OWASA saw this as necessary for
water quality purposes. The other part was the flexible development to help compensate landowners, and
had nothing to do with OWASA's water quality concerns. She wanted to clarify that the second part of the
recommendation was not motivated by water quality concerns.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he was a board member at the time of the study and that
Bernadette P's statement was not a true statement.
Bill Strom said that, in his opinion, the clustering option would facilitate additional density and
additional growth in the Bingham Township. He thinks that this counters the water protection goal. He is
very supportive of the five two-acre /five-acre option. This option has worked very well in the University
Lake watershed. He believes that the best approach is to take Randal Ardent's density neutral approach
that the density in clusters should be based on the actual perk ability of the lots under the standard
zoning. He emphasized that the primary issue is water quality and not land values.
Commissioner Brown asked about the 50% open space requirement and the rationale behind
it.
Craig Benedict explained the present requirement, which does not require any open space.
The second plan is the University Lake watershed scenario, which creates larger lots, but open space
occurs on the lots. He said that the 50% open space provision could give open space in an area that
could be protected.
Commissioner Brown pointed out that the Planning Board recommendation is actually
increasing the OWASA recommendation by 10 units and is not a watershed protection method.
Commissioner Jacobs said that when the watershed study took place and when the
recommendation was formulated, the Planning Director at that time attempted to coordinate with Orange
County's Flexible Open Space Ordinance. He said that the reasoning behind promoting a cluster was
because, not only would it provide contiguous open space, but it also provides other advantages: it
reduces the road, it reduces the necessity to disturb land by utilities, and by having the homes clustered
there is the opportunity to place lots on a property so there is minimal watershed impact. He does think
that because of what the consultants have said and because it does achieve so many other goals and
objectives that Orange County has as a government and as a community, he is comfortable with looking
at clustering. He said that there have been discussions in the past about whether density should be
based on the carrying capacity of the property rather than on an inflexible acreage formula. This might be
a place to discuss the clustering. He suggested receiving an annual report so the County Commissioners
can see what is happening in the watershed.
Commissioner Carey said that he has a concern with having a carrying capacity in excess of
what is proposed. He supports option two because it accomplishes a number of different goals.
Craig Benedict said that the carrying capacity would work in option one or two.
Commissioner Brown feels that option two did not show the dramatic increase in the number of
lots that also increases the impervious surfaces. She said that she was on the Cane Creek Watershed
Study Committee and her recollection was that the report came back and it recommended the acreage
that should be zoned, and after that was the discussion of mitigation and clustering for the property
owners. She thinks that the five-acre lot size can accomplish open space and wildlife corridor protection.
Craig Benedict said that the best scenario for water quality issues is option one. He said that
even though option two is an increase over option one, it is a 33% decrease over the existing zoning.
Commissioner Brown would rather have the zoning be consistent with the University Lake
watershed. She made reference to page 15 where it talks about density bonuses.
Craig Benedict said that if option one was chosen there would not be any flexible development
provisions and density bonuses.
Commissioner Brown asked if any kind of alternative system for the clustering would be
allowed or would there just be a conventional system.
Craig Benedict said that the clustering would be designed for a minimum three bedroom
conventional system.
Commissioner Brown said that she supports option one. She believes that option two is a very
large increase in density.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested approving the five-acre lot zoning, with the understanding
that the Board would direct staff to work on option two and see if it can achieve the County's water quality
protection goals and come back to the County Commissioners with further modifications.
Commissioner Carey said that he feels that option two has the potential for addressing water quality
issues. He said that the Board should remember what the property owners said at the public hearing. He
feels that option two comes closer than the existing scenario to addressing all of the concerns including
water quality.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to table this
discussion and direct staff to pursue further analysis of option two for November 161H
Commissioner Halkiotis noted that Orange County has been a leader in watershed protection.
He supports the five-acre minimum lot size.
VOTE: AYES, 2; NOS, 3 (Commissioner Halkiotis, Commissioner Brown, and Chair Gordon)
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve
option one to implement a five-acre minimum lot size in the Cane Creek watershed.
Chair Gordon made a friendly amendment to the motion to approve option one tonight, but
have the staff bring back option two, without another public hearing, to be sure that it has substantially
equivalent water quality standards.
Geoffrey Gledhill said that the Board could adopt those ordinance amendments that relate to
option one and not take any action on ordinance amendments to option two.
Commissioner Jacobs explained his reasoning behind moving to table this discussion and said
that he did not want to preclude something because it was not fully explored. He is comfortable with the
present motion. He does not think that what was proposed as an alternative to option two was done to
undermine water quality protection.
Commissioner Brown made reference to open space and said that the County Commissioners
have never really discussed open space. She feels that adding the issue of open space tonight would be
premature.
VOTE: AYES, 4; NO, 1 (Commissioner Carey)
d. Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment -Z-3-99 - Ernie McBroom
The Board considered a request by Ernie McBroom to rezone a 10.01-acre tract in Cedar
Grove Township from Agricultural-Residential (AR) to Agricultural-Service (AS).
Craig Benedict gave an update on this situation. He said that there was a public hearing on
August 23rd. The staff and administration have considered all written materials provided by the applicant
and the residents. The staff recommendation is to deny Ernie McBroom's request to rezone his 10.01-
acre tract from AR to AS.
Mr. McBroom asked if the Board reviewed the plat of what he wants to do. He wants to dump
stumps and brush from another 50 acres of land that he owns, and then bring in the equipment to grind
this debris for mulch. He was told that the tract had to be rezoned to do this. His intent was to get rid of
stumps and brush in a legal way.
Pam Alexander said that she represents the community, those who are present, and those
who could not be here tonight. She presented a petition of 160 names asking for a denial of Mr.
McBroom's request. She said that they have sent emails, made telephone calls, and written letters to the
Board of County Commissioners. She urged the Board to listen to the concerns they have expressed.
She asked the County Commissioners to consider their pleas and deny the request for rezoning.
Commissioner Jacobs thanked the citizens for their emails. He said that when the rezoning
first came before the Board, several Commissioners mentioned to the staff that they were concerned
about the uses permitted in an agricultural service district. He does not feel this tract is a place for a
commercial business, especially a sawmill.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve
the staff's recommendation to deny Mr. McBroom's request to rezone a 10.01-acre tract in Cedar Grove
Township from Agricultural-Residential (AR) to Agricultural-Service (AS).
Commissioner Halkiotis said that Mr. McBroom had made the comment in submitting his
application that there is no place in the County to put debris of this kind. He feels the County has a
responsibility to do something with stumps and brush. He feels that by using GIS the location of
residential growth can be tracked in the urban areas of this County. He feels that the idea was good and
there is a need for this kind of facility in Orange County.
Commissioner Brown feels that what the citizens have brought forth is the recognition that the
County's Land Use Plan is out of date, and that these permitted uses do not reflect what neighbors can
live with anymore. She agreed with Commissioner Halkiotis in that the County needs to look at these
permitted use tables and get a good understanding of the neighborhoods. She feels that it is clear that
this is not a good use for this area.
Chair Gordon said that she has always thought that community protection was important. She
also thinks that Mr. McBroom had a right to bring this request forward.
VOTE: AYES, 4; NO, 1 (Commissioner Halkiotis)
Craig Benedict announced that Jim Hinkley would be retiring from the Planning and
Inspections Department on November 1St, and this would be his last public meeting. He has worked in
Orange County for 10 years.
e. Accept Continuation of Grant Funds for Syphilis Elimination Project and Establish New
Public Health Educator Position
The Board was to consider accepting continuation of grant funds in the amount of$43,000 for
the syphilis elimination project and establishing a new permanent full-time public health educator position
to provide education and outreach services, but it was postponed to a future meeting.
f. Creation of Task Force to Develop a Northern Human Services Center Plan
The Board was to consider establishing a task force to develop a long-range plan for the
Northern Human Services Center and surrounding property, but it was postponed to a future meeting.
% Community College Task Force - Charge, Composition and Timeline