Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-16-1996 - IX-C 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date:January 16, 1996 Action Agenda Item#,-rjtq,. SUBJECT: CP-3-95 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT(NATURAL&CULTURAL RESOURCES) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director X2592 Proposed Amendments [Refer to 11/27/95 Public Hearing Agenda Packet] TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Draft 11/27/95 Public Hearing Minutes Hillsborough 732-8181 Draft 12/18/95 Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: The current Section 2.2, Natural Environment, of the Land Use Element was initially adopted in September, 1981. Only two amendments have been made to that section since than. The first amendment occurred in August, 1989, following completion of a staff- generated Inventory of Sites of Cultural Historical Recreational, Biological, and Geological Sigificance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County. The second amendment occurred in December, 1993,and included changes to the "Water Resources" section through which to implement, in part, the State's Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989. Revisions to the above mentioned sections of the Land Use Element were proposed at the November 27, 1995 public hearing for the following reasons: • Inventories for historic sites (1992-93), archaeological sites (1993-1994), and natural areas and wildlife habitats (1987-1988) have been prepared but have not been incorporated into the Land Use Element. • With the adoption of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan in 1986, and updates of various Township components in 1988, a new Land Use Plan category, Resource Protection Area, was introduced. The Land Use Plan is a composite of Township Plans, but the application of the Resource Protection Area category to the county- wide plan has not been accomplished. • As part of its recommendations, the Rural Character Study Committee (1993) advocated the preparation of a Comprehensive Resources Map to identify and overlay critical environmental, natural, wildlife, cultural, historic, archaeological, 2 biological, and geologic resources to show land owners and developers the location of such sites,and encourage the voluntary use of conservation easements. • Recent initiatives by the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board have focused on the use of conservation easements as a means of voluntarily preserving agricultural lands, including scenic, historic, environmental features associated with such lands. Workshops have been held for County staff on the use of such easements, and, if property owners are to take advantage of tax credits for easement donation or limited development, policies which encourage the conservation of such features must be incorporated into the Land Use Element. The proposed amendments will address each of the above mentioned needs. Section 2.2, Natural Environment, is proposed for amendment so as to include the results of inventories of historic and environmental resources, and provide a basis for prioritizing such features for conservation. Changes to Sections 3.3 -Land Use Plan Categories, 3.4 - Locational Criteria, and 3.5 - Land Use Goals & Draft Policies are also proposed through which to designate and encourage the conservation of important resources. An amendment to the Land Use Plan Map is also proposed to designate "Resource Protection Areas"consistent with the proposed text amendments. Only one person spoke at the November 27 public hearing, questioning the practical effect of the amendments in terms of their use with zoning and subdivision regulations. The protection of many features is addressed through current ordinances. The practical effect is to provide Land Use Plan consistency, updated information, and a better-defined basis for justifying voluntary conservation easements. At its December 18, 1995 meeting,the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendments per the Planning Board recommendation. 3 (b) CP-3-95 Land Use Plan Amendment (Natural and Cultural Resources) This item was presented by Marvin Collins to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Revisions were proposed to the Inventory of Sites of Cultural Historical Recreational, Biological and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County and the "Water Resources" section through which to implement, in part, the State's Water SuRRIy Watershed Protection Act of 1989. The proposed revisions were listed in their entirety. The administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 16, 1996. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE PLANNING BOARD. None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. Steve Yuhaz asked for clarification about the practical effect of the designation and questions h it would be used-within the zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations. Marvin Collins stated that many of these features are currently regulated through existing ordinances. The limitations created by poor soils cause difficulty in getting preliminary soil analysis approved by the Health Department. The natural areas and historic sites are covered through the Environmental Impact Ordinance requirements as well as through the potential cluster subdivision option that exist in the subdivision regulations. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 16, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. ZONING Atlas Amendments (a) Z-7-95 Vernon P. And Barbara S. Davis (AR to AS) This item was presented by Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a Zoning Atlas amendment request submitted by Vernon P. And Barbara S. Davis. The Davis' request rezoning of a 4.67 acre portion of a 10.01-acre lot from Agricultural-Residential (AR) to Agricultural Service (AS). The property is located in the southwest comer of NC 54 and White Cross Road (SR 1952) and is known as Lot No. 6.30..7M. The proposed zoning lots abuts a .17 -acre (50' x 150') NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial parcel, known as Lot No. 6.30.713. The property is located in the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. Commissioner Gordon said that it appeared that even if this request was granted, the septic system would not be in compliance. Draft 12/18/95 Planning Board minutes 4 ' regarding the proposed amendment. Brown asked if the owners had any particular plans for the property. Mr. Zaragoza responded that the intent is for residential subdivision. Brown asked if the owners are aware of any village type development if water and sewer is available. The response was that the Town of Hillsborough had discussed a water and sewer agreement with the Davises. He explained the extensi^n that would be required by the Town of Hillsborough. He further noted that the owners would probably be interested in the maximum number of lots rather than a village concept. Howie asked the location of the entrance and exit if the property was subdivided. Mr. Zaragoza demonstrated on the map the probable location of an entrance. He noted the possibility of gaining entrance through the business park. Katz asked about access through Stagecoach Run Subdivision. Mr. Zaragoza responded that the road from Stagecoach Run is a private road and the probable density of the subdivision would be such that access should not be gained from the private road. He continued explaining the probable road system. Howie asked the density and the response was (for the portion adjacent to Stagecoach Run) one- acre lots which would be in harmony with area subdivisions. MOTION: Walters moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Reid. VOTE: Unanimous. (2) CP-3-95 Land Use Plan Amendment (Natural and Cultural Resources) Presentation by Don Belk. The current Section 2.2, Natural Environment, of the Land Use Element was initially adopted in September, 1981. Only two amendments have been made to that section since then. The first amendment occurred in August, 1989, following completion of a staff-generated Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County. The second amendment occurred in December, 1993, and 5 included changes to the "Water Resources" section through which to implement, in part, the State's Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989. Revisions to the above mentioned sections of the Land Use Element were proposed at the November 27, 1995 public hearing for the following reasons: 1. Inventories for historic sites ( 1992-93) , archaeological sites ( 1993-94) , and natural areas and wildlife habitats ( 1987-1988) have been prepared by have not been incorporated into the Land Use Element. 2. With the adoption of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan in 1986, and updates of various Township components in 1988, a new Land Use Plan category, Resource Protection Area, was introduced. The Land Use Plan is a composite of Township Plans, but the application of the Resource Protection Area category to the county-wide plan has not been accomplished. 3. As part of its recommendation, the Rural Character Study Committee ( 1993) advocated the preparation of a Comprehensive Resources Map to identify and overlay critical environmental, natural, wildlife, cultural, historic, archaeological, biological, and geologic resources to show land owners and developers the location of such sites, and encourage the voluntary use of conservation easements. 4'. Recent initiatives by the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board have focused on the use of conservation easements as a means of voluntarily preserving agricultural lands, including scenic, historic, environmental features associated with such lands. Workshops have been held for County staff on the use of such easements, and, if property owners are to take advantage of tax credits for easement donation or limited development, policies which encourage the conservation of such features must be incorporated into the . Land Use Element. The proposed amendments will address each of the above mentioned needs. Section 2.2, Natural Environment, is proposed for amendment so as to include the results of inventories of historic and environmental resources, and provide a basis for prioritizing such features for conservation. Changes to Sections 3.3 - Land Use Plan Categories, 3.4 - Locational Criteria, and 3.5 - 6 Land Use Goals & Draft Policies are also proposed through which to designate and encourage the conservation of important resources. An amendment to the Land Use Plan Map is also proposed to designate "Resource Protection Areas" consistent with the proposed text amendments. Only one person spoke at the November 27 public hearing, questioning the practical effect of the amendments in terms of their use with zoning and subdivision regulations. The protection of many features is addressed through current ordinances. The practical effect is to provide Land Use Plan consistency, updated information and a better- defined basis for justifying voluntary conservation easements. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Brown asked about a time period for the development of the resources map. Belk responded that a Comprehensive Resources Map has been completed which incorporates historic sites, archaeological zones, natural areas inventory, wetlands, prime agricultural soils, as well as several other categories of resources. He continued that the map will be updated as more resources are identified. Brown asked about a timeframe for the wildlife corridor study. Belk responded that he was not sure of that timeframe, but, that the map will be updated as new information is received. Reid asked if a tax schedule had been created. Belk responded that would be undertaken by the property owner wishing to utilize conservation easement. He noted that staff could assist with the analysis of the area. Reid asked for further clarification of "tax credits" in relation to conservation easements. Belk responded that there are State and Federal Tax Credits available for property owners donating land for conservation easements. However, the property owner must have evidence that it is an area of public benefit. MOTION: Reid moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: Unanimous.